House of Assembly: Vol1 - FRIDAY 16 JUNE 1961

FRIDAY, 16 JUNE 1961 Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 10.5 a.m. QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

No Renaming of Union Buildings, Pretoria *I. Mr. HORAK

asked the Minister of Public Works:

Whether it is the intention of the Government to rename the Union Buildings, Pretoria; and, if so, what new name is contemplated.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

No.

Industries Investigated in Connection With Work Reservation *II. Mr. BARNETT

asked the Minister of Labour:

(a) In respect of which industries has he since 26 June 1959 directed the Industrial Tribunal to make an investigation in terms of Section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, (b) at whose instigation or request were these directions issued and (c) in respect of which industries have determinations been made since that date.

The MINISTER OF LABOUR:
  1. (a)
    1. 1. Clothing Industry, Republic of South Africa.
    2. 2. Building Industry, Cape Province and Natal.
    3. 3. Motor Transport Driving in the following industries and trades on the O.F.S. Goldfields—
      Cement Products Industry
      Meat Trade
      Mineral Water Industry
      Quarrying Industry
      Brick Manufacturing Industry
      Industry for the Sale and Delivery of Sand
      Stonecrushing Industry
      Goods Transportation Trade
      Cement Manufacturing Industry.
    4. 4. The occupations of Welding, Painting and Crane Driving in the Iron, Steel, Engineering and Metallurgical Industry, Republic of South Africa.
    5. 5. Furniture Industry, Republic of South Africa.
    6. 6. Footwear Industry, Republic of South Africa.
    7. 7. Abattoirs and Wholesale Meat Trade, Witwatersrand and Pretoria.
    8. 8. Manganese Mining Industry, Krugersdorp, Randfontein, Oberholzer and Ventersdorp.
    9. 9. The occupation of Barman in the Liquor and Catering Trade, Durban, Pietermaritzburg and the Natal North and South Coast.
    10. 10. Road Passenger Transport Industry, Cape Peninsula.
    11. 11. Motor Transport Driving in the Health Department of the Springs Municipality.
  2. (b)
    1. 1. Complaints regarding the displacement of White workers in this industry were received over a period before and after the coming into operation of the present Industrial Conciliation Act.
    2. 2. Requests for work reservation in this industry were received from various individuals as well as from the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers.
    3. 3. Complaints about the employment of Bantu as motor vehicle drivers in these areas were received from the Motor Transport Owners’ Association, the Motor Transport Workers’ Union, and others.
    4. 4. This direction was issued at the request of the S.A. Yster- en Staalbedryfsvereniging.
    5. 5. In this case the direction was issued on the recommendation of the Industrial Tribunal following an investigation by it under Section 17 (8) (g) of the Act into the position of White artisans in the industry.
    6. 6. The direction was issued as a result of strikes at a Great Brak River factory which were caused by interracial competition.
    7. 7. Work reservation in this trade was requested by the Werknemersunie van die S.A. Vleishandel.
    8. 8. The direction was issued as a result of complaints by a number of workers in this industry about the displacement of White workers by Bantu.
    9. 9. A petition requesting work reservation in this trade was received from a substantial number of White barmen in Durban.
    10. 10. The direction was issued as a result of complaints by the Tramway and Omnibus Workers’ Union concerning the City Tramway Company’s proposal to engage additional Coloured drivers and conductors.
    11. 11. This direction followed representations by the South African Association of Municipal Employees and certain individuals.
  3. (c)
    1. 1. Passenger Lift Attendants in the Municipal Areas of Bloemfontein, Johannesburg and Pretoria.
    2. 2. Building Industry, Transvaal and Orange Free State.
    3. 3. That section of the Iron, Steel, Engineering and Metallurgical Industry in which refrigerators, washing machines, electric stoves, etc., are manufactured (Republic of South Africa).
    4. 4. Clothing Industry, Republic of South Africa.
Permits for Indian Students to Travel Between Provinces *III. Mr. WILLIAMS (for Mr. Cope)

asked the Minister of the Interior:

Whether, during the past year, any permits have been refused to Indian students to travel between one province and another for purposes of study or inter-student discussion; and, if so, (a) how many permits were refused and (b) for what reasons.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I regret that I am unable to furnish the information desired by the hon. member since no record is kept of applications by Indian students for permits to travel between one province and another for purposes of study or inter-student discussions.

I can, however, inform the hon. member that my Department is unaware of any Indian student having been refused a permit during the past year to proceed to another province for purposes of study or inter-student discussions.

V.H.F. Transmitters for Natal *V. Mr. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

Whether very high frequency transmitters will be installed in the province of Natal; and, if so, (a) when will installation commence, (b) when will the installation be completed and (c) in which areas will the system be initially installed.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

Yes; and (a) (b) and (c) it is at this stage unfortunately not possible to indicate when and in what areas in Natal transmitters will be erected.

*VI. Mr. E. G. MALAN

—Reply standing over.

*VII. Dr. DE BEER

—Reply standing over.

Public Prosecutor as Office-Bearer of a Political Organization *VIII. Mr. HOPEWELL (for Mr. J. A. L. Basson)

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Burger of 1 June 1961 that a public prosecutor is an office-bearer of a political organization in Stellenbosch; and
  2. (2) whether any steps have been taken or are contemplated against the official; if so, what steps; and, if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:
  1. (1) and (2) Yes. The matter is being investigated by my Department.
*IX. Mr. J. A. L. BASSON

—Reply standing over.

*X. Mr. H. LEWIS

—Reply standing over.

Cost of S.A. Pavilion at Milner Park *XI Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs:

  1. (a) What was the total cost of the exhibits of the South African Information Service at the 1960 Union Festival; and
  2. (b) what were the main items of expenditure.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS:
  1. (a) The South African Government pavilion at Milner Park was not that of the South African Information Service but was undertaken by that Service on behalf of all Government Departments.
    The cost which was R 187,754, while appearing on the Vote of the South African Information Service, was a special item allowed by the Treasury for this purpose.
    The pavilion was one of the most popular at the Festival, and received much favourable comment also from foreign visitors. It was awarded a gold medal by the Rand Show adjudicators. I would add that this pavilion is a permanent one.
    It is open at other times, particularly for school children.
  2. (b) The main items of expenditure were:
    1. (1) Fees for research, planning, designing, production, architects’ drawings, organization and supervision: R35,148;
    2. (2) Art work, sculptures, carvings, castings, ceramics, stained glass, tapestries and mosaics: R46,480;
    3. (3) Construction, joinery, erection, etc.: R89,562;
    4. (4) Cinema apparatus: R8,124;
    5. (5) Printing and brochures: R9,170.
FIRST READING OF BILLS

The following Bills were read a first time:

Revenue Laws Amendment Bill.

Prohibition of Sports Pools Amendment Bill.

Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Amendment Bill.

Electoral Laws Amendment Bill.

INCOME TAX BILL

The MINISTER OF FINANCE brought up a Bill to give effect to a resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means in regard to income tax, adopted by the House on 23 May 1961.

By direction of Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Bill was read a first time.

URBAN BANTU COUNCILS BILL

First Order read: Adjourned debate on motion for second reading,—Urban Bantu Councils Bill, to be resumed.

[Debate on motion by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, upon which an amendment had been moved by Mrs. Suzman, adjourned on 15 June, resumed.]

Mr. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned last night we were dealing with the Bill which provides for a certain measure of self-government by the Bantu people in their own areas in association with European urban areas, which gave them the right to be controlled in those areas hereafter through the agency of a council which will be partly elected by themselves. To come down in a fairly broad manner to one or two of the specific clauses, I should like to commence at Clause 3 (3) (b) (ii) where it says that the members of a Bantu urban council—

who are to be selected, shall be selected, after their candidature has been approved by the Minister and the urban local authority, by and from the representatives of Bantu chiefs

so that they shall be selected “by and from the representatives of Bantu chiefs” from amongst themselves, and their candidature shall first have been approved by the Minister and by the local authority. I hope that when the hon. the Minister replies he will deal with this, because here again I see much ground for difficulty unless some power is taken by making provisions for regulations or something of that kind to deal with this question of the selected members of the councils, in view of the fact that they are to select themselves. It is quite specific. They are to be selected by themselves from amongst themselves. Presumably a group of names is submitted to the Minister for approval; that group of names must be submitted to the council concerned for its approval, and thereafter those people forming that group, having been approved by the Minister and by the urban council, from amongst themselves and by themselves select the requisite number to form the selected members of a Bantu urban council. And those members shall not exceed in number the number of those to be elected.

To carry out that rather involved procedure, for people who are not accustomed to it, to find the number of selected members, to my mind calls for some specific regulations to be made so that that procedure can be carried out fairly harmoniously. I suggest for the very serious consideration of the Minister that where you have, in a local authority area, such a large group of Bantu people of one national unit or ethnic group or tribe—call it what you will—the paramount chief of that national unit or tribe can make his nominations. There probably will be no very great difficulty there. But where the difficulty will arise is in the case of an urban authority. [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! I would appreciate it if hon. members would stop speaking to each other. It is impossible to control this hon. House if so many hon. members sit and talk loudly amongst themselves.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say the difficulty arises in the case of an urban authority where different groups of Bantu people from different tribes or ethnic groups are such that the later provisions of the clause apply that is, each of the ethnic groups now has one representative, but you have them from different tribes. You have the chiefs from those tribes making their representations for a selected member on the council. There you can have very widely differing interests, and unless it is clearly laid down what precise form is to be adopted in order to find the candidates who will, from themselves and by themselves, select the final membership, I am satisfied that very great difficulties will arise.

I then want to come to the next point, and that is to point out to the hon. the Minister how vital it is in finding the selected member at the stage when the council is formed. Otherwise, ab initio, the scheme will go wrong owing to the fact that under Clause 5 of this Bill, from amongst those members can be chosen what for want of a better term I am calling a magistrate. I do not know what his status will be. He does not seem to have been given a title in the Bill. It merely says—

The Minister may confer on a Bantu designated by an urban Bantu council …

certain powers. These powers are virtually those of a Native Commissioner, but there is no title given in the Bill. Let me therefore call him a Native Commissioner. He will be a Native Commissioner who is a Bantu. He is selected from these same people who are selected or elected. And here, where you have an urban Bantu council, a multi-tribal council —because the number of individuals from each tribal unit have been inadequate for the purpose of forming a council from only one ethnic group, and another council from another ethnic group and so on—where you have to have different ethnic groups for the formation of one council, one man has to be chosen from amongst them as a Native Commissioner. In those circumstances the initial selection becomes of vital importance. Otherwise the man who is selected from one tribe obviously is not going to have any respect accorded to him by the members of the other tribes and, indeed, it would be a cause of hostility from the very commencement. That will be well known to the small group of selected members in the electoral college who will get together for the purpose of selecting the members of the Bantu urban council. When they get together to select certain members who will be members of that council, they will have in mind that one or other of them is likely to be appointed a Native Commissioner. Great hostility can therefore arise at that stage.

The matter goes a step further when we take into consideration the question of these guards. I realize that the hon. the Minister is trying to meet a very strong and persistent request from the Bantu people in these areas who have asked that they be given the opportunity and allowed to help in the maintenance of law and order. I realize the pressure. I have had it myself very many times. Representations have been made to me by Bantu in these circumstances, saying, “Can you not get the Government to let us help? We know how to deal with the tsotsis and the skollies and so forth, we will deal with them.” That is one of the things that is now worrying me. These things are all linked up. From the initial selection of the members and election of the members to form the council from amongst their numbers, the magistrate picks a Native Commissioner and for the protection of that Commissioner and the maintenance of law and order and, presumably, in connection with the work which he will do in his court there are these guards to be appointed. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) said that they might develop into a strong-arm group. She is quite right. On this point I agree with her entirely. Those guards will be an instrument which can be used for all sorts of purposes which, initially, will not be either obvious or known to the European authorities. It is a fact that when once a force is established like that, the greatest care has to be exercised to see that it is not used for clandestine purposes. Under Zulu custom, for instance, a guard of that character—and traditionally there was a guard of that character amongst the Zulu people—is used for all sorts of purposes. The old paramount chiefs of Zululand did not waste any time in giving formal judgment in regard to people of whom they disapproved, they just gave a hint to the senior member of the guard and the next thing was that that person had an assegai through him if he was a man or, if it was a woman, her neck was broken. The hon. the Minister knows that. That was a rough and ready means of dispensing justice. But here we are going to be dealing with what is virtually a Native Commissioner’s court, and I do not know how the judgments of that court are going to be enforced. This thing all goes step by step from the initial selection of the members of this Bantu urban council. When that court gives judgment, how is it going to be enforced? If, for example, imprisonment is imposed, are the goals of our Department of Justice to be used to incarcerate these people? If it is a fine, how is it to be enforced? Is it to be enforced by a writ? The point is that these guards should be under the strict control of the police, and I want to emphasize that. I take it they will be full time, and if I am correct in that I think there should be no question about it that the best method of dealing with it would be that whilst they are called guards, to have them sworn in either as special constables or in some other way, or that some measure of that kind should be designed, so that the authorities, particularly in the initial stages when we have to gain experience of this experiment to find out where the weaknesses are—and weaknesses are bound to develop and we want to have as little upset in the early days as possible if we do not want to bring the whole thing into disrepute, which might otherwise easily be the case.

These are the things I wanted to deal with, and I want to conclude by dealing with Clause 11, which deals with Section 19 of the principal Act. The effect of sub-section (b) is to provide for the expenditure of moneys accruing as profits from the sale of beer in an area other than that in which it accrues. There is another provision in the Bill which virtually limits the expenditure of money which has accrued in a particular area to that area. Hon. members have raised objection to that and I can understand their objection, but this goes the other way. It provides that beer profits can be spent in another area. Here I think we are in for trouble. The Bantu are most conservative and in nothing will they show their conservatism more than in this, that they believe that the money coming from their area should be spent there. They will insist on that very strongly. The man who is a beer drinker in the beer halls and swells the profits, and who understands the working of the new system, when once he gets to appreciate the provision, if it is exercised—that is the point, that if the power taken here is exercised—and money which has accrued in a certain area is taken away and used for the advantage of the Bantu in another area, we will have trouble. I doubt the wisdom at this stage of putting in a provision of this character. Rather let us make haste slowly. In a matter like this we should ask the Bantu concerned, and I am sure the Minister will get his answer. Let him establish his urban Bantu councils with a minimum of powers initially, and then ask them what extension of powers they want. Then you will get consultation and the Minister will find out just what the people are thinking, because he will be dealing with their elected representatives. They will say what extended powers they want and what financial means they require to give effect to those powers. We run into the danger here which we have met repeatedly and which still is a matter of grievance between the Central Government and the provincial council. Throughout the years the provincial councils, in giving effect to their legislative powers, have found themselves short of money with which to give effect to the powers with which they are clothed. If these Bantu councils find themselves with powers and no money to carry them out, they will look upon this as being a fraud in a sense; it is promising things which cannot be fulfilled. They will want adequate money to provide for the services they want. I suggest that a good principle will be a minimum of services. Get these councils established, and ask the representatives what further powers they want and give them the money they require. I leave it at that. We are supporting the Bill.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I do not want to deal with this Bill at length, but I want it to be on record that I do not regard this measure as a step forward in the right direction. This Bill does, in a limited and potential sense, provide for increased powers, and I will deal shortly with that; but for the rest it seems to me that what the provisions of the Bill purport to do is to transfer from the rural areas to the towns the system of Bantu Authorities which operates there. I would describe this Bill as apartheid ms in urbe—bringing the apartheid of the country to the towns. I opposed the Bantu Authorities Bill. I opposed the system the Minister set up. I opposed it in regard to the territories and I equally oppose it when it is sought to transfer this system, which I believe will not ultimately be in the best interests of the Bantu, to the towns. So far from being a step forward, it is a step backwards. It is an anachronism; it is a reversal; it is going back to something of the past.

What in effect this Bill attempts to do is to place in the hands of certain Bantu in the towns the feudal powers exercised in the Native reserves at present. What are the two main features of the Bill? There is the recognition of the ethnic groups and there is the granting of the powers of the tribal courts to Bantu living in the urban areas. It has been suggested that this might be a step forward because certain members of the councils are being elected. But that is not an innovation. As far as I know, the members of the advisory boards established under the Urban Areas Act of 1945 were elected. In terms of the Minister’s Bill, however, only half the members of the council will be elected. If there are six members, three will be chosen by a process of selection. It is quite clear that in that selection, in order to make the grade, those who are up for selection will have to pass through three filters. They will have to have the stamp of approval of the chief, of the local authority, and of the Minister. By the time they have gone through those checks I find it very difficult to believe that the members of the council, who have gone through that process, will be in a position to exercise an independent judgment on the matters put before them. I doubt very much whether the chiefs living hundreds of miles away, who have a decisive say in the matter, will select many detribalized Natives to serve on the councils. In other words, what will happen? It seems to be clear that obviously those who are selected will be the stooges, the people who will watch their step and virtually do as they are told. I do not regard that as a step forward, or as a wise change, or as a good apprenticeship in local and municipal government.

Now what about the functions of these councils? If one turns to Clause 4 of the Bill, it states that an urban Bantu council and the members thereof shall exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties which in terms or the principal Act, i.e. the Urban Areas Act of 1945, as amended, or any other law are conferred upon the Native Advisory Boards established in terms of Section 21 of that Act. So the first function of these councils is to carry out the functions and duties of the advisory boards—the status quo. The advisory board was elected and there were no persons selected under this curious process. Now the councils are to have the same functions and powers. It is true that Clause 4 (2) provides that an urban Bantu council shall also have certain additional functions. That is why I said at the outset that this Bill does, in a sense, potentially provide for increased powers, although I regard that as not being a step in the right direction, and I shall deal with these increased powers very briefly.

The increased powers set out in Clause 4 (2) relate to certain aspects of local government, the layout of the area, the removal of persons unlawfully resident there, the allotment of sites for church and school purposes, the provision of charity, medical and health services, etc. Of course it is quite clear from the provisions of the Bill that these powers are permissive. They may be conferred upon the local council, but only with the consent of the local authority. The Minister has admitted that he did not consult the local authorities in advance. That seems a curious prelude to placing the responsibility on an advisory council to be set up. One would have thought that, assuming that the Minister felt satisfied, according to his own policy—because he is implementing his own policy—he would have taken the precaution of consulting the local authorities beforehand, because what assurance can he give that in any given case the local authority concerned is going to confer these powers, limited though they are, upon the advisory councils? There is nothing in this Bill to compel them to do so. The Minister says he will bring pressure to bear upon the local authorities. But that is not the way to get co-operation. If the Minister wishes his own scheme to work, I would have thought that he would have had the fullest consultation and have obtained some assurance in advance, if he could get it, that the local authorities would be prepared to co-operate. But that is all in the air. I do not regard that as an advance.

Let me take another aspect of the Bill, Clause 5, the provision which enables the Minister to confer, at his pleasure, on a Bantu designated by the council the same powers and jurisdiction as may be conferred on a Bantu chief or headman in terms of Section 12 of the Native Administration Act of 1927. In other words, Section 5 brings the tribal courts to the towns. It brings a bit of mediaevalism into a developing community. Now what are the powers which the Minister now proposes to give to these Bantu in our urban areas, something which is quite novel, this introduction of Bantu authorities and Bantu judicial administration into the urban areas? The jurisdiction is both civil and criminal. I would be glad if the Minister could tell us in his reply whether he has any figures in the larger areas like Cape Town. Durban and Johannesburg, as to the number of civil cases heard in a given year relating to Native law and custom? I have not had information and I do not know what the amount of work involved is, but it would be interesting to know.

As to the criminal jurisdiction, that is laid down by Section 20 of the Act of 1927, which was amended by Section 1 of Act 13 of 1955. The amending Act says that the Minister may confer upon any Native chief or headman jurisdiction to try and punish any Native who has committed in the area of the chief any offence at common law, or under Native law and custom, other than an offence referred to in the Third Schedule of the Act, and any statutory offence other than one referred to in this schedule. The Third Schedule sets out a large number of offences which the tribal judge or judicial officer is precluding from trying, like treason, public violence, sedition, culpable homicide, etc. Going through that list it would appear that the crimes at common law which would be subject to the jurisdiction of these tribal courts in the urban areas would be theft and common assault. I do not know whether the Minister has any other crimes in view, but looking at the list it seems to me that when one eliminates those crimes which are not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, one is left with theft and common assault plus such statutory offences as the Minister may include in the limits of jurisdiction of these tribal courts. I would like to ask the Minister whether he intends to propose jurisdiction in regard to statutory offences, and if so, what statutory offences? There is mention made under the functions of the council to the removal of persons unlawfully resident in an area. Is it the intention of the Minister to clothe these tribal courts in the towns with authority to try cases under the pass laws and under the influx control regulations? These are matters vitally concerned with the Bantu population. Influx control and the pass laws are the link between the homelands and the urban areas. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) suggested that the advisory boards were in disfavour because they did discuss pass laws. Will that be ruled out, and will the tribal judges be entitled to deal with cases under the pass laws? This is a step I feel very strongly about, bringing these tribal courts to the towns. We have prided ourselves in this country on maintaining the rule of law. Whilst admittedly, when dealing with primitive people or semi-primitive people, it is obvious that one has to have regard to their tribal habits and customs, and therefore there is a need for courts in the territories even to-day to deal with such customs, it may well be that there is still a need in the towns to deal with civil matters on that basis. But the Native Commissioner’s court does that at present and there is no need to import the tribal judge for that purpose. But when one comes to criminal jurisdiction, one deals with the normal sphere of the criminal law. Why has it to be separate courts? Of course there is only one reason for it, and that is that it is in implementation of the Minister’s policy of apartheid, because these are courts functioning extraterritorially, because this is part of the conception of Bantustans. The Minister does not regard Orlando as being part of Johannesburg, or Langa as being part of Cape Town. He regards it as being part of the reserves, and to keep up this fiction he has to establish his own tribal courts there. That is the reason for it. These are ideological courts. This is an ideological Bill. It is in order to maintain the fiction that the Minister can keep up contact between the tribal chiefs in the homelands and the detribalized Natives in the towns. I say that there may be a great price to pay for giving vent to one’s ideological conceptions in this manner. After all, the criminal law is not something to be trifled with. Who are these people who are going to sit in judgment upon their fellow Bantu in the urban areas? What legal training will they have had? Does the Minister propose to ensure that those who are appointed will have taken legal degrees and are entitled to practise in the Supreme Court? What experience will they have had, and what judgment can they bring to bear in the way of assessing evidence and imposing sentences?

An HON. MEMBER:

But you want to give them the vote.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Fortunately, in terms of Section 20 which confers criminal jurisdiction on them, certain forms of punishment are mercifully excluded. A chief in the reserves cannot inflict punishment involving death or mutilation. We can be thankful for that. But he can impose a fine not in excess of R40, and that is pretty stiff. He can impose whipping in the case of unmarried males under the age of 30. There is, it is true, an appeal to the Native Commissioner. But why have this duplication? In the ordinary courts, in the case of theft or assault, the matter is disposed of by trained magistrates who apply the rule of law and the rules of evidence, and the magistrate brings to bear his experience and exercises his discretion in giving judgment. If the accused is not satisfied with the verdict he can go to the Appeal Court. But here we have a system under which it may well be—it may be that it works in the reserves—there will be a dual system in the towns. The tribal judge sits side by side with the magistrate in the towns. There will be concurrent jurisdiction. Who will decide before which court the accused will appear? X is arrested by the police tor alleged theft. Before whom must he appear? What are the police at Langa to do? How will they know to which court to send the accused? Is it to be concurrent jurisdiction or will the Minister provide in the Bill that it will have to be exclusive jurisdiction for these tribal courts? These are important matters, and I have no doubt that the Minister has not given any thought to them, but they affect the administration of justice and I repeat that it is extremely dangerous. The Minister is embarking upon a very perilous path when he seeks to mix ideology with the administration of justice, and when he seeks to extend the powers he has under the Bantu Authorities Act and to bring his apartheid proposals to the towns. Let him keep his apartheid for the reserves and concentrate on developing the reserves and we shall support him; but let him keep his hands off the towns where we have worked out a system of local and municipal government and where our administration of justice works smoothly. But now it is to be disrupted by these councils, partly stooge-controlled, and by these tribal judges who have had no previous experience in the administration of justice and who have never heard of Justinian or any other legal luminary. I think it is very dangerous indeed.

I end where I started, by saying that I do not regard this as a step forward but a step backwards towards feudal mediaevalism, and for that reason I am not prepared to support the second reading.

Mr. TUCKER:

I rise immediately because I am not prepared to see the statement which has just been made by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) unanswered on the record. I would like to say to him that I do not agree with the case he has put to this House. At the same time I do not for a moment suggest that this is an ideal measure. I am sure it is capable of improvement, but I want to say that I believe that fundamentally this Bill is an acceptance of something which is very important, viz. of the fact that it is essential to provide for the establishment of urban Bantu councils. History shows that when you have started on this road you have not taken the last step but the first step. This, it is true, is a halting step forward, hedged round with many restrictions, but nevertheless this is an acceptance by this Government of the fact that provision must be made for the Natives not only in the reserves but for the bigger number of Natives who, whatever we may do, will for all time remain in what we call White South Africa. It is perfectly obvious that the idea that the area which is called White South Africa can be cleared of its Bantu population is a delusion. This is an area in which we have a vast number of Natives, and however many may from time to time be sent back under the various provisions of the law to the reserves, the fact is that whether we like it or not we must face the fact that there is a Native population which is a permanent population and which will be there for all time. The other fact we will have to face is that in these areas, whatever your theories may be, whatever you may wish to do, you will have to face up to the fact that you cannot leave those persons without political rights, both municipally and as a whole. The most fatal thing that can be done in a democracy is to deprive a section of the people from any representation whatsoever, firstly in the central Parliament and then in local bodies which deal with powers of local administration. I welcome this Bill, not because I am satisfied with its terms, but because the principle we are considering is the question of the establishment of urban Bantu councils. The Government is taking a step forward and I say that we are right in the official Opposition in supporting this measure, because that is one of the principles which has been at the bedrock of the policy of the United Party that these persons must be given this right. It is true that the method of appointment of these councils is hedged round with restrictions; I concede that to the hon. member for Salt River, but if we take the whole of the history of the development of democratic institutions one finds—and we found it in this country itself, in this Cape Province which is the mother province of South Africa—that originally you had appointed persons and in the course you march forward and you had the position that some were appointed and some elected, and gradually you grew to responsible government. Step by step the Europeans in South Africa advanced in their form of government to complete an absolute independence from the original mother country. This step which the Minister is taking here is the first halting step on that line of advance for the Bantu peoples of this country. I am sure that the hon. the Minister, whatever he may say to this House, must realize when he examines the facts of the situation, that it is inevitable that this will merely be the start of a long chain and that it will undoubtedly advance the rights which are granted and will to a greater and greater extent be placed upon a democratic basis, and gradually they will be freed from the control and restrictions both of the Minister’s Department and of the European local authority concerned. Sir, my hon. friends on my left have attempted to suggest that this is no step forward at all. and as I understood the hon. members for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) they are of the opinion that it would be far better to leave the Native advisory boards as they are than to have this legislation put on the Statute Book.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No, I did not say that.

Mr. TUCKER:

I am glad that that is not so. If that is not the case, then I am amazed that they are opposing this legislation, because the issue which is before this House is whether you prefer to retain the existing Native advisory board system, or whether you would prefer to see this is a first step in the direction …

Mrs. SUZMAN:

It is not a first step.

Mr. TUCKER:

Well, I am putting my conception of the matter; I have heard the views of the hon. member for Houghton and I am trying to show the House why I think those views are wrong and why I disagree with them. Those views were reinforced by the hon. member for Salt River. I made the point that personally I prefer these councils to the present advisory councils which have advisory authority only. That is a very important factor. I agree that it is hedged round with restrictions and there are many forms of control as to the way in which these powers will be exercised, but we cannot escape from the provisions of Clause 4 of this Bill which provides that the urban Bantu councils and the members thereof shall exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties which in terms of the principal Act or any other law are conferred and imposed on Native advisory boards established in terms of Section 21 of that Act. They have all the power therefore which the present advisory boards have, but in addition there are wide powers which can be conferred on them—I do not say “are”—which can be conferred on them under Section 2 which provides that this urban Bantu council in respect of the area for which it has been established shall exercise the powers and perform such functions and duties of an urban local authority in respect of one or more of the following matters in connection with Bantu as the urban local authority may, after consultation with the Administrator in question, assign to such council with the concurrence of and subject to such conditions as may be determined by the Minister. I would like to say at once that in reading that provision I am taking it for granted that the hon. the Minister is sincere in saying that it is his wish to extend these powers to these councils as rapidly as he can, and certainly that he is not going to leave this provision as a dead letter. I do hope that the urban councils throughout South Africa are going to consider these provisions very well, and I hope that they are not going to be a blot upon the extension of these powers. If they make recommendations. I would like to appeal to the Minister rather to take his courage in both hands and go too far rather than to clamp down on this thing, because if too strict a control in the extension of powers is maintained, then these bodies will be stillborn and the criticism which has been offered here might prove to be justified. But I say that if this Bill is reasonably administered—and I accept that in fact the Minister intends that these powers should be extended—then there is the power in the hands of the urban local authority and the Minister to convey to these councils tremendously important powers, not of an advisory but of an administrative nature. I say that that is the first step on a long road towards vesting more and more responsibility in the Natives of South Africa. Sir, the powers which are given are very wide. There is the power to lay out the area; the accommodation of the Bantu; the removal of persons unlawfully resident in the area (surely that is an executive power); to deal with the unlawful occupation of land and buildings; the management and control of the area and the maintenance of good order therein: control over the erection and use of dwellings; the allotment of sites for school purposes, the prohibition of grazing; and then there is a very important power, the power of regulation of entry into and sojourn in the area. That is not an advisory power; it is a very important power which is being extended. Then, of course, there is provision for sanitary, health and medical services, and then a very important clause which I hope will be interpreted widely and not restrictively, namely the moral and social welfare of the persons living in the area. Then there is power to control and manage, subject to the provisions of the Act, a community guard. That will need control. But I have mentioned enough to show that it is possible in terms of this Act to vest in these councils very important executive functions, and those are functions of local administration in a local area, which in the same way we haltingly extended to little village councils which in the course of time have grown up into full-grown municipalities. It is a question of reasonable administration. Then, of course, there is the fact that governments come and go; one party is not in power for ever, and I am very glad that this Government is taking this step. I again appeal to the hon. the Minister to be reasonable, to interpret the provisions on a liberal basis and to take his courage in both hands in extending powers, because I believe that this can be a very important experiment which will provide very important information on which we will be able to base our legislation in respect of local authorities in Native areas in the years that lie ahead. Sir, both the hon. member for Salt River and the hon. member for Houghton based their opposition to a very large extent on the fact that the tribal link is being maintained. I know that certain hon. members on the other side, on the other hand, have regarded that as a great safeguard. But, I think all of us here realize that whatever steps may be taken in respect of the urban Bantu to preserve those links, that is something of a temporary character. All history shows that with the advancement of peoples they grow out of the tribal system and they gradually grow in the direction of a more complete form of democracy. That is the whole course of history through the ages. We have seen it in the countries from which we have sprung; we are seeing it happening throughout Africa to the north of us at the present time.

An HON. MEMBER:

Like Ghana.

Mr. TUCKER:

The hon. member must not try to distract me by referring to Ghana. What we have seen is the growth of the demand by people for further rights to the north of us. Some of these areas like Tanganyika apparently might be fortunate enough to have good government from the start. Sir, not for a moment do I agree with what is going on in some of these states to the north, but I am not attempting to deal with that. What I am saying is that all history shows that once you start along the road of extension of rights of self-administration to persons, you cannot halt that at a certain point. It is for that reason that I think this Bill is of great importance. I believe it is a step forward. As I said earlier, it is a start on a long road. I am sure that many of us in this House are not satisfied with many of the provisions of this Bill; I certainly am not satisfied. I think they could have gone a little further, but I am glad that a start is being made in regard to this matter, because I believe that this extension of executive powers to the Native people is going to train them, and I am hoping—and I hope it most sincerely—that they are going to show, by acting responsibly in exercising the powers vested in them, that they are growing towards the stage where further powers can be vested in them. Sir, I was saying that governments change. Obviously in every democracy governments change. This experience is going to be of great value and while there are many features of this Bill which an alternative government would not leave on the Statute Book, there is no question that this is laying the foundation for what I believe is a new direction in this country, namely the extension of greater power of self-administration to the Native people in the Bantu areas as well. It is. for these reasons, among others, that I propose to vote for this Bill. It is for these reasons that I believe that my friends on my left have misconceived the importance of this Bill. Apparently they would rather not see it on the Statute Book; they would like to see the present position remain as it is.

Mrs. SUZMAN:

No.

Mr. TUCKER:

Then I hope they are going to support this Bill at the second reading. [Interjections.] No, I do not want to be unfair. I do not think that this is the sort of measure out of which we ought to make political capital. I hope the day will come when we will be able to debate measures like these on their merits.

*HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Mr. TUCKER:

I am very glad to hear “hear, hear” from hon. members opposite. I believe that we would be able to make much more rapid progress if we were able to do that, stating quite frankly what our objections are but at the same time not overlooking what is good in a measure, because there is. some good in this measure, and I believe that the best thing of all is that this is the start of the extension of very great powers of self-administration to the Bantu people of this country. There is no question about that, because what is provided for in this Bill is. something which is not going to be halted. Temporarily there may be checks, but I believe that this experience is going to be tremendously valuable, and for those reasons I believe that it is right that this Bill should be supported at the second reading.

I do not wish to deal with other matters in the Bill, but I would like to associate myself with the concern expressed by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) in regard to the extension of judicial powers. I express concern for this reason, and here I am in complete agreement with what the hon. member for Salt River said: One of the most precious heritages that we have in this country is not only our system of law, but our system of the administration of the law. I do hope that the Minister will consider the question not only of providing for the right of appeal from the judgments of these courts, but I believe that there should be automatic review of sentences where cuts are imposed by the Native Commissioner. I hope I have made my position clear. I do not think for a moment that this is a perfect Bill, but I believe that the principle which underlies this. Bill is one which all South Africans ought to accept, the principle of the extension of powers of self-administration. I say to the Government that nothing that they can do and nothing that South Africa as a whole can do will stop the advancing of the Native peoples. There may be temporary checks, but obviously, long range, it is quite clear that more and more of these people will have to take over the administration on a municipal basis until eventually many of these areas, I believe, will have powers, which are equivalent to those of the European municipalities in those areas. It is along that path that I believe that we are going to get very valuable information from the administration of this Bill. I would like to repeat the appeal that I made earlier to the Minister that in exercising his powers under this measure he is going to take his courage in both hands, not to be mean in respect of the extension of powers, but rather to err on the side of generosity than to clamp down too tightly. I appreciate that there is a vast difference between the powers which could perhaps properly be exercised by many of the Natives who could be found in the big urban areas and the powers which could be exercised in some of the rural areas where there is also a separate Native town growing up. I take it that the hon. the Minister’s intention is to extend these powers in all these cases where it is possible, not only in respect of the large congregations of Native peoples but also in the rural areas where we have these congregations in separate little towns of their own. I look forward with interest to the implementation of this measure, and I want to say this to the Minister that he and his successor will be responsible to this House, and I believe all sections of this House are looking to the Minister to take a real forward step in this matter, because it is the foundation of something which I believe may be very important to the future of South Africa.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Years ago I visited the farm of my friend, the hon. member for Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie) and that evening he shot a hippopotamus that had been causing a great deal of damage to his lands. The following morning the animal was slaughtered and as usual it was a great day in the lives of the Bantu. I was present when the crowd gathered around. Amongst them was an eight-year-old little Bantu boy full of admiration. His face beamed and eventually he jumped up and called out in ecstasy: Men, from to-day I am an old man: my eyes have seen many things. Sir, I can only say, after what I have heard: “To-day I am an old man; my ears have heard many things.” Many peculiar things have been said and I want to deal briefly with a few of them. I am not doing so deliberately but merely to put the matter right. The first person I want to deal with is the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). He took me to task on the question of Bantu culture. He said that we were making a big mistake, that we should not use the word “Bantu”; we should use the word “umuntu” in the singular. The hon. member is quite right but I want to give him a few facts. The word “Bantu” was actually coined by a panel of experts of the International Institute of African Languages and Cultures and that name was given to the entire complex of nations living in Southern Africa, south of a line drawn from the Gulf of Guinea above Lake Victoria, through to the estuary of the Juba River on the east coast—everyone living south. Those people used to refer to themselves as “abantu” (people) and the basic word was taken from it namely “ntu” or “ntho” in the Sotho group. There are various groups. The word “Bantu” is derived from this basic word, and it came into use generally. We must not forget, however, that there are about 80,000,000 of them, there are many language groups, an exceptionally large number of languages, and an enormous number of dialects. The Nguni group is simply a small sub-division of this group, and it is only the Nguni group that uses the word “umuntu”, The Sotho group do not use it. The Nguni group use the word “umuntu” and “abuntu”, but even there there is a difference. Some say “umuntu” and others say “umunthu” and I have come across some who use the word “umundu”. Thus even among the Nguni group there is a difference in terminology. But then there are other groups as well. Take the Sotho group for instance who use the words “motho” and “batho”. I just want to tell the hon. member that if he goes to certain groups and he says “mollo, umuntu”, I am not so sure that he will not come off all the worse for it, because many of them regard that as a swear word.

Mr. MITCHELL:

You would never say “mollo Bantu”; you may perhaps say “mollo Maree”, but never “mollo Bantu”.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Quite correct, but I am merely stating the fact, to use the term which the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) would use when he plays cricket, that the hon. member for South Coast has missed the ball. Actually the word “umuntu” is only used by the Nguni group, not by the Sotho group, not by the Wenda group, etc. We are therefore quite safe when we talk about “Bantu”.

We had another interesting exhibition in connection with the paternity of this policy and I was really surprised to hear hon. members of the United Party claiming paternity for this policy. We have a new attitude, an attitude which I have long since predicted in this House. The day will still come when most members of the United Party will get up in this House and try to convince us that they were creators of the policy of apartheid.

*Mr. MITCHELL:

No, this is a policy of integration.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I just want to refer to the steel factory. I suggest to hon. members that they read Hansard to see what a struggle the National Party had to put up in order to establish Iscor, and during the war years every United Party member got up and claimed that they had erected the steel factory. The same thing is happening in this instance.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is not here this morning and consequently I do not want to attack him, but he stated that this Bill reflected the policy of the United Party. I just want to read to the House what we have here as far as the election of members are concerned—

The mode of election or selection of members of such boards, the procedure, the period and conditions of office, and their duties and functions shall be defined by regulations made by the urban local authority under this Act (Act No. 21 of 1923, Section 10 (1)).

Then the Act goes on and lays down the functions of these committees, one of which is—

The terms and conditions of residence in locations, Native villages and Native hostels (Section 23 (3) (a)).

That appears in that sixpenny policy—

(b) the management and control of locations, Native villages and Native hostels.

And (d)

The mode of election or selection of members of Native Advisory Boards.

(e) the erection and use of dwellings, buildings and other structures …

(g) the allotment of sites in locations or Native villages for church, school or trading purposes …

Do you know when that was written, Mr. Speaker? In the year 1923, and it was incorporated in the sixpenny policy in 1954. This reminds me of an experience I had in the Northern Transvaal. I was discussing history with the elderly ndunas of the tribe concerned and suddenly a semi-educated man jumped up and said to them: “What do you know about history? I will tell you the history. I learnt it in the year of 1923.” What was incorporated in this sixpenny policy already appeared in the Act of 1923. It is therefore nothing new. But I want to say this to hon. members: Here I have the Government Gazette. It contains the Bill which my predecessor, the hon. the Prime Minister, drafted in 1951 and which was published in the Government Gazette in February 1952. It contains, all these things and much more and the present Bill is based on that Bill. For the information of hon. members I want to tell them that the hon. the Prime Minister is so interested in this Bill that my officials and I spent a whole afternoon with him the other day and in many instances he wanted to go much further than I myself wanted to. That is how interested he is in this Bill. Here we have proof that this child which we have before us to-day is really a National child.

I want to deal with another matter namely the objection that was raised to the fact that we wish to preserve the tribal links. We actually go further with greater foresight, which people object to, in recognizing the national groups among the Bantu. I think that is one of the soundest bases on which to build race relations. Mr. Speaker, when I think of the lessons which Africa teaches me, the one lesson I learn is that the biggest crime the White man has committed in Africa, a crime which is hitting him to-day like a boomerang, and which has sown hatred amongst the Bantu people throughout the whole of Africa and even the Negro people in Africa, was when he sat down in front of a map in those days when Africa was partitioned and simply drew lines on that map and said: “This is mine and that is yours”, without taking into account the boundaries of those national units. That was a crime. I had the temerity to tell Mr. Hammarskjoeld that until such time as the man of Africa was changed and the real boundaries restored as far as the major national units were concerned at least, the problem of Africa would never be solved. I hope the experts will give serious attention to this matter; true satisfaction will only come about when we recognize each national unit as such. That is the solution to this problem and that is the reason why I cannot understand why the members of the Progressive Party in particular are fighting this measure. They condemn it whereas many of them symbolize adherence to a tribe. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is very national conscious. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) is another one, but they begrudge the Bantu that privilege. I shall return to the Progressive Party in a moment, but I cannot reconcile myself with this Herrenvolk idea. I want to grant to the Bantu that which I claim for myself, also in respect of their national groups, because I realize that that is the most important basis on which this matter can be solved satisfactorily. I shall have something further to say about the ethnic grouping in a moment. I want to return now to the hon. members of the Progressive Party. I do not want to deal with every point that they have raised but I want to deal with a few general points raised by them. I want to make the general statement that to judge from the speeches of the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members it is clear that they regard a city as comprising White residential areas and Bantu residential areas. In other words, they regard a city as a unit. There should not be any differentiation. They want mixed boards, mixed city councils consisting of all national groups, including the Bantu. I foresee the day when they will suggest the logical consequence of that, namely that at least a section of the White people should go and live in the locations and a section of the location dwellers should come and live in the White areas. That would be a logical consequence. That would be the correct brotherly relationship to establish.

There is such a deep-seated difference in principle as far as this matter is concerned, that all I can say is to quote the words of Mark Twain: “East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.” It is. obviously useless, therefore, to argue with members about this matter. I do not think we will gain one iota by arguing these differences in principle. I will deal with the other points they have raised.

I come to the question of ethnic grouping to which hon. members object. That is really the basis of the policy of the National Party. The National Party believes that there should be national grouping because only in that way will you eventually satisfy every national group. Nowhere in the whole world, nowhere in Africa, have I come across any national group who is prepared to abandon a section of its own group to another group. On the contrary, the basis of nationalism, the basis of that nationalism that has awakened in Africa to-day, the nationalism in Europe and all over the world, is the fact that every nation takes a pride in drawing its every son and daughter into its own national ranks, to keep them there and to use them to promote the interests of that nation and to help it to progress. That is the basis on which to establish real peace. I want to say immediately that is the basis on which the various national groups develop respect for each other and the basis on which they can live peacefully together without any processes coming into operation that will engender hatred. And that basis is ethnic grouping. I want to say at once that for the greater part the Bantu in the cities are already divided into ethnic groups. Here and there of course there are small groups who live amongst another group. Take the case of Johannesburg where we have the best example where ethnic grouping has not as yet taken place everywhere. As a matter of fact, hon. members have referred to it. Do hon. members know that 75 per cent of the Bantu in Johannesburg have already been divided into ethnic groups? It is only in the old Bantu residential areas where they still live together, but in the case of all the new residential areas we have worked on the basis of ethnic grouping and 75 per cent of them have already been divided into ethnic groups. Consequently that does not present an insoluble problem. Certain members have misgivings and think that ethnic grouping will give rise to tribal feuds. I remember when we started that this was one of the main complaints, but this policy has already been in operation for years. It is being applied in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Benoni and other places with what results? Those very tribal feuds have been eliminated.

Mrs. SUZMAN:

What did the Centlivres Commission say?

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Does the hon. member for Houghton not know the history of Johannesburg and of those places where they lived together and where there were tribal fights practically every week? The position got so bad that the South Sotho groups eventually appointed their own guards and the Zulus had their own guards.

*Mrs. SUZMAN:

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? What about the Centlivres Commission which submitted its report two or four years ago in which they stated that ethnic grouping was the cause of the disturbances in the Johannesburg locations? That is in direct conflict with what the hon. the Minister is now saying.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

In reply to that I want to say that I do not wish to belittle those people but that report is the most unrealistic and the most pathetic report that has ever been brought out in South Africa. That report is actually a concoction of statements by the Institute of Race Relations and nothing else. That is the most pathetic report on this subject that has ever seen the light of day, and every expert says that. As a matter of fact the Centlivres Commission’s report is as dead as a dodo, except as far as the Institute of Race Relations is concerned.

However, we are not looking to the Centlivres Commission’s report, but to what is happening in practice. What actually happened in Johannesburg a few years ago? One of the great problems which the police had to face was the fact that hardly a week passed without there being tribal fights on a large scale. To-day that position no longer exists. There is no such thing as tribal fights in Johannesburg to-day. We have trouble here and there, which is quite natural, but this very ethnic grouping has resulted in every ethnic group living happily in his own area, he has respect for the other ethnic groups, in their areas and there is no trouble. There was trouble at one place where one ethnic group caused some trouble with another group, but that was soon put right. Never before have there been so few tribal fights in Johannesburg and elsewhere as to-day. Furthermore we must not forget that those people have now come into their own rights in every respect. One of the problems which arose from the system of living in mixed groups, (which hon. members opposite want so badly) was that the languages of the various groups could not be used at the schools. That caused bitter resentment amongst them against the White man. because it is a basic principle amongst every nation, particularly amongst the Zulu, that his child should retain his own language. That is tradition. He does not want to lose the wonderful things in his life, and those things could not form the basis of his life or could not be built upon. Now that they have been divided into ethnic groups each ethnic group has its own schools, each group has its own national games and each group lives according to his own traditions. But the important thing is this: You won’t show me one national group in the whole of South Africa, Sir, that will admit that the Bantu who are living in the cities to-day are lost to them. Hon. members make a big mistake, a basic mistake, in this respect as far as national links are concerned. The Zulu does not want to hear about it that their sons and daughters who live in the big cities are no longer part of the Zulu nation. What is more, there is a continual link, a live link, with those people. If we want to make a big mistake, a mistake which will have its repercussions and hit us like a boomerang, then we must follow the policy of those hon. members, the policy of splitting the national communities and think that the people who live in their own areas form a community by themselves and have to be treated differently and that those who move to the cities have to be separated from them and be treated on a completely different basis. That is a very dangerous thing and South Africa cannot afford the results that will flow from that. We must recognize this basic fact which applies to every nation in the world, namely that that section of the nation that moves into the cities is not lost to it but continues to form part of his own national community, forms an integral part of his own national community, as a matter of fact that is the section that will be able to transplant the best that Western civilization can offer over to the other section in the most beneficial manner. I merely want to say that the Bantu are very grateful to us for this arrangement. I want to assure hon. members that before it was officially sanctioned, before the matter was specifically investigated, we found when we introduced the system of chiefs’ representatives, that the chiefs already had representatives in the cities. They were people who worked there but they were the guardians of the people belonging to that national group. They knew that they could go to those representatives. I want to give one typical example. Years ago I had a very good boy working for me and he accompanied me when I conducted an inspection in the Northern Transvaal. When I went to Pretoria I took him with me. He was highly intelligent but after a week he said to me: Look, I have to return; there is not a single representative of my chief in the whole of Pretoria, and I do not see my way clear to live in such a place. He returned. It was only when a representative of his chief was appointed there that he was quite happy to return. So the bonds do exist. Let me mention the case of Cape Town. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) ought to know about this. There is a big percentage of South Sotho in Cape Town and there is a full-time representative from Basutoland who does nothing else but serve as a link between the South Sotho who have been here for two generations and more. The link exists and they go so far as to give him money regularly in the form of taxes to be sent on to Basutoland. We have proof, there fore, not only in respect of the South Sotho—do not forget that the South Sotho is not as nationally minded as the other national groups. We have that position in the case of the Zulus, in the case of the Sothos and in the case of the Tswanas. Those people desire that and we want to comply with that desire by introducing ethnic grouping so that these people will form part of their own nations. That is why we will constitute those councils in such a way that those chiefs’ representatives will have an opportunity of serving actively on those councils. In that way we will preserve the national unity of that group.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) harbours some interesting misgivings as far as this matter is concerned, but I want to assure him that I will attend to them. He made a few very valuable remarks. He is concerned that there may perhaps be clashes and he asked that the regulations particularly should be very clear so that there will not be any clashes. I am grateful to him for adopting that attitude. I know he is a person who knows the Bantu and I want to give him the assurance and I will go very thoroughly into the matter, not only with the officials, but also with the Bantu concerned to ensure that clashes are avoided. This is a matter to which I, together with the urban officials, the officials of my Department and the Bantu themselves are giving serious attention. I think if we set about it in this way clashes will be avoided. But I repeat that the people desire it.

The hon. member also said that where we were now giving the vote to at least half the urban councils we were adopting a United Party principle, namely, that we were giving the vote to the urban Bantu in the White area. No, that is not the case. The 1923 Act also provides that there should be elected and nominated members, as in this case. That has always been the position and every party has made use of that. We are not introducing a new principle here, it is an old principle which has always been acknowledged. For the rest we also maintain another important principle, namely, that the ethnic groups should be properly represented on these councils. Why? Had hon. members taken the trouble of going into the matter they would have found that in the past as far as the election of the advisory boards were concerned, only a very small percentage was interested in the election. In most cases only about 20 per cent and in many cases only 10 per cent and in very many other cases only 5 per cent. That is not a sound state of affairs. The result was that you had a small group of people electing a board which was not representative of the rest of them and when these chiefs’ representatives were recognized administratively we found that that was how they were elected to those boards with the result that there was a far better balance and we will ensure that the ethnic groups who are not properly represented on a council, will at least have such representation on it that every section of that community will be properly represented. That can only result in good co-operation. We shall draft the necessary regulations more or less on the same lines as the old regulations and those regulations will lay down the basis on which the voting should take place, the qualifications will more or less be the same as those laid down under the old regulations. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) had certain misgivings about this and asked that we should ensure that they were constituted in such a way that the tsotsi elements would not play an important part. I want to assure him that we shall see to that in co-operation with the Bantu themselves and the urban council which will draw up the list. In the past our experience has been that we had no trouble with tsotsis wanting to vote. I think hon. members should bear that in mind. We had no difficulty with the tsotsis who went to vote. The trouble we had was in respect of tsotsis who formed themselves into gangs and intimidated others as to how they should vote. We had trouble in that respect. Hence the introduction of community guards. Practice has proved that we need have no fear of this along the lines that we are following here, but I want to assure hon. members that we shall keep a watchful eye on the position and I also know that the Bantu people will watch the position. We shall strictly guard against it that that element does not again have an opportunity of intimidating others and playing their unholy part.

Grave objections were raised against the granting of civil and criminal jurisdiction. That is another matter in regard to which the hon. member for East London (City) has serious misgivings, but other hon. members, such as the hon. member for South Coast, for example, made positive contributions to the debate. Let me just say this in passing. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) quite rightly asked whether the time had not arrived that we should in certain matters at least, matters affecting the Bantu, discuss them on their merits, that we should exchange ideas and when we have thrashed things out determine what was in the best interests of the Bantu themselves. I heartily endorse those sentiments. That was a valuable suggestion. There are many points in connection with this matter on which we agree, where it is not necessary to introduce all sorts of foreign elements. I want to thank hon. members most heartily for their objective approach to this matter and for their valuable contributions. I shall most certainly read and re-read what they have said in order to ascertain how their ideas can be put into practice in future. They have misgivings as to the granting of civil and criminal jurisdiction in the cities. I want to tell hon. members that this system has been a great success on the platteland. Here I differ from the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) because our experience in 95 per cent of the cases throughout the Bantu areas has been that it works very well. I readily admit that there are instances here and there where people misuse their rights but we take firm steps against them immediately and their own people report them to us. We have little difficulty as far as that is concerned. But never forget that we can only lead the Bantu along the road of development through experience, by making mistakes and then rectifying those mistakes. Seeing that we found that effective in the areas to which I have referred, I regard it as also essential in the urban areas. Let me repeat that hon. members are wrong if they say that the Bantu who come and live here for a couple of years, or even for two or three generations, have shed everything that is Bantu and that he has become a perfect Westerner. By maintaining that they reveal a lack of knowledge of the Bantu in the cities. There are certain things which are holy to the Bantu, things that you cannot deprive him of. no matter how far he has developed. Just as every nation in the world has certain spiritual values which he values highly, so his legal system and especially certain elements in that legal system constitute spiritual values to the Bantu on which he places a high value. I can mention numerous instances to hon. members where Bantu have said to me: If we have a strong case we go to our own court and justice will be done; but if we have a weak case, we go to the magistrate’s court, because there our attorney stands a chance of getting us acquitted on a technical point. There is a great deal of truth in that. That is something which is not conducive to sound race relations because the Native who loses his case develops a hatred not only towards the magistrate but towards the White man and that is what we should like to prevent. I want to remove these points of friction which disturb the sound and good relations between Black and White and that is one of the things which they have asked me to do. Some time ago I was at Kroonstad and I met the Advisory Board there. The Chairman, who is a B.A., LL.B, got up and said: We want to beg one thing of you—cannot you make that section in the Bantu Administration Act applicable to the urban Bantu? Why should we always have to get an attorney and go to court? The attorney takes all our money, we have to go to court with every minor matter and justice is not always done. As I have already stated, hon. members may not know it but in most cases where there are large numbers of Natives the chiefs have their representatives and without their power being recognized they give judgment in many cases. However, it is an unsound state of affairs and it can lead to malpractices. That is why I say we should give this system a chance. I can assure hon. members that we shall remain wide awake. I want to deal with what the hon. member for Transkeian Territories said in this connection: Our object is not, as he said, to keep those people here under the law of the bush, as some Europeans say. I want to say that there are certain elements in the legal system of the Bantu which are as sound as any to be found in Western civilization and the Bantu attach great value to them. As a matter of fact I think there is much in Bantu law that we can fruitfully incorporate in our own system. So much value do I attach to it. That is why I adopt the attitude that we should start here, but it should be a revolutionary process, and if they feel as. time goes on that they want to take anything over from the Roman Dutch law they can do so. Hence I shall endeavour to ensure in most cases that the people we use for this have the necessary background. Also in this respect the hon. member for South Coast made a valuable contribution when he said that here too we should guard against it that there were no clashes between the various groups on account of the one group feeling that a legal man of another group has been appointed to exercise jurisdiction over them. There is a real element of danger in that and I want to assure the hon. member that we shall give the necessary attention to this aspect. Naturally this is a question which causes us some worry, but experience has proved that it can be avoided in most cases. But in this respect too, there will be consultation. I feel strongly, however, that we should introduce the Bantu legal system in the urban areas. The Bantu will appreciate that. He does not want to have to run to the White man’s court every day.

The hon. member for East London (City) had certain misgivings and warned us to be very careful as far as the community guards were concerned. The hon. member for Springs also warned us and said that they might develop into a dangerous element. This has, however, become essential in the Bantu areas and I can assure hon. members that we will tackle this matter very carefully and in cooperation with the Department of Justice, and that we will ensure that there is proper control. At the beginning particularly there will definitely have to be proper control so as to ensure that those people do not abuse their power. But it is clear to everybody that this is something which is necessary and which must be introduced. This appeal comes from all the Bantu in South Africa, from East and West.

Hon. members also have misgivings and are afraid that there may be abuses in respect of the beer profits. It is laid down in the Act to-day that the beer profits that are paid into the Native Revenue Account can only be used in the area concerned and in terms of this clause those profits can also be spent outside that area. Hon. members say that may possibly lend itself to abuse. I want to say immediately that that matter does not really fall under my jurisdiction. It is a matter for the Urban Board to attend to, after consultation with the Bantu Board. If the Bantu Board recommends to the Urban Board that they want it that way I only have the power to approve or disapprove of it. But before deciding I ascertain whether it is in the interests of the Bantu themselves. I want to give a few examples of the type of request that is made to me. This has happened on numerous occasions. For example, there is a hospital for cerebral palsied children at a particular place and many people in a certain Bantu residential area wanted to make a contribution to that hospital, but they could not do so. In another case it was in respect of the treatment of blind children that they wanted to make a contribution but the law prevented them from doing so. There are other similar cases. I have also had a case brought to my attention where the Bantu wanted to send a soccer team to another location and they did not have the money to pay for the transport. They wanted to know whether they could get a few pounds to pay for the transport of the team. I am really very interested in these facilities for the Bantu in their own residential areas and that is why I thought it would be a good thing if the requests were referred to me, provided in the first place that the Bantu Board and the municipalities themselves had decided on it. Of course, there are things for which provision can always be made when the Estimates are drawn up. Hon. members may, therefore, rest assured, as far as these matters are concerned, that it is only to make provision for such cases, and that it will give the Bantu community great satisfaction.

I do not always understand the logic of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller). He reminds me of the Israelites in the desert. One day he says one thing and the other day he says something else. He sees nothing good in this Bill. He would like to see these people have so much power that they can force the municipality to do those things. I wrote it down. It is very dangerous to say that and I do not know whether any other hon. member subscribes to that idea. I think the hon. member for South Coast is adopting a sound policy. Both he and the hon. member for Springs say that we should rather give these people a little power to start off with and consult the municipalities and the Bantu boards from time to time and then gradually increase their power along those lines. That is the correct procedure to adopt and I subscribe to that idea. Hon. members will see, therefore, that we are not giving them a great deal of power at the moment, but that their power will gradually be increased so that they can manage their own affairs under the supervision of the municipality. The approach is to be very careful and not to act irresponsibly. I recommend the basis suggested by the hon. member for South Coast.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) said that Benoni was a model example and that we should do it that way. He says it is not necessary to establish these boards because look what they have done at Benoni! What the hon. member forgot was that what Benoni was doing was really illegal. It is being done administratively but it is really illegal. What I am doing in this Bill is to legalize that sort of thing. That is the difference that he has failed to observe. I am afraid that when he goes to bed to-night he will say “I am an ass”. I am not saying that. He said that if I could convince him he would say to himself “I am an ass”. [Laughter.] But the fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker, that Benoni is a model example of the Bantu residential policy of the National Party. There we have a model example for the world to see. No matter how much we differ politically from the City Council of Benoni, they have cooperated with us in establishing a model Bantu residential area, planned on the basis of ethnic grouping. All the facilities are there and the Bantu are continually consulted. That is a model of National Party policy in connection with this matter. What the hon. member failed to consider was that I was now legalizing what Benoni had done. We are now placing the municipalities in the position—we are not forcing them to do so—where they can use those Bantu boards as their agents in the Bantu areas.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also made this final statement: The Bantu residential areas have already been established by the municipalities so what was there to be done? Mr. Speaker, my experience has been that the great task still lies ahead. Now that these residential areas have been established the great task awaits the Bantu to do those things themselves.

*Mr. MILLER:

That was what I said.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I cannot understand the logic of the hon. member. The difference is this: We are not depriving the municipalities of any power, but we are giving them the opportunity of delegating power to those Bantu boards and using them as their agents to do that work. I just want to say this, Sir: I have now introduced this Bill, but a more comprehensive Bill will be introduced next year which will probably contain many innovations. The municipalities can let me have their views and everybody concerned can work together so that we will be able to come forward with even a better Bill next year. I do think, however, that this Bill is in the interests of the Bantu themselves, and that is why I appreciate the fact that some members at least welcome it. It will assist in establishing goodwill and a spirit of responsibility among the Bantu and at the same time they will have the opportunity of learning something about life.

We also had this final statement that we would never succeed in removing the Bantu from these places to the Bantu areas. Those hon. members are making a mistake. When the Bantu areas have been developed—and we are busy with that process of development—and particularly when the cities have been erected, many of the Bantu who have gained experience in the Bantu residential areas will go there to carry on with the process of development. I can show hon. members letters which I have from Bantu who own shops in the Bantu residential areas in White cities, asking me at this stage already whether they may go and open shops in the cities which we are only busy erecting to-day. I have already referred to the case of the industrialist who has established his industry in one of those cities and both he and his 100-odd employees are very happy there and they do not want to return to Johannesburg. There is, therefore, no danger.

There is this basic difference in our policies. The United Party want the Bantu to have property rights in these Bantu residential areas, they want to absorb them into the entire White community. Our attitude is that these Bantu must always remain part of their own national unit and if they wish to have the political vote at a later stage they must exercise that vote within their own national unit. As far as political matters are concerned the Zulu must vote with the Zulu, as happened in the case of Basutoland. We assisted them to vote in the election which was held in Basutoland. We erected polling booths for them here in Cape Town so that they could vote. It went off very smoothly, there was no trouble and we want to follow this policy. In that way we will be forging a unifying link in respect of the national groups, we will be creating a position where the various national groups will respect each other, where they will appreciate each other and where there will be a spirit of cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the provisions of this Bill will be applied in that light, and as the hon. member for Springs has said, we shall see to it that the provisions of this Bill are carried out in a proper manner so that the Bantu will feel that he really has a say in his own area.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, and a division was called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mr. Butcher, Dr. de Beer, Prof. Fourie, Mr. Lawrence, Dr. Steytler, Mrs. Suzman, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, van Ryneveld and Williams) voted against the Question, Mr. Speaker declared it affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and the Bill read a second time.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I move—

That the House go into Committee on the Bill on Monday.
Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I second.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

I move as an amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.”,
Mr. HUGHES:

I second.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—75: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; du Pisanie, J.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Faurie, W. H.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Riche, R.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Mentz, F. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and D. J. Potgieter.

Noes—42: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, J.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Shearer, O. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

SOUTH AFRICAN CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT BILL

Second Order read: House to resume in Committee on South African Citizenship Amendment Bill.

House in Committee:

[Progress reported on 14 June, when the further consideration of Clause 5 was standing over, upon which an amendment had been moved by Mr. Tucker, and when the consideration of Clause 6 was standing over and Clause 8 was under consideration, upon which amendments had been moved by the Minister of the Interior, by Mr. van Ryneveld, by Mr. Mitchell and by Mr. H. Lewis.]

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, I have now had opportunity of considering the amendments to Clause 8, namely, those of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) and of the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. H. Lewis) and I merely want to say that in view of the fact that the hon. member for South Coast is prepared to limit the credit for previous residence in the Republic to a maximum of two years, provided the Minister waives his discretion in this respect, I am prepared, provided the hon. member withdraws his amendment, to move that this provision be amended in this respect. I am also prepared to move that the corresponding provision in Clause 9 (b) in respect of naturalization be adapted to this amendment. All the fears that the hon. member may harbour that the Minister may abuse his discretion in this respect, should be removed by these amendments of mine. Naturally the Minister still has the final say in respect of the granting of certificates of registration or naturalization and can consequently still decide whether an applicant who complies with the residential requirements, will indeed be a desirable citizen according to the other requirements laid down in Sections 8 (1) and 10 (1) of the Act. I hope this will satisfy the hon. member and if he will withdraw his amendment I will move as follows—

In lines 2 and 3, page 6, to omit “may, in his discretion, regard a period not exceeding two years and not exceeding” and to substitute “shall regard”; in line 7, after “application” to insert “but not exceeding a period of two years”.

I think that puts the matter right as far as the hon. member is concerned.

As far as the hon. member for Umlazi is concerned, I have also carefully studied his amendment and I have no objection to it, although I still feel that it is not really necessary because such applications are so thoroughly investigated that there can be no oversight when it comes to considering the application. The amendments to the Act in respect of registration, that is to say, that applications should not be reconsidered, were effected as far back as 1949 in respect of naturalization. But in view of the fact that the hon. member attaches so much value to his amendment. I am prepared to accept it and for the sake of uniformity I am prepared to move a similar amendment to Clause 9 (n) in respect of naturalization, provided the hon. member withdraws his amendment, because I have submitted my amendments to the legal advisers and the spirit of their wording is really the same as that envisaged by the hon. member, so that the amendment which I move, if the hon. member is agreeable, will be as follows—

In line 16, page 8, after “not” to insert “be obliged to”; and in line 17, to omit “or” and to substitute “but shall not”.

I should like to know what hon. members think about this and if they are satisfied I will move it immediately.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I am grateful to the Minister for the decision he has come to in regard to this amendment. His amendment is entirely satisfactory, and with the leave of the House I move that the amendment standing in my name be withdrawn, which will allow room for the hon. the Minister’s amendment to be inserted.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

I am very grateful to the hon. the Minister for putting forward the clause in the new form he proposes, and with the leave of the Committee I would like to withdraw my amendment.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments proposed by Mr. Mitchell and Mr. H. Lewis were withdrawn.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I then move—

In lines 2 and in his discretion, 3, page 6, to omit “may, regard a period not exceeding two years and not exceeding” and to substitute “shall regard in line 7, after “application” to insert “but not exceeding a period of two years,”; in line 16, page 8, after “not” to insert “be obliged to”; and in line 17, to omit “or” and to substitute “but shall not”.

Perhaps it will be good if I just read the new clause as it will read with the insertion and the deletion of these words mentioned by me. Clause 3bis will then read—

For the purposes of sub-section (1) the Minister shall regard one-half of any previous period during which the applicant for registration has been resident in the Union prior to the period of seven years immediately preceding the date of his application but not exceeding a period of two years as a period of residence in the Union during the said period of seven years.

And Clause 8 (n) will read as follows—

9bis: If the Minister has refused an application for a certificate of registration by or on behalf of any person, the Minister shall not be obliged to reconsider such application at any time but shall not consider another application for a certificate of registration by or on behalf of such person until the expiration of a period of at least one year from the date upon which the person in question was advised of the Minister’s decision.

Amendment proposed by Mr. van Ryneveld put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I should like to move—

In lines 48 and 49 to omit “may, in his discretion, regard a period not exceeding two years and not exceeding” and to substitute “shall regard”; in line 53, after “application” to insert “but not exceeding a period of two years,”; in line 18, page 10, to omit “by the substitution in sub-section (8)” and to substitute “by the insertion in sub-section (8) after the word ‘national’ of the words ‘of if, in the opinion of the Minister, there are special circumstances present in his case,’, and the substitution therein”; in line 39, after “words:” to insert “be obliged to”; and in line 40, to omit “or” and to substitute “but shall not”.

These are consequential amendments because of the amendments which the Committee have made to Clause 8.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

Mr. H. LEWIS:

Mr. Chairman, I ask that Clause 6 (c) stand over, because I believe that this clause, together with Clause 6, covers the question of mixed marriages. I have not moved an amendment, but I would like a little information from the Minister. This subject of mixed marriages is going to be a most difficult one for South African people who might get married overseas and my difficulty here is that it is for them to determine whether they are in fact contracting a mixed marriage or not. From a recent reply given to a question in the House, the hon. the Minister said that people of Japanese descent were to be regarded as Europeans in the Union for the purposes of the population register. What about all the other races akin to Japanese, with whom a marriage might be contracted? It is a question which would be very difficult for anyone to determine. If one takes it on the question of association, of course in other countries the association of people is not restricted to the extent it is here. As I see it, a South African overseas would find great difficulty in determining whether he was in fact contracting a mixed marriage, and I think that if the Minister could give some information on the point we could determine our approach to this particular aspect of these two clauses, Clause 6 and Clause 10.

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

Afternoon Sitting

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member for Umlazi referred to the provisions of Clause 6 (b) substituting a new subsection in Clause 6 and particularly in regard to mixed marriages, (c). It is not clear how he brings this provision into relation with Clause 10. Clause 6 (b), sub-paragraph (c), excludes children born outside the Union as the result of a mixed marriage or as the result of immoral relations between White and non-White. This exclusion is justified since such marriages or immoral relations are illegal in the Union. Clause 10, on the other hand, provides for the loss of South African citizenship and in sub-section (a) provision is made that a South African citizen entering into such a marriage whilst outside the Union will not thereby lose his South African citizenship. The hon. member referred to the position of Japanese under the Mixed Marriages Act. In this respect I can only say that if a marriage between a White person in the Republic and a Japanese is contracted outside the Republic, the validity of such a marriage is a matter for decision by the court. The question of citizenship of the children will depend on the decision. I really cannot see how he can bring Clause 10 (c) into relation. In Clause 10 it is only a question of how one loses his citizenship, and Clause 6 refers to children born outside the Union, and those children can be registered as citizens. There is really no relation between the two. The hon. member for South Coast raised that point first of all, a marriage between a Japanese and a South African citizen. It seems to me that the hon. members want to compel me to elaborate more on the statement which was made here that Japanese are regarded as White persons in the Republic of South Africa. That was in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Pinetown. But I really cannot see any relation between these two clauses.

Mr. TUCKER:

It is quite clear that a person who leaves South Africa and contracts a marriage invalid in South Africa, that marriage will be invalid not only in South Africa but under international law. It is clear that if a person marries a Japanese, that is a perfectly valid marriage.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

That is for the court to decide.

Mr. TUCKER:

No, if a person marries a Japanese out of the Union, that marriage clearly would be valid, if the person went on a tour to Japan and got married there. But if the person had gone there for the purpose it would be quite a different question, because then it is a question of intent. But I think the question raised by the hon. member goes further than that. The position is that for certain purposes, and perhaps for all purposes, Japanese citizens are regarded as Europeans in South Africa, and the question is what would be the effect of a marriage? In a Bill which has yet to come on there is a provision dealing with the question of the marriage of a person who would be prohibited from marrying in the Union. Even if such a person is a South African citizen, he can lose his citizenship and become a prohibited immigrant to the Republic. Section 10 says that a person can become a prohibited immigrant in this way. I think the Minister is right and that there are a lot of ramifications. I think it is important that the hon. member raised this, and I think the matter should be gone into, because it is quite clear that through prohibitions of this nature very complicated legal questions can arise. The Minister is quite right in regard to marriages which in one set of circumstances are valid and in another set of circumstances may be invalid. It is sometimes difficult even for the parties concerned to establish whether the marriage is valid or not. I have little doubt that the Minister, who is trying to clear up certain difficulties under the citizenship law, will during the recess try to sort out these problems.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

Mr. H. LEWIS:

I move the amendment standing in my name—

In line 29, to omit “he is satisfied that”.

I move this specifically for the reason that the Minister might in all good faith decide a case and be satisfied that he is right, but he might judge that case on hearsay evidence or on a false report which might later be proved to be incorrect. I would like to put it to the Minister this way, that if those words are left in and the evidence on which the Minister has satisfied himself that he is correct is later proved to be wrong, the judgment of a court could not possibly be sought to rectify the matter, because should it be brought before the court all the court can determine is whether the Minister is satisfied. Should the Minister say yes, he is satisfied, the court has no jurisdiction. I think it is wrong in a case like this that the Minister should leave these words in. We accept that a man should lose his citizenship under certain circumstances, but we just want the wording to be changed so that it will read that the Minister may by order deprive a South African citizen who is not a minor of his South African citizenship if such citizen—I think that covers it. Under this clause the Minister may deprive a man of his South African citizenship and he has no recourse to the courts, because so long as the Minister is satisfied that he has acted bona fide that decision is final. If the Minister has satisfied himself, and tells the court so, the court no longer has jurisdiction, and I ask the Minister to exclude these four words: “he is satisfied that”.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member is quite right in the logic of his argument. There is nothing wrong with it. What he really wants is that there should be sufficient proof that somebody had accepted citizenship in another country by his informal actions or whatever actions it may be and that is the problem that we are faced with. We should very much like to accept that it is a logical request, but we have every reason to believe that we will not get the co-operation, particularly that of certain African states, at the present juncture. If, for example, somebody accepts citizenship in one of the African states, we can only obtain effective proof of that fact with the co-operation of the government of that state; that state will have to determine whether the person had accepted citizenship or not. If the Government does not do that and that person returns to this country and says that he did not accept citizenship, we would have to take his word for it. We may not have the co-operation of the government concerned, it may refuse to tell us whether the person had indeed accepted citizenship. In that case there will be no information whatsoever at our disposal on which to go, whereas if we have any doubts about the matter, he would only have to wait a year in order to have his citizenship restored to him; it will not be restored to him immediately.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

I am sorry I cannot agree with the argument of the Minister. If a man is prepared to try to have his South African citizenship restored after the hon. the Minister has deprived him of it, surely he is a man who has a very good case for his application to be considered. If the Minister agrees to remove these words, he is still in a position to deprive anybody of his citizenship if he thinks he should be so deprived, but at least he gives the person so deprived the right to appeal against that decision, and surely if a man had taken an oath of allegiance or done any of the other acts which entitle the Minister to deprive him of his citizenship, such a court would want some proof of that before deciding in his favour. Take my own case. If I went out of this country and found on my return that the hon. the Minister had deprived me of my South African citizenship, I can assure the Minister that I would want the right to appeal against such a decision because I was born in South Africa. I have lived here all my life and I am not prepared to surrender to any Minister of any government the right to deprive me of my citizenship without the right of appeal, and that is what this clause is doing as it is worded at the moment. I think in the odd case that might possibly happen—it might not even happen, as the Minister has presented this case to the House—I think it is worth his forfeiting that right so that an honest-to-goodness South African citizen can still retain the right of appeal against the decision of the Minister in depriving him of his citizenship. I think the Minister owes that to us. I do not think what I am asking for is in the nature of a concession; I think I am asking for a right on behalf of all South African citizens.

Mr. TUCKER:

I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider this matter and possibly agree to go into it further and deal with it in Another Place. The situation is this, that if the Minister is satisfied, then he can act in terms of this section. It is possible, if he has been satisfied on wrong evidence, that the person concerned would have no remedy. If the words suggested by the hon. member are omitted, then it appears to me that if the Minister has acted and it later turns out that he has acted incorrectly, the person’s citizenship would be acknowledged to have remained throughout automatically. Perhaps the Minister would like time to go into it before this Bill goes to Another Place, but I do think that the hon. member is quite right that the clause would be improved by omitting these words. It would not lessen the Minister’s rights. He would act according to his information, but if he acts incorrectly the citizen would have the right of pointing out that the information on which he acted was wrong and the matter would then be put right.

But I rise really to deal again with paragraph (b) of this clause which says that if anyone takes an oath or any other declaration of allegiance to any country other than the Union, that person loses his. citizenship. At the second reading I raised the question of the position of South African advocates in respect of Rhodesia and Swaziland and the Protectorates and the position of South African attorneys in respect of the Protectorates. They are entitled to practise there provided they take an oath of allegiance. This is an important matter and I realize the Minister’s difficulty. He did deal with this matter in the second reading debate, but I do think that it is absolutely essential that the Government should take steps to come to an arrangement with the British and Rhodesian governments in regard to this matter because unquestionably it is in the interests of Union advocates., and sometimes attorneys too to practise in these areas. It has certainly been of great advantage to these areas to have had the opportunity of getting experienced persons from the Union to represent them legally. I hope the Minister will see to it that the question is taken up with a view to preserving those rights in some way, which will not interfere with what I agree is a proper provision to include in our Citizenship Act, but it does have this unfortunate backlash which requires the Minister’s serious consideration.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I should like to comply with the request made by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) towards the end of his speech. I have already discussed the matter with the Department and during the second reading debate I said that further consideration would be given to the position of those people and I want to give hon. members the assurance that I will again investigate the position of advocates and attorneys.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis) is concerned, I think hon. members should give me an opportunity of giving further consideration to the matter and if I think it is necessary to do so I will move the necessary amendment in the Senate.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

In view of the hon. the Minister’s assurance I should like to withdraw my amendment with the leave of the Committee.

Amendment proposed by Mr. H. Lewis withdrawn with leave of the Committee.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

This clause enables the hon. the Minister to grant a special concession to former South African citizens, who left South Africa for another territory in Africa. On their return to South Africa the Minister wants the power to be able to grant them their former citizenship immediately. There are two concessions involved. Not only is he in a position to grant them South African citizenship at once, whereas otherwise they would have had to wait for at least one year before making application, but he also puts himself in a position to give them their former status, including South African citizenship by birth. Otherwise a person returning to South Africa would have to apply for South African citizenship by registration or naturalization depending on whether he came from a Commonwealth country in Africa or from a foreign country. As indicated at an earlier stage, we are not opposed to the idea of making this special concession to people who were former citizens of South Africa and who left here and now wish to return. But we do not see the force of the Minister’s argument in limiting it to people who have gone to other territories in Africa. There are two points that I want to put to the Minister. Firstly, he will in any case have a discretion, wherever the person has gone to, as to whether or not to allow him the concession. Secondly, we cannot see the force of the hon. the Minister’s argument that people who run away from South Africa should not have this concession. I think the Minister should remember the parable of the prodigal son in this respect and should be generous. Why should the Minister want to limit himself to people who have left South Africa for other territories in Africa? Why not leave the matter open? The Minister retains a discretion to refuse. Further, it may well be that included amongst the people to whom he does not wish to extend this privilege are people who have left South Africa, through lack of faith in its future, and gone to Southern Rhodesia. They will be entitled to the concession in terms of the Minister’s amendment. From that point of view too the Minister’s proposal is not logical. In any event, I think it is desirable that the concession should be granted to all people who left South Africa and now wish to return and I hope the Minister will accept the amendment which stands on page 793 of the Order Paper and which I now move—

To omit all the words after “territory” in line 9 up to and including “Africa” in line 11.
*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I am very sorry that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for East London (North). I made it quite clear at the second reading that we wished to make a concession to persons who have to leave the African territories as a result of the uncertain conditions prevailing there and as a result of conditions which are beyond their control, by introducing these amendments aimed at making them feel that they are welcome and that they can regain their citizenship immediately. Then there are those persons who have left the country, particularly in recent times, and who have stated publicly according to newspaper reports that there is no future for this country. They are fleeing the country. They are going to another country in order to build up their future there. These people with cold feet must fall under the ordinary laws and the law provides that when they return, even the most fearful of the fearful, they can get their citizenship back after a year. The only people whom we really want to encourage to regain their citizenship immediately on their return are those people in the African territories particularly who have to leave those countries as a result of conditions beyond their control. I hope that the hon. member will appreciate that we are not drawing unnecessary distinctions between citizen and citizen. If one has been a South African citizen it is a very great concession to be able to regain one’s citizenship after a year. I hope the hon. member will realize, together with us, that we are making this other concession for the sake of people who genuinely need it.

Amendment put and ageed to.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

Mr. TUCKER:

We had intended to move an amendment to this clause to provide that any refusal of an application must be dealt with by the Minister and not by a person to whom powers are delegated. At the second reading the hon. the Minister gave an undertaking that that was his policy, that he would personally deal with refusals and in those circumstances we are not moving our amendment.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

In line 23, to omit “Governor-General” and to substitute “State President”.
Mr. MITCHELL:

The hon. the Minister will remember that during my second reading speech I referred to the use of language in the English version where the past pluperfect tense is used for the purpose of fixing the date. It says “shall have come into operation”, The hon. the Minister said that he was certain that the word “have” was wrong and that it should read “shall” come into operation.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Will you move it.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I suggest that the word “have” be deleted.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN:

It has already been done administratively.

Mr. MITCHELL:

How nice, Mr. Chairman! I hope they are not administratively going to do anything else that we are going to deal with in Committee.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clauses 5 and 6 standing over.

On Clause 5,

Mr. TUCKER:

With the leave of the Committee I would like to withdraw my amendment. I am not at all sure that the hon. the Minister is correct, but I am sure that if such a case does arise he will not use this section to deprive that person of his citizenship.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Tucker withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 6 and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

ADMISSION OF PERSONS TO THE UNION REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL

Third Order read: House to go into Committee on Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Amendment Bill.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

ALIENS AMENDMENT BILL

Fourth Order read: House to go into Committee on Aliens Amendment Bill.

House in Committee:

On Clause 2,

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I move the amendment printed in my name—

In line 18, after “service” to insert “remuneration and allowances”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL

Sixth Order read: Second reading,—Liquor Amendment Bill.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, the distribution of liquor is a matter which arouses nation-wide interest, as we have seen recently since the publication of this Bill. It is also the cause of widespread discussion as well as a natural measure of differing opinions.

The report of Dr. Avril Malan’s Liquor Commission is probably the most comprehensive and enlightening report which has ever been published on the distribution of liquor in South Africa and I want to take this opportunity to convey the sincere thanks and appreciation of the Government to the chairman and every individual member of the commission.

This Bill, which must in the main be regarded as an experiment, the effects of which must be tested over a period, does not deal with all the recommendations of the Malan Commission but actually only deals with the distribution of liquor amongst non-Whites. The position as regards kaffir beer is, for example, being left unchanged because the Government would first like to see the effect of the provisions of this Bill. As I have already stated earlier, a comprehensive Bill, which deals with all the other details of the commission’s recommendations, will be published for general comment in the recess. It is possible that at the same time a consolidated Liquor Bill will include the provisions of this Bill now before the House and which will probably be referred to a Select Committee of the House for consideration. A consolidated Liquor Bill is regarded as urgently necessary.

That the distribution of liquor amongst Bantu, Coloureds and Asiatics is a very important matter is shown by the fact that South Africa, where the wine industry is the oldest established branch of the agricultural industry, has already been faced with this difficult problem for many years past. Over the past 50 years various commissions of inquiry have considered this difficult problem. There was, for example, the Buckle Commission which was appointed in 1908 to investigate, inter alia, whether the then existing liquor restrictions in respect of non-Whites in the Transvaal should be relaxed, and, if so, to what extent. In 1943 there was the report of a committee on conditions on the Cape Flats. This report also dealt with the liquor aspect as it affected non-Whites. In 1945 there was the Meaker Commission report on liquor consumption amongst the Cape Coloureds. In 1956 the Malan Commission was appointed to investigate, inter alia, the general distribution of intoxicating liquor. One of the main aspects with which it dealt in its report of last year is also the distribution of liquor amongst non-Whites.

It is striking that all these reports have mentioned consistently the unsatisfactory position as regards the distribution of liquor amongst the non-Whites and that the emphasis throughout is placed on the large-scale illicit liquor trade. The 1928 Liquor Act was a compromise between the two points of view as regards the provision of liquor to non-Whites. On the one hand there were the advocates of total prohibition who were convinced that the non-White had not reached a standard of civilization which entitled him to have access to liquor and who believed that the non-White should be protected in this regard by legislation. On the other hand there were those who did not advocate total prohibition. The result was that in 1928 a Liquor Act was passed which is still on the Statute Book and which imposed varying restrictions on the different non-White racial groups in the different provinces. Thus, for example, no non-White in the Transvaal or the Orange Free State can legally buy liquor for consumption on licensed premises. If he wants to buy a bottle of liquor for consumption at home, he must obtain a permit from a magistrate. To do so he must be able to submit proof that he has developed to a stage and has reached a general standard of living which is equivalent to that of the White civilization. Such a permit authorizes him to buy a quantity of liquor for consumption off licensed premises in order to meet his own person requirements. In Natal this restriction also applied to Bantu. Asiatics may purchase liquor for consumption on licensed premises but can only obtain liquor for consumption off licensed premises by means of a permit. The Coloureds in Natal are treated like the Coloureds in the Cape Province. In the Cape Province the total prohibition (except under the permit system) also applies to the Bantu, but by virtue of an old Cape Act of 1887, as interpreted in the case of Rex v. Jekela, 1938, Appellate Division, Bantu clergymen, graduates, university students and the holders of certain educational certificates are exempted from this prohibition.

Coloureds and Asiatics on the other hand can obtain liquor comparatively freely for consumption on and off licensed premises, subject to the restrictions which Liquor Licensing Boards may lay down regarding the days and hours for sale and the quantities which may be purchased. Thus for example Coloureds may not buy liquor on Saturdays in the Cape Peninsula for consumption off licensed premises. In the Stellenbosch area, however, Saturday sales are authorized. The result is that Coloureds leave the Cape Peninsula in their hundreds to go to Kuils River—their nearest “open” bottle store—in order to obtain their supplies for the week-end.

The provisions of the Bill now before the House must be seen in the light of these prohibitions (which in the case of the Bantu amount almost to total prohibition) and the evils to which they have given rise. I do not need to prove that restrictions on the distribution of liquor give rise to bootlegging and that when the restrictions in a country with different racial groups such as South Africa are severe and the number of prohibited persons large, such bootlegging can take on extremely serious proportions. Liquor is readily available to the Coloureds and the Asiatics in the Cape Province. This is however not the case as far as the thousands of Bantu living in the Cape Province are concerned. The result is that bootlegging is taking place on a disturbing scale. According to the police there are between 500 and 600 shebeens and there are literally thousands of Coloureds who earn their living directly from the illicit liquor trade. In the Transvaal on the other hand non-Whites cannot buy liquor legally on a large scale, and the result is that in this province Whites are the smugglers for the most part. An example of the tremendous extent of bootlegging on the Witwatersrand was given by a case which was heard in 1954. In that instance a drink syndicate supplied 1,000,000 bottles of brandy to the shebeens over a period of 15 months. This represented 85 per cent of the total turnover of the business concerned. In another instance a liquor store which had had a liquor turnover of R1,200 over a period of six months, changed owners and within three months this business sold R60,000 worth of liquor, that is to say 50 times as much, not one bottle of which reached the liquor trade—it all went to the bootleggers. There are many examples of this nature. It is sufficient to quote the following extract from the report of the Malan Commission—

People who evade the Liquor Act have free access to the Bantu people so that they can continue with their profiteering to their hearts’ content often at the expense of human lives morally and physically.

In brief the position as regards the distribution of liquor in South Africa is not something of which the State, the church and the people can be proud.

The Malan Commission has found that the living conditions and the economic conditions of the non-Whites have changed so greatly since the introduction of the 1928 Liquor Act, that the application of that Act by the State has simply become a complete impossibility. In brief there are two extremes. The Whites have free access to all types of alcohol. At the other extreme we have the Bantu. They are prohibited from buying or possessing intoxicating liquor, unless they have a special personal permit which it is difficult to obtain. In 1959 only 45,000 such permits were issued throughout South Africa. Between these two extremes there are the Coloureds and the Asiatics. In the Transvaal the Coloureds and Asiatics may not buy liquor legally except by permit. In the Free State there is total prohibition in respect of the Bantu, Coloureds and Asiatics, except by permit. In the Cape Province, where 90 per cent of the Coloureds live, they can buy practically any type of liquor. This is also the position in Natal. This difference between the various provinces has become a source of great dissatisfaction amongst the Coloureds. In the first place the result has been a smuggling trade in liquor on such a vast scale that the police of South Africa and local authorities are practically powerless to prevent it. The Malan Commission describes the smuggling trade as being “on a scale which exceeds the wildest imagination”. It is alleged that the illicit liquor trade in South Africa possibly represents 60 per cent of the sale of intoxicating liquor in South Africa. This is an illicit trade in which large sums of money are involved monthly; it involves exhorbitant profits which hold out great possibilities to the criminal; it is a trade which takes up all the attention of thousands of police, which takes up a tremendous amount of the time of our courts, which fills the goals with the victims of the bootlegger and of the flourishing shebeen queens—those terrifying breeding places of trouble and violence over the week-ends. The victims total approximately 300,000 per annum, of whom a disquietingly high percentage are young people.

The second result of this liquor distribution system is the grievance which the Bantu has against the White man to the effect that although he can obtain liquor of practically any type in any quantity by illegal means he has to pay twice and even more what the White man pays for his liquor. The Malan Commission quotes the evidence of a Bantu leader in the Transkei who said—

Sir, the only effect your liquor laws have, is that I have to pay for brandy twice the price you have to pay for it, and I am a poor man. I can get just as much of it as you can, although illegally you may say, but from your own people.

Recent liquor prices in the Cape Province indicate the following: The price of brandy in the bottle store is R1.35 (13s. 6d.). In the shebeen it is R3. Unfortified wine costs 19c at the bottle store while it costs between 55c and 60c in a shebeen. Fortified wine costs 34c in the bottle store and between 75c and 80c in the shebeen. I do not want to multiply these examples. The Commission says that the position as regards the distribution of liquor in South Africa has become intolerable and that no honest community can continue to tolerate it.

Will the proposed distribution encourage greater drunkenness? That is of course a question which will be asked. Will there be more drunkenness than there is at the moment? The police of South Africa and also many people who can speak with authority on this matter expect that precisely the reverse will be the result. The Malan Commission found that what happened in Southern Rhodesia after wine and beer were made available to Bantu in 1957 was that “it has resulted in a phenomenal reduction in convictions for possession and sale of illicit and harmful liquors. It has also really wiped out the shebeen trade … The brewing of skokiaan disappeared almost overnight, and the shebeen queens went out of business”. The application of the provisions of the Liquor Act has not only become an impossible task for the police, but it is ruining tens of thousands of human lives every year and is costing the State millions or rand annually.

In 1958 there were (these are the latest available figures) 299 087 convictions under the Liquor Act and of these 223,301 were Natives. It is clear that this state of affairs which is accompanied by the ruination of so many human lives cannot be tolerated any longer. In the Bill before the House provision is consequently made for the relaxation to a very large extent of the restrictions which apply to non-Whites. We can discuss the details of the Bill at the Committee Stage, but at this stage I should like briefly to explain certain of the principles of the Bill.

In the proposed new Section 100ter (contained in Clause 9), the holders of off-consumption licences such as wholesalers, bottle store licensees, wine farmers and others, are authorized to sell any type of liquor to any Native of the age of 18 years or more for consumption off licensed premises. No permit will be required for this. This will in itself already deal the illicit liquor trade a tremendous blow. In the case of consumption on licensed premises a Bantu will only be able to obtain liquor on premises which have been specially authorized to supply such liquor under the proposed new Section 100bis. Off sales to Bantu can also be authorized under this section. These authorized premises will not be subject to control by liquor licensing boards, but the Minister can lay conditions and restrictions in respect of such premises. An authorizing fee will be payable in respect of a new authority and a renewal thereof and all profits derived from the sale of liquor on authorized premises shall be dealt with in a manner specified by the Minister in consultation with the Departments concerned and in consultation with the proposed new National Liquor Board.

The question may be asked as to why these proposals go so much further than the recommendations of the Malan Commission to the effect that only white beer and light wines should be made available to Natives on licensed premises and that an extended permit system should be introduced for consumption off licensed premises. Mr. Speaker, there is a strong and growing feeling that South Africa will never be able to destroy the pernicious illicit liquor trade by those methods, and that we shall still less be able to get rid of the so-called shebeen queens with their widespread and vastly profitable businesses.

As far as Coloureds and Asiatics are concerned, the Bill provides for the repeal of Sections 81 and 95 of the Liquor Act. The effect will be that Coloureds and Asiatics will be able to buy and possess liquor on the same basis as Whites throughout South Africa.

The so-called “tot system” which has been the subject of much discussion and criticism in the past is replaced by a new provision as contained in Clause 8.

As the clause is now worded, it can be regarded as a further extension of the tot system, and I shall therefore move an amendment during the Committee Stage which will mean in practice that any employer will be free in his discretion to provide any type of liquor gratis to his non-White workers.

With a view to this new system it is desirable that certain measures should be introduced.

The first of these is contained in the proposed new Section 100quat as contained in Clause 9 which makes the consumption and possession of liquor by non-Whites on private premises without the consent of the owner or lawful occupier of such premises first having been obtained, an offence. The maximum penalty on a first conviction of this type is fixed at R400 or 12 months’ imprisonment.

The time will come when adequate liquor distribution points will be available in the non-White residential areas to supply the requirements of the inhabitants of those areas. The State-President-in-Council is therefore being authorized in the proposed new Section l00quin to declare when this time comes that no liquor shall be sold to any particular class of persons in a defined area by the holders of off-consumption licences.

Certain penalties are being increased. The most important of these are in the first place those relating to drunkenness and the consumption of liquor in public in an urban area. The maximum penalty on a first conviction is being increased from R50 to R400 or 12 months’ imprisonment. In the case of the illicit brews which take so many lives, the penalties are being brought into line with those which apply to dagga, that is to say a maximum of Rl,000 or five years’ imprisonment or both on a first conviction and a minimum of six months and a maximum of five years, together with a maximum fine of R1,000 on a second and later conviction. The reasons for these increased penalties are self-evident. In the case of illicit brews, it is desirable, however, to point out that, as White liquor will now be readily available in non-Whites, there is no reason whatsoever why they should resort to the consumption of such harmful brews.

Another matter dealt with in the Bill is the granting of liquor licences in or near areas set aside for occupation by non-Whites, the transferring of licences to such areas and the transferring of already existing licences. As hon. members know, no licence for the sale of liquor may be granted at present without the consent of the State President-in-Council in respect of premises situated in or within half a mile of the border of a Bantu location or within three miles of the border of an area set aside for occupation by Bantu.

Clause 3 provides in the first place for the exemption of temporary liquor licences or late hours occasional licences from this prohibition. It is quite unpractical to lay down that the consent of the State President must be obtained for these two types of licence which are purely of a temporary nature. In the second place the prohibition on the granting of liquor licences (that is to say new licences), is being extended to include premises situated in or within half a mile of the boundary of any area set apart for the occupation of Coloured or Asiatic persons. In the third place the removal of an existing licence to a building situated in an area to which this prohibition applies, is prohibited unless the State Presidentin-Council has authorized such a removal.

Furthermore, no existing licence in respect of a building situated in the area to which this prohibition applies, may be transferred to someone else without the consent of the State President-in-Council. The State President-in-Council may attach to any authority granted under this provision such conditions and restrictions as he deems fit and he may veto the issue, removal or transfer of such a licence.

Every licence granted and every removal or transfer of a licence authorized contrary to the preceding provisions after 10 May 1960 will be null and void unless the authority of the State President is obtained prior to 1 November 1961. An applicant who desires the authority of the State President for use at an annual meeting must submit his application to the Secretary for Justice prior to 1 September of the year concerned. (This provision already exists.)

The provisions of this clause shall be deemed to have come into operation on 10 May 1960.

The proposed principles embodied in this Bill and which I have set out briefly are of a far-reaching nature. A newspaper has described them as “a bold experiment”. This is also an experiment which must be controlled with a firm hand. In order to keep a proper watch on the developments in this field and to advise the Government on the general distribution of liquor and the application of the provisions of the Liquor Act, Clause 13 provides for the establishment by the State President-in-Council of a Board which will be known as the National Liquor Board. This Board will consist of three public servants mentioned in the clause and three persons to be be appointed by the State President for a period of two years. The one will represent the producers, the second the dealers and the third the consumers. There is no doubt that the establishment of this Board will serve a very useful purpose and should be generally welcomed.

The proposed method of liquor distribution amongst non-Whites will in all probability experience certain growing pains. In the initial stages there may be problems, but I am convinced that with the co-operation of all, such problems can easily be solved. The date of commencement of the provisions of this Bill will be determined by the State President-in-Council. It may possibly be within a month or two and this will give the trade and other organizations the opportunity to get their affairs in order.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

The United Party has decided that this Bill so far as we are concerned is to be left to the free vote of hon. members. I am one of those who is strongly opposed to this Bill. As one who grew up among the Coloured people of the Kat River and the Natives of the Eastern Province, I wish to raise my voice in solemn protest against this Bill. I claim that I am able to speak with some authority. I spent 15 years of my official career as a public prosecutor at East London, Cape Town and Johannesburg, and in that capacity I had as much contact with the seamy side of our South African life as anybody in this House, particularly in connection with the administration of the liquor laws. As a magistrate, Sir, I presided as chairman of various liquor licensing courts, and as Secretary for Native Affairs for 11 years I had a great deal to do with the administration of the liquor proclamations that prevail in the Native reserves, and other aspects of Native life. Sir, the greatest curse with which we have had to cope in the handling of non-European affairs has been the curse of intoxicating liquor. A great deal has been said about the closing down of shebeens. Sir, the shebeens will continue whatever facilities are made available at the bottle stores, and the other distribution centres which this Bill contemplates. That has been the experience of other countries throughout the world. A Native who buys a bottle of liquor from a bottle store may not consume the liquor on the premises. That is laid down in Clause 9. He may not under Clause 19 consume the liquor in a public place. I want to ask where he is going to consume the liquor. His only place is the shebeen or undesirable private premises where the occupier may be prepared to admit him, possibly for an admission fee. It will not result in the closing down of these shebeens. They will continue, perhaps not on the same lines, but they will be there nevertheless.

This Bill is fraught with more evil than any other measure that has ever been introduced into Parliament. It is a measure that should touch the conscience of every right-thinking man and woman in this country. It is a measure that will mark the physical, moral and spiritual downfall of the Native people, and I say that it is not only a crime against the Native people but a crime against the conscience of this newly constituted Republic of South Africa. It creates a grave menace to the whole nation. Sir, we have already rotted the bodies and souls of one half of the Coloured people of this country with our cheap wine. Not content with that, we now seek to bring about the same ruin to the Native peoples and to sacrifice them upon the altar of the wine farmer. Sir, in the days of the Transvaal Republic a similar proposal was once described as a “secret weapon” to solve the Native problem. Fortunately, President Kruger was a Christian gentleman and instead of adopting any such suggestion, he forbade the supply of European liquor to the Natives, an example that has formed the basis of our restrictive legislation ever since. I am sure this is not what the hon. the Minister or his colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, has in mind by the introduction of this Bill. But let me point out to them that in other parts of the world the free supply of liquor to the aborigines has inevitably resulted in their extinction. I would like to know what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who is supposed to be the father and guardian of the primitive races in this country and whose welfare has been entrusted to him, is doing about it. He should know better than anybody else the effect and danger of strong drink upon people the majority of whom are just emerging from barbarism.

He should know the enormous increase in crimes of violence and riotous disturbances that will result, particularly in the densely populated urban Native townships. I ask, Mr. Speaker, who will benefit from this evil? This Bill represents a huge new market for cheap wine and brandy, and the Natives are to become the victims and an immense source of revenue for vested interests. The whole intention, as I see it, is to put more money into the pockets of the wine farmers and the pockets of the liquor traders, and to enable them to overcome the heavily overstocked markets that will result from the loss of our Commonwealth preferences. But very little consideration has been given to the effect that this step will have on the Natives, or on the well-being of the general public.

The Malan Commission mentioned certain factors in support of their recommendations that European wines and beer should be made available to the Natives, factors to which I wish to refer. They said that the Act was ineffective to stop the illicit traffic. That is the same point that the hon. the Minister has made. And they said the net result of the prohibition of liquor to the Native is that he who is poor has to pay twice or as many times as much for the liquor as the White man. That is said on every side. We appreciate that under present conditions the Natives do obtain cheap and often dangerous concoctions illicitly and at exorbitant prices and that loopholes in the law have given to unprincipled persons the opportunity of carrying on a profitable trade in selling illicit and adulterated liquor. We also appreciate the difficulties that the police have in their efforts to cope with this evil, and that by permitting the lawful supply of liquor —or so it is contended—the police raids will be greatly reduced and so help to create a better feeling between the Natives and the police. But the police raids are not confined to liquor. The raids will continue whatever we do under this Bill. The searching of Native homes and the dawn arrests of thousands of Natives by the police during the past 18 months have had very little indeed to do with liquor. These methods have been resorted to in order to enforce the Pass Laws and to trace persons who are suspected of subversive activities. The possession of liquor in these instances has been merely incidental. I say that the argument advanced on behalf of the police does not, therefore, bear serious examination.

References to the failure of prohibition in the United States of America are equally fallacious. In the United States you have a highly civilized nation. But here we are dealing in this Bill, with a people the majority of whom are only just emerging from barbarism. The great masses of the Natives are not sufficiently stable or experienced to withstand the temptation of the indiscriminate distribution of strong drink among them, and for some considerable time to come these people should be subject to restrictions, in the interests not only of themselves. but of all sections of the community. The argument that the extension of facilities will overcome the illicit traffic is self-defeating, and those who support it are deceiving themselves. ’ These facilities will only intensify the taste for alcohol, and will reach more Native men, women and children and thus increase the number of potential human wrecks, both physical and moral. The grievance that is felt by the more advanced Natives, such as the hon. the Minister has referred to, should be met by the granting of permanent exemption from these and other restrictive laws to men and women of good character who have reached a sufficient stage of civilization to be entrusted with such privileges. The high prices charged by bootleggers should, in fact, act as a deterrent. If cheaper liquor is made available at bottle stores, the Natives will buy in greater quantities and so aggravate the position that already exists.

Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Malan Commission that the economic conditions of the Natives have improved to such an extent that they can, amongst other things, also afford European liquor is another fallacy. It can be said to be true only in respect of a very small proportion of the Native population.

Economic surveys that have been carried out in the big industrial centres have proved conclusively that the average urban—and I would add also the rural Native—is living below the breadline and cannot afford to buy a balanced diet for himself and his family or to provide the necessary transport and clothing, let alone intoxicating liquor. Poverty and malnutrition are, in fact, the glaring matters that need attention, not greater facilities for liquor.

Another serious aspect to which I wish to draw the attention of this House is the part that the use of alcohol plays in serious crime. This is a matter that has called forth repeated warnings from the judicial bench. I wish to refer to two typical statements made by Judges of the Supreme Court. The first is taken from the report of the Cape Coloured Liquor Commission of Inquiry of 1945, and I wish to read from paragraph 58. The Judge-President of the Supreme Court pointed out how excessive use of liquor leads to crime. The report says—

On 19 April 1944, the Judge-President of the Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, when discharging the jury, said inter alia—“You have heard some very unpleasant cases, especially the cases of violence. There have been eight cases in which people have met their deaths as a result of violence, and in only two of those cases was drink not the original cause. With regard to the other six cases I think it can fairly be said that had it not been for the fact that the assailant in each case was under the influence of liquor, there would not have been a fatality.
I think we must all feel that it is a tremendous danger to which we are subjected. Cape Town and its suburbs have become dangerous places in which to walk about at night. You will remember that in one of these cases the five Natives while walking about looking for drink, met five Coloured persons each at a different spot and each of these they attacked and tried to stab. Only one got away unhurt, the others were actually stabbed and one so seriously that he died …
My remarks apply, however, to a large extent also to other Natives who have come into the Western Province. I do not know whether any of you sat in the case where one of them was charged with culpable homicide. There the events resulting in the death of a Native occurred at 12 o’clock at night when several of them entered a house in order to obtain drink and many of them became intoxicated. They were all Natives and consequently not permitted to obtain liquor.

And so it goes on. There is another case to which I wish to refer, of a more recent date, namely, 11 February 1961. This case was tried in the Supreme Court at Cape Town. The report says—

The frightening increase in the number of stabbings after week-end drinking bouts called for stern action by the courts to protect the Coloured community, Mr. Justice Herbstein said in the Supreme Court, Cape Town, yesterday.

That was a case of violence in which drunkenness was pleaded as an extenuating circumstance. It also illustrates the extreme danger from the point of view of our criminal administration of opening these bottle stores to Natives. This sort of thing is happening everywhere and every day.

Our courts pass the death sentence in cases of rape. Here we are providing a stimulus for this class of crime and adding a further danger to the safety of our women. By throwing open the bottle stores to immature Natives we are committing a crime against our women.

A great deal has been said and written about the system in force in Southern Rhodesia where European wine and beer is sold to Natives at the beer halls without restriction, and a great deal has been said about the use of the profits for Native residents. I visited Southern Rhodesia towards the end of last year and I was shown over one of the Government villages outside Salisbury. I want to say at once that I was not at all impressed with this side of the administration. At the beer hall which I visited large quantities of beer and wine were being sold to the Natives both for on-consumption and by the bottle. It seemed almost unbelievable to me, but I was told that the takings at times amounted to £300 a day, which is an illustration of the enormous quantities of cheap wine that was being consumed by the Natives. One can just imagine what effect it must have had on their constitutions and on their family life. The day following my visit the riots broke out, the beer halls were broken up, and the liquor helped to inflame the riotous crowds. It does not require much imagination to appreciate what will happen if you convert wine into brandy.

Mr. Speaker, up to the present I have confined my remarks to the supply of liquor to the Natives. I wish to add a few comments on the proposed removal of the restrictions that have hitherto applied to the Coloured people. The facilities enjoyed by them have had most disastrous effects and should serve as a warning to those who would extend these facilities to the Natives. This matter has been investigated by various commissions of inquiry, every one of which has presented a lurid picture of poverty, drink and misery; but the liquor interests have been so strong that nothing has ever been done to implement the recommendations that have been made from time to time. Among the better classes the Coloured people have been temperate and sober, and I wish to pay a tribute to the services that these people have rendered to the community. But amongst the unskilled classes alcoholism is one of the most distressing factors in the physical and moral deterioration of a large portion of the population. The country, especially in the Western Cape, has suffered serious economic losses in the lowering of the standards of an important part of its labour supply. That is why so many of them have been replaced by the Natives, both by local authorities and industrial concerns and on the farms. Wages spent on drink often leave the man’s family without sufficient food to keep body and soul together, and the disastrous effects on family life are one of the major problems in Coloured affairs.

Here I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to a report by a commission appointed by the Dutch Reformed Church at Oudtshoorn in September 1948. I have the report here if any hon. member would like to see it. It is entitled “Rapport en Bevindinge van die aktuele Vraagstukke Kommissie, opgestel deur eerwaarde P. G. de Villiers en J. J. Kruger”. This was the result of a very careful investigation carried out by two ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church at Knysna in September 1948, into the causes of the serious increase in drunkenness and the abuse of liquor among the Coloured people in the South Western districts of the Cape. That document should be sufficient to bring home to every hon. member of this House what is happening to the Coloured people of this province. This committee found that the bulk of their miserable earnings went to the dealers in intoxicating liquor, with the result that their families went short of bread or were driven to implement their income by unlawful means. They pointed out that these abuses are responsible for the steady physical deterioration of the Coloured man, with the result that he is being ousted from the labour market by the Native, and this threatens his very extinction. They drew a pitiful picture of poverty and misery that is as true to-day as it was then. What we are now being asked to do in this Bill is to bring the same misery upon the Natives.

I now want to refer to Clause 8 of the Bill which deals with the tot system. The effect of this provision is to repeal Section 96 of the Liquor Act, and to extend the tot system to the whole country. It is a system that has been in operation since 1672 when Hottentot labour employed in building the Castle received a ration of tobacco and a tot of wine per day. In the course of time this practice was extended to the countryside and the wine ration increased, and there is no doubt that it has been one of the major factors in encouraging a taste for alcohol amongst young non-Europeans at an early age. It has also been a fruitful cause of drunkenness amongst them, to the detriment of the whole community. We often hear the argument that the tot strengthens the labourer and stimulates his capacity for work. That argument is physiologically unsound. A medical witness who gave important evidence before the Meaker Commission, Dr. Nortier of Clanwilliam, put it very aptly.

He said “The tot enables the labourer to make a spurt, but then he flops out”. In other words, it is merely a temporary stimulant and one of the factors that is helping to create the drink habit that leads to immoderate consumption of liquor obtained at the licensed premises in the towns during the week-ends.

The Cape Coloured Commission, in their monumental report, came to the conclusion after an exhaustive inquiry that the abolition of the tot system alone would not remove access to alcohol. It considered that in addition further steps should be taken to curtail the use of liquor by members of the community who were not able to exercise control. They recommended that the tot system should be abolished, that the sale to Coloured persons in bulk or for consumption off the premises be prohibited save under permit in accordance with Section 101 of the Liquor Act, and that retail premises should be closed to Coloured persons from a time prior to the hours at which the weekly wages are paid. That was a strong commission on which the Coloured persons themselves were represented by so able a Coloured leader as the late Dr. Abdurahman.

Sir, when I was magistrate of Aberdeen and Chairman of the Aberdeen Licensing Court, the drunkenness amongst the Coloured people was so degrading that I took steps to get the Licensing Board to pass a restriction which prohibited the supply of liquor to Coloured persons except under a permit signed by a magistrate or by a sergeant of the police. The case went on appeal to the Supreme Court at Cape Town, and the Supreme Court at Cape Town, consisting of two Judges, confirmed my action. But then the case went to the Appellate Division and the Appellate Division ruled that we were all wrong. As a result the drinking amongst the Coloured people went on ad infinitum.

I now want to commend to this House a statement published by the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerke in Suid Afrika that appeared in the Kerkbode in December 1958. I quote from the translation which appeared in the Star—unfortunately I could not get a copy of the Kerkbode in question. I am very glad to see that the Dutch Reformed Church, which is a strong mission Church, should have come out in its true colours in this matter. The report reads as follows—

Concern at the interim recommendation by the Parliamenttary Committee of Inquiry into the distribution and price of liquor that light wines and beer be supplied to Natives is expressed by an official statement by the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerke in Suid Afrika. The statement is published in the latest issue of the Kerkbode. It says that the Church is aware that the Government have not expressed themselves on the principle involved in the recommendation. It is aware of the problems created by illicit distribution of liquor tonatives, and that the recommendation is restricted to light wines and beer.
It is also aware that the withholding of strong drink which is available to Whites from Natives involves a certain amount of discrimination which creates a feeling of injustice among some Natives, and that there is a measure of freedom in the supply of-drink to Natives in neighbouring territories.
Nevertheless, the statement says, the Church is gravely concerned about the recommendation for six main reasons.
Firstly, a large proportion of the Native population of South Africa still lives “under primitive conditions”. The violence, robbery, murder and other forms of anti-social conduct prevalent in the vicinity of the big cities should make the Government hesitate to introduce the free use of liquor which could make the position “more explosive
Secondly, there is no guarantee that the Native will be satisfied with light wine and beer. All the indications are that the Native is more interested in strong drink, which is what forms the subject of illicit dealing.
Thirdly, there is no guarantee that the work of the police will be eased by the supply of liquor to Natives.
Fourthly, leaders in the missionary field are convinced that the supply of liquor to Natives will hamper their work at a time when various Government spokesmen have said that the solution of the country’s racial problems is closely linked with evangelization.
Fifthly, in spite of the problems created by the present situation, there are large numbers of Natives who do not take part in illicit distribution of liquor—convictions among Natives number about five per 1,000 per year as compared with 28 per 1,000 among the Coloured people.
Finally, the Church in all its assemblies has expressed itself against the extension of liquor facilities to Natives.

A day or two ago they passed a very strong resolution on the same lines, condemning this Bill. That has been followed by condemnation from the Methodist Church, which is also one of the greatest churches in the mission field in South Africa.

In conclusion, Sir, I hope the Native people of this country will not be led astray, by the idea that these privileges are going to improve their status. It can only bring destruction to them and to their children. One of the greatest leaders of the Natives foresaw what was going to happen. I refer to the great Moshesh, the founder of the Basuto nation. In 1854 he promulgated a law. in writing, forbidding the introduction and sale of spirituous liquors into Basutoland. That law read as follows—and I am going to read it because it is very important that the Natives should know what view was taken of this subject by this great leader—

Whereas the spirituous liquors of the Whites were unknown to former generations of our tribe … and our father Mokachane, now very advanced in age, has never used any other drink than water and milk; and whereas we deem that a good chief and judge cannot claim to be competent to execute his duties if he makes use of anything of an intoxicating nature; and whereas spirituous liquors create quarrelling and strife, and pave the way to the destruction of society (for surely the spirituous liquors of the Whites are nothing else than fire):
It is therefore made known to all that the introduction and sale of spirituous liquor within Basutoland is henceforth prohibited, and provided any person whether White or Coloured contravenes this order, the spirits shall be taken from him and poured out on the ground, without excuse or indemnification. And this order shall be printed in the Dutch and Basuto languages and posted up at the places of public meetings, and in the villages of the Basutos.
Given with the advice and concurrence of the great men of our tribe, by us, the Chief of the Basutos, at Thaba Bosigo, 8 November 1854. Signed Moshesh, Chief.

I want to say in conclusion that this Bill will not only lower the moral standards of our people; it will be a blot upon the name of the newly constituted Republic of South Africa.

*Mr. A. I. MALAN:

I am sorry that it falls to me to reply to the speech by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit). I do not want to offend him, but I do want to make one or two remarks about what he has said. If I can summarize very briefly what he has said, I would say that he has told us quite clearly that he is opposed to this legislation, secondly, that this is something which is only being introduced for the sake of the wine farmers so that they can make more money; thirdly, he has made terrible predictions of what will happen if this Bill is adopted, and fourthly, he has devoted his speech to the terrible conditions prevailing to-day. He has even called in the Kerkbode and the churches to testify to how terrible the conditions are to-day. But the main point he did not mention. He did not say that the conditions which prevail to-day are due to the present existing legislation. If he wished to be logical, he could have said that this is the main reason why the legislation should be amended, namely the fact that the conditions which he has described and of which he has given examples, exist. In other words, Mr. Speaker, his speech to me revealed a lack of realism, of which one should not make oneself guilty when one is dealing with a problem which plays such an important role in the life of South Africa.

But I want to continue and to discuss the Bill before the House. It forms a small part of the recommendations of the commission dealing with the whole question of liquor consumption. This small part is being dealt with now because it is so urgently necessary that a change should be made in this regard. That is the first reason. The second is that this aspect is being dealt with now because it is so late in the Session and it is difficult to introduce a new long Bill at this stage. But it will come later, as the hon. the Minister has indicated.

Mr. Speaker, because this Bill only deals with this one question, that is to say the distribution of liquor amongst the non-Whites and particularly the Bantu, it is for that reason a very simple Bill; for that reason it is not difficult to see what the motive was in introducing this Bill at this stage. It actually represents an attack by the Government through the medium of a Bill on the illicit liquor trade with a view to destroying that trade. It is felt that this is the main object of the Bill. If the Bill does not succeed in this—the future will have to show whether it does—then the hon. member for East London (City) and other hon. members will have the right, if they oppose it to-day, to say that their warning was correct. But not until then.

Because I say that the main object of this Bill is to eliminate the illicit liquor trade, to reduce it initially and eventually to eliminate it, it is perhaps a good thing that we should devote some attention to the extent of the illicit liquor trade. In the first place I say that its scope is tremendous—firstly as regards the quantity of liquor involved. The hon. the Minister has already given the figure of 60 per cent of the total production as a possible figure. I might just say that we had many witnesses before us on this matter, and not one single witness said that he thought the quantity of liquor which went to the illicit liquor trade was less than 35 per cent. But various witnesses said they would not be surprised if it was more than 60 per cent. This is appalling, all hon. members will agree; it is appalling to think that 60 per cent of the total quantity of liquor produced in our country—yes, in the vicinity of 7,000,000 gallons per annum—and possibly more reaches the consumer through the illicit liquor trade. I say that because this Bill represents an attack on the illicit liquor trade, it will be a good thing for us to devote some attention to the illicit liquor trade in its true form. I have already mentioned to the House how much liquor is involved in this trade.

The human material involved is equally appalling. The illicit liquor trade is dependent on people. On the one hand one has those people who can obtain the liquor and who are prepared to handle it and on the other hand there are the people who are prepared to receive it and to distribute it further. These people who are prepared to deal in liquor can be drawn from a population of approximately 4,000,000. In other words, the number of people who are prepared to deal in illicit liquor is practically unlimited when one thinks of the large number of Coloureds—nearly all of them—and of many Whites. They are the people from whom the liquor can be obtained. With such a large number of people available it is very likely that for an indefinite period one will always be able to find enough men, women and children who are prepared to handle this liquor for the illicit liquor trade. Of course risks must be taken, and they have to break the law, but they are paid for it and a great deal of money can be made. I am only saying this to show the House how great the likelihood is that there will always be enough people amongst this group of 4,000,000 who will be prepared to handle this liquor, despite the risks, and for the sake of the money they can earn, because we must not forget that the source of supply is available and they can freely obtain this liquor.

As regards the other group of people, we are also sure that there will always be people who will accept this liquor because there are 9,000,000 people who constitute the market. They also know that they are receiving it illegally but they know that they will get satisfaction from it. Why? In many cases they do so because they like the liquor, that is to say, in order to drink it themselves. Some of them have already made such progress that they have found that when something is forbidden, it is much more attractive, and they buy it precisely because they are forbidden to do so. Others—and we encountered them while we were taking evidence—said: This prohibition is placed on us not by ourselves but by Whites, and it is precisely because the Whites who do not know how we are suffering as a result, have placed this prohibition on us, that we shall not obey this prohibition. But the great majority ot them take this liquor, just as the Whites and the Coloureds who provide it, because there is money to be made, because they can make a profit out of it. Mr. Speaker, you can understand that with these two large population groups, i.e. those who constitute the source of the liquor and those who constitute the market, the 4,000,000 who provide it and the 9,000,000 who receive it, that the future prospects in respect of this illicit liquor trade are simply appalling, to say the least. The potentialities are tremendous.

In the second place I say that the results of this illicit liquor trade are very encouraging to the bootleggers because if they can earn large sums of money on both sides, it is a great encouragement for them to say: We must not abandon this trade; after all we get away with it most of the time and we live well. I just want to remind the House of what happened last year in Cape Town when we had the disturbances in Langa and Nyanga and the Natives were isolated there and could not get to the city. We then noticed that the essential services in effect did not suffer as a result. We had two senior police officers before us and we asked them how they could explain the fact that except for the newspaper boys on the streets, the milk and the bread was delivered and all the essential services continued unchanged. They said: This is perhaps a very good demonstration of what is happening and of what most people do not know; in the Cape Peninsula alone there are approximately 30,000 Coloureds who do not work at all but who simply earn their living from bootlegging. When their market was cut off and they could not sell liquor to the Natives in Langa and Nyanga, they naturally had to work to live and they then simply took over the positions which the Bantu had abandoned and things went on as though nothing had happened. The police officers assured us that the scope of this liquor trade in the Cape was so tremendous that it was too appalling to believe.

A further aspect which can be mentioned in respect of this illicit liquor trade is that it is steadily growing from year to year. When we examine the available court statistics, we know how many arrests there are, and we know that the quantity of liquor, which it can be established is reaching the consumers through the illicit liquor trade, is continually increasing. Why? Because we are trying to apply a prohibition to three-quarters of the population in respect of something which one-quarter of the population can always enjoy. Despite what the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) has said about prohibition in America, when one compares it with the position here, one knows that in that instance the whole population was cut off from all sources of liquor. An attempt was made to persuade the whole nation to do without liquor. They made a national attempt to prohibit the whole nation from drinking, and it was a complete failure. Can the House see how much greater our problem is in South Africa because here one-quarter of the population are withholding those things to which they have free access from three-quarters of the population. In other words, we have not cut off the sources of supply and we are still faced with the three-quarters of our large population who are very eager to have liquor. It will therefore be understood that our problems are greater than the problem which faced the Americans when they tried to apply prohibition.

In the fourth place I say that this illicit liquor trade involves the Government in heavy expense. It costs thousands and thousands of pounds annually—hon. members can find the figures in the report. In other words, money is being wasted on a vast scale. But that is not all. Human material is being wasted on just as vast a scale. Thousands of our police are being used for this work without their really being able to see the results of that work. The result is that they have to give less attention to their other work, and that work is also not as well done as it would have been if they had not had to devote their time to the illicit liquor trade. In other words, by this expensive process we are making the people of the country ever more accustomed to breaking the law. Actually it represents the moral subversion of the nation. The hon. member for East London (City) has said that the nation will collapse morally if this Bill is passed, but exactly the reverse is true. If the legislation is not passed and present conditions should remain unchanged, the people of this country will be ruined morally. That is the opinion of the commission, and the commission based its attitude on the evidence it heard, namely that there did not seem any possibility of finding a solution for this tremendous problem along the existing lines. It is for this reason, with a view to the tremendous turnover, the results yielded by the illicit liquor trade and the fact that this trade must be combated, that the commission recommended the steps embodied in this legislation before us to-day. This Bill offers all population groups that which the White man has enjoyed for many centuries himself. I now ask myself the question: If this system is not something good when seen from the point of view of civilization, if it does not have sound attributes, which the White people have developed in respect of the consumption of liquor, then they will be dissatisfied and take steps to improve it, and they also do so from time to time. If they are satisfied that they can improve the system from time to time in this way, is it not also right and logical to say: When we see the position prevailing amongst the people who do not enjoy these privileges which we enjoy in respect of the consumption of liquor, the least we can do is to give them the same opportunity; apply to them what we have applied to ourselves, and then hope that things will at least go as well or as badly with them as they have gone with us. But no one in his right mind will believe that it will be a good thing to continue under the present circumstances, with the further destruction of human lives and with the extent of the problem becoming still greater.

The principle of the Bill is to destroy bootlegging. I believe that we shall succeed. We shall succeed. In any case, the position cannot be worse than it is to-day. It is easy to rise and say to-day that we will not succeed, but there is no justification for doing so. I think it is not reasonable of people, when they know that the present position cannot continue without heavy losses as regards moral and other values, to prophesy that the position will be worse in future than it is to-day. There is sufficient justification for trying this new system. At the outset we shall have to regard this as an experiment which is being undertaken to see whether it will succeed. One has reason to believe that it will succeed even if one does not have certainty, but I think that the people who are opposed to this change should at least not voice their criticisms and should rather say: We hope that this will be an improvement and we should like to improve the position, and for that reason, even if we do not support this Bill, we shall not oppose it.

I want to conclude by saying that this idea of establishing a Board to guide the Minister is a very good one, precisely because this is an experiment. For that reason we must be able to introduce improvements by an easier method than by coming back to Parliament. It is for this reason that I believe it is right that the Minister and the State President will have certain powers to introduce certain changes, so that changes can be more easily effected, if the Department is convinced that changes are necessary.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

I want to ask the hon. member whether it is not correct that the commission first recommended the provision of beer and wine for consumption on licensed premises and also at home and in the next report changed this provision and restricted it to the provision of wine and beer for consumption on licensed premises only, but the hon. member is now supporting the suggestion that brandy should also be provided. What is the reason for this?

*Dr. A. I. MALAN:

It is fortunate that the hon. member has asked me this question because I had made a note of that point but I overlooked it. The commission argued as follows. It said, and this matter was often considered: If we go as far as this Bill now proposes, we do not think that the Government will embody it in legislation. It seems to us to be such a great change. There was actually a difference of opinion on the commission itself. It seemed such a great change from what the non-Whites can get to-day to what they will be able to get now. For this reason one of the members said: Do not ask for more than you think we will get, because otherwise we may not get anything at all. We were convinced that what is now being done would be best. The commission was convinced that what this Bill provides for would eventually have to come. Some felt that this should be a recommendation; others felt that we should wait a while. After deliberating we decided to wait a while. But I can give the hon. member the assurance that all the members of the commission will be glad that these provisions are contained in this Bill and that this recommendation has not been literally interpreted. No, I think that we can go ahead with courage and that we have reason to believe that what is being done in this Bill will be a great success and that it will result in great improvements and great changes in our liquor consumption and in a reduction in the illicit liquor trade.

Dr. CRONJE:

I must at the outset say that I agree with the reasons given by the Minister and the previous speaker that the present restrictions relating to the supply of liquor to non-Whites cannot be maintained for the reasons they have set out so fully and which I do not want to traverse again. A tremendous illicit trade has sprung up in the country and it shows how impossible it is, despite the best efforts of the police, to apply the Liquor Act as it stands at the moment. That is why I felt that some of these restrictions must be removed, and that is why I signed the report.

But having said that, I am sorry to say that I cannot support the Bill in its present form, and my objections fall under three main heads. In the first place, despite what the previous speaker has said, this Bill goes far beyond the recommendations of the commission on which both he and I served. I will come back to that later. In the second place it creates new channels of distribution of liquor to Natives right outside the present licensing system and without any of the safeguards incorporated in the present system. I will elaborate that later. In the third place, it confers tremendous delegated and arbitrary powers to the Minister and the President. The net result of this is that in future, if this Act remains in its present form, the distribution of liquor as far as the non-Whites are concerned, who after all are 80 per cent of the population, it will be largely an administrative matter as far as the Department of Justice is concerned and I do not think that is healthy in a private enterprise country.

I come back to my first point. The commission recommended—and this is after the commission had taken evidence for three years and had heard a tremendous amount of argument for and against the relaxation of the restrictions from all interested parties, and it was no easy matter to come to a decision because people gave conflicting evidence on the same points at issue, so I do not want to claim that what is written in that report is sacrosanct. But having heard all that evidence, the commission came to the conclusion that on-sales should be restricted to beer-halls and relatively mild drink, unfortified wines and beer, under the control of the authorities who run these beer-halls and on whom there is a duty to see that there is no excessive drinking. In the second place, we recommended that in regard to off-consumption the best system was the system of exemptions. It is true that the standards applied in the existing system of exemptions are probably too high and that there was not sufficient provision for the issue of licences, and because of that only 50,000 licences have been issued throughout the country, but that system worked very well. All the Natives who had exemption certificates behaved themselves very well because they were afraid of losing their privileges. It was largely because experience showed that the exemptions worked well that we agreed to extend it and perhaps to lower the standards so that the certificates could be issued more easily. We did that on the recommendation of senior police officers, who laid down the qualification that any adult male who during the preceding year had not been convicted of any serious crime, has a permanent residential address, and has had fixed employment for the preceding six months would be entitled to purchase the following quantities of liquor per month, namely, eight bottles of malt, four bottles of natural wine or two bottles of fortified wine or one bottle of strong liquor. These were not maximum quantities. Where Natives could show they had higher incomes, the magistrate could give them higher quotas. We felt that by and large if we limited the quantities to this there was not quite the same danger that Natives would spend the bulk of their income in liquor and it would give them considerable relief. The whole purpose of the commission was to see to what extent the illicit liquor trade should be combated, and if we made these relations there would still be illicit trade, but to a large extent the need for it would fall away. The advantage would be that one would still have some control of the quantities of liquor bought by the ordinary Native. I notice in the assumptions of both previous speakers that it is tacitly assumed that the present restrictions have no effect at all, but I do not believe that. There is not the slightest doubt that the restrictions that have existed up to the present have undoubtedly kept a very large percentage of Natives sober. After all, the bulk of the Natives in this country are still law-abiding. They do not deliberately break the laws. In a way, South Africa is a human laboratory. We have two population groups, the Natives and the Coloureds, both of them with fairly low incomes and living standards. The Coloureds in the Cape have been free to buy liquor for generations. One just has to see the social differences in the drinking habits of the Coloureds as compared with that of the Natives in the Cape to realize that despite what is said about the old Liquor Act and all its restrictions, it really had a very good effect on the lives of the Natives, and I for one would not like to see it removed completely at one stroke of the pen. I feel that as there are social and economic advances there must be relaxations, but they must always be controlled and they must not be removed completely at a stroke of the pen. I cannot help but think that if these restrictions are removed completely it will cause misery to hundreds of thousands of families. It is true there is this vast illicit trade, and that is an evil, but the evil of selling liquor freely can be greater than that of the illicit trade, because even the very fact which has been stated by the Minister, that Natives have to pay far higher prices for liquor in the illicit market to some extent limits the consumption of liquor, because the economic law of supply and demand applies to liquor too, and the more the price goes up the less people will drink, and vice versa. So despite the evils surrounding the system, it has not altogether been a bad system. It has had good effects and one simply has to compare the Native population of the Cape with the Coloureds to see under what group the percentage of crime relating to alcohol is the highest. That at one stroke demolishes the argument that if you only free all liquor, crime will end. The hon. member for East London (City) quite rightly said that the vast number of Natives have just emerged from barbarism. We complain about the abuse of liquor amongst the White people, and the Native has not the same self-control as the average White man. So clearly, whether we like it or not, there must be some form of racial discrimination as far as liquor is concerned. It is true that the Minister has said that he has other powers to control the situation and that this is only an experiment, and if things get out of hand he has powers under other sections to control it, like Section 100quin and Section 100bis (1). In terms of 100quin the sale of liquor to certain classes in certain areas can be restricted, and under 100bis (1) the Minister can impose any conditions he likes. But the moment the Minister uses that power under 100quin to deny the sale of liquor in certain areas to certain classes of people, he will be back where he started. Assuming he denies the sale of liquor to Natives in the White areas of Cape Town, immediately there are hundreds of thousands of Natives living in the White area who will immediately reverse the illicit liquor trade from the Native townships to the White areas. I think the basic mistake that is made in this Bill is that the Minister, despite what he says, is trying, judging by the wording of Clauses 100quim and 100bis to regulate the consumption of alcohol according to race whereas the standard should be individual. It should be according to the individual and that can only be done by a system of individual exemption certificates.

I now come to my second main objection and that is that the Minister now takes the power to issue authority instead of a licence to certain types of people in terms of 1000bis The clause reads—

The Minister or any person acting under his direction may, subject to such conditions or restrictions whatsoever as he may deem fit to impose, grant written authority to any person or nominee of any urban local authority, any association of persons, any divisional council, any Bantu Territorial, Reginal or Tribal Authority … to sell liquor or such kinds of liquor as he may determine to any Native or class of Natives of the age of 18 years or more for consumption on or off such premises as may be described in such authority.

The section then contains various other subsections. The significant thing about this new channel of selling liquor is first of all that it can be given to individuals, to the representative of an association of individuals as well as to urban bodies as well as territorial authorities, but none of the safeguards of the licensing board are included in this section at all. After all, if one grants a liquor licence in a certain area the whole community is affected by the grant of that licence, and in terms of the Liquor Act and the licensing court procedure too anybody who has an interest can go and lodge an objection, or if there are competing claims for the licence they can lodge their applications simultaneously. Here the Minister, in the case of an urban area, need only consult with the urban authority and with the Minister of Bantu Administration, but of course he need not take their advice at all, as he can in effect grant authority for the sale of liquor in areas without ever having consulted any of the people who are directly affected by it. Surely that is totally wrong too. Apart from the public interest aspect, does it really mean that we are going to have two economic systems now too, one for the sale of liquor to Whites and Coloureds and Asiatics and another one for the sale of liquor to Natives? Because here the Minister takes power to declare what must be done with the profits of any licensee who has an authority to sell liquor to Natives, so it really means that it is a form of socialization of the sale of liquor as far as Natives are concerned. Does the Minister want to import that concept into our economy to have one system of selling liquor through private enterprise as far as Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics are concerned and a Government-controlled system as far as Natives are concerned? Where is that going to end? Is this going to be extended afterwards to other commodities too?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Is that one of the recommendations of the commission, as far as the profits are concerned?

Dr. CRONJE:

As far as beer halls are concerned. For the rest the sale would have been through private licensees. In the case of beer halls the principle is there already as far as light wines and beer are concerned. Furthermore the Minister takes the power to impose such conditions and restrictions as he may deem fit on the licensee. What does that mean? Is Parliament really prepared to delegate such fantastically wide powers to a Department? I think it is really carrying the delegation of arbitrary powers too far. That is my own feeling. I have already mentioned some of the arbitrary powers granted to the Minister in terms of l00bis, but this Bill goes much further than that. In terms of Section 100quin the President is granted certain powers. Let me read the section—

The State President may by proclamation in the Gazette, declare that within any area defined in such proclamation no liquor shall be sold or supplied to any particular class of person by the holder of an off consumption licence or a licensee who has been granted the special right of off-sale in terms of Section 64.

These are the operative words—

… within any area defined in such proclamation, no liquor shall be sold or supplied to any particular class of person by the holder of an off-sale consumption licence or a licensee.

The intention clearly is that in future the sale of liquor for the various racial groups can be confined to the area in which they live. In other words, the Coloureds can only buy in the Coloured areas; the Asiatics only in Asiatic areas, the Whites only in White reas and Natives, of course, only in Native areas where authorities have been issued. Is this a precedent for our economy as such that groups must be limited to buying at shops in their own areas? It is for this reason too that the Minister is now taking additional power which requires presidential authority if any new licence is to be granted in a White area if it is within half a mile of an Asiatic or a Coloured group area. There again one must warn Parliament that here we are really taking a step which seems to indicate that in future trade is going to be regulated according to race and colour. I personally am against that too.

Finally, it has been said that the number of crimes under the Liquor Act will be reduced considerably by this measure. It is no doubt true that as far as illicit trade in liquor is concerned and as far as possession is concerned crime will be limited. I think it is equally certain that the crime of drunkenness will increase very considerably which one would have to off-set against that. But apart from that it is also quite clear that scope exists for a whole lot of new crimes. Whereas Natives can now buy liquor freely, they must have permission to consume liquor on any private premises—

Any Native, Asiatic or Coloured person who consumes any liquor on any private premises or is in possession of any liquor on any private premises without the consent of the owner or lawful occupier of such premises first having been obtained, shall be guilty of an offence. (Section 100quat.)

Are we not creating a tremendous number of crimes and putting a tremendous burden on the police in that respect? Every time Natives have a party in the backyard they will be committing a crime. They can go and buy the liquor freely but if they go and drink it, they commit a crime, and the police will have to come and raid the premises if the owner complains. They are also restricted in that they cannot drink in public areas, so while the sale of liquor is freed considerably, the opportunity to drink it is restricted very considerably. Are we not creating avenues for new crime here?

I feel that it would have been far better if the Government had not gone beyond the recommendations of the Malan Commission, which after all represented a very considerable step forward, but which would still have given control of the individual and that is what one wants to do in the case of the sale of alcohol. One does not want to control races, one wants to control individuals, and the whole purpose of this exemption certificate, as recommended by the Malan Commission, is that if a person misbehaves and commits a crime under the Liquor Act, he loses his permit after a while. That surely would have been quite an incentive for people who have this permit to behave themselves. It is an incentive for Natives to behave in a responsible way and not to commit crimes. Sir, everybody realizes that it was necessary to break the tremendous illicit trade which existed in South Africa. I do not think that one will ever break it completely but one can reduce it very considerably. I feel that an extended system of exemption certificates for all non-Whites would have been far preferable to the freeing of sales altogether but then taking residuary powers in case they misbehave so as to be able to revert to the situation which existed before.

*Mr. W. C. MALAN:

I am very thankful that the Opposition are regarding this matter as a non-political matter, but I am becoming a little concerned that this may be a smokescreen because the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) who has just sat down, served on the Malan Commission, as he indicated himself, and despite the fact that this Bill in general gives effect to the recommendations of the commission, he is now opposing it. I am just wondering whether they are once again seeking to make political capital. This question of our liquor legislation is of such importance to the whole social structure of South Africa …

*Dr. CRONJE:

In which respect are the recommendations of the Malan Commission being implemented in this Bill?

*Mr. W. C. MALAN:

I do not need to answer that question of the hon. member because then I must assume that he is not familiar with the recommendations of his own commission. In general this Bill only gives effect to the recommendations of the Commission and that is why I find it very strange that the hon. member is opposing this Bill.

Where I speak to-day, I am speaking as a representative of a producing area, that is to say the Boland, where wines and spirits are produced. I therefore want to lodge the strongest objection to the allegation of the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) when he said that this legislation was nothing more than another attempt to fill the pockets of the wine farmers. I want to object to this statement most strongly because after all the pressure for this legislation never originated from the wine farmers of this country. It came in the first instance from the police. Furthermore, it was urgently requested by the South African Agricultural Union and when this matter was discussed at the conference of the South African Agricultural Union it was particularly the Transvaal Agricultural Union which most certainly does not represent wine farmers, which strongly advocated such action. Furthermore, it is also untrue to say, as the hon. member for East London (City) has done, that this is merely an attempt by the Government to compensate the wine farmers for the markets which they will now lose because we are out of the Commonwealth.

*An HON. MEMBER:

It is a scandal.

*Mr. W. C. MALAN:

The fact of the matter is that according to the latest annual report of the K.W.V. which I have here, 88 per cent of the production of our wine farmers is consumed in South Africa. Only 12 per cent is exported, and of the 12 per cent exported, a large percentage is distributed in countries outside the Commonwealth. It is therefore a very small percentage of the wine production of the Boland which is marketed in Great Britain. For that reason there is no justification for the allegation that the Government is only compensating the wine farmers because we have lost the Commonwealth market.

This Bill removes two anomalies especially from our liquor legislation. In the first place it removes the differences between the various provinces, as the hon. the Minister has indicated—the differences in the treatment accorded the various racial groups in the different provinces—but it also removes the anomaly that certain sections of the population can freely obtain liquor, while other sections may not do so. It is precisely for this reason that it is very difficult for the police to apply the Liquor Act. The argument has been used outside that if one removes the restrictions on the sale of liquor to the Bantu because the police no longer see their way clear to implementing the legislation, why then not remove the restrictions on the sale of dagga and diamonds? There is a very big difference, because in the case of both dagga and diamonds these restrictions apply to the whole population, but in the case of liquor these restrictions only apply to part of the population. Because this section of our population who may not obtain liquor, are everywhere in close contact with other sections of the population, it is becoming impossible to apply this legislation.

This prohibition on the provision of liquor to the Bantu has resulted in a whole series of social and economic evils. As the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan) has already indicated very clearly, the whole problem of shebeens and shebeen queens is a direct result of this prohibition on the supply of liquor to the Bantu. Here in the Western Cape it has become the policy of the Government to replace the Bantu as far as possible by Coloured labour and there is in fact a vast source of labour which is lying fallow at the moment for the simple reason that such a large number of Coloureds are employed in this illicit liquor trade. The hon. member for Hercules has shown that according to the report of the commission approximately 30,000 Coloureds in the Cape Peninsula are exclusively engaged on the illicit liquor trade. In Worcester it is calculated that there are between 200 and 300 male Coloureds who are engaged exclusively on this illicit liquor trade. In Paarl there are still more, and thus one can go to every town. When the Coloured and the Native live together in one area, a large number of Coloureds are used to make liquor available to the Bantu illegally. All these people could perform very useful economic work, but at the moment they are being used for work which is not economic at all. This is one of the greatest evils which this prohibition on the supply of liquor to the Bantu has created. No state can afford this. No state can afford to have such a large percentage of its population doing uneconomic work, and for this reason it has become high time that we should give effect to the recommendations of the Malan Commission in order to supply liquor freely to the Bantu. But I want to say at once that here we are dealing with an experiment. We have now been engaged for many decades on an experiment aimed at solving this problem by means of a practically total prohibition in the case of the Bantu. It has not succeeded, and seeing that we are now moving from one experiment to another, that is to say the free supply of liquor to the Bantu as well, I want to warn at once that we do not expect the whole problem to be solved immediately. In the Federation it soon became clear that the moment the prohibition on the supply of liquor to the Bantu was lifted, there was a tremendous rush by the Bantu to obtain liquor. I read recently in the Press that the Bantu in Bloemfontein are already asking when they can start buying wine; they are waiting for it. But it has also fortunately been found that this only continues for three or at the most six months; then the novelty has worn off and then the population groups gradually start returning to their normal drinking habits. I therefore want to warn that we must not expect this social evil to be removed within a month or three months. But in the course of time we hope and trust that this will in fact happen. I envisage that it will not take three months in our case, but that it will take much longer before we shall solve the problem. I want to make this clear: We must go further than the Malan Commission has recommended, that is to say, we must also make intoxicating liquor available to the Bantu for the very reason that this prohibition has been in force for so long and the direct result has been that the Bantu have in fact learned to drink brandy, because while it was illegal for them to possess liquor, they argued that it was far easier to hide one bottle brandy than four bottles of light wine. One bottle of brandy contains approximately the same quantity of alcohol as four bottles of wine. That is why by our legislation we have in fact taught the Bantu of South Africa to drink spirits. In Moçambique where the Bantu can freely obtain wine, and where the Bantu may not obtain spirits, the experience has been that the Bantu buys his wine and drinks it, and that there is practically no illicit trade in brandy. Please note, there is in fact a prohibition on the supply of spirits to the Bantu in Moçambique but there is no illicit trade in spirits for the simple reason that the Bantu have been able to obtain wine and beer from the beginning and have moulded their drinking habits accordingly. But here in this country where there has been a total prohibition, their drinking habits have unfortunately become such that they do in fact drink spirits. It would be quite unrealistic to supply only wine and beer freely because then we shall not achieve any solution of the problem facing the police, that is to say the combating of the illicit liquor trade. But, I say, this is the direct result of the fact that we have continued for too long with the experiment of trying to keep liquor from the Bantu. I want to make it quite clear that I have the highest regard for our church leaders and other conscientious objectors who are opposing this legislation. I want to place it quite clearly on record that we do not condemn them because they adopt such an attitude. They are acting in accordance with the light which they have but I want to give the assurance that we are also acting in accordance with the light which we have, and while we differ from them, we do not differ as regards the object which we want to achieve. We are striving to achieve the same object as they are, namely a stable nation with sober drinking habits. We only differ from them as regards the method, and here I am convinced, seeing that we have now tried this one method for so many years, for centuries, and it has not proved to be a success, that we should try this other method. I want to make an appeal to our church leaders and other conscientious objectors to give us an opportunity to try this other method. I want to make it quite clear that we are after all striving to achieve the same object. We only differ as regards the method, and I believe that the method which we now want to try under this legislation has a greater chance of success than the method we have applied for past centuries. I therefore support this legislation wholeheartedly and I am confident that the people outside will also accept it in the spirit in which it is offered, namely as an honest attempt to eliminate these terrible social evils which have accompanied the practically total prohibition of past years. I wholeheartedly support this Bill.

Mr. GAY:

I suppose it is rarely that a Bill of this importance to the nation as a whole has been introduced and placed before Parliament in a state of greater confusion than exists in the public mind to-day as to just what this Bill implies. This Bill, which has been long awaited, which has been mooted for a long time, is based on the report of a commission consisting of gentlemen who went thoroughly into this question, not only in South Africa, but much wider afield and who honestly endeavoured to translate into some practical liquor policy for the country their experience the evidence they had received and their findings. But as has been said by a previous speaker this Bill now before us—the first instalment of liquor bills that we have to expect—as has been made quite clear, is not the Bill which the country was led to expect by the report of the Malan Commission. The Bill in a number of most important aspects is not based upon the recommendations of that commission, recommendations which the public in general had assumed were going to be implemented. Eight out of ten members of the public believe, as one discovers when one consults them on this matter, that the Bill applies only to the supply of liquor to Natives, and they have not the slightest conception that amongst the greatest effects of the Bill are the implications likely to flow from the change in the control and the method of supply to both the Coloured, the White and the Asiatic community of the country as well as the Bantu. Sir, the more one examines the Bill in its various aspects, the more one is convinced that legislation of this nature can only be implemented at the gravest risk of substantial disaster for this country. I am one who has had a considerable number of years of experience in work of this nature. I would be prepared to go a long way towards the extension of liquor facilities to the non-Whites, both the Natives and the Coloureds, extensions which I believe will assist in lessening the evil which at present flows from certain aspects of the liquor supplied to them. I believe that if we are going to conduct experiments, as the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan) mentioned, there are ways and means, to improve the conditions at the distribution points as well as other factors which have a deterrent or off-setting effects on the consumption of liquor. There one would be prepared to go quite a long way, and also on the type of liquor to be sold to these people. But the Bill before us practically removes all forms of control and all forms of restriction on the supply of liquor to all non-Whites in this country. Sir, I am not one of those who believe that every individual concerned in the liquor trade and all people responsible for the production and retailing of liquor, are people waiting to reap tremendous benefits and profits from that business, or are people who are waiting to reap the reward which will follow upon the tremendous increase of customers which they are likely to receive if this Bill is passed. I know many of them personally—having had contact with them in their professional business and other respects—who have been shocked and staggered by the extent to which this Bill is going to take the brakes off the liquor distribution trade. Amongst them are many men who have gone out of their way in an endeavour to impose some measure of restraint, some element of control in regard to liquor consumption on their own premises, and have for that purpose provided necessary recreation and sport facilities and improvements in the conditions under which liquor can be consumed on their premises so as to offset the urge to make it purely a drinking place. This is one aspect where the Bill could have gone much further than what is proposed if we are to extend the consumption of liquor, namely to improve the conditions under which liquor can be consumed on the premises so as to avoid making it purely a drinking shop.

The hon. member for Hercules, who was Chairman of the Liquor Commission, in his speech referred to the experimental nature of the proposals now being considered and concluded his speech by claiming that the Bill now before us was largely in the nature of an experiment. But, Sir, we cannot experiment with human beings; we cannot experiment with the lives of women and children. We do not experiment with that sort of thing in this country! On this matter I want to bring as a witness someone who has been shown recently the greatest national respect and regard. I want, to refer to an address delivered by him when he was still Minister of Justice. Referring to the extension of liquor facilities by allowing the Bantu to have light wines—and not the strong liquor which this Bill proposes to allow them—he said that if he were to do it then and the day after were to experience some evils attaching to it, a large number of evils, we would be reproached for ever because you could not repeal your action. Once you have taken that step—(Senate Debates No. 15/1959. 22.6.1959)—Sir, once you have taken that step, you cannot retract. He was, therefore, not supporting that idea as being in the nature of an experiment but accepted facts as they faced him, and conceded that once we have taken that step, the step which we are now being ask to take in this Bill, something has been done which can never be retracted. It is, therefore, not in the nature of an experiment. Here we have evidence which completely refutes the suggestion by the hon. member for Hercules, namely that what we are being ask to agree to here, is in the nature of an experiment. I want to repeat: You cannot experiment with human lives, with the security of families, and of men, women and children of this country with respect to the distribution of liquor such as is now being proposed, because once we have set out on that road, there is no turning back.

I want to quote another statement which has a decided bearing on the legislation now before us, and again, Sir, that statement was made by a former member of this House, a person in whom the Government had absolute confidence and promoted him to a very important position as representative of this country abroad. His comments on this very same question were published in a State information fact paper. No. 69 of March 1959 under the heading “The highway to racial harmony”, There Mr. Wentzel du Plessis, South Africa’s ambassador to the United States of America, in addressing the law school of Harvard University on the question of race relationships in South Africa, said in regard to the consumption of liquor—

A few thousand highly evolved Bantu enjoy exemption from the law which prohibits the sale of “hard” liquor to their fellows. We have not used the gin bottle as a means to exterminate the Bantu. They are. however, allowed to make a wholesome and nutritious beer which has a small alcoholic content. This prohibition on the sale of intoxicants naturally lends itself to abuse and, unfortunately, results in continuous police action (as in the days of prohibition in the United States). For this, we are often criticized that we have not thought it advisable that the Bantu should be made subject to the ravages of strong drink at this time.

That speech, Sir was. made roughly in March 1959. We are to-day just past March 1961—two years later. What has happened during these two years which warrants a complete change of face on the part of the Government, the Government on behalf of which Mr. du Plessis was speaking and representing in the United States? Because there, Sir, he made it quite clear that—

For this, we are often criticized that we have not thought it advisable that the Bantu should be made subject to the ravages of strong drink at this time.

Here we have the evidence of two very responsible and highly placed officials in whom the Government and country placed its confidence by appointing them as its representatives in very exalted spheres. I ask, therefore, why this Government has changed face so completely in such a short time in regard to this matter of supplying strong drink to the Bantu? Unfortunately, Sir, when it comes to the question of supply of liquor to the non-European and particularly to the Cape Coloured, it is most unfortunate that as a result of the disappointments, the repressions, and frustrations which have been built up amongst the non-Europeans over the past decade the question has developed into a question of race prestige. It has been levelled up to correspond with the question of class prestige involved in the franchise and other similar things relating to politics. The abolition of restrictions is, therefore, being regarded as being very much on the same plane. It is most unfortunate that that is so because as a result of that there are to-day responsible non-Europeans who support this Bill because they feel it removes a restriction which has had the effect of lowering them in status as citizens of this country. I want to refer now to a statement on the freedom of the individual made by Lord Birkett in which he said—

It must be remembered too that under the conditions under which men live in this world of ours, they do not and cannot live in isolation.

Neither of the groups which are being affected by this Bill, can live in isolation—not the Whites, nor the Coloureds, the Asiatics, or the Bantu. What happens to one as part of the body corporate in South Africa, happens to all of us; the ills that the one section suffers, affects the rest of the population. He continued—

There are members of communities with rights and duties, rights which are valueless without the power of the community to enforce them and duties to be rendered in return without which the community cannot flourish and endure.

The pertinent point in Lord Birkett’s statement, Sir, is—

The question is, ultimately, a practical one, in how far the good of the community requires a limitation of the rights of the individual for the good of the individual and the community as a whole.

That finding applies absolutely in regard to the Bill which we are dealing with now. We have heard speakers, this afternoon on the question of the restriction on the supply of liquor to the Cape Coloured. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) referred to an earlier attempt of his which was eventually overruled by the Appeal Court. I was involved in the imposition of a similar restriction in my own area while being a member of the local liquor licensing board, in response to appeals from dozens of Coloured women and mothers for us to see that their men should get home with their wages in their pockets before they could get to a bar or bottle store to spend it. We then imposed restrictions on the weekend supply of liquor so that they could not get liquor at least for 24 hours after they had drawn their wages. The improvement this measure brought about over a couple of years was hardly credible, in so far as the general uplift which took place and the extent to which an excessive waste of money on liquor was curbed, because their money became available to supply the necessities of their families. But the result was that the following year the liquor interests came to the Simonstown Liquor Licensing Board with the biggest battery of Q.C.s and barristers which had ever been seen there—somewhere in the region of between 25 and 30 of them! Money meant nothing to them in their attempt to break down this weekend restriction, but they failed. There appeared also a deputation of mothers asking the board to stand firm and to maintain the control. But this Bill, Sir, breaks the whole thing down again and we are back to where we were. I am under no illusion as to what will happen as a result of this. You have in your Coloured community a most responsible strata to whom the full privileges for which provision are being made in this Bill can well be made available, but they are in the minority, because you also have in that community people who in no way are capable of protecting themselves. Similarly with regard to the Bantu population. How many times have we in this House and throughout the length and breadth of the country, had urgings from the Prime Minister, from members of the Cabinet, from responsible Members of Parliament of all parties, from leaders of industry and commerce, from leaders of thought and from public men throughout the country, all of whom urged that the wages of the Bantu and Coloured people should be increased so as to make it possible for them to be lifted to a higher level, and increased standard of living, for them to get the means which they and their families require to obtain the wholesome benefits and services necessary for them to build up a community such as they deserve to be. How many times, Sir, have we not had to listen to such pleas? How many times have we been told in this House and especially during the bus strike of a few years ago in Johannesburg, of the poverty stricken conditions Natives live under? Well below the breadline. But what are we going to do now? They have asked for bread, but we are going to give them brandy. Is that going to help to lift them above the breadline? Is that going to help them to build their families up to a standard of life which we want to see them lead in this country? The Bible tells us of people who were given stones when they asked for bread, but we are going to do even worse than that: We are going to give them a poison which is going to sap their very souls and bring them down into degradation. I spoke to some Coloured leaders yesterday who are concerned with this particular matter. I speak for these people to-day although there are other representatives of theirs here who should be speaking for them. Their view is that this Bill is going to destroy, as far as the Coloured people are concerned, all those advances and advantages they have been able to build up over the last century. That it is going to bring them down to a level from where another struggle will be needed to again lift themselves up. That is what the result is going to be and yet we claim that we as White leaders have the responsibility to give guidance to the non-White people of this country! Can we pride ourselves for bringing them to a stage of degradation? Let us come to the effects on the Bantu. Have the farmers of this Bill, Sir, thought what implications this Bill will have in places remote from the urban areas? We are, as it is, going to have quite a lot of trouble in the urban areas, but here at least we have forces of law to maintain law and order and bring a certain amount of security to the people of the urban areas. But what about the women and children out in the country areas with their men away working on the farm? The employees on the farm know that their master can give them liquor and he would come to the house to ask for it. Have we considered what will happen to those women and children alone at home? Do not let us forget that it is the Government who will have to accept the bill of responsibility flowing from the application of this measure. It is an ironical thought that will go down into history, Sir, that the present Minister of Justice who is responsible for this Bill, giving non-Europeans access to all types of liquor, is the man who a year or two ago took away that privilege from troops in the Defence forces of the Republic. Can you ever get a bigger paradox than that? There were men under discipline and under control but yet they were not considered fit to be allowed to have liquor in their messes, yet to-day we are going to make available in unlimited supplies liquor to people in the country who in many cases are still very near the primitive stage.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

What assistance did I receive when dealing with liquor in messes?

Mr. GAY:

If the hon. the Minister had been prepared to listen to this side of the House, he would have had all the assistance he then needed, but he would not listen! Neither does he want to listen to-day because I know this Bill is going to go through. Now, this Bill purports to do away with the tot system, but what does it in fact do? It only extends the tot system under a new guise to all four provinces, applies it also to provinces where it does not exist at present. True in provinces where it does exist a limitation that liquor supplied under the tot system shall not be counted against the earnings of the employee, is now being imposed. The existing tot system imposes restrictions as regards quantities, it limits the type of liquor to what was thought at the time to be a relatively harmless type of liquor, and lays down the times during which liquor can be supplied. But this new Bill now proposes to do away with all those restrictions and to give the employer the right to supply any type of liquor, in any quantity, and at any time. I have heard it said by protagonists of the Bill that White employers will have exactly the same right to supply their employers but is there any member in this House who can point out the case of any reputable White employer, any big industry or commercial concern which either supplies or permits their employees to be supplied with liquor during working hours even when in many cases they work under much more arduous conditions than farm labourers? Is there any White industry, anywhere in the country, which would stand for one moment for that sort of thing? Yet we are going to lay down that condition now, to be used against the Coloured man and used it will be! I want to pay tribute to those farmers of the platteland who, although having the authority under the tot system, do not issue liquor to their employees but concentrate rather on ensuring them decent living conditions. Is it not the case with wage legislation where when a minimum wage is laid down, you immediately start a race amongst employers by paying higher wages to attract the cream of the available labour? Will not the employer who is known to supply liquor to his employees attract them more than other employers who do not? Because the tot system remains—let us make no mistake about that. It is just as firmly established in this Bill as ever before with the only difference that all restrictions which hitherto applied are being withdrawn. When one comes to the economic aspects of the question one is appalled by the magnitude of the task to try and grasp what this Bill will really mean economically. The figures in regard to the supply of liquor are really staggering but I do not want to take up the time of the House to quote them because I think most members have already studied them. There are, however, some figures which we should get into our minds when trying to gauge the implications of what we now propose to do. These figures are based on figures to the end of 1959. The ratio of convictions per head of the population was for the Whites 1 to 274 adults; for the Bantu 1 to 331: for the Asiatics 1 to 399; and for the Coloured 1 to 33. These are convictions for drunkenness. When we are now going to remove all restrictions, what can be expected? In 1959 there were 86,400 convictions for drunkenness in this country and roughly 75 per cent of those detrimentally affected the family life of the person concerned. Here I want to refer to another witness, namely Dr. v. d. Merwe, formerly secretary of the National Council for Family Life and Marriage Guidance. When asked what the most observable effects were of the abuse of alcohol on family life, he said he would mention only the three most conspicuous ones, namely (1) the abuse of alcohol affects the economic position of the home; (2) it affects the relationship between father and mother; and (3) the education and upbringing of the children. And yet the hon. member for Hercules said we were embarking on an experiment! Are we then willing to experiment with these three features of family life? Surely, as a Parliament of the country, this is the last thing we should want to do. During the 1951 conference on alcoholism it was mentioned that the moderate use of strong drink cost the country between £30,000,000 and £50,000,000 annually and in a lecture before the Institute for Scientific Studies, on the prevention of alcoholism it was stated that more than £600,000,000 had been spent on alcohol during the past 25 years. The significance of this figure can better be realized when we consider that of the £350,000 spent on social services by the taxpayer during that same period, over £200,000 went for the correction of the effects of alcoholism. Can this country afford to pay a bill like that, Sir? Can we afford that, leaving aside the wastage of human life and material, the ruination and degradation of people’s bodies and souls because this is a matter which cannot be measured in terms of money but is a very real bill nevertheless. Another statement I want to refer to is one made by Dr. D. F. D. de Beer, who said that “South Africans drink more than 37,000,000 gallons of spirits, wines and beer per year”. Now we are going to lift all restrictions so as to make sure that the consumption will increase, because that is what it really means. We are making certain that the consumption will increase while at the same time some 12,000,000 of the people concerned are struggling to achieve and maintain an ordinary level of decency. Can we afford that type of experiment? That is why I say that there is only one answer we can give to this Bill at this stage, much as we would have liked to support a Bill intended to meet the problems inherent in the situation. I want to speak again for one moment with regard to the 11,000,000 voiceless people in South Africa, people who are altogether voiceless in this House. I refer to the Bantu population. In order to get first-hand information as to their line of thought with regard to this particular measure I had discussions with certain of their organizations which deal with the question of liquor supplies for their own people. I discussed with the leaders of an organization which has a membership of 48,000 adults and 50,000 teenage juveniles in the Cape Province—membership which is also spread over the rest of the Union—I discussed with them the implications of this Bill. They have been passing resolutions addressed to this and other Governments for the past 15 or 16 years, begging the Government to take certain actions with regard, firstly, to the tot system and secondly, with regard to certain other features of the supply of liquor. They are emphatically opposed to this particular Bill. They speak with the voice of the voiceless in this House, 80,000 of them speak on behalf of the 11,000,000 people that they largely represent. They have been sending annual resolutions and decisions since 1911 to various Ministers of Justice, not only to this Government but to its predecessors. Up to now what have they got? They are going to get an extension of the very system they want to see abolished, the tot system. They are afraid for their lives. They are afraid that the general breakdown of liquor control which will result from this Bill as far as the Bantu are concerned will completely nullify the missionary work which has been carried out for the last century in this country, very largely by the excellent missions of the Dutch Reformed Church. They are afraid that that is going to be largely nullified as a result of this Bill. They are afraid that, already living below the breadline, it will largely tend to bring their people, particularly in the urban areas, down below the poverty level. Mr. Speaker, I put that view before this House on behalf of these people because they have no representative here to put it for them. I say also, and this without it being necessarily my own view, that they regard this Bill as largely a political weapon aimed at their people, designed to keep them at a particular level in the country, a level at which they can be dealt with.

In conclusion I want to refer to a man whom we all knew in this House, whom we all greatly respected, the late Minister Karl Bremer. We all know of the interest that he took in these particular matters, a sincere and honest interest. Speaking in Pretoria in 1951, and on another occasion in this House, he referred to the fact that there was something like, at that stage, £13,000,000 being spent by the public on supplies of liquor in this country, and during the same period the state itself, largely to counteract the adverse of effect of that liquor supply had to spend on hospitals, goals, and on extended health services, £33,000,000—nearly three times the amount spent on liquor in order to counteract the effects of that same supply of liquor. [Time limit.]

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.
Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I second.

Agreed to.

GOLD AND FOREIGN EXCHANGE RESERVES The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

With the permission of the House I wish to make the following statement:

Since I announced certain adjustments in official monetary policies and restrictions on the provision of foreign exchange for tourists, emigrants and for the payment of legacies on 4 May the gold and foreign exchange reserves have fallen by a further R16,000,000 to a level of Rl46,800,000 last Friday. The reserves may show an increase from time to time as a result of certain special receipts, but it is clear that the measures which I announced and the import control measures announced by my colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, will take some time to show their full effect. Meanwhile, it is evident that the outflow of capital from South Africa, particularly through the purchase by South Africans of South African securities from overseas investors, is continuing, and I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it is my duty to impose control on such transactions.

We have given very close study to the way in which this can be done, and it appears that the only technical solution to the problem will be to take the following three steps—firstly, South African residents will be prohibited from remitting funds for the purchase of South African and Rhodesian securities on the London and Bulawayo Stock Exchanges. Secondly the proceeds of securities sold in South Africa by a non-resident will be blocked; but may be re-invested in other quoted securities. Thirdly, stockbrokers and persons other than authorised foreign exchange dealers will be prohibited from acting as nominees for non-residents or from conducting non-resident accounts in their books.

These measures will therefore be applied immediately.

I may say that these measures were discussed extensively with the mission from the International Monetary Fund which recently visited South Africa. Similar measures have in recent years been applied by many countries and are in fact still applied by, for example, the United Kingdom in respect of securities owned by non-residents of the sterling area.

As I explained, non-residents of South Africa will still be able to switch their holdings of South African securities on the local market—a fact which may be important in helping to maintain activity in the market. The export of non-resident owned scrip and the transfer of the relative shares from South African to London registers will still be permitted. Similarly, non-resident owned shares will be transferable from London to South African registers—a procedure which will allow a non-resident to deal either in London or in South Africa and thus tend to minimize the price differences between the two markets.

I am especially sorry that it is necessary to impose these restrictions on shares purchased by non-residents with funds brought to South Africa and endorsed “Transferable”. Proceeds from the sale of such shares have until now been freely transferable to the country of origin of the investment, and I sincerely hope that it will be possible to restore this facility before very long. To this end the endorsement “Transferable” will continue to be affixed to securities purchased by non-residents from the proceeds of the sale of securities so endorsed.

In order to remove any possible misunderstanding I wish to emphasize that dividends will continue to be freely transferable as in the past.

In my statement to the House on 4 May, I mentioned that residents of South Africa would shortly be called upon to render returns of all their foreign assets. A regulation requiring all residents to furnish this information will shortly be promulgated and forms will be distributed to the commercial banks, which forms must then be completed and returned by all South African residents who hold assets outside South Africa. In order to encourage the immediate repatriation of liquid funds held abroad by South Africans, the Treasury will not take action against residents who may up to now have neglected to declare balances held abroad, or who may have acquired assets abroad in contravention of the existing regulations, provided such balances or the proceeds of such assets are transferred to South Africa within 30 days of the publication of the new regulation. Thereafter, however, any resident who is found to hold foreign assets illegally will be prosecuted, and the penalties are heavy.

Although I sincerely regret the need to impose these restrictions, we can at least now be reasonably confident that the main leakages of foreign exchange from South Africa have been blocked. This is still the lean season for our export trade and, apart from any special payments which we may receive, the balance of payments may continue to show a deficit for some time yet, but the situation is now under control and we can look forward to a substantial recovery in the reserves before the end of the year.

PENSION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL

Ninth Order read: Second reading,—Pension Laws Amendment Bill.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND PENSIONS:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the important objects of this Bill is to give effect to the concessions announced in the Budget speech in respect of social pensions by the hon. the Minister of Finance, as well as to certain concessions which I mentioned during the discussion of the Social Welfare Vote. Hon. members will not hold it against me if at this stage on a Friday afternoon I do not repeat everything the hon. the Minister of Finance and I have said on previous occasions. I therefore think hon. members will agree with me that I should be very brief and to the point in dealing with this matter.

This Bill also contains a number of provisions which are intended to facilitate the administration of the laws controlling social pensions. It also amends certain provisions of the Government Service Pensions Act. These provisions, however, all have this in common, namely that in every instance concessions are being made, concessions which hon. members opposite will welcome, and concessions which have been urged in various quarters. Hon. members have also been given a memorandum dealing with this Bill, a very comprehensive memorandum which the Department have drawn up and for which we want to thank them. This memorandum sets out all the proposals embodied in the Bill. I assume that hon. members with their usual conscientiousness have also read this memorandum very carefully and are therefore familiar with the provisions of this Bill. If I can give hon. members a word of advice, it is that this memorandum contains very important information which can be very useful to hon. members in the recess when constituents make inquiries regarding pensions. For this reason it will perhaps be advisable not to mislay this memorandum, but to keep it at hand so that they can have this information available.

One of the matters which has given rise to representations by hon. members and other organizations is the residential qualifications which are laid down at present by the laws controlling social pensions. The general feeling which one finds everywhere is that the required residential period in our country, namely 15 out of the last 20 years, is unnecessarily severe in the case of a person who was born in South Africa and who has lived outside South Africa for a certain period without surrendering his South African citizenship. There are many of our people in other parts of Africa who will benefit from this provision. For this reason it has also been decided to relax the residential qualifications in respect of South African citizens by birth and also persons who have acquired South African citizenship. Hon. members will find the necessary provision in Clauses 1 and 29. Clause 19 also provides for the relaxation of residential qualifications in the case of war veterans. The effect of these concessions has been discussed fully on a previous occasion, that is to say when the Vote was discussed, and I therefore do not intend boring hon. members by doing so again at this stage. It is also dealt with very fully in the memorandum which hon. members have before them.

Next I want to say a few words about the attendants allowances which are dealt with in the Bill. Hon. members will know that at the moment a maximum allowance of R36 per annum is paid to a social pensioner, provided his physical or mental condition is such that it necessitates the regular attendance of another person. In accordance with the amendments contained in Clauses 3, 13, 21 and 31 of the Bill, this amount of R36 will be increased to R48 per annum if the Bill is adopted. This is a concession which will be welcomed and appreciated by many of these unfortunate people.

A matter which has caused not only the Department but pensioners and consequently hon. members as well great difficulties in the past has been the date of commencement and the date on which pensions commence and expire—are cancelled or stopped. As hon. members know, a social pension is granted at present from the date on which the applicant becomes entitled to that pension by law, and it expires on the date on which the pensioner is no longer entitled to it—whether it is in the middle of the month or on the third of the month, it makes no difference. When a pension is reduced, increased or cancelled as a result of a change in the pensioner’s income, marital state or other circumstances, that increase, reduction or cancellation also takes effect as from the date on which the change took place. Hon. members will appreciate that this caused a great deal of accounting work in the Department of Pensions. The grant, increase, reduction or cancellation of a pension from a date during a month not only causes an exceptionally great deal of administrative and accounting work, but because we have to deal with hundreds and thousands of files it also results in troublesome overpayments which are not only unpleasant to the Department, but which are also a nuisance to the pensioner. For that reason it is now being proposed that a social pension will be granted in future as from the first day of the month in which the applicant becomes entitled thereto and will be cancelled with effect from the last day of the month in which it should have been or should be cancelled. Hon. members will realize at once how much this will simplify our work, how many difficulties it will eliminate, and how it will help solve the problem of over-payment because we shall now not be working with days, but from month to month. Apart from the fact that it will save trouble and eliminate difficulties, it will also give pensioners and additional income, because the man who now becomes entitled to a pension on the 29th of the month will receive a full month’s pension, as it will accrue to him as from the first day of the month in which he becomes entitled to that pension.

The ratio between the amount of the basic social pensions payable to Whites, Coloureds and Indians has remained constant in recent years, namely 12: 6: 5. For example, the maximum basic old age pension payable to Whites, Coloureds and Indians have been R144, R72 and R60 per annum respectively since 1952. As a result of these basic pensions being supplemented from time to time by means of bonuses, etc., Whites have, however, received proportionately greater increases, with the result that the ratio between the amounts payable to the three racial groups has become disturbed. Hon. members will remember that during the discussion of the Vote and also during the Budget speech it was announced that we have decided to restore this ratio by increasing the bonus and the additional amounts payable at present to Coloureds and Indians. Clauses 38 and 46 of this Bill give effect to this decision.

Mr. Speaker, a few words about the administration of these laws by different Ministers. In Clauses 10, 25 and 28 of the Bill provision is made for the assigning of the administration of the Old-Age Pension Acts, of Part II of the War Pensions Act, 1941, and of the Disability Grants Act, 1946, to more than one Minister and departmental head. I want to point out in passing in this regard that many of these provisions are already found in the Blind Pensions Act and Childrens Act. In addition the powers conferred on the Commissioner of Pensions by the Old-Age Pensions Act and the Blind Persons Act have already been transferred since 1944 under Section 46 of Act No. 48 of 1944 to the Secretary for Native Affairs in so far as these Acts relate to Natives. The principle is a well-known one. It is a principle which we have often discussed in this House and despite all the unnecessary publicity which a certain newspaper, for lack of other news, has given this principle over the past two days, I do not intend discussing this matter and I trust that hon. members will also refrain from succumbing to the temptation to discuss this aspect of the matter.

This Bill also deals however with amendments to the Government Service Pensions Act. These amendments in the main correct certain errors and weaknesses which have come to light from time to time in administering this Act. However, there are one or two matters to which I want to refer in the course of my speech. In the first place, I want to refer to the amendment embodied in Clause 39 which reduces the minimum age for entry, inter alia, to the Union Pension Fund to 15 years. This reduction is being introduced as a result of the fact that the minimum age for appointment in the clerical, technical and general divisions of the Public Service was recently reduced to 15 years. The amendments contain in para, (b) of Clause 40 and para, (c) of Clause 43 flow from the fact that we have now converted to the rand/cent coinage system. Clause 45 provides for the recovery of certain amounts which have been overpaid to civil pensioners in respect of bonuses or temporary allowances. In this regard I want to point out to hon. members that the War Pensions Act, 1942, and the laws governing social pensions also provide for the recovery of amounts overpaid to pensioners. This is therefore a well-tried and recognized principle which we are following here.

The amendments effected by Clause 37 flow from the fact that the Union has now become a republic.

Under Clause 48 (3) of the Bill the provisions by which certain concessions are granted to social pensioners will be deemed to have come into operation on 1 April 1961 and all cases which have already been dealt with since that date, will be reviewed in the light of these amended provisions.

These are in brief the main provisions of this Bill and I move.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

*Mr. FAURIE:

I second.

Agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.

MONDAY, 19 JUNE 1961 Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 10.35 a.m. FINANCE BILL

Bill read a first time.

RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION BILL

First Order read: Third reading,—Railway Construction Bill.

Bill read a third time.

SOUTH AFRICAN CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT BILL

Second Order read: Report Stage,—South African Citizenship Amendment Bill.

Amendments in Clauses 8, 9 and 24 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

ADMISSION OF PERSONS TO THE UNION REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL

Third Order read: Third reading,—Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Amendment Bill

Bill read a third time.

ALIENS AMENDMENT BILL

Fourth Order read: Report Stage,—Aliens Amendment Bill.

Amendment in Clause 2 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL

Fifth Order read: Adjourned debate on motion for second reading,—Liquor Amendment Bill, to be resumed.

[Debate on motion by the Minister of Justice, adjourned on 16 June, resumed.]

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the supply of liquor to any group of our population, we are dealing with one of the most vexing problems which modern society has to face. Throughout the world, society has great difficulty to control the supply and consumption of liquor in a manner which will prevent anti-social development. In South Africa the problem is moreover bedevilled, as any problem in South Africa is bedevilled, by problems of race and this Bill which the hon. Minister has introduced is an attempt to make the complications of our liquor legislation as they have been created by the racial problems of our country, less complicated and, I believe, also less dangerous to society. There are, of course, people who would like to see alcoholic beverages disappear from the world completely. That might be the ideal position, Sir, but life is not like that. The consumption of alcoholic liquor is ancient. As far back as we can go into history, we find that people have discovered the joy, the pleasure and the relaxation of alcohol used in moderation. We can go back to antiquity for such evidence. We find, for instance, that St. Paul wrote to his friend Timothy to give him this advice—

Lay hands suddenly on no man; neither be partaker of other men’s sins; keep thyself pure. Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.

The practical point, Sir, is whether attempts to bring the consumption of alcoholic liquor under proper control can be enforceable or not. The reason why some of my friends on this side of the House feel that this Bill is dangerous is because they know, as we all know, that the consumption of liquor is subject to grave abuse, and when it is abused, its effects are visible dramatically and most tragically. The results of the impact of the abuse of alcohol upon the public have led in certain countries to attempts to apply total prohibition. We have the experiment in the United States of America; we had it until 1920 for a period in all the states of Canada; and we had it in several of the Scandinavian countries. What is significant, however, of these experiments, is that they have failed everywhere. I would like to bring some evidence to show how these attempts at total prohibition have failed elsewhere. I have here the testimony of Mr. J. Harben who was the assistant United States Attorney for the district of New York during the time of prohibition in the United States of America. This is what he said in the 1920s—

We might as well face the facts in the case and acknowledge that so far it has been impossible to enforce the National Prohibition Act. The people’s taste and desires cannot be changed by the passing of the law and it seems that before the law can be enforced the attitude of the people must be changed in some way. I believe that 65 per cent, and probably more, of the people in New York City have in some way violated the National Prohibition Act, and therefore have committed a crime. What would happen if 65 per cent of our population was tried and convicted?

When one wants to enforce the law, that law must be accepted as binding by the people whose actions it seeks to control because one cannot enforce any law on people who regard the breaking of it as desirable, harmless and innocent. The old philosopher Spinoza put it this way and I could not have put it better—

All laws which can be violated without doing anyone an injury are laughed at. Nay, so far are they from doing anything to control the desires and passions of men that, on the contrary, they direct and incite men’s thoughts the more towards those very objects; for we always strive towards what is forbidden and desire the things we are not allowed to have. And men of leisure are never deficient in the ingenuity needed to enable them to outwit laws framed to regulate things which cannot be entirely forbidden … He who tries to determine everything by law will foment crime rather than lessen it.

The American philosopher Walt Whitman also put it well when he said—

But in his moral and mental capacity man is the sovereign of his individual self. In matters which do not plainly contravene the legal rights of fellow citizens, the law has no business to interfere except in one or two instances. The miserable effects of all efforts to legislate men into religion and virtue fill the pages of history and furnish some of the blackest and most horrid items.

We must therefore accept that unless the public attitude to the consumption of alcohol can be so changed that the vast majority of the people will accept that an attempt to prohibit them from consuming alcoholic beverages is necessary for themselves and that they desire to accept such laws binding upon themselves, all attempts to make such law will in the end fail.

If prohibition does not work in homogeneous communities, as has been proved, how can it be expected to work in South Africa, and to be enforceable and effective, only on part of the population? There is a very interesting book written by E. Hose called the Prohibition or Control describing the experiment in Canada and in the United States of America. He finds that one of the major reasons why prohibition failed in the United States was because after 1920, when Canada again became wet, it was too easy for the illicit liquor trade in the United States of America to obtain supplies in one way or another from over the border. The same was found in Scandinavia, namely that while they tried to keep that portion of Europe dry, liquor was too easily available from adjoining countries and that was one of the major reasons why it failed. In South Africa we are trying to enforce prohibition on a section of the community which is geographically intermingled with people who are entitled to obtain liquor and the result is, as the hon. Minister has pointed out, that an utterly impossible situation has arisen, a situation which had also arisen in America. American witnesses will tell you that at the time of prohibition there were as many as 22,000 speak-easies in the City of New York alone. The hon. Minister the other day told us of a very large number of shebeens in Cape Town. In Johannesburg people in contact with the problem will tell you that in the central part of Johannesburg alone they can take you to 70 high-class shebeens—not the hole-in-the-corner thing but shebeens where lounge facilities are available and where civilized drinking can even be indulged in. The police are helpless against the problem because the Native people do not look upon the law as binding; many Europeans look upon the law as unfair; and supplies are readily available because the European community, and other communities to a lesser extent, have free access to liquor and it is the simplest thing in the world to let liquor pass from legitimate channels into illicit channels. The position which has arisen is completely impossible. What are the results in South Africa of our attempts to apply an imposssible law? The first result is that a major industry which is unlawful has arisen in South Africa and thousands of people are making a living from something which is anti-social, without any control at all. Crime, Sir, is made to pay for the illicit liquor dealer in a manner which the police cannot control. It is evil, it is against the interests of the State, and it is certainly against the interests of the community upon whom these illicit liquor dealers batten for their living. Another consequence is that, in order to keep their costs down, these illicit shebeen runners most often adulterate the liquor which they sell to the people concerned and a Native who thinks he is buying the White man’s beer or the White man’s brandy, is buying stuff which is poisoned and adulterated. What we are paying in the health of the working people of South Africa, nobody can tell. Another consequence of this action of ours is that the law cannot be enforced except be it by means which one can only describe as tyrannical. We cannot blame the police because it is their duty to enforce the law but in order to enforce it they are compelled to indulge in raids, usually midnight raids or raids in the early hours of the morning when people have to be knocked up and their homes searched. Even the man who is morally innocent and who is in the possession of the minimum amount of liquor, an amount of liquor to which nobody can object, is sent to gaol. The hon. Minister told us that 200,000 people go to gaol every year for doing what for other sections of the community is perfectly legal. Even the moderate drinker, and even the most occasional drinker amongst the Native people is subject to imprisonment for doing what you and I consider as normal in our lives. It is a form of race discrimination which brings the police in disrepute and makes it impossible for them to build up the relationship with the Native people which they would like to see built up and which they have built up with other sections of the community. Nothing, Sir, can be unhealthier for the South African State than the feeling that prohibition applies to the Native people only, a feeling which creates the idea in the minds of the Native that the police are his enemies, that the police are out to persecute him and that the police are the representatives of a White tyranny in South Africa. If ever there could be proof to the Native people that this is not true, it would be to remove this unjustifiable discrimination against them. They look upon this partial prohibition affecting them only, as a White man’s law to emphasize their inferiority. It has always been interesting to me that some of those people who are the most vehement in their opposition to a measure like this, and who will stand up and paint the most horrible picture of what the consequences will be of this Bill, are the very people who throw up their hands in horror, as I do, and plead for the repeal of those statutory offences for which people are put in gaol and which make criminals of people who would otherwise be good citizens. Some of us in this House will be the first to protest at the methods which are used by the police in order to combat this evil; yet we do not want to attack the root causes of the problem.

When we do not want people to buy liquor or when we want to make it impossible for them to obtain liquor legally, the arguments used in support thereof here and all over the world can be reduced to two theories. The first is the “poison theory”—the contention that alcohol is poison even when used in the minute amounts. I do not want to enter into an argument on this question. The fact remains that 90 per cent of the people do not believe that alcohol is a poison; they believe that alcohol has a social function to fulfil which is a healthy one. It is unfortunate that some people are subject to addiction to alcohol, but that does not mean that no man should be allowed to obtain alcohol. This brings me to the second theory of the abolitionists, namely what I would describe as the “sacrifice theory” —because alcohol is bad for some people, or because some people abuse alcohol, we must all make the sacrifice of not using alcohol at all and not making it available to anybody. That is a strange argument, because nobody would suggest that because people kill each other while driving motor-cars, we should abolish motor-cars, nor will it be suggested that because some people consort with prostitutes, we should return to the strict morality laws of the Puritan era.

I believe, Sir, that this Bill means a step forward, and that it is an act of liberalization of our race laws. I think it is going to remove one of the greatest evils in our society, namely the illicit liquor trade, and I believe it is going to make the task of the police infinitely easier to deal with real abuse of alcohol instead of making every occasion on which alcohol is consumed, in no matter what moderate quantities by the Native people, a crime which they are called upon to suppress and eradicate but which they cannot do, no matter how hard they try. This Bill, if properly administered, can do much to ease race tension in South Africa and to bring about a better spirit amongst the various races here. The hon. Minister is, according to the terms of the Bill, accepting very great responsibilities and I am sorry that he did not give us more details in his second reading speech of what he envisages under this Bill. I hope he will, when replying to this debate, make one thing clear, and that is that this Bill does not mean that from the moment it is promulgated, alcohol will be freely available to every race everywhere in South Africa. That, Sir, depends upon himself. I find, for instance, that many bottle-store keepers believe that in the very near future they will be allowed to sell freely to everybody who comes into the bottle store. I think these people misread the amending clause to Section 100 of the Act which gives the Minister extended powers to prohibit the supply of liquor to groups of races in any area of South Africa. Reading these amendments together, it would seem—and I hope the hon. Minister will clarify this when he replies to the debate—that it will be possible for the Minister to divert trade in liquor to non-European groups into the areas which are occupied by those groups. It seems that the Minister intends to channel off the liquor trade for Coloured people into areas reserved for the Coloureds under the Group Areas Act and it seems also that the Minister intends almost to create monopolies in the Native townships for the supply of liquor to the people in those areas. If my reading of the Bill is correct, I think the hon. Minister should state it very clearly because wrong impressions are gaining ground, and wrong expectations are arising in the minds of a great many people. These are very big responsibilities which the hon. Minister is undertaking. Quite obviously if he is going to make an experiment like this, there should be very firm control and the Minister must accept responsibility for that firm control. I hope the hon. Minister will give us either the assurance that our hopes are well founded, or discount them when he replies. I hope that as far as the supply of liquor to Natives in their townships is concerned, it will be left in the hands of the local authority concerned. The Bill does provide how the profits derived from the sale of liquor to Natives should be used. It seems to me that it will be impossible to do what the Bill suggests, namely that the privileges to supply liquor should be given to persons and associations. It seems to me that if you are to control profits, the right to distribute liquor should be in public hands. Local authorities are directly responsible for the administration of the Native townships and they have the machinery to exercise proper control and daily experience of the Natives living in those townships and it might be advisable, therefore, for the hon. Minister to indicate well in advance whether, as far as the Native townships in our urban areas are concerned, those rights will be conferred chiefly, or I hope exclusively, on the local authority. Then I hope that the hon. Minister is not going to bar the acquisition of liquor by Natives from the existing retail supplies outside of the townships, because if he does that, I am afraid he will not do what I am sure he wants to do and what all of us want to do, namely to give the illicit liquor trade a death blow. I can, in this respect, only speak of Johannesburg where I know the position and here a great many of the Native people working in the City of Johannesburg are never in their townships during hours of daylight. Under the policies of this and other Governments, they live far from their places of work and under the policies of this Government transport facilities have up to now been inadequate. Many of these Natives have to get up at five o’clock in the morning in order to get to their transport and many have to wait until dark to get their transport back to their areas. They may not find it possible to acquire legitimate supplies of liquor from whatever facilities are available to them in the townships. The concession embodied in this Bill will then be meaningless to them and the temptation will remain to support the illicit sources of supply which has already become a habit with them—a habit which the hon. Minister should break. It may be that the Minister will be wise with these people who work in the city during the week and who are not in their townships during the normal business hours, and extend the present permit system and make permits much more readily available to the law-abiding Native than is being done to-day, because if we are at one in hoping to destroy the illicit liquor trade, we should not create monopolies. Then the factors leading to illicit dealing will remain.

I would also suggest that in this Bill the Minister should leave the tot system out altogether. This is the most controversial clause in the Bill and not directly relevant to the main principle of dealing with illicit liquor trading by legitimizing the trade. The hon. Minister would be well advised to shorten the debate and make his own task very much easier, if he decides to leave consideration of the tot system over until the main Liquor Bill comes before Parliament next year.

With these few comments I want to say that I am glad that this measure has been introduced. It is an experiment—that I admit—but I am confident that as an experiment it will be more successful than the experiment we have been conducting in South Africa for many years now. The experiment which we have been conducting in South Africa for many years was appropriate in those days when the Natives were either all still in the reserves or working on the farms. Now with the urbanization of the Native and with the detribalization of the Native, it has become impossible to administer and it has become a source of crime, misery and great unhappiness and strain in our society. This Bill is a very wise adjustment of South African policy to the fact that the urban Native has come to stay with us as a permanent feature of our society.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That is a different subject.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

No, Sir, and with respect. I want to say that this Bill is necessary because the life of urban Natives has changed and far be it from me to oppose any measure which is an acceptance of such an important fact in our society.

*Mr. H. H. SMIT:

It is a well-known fact that the ideas of people in South Africa with regard to the consumption of liquor are on the conservative side. And perhaps it is not wrong that that should be so. Their ideas are conservative particularly with regard to the question of access to liquor for non-Whites. Even here in the Boland where wine is produced, a visit to an hotel or rather to an hotel bar is regarded in many circles as an act which is not very exemplary. It is felt that liquor is a product of civilization and that it should be consumed in a civilized and decent atmosphere, preferably that of the home and the family. Under our present liquor legislation, hotel bars do not always offer a civilized and correct atmosphere for the consumption of liquor. That is why our people hold this conservative view with regard to the consumption of liquor. Then there is also the view which has been impressed upon me and many of us on this side of the House since childhood that the Bantu ought not to be given wine or hard liquor because—so we were told—he becomes a barbarian and loses all self-control when he consumes alcohol. For these reasons I can understand the well-meant opposition in certain circles to a measure such as this, which goes in quite the opposite direction to the one that we have followed hitherto, or rather I can well understand that this measure will be opposed in certain circles such as church and other circles that have to deal daily with the evil of the misuse of liquor. I can well understand their misgivings about this legislation because I know that their misgivings flow from genuine concern. In saying that I also want to ask those circles not to doubt the good faith of this Government and of members of this House who come forward with this legislation. It is clear to me that what we have to decide here to-day is whether the proposed legislation is a negative measure or whether, on the other hand, it has a positive purpose. To my mind it is clearly a positive step. After the numerous, well-intentioned but unsuccessful attempts of the past to combat the evils which have arisen from the misuse of liquor by imposing restrictions on the distribution of liquor, we are now following a new line and that is to. change the method of distribution of the product of the vine in such a way that it will become a blessing to our people, as it is in fact, and not a curse. With this legislation the legislators say to the entire population of South Africa: “Regard and treat the product of the vine, one of the oldest and first products of our country, a product which is produced with great devotion and care, with the respect of civilization and not as an evil to be indulged in only surreptitiously and illegally.”

With all respect for those who have doubts regarding this measure and its good intentions, I want to raise this question: Are such persons not approaching this problem from too one-sided a point of view; are they not oversimplifying the problem? The problem is that liquor (as the product of the vineyard) is regarded in many outside quarters as an evil, instead of the abuse of liquor being regarded as the evil. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit)—Mr. Speaker, I trust that during this Republican year the opportunity may arise for the two Smits in this House to agree on at least one occasion, but it seems to me that I am hoping in vain —has said that the greatest evil with which he had to deal as a magistrate and in dealing with non-White matters, was the curse of intoxicating liquor. I think the hon. member’s approach is quite wrong. It is the curse of the abuse of intoxicating liquor and not the liquor itself. As far as this matter is concerned I want to draw a comparison this morning with the splitting of the atom. If you mention the splitting of the atom to anyone to-day, he immediately thinks of Hiroshima. He thinks of the harmful effect of the use of the atom as a weapon of violence. But, Mr. Speaker, it is after all equally well known that the atom to-day is fulfilling a very useful function in the industrial world where it is being put to proper use. Exactly the same applies to liquor. If liquor is abused and there is legislation which lends itself to the abuse of liquor, it can become a social atomic bomb. On the other hand, if it is correctly used, it can be a very useful and healthy product of civilization.

The problem with which we are really faced here is a social problem and not a problem of production. Liquor will be produced in any case, no matter what legislation is on the Statute Book. Mr. Speaker. I shall take great pleasure in voting for this Bill because the Bill is trying to reach the true crux of the problem, namely the merciless combating of drunkenness instead of placing all the emphasis, as was the position in the past, on the possession of liquor. It is precisely the prohibition which has existed hitherto on the possession of liquor which has given rise to all the problems with which we are faced to-day: The illicit liquor traffic which, as we learn from the report of the Malan Commission, involves as much as 60 per cent of the total production! This quantity of liquor is flowing through illegal channels, and is then bought by the non-Whites at exorbitant prices. In the second place, as a result of this system, grievances are being caused amongst the Bantu because they cannot get what the White man has, and what the White man drinks every day. These are grievances which give rise to strained relations between White and Black. In the third place it results in crime. This system lends itself to the activities of the shebeen queens with which we are all familiar. These shebeen queens are the focal points of crime in the Bantu areas. It is here that the agitators against law and order see the opportunity to get the people together and after they have drunk such illicit liquor to incite them against the authority of the White man precisely by playing on this grievance.

Mr. Speaker, against this background I want to protest vehemently this morning against certain unfortunate and excessive statements which have been made in opposition to this measure in this House. It has been said that by introducing this legislation we are acting irresponsibly and that we are even deliberately trying to cause the destruction of the non-White. That is not in keeping with the spirit of the doubts which have been expressed against this legislation outside this House. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and the hon. member for East London (City) have alleged that it is the wine farmers who are responsible for the pressure behind this legislation and that their motive is to fill their pockets.

Mr. GAY:

I did not mention them.

*Mr. H. H. SMIT:

Yes, the hon. member did not say it in so many words …

Mr. GAY:

I did not mention that at all.

*Mr. H. H. SMIT:

I shall quote what the hon. member said presently. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) has already denied this allegation, and has pointed out that it is not the result of pressure by the wine farmers. The hon. member for East London (City) is a very conscientious man who always prepares himself very carefully before he discusses any subject, and to me it is not in keeping with his conscientiousness that he dares makes such an allegation to the effect that the introduction of this legislation is due to pressure by the wine farmers who want to fill their pockets. He should know better. In this House there are only five members who represent constituencies which are predominantly wine-producing constituencies, and in total there are only 11 members who represent constituencies in which wine is produced at all. If five members of this House have the power to persuade the Government and a part of the Opposition to support legislation which will fill the pockets of the wine farmers, they must be extraordinarily powerful people. On the other hand I want to remind the hon. member that it was precisely one of the wine constituency representatives, namely the hon. the Minister of Finance, who a few years ago resisted strong representations from the wine farmers to the effect that the increased excise duties on brandy should be reduced. It was precisely the representative of a wine district who insisted that the excise duties on brandy should be increased, and by so doing he immediately gave the lead towards the establishment of a completely new drinking pattern in our country.

Mr. Speaker, the wine farmers deplore it when they are referred to, by implication or otherwise, as exploiters who want to enrich themselves through the misery of the Bantu and the Coloured. The product which they produce is one of the oldest and the noblest in our country. The wine farmer himself treats his product with the respect of a civilized person, and he would like all other people to do the same. Hon. members who support this standpoint could safely examine how the farmer advertises his product, how, at his wine festivals, he does not propagate the idea that we should drink more, but that we should use liquor correctly, at the right time, and with food. The wine farmer does not want his product to be regarded as an evil, nor does he want to see drunkenness because, if there is drunkenness his product is usually blamed. As regards the reference to wine farmers who want to fill their pockets, I want to tell the hon. member for East London (City) that the wine-producing areas of our country have produced some of the greatest leaders of our country in all spheres—political, spiritual, educational and others—and that some of the greatest contributors to mission work are still to be found to-day in those areas where the vine is cultivated.

What the wine farmer does see is the evil inherent in the present system of distribution and the incorrect drinking pattern which exists in our country as a result of that system, and he realizes that it gives his product a stigma. The wine farmer is just as anxious as everyone else that this position should be rectified. He does not want his product to reach exploiters. Nor does he want to see his product giving thousands of Coloureds the opportunity to make a living through the illicit liquor trade, which results in their being withdrawn from decent employment, which reduces their morale and which results in the Bantu streaming to the areas where the Coloureds have a prior claim on the employment offered him by the White man. For these reasons the wine farmers are interested in this legislation—although they are not responsible for the pressure behind it—particularly because the representations for this legislation have come from those people who stand in the front line in combating the evil of liquor abuse and the illicit liquor trade, namely the police, who do not speak piously about this matter, but who have had their hands full with combating the evils of liquor abuse as a result of an unsound system. This pressure has also come from organized agriculture, and from agricultural unions which represent areas far removed from the wine-producing parts of our country, people who, as I stated originally, are conservative as regards the consumption of liquor by non-Whites but who are realistic farmers and who appreciate that one cannot achieve one’s desired objects by placing a prohibition on such consumption as we have done in the past. The hon. member for East London (City) has said that in the days of the Transvaal Republic liquor was described as a secret weapon against the Bantu. He further said that the unrestricted supply of liquor to indigenous races in other parts of the world had resulted in their destruction. The facts refute this allegation. From the report of the Malan Commission it appears that in our neighbouring states, where liquor is supplied freely to the Bantu—Bantu who, in actual fact, are less advanced than ours—the effect has been the reverse. Drunkenness has declined and court prosecutions, as a result of the abuse of liquor, have declined in number.

The hon. member for Simonstown has said that the 11,000,000 voteless people of South Africa consider this measure to be a political weapon aimed at keeping them subservient. But he also said that the Bantu were asking for bread and we were giving them brandy. He said that this was worse than the biblical comparison, because we were not giving them a stone, but poison, which would destroy their souls and result in their degeneration. Mr. Speaker, I say that this is an irresponsible statement because it is not only a false and distorted metaphor which the hon. member has used, but it is also untrue because, by so doing, he is insinuating that we are withholding bread from the Bantu. May I point out to the hon member that the Government subsidizes bread to the extent of millions of rand in our country, and that is in fact subsidizing it to-day for the benefit of the Bantu. The Bantu which, until a few years ago, mainly ate mealie meal as their staple food, are eating bread to-day, and they are eating white bread because they regard bread and white bread as the food of the White man. They regard it as the food of the White man, just as they regard the liquor which is kept from them as the liquor of the White man, and for that reason they would like to have it. Now the hon. member says: They are asking us for bread and we are giving them brandy. I want to ask the two hon. members who have made this far-reaching allegation, to the effect that by this legislation we are trying to undermine the non-Whites, whether they can estimate what harm these statements may do our country abroad. If I had not heard hon. members make those statements here myself, and if I were to read them, then I would have said that such an allegation was the brain-child of someone like Stanley Uys because I can imagine how the popular world Press will refer to this allegation as an example of how we are trying to oppress the Native by over-supplying them with liquor and what sombre pictures will be depicted of people asking for bread and being given brandy.

Mr, Speaker, we have had a whole series of misrepresentations from members who have participated in this debate. The hon. member for Simonstown has also said that we may not experiment with the lives of men, women and children.

Mr. GAY:

Hear, hear!

*Mr. H. H. SMIT:

There the hon. member is saying “Hear, hear!” He made this statement in discussing the hon. the Minister’s reference to the fact that this legislation was of an experimental nature. I now want to ask the hon. member this: What was the legislation dealing with liquor consumption, which we have had hitherto in South Africa, if it was not experimental? The hon. the Minister has referred to the fact that we have had a variety of commissions which investigated this problem in the past. In the case of a population which is of a heterogenous composition and which is gradually developing one will find that one has to adjust one’s liquor legislation from time to time and one will have to learn from the experience of the past through the experiments which one undertakes. In this regard I want to express my thanks for the fact that a National Liquor Board will be established under this legislation. The wine farmers and others who are interested in the distribution of the product of the vine welcome this step, because we believe that such a body will be able to help to rectify more rapidly the anomalies which exist to-day and which may also arise in the future rather than following the protracted method of first returning to this House and amending the legislation. I also believe that the advice of this body will assist in eliminating the anomalies which have existed and to which the hon. the Minister has referred, for example, the fact that Coloureds stream to Kuils River on Saturdays to buy liquor which they cannot buy in the Peninsula. One hon. member has said that we should rather follow the course of allowing civilized Bantu to obtain liquor by means of permits. I now want to ask: By this system of permits, would we not in fact once again be making the illicit liquor trade possible? By so doing we shall be making it possible for certain people to obtain liquor and it will give them a certain incentive to abuse this product which they have in their possession by supplying it to the illicit liquor trade.

The hon. member for East London (City) has said that it is not true that the Bantu can afford White liquor to-day. I do not know whether the hon. member has read the report of the Malan Commission. In paragraph 37 it says—

The living and economic conditions which existed, particularly in the case of the non-Whites. have changed to such a great extent since 1928 that the application of the Liquor Act, No. 30 of 1928 is at present simply a complete impossibility. This factor is the basis of the present contraventions of the law.

But the fact of the matter is actually that the hon. member has made that allegation while it is known, and this report confirms it, that the Bantu and the other non-Whites do in fact obtain as much liquor as they want. The difference is just that they have to pay double the price for it, and what is more, they obtain liquor of a poor quality. I want to point out to the hon. member that the Bantu is a thrifty person. If he can acquire something readily, he is slow to buy and he is very selective. Those of us who have travelled on roads in the interior which are being repaired, have often seen how a Native walks from his work barefoot while his boots are hanging over his shoulder. He is thrifty. When he goes to a shop to buy, he bargains and he buys carefully and reluctantly, if the goods are available to him. But, Mr. Speaker, it becomes quite a different matter when the product is withheld from him.

Hon. members have also referred to the tot system and to the evils which have flowed from that system. They are objecting to the fact that this system will now be extended to the other provinces. But those hon. members should know that the tot system is not compulsory, that it is permissive and that anyone is free to give liquor or not to give liquor to his employees. Every farmer knows that the tot system is a burden on him personally in the sense that it requires additional supervision, that it causes him additional trouble and that it involves him in additional expenditure. After all he would not introduce such a system of his own accord if he was not obliged to do so. But the point is this: If hon. members were to discuss the tot system and they were to compare their opinions with the realistic and practical farmer, that farmer would immediately ask them what their alternative was. Would the farmer be satisfied to have his workers going to the towns at night in order to obtain illegal liquor, would he be satisfied to have them obtaining liquor from the illicit liquor traffic at night and then arriving for work drunk the next day? Or would it not perhaps be better for the employer to accept responsibility for his workers and for giving them good and proper liquor, and that he should do so with their meals, as liquor should really be served?

A great deal has been said about the misery caused by the tot system, but without any real knowledge of the system. I concede that it is possible to abuse the tot system, but the unscrupulous employer who abuses the system will have to pay the price himself, because he is undermining the productivity of his workers. He will get less satisfactory work from his employees. Sensible farmers will only supply wine at mealtimes to their workers. I can just mention the fact that there is far less drunkenness amongst farm workers on the farms than there is in the towns where the people are not subject to the tot system. One hon. member has also asked: What would happen if industries were to place their workers on the tot system? But it is after all silly to make such an allegation. These people work and live in the immediate vicinity of canteens and other liquor distribution points, and it is precisely the industrial workers who abuse liquor to a far greater extent than the farm workers who obtain their liquor through the tot system. I can also point out that the farmers are anxious that their employees should not drink. That is why we often find to-day that in areas where the tot system is used farmers encourage their employees to drink less or not to drink at all and that they guide them along the right lines as far as their drinking habits are concerned. There are many farm workers who do not drink at all.

A further allegation which the hon. member for East London (City) has made is that serious crime will increase as a result of this Bill. Then he has also said that various Judges have referred to the dangers of this system and to the fact that the abuse of liquor results in crimes, particularly those of violence. He has also said that intoxicating liquor is a great contributory factor to crimes such as rape, etc. But, Mr. Speaker, what those Judges and magistrates were referring to was surely the crimes which resulted from the present system which we want to improve. For this reason the hon. member should offer us his assistance in improving the existing position and not try to defeat our attempts by misrepresenting the position.

Mr. Speaker, the only alternative to our present system which remains is not satisfactory and we do not want to follow the course which the hon. the Minister has suggested, namely, that we should impose yet more severe restrictions. Is the hon. member in favour of such a course? He is after all familiar with the evils which have resulted from the present system of restrictions in the shape of the illicit liquor traffic and these pernicious brews. Does he think that further restrictions on the supply of liquor will help us to any extent in this regard? For this reason I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a pleasure for me to support this legislation because I know that its aim is to benefit our whole population, to establish improved relations between Black and White and particularly because it provides for the establishment of a National Board which will assist in effecting the necessary changes which may become necessary from time to time.

Mr. EGLIN:

I think it is understandable that there are deeply held differences of opinion on a measure of such a major nature. I think we are fully aware of the evils, not only of the present system, but of the abuse of alcohol which manifests itself in various ways in various parts of the country. I do not want to impugn ulterior motives to any one section of the community, whether they be suppliers of alcoholic liquor or others. I believe that by and large the South African nation would like to find a policy, a form of legislation which would do everything possible to limit the abuses of alcohol amongst all the people of South Africa. I therefore want to approach this matter on an objective basis in order to see whether the Bill which is before the House is one which, we can be satisfied, will not only remove the abuses from the present system but will mitigate against the development of new abuses.

I believe that there will be considerable agreement for the view that fairly radical reforms of distribution of liquor and the Liquor Act in South Africa are necessary. The parent Act which we are seeking to amend today is an Act which was introduced on the Statute Book in 1928 when South Africa, viewed from the point of view of the social and economic pattern, was a very different country from the country it is to-day. It was introduced at a time before our major industrial revolution, before the tremendous migration of people from the platteland to the towns; before the non-Whites, and the African in particular, had become as closely integrated into the whole economic and social machine of our urban areas. There have been in the course of the past 30 years fundamental changes affecting the social and economic relationships between the various colour groups in South Africa. As a result of these pressures, as a result of these changes there have emerged certain grave anomalies in the present system of the distribution of liquor. Certain grave abuses have arisen, both in respect of statutory crimes and what I would call moral crimes as a result of the present system. I think it has become abundantly clear to most people that it is necessary that changes should be brought about.

I believe that there are very few people in South Africa who believe that total prohibition is either feasible or indeed desirable in modern circumstances. I will go further and say that in an integrated economic society such as we have in South Africa, partial prohibition can be no complete or final answer to the problem of the distribution of liquor, especially when that partial prohibition is based on arbitrary criteria of either race or colour. I believe that the final attitude of the people of South Africa to-day towards the use or the abuse of alcohol, the final degree of temperance or intemperance will depend upon the moral fibre of the people of South Africa, and on the social and economic conditions under which they live. So that if we want to tackle this problem in all earnestness we must not see it as purely a problem affecting the distribution of alcohol, but we should see it as part and parcel of the whole policy of reform of the social and economic conditions under which the people of South Africa live. I believe that major reforms are necessary. The question is whether the Bill before the House, and the measures which the hon. the Minister is putting to this House are sound, not only in relation to the ultimate goal, but whether they are based on the factual situation which exists in South Africa to-day.

Mr. Speaker, on the question of the methods which the hon. the Minister seeks to employ to overcome the undoubted problems which there are in South Africa to-day, I find myself in disagreement with the hon. the Minister. I agree with, and I accept the Minister’s desire to eliminate certain abuses and to obviate certain difficulties. However, I have not been persuaded that the measures which he proposes are indeed measures which we can contemplate without any hazard for the future.

A commission was appointed by the Government, as a result of its desire to change the conditions pertaining to the supply of liquor. The Malan Commission was appointed to investigate and to make recommendations on this problem. This commission sat for some time and heard considerable evidence, and it was in the position to make certain recommendations. Certain people have criticized the recommendations of the Malan Commission. I accept that no commission would ever make recommendations on such a touchy subject as the distribution of liquor and not be free of some kind of criticism in one or other quarter. But I also believe that the recommendations made by the Malan Commission were far more realistic and far less hazardous than the recommendations which the hon. the Minister has put before the House to-day. Because I believe that what the Malan Commission recommended tended to be more realistic and a much safer way of dealing with this problem, I do not believe that the Government should at the present time exceed those recommendations.

I have said that partial prohibition was no final solution, and that in all circumstances we should try to avoid arbitrary prohibitions based solely on the criteria of colour or race. But having said that, can we totally disregard the very real differences of attainment, the very real differences of civilization, the very real difference in the distance to which they have moved towards the Western way of life of a wide variety of the people who form the South African nation? I think we are all fully aware that the impact of Western civilization is being felt on the African community today, that many of these people have moved into the field of the Western way of life. Others have not yet come under its impact. Just as in other fields there is a good case to be made for recognizing the attainments of the individual, recognizing the distance he has moved in accepting the Western way of life, so, too, do I think it would be far more realistic, in dealing with this difficult problem, to recognize the personal attainments of the people in South Africa along the path of Western custom, Western habits and Western standards. Dare we ignore the fact that because of our legislation vast numbers of non-White people in South Africa are living under social and economic conditions differing from our own? It may be held to be a product of history, nevertheless there is no doubt that there are a large number of other laws of a discriminatory nature which compel millions of non-White people to live under undesirable social conditions. I believe that those social and economic conditions should be reformed and that that reform should precede or should go hand in hand with this kind of reform in the distribution of liquor.

This legislation reminds me very much of the philosophy of the Government in the field of political rights, where it seems to be posed that the only solution is either no say at all in Parliament, or one man one vote. I do not accept that philosophy in so far as political rights are concerned, nor do I believe that in the field of the distribution of liquor we should ignore the very real existence on a personal basis between the standard of attainment and the standard of civilization of individuals. The Malan Commission did recommend radical reforms to the whole system of permits, both in the administrative set up and in the criteria which should be applied to the issue of permits. I think the recommendations of the Malan Commission were realistic and were sensible. I think they are the type of recommendations which could well have been accepted as an experimental basis to see what impact such a considerable extension of permits could make to the situation in South Africa. I realize full well that once you go in for a system of permits, even on an extended basis, it does lead to the difficulty of the transfer of liquor from people who have permits to people who have not. I realize that that system is always subject to a certain measure of abuse. Nevertheless, the Malan Commission found that the abuse of the permit system was minimal, and in paragraph 74 of their report they state—

If a Native abuses his permit it is withdrawn and he is therefore deprived of the privilege of obtaining liquor lawfully. This is one of the main reasons why the holder of a permit virtually never commits any offence which would jeopardize his permit.

I think that possibly this is putting it at its optimistic best. I believe that evidence could be adduced to show that there was a measure of abuse of the permit system. Nevertheless one has to decide whether you are going to discriminate against people on the basis of individual attainment, or whether in terms of this Bill you are going to apply discrimination on a block or area basis. It should be realized that this Bill does not abolish racial discrimination in the narrow sense of the word, it will merely allow the Minister to apply discrimination on the basis of an area or a block or a local authority rather than on the basis of the individual. I would far rather prefer the extension of the facilities for the provision of liquor to individuals who have reached a certain standard of attainment.

We must try to do two things. We must try to minimize the tremendous number of statutory offences which flow from the implementation of the present Liquor Act, but at the same time we must do it in such a way that it will not in turn lead to any abuse or degeneracy in the social and economic fields. When one talks of abuse, one thinks of two kinds of abuse. There is the abuse of the system, the abuse of the law, and there is the abuse of the commodity. We must take into account these two kinds of abuse. We must be on our guard lest by eliminating the statutory problem, we do not create or aggravate any social or economic problems. As far as the elimination of the statutory abuse is concerned there is no doubt that the passage of this Bill will decrease the number of statutory criminals in respect to the liquor laws. However, it will not entirely eradicate these offenders because liquor will still be supplied on a differential basis to White and non-White, on the basis of the region or the local authority area. Secondly, it will still be necessary for the police to take action to see that the Liquor Law is carried out. It will still be necessary under certain circumstances to have police raids to ensure that there is no illicit brewing of liquor. I am one of those who believe that by making liquor of an approved type more freely available it is likely that there will be less illicit liquor brewing than in the past. Nevertheless, I do not believe that habits or customs that have either grown up as the result of environment or previous enactments can be eliminated merely by the stroke of a pen. So much for the abuses or offences against the law.

Now, what about the abuse in respect of the commodity? Can we say with certainty that the passage of this Bill will not increase abuses in the social and economic field? I do not know. I do not believe there is any member of this House who can say he is fully convinced that it will lead to the elimination of abuse of this commodity in the social and economic field. I have the greatest apprehension that unless the reform of the distribution of liquor goes hand in hand with similar radical reforms in the social and economic field, it will cause abuse and degeneracy in the social and economic field as well. It is interesting to look at the figures of crimes committed against the present Liquor Act and to divide the crimes into the categories of purely statutory offences on the one hand and offences against good morals on the other hand. Let us consider drunkenness as an offence against society and consider the illegal position of liquor, etc., as an offence against the law, as a statutory offence. It will be seen that while there are almost hundreds of thousands of Africans, who have become statutory offenders, it is important also to look at the figures of drunkenness for the various groups in South Africa. It will be seen from the latest figures available, those contained in the report of the Malan Commission, that convictions for drunkenness amount to 4.5 per 1,000 Europeans. For Africans it is 4 per 1,000, and for Coloureds 34 per 1,000. I think we must ask ourselves why there is this tremendous disparity in the convictions for drunkenness between the various racial groups. We should ask ourselves why the percentage for the Africans is as low as it is. Is it because only a small percentage of those people are addicted to liquor? I doubt it. Is it because the African is traditionally not a man who indulges in such excesses? I doubt whether he is any better or worse than we are. Is he by nature an abstemious person? I doubt whether in the same social environment he would be any better or worse than we are. Is it because he cannot afford it? I think that the evidence shows that when he wants liquor he can afford to obtain it. Or is it perhaps the fact that he has no easy access to liquor which has been a deterrent, and which has. limited the degree of drunkenness amongst Africans? Is it because he can get liquor, but only with difficulty, and knowing that he is breaking the law? Is his drunkenness the result of an expedition or of a habit? I do not know, but I think it is important to take into account that wherever commissions have investigated the causes of the abuse of alcohol, they have come to the conclusion time and time again that the root cause are the social and economic conditions under which people live. I want to read very briefly from one paragraph from the Commission on the Cape Coloured people which sat in 1937, and which investigated the conditions under which these people live. It says this—

Almost every cause that might induce the European to drink is present, but in addition there are other causes applicable to the Cape Coloured people only which impel, possibly, a larger proportion of them to drink to excess. The main cause, the hopelessness of the economic outlook of the average Coloured person, is pointed out elsewhere in the report. It is due to (a) low wages, which result in under-nourishment and bad housing and prevent any form of recreation; (b) lack of education or inferior education; (c) the conventional, legal and administrative colour bars which not only close many avenues of employment but which restrict him to blind-alley occupations; (d) the application of the Master and Servant Act, which in practice frequently restricts him from moving to other fields of labour. A general improvement in the economic position of the Coloured community will therefore be a great factor in reducing the evil of intemperance.

It is for this reason that I say that while reforms are necessary and while the type of reform recommended by the Malan Commission would have been acceptable to many people, I believe that this Government, because it has not indicated at the same time any major reforms in the social and economic fields for the non-Whites, is putting the cart before the horse. I would have hoped that hand in hand with reforming the liqour laws we would have heard that the Government intended to put an end to the migrant labour system with the sense of insecurity and the complete absence of family life which flows from it. ] would have thought that the Government would have indicated that it is embarking on a plan of giving home ownership to the Africans. I would have hoped that hand in hand with a Bill of this nature …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is going very far now.

Mr. EGLIN:

I am referring to the recommendations of the Commission, which said quite clearly that if you want to reform the attitude of people towards the consumption of liquor, it is necessary not only to reform the law but to make practical reforms in the social and economic fields. The Government is proceeding with this Bill in a vacuum, because it is not relating it to a general programme of social and economic reform. This is why I am not attracted to this. Bill. I believe, with the commissions, and in broad outline with the Malan Commission, that the Minister should have allowed the supply of liquor to the non-Whites on a selective basis, taking personal attainment into account. That would have been far wiser. I believe it would have eased the transition from one pattern of drinking to the new pattern which is linked with the Western way of life. I believe it would have allowed greater room for experimentation, examination and adjustment. I think it is. important for us to realize that we have no parallel of a law such as this being applied anywhere else on the African Continent. Other than in Kenya and Uganda, where all types of liquor are readily available to all people, irrespective of any racial or other criteria, elsewhere on the African Continent, wines and malts are readily available, but up to the end of 1960 the supply of spirituous liquor was controlled on the basis of individual merit and attainment. So we are not in a position to draw from the experience of other industrialized or semi-industrialized nations in Africa.

I have stated some criticisms in general of the Government’s attitude in not allowing the Minister to assess individual merit as far as the application of the Liquor Law is concerned. I also have criticized the fact that seen against its broad background, this action is not related to a general programme of social and economic reform. But I have one or two specific objections to the Bill itself. First of all, there is no abolition of the tot system envisaged in this Bill. I agree that there is reference to the abolition of the tot system.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I intend withdrawing Clauses 8 and 16.

Mr. EGLIN:

I think it represents an advance if the Minister has agreed to the abolition of the system. The next point of criticism I have is that the Minister now virtually replaces the Liquor Licensing Board as far as African areas are concerned. He is going to be the sole arbiter without criteria having been laid down in the Act as to the conditions he should impose or in regard to the availability of liquor or the withholding of it. I think this machinery is quite inadequate. I do not think it should be left as arbitrarily as it is to the Minister’s discretion. I believe that there must be an opportunity of people being able to object and to give evidence at an open sitting of whatever court or commission the Minister might care to set up, in order that views can be ventilated before there is further distribution of liquor in the Bantu areas. I think it would be far better from the Minister’s point of view if this authority were not vested in the Minister, who unfortunately is subject to all kinds of pressure, political or otherwise, and that it be put into the hands of magistrates who are not subjected to that pressure. Thirdly, as I read the Act, it denies to the Africans in their areas the right to exercise any local option. It has been fundamental as far as the White people are concerned that local communities can muster objection and veto the introduction of liquor facilities in a specific area if it is not the wish of the majority. While I do not think that people on a majority vote should be entitled to decide on the extent or type of liquor facilities—I think that should be left to the magistrate, or to the Minister, if this Bill becomes law—I think we should allow each local community the right to veto the introduction of such facilities if the local people so wish. It is an important right which the White people have enjoyed and I think we should also give it to the non-Whites, so that they will know that they are given such facilities with their approval and not in spite of their attitude or wishes. I think it will be helpful if the Minister in his reply would indicate the extent to which there has been either a clamour or a request for the extension of these facilities from responsible non-Whites themselves. It may well be that he can tell us that the tribal or territorial authorities have requested this kind of legislation. He might indicate that the advisory boards have asked for it. As far as I know, right up to 1955 the advisory boards asked for radical reforms of the system of liquor distribution, and for more access to wines and malt, and also for the extension of the permit system. But I know of no request from formally constituted Bantu Authorities for the kind of law which is before the House at the moment. I think it will do the House and the country good if the Minister could indicate that this step is only being taken after earnest consultation and with the approval or at the request of such statutory or quasi statutory bodies representing the Bantu as may exist.

Finally, I must criticize the Government for its handling of this measure, for the way in which it has been introduced at this late stage, because it is cavalier treatment both of the members of this House and the public. No one will deny the tremendous importance of this measure. It is a measure which on the one hand will initiate certain radical reforms, but on the other hand it will also create certain new vested interests. Whether we like it or not, the passage of this Bill will immediately have the effect of creating new vested interests, and once one creates new vested interests we all know that it is physically impossible to abolish those vested interests because of the pressure groups which build up around them. So both because of the radical nature of the reform and because we are creating a new vested interest which we will not be able to undo even if we wish to, I think the manner in which the Bill was introduced is an extremely bad one. There has been no warning to this House or to the public as to the exact intentions of the Government except ten days ago, on the same day that its was announced that the House would adjourn on the 23rd. The Malan Commission appointed by the Government made certain recommendations for reform. That was almost a year ago. The Government’s intention was kept dark until just before the recess, before the inauguration of the State President, when an indication was given that an abbreviated Bill would be introduced merely to deal with one aspect, the extension of liquor facilities to non-Whites. But even at that stage there was no indication by the Government that it would accept the recommendations of the Commission. We know that there are very few people other than possibly the members of the Cabinet who believed that the Government intended to exceed the reforms recommended by the Malan Commission. So after having had a Commission sitting on the matter, and the Commission having recommended certain reforms, and having waited for nearly a year, the Government says: We reject the basic recommendations of the Commission and we will proceed with this Bill in the last two weeks of the Session.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

We did not express an opinion on the report as a whole.

Mr. EGLIN:

The Government has divided the recommendations into two parts.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

This is only a small part of the recommendations.

Mr. EGLIN:

I concede that the other part, the technical recommendations, may be just as important, but as far as the principle is concerned, I believe that it is of far more vital concern than the various technical amendments which may be made next year. If the Minister is correct and the Government intends to introduce far-reaching proposals next year, I say that this aspect of the Bill should be considered in conjunction with the new intended aspects. We are being asked to reform the Liquor Laws in respect of the consumption of liquor by non-Whites on the basis of the present Act, and not on the basis of the important technical recommendations which will flow from the consideration of the rest of the report of the Commission.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

It will be a good thing to have this experiment before proceeding further.

Mr. EGLIN:

Perhaps it would have been better to experiment first with the technical improvements, with the new pattern of the distribution of liquor to the Whites, to see what effect that has before it is applied to the non-Whites. I do not want to suggest that the one should precede the other. My argument is that this thing should be seen as a whole, and I think it is wrong to divorce the question of extending liquor facilities to the non-Whites from the rest of it without knowing what the Minister’s intention is in regard to the other important recommendations of the Commission. My plea to the Minister is not to proceed with this legislation at this stage, that the Government hold over this Bill, and that during the recess they publish a White Paper which will deal with the whole of the report of the Malan Commission, so that the people of South Africa will be aware of the Government’s intentions, both in regard to this aspect of the report and the other technical aspects. I believe that by taking an important and virtually irrevocable step such as this, it behoves us to give mature consideration not only to one aspect of it but to the whole of the Government’s intentions in regard to reforming the liquor laws. So I ask the Minister not to proceed with the Bill right at the end of this Session before having given the people the opportunity to consider these proposals. I do not believe that they have been given mature consideration. I think the type of consideration it has received during the last few days is highly emotional, because of the time factor involved. I believe it will be far better for the Minister to make the whole of the Government’s intentions public before proceeding with this Bill.

For these reasons: because there must be a more realistic approach, because there have to be major reforms to ensure that liquor is supplied on a basis which will not aggravate the abuses which already exist, and whilst I believe that this Bill will reduce certain statutory offences, I am not satisfied that it will minimize to any great extent the offences of an anti-social nature, I ask the Minister to withhold the Bill, and should he not do so, I am afraid I must record my vote against it.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

I briefly want to give my views on this matter. I have a great deal of respect for the attitude of the churches and the standpoint they adopt towards the misuse of liquor, but this measure is not being introduced one day too soon. In spite of all the objections we have had in the form of memoranda, the time is long overdue for this measure to be passed. Apart from any ethical or moral arguments, we must remember that for the past 50 years, with the best will in the world, the police have found it impossible to suppress the illicit liquor trade. Everybody is agreed that it is physically impossible for the police to suppress this evil. If you ask yourself which is the greater of those evils, I think you will agree, Sir, that illicit liquor trade is the greater by far. The one thing that this measure will be do will be to do away with the illicit liquor trade. You will still have to deal with people who are drunk and much worse because the people to whom we are now supplying liquor had to resort to other means to satisfy their craving, they had to resort to concoctions which were very harmful to both body and soul. I do not think we could combat that, and I think we should forget politics for the moment. [Interjections.] Do not misunderstand me as you so often do. Is it not peculiar that here in South Africa the major portion of the nation is forbidden to use liquor? I think that is quite unnecessary. It is an undesirable state of affairs because let me tell hon. members this that the need for liquor is much stronger in the case of somebody who does hard physical labour than in our case who sit in this House. Anybody who employs labour on a large scale, any farmer or industrialist, will tell you that when the worker has his liquor in a proper way his mental state is such that he works much better. I want to know why we should refuse those people the right to enjoy that stimulant which encourages them to do their work? I challenge anybody to tell me that drink is a greater evil to the man who is spiritually and physically stimulated by it to perform better work than all the harmful concoctions that he resorts to in order to satisfy his craving. I am in favour of this Bill as we have it before us because it will enable the Bantu to acquire his liquor legally and not always to have to break the law in order to get liquor which is harmful to him. It has become absolutely necessary that we place this measure on the Statute Book. Everybody will admit that I owe the wine farmer nothing, and that I cannot be accused of pleading the cause of a handful of people whom I represent. I gave evidence in a case for the first time in 1931 here in Cape Town and on that occasion I said that it would be very stupid to keep liquor away from the Bantu mineworkers in the Transvaal. Reference has been made to pressure groups that have been formed by the wine farmers. I think that is a very unworthy statement to make, because if you look at the statistics and you see what a bottle of liquor eventually costs and what profit the wine farmers make out of it, it is very unjust to say that the idea is only to fill the pockets of the wine farmers. This measure must go through. My attitude towards the churches is that, just as in the case of lotteries, in the absence of total prohibition it is no more than right towards the whole nation that they should be able to acquire liquor legally, according to their needs and their pockets. As long as we have the position that there is not total prohibition in this country, I will always be an ardent supporter of liquor being made available to everybody. Do not let us adopt the false attitude that liquor is something which should only be available to certain privileged people. It is those very poor people who need some stimulant so that they may forget their depressing circumstances. The most clever man in the world, namely Solomon, said that. Why must we deprive those people of liquor, those people who have the greatest need for it, because it is an elementary human right. No, the time has arrived that we faced up to this question squarely. Where we have the position to-day that a large section of the Police Force has to be on their toes the whole day through to combat the illicit liquor trade, that one responsibility will at least now be taken off their shoulders and we will not have that state of unconscious drunkenness which we have to-day due to the abuse of liquor, where they commit more crimes than they will when they drink decent liquor. Let us stop saying that this is a measure which emanates from a pressure group. The police who could not suppress that evil are the most ardent supporters of this measure. I welcome this measure and I do so with great respect to those who oppose it, particularly the churches. I hope the churches will admit that the police cannot suppress this evil, and nowhere in the Bible is it stated that it is wrong to use liquor but it is wrong to abuse it. In the circumstances in which the Bantu live he was forced not to use liquor but to abuse it, and when he did get hold of liquor he went too far. Because liquor will in future be used more and misused less, I will vote for this measure.

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

Four reasons were advanced for this Bill, namely that illicit dealing will be reduced, discrimination will be abolished, a stop will be put to harmful brews and drunkenness will be reduced. Let us pay closer attention to these reasons.

It is said that illicit dealing will be stopped. I do not believe that that will be the case, and the hon. member who spoke last, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), if I may have his attention, emphasized that illicit dealing will be stopped and that the police have found it impossible to cope with the. evil of smuggling. I just want to ask the hon. member this: There is a tremendous amount of smuggling in dagga and also in diamonds. In order to facilitate the work of the police, does he want the restrictions on the use of dagga to be removed and that the diamond laws should not be applied? Surely it is nonsense to advance that as a reason, that in order to reduce the work of the police we should make liquor available to the non-Whites, particularly to the Bantu. South Africa has once before, in the Transvaal, tried to provide strong liquor freely to the Bantu communities in that area, and what was the result? It led to such a state of affairs that President Kruger had to institute total prohibition. In regard to shebeens, we find that they flourish particularly in the vicinity of the beer-halls. The evidence given before the Malan Commission in the Peninsula was that there were approximately 600 of these shebeens here, but of the 600 only about 200 were for the Bantu and more than 400 were for the Coloureds, who can obtain liquor freely. Therefore there were more than 400 for the Coloureds and only 200 for the Bantu, who are totally prohibited from obtaining liquor. That was the evidence given by Col. Reay before the Malan Commission in 1959. It is said that this Bill will reduce drunkenness. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) produced figures a moment ago to prove that there is more drunkenness amongst the Coloureds than amongst the Bantu. This measure will increase drunkenness amongst the Bantu. The position is that whereas to-day the Bantu can buy a bottle of brandy in the shebeen or R2 per bottle, he will be able to buy it lor R1 per bottle and drunkenness will increase because he will be able to obtain so much more liquor for the same amount of money. Surely it is clear that drunkenness is in direct proportion to the amount of alcohol consumed, and the more liquor facilities are provided, the more drinkers there will be. It was found in America in 1948, for instance, that in the whole of America there were 3,960 alcoholics per 100,000 of the population. In Nevada, one of the American states, there were 8,128 per 100,000 of the population. In the whole of America the consumption was 1.17 gallons per person, whilst the consumption per person in Nevada was 2.41 gallons. In other words, approximately twice as much brandy and whisky was drunk in Nevada as in the whole of America and there was 2.1 times as many alcoholics in Nevada as in the whole of America. Drunkenness is therefore in direct ratio to the amount of alcohol consumed and with the amount of alcohol available. I am not saying that the more liquor facilities there are the more new drinkers there will be. I will concede that it will perhaps mean that the police will have to carry out fewer raids, but will it really mean less work for the police? Will there be fewer assaults and murders? Will there be less rioting? This Bill provides that the non-White may buy liquor but that he may not take it to a house of which he himself is not the owner. Every house-owner will therefore have to give his consent to the use of liquor on his premises. Will that reduce the work of the police? If I find that non-Whites are consuming liquor in my backyard and I do not want them to do so—and you will find that 90 per cent of the White people will not want liquor to be consumed on their premises—I telephone the police and ask them to come and investigate. Not only will I do so but also my neighbour and three or four other people in the same street will do so at the same time, usually Friday night or Saturday morning or Saturday night after they have received their wages. Will that reduce the work of the police? Will it reduce the number of assaults and murders? It is argued that this measure will reduce the work of the police. It is an argument which hangs in the air and has no substance. Langenhoven said that one could not combat an evil by extending it, and that is the truth. How can one extend an evil and then say that one is combating it?

In 1937 beer-halls were introduced by the municipalities and it was done with the idea that if the Bantu was given the right to drink his own liquor there legally there would be less drunkenness and fewer contraventions of the law. What was the result? Statistics prove that drunkenness amongst the Bantu increased by 41 per cent within two years. That was the result of establishing beer-halls where the Bantu could drink legally.

One of the reasons advanced as to why we should abolish the existing restrictions is that there is discrimination between the Whites and the non-Whites. Surely it is a well-known fact that undeveloped and half-civilized people cannot stand strong drink. I want to say that the Bantu in South Africa particularly cannot stand strong liquor. It has clearly been proved by medical men that the Bantu eats too little fat and that as the result he is much more susceptible to the destructive influence of liquor in his system, because he eats too much starch and too little fat. I feel that as Christian guardians we should protect the semi-civilized and undeveloped people. But why should there not be discrimination and differentiation? Surely we apply it in other respects. We apply it in the social sphere and in the political and the economic spheres. We differentiate between the wages paid to Whites and to non-Whites. We discriminate against the non-Whites in regard to working facilities. Legislation has been placed on the statute book by this Government which provides for job reservation, a measure which discriminates against the non-Whites. Why then in this case should there not be differentiation or discrimination? If we intend doing away with discrimination and differentiation, are we going to allow the non-Whites freely to acquire the weapons of the White man? Are we going to do away with job reservation? Why should there not be discrimination simply in regard to liquor, this thing which can harm them so much? Surely it is well known that all colonizers in the olden days, all nations which took part in colonization, decided that liquor was harmful to semi-developed people. We know what happened in Australia and New Zealand. We know what happened to the Eskimos and to the Red Indians of America. We know that it resulted in their destruction and downfall. I have said that nations with colonial interests realized that they should not make available spirituous liquor to undeveloped and semi-developed people. I particularly refer to spirituous liquor, because the Malan Commission did not recommend that spirituous liquor should be made available to the Bantu. They spoke about light wines and beer. We find that the colonial powers at a congress placed the prohibition on the provision of liquor to the inhabitants of Southern Central, Central and North Africa, in a general prohibition passed in Brussels in 1890. In 1890 the convention of St. Germaine again reaffirmed it, and in 1919 seven countries again signed a statement in which they said that it was dangerous to supply liquor to the peoples of Africa.

It has been argued here that the passing of this Bill will do away with poisonous brews. What proof have we for it? The Coloureds can obtain ordinary liquor, but they still distil various brews. It is also argued that there will be less drunkenness and it is pointed out that there are other countries in Africa—e.g. the Rhodesias and also other countries—where the non-Whites have access to liquor. But have hon. members noticed that in these other states, in Southern and Northern Rhodesia, for example, spirituous liquor is so expensive that the Bantu cannot afford it? It is five or six times as expensive as it is in South Africa. What is the position in South Africa? And that applies to the White man as well as to the non-White. The position here is that it pays the poor man, whether he is White or Black, much better if he has 5s. in his pocket to drink five brandies, because he can buy five tots of brandy for 5s. and five brandies make him much more drunk than 5s. worth of wine or beer—seeing that the hon. member for Krugersdorp says that he must feel nice. He will become much more intoxicated on five brandies costing him 5s. than on 5s. worth of beer. He can buy three beers for 5s., which will not make him drunk, but for 5s. he can buy five tots of brandy. We are now telling the Bantu in South Africa that they will be allowed to buy brandy, and they will buy brandy only. They will not buy any beer or wine. That is something for the hon. the Minister of Justice to consider, even in connection with the drinking habits of the White man in this country, that spirituous liquor is easier to get and cheaper than light wines and beer which are less deleterious.

There are also other reasons why I am opposed to this Bill. It is contrary to the tribal customs of the Native that women and young men should have free access to liquor. I do not know how much the hon. the Minister knows of the tribal customs of the Natives. If he knows them, he will realize that it is a deep-rooted custom amongst them that only the older persons in the kraal have the right to drink kaffir beer, and to a much less extent the older women, and not at all the young men and women. That is one of their deep-rooted tribal customs. This Bill does away with the provisions which must be complied with in terms of the ordinary liquor licensing rules. The hon. the Minister of Justice will know that only a few years ago he had to change the old liquor licensing boards and that he appointed only magistrates and people with legal knowledge to these boards. He found that irregularities were taking place even under the old system of liquor licensing boards, and now he is abolishing it completely. The hon. member said that he was going to delete the clauses dealing with the tot system. I am very glad that he is going to do so and therefore I will not say anything more about it. Mr. Speaker, this Bill does what the Methodist Churches describe as “too much in too short a time”. It is said that it was an experiment. An experiment? Do we in South Africa not know, to our regret, that one can give a man rights but that one can hardly take them away from him? This Government ought to know it very well, because it tried to deprive people of their rights and it knows what the consequences were. It knows what the consequences were to South Africa, both inside and outside the country.

*An HON. MEMBER:

And you still want to grant increasingly more rights?

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

This Government wants to grant more rights, without having thoroughly considered what kind of rights it gives. This experiment may be the most dangerous thing we have ever seen yet. I would be neglecting my duty if I did not speak here to-day as a member of the D.R. Church. I would be neglecting my duty if I did not speak here as a woman, on behalf of all the women of the country, White as well as non-White. The D.R. Church expressed itself firmly and unequivocally against the proposed plan to make light wine and beer available to the Bantu. They have only had the opportunity to express themselves against it. The Churches have not yet had an opportunity of expressing their opinions in regard to this Bill which wants to make available spirituous liquor, but they did express their opinions as being against the provision of beer and light wine. That was, inter alia, decided by the Synodal Commissions of the Transvaal and the Cape Synods in 1957. That resolution was taken by the Church Conference at Bloemfontein 1957, and the same resolution was taken by numerous circles, conferences of Church councils and Church councils, and they are even more opposed to the provision of spirits to the Bantu. That was also the request of the Bantu Churches themselves; the Christian Bantu expressed himself strongly against it. The D.R. Bantu Church in South Africa in 1957, the Mission Church of the Transvaal in 1956 and in 1960 expressed themselves against it. Even the Coloured Churches in the Cape expressed themselves against it. The Federal Mission Council of the D.R. Church expressed itself against it in 1955 and in 1958. I would be neglecting my duty if I did not speak for the ordinary woman in South Africa, and particularly for the farmers’ wives on the far-distant farms and in the rural towns. Do we realize that, in terms of this Bill, any Bantu may buy a case of brandy and may take it and drink it just where he likes? In the circumstances in which we find ourselves in South Africa, where we have the system of migrant labour, where on many farms there are 20 to 30 Native men and where the farmer’s wife is often alone on the farm during the day and often at night with her children, we give these people the right to take strong liquor there and to drink it? That woman will not have the right to prevent them from doing so and the police will not be able to protect her. The police cannot protect thousands of farms in the country. But what about the Bantu woman herself under this system of migrant labour, where the man leaves his home for six months or a year to go and work in the city? In terms of this Bill he will have free access to liquor; he will be able to spend as much money as he likes on liquor. How much of his wages will be sent back to the Native reserves for the maintenance of his family there? Will he maintain his wife and children, or will he spend all his money on liquor?

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND MARKETING:

Now it costs him twice as much, but he still gets it.

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

The hon. the Minister has just entered the Chamber. I said clearly that it costs the Bantu twice as much, but it means that he can now buy twice as much liquor and become twice as drunk. That argument does not hold water.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND MARKETING:

But he still has equally little money to send back home.

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

That is my objection. I repeat that it is one of the most dangerous bits of legislation the Government has ever introduced and that I am going to vote against it.

*Mr. MULLER:

The object of this legislation is obviously in the first place to destroy the illicit liquor trade and to achieve this object this legislation envisages allowing a greater measure of freedom in the distribution and consumption of liquor, firstly, by extending the right to consume liquor to Natives so that Natives can buy liquor and can consume it as they wish, and also by introducing other relaxations in the restrictions which have hitherto been laid down by law. I should like to discuss this Bill very objectively and I want to compare the advantages and disadvantages entailed in this Bill. But, before doing so, I want to refer briefly to two thoughts which have been expressed by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). In the first instance she has referred to the illicit liquor trade and she has asked more specifically whether the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) considered that dagga should be made available in order to stop dagga smuggling. But the hon. member for Krugersdorp has stated specifically that there are only two methods which one can adopt, that is to say either total prohibition or, if not, free supply. Total prohibition is the only method which one can control by means of legislation, but when there is discrimination and a partial prohibition, one is faced with problems as regards control. I should like to ask the hon. member for Drakensberg whether she is opposed to the consumption of liquor in any form or in any quantity.

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

No.

*Mr. MULLER:

Very well, I accept that and I am glad.

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

I do not want it to be available in any quantity.

*Mr. MULLER:

The hon. member has quoted Langenhoven. She says that Langenhoven said that one could not fight an evil by extending it, but the evil and the extension which she is discussing are two quite different things. The evil which we want to combat is the illicit liquor trade and what we want to extend and make available is the consumption of liquor. How can the hon. member make such a comparison?

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

It is a poor comparison.

*Mr. MULLER:

I am glad the hon. member agrees it is a poor comparison. I should like to discuss this Bill under three heads—in the first place the psychological effect of a prohibition on the consumption of anything, whether it be liquor or anything else; in the second place the justification which we have, for our sakes and also for the Bantu’s sake, for making liquor available or prohibiting the supply of liquor, and in the third place the waste of energy and manpower involved in the prohibition on the supply of liquor.

The first aspect which I want to discuss is the psychological influence of prohibition of any kind. It is common cause amongst us that people desire that which is withheld from them. A restriction of any kind arouses the desire to obtain or to do that thing which is prohibited. Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to make any quotations from the Bible to you, but when we think back to the days of Eve we find that everything that was good on earth was made available to her. A prohibition was placed on only one tree …

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

Afternoon Sitting

*Mr. MULLER:

When business was suspended, I was discussing the psychological effect on people, namely, that they want to do or to consume that which is prohibited. I also just referred briefly to the fact that even Eve succumbed to the desire to do that which was prohibited to her. In the modern world of to-day this is also a general impression and a recognized fact. In nearly every language in the world there is an idiom which deals with this matter. In Afrikaans we say: “gesteelde vrugte smaak die lekkerste” and in English the same idiom is even more apt, namely, “forbidden fruit tastes sweeter”. I therefore think one can accept that as soon as a person is denied or prohibited from having something, a desire, perhaps an unconscious one, arises in the mind of such a person to have such a thing or to do what is prohibited him. In cases where restrictions are imposed, he usually wants more than he is entitled to. We remember that during the war years when petrol was scarce and we still had to use coupons to buy petrol, we often went out specially at the end of the month to go for a ride even if it was unnecessary, to make sure that we used the petrol which was made available to us in limited quantities.

This Bill not only makes liquor available to the Bantu but other relaxations are also being permitted as far as the existing restrictions are concerned. Section 81 which provides that a licensing board can impose certain restrictions on the quantity of liquor supplied to various races is being repealed. I should like to devote a little time to this point and point out to the hon. the Minister that I should like to see a yet further relaxation being introduced, particularly as regards the Coloureds. We find to-day, particularly here in the Western Cape, that the bottle stores and the bars are only open to Coloureds from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., that is to say for three hours, on a Saturday. It often happens that during this period or for much of that period the Coloured is still working and as a result he only has an hour or half an hour left in which to go to the bar and enjoy a drink. I submit that if that bar were to remain open for the rest of the afternoon, it would not compel the Coloured to drink his liquor in a short period so that he can be finished by 1 p.m. It often happens that he also takes an extra drink for the thirst which he may develop in this afternoon. If he was not under an obligation to finish drinking by 1 p.m. he would perhaps go home knowing he can return in the afternoon if he does develop such a thirst. I am merely mentioning this example to show that such restrictions which are imposed on people quite often have the reverse effect. Experience has taught me that there are only two factors which limit drunkenness. One is self-control and the other is purchasing power, and this applies particularly to our less well-to-do people, and it applies particularly to the Coloureds and the Bantu. If a person cannot control himself, there is only one other factor which can control the quantity of drink which he buys, namely, his purchasing power, because we have heard ourselves from the evidence submitted here, it is in any case no problem to obtain liquor. The Coloured can always obtain liquor. Here in the Western Cape restrictions are imposed on the Coloureds. They can perhaps only buy one bottle of brandy and one bottle of wine from one bottle store, but there are perhaps five or six bottle stores in a town, and it is self-evident that such a Coloured would not have sufficient money in any case to buy his full quota from each of these stores. There are only two factors which can keep him from drunkenness, namely, self-control or his own purchasing power.

Another question which I want to put is this: Are we justified in withholding liquor from the Bantu or any other race in South Africa? We know that as a result of the restrictions on the supply of liquor to the Bantu, we have created a fairly great measure of animosity and dissatisfaction amongst the Bantu. Paragraph 26 of the Malan Commission’s report states as follows—

A feeling that he is being treated unfairly which even becomes animosity is generally noticeable amongst the Native people with respect to the White man because the latter apparently does not want to make any further concessions in respect of the provision of alcoholic liquor to the Native.

Paragraph 27 says—

The causes of the grievance against the White man amongst the Natives are in the first place the fact that the legislation is unable to prevent the illicit supply of liquor to Natives; secondly, that it is mainly Whites who are responsible for the fact that liquor reaches the Natives illegally and that they are therefore exposed to prosecution and moral destruction, and thirdly, that the net result of the prohibition of the supply of liquor to the Native is that the Native who is poor pays twice as much and more for his liquor than the White man.

I agree with this, and I think that we should all agree with it. We also heard last year when we had the disturbances that one of the reasons why disturbances and dissatisfaction were to be found amongst the Bantu was the fact that he was discriminated against as regards the obtaining of liquor. If the Native wants it, what reason do we have in our own interests and his interests to withhold from him the liquor which he wants? Our great aim in this House is to preserve the influence and the control of the White man in this country and when it does not affect this great aim of ours and if by so doing we can also gain his goodwill, bearing in mind also the uncertainty as to the advantages and the disadvantages involved, why should we withhold liquor from the Native and what justifiable reason have we for doing so? I say that if we make liquor freely available, we shall not be derogating from our main, our most important aim as White people in this country, but if we do not do so, it will bedevil our relations with the non-White peoples.

The final aspect which I should like to discuss as regards the removal of restrictions is the waste of time and energy. The hon. the Minister has already told us that no less than 30,000 people make a living from the illicit liquor trade in the Peninsula. These are people who could all be doing good and constructive work for South Africa. We also know that the time of thousands of people in the courts is occupied with prosecutions aimed at combating the illicit liquor trade. Thousands of men in our Police Force and in our magistrates’ courts are engaged on combating the illicit liquor trade. Let us assume for one moment that it is right and proper that there should be restrictions and that liquor should not be made available to the Natives; then I want to ask this question: If it is a good thing, to what extent have we succeeded? And if we have succeeded to any extent, is it worth the price which we have to pay? In the first place I think it is clear to this House that to the extent that we have succeeded in withholding liquor from the Bantu, or in applying restrictions in other areas, it is most certainly not worth the tremendously high price which we have had to pay in the past. What we have done in the past is not in line with modern thinking and I think the time has come when we must make a change in this regard.

I should now just like to deal with one or two details of the Bill, and I want to refer in the first place to the age of 18 years which is being laid down. The age of 18 years is also laid down in the case of Whites, and I think that it is right and proper that this should be so, and I have no fault to find with this provision. It is not in conflict with our morals and our customs. But I just want to submit to the Minister for his consideration that I am not certain whether it is in accordance with the morals and customs of the Bantu. I know that at a certain stage in the life of a Bantu man, he goes out into the veld and he is bedaubed and he tells one that he is becoming an adult. I do not know at which stage he becomes an adult, or whether the principle underlying this provision, namely that a child may not obtain liquor, has been discussed with the leaders of the Bantu. I am not quite sure whether this provision of 18 years is also in line with the customs of the Bantu which lay down when he stops being a child.

The next point relates to the National Liquor Board. The clause provides for the establishment of the National Liquor Board which presumably will consist of a magistrate, the Commissioner of Police, the Secretary for Justice, and three other persons appointed by the President. I want to submit to the Minister for his consideration that it may be desirable to have at least two callings represented by the other three persons, namely the producers and the trade. The hon. the Minister may tell me that he will do so, but it may be desirable to lay down in the Bill that when these three additional members are appointed, two of them must have knowledge of the production of liquor and the liquor trade.

In conclusion I just want to say that I do not feel very happy about the idea that the hotels are not yet all being placed on an equal footing. We all envisage that this legislation may result in increased liquor sales. I am not quite convinced of that, but let us assume that this will be so. Then I say it is a pity that our hotels will still have to compete on such an unequal footing. If there is an increase in the sale of liquor, I expect that it will take place immediately after the commencement of this legislation and until such time as other provision is made at a later stage, there are many hotels which do not have off-sales licences and they are having a very difficult time.

I want to conclude. I do not want to imply that I want to encourage the increased consumption of liquor. That is not my intention. I should prefer to apply St. Paul’s comparison as regards marriage to the consumption of liquor. St. Paul said that those who were marrying did right, but those who did not marry were doing better. There are perhaps people who do not agree with him. But I should like to say as far as liquor is concerned: Those who consume liquor in moderate amounts are doing the right thing, and those who do not drink it at all are doing better. But liquor has become part of our social life and of our home life and I am afraid that in the modern world we shall simply not succeed in banishing liquor from our life, our homes and our social life. We shall simply have to take it into account. If we consider what we have achieved in the past and what success we have had, then we are forced to the conclusion that we have not succeeded in withholding liquor from the Bantu by means of legislation. Nor have we succeeded in enforcing the restrictions relating to the other groups. But what we have succeeded in doing is creating dissatisfaction and animosity amongst these people because they are being discriminated against as regards the provision of liquor. What we have also found is that in many instances these people have been forced to drink illicit brews which have been far more harmful to their health than ordinary proper liquor. I therefore say that I think it is common cause amongst all of us—and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has also admitted this—that we are not opposed to the moderate consumption of liquor, and I therefore feel that as we have not succeeded in achieving the object we set ourselves in the past, there is only one alternative left to us, namely: Make liquor freely available and let us all work for the moderate consumption of liquor by all section of our community.

Dr. FISHER:

I don’t speak as a prohibitionist, and I don’t have to be reminded by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) that we have been using alcohol since time immemorial and that many of us have been able to enjoy the pleasures of moderate drinking over the years. I want to approach this Bill as objectively as I possibly can, and for that reason I want to say at the outset that I think the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan) and the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) must forget that this is an experiment. This Bill as it stands now closes an era of prohibition or an attempt at prohibition, and what we start now is a totally new era; something which we have not had before and something on which we will never be able to go back. I am concerned not so much that we are giving those who have not, something to go on with, but what I am concerned about is that the step we are now taking might be one in respect of which we may over-reach ourselves. I think the step is too far forward at this stage, and if the hon. the Minister wanted to experiment he should have built up quietly and successively on what we have at the moment. But he has not done that. He has virtually taken it from a stage in which there has been no wine, beer or spirits for a group of people and he has now thrown these people into the arena and said to them “You can now go and buy them”. I would say to him that if he was going to experiment, he should have said first of all: What have they got now and what should they have, and how quickly can I give it to them? He should have first started with the supply of kaffir beer, which could have been used in their own homes and not only drunk in communal beer halls; he could have experimented with the canning and bottling of kaffir beer and he should have made those wholesome products available to those Bantu that wanted it and let them enjoy these things in their own homes. But the hon. Minister has over-stepped that and he has gone straight to beer, wine and brandy. He must remember that whatever ill-effects may come from this relaxation of the law, he will not be able to go back, he will never be able to repair the damage that may come from these relaxations.

What is going to be the effect of these relaxations in the present Bill? We have been told that one of the main reasons for bringing in this Bill is because in the past the police have been unable to cope with the situation that has arisen through illicit liquor dealing. Is this Bill going to have any effect on that? I doubt it very much, because provisions are made in the Bill for restrictions. Provisions are being made in this Bill for restrictions which are so distasteful to so many of the Bantu at the moment, and as long as you have restrictions, as long as they are restricted to what may be sold, to where it may be sold and when it can be sold, so long will you have to do with the illicit liquor dealer. You will still have the runners, and if they don’t run during the hours of ten to six in the daytime, they are going to run from six at night until the next morning. Because the Minister knows as well as I do that the shebeen trade does most of its work when the bottle stores close and the pubs close, and these swanky shebeens that we have heard of that are being patronized in some of the large towns, are not open during the daytime. They do their business at night-time. They do their business when one cannot get into a night club to drink. They do their business when the pubs are shut, and they go on to three o’clock and four o’clock in the morning, they go on as long as their clients have the money to spend on drink, and they will continue to do so, and we shall still be faced with the problem of having to cope with these illicit liquor dealers. If any of the people think that the 1,000,000 bottles of drink that are being sold illicitly to-day is going to improve the economy or the financial set-up of the wine-growers or the wholesalers, they are making a mistake. Those million bottles will be sold in the same way as they are being sold now. The wine producer will still send his product along to the wholesaler and it will still be bought from the wholesaler at the same price. The only difference is that the person who buys it will pay less than he has done up to now if there are no restrictions. But if there are restrictions placed anywhere along the line on the sale of brandy especially, it will still be sold at a higher price when the pubs and bottle stores are closed. And that is what many White people are doing, with all the facilities that they have got. We all know what happens when you run out of a bottle and the pubs are shut. Instead of paying 13s. 6d. for a bottle of brandy, you are willing to give £1 if you can get it, and if you can’t get it for £1, you pay 30s., and that is what is going to happen again in the future. It is not going to stop the illicit liquor trade because you happen to make the amount of alcohol available a little freer during the daytime. The question arises also as to drunkenness following the free supply of liquor. I agree with the hon. member for Drakensberg to some extent. She believes that if you pay 30s. for a bottle of illicit brandy now and you should be paying only 13s. if it is bought legally, you will buy, she says, twice as much, you will get two bottles for the same 30s. I agree with the hon. member that you will get two bottles, but I do not say, as she says, that there will be twice as much drunkenness following the purchase of that. I say that there will be far more drunkenness, because you will not only get the double quantity in comparison with what you would get from the shebeen, but because of the ease with which you can buy brandy, you will get a higher degree of drunkenness in South Africa than at the moment. My problem is not so much in respect of wine and beer, but entirely in respect of brandy. I don’t speak without any knowledge, and I do know that brandy not only makes people drunk quicker, it is not only a habit-forming drug, the addiction to which is very, very difficult to break, and I do know also that of all the alcoholics that we have in our country to-day, 90 per cent are alcoholics because they have been drinking brandy. The figures available are quite illuminating, and I would say this to hon. members: The figures of the Castle-Carey Clinic should be taken into consideration when thinking of brandy drinking. There were 219 patients treated at the Castle-Carey Clinic last year, and their daily consumption in bottles alone, before admittance to the clinic and apart from drinks consumed in bars and clubs, was as follows: 255 bottles of brandy, 31 bottles of whisky, 24 bottles of wine, 17 bottles of gin, six bottles of vodka and 14 bottles of beer or stout. Just listen to these figures. That was their daily consumption. Look at the high percentage of brandy consumed, not because the others were not available to these people, but because the addiction is towards brandy. We have to-day 100,000 alcoholics in our country amongst the White people. It sounds a fantastic number, but that is what it is, and with the free supply now of brandy to the Bantu, we are going to double that figure to say the least of it, and what it is going to mean to the Coloured people, this free supply, I do not know. For some reason (the figures were quoted by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin), there is always a far greater percentage of drunkenness amongst the Coloureds than amongst any other group. I have thought of reason which may be causing that, and to me it would appear that they drink too much on empty stomachs. I don’t think that the food that the Coloured people eat is nourishing enough for them, and I don’t think they go to work with sufficient in their tummies, I don’t think that their lunches are sufficient for them, at night-time I don’t think they get enough to eat either. These problems are now going to be put onto the Bantu people as well. There is another problem which I think of immediately and that is the economic set-up between the Whites, the Coloureds and what may happen in the future. Now, amongst the White people in most families where a large percentage of the wage earnings are used for the purchase of alcohol, or let me say in many families we find the wives going out to work to supplement the budget. With the help of the wife they manage. The children are fed and dressed fairly decently and there is a certain amount of peace in the home because the wife of the family supplements the income. Now what is going to happen in the Bantu families? I don’t know if there is going to be work for the Bantu women to supplement the budget. I don’t know whether they are going to be allowed to come into the towns to work. I don’t know if there is going to be sufficient work for them on the farms. But I do know that there are going to be shortages in the families.

Mr. GREYLING:

May I put this question to the hon. member? In what respect do they not experience the same problems in Moçambique and Rhodesia where they have a free flow of liquor? Can the hon. member mention one reason?

Dr. FISHER:

I think there are two reasons for that. Firstly, the cost of brandy is so high there that they cannot afford to get it, and secondly, I think, they have been conditioned there over the years to take it.

I said at the outset that if we are going to make an experiment, we must build up slowly. We must not take this great step forward, of plunging this whole population into the brandy-drinking arena. How are we going to stop this? To me it seems quite evident that this Bill is going through. The Government have made up their minds that they are going to pass this legislation, and they are going to pass it even before we can put it into the puzzle that is going to be presented to us when the whole of this legislation is given to us to study. Here we have one little piece of the jigsaw puzzle. The Minister has the rest of the pieces in his little box and next session or the session after he is going to take out the rest of the pieces and is going to put them together, and then we are going to put this piece into the rest of the jigsaw puzzle. I think that before he should have asked us to pass judgment on this Bill, he should have shown us how it is going to fit in with the rest of the set-up that is going to appear in legislation at the next session. It would have been only fair to all of us to have been given some inkling as to what the whole legislation is going to be, but the hon. the Minister has not told us what he is going to do.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister certain questions: Is he going to encourage the establishment of restaurants throughout the country where non-Whites can sit down decently, in White areas, because they are working in White areas, where they can sit down and have a lunch and be served with a bottle of beer? Is he going to allow that? Or is he going to remove the facilities that these people have had as has happened in certain towns, very primitive facilities in the streets where they have been able to get a cup of coffee and a slice of bread? In Johannesburg for instance there has been a sudden wiping out of almost every coffee-stall in the town, they have been taken off the streets—coffee-stalls where they were buying coffee and tea, pieces of bread, etc.

Mr. VISSE:

You have to blame the City Council for that.

Dr. FISHER:

I am not blaming any city council, I am not blaming anybody. I am asking the hon. the Minister whether there are going to be facilities where these people can eat decently and properly. And I for one am against workers of our country having to stand in the streets, or sitting on the pavements with a cup of coffee in one hand and a piece of bread in the other. I would like to see them sitting in a decent place, off the street. That is what I am asking the hon. the Minister to do. It is no good the hon. the Minister saying to me that he is going to see that these restaurants and eating places are established either in the living areas of the Bantu or in the Native reserves, or in tribal places. I want to see them established where these people are working.

I want to know another thing: Is he going to take the trouble through his National Board to show the Bantu people what dangers can come to their race as a whole if they persist in immoderate drinking of brandy? Is he going to make sure that the sale of light wine and beer are made as attractive as possible to these people so that the purchasing of brandy will not come into the picture except as far as the small group is concerned which insists on drinking brandy and are prepared to pay the price for it? I would say that we are paying far too little for brandy. I would like to see the price of brandy go up by taxation and that the money coming from an excise duty or a special tax be devoted to the treating of those people who suffer from the ill-use of drink, from immoderate drinking. I should like to see money spent on recreation facilities for the non-Europeans. I would like to see money spent to help run decent restaurants and eating places for these people. The money should only come from one source and that is a duty imposed on brandy-drinkers for the privilege of drinking brandy if they so want.

Now let us say that the police are inundated with thousands upon thousands of cases of contravention of the existing liquor law. We all know that if we reduce the number of liquor offences in one sphere, we increase them in another. If we are going to have fewer illicit liquor-runners, there will be more drunks on the streets on a Saturday afternoon.

Mr. PELSER:

How can you say that?

Dr. FISHER:

Let the hon. member disprove what I am saying: When this Bill is passed, three months later the hon. member can come and show me the figures of what happens on Saturday afternoons as far as arrests for drunkenness are concerned. If I am wrong, I will apologize. I hope to God I am wrong, and if I am wrong, it is not because of the facilities that have been given to these people, but it is because they know how to behave themselves.

Mr. SCHOONBEE:

May I put a question to the hon. member? Will he admit that the Native now gets all the liquor he wants, but that it is adulterated and poisoned, and that this Bill tries to stop that?

Dr. FISHER:

I don’t believe that at all. I do believe that he is getting adulterated liquor and I am going to say that the hon. member does not know the shebeen queens if he thinks he is going to put them out of business. They are going to compete with the brandy producers. That is a certainty. They are not going to give up so easily and if brandy is going to be 50 per cent proof or 60 per cent proof, their concoctions will be 90 per cent proof, and if brandy is going to be sold at 12s. 6d. a bottle, they will sell at 7s. 6d. a bottle, but they are not going out of business. Coming to that I must say that the hon. the Minister has put into this Bill much heavier penalties in order to combat this shebeening that goes on, and the illicit liquor business. I would then say to him why does he not apply this immediately? Why must he wait; if these people are doing so much damage surely the time is now for them to be penalized, and the penalties should be as heavy now as they would be next week or the week after when this Bill becomes law. Is there any reason why we have been lenient with them in the past? Why did we not amend the law long ago and make these penalties as heavy as they will be in the future? If the hon. the Minister did think at any time, or if his advisers thought that by increasing penalties it would do away with the crime then he should have done so long ago and he should not have waited until now.

I am going to make another forecast, and that is that this country is going to experience a wave of robberies throughout the country; burglaries into bottle stores, bars and wholesale premises. That is what is going to happen. We will find that these people who are to-day illicit liquor sellers and buyers will not go out of business. When they know that they have to compete at certain prices they will see that they get their requirements for nothing, and the only way they can do that is to steal. That already happens. We all know what precautions some of these big wholesalers have to take in their stores; we have all seen the walls that they put up and the fencing that is put round their premises. Some of these places look like forts as a result of the precautions they are obliged to take. I think the hon. the Minister of Defence should tour some of these premises and learn something about how to protect the populace. There are terrific fences and barbed wire erections and a variety of other precautions. This is necessary because their experience has shown that if they do not take these precautions, at the end of the month their stocks will be very short and those shortages will not be easy to account for.

I now want to say that if this legislation has been introduced because of the difficulty that the Police Force have in administering the Liquor Laws, and if there are 300,000 cases per year arising from illicit liquor selling or buying, then we want to know if anything is going to be done about the Pass Laws which are just as difficult to administer?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! That is not under discussion.

Dr. FISHER:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, but I am trying to show that we are told that because of the difficulties of the administration of one law it is being amended. We want to know if that is going to hold good for other laws as well? We must be told that. If it is good for one law, is it going to be good for another law? Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether he is going to use for other work the people who have been employed on these raids about which we have heard over and again in this House, or are those raids going to continue? No one can tell me that the raids that take place throughout the country are only as a result of the Liquor Laws. I do not believe that.

Dr. MEYER:

Nobody said that.

Dr. FISHER:

I know that nobody said that, but it has been suggested that once we do away with this discrimination there will be peace on earth. There will be no more cases of people being woken up at three o’clock or four o’clock in the morning by policemen going into their rooms and disturbing the people there. I say that that will continue.

Capt. G. H. F. STRYDOM:

Who said so?

Dr. FISHER:

I say that that will continue. And if the hon. member does not believe that it will continue he must say so.

An HON. MEMBER:

Are you a member of the Liberal Party?

Dr. FISHER:

Mr. Speaker, that is typical of the thinking of some of those hon. members on the Government side of the House. If one points something out which is not to their liking they either brand you a member of this group or as a member of that group. Hon. members on that side of the House should know better than that. Their petty interjections that mean so very little should rather be kept to themselves.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! The hon. member should not allow himself to be led astray by these interjections.

Dr. FISHER:

I agree with you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Whilst the hon. member agrees will he kindly come back to the Bill.

Dr. FISHER:

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to this question of these raids. I take a very serious view of what happens. I do not say that the police should not do their best to eradicate the evils that arise, particularly from the brewing of illicit liquor. They know from experience who is responsible for this sort of thing. But I still do not think it is necessary, in the early hours of the morning or the middle of the night when workers are trying to get a few hours’ sleep before going back to work, that they should be disturbed and asked if they are hiding a bottle of brandy under their bed-clothes.

There is another question which I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister and that is the question of malnutrition which arises from drinking. The hon. the Minister will have to combat that. I think he realizes that this is a problem which we must face up to. The more money that goes into the purchase of alcohol, the less there is going to be for the purchase of food. I am afraid that over the years we are going to find that a lot of school children, particularly, are going to have to go without food some time during the week, and that will probably happen on the Monday or the Tuesday.

An HON. MEMBER:

Because they have not done their homework.

Dr. FISHER:

I say that we must try and link up the health standards in our country with our food production, and we should use only that which we can spare on the luxuries. And amongst the luxuries I include the production of alcohol. If we should find that our food supplies are running short, if we should find that any section of our population is going short of food, then I say to the hon. the Minister that he, together with his co-Ministers, especially the hon. the Minister for Health and the hon. Minister for Economic Affairs should put their heads together and see how much they can save out of the wreck that may come and keep it for the production of more food and less drink.

*Mr. VAN EEDEN:

I regard it as a privilege to be able to rise to my feet as the representative of one of the liquor-producing constituencies. I rise in order to plead for an increased market for the liquor-producing farmers other than the market they already have in the form of ordinary trade and illicit trade. The wine industry is one of the oldest industries in this country and it is an industry which from the very beginning has made tremendous contributions—contributions which one can hardly describe—in the ecclesiastical, educational and many other spheres of our national life. These farmers produce liquor and they have always been very proud of their product. Last week the hon. the Minister of Agriculture opened a demonstration or a show here in the city and on that occasion he said that every farmer ought to be proud of the product he places on the market. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I want to give hon. members the assurance that that is the case with the liquor farmers. It hurts them very much, however, that this product of which they are so proud is subject to illicit trading and causes all the misery which it has caused in the past and which it is causing to-day. We know that after gold was discovered on the Reef during the time of Oom Paul chaos existed as far as illicit trade in liquor was concerned. However, I do not want to talk about the Reef but I talk as somebody from the Western Cape and I say that not so long ago, about 30 or 35 years ago, we did not have an illicit trade in liquor here. The reason was that there was no market for it. But as the Bantu filtered through into the Western Cape the illicit trading in liquor became as lucrative as it is today, because a market was established for that illicit liquor. Nobody goes in for illicit liquor trading for the sake of his health. He does so in order to make money. Now that the Black man is able to get liquor we are depriving the illicit liquor trader of that power. I believe, therefore, that as a result of this there will not be any illicit trading in liquor in the future. Recently I was walking in one of the streets of my home town when one of the lorries of the divisional council stopped in front of the charge office, a constable climbed on to the lorry and opened a bag of mealie meal. I stopped to watch what was going on. He took 12 bottles of Mellowood brandy from that bag of mealie meal. Where do those Natives get that brandy from? They get it from the Coloured people. As a result of this amendment to the Act the Black man will be able to buy his liquor himself, and he will get it much cheaper than to-day.

If we take the Liquor Act as it stands today and we take this amending Bill and we compare the two and we look at the Black man as a human being, we cannot for one moment hold it against him for buying liquor illegally. Think of the misery it has caused in that a quarter of the criminals who are today in gaol are there as a result of illicit trading in liquor. It costs the Government R4,000,000 every year in manpower, motorcars and court cases. I believe that those things will disappear because of these amendments. I am not saying that illicit trading will cease immediately. I am not saying that the Black man will not drink more, but I do believe that the evil which existed under the old Act will disappear in future. Neither do I believe that anybody sitting here to-day likes to see a drunken person, whether he be Black or White. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) spoke this morning and I listened attentively to her speech. I respect her for having made that speech. I respect the opinion of every man and woman in this House, whether he or she is against or in favour of this Bill. She referred to the illicit trade in diamonds and dagga. As far as that is concerned, I am in complete agreement with her, and if we can pass a law to prevent that I will agree with it. But I do not see how the Government can pass a law that will put an end to it. In this case, however, it can be done and I believe that these new amendments will offer a solution. I truly believe that and that was why I rose to say these few words. But that is not all. I think of all those hundreds of young men, White as well as non-White, who are behind iron bars as a result of the illicit liquor trade. I believe that even that will come to an end when these amendments are put into effect.

Mr. BOWKER:

I can quite understand the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. van Eeden) and the representations he has made, because naturally he must speak in the interests of the grape-producing farmers of the constituency he represents. The hon. member spoke of the evils of illicit liquor traffic. I wonder if the evils of the illicit liquor traffic will be any worse than the increased liquor consumption which this Bill propagates? It ill becomes this Government, in the dying days of this Session, to force on its members and on the country a revolutionary measure such as this Liquor Amendment Bill. This Bill offers no solution to the question of the abuse of liquor, as is claimed for it, nor would it curtail the use of liquor. This Bill will actually facilitate the acquisition of alcohol by those who are less able to resist the inborn craving for it. It will considerably increase the consumption of liquor by our subject races. By this Bill we are not only opening the doors to the abuse of liquor by the great majority of the population of the country, but we are actually encouraging the craving for alcohol by these people, in the same way as a parent does by regularly giving his children alcohol. And there is no difference in these cases, because these people are our children.

It is claimed that properly controlled supplies of good liquor to Natives will remove far more evils than they will create. That is something we still have to see. But what evidence is there to substantiate that claim? The reaction of the Coloured people to liquor facilities definitely disproves this claim. The Coloured people to-day represent 49 per cent of those convicted for drunkenness in this country. If that is what has happened to the Coloured people, who knows what is going to happen to our Bantu people when the same facilities are afforded them?

The hon. member for Hercules (Prof. A. I. Malan) said that the commission came to the firm conclusion that 60 per cent of the liquor produced in this country was sold on the black market. If the commission accepted that finding, it should rather have investigated the control of liquor from its source. We know that if we want to control a flood that control should be exercised at the source, not in the area devastated by the flood. There you can only bring relief, it is at the source of this evil that the commission should have exercised its endeavours rather than at the place where the flood has had its effect. And we all know what it costs the country, in general, when there have been ordinary floods, and we feel that the effect of liquor when let loose on the country is going to be even more devastating. I regard it as criminal to make liquor available to all, regardless of their incomes. The Government claims that the granting of liquor facilities to all sections of our population will stop illicit liquor dealing and the operation of shebeens. But that is quite absurd. The Government knows that free liquor facilities granted to our Coloureds have brought about a tremendous increase of these shebeens amongst the Coloured people.

Mr. Speaker, no hon. members of this House have ever before been so inundated with letters from people protesting against the passing of this Bill. Every Member of Parliament and every member of the Senate has received a document from the Federale Raad van die N.G. Kerke vir die Bestryding van Maatskap-like Euwels. In this circular the Churches have appealed to every Member of Parliament and every Senator to oppose this Bill. They say—

Dit is ons plig as Christelike voogde van die nie-Blanke rasse in ons land om nie hulle swakhede ter wille van gewin uit te buit nie, maar om hulle te beskerm teen die verwoesting van alkoholiese drank—selfs hulle eie bier.

We all know that Synod after Synod of the N.G. Kerk have passed resolutions opposing increased drinking facilities for our Bantu people. I am not going to quote a lot and take up the time of this House on this point, but there are one or two items I want to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

We have all received a memorandum submitted by the South African Temperance Alliance in connection with this Liquor Amendment Bill. One of the clauses therein reads—

According to our information the Bantu does not drink primarily for the taste but to get drunk, and if liquor is made available to him the ratio of the incidence of drunkenness may even exceed that of the Coloureds.

Then I have another memorandum from the Parliamentary Liaison Committee of the Methodist Church of South Africa, which contains a clause in which the hon. the Minister of Justice may be interested —

In mentioning the proposal to extend liquor facilities by allowing the Bantu to have light wines the Minister of Justice said: “However, if we were to do that to-day and to-morrow we were to experience some evils attached to it, a large number of evils, we would be reproached for ever, and you cannot repeal your actions. Once you have taken that step, you cannot retract it.”

This appears in the Senate Hansard No. 15 of 1959, from a speech on 22 June 1959. And that very truthful statement was made by this hon. Minister of Justice. I think that all of us who are opposed to this Bill fully agree with that statement.

In addition to these memoranda I have, like other hon. members, numerous letters from individuals. I have for instance a letter here in which the individual says—

The police say it will close the shebeens but the African does not believe this and says more alcohol will be added to their concoctions. Increased expenditure by Natives on alcohol will mean more starving children and theft of foods and more criminals.

Then I have another letter from a lady whom I know very well and who says—

The African does not want wine. Most are bitterly opposed to increased liquor facilities of any kind, especially most wives and mothers. The average African cannot afford liquor, for 80 to 90 per cent live in poverty. Malnutrition and tuberculosis are rife. To encourage the wage earner to buy wine is to court disaster.

I think that every word of that statement is true. This lady goes on and says—

Dr. L. Freed has pointed out that the Coloured people account for 49 per cent of the cases of drunkenness for the whole population. Besides all this, the time of political unrest is most inopportune for any increase in liquor facilities.

I agree with that too. We are passing through a very serious time of political unrest, and when people are disturbed or restless they seek liquor, and that liquor aggravates their illegal intentions.

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked at this legislation and I will oppose it to the utmost. We are the trustees of the indigenous races of this country but here we are exposing them by this Bill to the ravages of alchohol. We inherited the Cape tot system as a recognized evil of the past, and the supply of liquor freed of its present restrictions is going to let loose, still further, the ravages to the homes of the least able to withstand it. Mothers and children of these people are crying out to us to save them from the misery that increased liquor facilities will bring to the Native inhabitants of this country. We who work amongst the Native people know their poverty. We know the evil of liquor facilities. We know of the shebeens that cause so much misery. But this Bill is going to make more liquor available, and more easily available to our Bantu people. We must remember that we are their trustees. I do not see how we can possibly do it. It is going to bring about misery and starvation and increased incidence of tuberculosis.

You know, Sir, we have been patting each other on the back and saying what wonderful progress we are making in the combating of tuberculosis. That tuberculosis resulted mainly from the lack of protective foods. Yet now we are introducing a Bill of this nature which will result in the reduction of the supply of protective foods to the children and will consequently aggravate the tuberculosis position. I deplore what the Government intends to do in this Bill. Even at this stage—and I hope it is not yet too late—I appeal to members on the Government benches to oppose this Bill. We know that they are not allowed to speak in the debate if they are opposed to the Bill. Has regimentation in this country reached that state that we no longer have the liberty of saying what we have on our consciences? It was reported in the papers that members would be allowed to vote according to their conscience, but I think it is a terrible limitation if Government members are not allowed to express the feelings of their conscience. Dare we resist these criticisms? I thought that the Afrikaner was a God-fearing man, yet in this Bill they are going against their own Church.

Mr. SPEAKER:

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

Mr. BOWKER:

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to this article which I quoted. Surely I am speaking to this Bill when I express the feelings of the Church towards this legislation, because that is what we are doing on the second reading. At the Committee Stage I will be prepared to limit myself to the individual clauses. The Dutch Reformed Churches are completely opposed to the free supply of liquor to the African people. The Federal Council of the Church, set up for the control of social evils, which represents the Churches of the Transvaal, the Orange Free State, the Cape and Natal, has condemned the proposals in this Bill. The Council has said that these proposals would lead to the demoralization of the Bantu and would place a major obstacle in the way of the Churches’ mission work. The Council said that the great majority of the Bantu live in primitive condition and have not reached the standard of civilization under which they would be proof against the devastating effects of alcohol. We who have employed the Native people can, I think, all support that statement with conviction. We know how the Natives are prepared to sell their souls for a little alcohol. Farmers who have provided alcohol to their Natives have brought about a demoralizing effect on the Native character. And this is something that the Native has asked us to protect them from. The Natives in the area that I represent have said that they do not favour this legislation. They do not regard this privilege as something giving them a status of equality as regards the White man in this country. They regard this measure as aimed at exploiting the Native people.

Mr. Speaker, we all know of how many nations have been destroyed by liquor. We know of that giant race in Southern Patagonia which was wiped out when given liquor facilities. These people were accustomed to going out to sea when fishing poorly clothed, sometimes wearing only skins, and they were able to resist the rigors of the climate. But when liquor was made available to them their resistance was diminished and they became victims of tuberculosis and pneumonia and, as a result, that race has been wiped out. And that has happened to many people. The Hottentots of this country were wiped out more as a result of alcohol than as a result of smallpox. We know that Professor Marais in his book mentions several instances where alcohol has had such a devastating effect on our primitive races. To think that in this century of enlightenment we are prepared to expose these people to the ravages of liquor, and only resort to increased penalties to control drunkenness, is quite absurd. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Frielinghaus) askes what prohibition did to America. They drank less liquor there during prohibition, although it was available. I hope the hon. member is not supporting this measure. He has an enormous Native population in his area and they have had trouble in controlling them at times. If the hon. member gives the measure consideration he will realize that the control of the Native areas of Port Elizabeth will become more difficult than ever.

Before I sit down, I want to appeal to the members of the Government to come back under the wings of their Church and to avoid this issue where political domination may destroy their consciences, and I say: Rather God than Mammon.

Mr. RAW:

I think the debate so far has shown how wise has been the practice in the past of allowing a free vote when it comes to matters in which liquor is concerned.

An HON. MEMBER:

Hear, hear!

Mr. RAW:

I am only sorry that the side of the hon. member who said “Hear, hear!” did not follow it as genuinely as this side did. We have followed up the decision that every member should be free to vote according to his conscience, but that hon. member certainly cannot say that for his side of the House. I find it very strange to find myself in disagreement with many of my friends on this side and in agreement with hon. members opposite for a change. I intend to vote for the principle of this Bill, because I believe that this Bill seeks to eliminate an evil.

The arguments we have had against the Bill so far have been arguments not against this measure but against liquor as such. In other words, they are arguments against the provisions of the principal Act which is being amended, because every argument advanced in this debate against the passing of this measure has been based on the evils of liquor and the damage it does to human beings. Now there is no doubt about that, but it applies equally to those who are already entitled to it and able to obtain it and those who at the moment cannot obtain it legally but who obtain it illegally. I believe that more harm is done—and I think this has been proved by prohibition in America, where during prohibition there were 22,000 shebeens in New York alone, whereas to-day there are none—it has been proved that by making something illegal you cannot prevent it. What happens is that those who are prepared to be dishonest and to act as criminals will still continue to get their liquor, whereas those who try to keep within the law are prevented from obtaining it, and this Bill aims at meeting that situation. It aims not so much at meeting the question of the distribution of liquor as trying to counter the illegal sale of liquor and, above all, the illegal brewing of liquor. Much of the damage that is done is not done by genuine liquor, but by these evil brews produced by the shebeen queens, brews which contain anything from carbide and methylated spirits to high octane petrol. I know that during the war when liquor was scarce people made brews out of anything, including brake fluid. Somebody discovered that it contained alcohol and they mixed it with condensed milk to produce a potent brew. I see hon. members laughing. Some of them may have tasted it. I did also, but it was not very nice. It is that sort of brew which does the harm. Surely if we want to counter that evil and we know that people are going to drink in any case, then it is better to enable them to drink something pure than to drink the impure concoctions they can buy. Apart from that, there is the question of the intrusion into the private lives of the Bantu through the liquor laws that exists today, intrusion into the homes of people which create so much bitterness. Whilst you will still get shebeens with illegal brews, and whilst you will still get abuse—I accept all that—I feel that this Bill may to some extent remove many of those evils and alleviate others of them. Like others, I looked for control in this measure, which may have made it perhaps less wide and unrestricted than it is at the moment. I thought in terms of an extension of the permit system or an endorsement of the pass book entitling a person to obtain liquor, and various other controls which may have been introduced. But when one considers each and every one of these methods, I think one must come to the conclusion that all of them still leave the evil there. If Native A is entitled to buy liquor but not Native B, then A becomes the buyer for B. If a person is entitled to buy with a permit, he will borrow a permit from his friend if he does not have one himself. So I do not think that that type of control will be effective. It will merely channel the liquor through those who are entitled to buy it, and thus increase the price and create an extra middleman. Therefore, reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that I will support the Bill with the basic principles as they stand at the moment. I am opposed to many of the points of detail, but those matters can be dealt with in the Committee Stage. I would rather deal at this stage with the general principle of the supply of liquor, and consideration of the general principle has led me to the conclusion that any type of restriction will merely perpetuate the problems we have to-day.

But what I feel the Bill is doing, and a field in which there is room for improvement, is the invasion of the established interests of private enterprise which it contains. I would like to look for a moment at the question of distribution as envisaged in the new Section 100. as it will be amended by the measure before us. In terms of Section 100bis. we have complete and unrestricted power being given to the Minister to grant special authority for on-consumption and off-consumption, and for the consumption by certain classes of certain types of liquor. But all the power rests in the hands of the Minister or the person whom he appoints, and I want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider two possible amendments in this respect. Firstly, he is creating a National Liquor Board. Will he not consider that where authority is granted to a local body like a municipality or any other local authority, before the grant of such authority the advice of the National Liquor Board should be obtained? I will put it no higher than that, but if the Minister agrees to that he would enable those who felt that they were being wronged to give evidence or to make their representations to that Board, and he would then be acting on the advice of that Board in the granting of authority; or, if not, whether he will incorporate a provision that if there are those who feel that the granting of an authority to a local body is in conflict with the interests of the area or with private enterprise, he will then agree to receive representations from those so affected; in other words, that he will publish his intention to issue such an authority and give an opportunity for those affected to make representations to him. But the other class of person, apart from public authorities, to whom I wish to refer, are those classed as “persons or associations of persons”. That enables the Minister to grant an authority which is in effect a liquor licence to any person or association of persons. Surely where we are dealing with private persons in a matter as intricate and as controversial as the distribution of liquor, we should retain the safeguards provided by the liquor licensing boards. [Interjections.] Yes, but if it is an association of Natives in their own area, surely the liquor licensing board will treat such an application with fair and just consideration. The point is that they are a body experienced in the granting of licences. It may not be a group of Natives. It may be someone who is entirely unsuited to be a licensee, but by presenting a false picture of himself he creates the impression that he is a suitable person to receive a licence and the Minister grants it, without being bound by any of the provisions of the licensing board. The licensing boards must establish a man’s character and his criminal record and his financial stability. The Minister is not bound by any of those restrictions. So I suggest that where private interests are concerned use be still made of the liquor licensing boards, because whether he likes it or not, the first person who receives an authority from the Minister is going to be labelled as a “boetie-boetie” licensee, whether it is right or wrong. The minute the Minister grants an authority to a private person, the rumours will start that this is “jobs for pals”, and I want to protect the Minister and the industry as such. My friend laughs. He is not interested in the consequences of this. He has been told to vote for the Bill, and that is as far as he can think, whilst I am trying to deal with the provisions of the Bill. I am asking that in the interests of justice and in order to create confidence that there will be no abuse of these powers, in the case of an authority granted to private persons the liquor licensing boards be used as the channel—not as the final channel but as an advisory body to the Minister in this respect; and where such authorities are to be granted, I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of advertising for tenders if the local authority is not going to run the distribution of the liquor. If the local authority says they are not interested, I assume the Minister will grant that authority to some person or association of persons, and where there is such a case I feel that in the interest of fairness such a situation should be dealt with by advertising and calling for persons to apply for the authority.

The impression is created, and I think wrongly, that this Bill is merely going to throw liquor open far and wide to every non-White who wishes to buy it. I would like to ask the Minister a few questions in regard to this, because I doubt whether that is in effect the outcome of the Bill as it stands now. I doubt whether that is the position and that in fact any distributor would be able to sell liquor to all and sundry, because Section 100quin as proposed grants permission for the exclusion either of a class or an area from the provisions of this Bill. That is Clause 9 of the amending Bill.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

It is a class in a defined area.

Mr. RAW:

Yes. But Clause 10 retains the permit system, the exemption system. Section 100quin as now proposed gives the Minister authority to exclude any area, to exempt any class of person in a defined area from purchasing liquor, but in Clause 10, Section 101, he retains the permit system with regard to Natives. He merely deletes from it Asiatics and Coloureds and he deletes two other subsections, but the permit system is retained. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is his intention to use 100quin to exclude White areas so that Native liquor trade will be directed into Native areas, and whether that is the purpose of this clause, and whether, allied to that, the retention of the exemption permit system is in order that those Natives who have permits will still be able to buy on permit in White or in excluded areas. The Minister may, e.g., exclude the whole of Cape Town from the provisions of this Bill and say that liquor will only be supplied to Natives in Langa or Nyanga, and in that exclusion he may say that a class of persons, i.e. Natives with exemption certificates, will still be able to purchase in the White area. I think it is important that we have clarity on the meaning of this clause.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The clause is intended to deal with the position if it gets out of hand.

Mr. RAW:

Thank you. Then I assume I am correct in saying that it is not the intention to exclude White areas holus-bolus and to direct all the Native liquor trade into the Native townships. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify this point, because many of the arguments I still wish to make flow from it; because if the intention of the Bill is that the supply of all liquor to Natives will be confined to the Native townships, then 100ter has no real meaning except in cases where the local authority is not going to supply. But if 100quin is purely to deal with the matter when it gets out of hand, then 100ter will apply and be put into practice, and therefore many of the arguments for and against this Bill will change materially in the light of the Minister’s reply. If the Minister’s intention is to control all liquor in Native areas, many of the objections to this Bill will fall away, but then the Minister will be cutting across an established right and private interests, and one of those which I would like to refer to is the position of licensees in the Cape who to-day are supplying Coloureds and exempted Natives. They are entitled to do so under the existing legislation. Under this Bill, if liquor is to be directed into the Native areas only, those people who pay very highly for their licences will find that the whole situation is changed as far as their businesses are concerned, because those Natives who were previously buying through commercial channels, if they are forced to buy in the Native areas, will no longer be potential customers. Those channels which previously supplied them will find that their trade has lost much of its value. I draw this to the Minister’s attention because, as he knows, the obtaining of a liquor licence is very difficult, and rightly so. A person cannot just get a liquor licence. It costs him a lot of money. He often has to wait a long time for it and a great deal of time and capital is invested in the distribution channels. If the Minister intends by one sweep of the pen to take away part of their income, I think in fairness to these people he should give warning of his intention so that they can plan accordingly. I hope it is the intention of the Minister to use 100quin, as he says, merely as a regulating measure, and that he will make the fullest possible use of the existing distributive channels. We have the hotel and the liquor distributing industry, and they are of a high standard. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) said it was unfortunate that hotels competed on such unequal terms. That is so. It is unequal in many respects but primarily because some hotels have off-sales and others have none, and also in regard to the quality of their service. But the industry as such is battling and finding the position so difficult that they cannot make the improvements they wish to make. I feel that where we have a satisfactory channel of distribution the maximum use should be made of it by the Minister because it is controlled by experienced people. It is a channel of distribution run by people, most of whom have spent their whole lives in the business and who have learnt to know the difficulties and the snags and the loopholes whereby people try to evade the law and who, because of that experience, are less likely to allow abuses than inexperienced people to whom authority may be given. So I ask the Minister not to discard the existing marketing channels which can be of great use in giving him effective control.

Then I wish to refer to the question of the board itself, the National Liquor Board which the Minister proposes to establish. I have already suggested that this board should be used to advise the Minister in the granting of authority, but I would especially ask that that board be asked to advise the Minister in regard to exclusions in terms of 100quin. The granting of an authority is an additional right.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That will take up so much of the time of the board that it will be almost a permanent board.

Mr. RAW:

But is this matter not of such importance, and are the risks outlined by those who are opposed to the Bill not so great that it is necessary that there should be a full-time board? Does the Minister intend to make so many exclusions that it will be impossible to refer them to the board, or does he intend to delegate his authority, because he as the Minister cannot handle every application, to an official, so that one man will take these decisions? Surely it will be better to have a board, and if necessary a full-time board, to deal with these matters continuously, a board in which the public could have confidence and on which I suggest, there should be represented the existing distributive trade, whether it is the hotel industry or the bottle-store trade.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I suggested in my second reading speech that there should be such representatives on the board.

Mr. RAW:

I hope that the Minister will incorporate that in the constitution of the board and if necessary increase the board. But I feel that the trade should be represented because of the experience they have had.

Now, if I may deal with another contentious issue in Clause 8, the question of the tot system. I am afraid the Minister has not yet made the question clear to the House. He has said that the intention is to leave it to the free choice of the employer.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

To leave the Act as it is, i.e. to leave Clauses 8 and 16 out altogether.

Mr. RAW:

That will leave the four provinces with different systems, as it is to-day. It will leave the tot system as the authorized and recognized system in the Cape, which is the present position. Section 96, I feel, is the last section which should be left untouched. Originally the intention was to change it. Then I understood the Minister to say that he was introducing an amendment to this section which would have left it open to the employer to make up his own mind, but now he is not to pass anything, and will leave Section 96 as it stands. That leaves the four provinces with different provisions. It leaves the tot system unchanged, and it leaves the unsatisfactory situation which I am sure the Minister himself wishes to eliminate. I would seriously urge the Minister to consider the amendment he contemplated, or an amendment which will make the provision of liquor as part of the remuneration for employment illegal. I have no objection to the employer at the end of the day giving his employee liquor. I think many of us on farms, when we have had a veld fire and the labourers have worked all night, have given them a drink when they have come in, or to those who have been working in the rain all day. I think even hon. members who oppose the Bill do it themselves. If their employees have done a particularly arduous job, they will give them a tot at the end of the day, but the objection is to giving liquor at regular periods throughout the day.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The whole matter can be thrashed out when we come to the consolidating measure.

Mr. RAW:

Thank you. I think it will be welcomed by everyone.

Another cause of uncertainty is the provision in Clause 3 affecting licences within half a mile of Native or Coloured areas. That is creating a great deal of uncertainty, because persons who already have licences now have the Sword of Damocles hanging over them until November, and I would ask the Minister whether he would not make a statement in regard to this matter to remove the uncertainty and to assure those who have legitimately and in terms of the Act acquired such rights that they will not suddenly overnight find their livelihood taken away from them.

Then there is another provision in Clause 4 where restrictions based upon class (Section 81) are repealed. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether existing determinations already made in terms of Section 81 are also automatically repealed or whether they will remain and whether the repeal of Section 81 will only mean that no future restrictions based upon class may be made. There are to-day restrictions based upon class, imposed in terms of Section 81. Does the repeal of this section mean that those restrictions automatically fall away or will they remain and will only future restriction become illegal?

Then flowing from this whole Bill is the extent of supervision which is to-day exercised over hotels by the police. It was in many respects necessary because of all the restrictions which existed, but this is a matter which causes a great deal of dissatisfaction and a great deal of unhappiness. Hoteliers tell you to-day that they live almost at the whim and mercy of the police. If they fall out with an officer they find their premises being inspected almost every day. If they get on well with him, they may be left alone for months at a time. It is a human weakness. I am not saying that it is being done dishonestly. But a licensee may fall out with the police and then he finds that his premises are continually being inspected. There is an invasion of the privacy of hoteliers and the right to run their hotel. This Session, after coming back late from an inland trip, I was still in my room at about 9 o’clock one morning and a police captain walked into the room. The hotelier told him that somebody was occupying that room who had come in late that morning and that he would not like the visitor to be disturbed. However, the police captain insisted on going into that room. That sort of interference is something which I hope will become less and less necessary as the restrictions fall away. I would ask the Minister, when he removes restrictions, also to take into account the practical administrative interference as well as the purely legal issues which are raised by this legislation. [Interjections.] Sir, I am dealing with this in all seriousness, and if the hon. member has a serious suggestion I would be happy to deal with it. Then, Sir, in terms of Section 100bis the Minister has the right to grant authorities, but he only has a permissive right to apply to such authorities the restrictions which apply to normal licences. In terms of sub-section (4) of 100bis the Minister may apply any of the provisions of the Liquor Act or he may choose not to apply them. Again there is the problem of private persons obtaining authorities and selling in competition with existing licensees. The Minister will be entitled not to impose upon a private person selling this side of the fence, restrictions which the man selling on the other side of the fence would be obliged to abide by. He may grant authority for a bottle store in Adderley Street. Yes, there is no limitation. Section l00bis does not limit the area in which the Minister may grant an authority. He can grant an authority for off-consumption or on-consumption anywhere he likes, and he could grant an authority to a private person to open up next door to an existing licensee. The existing licensee would be bound by the provisions of the Act and the person selling under an authority could have no limitation whatsoever placed upon him. Where it is a question of an authority which is in fact a licence for normal sale, I feel that it should be compulsory to apply the provisions of the Act to such an authority. Where authority is granted for a beer hall in a location or in a Native township, then it is not necessary that all the provisions should apply, but where the Minister grants an authority which is in fact identical to a normal licence, except that it is not granted by the licensing board, then I feel that the permissive powers provided for in subsection (4) should be compulsory, otherwise the Minister would be creating unfair competition.

Another matter on which I hope that the Minister will give greater clarity is the question of on-consumption premises in White areas, because in every city there are thousands of Natives who are employed and live in the White areas—household servants, flat employees, milk delivery employees and so on, who are and will remain in the White area. If the Minister is not going to provide any facilities for them in the White area then the present illegal trade, the runners, instead of running from the White bottle store to Langa, will be running from Langa to Cape Town, because those Natives will not be able to get out to Langa to buy liquor. By the time they leave their work in the evening it is too late for them to go all the way out to the Native township for their liquor; so unless the Minister wishes to have the illegal liquor trade flowing in the reverse direction, I feel that he will have to take this into account and I hope he will make a statement in regard to reasonable facilities for those employees in the White areas.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

They can get permission from the owner.

Mr. RAW:

The Minister says that they can get permission from the owner to buy for off-consumption.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Those who work in the White areas and remain there all day can get permission from the owner of the property to consume liquor on the premises.

Mr. RAW:

But is that not creating a new class of criminal again? Should some provision not be made for those people to whom permission is refused by the owner? Speaker after speaker on this side of the House has said, “I will not allow my Natives to have liquor on my property”, Those Natives will now go and buy liquor, but in terms of Section 100quat they will not be allowed to consume it; they will be committing an offence if they consume it on the owner’s premises without permission.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

They can get permission.

Mr. RAW:

But what happens if the owner refuses to give them permission, as many members have said they would do? If they are refused permission they will go and buy liquor and they will have nowhere to drink it, so they will either drink it on the street or they will break the law by drinking on the premises without the permission of their landlord, and if they do they are subject to very high penalties. I think the Minister will have to consider some sort of on-consumption facilities for those Natives who have no other choice, those Natives who are refused permission to consume liquor on the premises of their employers, but who are unable to go out to the townships. I know that there are difficulties, but I raise this problem with the Minister because I think Section 100quat is going to create a new class of criminal, who is allowed legally to buy liquor but who is then precluded from consuming it. He is entitled to buy the liquor but he has no legal way of consuming it. Some provision should be made for that class.

I think the other matters which cause concern are matters that can best be dealt with in Committee, but the principle of this Bill is one with which I agree—the principle of the extension of liquor facilities and an attempt to remove both illegal liquor sales and illegal brewers. I therefore intend to vote for this measure and I hope that with the co-operation of the Minister, during the Committee Stage we may be able to remove some of the problems and snags which I think will lead to difficulties. I hope we will also get the Minister’s assurance that this is not an attempt to build up a State-controlled liquor trade in South Africa, because I am sure that will not enjoy the support of the public. But if private channels of distribution are harnessed and proper control is exercised, I feel that this Bill will do more good than harm.

*Mr. TREURNICHT:

In discussing this Bill we have to keep account of certain basic facts. The first one is that wine farming and its product is an old established off-shoot of the agricultural industry. It is even interesting when you look at history, Sir, to notice that civilizations have thrived in wine producing countries. That is why I cannot reconcile myself with the idea expressed by some hon. members that we should try to finalize the entire matter simply by means of total prohibition, or that we should use expressions such as “the curse of liquor”. I think hon. members mean it well but I think their approach to this whole matter is wrong. We must admit that not only do our wine farmers practise an old established industry but that generally speaking they are very honourable and sombre and stable persons who have made a big contribution towards the development of our country and the promotion of civilization. They have certainly shown us that the production of wine and the use of liquor are not synonymous with the abuse of liquor or drunkenness. That is why I cannot reconcile myself with the remarks made by hon. members who are so dead against liquor and the use of liquor. The second thought I wish to advance is that we should admit the basic fact that prohibition has been a failure. That is nothing new. Even in our own country where we have prohibition in respect of a section of our population it has been a failure. I think we must admit that it is unreasonable to expect that the Department of Justice and our Police Force alone should combat this whole problem of the misuse of liquor. As the position has been in the past the question of combating the abuse of liquor has been left to the Department of Justice and the police and that has proved to be a task impossible of fulfilment. That is why I say that we should not be too quick in opposing this Bill because we have here a new approach on the part of the Minister; an attempt which is based on the idea that prohibition has appeared to be a failure and that we cannot continue along that road.

The third basic fact that I want to advance is that the evil that really confronts us is the abuse of liquor. I think I can definitely say that every hon. member in this House is against the abuse of liquor, against illicit trading in liquor and its accompanying evils, and that is really why this matter is such a delicate one. Where we deal with the abuse of liquor we are not dealing with a consumer’s article that can be banned and that you can expect to disappear from the market and that the demand for it will immediately cease. The vine, wine and strong liquor will always be with us and I think we should accept it that that will be the position. It has been a source of pleasure to man which is as old as history itself. But when we come to the question of the abuse of liquor we must always take into account the fact that we are dealing with something which not only gets a hold of the body of man but also on his spiritual powers. A little wine, as we have been told, freshens the body of man and it makes him happy but on the other hand an excessive amount of wine and strong liquor breaks the body; it clouds the brain of man and breaks his spirit. We must keep count of this truth when we discuss this matter and if we want to form a balanced opinion, we should think along these lines that the State and we who have the welfare of the nation at heart, should concentrate on combating the abuse of liquor and that we should tackle the problem from a different angle than that of prohibition, because prohibition has been tested throughout the years in our country and in other countries as a means and it has proved to be a failure. We should bear in mind the fact that a large section of our population consists of immature people, people who need the protection of the State. The principal Act of 1928 was based on the assumption that the Bantu population had not as yet reached the stage of maturity where wine and strong liquor could readily be made available to them and the question which I ask myself is whether we can now expect it and whether the State should resort to other methods of combating the abuse of liquor and of protecting those people. I want to put it this way that circumstances have changed a great deal. We do indeed have ways and means at our disposal to-day of combating the misuse of liquor and therefore I want to emphasize the fact that our approach should not be that we are now placing a new Act on our Statute Book and that for the rest we should leave it to the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice and the police and that we can wash our hands of it. I want to make this appeal to-day that this House and every responsible body in this country should be serious about combating this great problem of the abuse of liquor, drunkenness and alcoholism. Particularly where liquor is made freely available to the Bantu population. I think that all available means should be used to prevent the abuse of liquor. It will not avail us in ten years’ time to say that this legislation has appeared to be a failure and to be sorry that we did not leave the position as it was. That is why I want to suggest that in future we should make more use of the radio which is to be found in the home of every Bantu to-day, in order to impress certain basic ideas on his mind—not to preach to him about it, not to try to convey to him the idea that strong liquor is poison and that he should avoid it. That really does not mean a thing to me; we will achieve nothing by following that line. The hon. member tor Ceres (Mr. Muller) has referred to Bantu customs and the occasion when he becomes a grown-up man. Let us bring one simple thought home to the Bantu by means of the radio, for example the idea that a grown-up man never gets drunk; that a grown-up man never buys wine and strong liquor before his family has been fed and clothed. If we can impress that idea on his mind by means of the radio, and if we can appeal to his self-respect I think we stand a chance of doing something positive. We can also enlist the aid of the Press in this respect. The Press can do a great deal to convey positive ideas to the Bantu and not only in respect of the Bantu. I see in this an opportunity of adopting an entirely new approach to the combating of the abuse of liquor and drunkenness and that is why I want to suggest to every responsible body to use the Press in order to bring home to those people that liquor should be used moderately, and to propagate that idea ad nauseam so that our children too will grow up with that idea, so that when the day arrives when they too use liquor, they will know that it is something that must always be used in moderation. I do not believe in the idea that we should at all costs keep our children away from liquor. On the contrary I believe that they should be taught from a tender age that liquor should be used moderately and that liquor, if used excessively, destroys and ruins you.

As far as the Bantu population is concerned I also wish to refer to the Department of Bantu Education. Since 1928 we have made tremendous progress in this respect and there are thousands, no millions, of Bantu who can be reached via our Bantu schools, where this matter can be presented to the Bantu youth who in turn can carry it over to the parents —the necessity of guarding against the abuse of liquor, the care to be exercised that strong liquor does not become a habit and the necessity of placing first things first, namely the home and food and clothing first and only thereafter the luxury articles such as wine and strong liquor. I welcome the idea of the establishment of a Liquor Board and where the Department of Justice is to be represented on that board and apparently the liquor producers and the traders as well, I should like to ask the Minister to consider the possibility of giving the Department of Social Welfare representation on that board, and where he seeks advice from that board, as far as this matter is concerned, that there should also be somebody on that board who will not only concentrate on the distribution of liquor and the crime aspect of the matter, but who will also regard this matter from the point of view of social welfare, from the point of view of the general welfare of White, Coloured and Bantu. Throughout the ages we have learnt the lesson that you achieve better results in teaching people when you adopt a positive approach, by appealing to their sense of decency and honour and self-respect, and I think it is very important that we direct our efforts along these lines and work strenuously in that direction. I think we can take it that the Department of Justice, and hence the Government, will gain by it in that there will be fewer prosecutions and fewer police will be required to concentrate on the combating of the existing illicit trade. We can take it that the liquor trade will derive certain benefits from this proposed legislation. We can even take it that eventually the producer will have a greater market for his product, in other words that the wine farmer too will increase his production and that there will be a market; let us admit that. In other words, benefits will be derived from this legislation and I want to plead with the Minister that all these bodies, the Government and the wine farmer through his recognized organizations and the trade, should play their part in this fight against the abuse of liquor. We can do it by means of the radio and the Press, etc., but I really have in mind the big problem of alcoholism. We have been told that there are hundreds of thousands of White alcoholics in South Africa, people who have reached a stage where it is no use telling them that they are sinners. They are our responsibility; they are people who are mentally ill. A great deal can be done in the way of research as far as this problem is concerned. A great deal can be done by establishing institutions where these people can be treated and assisted, because they want to be helped. They want to get out of the hold that this evil has on them, and they themselves are no longer capable spiritually to offer any resistance to the destructive influences that flow from the abuse of liquor. I want to conclude by making an appeal to the hon. the Minister and this House: Let us be realistic. Let us accept that the product of the vine is the recognized product of a recognized agricultural industry, an industry which is as honourable as any other. Let us be realistic and admit that prohibition has been a failure. It will not avail us to introduce prohibition any further, for the simple reason that you cannot shackle the human spirit by means of a single prohibition law, but on behalf of those hundreds of thousands of White alcoholics—probably more amongst the Coloured people—on behalf of those sons and daughters, of our nation and of every national group in the whole country, those sons and daughters who grew up in the sorrow and misery of a household where liquor was misused, on behalf of those sons and daughters who grew up in the realization that their father or their mother could not care for the family because they drank too much, on behalf of those sons and daughters I want to plead to-day that we, who are realistic in accepting certain facts, should not regard it as too much trouble to do everything in our power to combat the abuse of liquor, and that we should be prepared to spend a large amount of our money on the combating of this evil of the abuse of liquor.

Mr. OLDFIELD:

The hon. member who has just sat down has made an impassioned appeal for steps to be taken to curb the abuse of alcohol, and I feel that the speech which he has made this afternoon is one of great importance because the abuse of alcohol is undoubtedly one of the great social evils of present-day civilization. However, where I do not agree with the hon. member is that he does not realize that this Bill will bring about an extension of greater liquor facilities to the Bantu people and the other racial groups which, in the opinion of the Churches and welfare organizations, will lead to a greater consumption of liquor and with that greater consumption of liquor, to excessive drinking and a further abuse of alcohol. I feel that the speech which he made is a speech which highlighted the dangers and the evils of the abuse of alcohol, and I think it is a speech which should really have been made by a person who opposes this Bill. If I believed that the provisions of this Bill would in any way reduce the incidence of drunkenness and the abuse of alcohol, I would certainly support it enthusiastically. However, after studying the provisions of this Bill, in my opinion, the main principle is the extension of liquor facilities to make strong liquor more readily available. I feel that that extension of liquor facilities will undoubtedly lead to a greater consumption of liquor and thereby create conditions which will make it easier for people to develop into excessive drinkers and alcoholics. Therefore, before proceeding with the reasons that I wish to put before the House as to why I draw that conclusion from the provisions of this Bill I would like to associate myself with the remarks made earlier to-day by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin). The hon. member for Pinelands made an appeal to the hon. the Minister to withdraw this Bill and at least to hold it over until next year. I feel that it is a great tragedy that a Bill of this importance should be introduced in the dying days of this Session of Parliament. The hon. the Minister has said that it is an experiment. I fail to see how this is an experiment, because once these facilities have been provided, it is an irrevocable step that has been taken, and I cannot see how the Minister would be able to retract should these facilities prove to be a failure. I feel that organizations that are vitally concerned with this extension of liquor facilities should be given a greater opportunity to state their views and to put forward representations to the hon. the Minister. The hon. Minister published this Bill in a Government Gazette on 9 June, and he introduced the second reading debate on 16 June. I hardly feel that time has been afforded to those persons who are vitally concerned with the effects and repercussions of this legislation, to submit their memoranda and their views to the hon. the Minister. We know that the report of the Malan Commission brought about a large number of memoranda and views expressed by numerous organizations, but that commission’s report is not what is being incorporated in this Bill. This Bill goes much further than the report and incorporates far greater principles and is creating facilities far beyond what was suggested by the commission in regard to the supply of strong liquor to the Bantu people. I regret to say that I do not see how this Bill in any way will bring about improvements in the previous Liquor Act of 1928. I am afraid that this extension in the Bill will do more harm than good. Therefore I intend to vote against the second reading of this Bill.

The question as to the good that can come from the implementation of this Bill is one which deserves serious consideration and scrutiny. It is a sincere attempt—I do not doubt that—by the Minister to reduce illicit liquor dealings, and a great deal of optimism has been expressed by those who are supporting this Bill. I cannot support that optimism, because I fail to see how illicit liquor dealing will cease. Possibly there will be a reduction in the incidence of illicit liquor dealing, but certain restrictions are going to be made in regard to provisions of this Bill, and the police and the authorities will have to see that those restrictions are carried out. Therefore the question of dealing in illicit liquor will still remain a problem, because from area to area certain restrictions are to be made and there will still be bootlegging from the restricted area to the unrestricted area, and vice versa. I feel that the main principle involved in this Bill is a dangerous step, namely to provide facilities for the Bantu people to this extent.

The question of illicit brewing is another important factor in regard to the problem that is facing the authorities in the enforcement of the liquor laws. Sir, the illicit brewing will still continue, and I refer you to the report of the Malan Commission on page 7 in paragraph 54 dealing with illicit brewing, where it says—

The liquor the Native obtains through the illicit trade is mostly not conducive to good health because all sorts of harmful ingredients are added. One bottle of brandy is usually diluted with water and then tobacco juice, methylated spirits and other injurious substances are added to give it a kick before it reaches the consumer in such places as shebeens.

Here we see that one of the liquors that is made available to the Bantu people is brandy, and we find in the report of this report that brandy is listed as a base of these concoctions that are made in illicit brewing and in the shebeens, therefore I can only foresee that by making brandy readily available to the Bantu people, that by having the greater consumption of that brandy, it will mean that the illicit brewing will flourish. I do not see in any way how it is going to bring about a reduction in regard to illicit brewing.

That leads me on to say that the police raids will have to continue. I don’t think the hon. Minister can possibly say that they will not continue in future when this Bill is passed and becomes an Act.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! That argument has been used repeatedly.

Mr. OLDFIELD:

Yes, Sir, I realize that, but I believe that it is such an important argument that the Minister should give serious consideration to this particular point, because it has been repeatedly referred to by people supporting this Bill.

Before coming to a decision, and voting for a Bill such as this, one has to ask oneself whether the whole question of the availability of this additional liquor is going to lead to an abuse of liquor, and I believe that the only benefit that will be derived from this greater consumption of liquor is that it will create an expansion of the internal market for the consumption of this liquor. Therefore the greatest benefits to be derived from this Bill, will be derived by those persons allied to the manufacture of this liquor, and I feel, Sir, that it is taking a far too great risk in making these provisions which will not be in the interest of the welfare of the Bantu people. The hon. the Minister in introducing the second reading of this Bill mentioned the question of Rhodesia and claimed that in Rhodesia it had been a measure of success. However, there are contradictory views in that regard, and I would quote information that I have received from the Federation which shows a marked increase in the incidence of drunkenness and assault cases. It states that drunkenness in 1957 was 1,325 (amongst Bantu people) and increased to 1,529 in 1959, and the assault cases from 6,164 in 1957 to 6,857 in 1959, an increase of 700 in the assault cases. So I do not think one should rely too heavily on the fact that Rhodesia has implemented a scheme like this, because there is contradictory evidence in regard to the success of that step.

The question of increased drunkenness is one point which I wish to stress in this debate, because I feel that with the detribalized urban Bantu, who is being tempted to partake of the stronger liquor of the White man, we are creating a very serious problem indeed, and the demand that these people will make will be a demand for brandy, it will be a demand which will lead to increased drunkenness amongst a number of Bantu who in the past have not been drinkers. Non-drinkers will now become drinkers due to the fact that this temptation will be placed before them, due to the fact that they will endeavour to follow the example of the White man, once they are allowed the White man’s liquor. With the growing number of urban Bantu, I feel a number of very serious consequences and problems are going to arise. These problems are going to be far more serious than the possible advantages of passing a Bill of this nature. Sir, the Native social workers are also deeply concerned about the implications of the extension of strong liquor to the Bantu people. I have received a number of representations and letters from Bantu social workers who are greatly alarmed at the fact that strong liquor is now to be made so readily available to the Bantu people. Some of the urban Bantu have stated that they need schools, they need further facilities in regard to the distribution of foodstuffs; their needs are far greater than the need of brandy and other strong liquor; they also believe that with a greater amount of money being spent on liquor, which will be more readily available, it will lead to a further impoverishment of the Bantu people. No, the extensions provided for in this Bill, particularly in 100bis of Clause 9 of the Bill, are certainly a drastic step that must be taken with a great deal of care and moderation.

I would now like to deal with another aspect which vitally affects the Bantu people, and that is the question of malnutrition and how that problem is going to be aggravated by the ready availability of strong liquor. As a member of the King Edward VIII Hospital Board in Durban, which is one of the largest non-European hospitals in South Africa, I have often been appalled at the incidence of kwashiokor and malnutrition in the wards of the children. Often one sees at least two children in a cot suffering from advanced stages of malnutrition. The mortality rate is exceedingly high. And the tragedy of this matter is that many of those lives could be saved because we are concentrating on the availability of liquor rather than concentrating on the distribution of milk. We know that the distribution of milk could save thousands of lives, and I may mention that the surplus of skimmed milk is considerable. In the Farmer’s Weekly of 31 May 1961 we read that in Table Bay an average of 2,3000 gallons a day of skimmed milk is being dumped. These lives can be saved. I raised the matter with the hon. Minister of Health, and the hon. the Minister told me that the problem is one of distribution and I feel that if the Government could concentrate its efforts on providing milk and the distribution of skimmed milk to save lives and to combat the misery and ravages of malnutrition, it would be doing far greater service to the Bantu than passing a Bill such as this which will facilitate the distribution of health-destroying liquor. The whole question of bringing about these extra facilities, the temptation of placing before these people harmful liquor, will not only lead to increased drunkenness, but will mean that the breadwinner will spend more money on liquor and less money on food for his children, and it will also endanger lives in regard to the safety of the roads. Another vitally important problem facing South Africa to-day is the number of deaths on the roads, and a large number of accidents on the roads are caused by persons driving under the influence of liquor; we know that with the evolution of the Native people, an ever-growing number of Native people are qualifying for drivers licences, and that will mean an increase in the incidence of drunken driving amongst the Bantu people if drink is more readily made available to them.

The more I study the provisions of this Bill, even the provisions which provide for the allocation of profits to be derived from the sale of this liquor, the more I am appalled. It states here that those profits may be canalized for certain specific purposes, and I presume that welfare services will be among the services that will derive some benefit from those profits. In my opinion it is most ironical that additional money from profits will be allocated to welfare services which will be called upon to carry an increased burden due to the fact that there is going to be increased drunkenness. So we are creating a position of aggravating the social problem as a result of the abuse of liquor and then providing in the Bill that the profits can be used for the combating of the evil that has been produced by the increase in liquor.

Another important aspect which I would like to mention is in regard to the urban Bantu and particularly the urban Bantu youth. We know that one of the important problems facing South Africa to-day is the question of the tsotsis in the Native townships and the difficulties that arise in that regard. Here we find in the Bill provision for the supply of liquor to any Native over 18 years of age, and here too I think there is a gross danger of making these facilities available to these young Natives. Because in the first place I do not see how those who have the authority to supply this liquor are going to estimate the age of these people. There is no provision made for the estimating of the age of the 18-year-old Native and it is going to be a very difficult problem. I know that as far as the European youth is concerned to-day, those who are associated with the running of youth clubs and suchlike, are often appalled to find a number of 16-year-old school boys and school girls arriving at social functions of youth clubs under the influence of liquor. I personally have asked a number of these school-going youths as to where they obtain this liquor, and they say that they are served in the bar lounges. So if we are unable to control the sale of liquor to the 16-year-old European youth, I cannot see how they are going to control the supply of liquor to the 18-year-old Bantu youth. It is going to be a great practical difficulty where these young people, some of them 16 years of age, will be able to partake of this liquor. As the hon. member for Drakensberg mentioned in the course of her speech, I say that it is against the principles of tribalized Bantu people that people so young should be partaking of liquor. So they are becoming completely detribalized and we are here passing a Bill which will facilitate the detribalization of these Native people in regard to their drinking habits in particular. The whole question in the increase of the abuse of liquor is one which to a great extent affects the young people. If one studies the returns of the work colonies, one finds that there is an increasing number of young people in these work colonies, and it is one of the grave social problems facing social workers working amongst the young people of South Africa, young people who social welfare services try to reclaim before they reach the stage of an alcoholic. Before they become drinkers and excessive drinkers, and then alcoholics, and I believe that by providing these easy facilities to the Bantu people, we are going to create a great social problem amongst the Bantu. Sir, the question of alcoholism is a very serious one indeed. I am not a total prohibitionist. I realize that certain facilities under certain control have to be made in a civilized world, but I believe that the example of the United States of America and the failure of total prohibition in that country is not a very good example, because if one looks at the figures of the incidence of alcoholism, one finds that France is first and the United States of America second, and then South Africa third. So the United States of America in spite of abolishing total prohibition, is the second highest in the world as far as the incidence of alcoholism is concerned.

Taking into account all the welfare tragedies, all the social tragedies that arise from the abuse of liquor, I feel that we must take steps to control the abuse of liquor. It is one of those vital social problems, and that is why I admired the speech of the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht), but I was disappointed when he came to the conclusion that this Bill in some way or other could reduce drunkenness, because as I read this Bill it will have the exact opposite effect.

I do not wish to delay the House by going into a large number of the tragedies of abuse of liquor because I realize that hon. members of this House are unanimous in their decision that the abuse of liquor and the abuse of alcohol is one of the evils, one of the present-day evils of modern civilization. The only thing that I am concerned about is that the hon. members do not realize that by extending these facilities, particularly to the urban Bantu, they are going to create grave social problems and are going to aggravate the tragedies we have with us to-day. Read the child welfare reports, read the reports of the United Nations —one interesting report in regard to juvenile crime showed that 31.7 per cent of the 12,000 cases of juvenile crime which were studied, were directly the result of liquor. It is undoubtedly one of the greatest tragedies of the world to-day that liquor should lead to persons committing sometimes the most serious crimes. The destruction of family life is something that every child welfare society has to struggle with. Only recently reading the reports of social welfare workers, professional workers of the Durban Child Welfare Society, I found that they stated that alcoholism still remains the major problem in their work, and a social welfare worker who concentrates in the Coloured areas also refers to alcoholism as one of the greatest causes of distress and the breaking up of happy homes and family life. Another social welfare worker sees in the greater supply, the indiscriminate supply of liquor, one of the greatest social evils facing South Africa. So the provisions of this Bill are going to extend the facilities for strong drink, thereby creating a situation which will lead to greater consumption to the moral degeneration of the Bantu people and of all the races concerned. There are certain positive steps which could be taken in regard to the abuse of alcohol. Some were mentioned by the hon. member for Piketberg. I know that the National Welfare Organizations’ Board, in their report for 1954 stressed that some steps should be taken to curb the incidence of alcoholism. They made certain suggestions in that report whereby children should be reminded and continually told of the tragedy flowing from excessive drinking. It is a matter every welfare society is deeply concerned with, and therefore I believe that if we were to concentrate our efforts on finding ways and means of combating the abuse of alcohol, rather than extending facilities which will lead to more drinking and greater consumption of strong liquor, we would do much better than passing this Bill. Just the appointment of one additional Bantu social welfare worker in an urban area does provide some means of combating the problem of excessive drunkenness, because the establishment of one Bantu social worker in such an area who can organize the Bantu people as to how to utilize their leisure hours to the greatest benefit of all, and can do a great deal towards the combating of this social problem. Therefore taking into account all the provisions of this Bill and what the main principle entails, I shall certainly vote against the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. DURRANT:

I intend to vote for this Bill in the second reading, not because I have a wish to see a tremendous spread of alcoholism in our country, to turn 50 per cent of the non-White population into potential drunkards, or to see an excess of all the terrible things that flow from excessive drinking of alcoholic spirits. I am going to vote for it because I believe that the choice is no longer whether or not the non-Whites should obtain liquor, but whether they should obtain it in a decent, a lawful way and under proper control. I think this Bill provides the machinery whereby the non-Whites, the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Asiatics of our country can obtain liquor in a decent way, in a lawful way and under proper control. I want to deal with the question of control in regard to the provisions of this Bill in a few minutes, but the fact is that listening to this debate, no single opponent of this Bill, not one, has suggested as yet total prohibition, and if you weigh the arguments of those who oppose the Bill, then every argument comes down to the evil of drink. Well, if drink in itself is an evil, then if you want to get rid of an evil thing you must prohibit it altogether, not only by class distinction or race distinction, but let us then prohibit it for all the races of our country, and then I submit there would be a considerable substantiation for all the moral arguments that we have had in the course of this debate. But what the opponents do suggest is partial prohibition to the non-White groups with free access to liquor for the White groups of our population, based on the assumption, Sir, that the non-White groups are incapable of exercising any self-control in respect of the consumption of alcoholic liquor. But what do the facts reveal about this lack of self-control? The memorandum of the South African Temperance Alliance has been quoted in this debate in regard to the Liquor Amendment Bill, but it is noteworthy that no single opponent of the measure quoted any of the excerpts of the memorandum from the Temperance Alliance. When it comes to the question of self-control and moral aspects, in respect of a White group or a non-White group, their ability to exercise control in the consumption of liquor, what does the Temperance Alliance tell us in this memorandum? They in fact tell us that the ratio of drunkenness convictions per 100,000 of each section of the population was as follows: Asiatics 250.2 per 100,000; the Bantu population 329.9 per 100,000, and that, Sir, coupled with the fact that we have 250,000 sentenced every year of course for illegal possession of liquor, this does not take into consideration the drinking of skokiaan or the supply of liquor in the Bantu areas of spirits concocted by skokiaan queens. But what is the European figure? The European figure is 364.7 for every 100,000 of the population convicted for drunkenness. So if the moral argument has to apply from the opponents of this Bill in regard to all the terrible effects, then to be logical they should propose the repeal of the 1928 Act and the application of total prohibition, on the ground that the White population are the ones that are the greatest sinners as compared with the non-White population, and that is in terms of the figures that we have before us from the Temperance Alliance.

What is the other fact that I believe cannot be gainsaid? The fact that we cannot ignore is that the Malan Commission points out that in 1956 there were no less than 214,500 offences against the Liquor Act for illegal possession of liquor by the Bantu population. What does that in fact mean? It means that over a period of four years—and according to the statistics the number has still been increasing—you are making criminals of over 10 per cent of the Bantu population of this country, and if you take it over a ten-year period, then you must argue on the same basis that 25 per cent of the Bantu population to-day have criminal records in regard to liquor offences, 2,500,000 of the Bantu population. Sir, I wonder if a survey were taken of the entire Bantu population over a ten-year period, whether the figure would even be as conservative as 25 per cent as having been convicted. I think they would show that a greater percentage than 25 per cent has been convicted of liquor offences. Therefore I would ask whether it is right that in the application of an outdated Liquor Act, in relation to the natural development of our urban Bantu population and their greater acquisition of civilized tastes, including liquor, we should continue to apply an outdated concept the application of our liquor laws and not give the Bantu the same opportunity of acquiring liquor under control and in a lawful manner, when it is his natural desire, as it is of other sections of the population, White, Black or Yellow.

It is said that this is an experiment. I cannot accept that it is an experiment, because I agree with those speakers who have said that once having taken the step of making more liquor available to the Bantu population, there can be no going back unless total prohibition is applied in our country. But what I do agree with is an experiment that the Minister is applying in the distribution of liquor to the Bantu population. That is the experiment, but I think it would be entirely wrong to let an idea exist in the country that this is an experiment as far as the mere supply of liquor to the non-White population is concerned.

Mr. GREYLING:

That is the first sensible statement you have made.

Mr. DURRANT:

It would be interesting to hear from the hon. member for Ventersdorp what his views are, but I notice hon. members on the other side who I know are against the principle of this Bill, whose moral convictions, whose personal viewpoints, whose religious beliefs have been suppressed in the Nationalist Party caucus for the sake of pushing something through this House which should be discussed freely in the interest of our country. I am sorry I allowed myself to be distracted Mr. Speaker. Now if it is an experiment then that experiment rests on the methods the hon. the Minister is adopting to distribute liquor to the Bantu population, as well as. to the Coloureds and the Asiatics. However I do not want to deal with the Coloureds and the Asiatics at this stage because I am prepared to accept the proposition in the Bill whereby the Coloured man as an appendage of the White population is now placed on exactly the same status as the White man with regard to the acquisition of liquor, and similarly with the Asiatic group. But the argument with regard to the 4,000,000 Bantu customers who are going to be put in the position of acquiring liquor is different. We will now have 4,000,000 Bantu legal customers of bottle stores who will be allowed by law to purchase liquor. That is what it amounts to. Therefore I think that the method the hon. the Minister is adopting in regard to the distribution of liquor should receive greater scrutiny by this House. The two main provisions which govern the distribution of liquor to the Bantu are the new Clauses 100bis and 100ter. There we have two distinct new channels of distribution that the Minister is attempting to define for Bantu consumers of liquor. On the one hand the Minister is saying “I am now going to be the sole authority as to who will supply liquor to the Bantu in Bantu areas, whether it is a reserve or an urban area”. He also says “Apart from my being the only authority, I am going to be the only arbiter as. to who will get liquor licences entitling them to distribute this liquor. In one regard I am going to take the right upon myself to nominate any person, to give authority to any person, or to a nominee of any group or any association of persons, or to any established local authority”. But on the other hand what does the Minister also say to the Bantu population? He says “Whilst I am taking the authority as to who will distribute liquor in the rural areas, as far as the White areas are concerned the Bantu will have free access to any bottle store anywhere in terms of Clause 100ter”.

Any bottle store that is established has to obtain a licence. That licence has to be obtained from a local Licensing Board. The local Licensing Boards have to decide for themselves who the licensee will be. The Liquor Act lays down certain stringent conditions upon which a Licensing Board may grant such licence. An applicant for a licence has to comply, for example, with Section 65. He has to be a person of certain characteristics and qualifications. Before he can be granted his licence in terms of 136 of the Act, the Licensing Board also has to take note of a police report, and the police have to state whether or not that person is a fit and capable person to be issued with a licence. And that applies to every single bottle store in the country. But the hon. the Minister now says “As far as I am concerned, I am going to be the only authority; I can pick anybody; I can decide of my own accord without considering anyone else’s views, who is a suitable licensee”. I submit to the hon. the Minister, whether it is in regard to a nominee of a local authority, or whether it is in regard to the nominee of a group of associated persons, or whether it is merely a person selected by the hon. the Minister of his own accord, that is a wrong principle.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That is not what I said at the second reading. I referred to the National Board and said that they would be consulted in the first instance; the Department of Bantu Affairs would be consulted.

Mr. DURRANT:

I will come to the point where the hon. the Minister suggested that the National Board should decide. Let me use as an example the Witwatersrand Local Authority. There is not going to be one nominee only, there are going to be many nominees because, obviously, if distribution points are to be established in the urban Bantu areas there will have to be a large number, whether they be for on-consumption or off-consumption Surely, therefore, these nominees must be issued with individual licences. They surely must comply with the same provisions, as laid down for any hotel or bottle store, or any other liquor licensee. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will give consideration to this point. In the Committee Stage I will take the matter further. Before the hon. the Minister issues that authority in terms of Clause 100bis, he should pay due regard to the provisions of Sections 65 and 136 of the Liquor Act. That would then place any person who controls the distribution of liquor on the same basis and make him subject to the same controls as a person who gets a licence in the European areas. I think that is a fair proposition and I hope the hon. the Minister will give that some consideration.

Certain objections have been made against the suggestion that the hon. the Minister should have the right to issue a licence to any person. I hold the view that if any person is subject to the same provisions as a normal licensee, then I have no objection to that procedure. I recognize it is possible that the Minister may wish to issue an authority, for example, to a Bantu hotelier in a good urban area in any one of our cities.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Would not the National Board be the correct body to be consulted on the question of exceptions?

Mr. DURRANT:

Yes, I am prepared to concede that, but I will deal with the National Board in a minute. The National Board as presented to us in this Bill cannot be expected, as a National Board, to consider every individual authority issued by the Minister. That would mean that the Board would have to sit for 24 hours a day throughout the year in order to cope with the position, and I do not think that that was the intention of the clause as it appears here. I take it, however, the Board will advise the hon. the Minister in regard to general principles, and in regard to the issue of authorities.

The Government’s policy in regard to the urban centres of this country, in respect of private trading rights is that as far as is possible licences for trading in Native urban areas will only be granted to the Bantu. That is the declared Government policy. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his intention if, for example, an association of Bantu persons had to approach the Bantu Development Corporation with a view to establishing a Bantu hotel in a good Bantu urban area, and then applied to the Minister for authority to distribute the liquor—would it be his policy to grant that authority in those circumstances? Is that the intention? I think that we should have clarity on that point. If it is the intention of the Minister to grant authority to any person then surely that person, whether he be a Bantu a Coloured or Asiatic, or even a White man, should be subject to the same provisions as any White licensee in terms of Section 65 and 136 of the Act. I submit that point to the hon. the Minister at this stage because it deals with the general principle of distribution. I think the Minister will agree that it is wrong to consider the distribution of liquor in a manner which discriminated between one race group and another race group once liquor has been made generally available throughout the country. I hope the hon. the Minister will give some consideration to this aspect of that matter.

Turning now to Clause 100bis, sub-section 7, I should like to put this question to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister is taking upon himself the right to specify the manner in which profits may be distributed in terms of any authority granted by him in a Bantu area. May I ask the hon. the Minister what his policy is where he is prepared to grant an authority to an individual Bantu person to conduct, for instance, a bottle store in a Bantu urban area? Is he intending to specify how the profits of that private person are to be utilized? We can appreciate that the nominee of an urban local authority may have specified for him the manner in which the profits of the sale of liquor may be used, in relation to the betterment of the area or as the Minister may decide. But what will be the position when it comes to granting authority to individual Bantu persons or to a nominee of a group of private Bantu persons?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The policy as far as the individuals are concerned is not to touch their profits.

Mr. DURRANT:

That is as applied to the Bantu?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That is as far as the individual is concerned.

Mr. DURRANT:

Then, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister will give some consideration, when replying to the second reading debate, to the points I have raised on the broader principles of the distribution of liquor.

The hon. the Minister said “What about the National Liquor Board” that he seeks to establish here. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) made the suggestion that before any authority is granted by the Minister he should refer the application to the National Liquor Board. I cannot accept that, however, as I do not think it is a practical proposition. I think if the applications for authority were made subject to the same provisions as I have mentioned, namely, Sections 65 and 136 of the Act, and were issued under the authority of the Minister I would be happy to accept that position. I would view that as a measure of control. But what are the functions of the National Liquor Board going to be? If the Minister is going to use it merely as an advisory board …

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Under Clause 19 the consent of the local body has to be obtained beforehand.

Mr. DURRANT:

Yes, in the case of an urban local authority. I appreciate that. But what does the Minister regard as the functions of this National Liquor Board? He is not making it compulsory in this Bill. I think that one should be established and I will move accordingly at the Committee Stage, but the Minister leaves it as a permissive power, so that it is merely an advisory board. Now what is it going to advise the Minister? If the Minister seeks advice from the National Liquor Board in respect of authorities he issues, he will, in terms of this Bill, have power to act immediately on any advice he may get from the National Liquor Board. But when it comes to general matters affecting the distribution of liquor in terms of the Liquor Act itself, then the only way the Minister can act on the advice of the National Liquor Board would be to come to Parliament and amend the Liquor Act. Is it envisaged that this National Liquor Board shall be able to exercise a controlling function over the manner in which Liquor Licensing Boards exercise their authority? Is that the intention?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

No, but their advice will be invaluable.

Mr. DURRANT:

Well if their advice is valuable the Minister will be expected to act upon it. In terms of this Bill the only way the Minister can do that is to come to Parliament with a Bill to amend the original Act. But in respect of Clause 100bis, the Minister controls all power in respect of the distribution of liquor.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I will deal with that question in my reply.

Mr. DURRANT:

I think it is an important issue. There is considerable confusion with regard to the functions of this board in the liquor trade as a whole. I would be glad if the Minister could clarify the position in that regard.

I should like to add my voice to the appeal that has already gone out from other hon. members of this House who have supported this Bill, asking that the Minister gives consideration to the extension of the board itself. The board is restricted, in terms of this Bill, to three other members to be appointed by the State President for a period of two years. The hon. the Minister has stated who those members are. They all represent liquor trade interests, either the hotel side or the liquor distribution trade.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I said that one of them was the representative of the consumers.

Mr. DURRANT:

I want to plead with the hon. the Minister. The issues in this Bill are so broad, and if this is only an experiment, if the matter will have to be reviewed at a later stage, then let him give more expression now to public opinion by giving them representation on this board. I hope the hon. the Minister will consider appointing at least two members, not to represent the consumers, because there are more than the consumers involved. We have to consider the moral aspects of this matter as well. I think it is vitally important that when the Minister is prepared to act on advice given by the National Liquor Board, that the moral aspect of the matter should also be considered.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I am prepared to consider that as an experiment. Let us first test it out and later on we can come forward with a consolidating Bill.

Mr. DURRANT:

Does the hon. the Minister say he is prepared to test it as an experiment, and to allow other members on the board …

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

No. Let us test this board as the proposal constitutes it now.

Mr. DURRANT:

Mr. Speaker, let me submit this to the hon. the Minister: if he is prepared to test it, is there any harm in testing it by giving wider representation so as to include other than liquor interests?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

There can be no end to representation.

Mr. DURRANT:

The hon. the Minister says there is no end to representation. He said he is going to have a representative of the liquor trade on this board. But the liquor distribution trade consists of a vast number of different associations …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! That matter can be discussed at the Committee Stage.

Mr. DURRANT:

I agree, Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately reacted to the hon. the Minister’s suggestion.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I think the hon. member should not allow himself to be led astray by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. DURRANT:

I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, hoping that the hon. the Minister will deal with this matter when he replies to this debate, and we can come back to it in the Committee Stage.

I then want to make a few observations on several of the clauses in this Bill, particularly those dealing with the question of penalties. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out, the Bill makes it quite clear that in respect of the illicit sale or preparation of liquor concoctions, the most severe penalties are now applicable. In his second reading speech, if I remember correctly, the hon. the Minister said that these provisions were similar to those contained in the Dental and Pharmacy Act with respect to the legal sale of dagga. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that I support him wholeheartedly in regard to these provisions, because I moved those amendments when the matter was considered in this House. I would even like to see these penalties doubled. There is no doubt at all that since the application of these increased penalties the dagga trade has declined very considerably. But when we come to the aspect of drunkenness, then I am not satisfied. If we are going to extend the distribution of liquor on a wide scale, as we are doing in this Bill to-day, then I think we have not gone far enough in regard to the penalties which are applicable for drunkenness. I think that in a Bill of this nature it is quite inadequate to lay down a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment or R200 fine, and leave a wide discretion to the courts to determine what the penalty should be, irrespective of whether it is a first or second, or even a fourth or fifth offence.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

Absolute nonsense!

Mr. DURRANT:

Let me say immediately that I think what is needed here is a schedule of heavier penalties. Drunkenness is an offence where a citizen has acted immorally and without due regard to the interests of his fellow citizens. There is no excuse for drunkenness.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

I think that is shocking.

Mr. DURRANT:

Therefore I am going to submit to the hon. the Minister that the time has arrived when we should lay down minimum penalties for a first offender and maximum penalties for other offences.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

That is absolutely shocking.

Mr. DURRANT:

Mr. Speaker, I know that there are strong views about this matter, but I am advancing my personal views. I think, for example, that a man such as the one mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield) who gets behind the driving wheel of a motor-car while he is drunk, and kills an innocent family, is nothing less than a murderer. He falls into the same category. He has acted in the first instance knowing full well what the consequences of his actions are likely to be when he has consumed liquor in excess.

As the Act stands to-day wide discretion is left to the magistrate in cases in which there is medical evidence that the man himself is an alcoholic. We must remember that the fact that a man is drunk is not in itself an offence. A man must be drunk and something else—he must be disorderly; he must be making a public nuisance of himself or committing some other offence, plus his drunkenness. The fact that he is drunk is not in itself an offence, but it is when associated with other matters which are to the disadvantage of his fellow citizens, when it reaches the stage when he commits an offence. I plead with the hon. the Minister to give some consideration to my observations on this point. If we are taking this step where we are making liquor available to millions more people in this country, then we must also point out that men must act in moderation otherwise they must face the consequences of the law. That is the only answer. We saw this in the case of dagga, which was a case to which the hon. the Minister referred. Since the application of these increased penalties, without the option of a fine, for a third or fourth offence, the incidence of illicit dagga sale and dagga traffic has declined, according to my information, by over 75 per cent. And I think the time has arrived when taking a step of this nature, when the Minister should give some consideration to the imposition, after a certain number of offences, of a gaol sentence without the option of a fine, with a limited degree of discretion left to the magistrates.

As a final point I wish to mention to the hon. the Minister this: It must be realized that with the passing of this measure and the promulgation of these provisions, millions of our Bantu population for the first time are going to be able to walk the streets of our cities aware of the fact that if they carry a bottle of wine or brandy or beer, they will no longer be put in gaol. They must realize that. I therefore think that an educational programme in regard to the facility that is being given the Bantu is something that the Government should give serious consideration to. I think it will be entirely wrong for this legislation to be placed on the Statute Book and immediately make available to any Bantu man the facilities of bottle stores without his being fully aware of the consequences. He should be made to realize that he is still subject to all these other restrictions. We must realize that the conception has taken root in the mind of every Bantu man or woman in South Africa that if they are found in the streets with a bottle of liquor they will immediately be arrested. But overnight that will disappear. I therefore think the hon. the Minister should give some consideration to the introduction of an educational programme, both as to the effects of alcoholism and excessive drinking, which should be directed at the Bantu population in order to make them fully aware of the responsibilities they now have to carry as a result of the privileges being extended to them whereby they enjoy the same privileges, without any discrimination, as are enjoyed by the Whites of our country, namely, free access to alcoholic liquor.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

I believe that this Bill is an attempt to reform a situation which all of us find unsatisfactory. A reformer was once described by an observer as one who wishes to abolish existing evils in order to replace them with other. The question before us is not a question of a transition from a situation with problems, known problems, to a millennium, but a transition from a situation with known problems to a situation in which we know there will be problems which we hope will be less, but the majority of us have difficulty in calculating. At this stage of the debate a great number of arguments for and against the general principle have already been canvassed, and I do not propose to repeat them. If I may be allowed I would like, in passing, to comment on one or two of them. I will not delay the House long, but there are one or two points that have not been raised and that I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister.

In the first place, Mr. Speaker, it has been argued by many speakers that this is a liberalization of an existing law; that it is a removal of discrimination. And to an extent that is right. But the comment I would make is this, particularly to Government supporters: they have always said that their standpoint has been that they stand in relation of guardian to the ward, in so far, particularly, as the African population is concerned. I cannot avoid the comment that it is unfortuate that, in the first great step that is taking in a liberalizing direction in recognizing that the ward has grown up, that that step should be taken in the field in which the guardian himself is not the master. Because the problem of the handling of alcohol, although it has been the custom of men to drink since men were on this earth, has never been satisfactorily mastered, except by individuals, but never successfully matered by society. I think we are all agreed that we cannot indefinitely maintain a position in the field of purchase where one group in the community is prohibited from purchasing while other groups have that right. You cannot maintain such a position indefinitely. I think we are all agreed, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot, by law, save men from the consequences of their own weakness and folly. In that respect the debate that is taking place in this House to-day is a repetition of countless debates that have taken place in forums all over the world, not only in particular aspects of this problem, but on aspects of an analogous problem, for instance, the question of whether you legalize or do not legalize prostitution. Many of the facets of the problem, such as the position of the police and so on, are related in those two problems. I can think of no society that has come to a completely satisfactory answer on either of those problems.

I am stating this, Mr. Speaker, for this reason, that if an individual in this House, by reason of conviction, is going to vote against this Bill, it does not mean that he is voting for the status quo. It does not mean that he regards the present situation as satisfactory. It does not mean that he is striving for some impossible ideal—he is simply recording his opinion that this particular Bill, and the terms of this particular Bill, and the method under which it is being discussed at the present moment are not likely, in his opinion, to produce that marked improvement that would be desired and may, perhaps, bring disadvantages that we have not yet calculated.

An. HON. MEMBER:

That is a very negative attitude.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

That is so, but in such a position as this it is the duty of anyone here to weigh the advantages against the possible disadvantages, and as the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin)-and he spoke very closely to my own thinking, not only in general principle but in detail—as he said, had the total Bill come before this House; had this Bill been in total the recommendations of the commission that sat upon it, it might be easier for members not so expert as those who sat on that commission, to form an opinion. Apart from that, each member must try and weigh—not in an idealistic way, not in a way that is away from the realities of human behaviour—must try and weigh so far as he can whether what is proposed is likely to produce, in total, a better situation than that which already exists. On that basis I myself come down slightly on the side against this Bill, because weighing the thing as a whole—I do not want to retrace the arguments that have been put forward—I think the likely new problems we will create are possibly greater than those which already exist. The Minister may, in some regard, satisfy me in his reply to this debate and in the discussion at the Committee Stage, in a way which might modify my own attitude at the third reading. I am trying to be quite objective about this. For example, I welcome the fact that he has removed those clauses about which there was doubt; the doubt that there might be an extension of the tot system.

My own view on that is that any Bill which contains any provision which in any way extended the tot system I would have opposed, however good the other provisions of that Bill were. Because I think it is a system which, although it grew up historically, at base is tremendously unsound. It is, in effect, a payment of wages in kind, and I am against payment of wages in kind in principle—and this is in a particular deleterious form of kind. And if the farmers who wish to encourage workers, even in the Western Cape, were to go over to a principle where they offer the workers the choice, as an incentive, between having his pint of wine or having some money equivalent, I think in time you would get an increasing number of those workers who would take the money equivalent as an incentive, and you would gradually wean people from a system which, in my opinion, is bad. However, that is in passing. I say I welcome the fact that the Minister has removed doubt in that regard. If we are no better now than the status quo, we are at least at the status quo.

I now come to a point which has not been raised by any hon. member so far, and I should like an indication of Government policy in this regard, and that is the indirect taxation aspect of this new law. I now come to a point which has not been raised by anyone and I would like an indication of Government policy in that regard. It is the indirect taxation aspect. The policy of the Government in this field has always been financial segregation; in other words, that where advantages accrue to the Bantu the Bantu should by his own efforts pay for those advantages and that the services given to him should as far as possible come out of his taxation and not out of general taxation. I personally am against that principle, but what I want to determine is the change which will be effected by this Bill in this field. If it is the intention of the Minister to confine the sale of liquor to local authorities—I understand that will not be the position—that principle which already operates in municipal beer-halls will be continued, that in so far as people drink they shall get services, but it is the alteration of the principle I am concerned with now. If the total expenditure of the Bantu population on alcohol, if their drink bill remains unchanged, then under this Bill there will be a diversion of their expenditure to some extent, or the Bill will be a failure, from the skokiaan queens and from the municipal beer-halls, if hard liquor is going to become at all an article of commerce, to expenditure on White man’s liquor, to use that convenient term. Now the attitude of the White man to liquor taxation is this, in almost all civilized countries, that we are ready to place a very heavy taxation on liquor for the following reasons, that if the consumption does not diminish we get a very good revenue from it, to which very few people can object, and if in fact the revenue is not great it means that the consumption of liquor has diminished, so either way it is a good thing. Now you are transferring the Bantu in this regard to the White man’s indirect taxation system and if that is so I want to suggest to the Government that this is a departure, first of all, from the principle of financial apartheid, but secondly, that if that is done then services should be given to the Bantu in proportion to the increased taxation you are placing upon them; and I think it will be a matter of some education to get the Bantu to visualize the position that high taxation on alcohol is a good principle in taxation. If you do not get them to realize that, your Bill will not be the safeguard it should be, the argument that has been used so often by the protagonists of the Bill that in transferring his consumption from the dreadful brews which contain carbide and other poisons to liquor of a higher quality … [Interjection.] If I may pause there on this argument of liquor of higher quality, I am not an alcohol chemist, but I know that the lower grades of whisky and brandy, even when it passes certain legal tests, nevertheless contain some poison, like fusel oil in the case of whisky, and in the cheaper varieties of even the White man’s liquor these poisons are not completely eradicated. It is for this reason that we buy whisky that has been matured for so many years. I do not know the provisions of the remainder of the Liquor Act which will come before us, but even in the cheaper grades of hard liquor we should have higher standards of impurity removal. I am not speaking now of alcohol but of the things that are sometimes associated with the cheaper varieties of hard liquor and which are far more deleterious to the human body than alcohol. I should be glad if the Minister would give me an answer with regard to Government policy on this, because I think he will agree that it is an important point, unless he simply argues that the Bantu are paying indirect taxes on other commodities and why should they not pay it on alcohol. I say this has been the principle, and a rather bad principle, in this country that the profits of the municipal beer-halls are used for social development, so that the price of having light is that the community should drink sufficient to provide that service.

There is one other question I would like to ask the Minister before I sit down, namely this. The question whether liquor should be supplied to an indigenous and not highly developed population has been studied not only in this country but throughout the world. And broadly speaking, world opinion has been against it, even at the League of Nations and UN. I do not know the terms of the South West Mandate, and I do not want to discuss at length a matter which will shortly be sub judice, but I understand the position under the mandate was that it was a condition that liquor should not be supplied to the indigenous population there.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

They will have their own Act.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

So this Act will not apply there? The Minister has answered my question. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin), in his able speech, has made my own standpoint on this Bill clear. I am voting against it not because I wish the status quo to be maintained but because I am not yet convinced that the step we are taking will, on the whole, be an improvement. The police work has been mentioned, and other legislation has come before this House where we have argued that the Government was placing the police in an invidious position, and if the Government would listen to that plea it would be better for South Africa. I just mention it to say that I do not wish the task of the police to be made more difficult, but I have a reasonable doubt on balance as to whether this Bill will actually be a step forward. For that reason, unless the Minister can convince me to the contrary and to change my mind, I shall vote against the second reading.

Dr. RADFORD:

I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) and agree wholeheartedly with what he said, but I find it very difficult to agree with my colleague from Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), who most emphatically states that there is no excuse for drunkenness and that he would punish drunkenness with the harshest possible measures. I am not saying that drunkenness is any virtue—far from it; nor do I believe that it should always escape punishment, but I think there is some responsibility upon those people who provide the liquor for the uneducated people of the world. Over the years certain groups of people have become accustomed to drinking alcohol, and even among them there are some who abuse it. But to throw alcohol freely before a large group of people and then say that the total responsibility for drunkenness among them rests with them is a completely unjustifiable statement which cannot be supported. You may as well hand a child a knife and when he cuts himself say it was his own fault. There is a well-known saying in English that children and fools should not be given edged tools. I am not implying that the Bantu are fools, but in the question of strong alcoholic drinks they are innocents. Alcohol is a drug, and like other drugs it needs control. Down the history of the world there have always been efforts to control it, some with greater success than others, but the same problem has arisen with other drugs. Twenty or 30 years ago we in the medical profession were faced with an appalling increase in morphia addition and the derivatives of morphia. Now, except for limited areas, the drug is completely under control for all practical purposes. Every grain of morphia which enters the country has to be accounted for, and every grain that goes astray is searched for. It is difficult to get it into the country. This was brought about by an attack upon the sources of supply. To some extent police attempts, through the health authorities, stopped morphia addiction, but it was done primarily by means of international arrangements that morphia has been completely controlled at its source of manufacture. I maintain that in this lack of control which the police have themselves said they have, in their inability to control strong drink among the Bantu, that failure has come from their failure to attack the source of supply. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) said that you do not try to stop a flood when it is running into the sea; you try to catch it at its source. I have not yet heard of one single wholesaler or manufacturer of alcohol in this country losing his licence, nor have I heard of one who has been prosecuted. It is at the source of supply that you have to tackle these evils, and the police know it. Why have they not done it? If the police cannot do it, they must get a new Chief of Police. This thing cannot be tackled otherwise than at its source. There are many things in the Malan Report with which I disagree, but one thing they say with great clarity at page 13, paragraph 110: “Whites were the source of liquor for the alarming illicit traffic.” They make it quite clear. They say that that is where the alcohol comes from. It is true that there are some shebeen brews manufactured, but primarily the strong drink reaching the Black man comes from White sources, and that is where it can be found. There is no question of going into these places and dragging the blankets off Native women who are fast asleep just to see whether they are sleeping on a bottle of liquor. There is no need for that if you tackle it at its source. That is where the police have failed to do their duty. The hon. member for Turffontein takes great credit for the diminution of the use of dagga. Like all unscientific people, he argues from the singular to the general. There are other causes and reasons why dagga has diminished. It largely diminished because the police went to where it grows. They did not stand on the corner of the street trying to catch some unfortunate Coloured smoking a cigarette, or go into a backyard to find a Native smoking it in his pipe. They went to pull out the dagga weeds in the fields, in the foothills of the Drakensberg and some lost their lives through it, but I am sure that did not stop them going back again. No, they know that is what they must do. Similarly, we must consider what control can be applied. All through history efforts have been made to control drugs and alcohol is a drug. Various methods have been used. The best examples come from the U.S.A, and France, but there are many others. The first thing the people of the U.S.A, did was to let alcohol loose among the Red Indians, and where are the Red Indians now? That is the effect of alcohol on a primitive people, and our Bantu are not far from primitive. Then they attempted prohibition and found that the cure was worse than the disease. In other words, it is not possible completely to prevent the use of alcohol, although possibly the vested interests in the manufacture of alcohol could say something about that. On the other hand, we have France, where there is almost no control and which stands highest in alcoholism in the world. In Paris, according to official figures, there is one bistro for every 50 adults in the city, and the Department of Justice in France makes claim that 78 per cent of all crime in 1959 had some connection with alcohol, and in 95 per cent of cases in which children were involved or had been badly handled alcohol was involved. Yet there is a country where alcohol can be had at all times and almost anywhere. So we have the two limits. It is not possible to beat the problem by complete prohibition, and it is not possible to deal with it by laissez-faire, by letting it merely follow its course. We must have some form of control and I feel that this Bill is, one might almost say, an amateur effort to deal with a large problem. There is not the slightest evidence that the people who know something about this problem have been consulted. I am not inclined to take a very strong view of the value of the Malan Commission’s Report.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

They sat for four years.

Dr. RADFORD:

Yes, but it got off on the wrong foot originally and probably never got back again on to both feet. It got off on the wrong foot because it was badly constituted. It consisted of not one single sociologist or social worker, not one doctor and not one psychiatrist, men who know something about alcohol and its effect. I am not in a position to say whether or not such men were heard as witnesses because no list of witnesses is given and there is no evidence to read (for a very sound reason which the Commission gives), but a careful perusal of its notes shows that it has made such contradictory statements that to my mind it has little value, except for small items. Among other things, it strongly recommends the sale of liquor for off-consumption, i.e. for consumption in the home. Its argument in favour of this is that “abuse of liquor in the home is unthinkable”. Mr. Speaker, how any body of intelligent men could make such a statement is quite beyond my conception. I can assure the members of the Commission and the Minister that there is not a doctor in general practice in this country who will not be prepared to take you to at least two or four homes in his practice in which the mother is an alcoholic, and the mothers do not go to the bars to drink and they are not usually taken there by their husbands. It is becoming more and more common in this country to find women alcoholics among our patients. To make such a statement is beyond my conception.

Another thing which was much quoted to-day in this House, although I do not think it is altogether fair to blame the Commission, is the statement that drunkenness has diminished in Rhodesia since they have had free access to alcohol. Their own quotation does not say that. On page 4 they say there was a decline in the convictions for liquor offences. The same will happen if this Act goes through, because all these statutory offences in regard to getting a drink somewhere will disappear, but it will not make the drunkenness disappear. To read into this statement of the Commission that drunkenness will disappear if you give the people free access to the White man’s liquor is nonsense. Drunkenness has not disappeared amongst the Whites. How can it disappear?

Here is another statement by the Commission, on page 8, paragraph 69: “Drunkenness amongst Natives can to-day largely be ascribed to the fact that they are prohibited from obtaining liquor.” Sir, it is incredible! Do men get drunk because they are not allowed to get liquor? So the remedy is to give them as much access as possible! How can we attach much importance to this? But I am pleased to think in many respects the hon. the Minister has to some extent taken notice of them, because I see they recommend that no provision be made for Natives who live in White areas, and I understand that the Minister intends to carry that out.

An HON. MEMBER:

No.

Dr. RADFORD:

If that is so, I will speak to support something which was said by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), who drew attention to the fact that while her Natives might be able to buy liquor she was not going to permit them to drink it on her premises. Is the Minister going to prevent them from drinking it in the streets? My hon. friend painted a picture that all her neighbours would also forbid them, but I want to paint a picture of three neighbours who forbid them and one who does not, and ask what is going to happen there if there is an absentee owner who cannot stop them? What will be do in our homes with the limited number of police available when there is a drinking party going on next door? Who will deal with it? No, I believe that giving alcohol to these people freely is an admission of weakness on the part of the police and of failure to tackle the problem seriously and scientifically on the part of the Minister.

Let us consider what are the effects of alcohol on the human being. It is usually considered that alcohol is a stimulant, but it is not a stimulant at all. It is a drug. Its actions are all depressive. It only depresses, but its effect on the human brain comes on unequally and it tackles the higher centres first, i.e. the centres of self-control and intelligence, and that is why the after-dinner speaker has lost his shyness and thinks he is a fine big fellow who makes a good speech. Similarly, with these people, give them a drug which takes away what little self-control they have—and they are a violent people—and what happens? Self-control being removed, the man reverts to his animal characteristics, which are primarily violence and sexual satisfaction. The Native is by nature a violent individual. He does not go gently and quietly through the streets; he likes to carry his sticks. It is characteristic of him that he carries sticks because that is his usual habit to protect himself, but a much worse feature is the sexual laxity and the sexual violence to which the White women of this country as well as the Black women—more so than White women—are going to be exposed by this action on the part of the Minister. This is the feature which upsets me more than any other. No woman in a lonely house, no woman or child living alone in this country will ever feel safe again. That is a responsibility that rests on the Minister’s shoulders.

Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

And of this Government.

Dr. RADFORD:

Is he going to let this happen? Because it is going to happen. We all know it happens. It happens with White people and it will happen still more with the Black people and the hon. the Minister must bear that in mind. I will not mention the effect of alcohol on the family; that has been touched on by one or two other speakers, but I want to go further into the question of the community. What will be the effect of this licensed drinking on the community? A lowering of the working force, a lowering of the working capacity, a lowering of general nutrition, but even more a great rise in the diseases of malnutrition and deprivation. The question of malnutrition has been touched on but the deprivation of vital food products will cause a rise in the tuberculosis rate in this country. It is already one of the highest in the world. That is largely because it is a fresh disease to these people. It was beginning to come under control. This year this country is spending R8,000,000 on tuberculosis and it is not meeting the problem. I prophesy that within three years it will be R 16,000,000. The most common cause of abscess of the lung in this country to-day—and it is a common disease among the Bantu and an uncommon one amongst the Whites—is drunkenness. These men drink themselves unconscious. They lie in their vomit; they breathe in their vomit, and the next thing is that they lose a lung. You will find that in any of the chest hospitals in the country. That is going on all the time. This country probably has a higher rate of abscess of the lung than any other country in the world. These are the evils that are coming.

Lastly, Sir, I notice in the Bill that the hon. the Minister takes the right to say what will happen to the profits. I think the first thing that he should do is to establish a fund which has the first call on all profits, not only the local profits but all profits, to compensate the unfortunate victims, those who will be hurt and damaged and invalided as a result of the conduct of the drunken victims of the Minister’s Bill. Sir, in the choice between anarchy and oppression I would recommend to the police of this country that oppression is the lesser of the evils.

*Prof. FOURIE:

I think all members of this House will agree with me that we have just been listening to one of the most outstanding speeches which I have heard in this House during the eight years I have been here, namely the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). I believe that the Minister and the Government and this House and the public will thoroughly have to consider what the hon. member said here. I cannot emulate him, nor unfortunately can I add anything, on the same level, to what he said, but I just want to say that, as the hon. member will understand better than I can, we are dealing here with a symptom of a very deep-rooted disease. That disease goes to the innermost depths of the social life of the human being. I do not believe that the type of measure we are dealing with here will penetrate to the actual disease. We are dealing with symptoms. I want to agree with the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Williams) that we might find some improvement here, or that it might be much worse; we do not know. We shall have to see what other symptoms become apparent from this step which the Minister wants to take. No, we will not solve this problem in this way. There are greater responsibilities to which the public and every population group will have to devote attention. I personally received telegrams from Churches in my own constituency and from other institutions elsewhere asking me to oppose this Bill, and I am going to do so, not because they asked me to because I want to say that even the Churches—I say this with all responsibility—have not yet done much in regard to combating the problem we find in South Africa to-day amongst the Whites (I am forgetting about the non-Whites for the moment) and it is the result of the failure of us White people. We cannot help ourselves. Large numbers of our people are going under as the result of this evil—call it a sin, a national sin—of the abuse of liquor. What happens amongst the non-Whites is largely the result of the failure of the Whites as the bearers of those higher values of our Western civilization to which we ourselves do not adhere. The solution does not lie in patchwork such as is contained in this Bill; it lies much deeper. In my opinion it lies in a deep spiritual revolution which must take place on the part of Whites as well as non-Whites, but under White leadership. That is the first responsibility which rests on the Whites. It does not comprise only the things mentioned by the hon. member. There is also the economic aspect of this problem, and when I say something about this subject I do not want to allege that the person who can live on a high economic standard, the rich man, is not also the victim of this evil. I do not say that economic improvement will be the solution of the problem. In many cases it can make the problem even worse. The economic uplift of our backward Whites, and particularly of our non-Whites, is the duty resting on this civilization, on this White leadership we have in South Africa. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) spoke a true word when he said that when a man’s stomach, particularly that of a non-White, is empty the effect of liquor is even worse. I do not want to say that proper nutrition will solve the problem, but without proper feeding, without economic uplift, the matter will become much worse. I just want to state the matter briefly in its breadth and depth as far as I can, but this is one aspect of the Bill to which I must draw attention, namely, that we have an attempt here, at least to some extent, to eliminate racial or group discrimination. To that extent there is something positive which I can at least support, that we cannot treat people here as we usually do in the economic, constitutional and even the religious spheres as groups, but that we are starting to realize that they are individuals. This sin is never committed by a group. These abuses are never committed by a group, but by the individual, and whereas in this Bill we are at least trying to get away from group discrimination or racial discrimination, to that extent I can approve of it. But I repeat that the matter is so deep and so wide that I would prefer to see, before we take these drastic steps, steps which are to a large extent laissez-faire steps, that we should go much deeper into the wider complications of this type of problem and see whether we cannot get something better than the hon. the Minister proposes here. I find it very difficult to decide. One can advance sound arguments against anything. I can advance arguments against the most beautiful parks because there are trees with branches on which people can hang themselves, or there are places where immoral acts can be committed, but we must realize that by taking away the park or by planting more trees we are simply toying with the problem; we cannot solve the problem because it lies much deeper. One cannot remedy the sins of the individual by means of laws. I am inclined to believe what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said, that if we pass this Bill the evils will far outstrip the benefits. We must think a little deeper and get to the root causes and try, as far as possible, to deal with the root causes and to forget about the symptoms.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister at this late stage in the debate, where most of the arguments have been used to allow a free vote on his side.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

What has that to do with the Bill?

Mr. HOPEWELL:

One or two members on the Government side have supported the Bill but can the Minister assure me that every member on the Government side will vote for this Bill or are certain members being compelled to be silent?

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

What has that to do with the Bill? Why don’t you look after your own side?

Mr. HOPEWELL:

The Minister must not be afraid of this matter.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

It is not a question of being afraid; look after your own side.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

We should know whether the whole of the Government are behind this Bill. There would be something to be said for them if members on the Government side who are against this Bill, were prepared to voice their protest or record their vote against this Bill. [Interjections.] It is all very well shouting about it. The evidence will come when we divide on this Bill. Then we will find out which of those members who are here to-day and have absented themselves conveniently, are going to have the courage to vote against this Bill and show that they are against the Government on this matter.

Mr. SPEAKER:

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

Mr. HOPEWELL:

Sir, I have made my point. That was the only point on the political side that I wanted to make. It is very easy to treat this matter as a joke because many of the members here are not going to see the price that will have to be paid for passing this measure. It is a question of what is the greater evil. The arguments against this Bill have been many and varied, but all those who have expressed their approval of the Bill have done so with reservations. All those who have spoken on the other side have admitted that there are certain dangers in this Bill, that there are certain evils but that in their opinion this is the lesser evil. The whole attitude of Government members towards this Bill is to create the façade that there is virtually no discrimination. I would like to draw attention to a speech made recently on this matter by no less a person than the South African Ambassador to the United States of America in an address to the Law School Forum at Harvard University as recently as March 1959. Referring to the consumption of liquor in South Africa Mr. du Plessis said this—

A few thousand highly evolved Bantu enjoy exemption from the law which prohibits the sale of hard liquor to their fellows … We have not used the gin bottle as a means to exterminate the Bantu. They are allowed, however, to make a wholesome nutritious beer mostly from millet, which has a small alcoholic content. This prohibition on the sale of intoxicants naturally lends itself to abuse and unfortunately results in continuous police action, as in the days of prohibition in the United States. We are often criticized but we have not thought it advisable that the Bantu should be made subject to the ravages of strong drink at this time.

With the introduction of this Bill he would now say “We have now thought it advisable that the Bantu should be made subject to the ravages of strong drink”. This Bill represents a change in Government policy since 1959 when the South African Ambassador spoke at Harvard University. Within two years there are not just a few thousand highly evolved Bantu; to-day presumably all the Bantu are highly evolved. The Minister knows only too well that one of the biggest difficulties with alcohol is the extent to which the individual can exercise a measure of self-control, and that is why the Minister, when he was formerly Minister of Defence, stopped the consumption of alcohol in the military canteens. He has changed his views since then.

Brig. BRONKHORST:

He saw his mistake.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

Recently in Another Place he said this; this was in 1959, at about the same time when the South African Ambassador was speaking in America—

However, if we were to do it to-day, to-morrow we would experience some of the evils attached to it—a large number of evils. We would be reproached for ever and you cannot repeal your actions. Once you have taken that step you cannot retract it.

When the hon. the Minister was speaking in the Other Place on 22 June 1959 he realized that once you take this step you cannot retract it and yet he is now taking this step and he is creating the façade that there is no discrimination. However, when we examine the Bill more closely we find that it is the intention to introduce a permit system, and a permit system, as we all know, lends itself to all sorts of abuses. Let us see what the commission itself had to say. It said this in paragraph 70—

Liquor should be supplied to Natives for home consumption only in accordance with a permit system. At present exemption permits for the purchase of liquor are granted in terms of Section 101 of the Liquor Act provided that the magistrate who issues the permit is satisfied (a) that the applicant’s stage of development and his general manner of living are such as to entitle him to be regarded as having attained a standard of life equivalent to that of European civilization and (b) that the quantity and kind of liquor to be purchased are suited to the applicant’s personal requirements, regard being had to his income and his mode of living.

While that sounds a very high ideal can you imagine, Sir, what is going to take place? Can you imagine the number of manhours that is going to be wasted outside magistrates’ courts? Already magistrates all over the country are complaining about being short-staffed and having too many temporary staff, too many men past the retiring age assisting them to deal with many administrative matters, and now they are to have the additional burden of issuing permits. This is going to be an extension of the permit system and that system lends itself to rackets. We can see no end to that. Sir, at best this in an experiment. The Minister has said that this is an experiment and I am not satisfied that throwing the door wide open, as this Bill does, is an experiment that we can lightly make in the interests of those people for whom we are supposed to be trustees. I have a memorandum sent to me and others on this side by one of the leading churches of this country. Other speakers have referred to the Dutch Reformed Church. I refer to the Methodist Church which says this—

We are aware that these provisions extend privileges to youths and young men under the age of 18, which are in conflict with established Native custom, and in the light of the general policy of the Government which advocates a return to Native custom, we cannot understand this attempt to reorder the life of the Bantu people in so important a manner. We think it ought to be noted that many African students of the age of 18, both male and female, are in training colleges, and universities, and our knowledge of the problems of discipline in these institutions literally terrifies us as we contemplate this additional menace.

Sir, one of ablest speeches made from this side on this matter was that made by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). He has shown the scientific approach to this matter. I speak as a layman in this matter, but as a layman who has had some experience of social work in this country. I realize only too well the danger of alcohol put into the hands of people who cannot discipline themselves. There are many people to whom alcohol is no problem at all. They know when to say “no”. Unfortunately there are many who are unable to say “no”, and you generally find that these are people who are weak and unstable and whose family and social life is insecure. We need only go to the housing schemes of our various municipalities to realize the amount of boredom and uncertainty that exists in those townships, to realize the effect that easy access to strong drink would have on these people. We have an unenviable record. The commission’s report shows that the consumption of liquor per capita expressed in gallons, is higher in South Africa than anywhere else in the world. The consumption of spirits by South Africans is higher than that in France, Italy, Belgium Switzerland, West Germany, New Zealand, the U.S.A., Sweden, the United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands. When those figures were published there were no statistics available of the hard liquor consumed in the shebeens. You can imagine what those figures are going to look like when this fine experiment of the Minister’s gets under way. The Minister is taking a very grave risk in this experiment. I want to make it perfectly clear that the Government and the party on the other side must take full responsibility for the risk that they are taking in introducing this Bill. I am quite convinced that the price may be anarchy, and for that the Government will be responsible and we will hold the Government responsible for taking such a risk at a time like this. Here we have one of the first major measures passed by the new Republic, a measure which pretends to do away with discrimination and to make alcohol available to everyone. Sir, I think it is not an auspicious start for a country which prides itself on giving a lead on the African Continent in the Western way of life, and I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will defer the passing of this measure until more time has been given to the responsible social workers of this country to suggest ways and means of taking some of the extreme provisions out of this measure and so lessen the effects of this measure which I feel will do more harm than the good it pretends to do.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I want to say at the commencement that I am opposing the second reading of this Bill. I want to be brief, but I want to say that certain parallels have sought to be drawn between this Bill and the position in South Africa and what happened in the United States of America under prohibition. Quite frankly I do not think there is any real comparison. In South Africa it is not a case of prohibitionists versus those who want liquor to be sold. That is not the position to-day and it is not the position under this Bill. I do not think that that parallel is a good one at all. What we are concerned with in this Bill is the question of the sale of liquor to non-Europeans, and I want to say that as far as the Bantu are concerned, it is a problem of the Bantu desiring as much hard liquor for his money as he can get. He has no palate for liquor. If he can purchase as much hard liquor for his money from one source or another he will go to the source from which he can get the most, irrespective of its quality, irrespective of whether it has a good aroma or irrespective of any other qualifications. It must be hard liquor. I realize the difficulty facing the Government in trying to find a blanket law to cover the position of the whole of South Africa. The days are gone when perhaps we could have taken certain steps to try to deal with this problem in its incipient stages. However, it is no use crying over spilt liquor—those days are gone. Whatever may have been the position then, I do want to urge on the Minister—and I hope in my remarks presently to present one or two facts to him—that what we should do is to proceed very slowly in regard to any relaxation of the liquor laws.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. MITCHELL:

When the business of the House was interrupted just now, I was saying that the trouble that we are facing is to find a law which will be a blanket wide enough to cover all circumstances in South Africa in dealing with this problem of the supply of liquor to non-Europeans, and, Sir, I venture the opinion that such an all-embracing law to-day in fact is beyond all human achievement. I say so because the conditions are so different, they change from one part of the country to another, and from one set of circumstances to a totally different set of circumstances you get elsewhere. My mind went back this afternoon, when I was listening to hon. members speaking, to a case that I had some few years ago where the missionary in charge of the hospital in the Ubombo village, the Bethesda Mission Hospital, a fine, upstanding, God-fearing man who was very, very strongly opposed to the use of liquor in any form (he was a prohibitionist) came to see me. He was a magnificent type of medical missionary. I called upon him several times and knew him very well, and one day he came to see me and he was nearly broken-hearted. He said to me: “You know, Mr. Mitchell, I do not know what to do. For years past, during the winter and the early spring months the Natives in the lowveld down in Maputuland suffer terribly from various types of deficiency diseases, one of the worst being scabies and scabies amongst the children is just a shocking thing to behold. I have for years passed brought in here vast supplies of lime juice as an anti-scorbutic to use in the treatment of these cases and every year it is a pitiful campaign that I have to wage.” He said: “You know my opposition to liquor and the use of liquor. Now I have found, and as a practical man I must face it, that when the palm wine starts, which the Natives call Busulu, with the sap rising in the middle of the spring months, the scabies disappear just like snow under the summer sun. They just disappear.” And he said “I have had to get this palm wine now analysed and I find that its anti-scorbutic properties are three times as great as lime juice.” He did not know what to do. As a doctor and a man who was trying to help these fellows, he had to use the palm wine for the job, because it was obviously capable of doing far better than anything he knew.

Mr. Speaker, that Busulu is used in that form while it is quite fresh. When it has been allowed to stand to forment for a few days, it becomes very, very intoxicating indeed. The Natives down in that area don’t comply with the laws in regard to liquor. Throughout the whole of that lowveld when the people concerned who have the big wild palm plantations there where it is growing naturally and they have collected a sufficiency of this juice, they hoist a flag at the end of a long pole, which is visible for miles across those sand-flats, and anybody who cares to come along can get his drink for 6d., or whatever it may be. Nobody interferes with them. Now, Sir, the general standard of health amongst those people down there in Maputuland is very low. They are not a strong, robust type of people, and many people contend that it is because of malaria. That may be so or may not be so. It may be due to the fact that they are drinking this Busulu. If I may interrupt for a moment, a rather peculiar feature—and I do not want the Minister to use this in connection with the Bill—is that the census returns show that in the whole of that area down there, by and large there are about seven female children to every male child born, in all those kraals right along the Maputuland area. Medical people in the past have gone into it and have tried to find out what it springs from. I am not quite sure, but I believe that on St. Helena or one of those islands, where there is also a big use of palm wine, something like a similar result is obtained. I do not want to put it down to the drink, but I am afraid the Minister might be tempted to use this in connection with his Bill in one way or the other, I don’t know which way. However, that may be, here is a case of one section of our country with a quite a different set of circumstances than you will find elsewhere. The liquor they consume there is liquor they produce themselves, and it is very cheap and there this legislation is going to have little effect. But what is the position elsewhere? We know about the shebeen queens and so on. I unfortunately officially have had to come into contact with a lot of these people and the basic ingredient of the illicit liquor is brandy or cane spirit. That is the basic element to which is added all the adulterations which finally produce a liquor which, as I said earlier on, the Bantu will buy because it is hard liquor and it is cheap. Up to now the shebeen queen had to buy that basic liquor whether it is brandy or cane spirit in a black market, and she had to pay for it. Then she adulterates it, she increases the volume, the basic principle always being observed that the Native wants as much for his money as he can get. The Native is not peculiar in that regard, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of other people who have exactly the same idea, whether it be in regard to liquor or other matters. The Native has got no palate for liquor. He can’t tell the difference between good brandy or bad brandy or adulterated brandy. What he wants is hard liquor and it must be hard. Sir, the days when we could expect to palm off light wines and light beers on to the Native drinkers are gone. He wants his hard liquor and as much as possible. Now what I fear from the Bill is that we are simply going to provide another avenue for the shebeen queen to get much larger quantities of her basic material at reduced prices because of the opening that is provided in this Bill. And that is going to do nothing to stem the evils we are suffering from. The evil basically is one of failure of self-control. The Bantu people as a whole did not go in for strong liquor except in the odd cases of people like these drinkers of palm wine and so forth. The old Zulu, Basuto, the Xhosa, those people did not go in for hard liquor in their ordinary life. Indeed among the Zulu people it was an outstanding social stigma for a man to get drunk. The odd few here and there that were drunkards were looked down upon and despised, they were the dregs of society as far as the Zulu people were concerned. Hard liquor did not come into the picture, but the fact remains that now they have acquired a taste for it they are not easily going to relinquish it. And that is what is worrying me. I do not see that this is going to meet the situation as set out in this Bill. I want to go along with the line of thought that was put forward by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) As I stand here to-night, in my home I have got two Natives in charge of my house and my farm. Two Natives in charge of my place to-day, my whole property there, not only my work, but my father’s work, and my grandfather’s work before me. I have three Natives. There is no White man on my farm.

An HON. MEMBER:

Shame!

Mr. MITCHELL:

No, it is not a case of shame. I have worked for what I have got and I am proud of it. But the Natives in that area have never yet been introduced to hard liquor, except the odd case here and there, through the medium of a shebeen queen. The market has not been there. But with the restrictions lifted and the possibility now that the White man’s hard liquor can be obtained, under the circumstances envisaged in this Bill, I say that none of us. who have got our places out in the country, none of us who leave our wives and our children on our farms when we are away, are going to leave them in safe keeping. What is the idea behind it, Mr. Speaker? What is the fundamental idea behind the Bill? Surely the idea is that the restrictions which have been imposed in the past have led to lawbreaking, shebeening, to untoward pressure by the police under circumstances which have resulted into discord. If now the restrictions are lifted, the shebeen may be killed, the untoward pressure by the police will be lifted, the Native will be able to get his liquor and will be able to settle down to the new circumstances and behave himself. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that that completely excludes the character of the Bantu who are not used to it yet, and to whom it will now be brought. There is already talk about what is going to be done with the profits. Mr. Speaker, as soon as a municipality or anybody else is going to deal in the profits from liquor, they are going to see to it that they get profits. In other words, there is immediately an incentive to get profits, whatever purpose they may be used for. In exactly the same way as human nature tries to avoid losses, so does human nature immediately try to take advantage of profits, and when it is a case of profits, human nature being what it is, even your municipalities are going to try to cash in on those profits, and the net result of this Bill must be to spread the use of hard liquor among the Bantu people, into those areas where it has not yet gone, into those areas where it has been little known up to now. And what is more, it can be bought legally. There was an honourable member here who said that if you allow the Bantu to obtain liquor under this Bill in a decent, a proper and a lawful manner … lawful, yes, and proper in the sense that it may be lawful, but decent? The hon. member who said that must never have seen drinking bouts that go on from time to time, even where kaffir beer is consumed, never mind hard liquor, and he could never have seen a shebeen in full blast on a Saturday or a Sunday night in one of these areas outside our big urban centres. Then he would never talk of “a proper manner”. And it is because it is going to be lawful that the trouble will arise. I want to make this point, Mr. Speaker, that if there was a feeling on the part of the Government that the restrictions should be raised, then they should have been raised most guardedly and under proper care and supervision, so that we may hasten very slowly indeed and step by step, to see what is the precise nature of the result. What is, the fruit on the tree once you cultivate a plant like this? It is going to produce hard liquor for consumption by the Bantu people. What is going to be the result? Here, if ever, it is necessary for us to proceed very carefully and very slowly indeed. If as time went on, and the people begin to accustom themselves to the use of liquor, European liquor, and we found that there were no evil results flowing from it, then we could perhaps have opened the gates a little wider, and a little wider. Although I myself am a teetotaller, I have never believed that our policy towards the Bantu in the use of his own kaffir beer was the right one. I was certain that it would ultimately lead to the position that we have reached to-day with the shebeening that goes on. To allow these people to have their drink under proper conditions should be our aim. But to throw the door wide open, as is being done in this Bill, I think is wrong. The hon. Minister says that he is withdrawing Clauses 8 and 16, the two clauses dealing with the tot system. Mr. Speaker, because we are against the Bill, it does not mean that we want the present state of affairs to continue. I do not think there is a single member in this House who wants the present state of affairs to continue. We vote against the Bill because we see clearly enough that we are throwing the door open to a worse state of affairs than exists at the present time. I want hon. members to bear in mind what I am saying now when we begin to have criminal assaults, rapes on White women and White children that are left alone on the farms. Let them bear this in mind when the time comes. These two clauses are to be withdrawn. I say that we do not want the position to remain as it is. This will relieve the situation so far as the tot system is concerned, but does it do away with the right of a farmer to give liquor to his employees merely because those two clauses are withdrawn? I submit that it does nothing of the kind because of the other provisions of the Bill. I fail to see how it will not be legal for a farmer who desires to give liquor to his employees if he wishes to do so. It will be virtually impossible for all practical purposes to get a conviction against the man who does that, notwithstanding the withdrawal of Clauses 8 and 16.

I said I was going to be brief, and I do not want to take the matter much further. But the same hon. member whom I have quoted said that there should be a minimum penalty for drunkenness. He advocated very heavy penalties and a minimum penalty for drunkenness. Mr. Speaker, in Portuguese East Africa they have got that, but they have had that system for many, many years, and the people who have acquired a taste for liquor there have grown up under a system where that has been the law all the way throughout. Even then they have evaded it with impunity and they have in fact been caught drunk in European premises and in European villages. But if that was a really sincere and honest suggestion, and I am prepared to accept that the hon. member thought that that was a good and great improvement on the Bill, then I ask what are we heading for as far as further punishments and a further class of criminals are concerned? To have a minimum penalty for drunkenness in South Africa, under the circumstances that will be brought into being by the passing of this Bill! I cannot understand the reasoning! We are going ourselves to open the door, and the hon. member is supporting the Bill. We ourselves are opening the door to the circumstances where whole fresh groups of people in South Africa are going to have the acquisition of drink made easy for them, and at the same time it is suggested that we should establish the principle here of a minimum punishment inflicted for drunkenness!

Mr. Speaker, before we vote on this Bill tonight—and I must say I am sorry that there are a lot of hon. members who are going to give a silent vote; I think that in a matter of this importance to society in South Africa, to White society, to non-White society, to every man, woman and child throughout the country, I think more is required than just a silent vote. But before we cast our vote, let us in respect of the developments, of the happenings, of what can happen now on our isolated farmhouses, in our homes all over the countryside, think of those people and what is going to happen to them, and then let us with John Bradford say, “There but for the grace of God, go I”, because that is the position as I see it, and for that reason, if for no other, I am going to vote against this Bill.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

The hon. the Minister of Justice, when introducing the Bill last Friday, said that it was an experiment. He was obviously referring to the main principle of the Bill, which is to give effect to a recommendation of the Malan Commission that the sale of wine, and liquor generally, should be extended to all non-Whites. That is the primary purpose of this Bill and that is the crisp principle involved in this Bill. In terms of existing legislation there are restrictions upon the sale of wine and malt liquor and spirits in certain parts of the Republic. In the Transvaal no Bantu or Coloured person or Asiatic may be supplied with liquor through the ordinary channels. In Natal there is a restriction on Asiatics, except in respect of places for on-consumption, especially set aside. In the Free State there are certain restrictions; and in the Cape the restrictions are mainly in regard to Bantu and in regard to other non-Whites in so far as the licensing courts may impose such restrictions.

The Minister has separated this question of the extension of the sale of alcoholic liquor to non-Whites (primarily the extension is to Bantu) from the other recommendations of the Malan Commission. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin), in a very eloquent and persuasive speech earlier to-day, suggested that that was a mistake. In my view I think the hon. the Minister was right, to this extent; that I think if we are going to attempt to break through what has been a tradition in this country, not only in the days of Union, but also in the days before Union, namely the tradition that liquor should not be supplied to our Native people, if we are going to attempt to break through that tradition, then I do believe it is right and proper that hon. members in this House should have an opportunity of concentrating on that question alone, or mainly on that question, and that the problem should not be clouded by a number of other issues which have been raised in the report of the Malan Commission, and which affect members of the trade and other interests—producers, retailers, wholesalers and so on, consideration of which, in the result, might deflect the minds of hon. members from the true issue.

I have listened very carefully to the arguments which have been raised by hon. members who have supported the measure and by those who have opposed it. In that respect this debate is most interesting indeed. It may well prove to be an historical debate of its kind. It is interesting because I believe that the hon. the Minister has made it an open vote …

Mr. HOPEWELL:

No, he has not.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I understood that certain hon. members on the opposite side might be speaking in opposition. If the hon. the Minister has not made it an open vote, I believe he should do so even now. I believe that in a debate like this hon. members should be free to act according to their convictions. I believe that all sections of the Opposition have treated this on a non-party political basis. I think that is the correct basis on which to approach a Bill of this sort, so that hon. members can bring to bear their minds and their abilities on this very difficult subject untrammelled by questions of any party loyalty or party considerations. This is a matter, the principle involved in this Bill is something, which over-rides all party differences, or should over-ride all party differences in this country, and should be dealt on a basis of individual opinion and on the basis of the contributions which hon. members may make to the debate by reason of their experience, living in various parts of South Africa. I would suggest that even at this late stage the hon. the Minister would be wise if he were to leave this matter to an open vote. It has virtually become a tradition in this House, or at least I have always thought so, that where matters affecting our liquor laws are concerned—as was done I believe in case of the original 1928 Act, and subsequent amendments—the matter should be left to an open vote.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Except when there is a basic principle involved.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

But it is a basic principle which does not in my view touch political beliefs. If it does touch political beliefs, then I would believe that at last the hon. the Minister has been converted, because this touches the question of racial discrimination, and it eliminates race discrimination; and if the hon. gentleman is going to tell me that he has introduced this Bill because he wishes to eliminate race discrimination in this country, then I would be prepared to discuss it on that basis.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. What he is discussing now is another subject altogether.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

But, Sir, that is the basic principle. The hon. the Minister said that one allows measures like this to go to an open vote except when a basic principle is at stake. What is the basic principle of this Bill? That you should not have racial discrimination in drink, in the consumption of alcoholic liquor. However, I do not intend to go on along that road, even though I think the hon. the Minister made an unfortunate interjection by saying that—unfortunate for himself. I welcome that interjection. If I were able to regard this …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must not follow up that point. He must return to the Bill. I know he would like to embroider on that point …

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Sir. I do not propose to embroider on it, but put in just a few stitches …

Mr. SPEAKER:

But it must be a stitch in time.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Sir, I have attempted to make my point, but I believe that this is a measure which the Minister responsible should leave to the free vote of the House.

I have said that there have been some very persuasive reasons given in favour of the measure, and some extremely persuasive reasons against it. I am also bound to say that I have heard a good deal of ballyhoo talked by the protagonists on both sides, but I would like to add my tribute to that already paid to the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). After listening to him, I had to think very carefully what I should do in regard to this Bill. It was a magnificent speech; I listened to it with the greatest of interest, and I hope that the hon. Minister has done so as well. As I say, a great number of speeches were made showing tremendous persuasiveness against this Bill. But the whole case for the Bill, in the view of the Minister and in the view of those who favour the provisions of this Bill, is that there is a vital and imperative need to make some attempt at the present time to eliminate the illicit liquor traffic. In other words, if I may say so, the slogan behind the Bill is “Ban the bootleggers”, “make war on the White marketeer”; in other words, eliminate the White market as far as the illicit trade is concerned. That seems to be behind the Bill, yet when we are faced with the alternatives that have been placed before the House, the decision is difficult. On the one hand there are those who prophesy that through the extension of facilities to obtain liquor, drunkenness will be increased and a serious situation may arise. Some hon. members have gone very far indeed. They have painted a lurid picture of a sort of alcoholic Congo in which there is going to be rape on a very large scale. I think that is unwise. I am prepared to approach this Bill in a more mature way and regard this innovation from the point of view of the experiment which the hon. the Minister has suggested and not necessarily to disseminate these ideas which are very dangerous. As opposed to the prophecies and views which have been very sincerely expressed that there may be some very unfortunate results from this extension, there is on the other hand the knowledge, I believe on the part of every hon. member of this House, that liquor restrictions have probably led to more bitterness between Africans and the police than anything else except the pass laws. I would like to quote from a memorandum which has been sent to me and no doubt to other hon. members by the South African Institute of Race Relations. They put forward these three premises. They take cognizance of the following facts—

  1. (1) That non-White persons who want liquor can obtain it in spite of the existing restrictive laws, but they pay an inflated price on the black market …

I would have preferred to call it the “White market”—

… and often obtain their supplies in an adulterated form;
  1. (2) that liquor restrictions have probably led to more bitterness between Africans and the police because of the raids that are taking place in attempts to deal with the liquor restrictions;
  2. (3) that it is clear that there are at present far more liquor restrictions on our non-Europeans than there are in other African territories.

I believe that those facts postulated by the Institute are by and large correct; that you have a situation, as has been pointed out by many hon. members, of increasing bitterness and frustration between members of the Native community and the police, because the police, whether they like it or not, have to carry out the existing laws. Far too many tragedies have happened in this country, particularly recently, because of police raids to deal with the illicit sale of liquor. So when approaching the principle, one is faced with the two alternatives; Whether to take a decision which would be in the nature of retaining the status quo—allowing the existence of the present restrictions on the sale, possession of liquor by Bantu particularly, to continue—or whether to open the door. On the one hand the status quo with the consequences flowing from it, the continued raids, the existence of the illicit liquor traffic, the shebeen queens and all the rest of it, the concoctions, or, on the other hand, whether one should try to break through that in an attempt to eliminate those conditions. We have to balance the two possibilities, because it seems to me that that is the simple issue before us in principle. I am coming to details at a later stage. But when a member of this House has to make up his mind whether or not to approve or to disapprove of this Bill, it seems to me he has to apply his mind to this crisp question: Are you prepared to open the door or not, yes or no? That is the principle. If you are prepared to open the door, then you vote for the second reading and then one can deal with objections to the procedure in the Committee Stage and subsequent stages. When I put myself these two alternatives I say that I have come to the conclusion, without reiterating all the arguments that have been used to-night, that I am prepared, on balance, to support the principle of this Bill as an attempt to get away from what is a real evil, the illicit liquor traffic. In an attempt to make a new start I am prepared to give my support to the principle involved in the second reading of this Bill. Therefore I shall vote for the second reading. In coming to that decision, Sir, may I say that I was assisted by the announcement which the hon. the Minister made this morning that he was prepared to withdraw Clauses 10 and 16 of this Bill relating to the extension of the tot system.

Mr. HUGHES:

He is retaining it.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No. Those two clauses would have had the effect of extending it. The position is that under the existing law, in terms of Section 95 of the Liquor Act, it is provided that—

Save as otherwise provided in the Act in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State no person shall sell or supply or deliver any liquor to any Asiatic or Coloured persons and no Asiatic or Coloured person shall obtain or be in possession of liquor.

And in the Province of Natal—

No Asiatic shall be supplied with or obtain liquor save for consumption on premises licensed under this Act.

I mentioned that in passing at an early stage of my speech. Now the hon. the Minister proposes to repeal Section 95 of the principal Act. I want to know if it is correct that he still proposes to repeal that section?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

No, I am going to delete Clauses 8 and 16. That means that the law is going to stand as it is at present.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No, no, with respect. If the hon. the Minister will give me his attention for a moment. Clause 7 says that Section 95 is repealed. Does he still propose to do that?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

No. it is going to remain.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I want clarity on this point. Section 95 of the Act is the one which I have read now and which says that—

Save as otherwise provided no Coloured person or Asiatic in the Transvaal …

and no Asiatic in Natal may obtain liquor.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That is not going to be repealed. The position is going to remain as it is.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Let us try to get this clear. It is Clause 7 of the Bill which says that that section is going to be repealed.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Clauses 8 and 16, the two clauses which refer to the tot system, in the present Bill.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

If the hon. the Minister would be good enough to look at this Bill for a moment, would he please tell me whether Clause 7 of the Bill will remain?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Clause 7 will remain.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

In other words, the hon. the Minister is going to repeal Section 95 of the original Act?

An HON. MEMBER:

No.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Yes, he is. Of course he is. That is what he says. If the hon. the Minister will just listen to me for a minute, because I am still trying to make up my mind. I have said that I am prepared to vote for this second reading but, as I have told him, I am still balanced on a knife edge.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

You are referring to Section 96?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No, that is Section 95.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

As I have said, Clauses 8 and 16 are to be deleted. That means that Section 96 of the original Act will remain.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

What about Section 95?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am worrying about Section 95 at the moment.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That will remain.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

But the Bill says it will be repealed. If the hon. the Minister could help me over this I would be grateful.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

It is quite clear. The only two clauses referring to the tot system in the present Bill are Clauses 8 and 16. Now they will be deleted. In other words, the 1928 Act will stand in connection with the tot system.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Then I would simply ask the hon. the Minister if he would be good enough to apply his mind, after the adjournment, to the provisions of Section 95 of Act 30 of 1928 which it is proposed to repeal by this Bill, in order to see whether he still wishes to repeal it in view of his decision to drop Clauses 8 and 16 of the present Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have said that I am prepared, being faced with this very difficult problem of having to balance the disadvantages and the evils of the present position against the potential evils and disadvantages of the future, to give an opportunity for a new deal. I want to say straight away that I am not necessarily tremendously optimistic about what is going to happen. On the other hand, I am not necessarily tremendously pessimistic. But I certainly do not agree with these lyrical suggestions of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), for instance, that if only this Bill is passed all drunkenness will disappear, all illicit liquor selling will go, and we will be living in a sort of alcoholic Valhalla in South Africa. I do not believe it. I think we are going to have difficulties. I think the hon. the Minister should realize that, and not be carried away by the more excessive plaudits of those of his followers who have not been muzzled in any way. I am also not at all happy about the machinery which the hon. the Minister proposes to set up.

What is the procedure under this Bill? The Minister is going to extend the sale of liquor to non-Europeans, and he is going to do so in terms of the provisions of the new Section l00bis. He will allow, in terms of the new Section 100ter, all forms of liquor—that is wine, malt liquor and spirits—to be sold to non-Whites from any bottle store or any hotel which has off-consumption facilities. In other words, that is going to take place in the White areas, and those sales will be subject to the conditions laid down by a licensing board. But then the Minister goes on, in terms of Section 100bis, to provide that he may give written authority to any person or to the nominee of any urban local authority, any association of persons, any divisional council or any Bantu territorial authority, to sell both for on-consumption and off-consumption. That is where I agree with so many of the speakers this afternoon that we are left with a great deal of vagueness. This is a very wide power which is being given, and I want to put some questions to the hon. the Minister about it. What persons does he contemplate may be given this particular authority? How will the applications be made? It has been suggested by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) this afternoon that he might advertise and call for tenders. I do not regard that as a proper procedure. I do not think that he should call for tenders. In any event, it is very difficult indeed to know the procedure until the hon. the Minister gives us some more detail as to what he has in view. He will have now in his hand the power to issue authority to sell both for off-consumption and on-consumption. In other words, he has authority to grant a liquor licence, not in terms and subject to the conditions of the existing Act, but under such conditions as he may lay down. Now he may grant that licence to a person or to a nominee of an association of persons or to a nominee of a local authority. I link this up with the question of the provisions of the new Section 100bis (7) which provides that—

All profits derived from the sale of liquor under any authority granted or renewed under this section, shall be dealt with in the manner specified …

If we take into consideration the fact that there is provision for profit and that the Minister has the sole discretion for making an appointment giving authority, the following questions arise in my mind: what class or type of person does he propose to appoint? Is he to be an individual or the nominee of an association of persons, or the nominee of a local authority? Will that person be regarded as a licensee in terms of the Liquor Act? Will that person be an ordinary private member of the public who is going to carry on this business for gain, subject to certain possible restrictions on his profit, or will he be a Government servant? Because what does this section mean when it says the profits are going to be used? I do not want to reiterate what has been said, but many hon. members this afternoon asked why does not the hon. the Minister subject this privilege of selling for on-consumption, presumably in Native areas—make it subject to the local Licensing Boards so that they can have control and lay down the conditions? But he is not doing that, he is taking in his hands the power of granting a monopoly. It is very important to know to whom he is going to give that monopoly. If the hon. the Minister says there is no danger in this because he is going to give it to someone who will be a Government servant, then we have to consider the question of whether this will be State trading, and whether it is a good thing to have, side by side with private trading. State trading on a large scale of this sort. Where will it end, in view of the fact that in terms of Section 100quin the Minister might, in a White area, prohibit the sale for off-consumption to members of the Bantu or any Coloured group. I think it is very important that the hon. the Minister should give us some idea both as to the persons he has in view, the sort of associations he has in view, and what he proposes to do with the profits.

Mr. Speaker, I ask these questions because I believe that we should have a number of amendments in the Committee Stage. But if the Bill were to go through as presently constituted, I say, what has the Minister taken into consideration? Has he considered the types of wines and spirits which he will make available to this new market, to persons not only in the urban area but in the rural areas, who have not had these facilities in the past? What steps does he propose to ensure, so far as humanly possible, that adulterated, poisonous stuff is not thrown on the market at cheap prices, which may immediately have a very deleterious effect on those who consume it? What steps is he going to take to ensure that this opening of the floodgates is not going to deteriorate the standard of our wines in this country?

Sir, I am very jealous of the standard of our wines. I believe that in recent years we have developed both our white and our red type wines very considerably, and we can produce wines, particularly in the Western Province, which stand high in reputation not only in wines of South Africa but also of the outside, world. If it is going to be permissive to extend the sale of wines, there may be very serious temptation on the part of some producers simply to flood the market with cheap wines which will be sold in Bantu residential areas and elsewhere, and which certainly will not be for the benefit of the good reputation of our wine producers.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The principal Act provides for regulations to be made in that regard.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

The hon. the Minister says that there are regulations. But I believe that this sort of thing should be written into the Act itself. I think that when we are going to make an innovation of this sort, certain provisions should be written into the Act to make it abundantly clear that the possibility of abuse and mistakes will be minimized so far as possible.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Surely all these details are never written into an Act.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

But all these details are not normally dealt with by a Minister of Justice, they are normally dealt with by Licensing Boards. And the Minister of Justice, presumably, has other work to do, apart from deciding what conditions he is going to lay down in regard to certain licences.

I suggest that these may be a very serious danger of cheap, fortified wines coming on to the market simply with the view of getting rid of surplus wines. I would then put this to the hon. the Minister; the hon. the Minister said that this is an experiment; I believe that as an experiment there are great possibilities of making it a success, but to do so the hon. the Minister must follow the advice of certain hon. members who have spoken on the matter, such as the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Mitchell) who spoke about going slowly. He is going to oppose the Bill, but he said that if the Minister goes on with the Bill he must not go too fast. I believe that is very wise advice. I think that if the provisions of this Bill, amended or not, are translated to the Statute Books, it will be fatal were the Minister, by a few strokes of the pen, to throw open the floodgates throughout the country. I think he must choose his areas. Obviously one of the locations of frictions, one of the places where there is friction, is the urban area, because it is there that we have had so many police raids in search of illicit liquor. So it is in the urban areas that a beginning must be made. It is in the White urban areas where a beginning can be made, and in the so-called Bantu residential areas. I believe it will be quite wrong, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) pointed out this afternoon, to use the provisions of Section 100quin in order to create a monopoly for the sale of liquor in separate areas occupied by the non-European people. I think that that would be a very great mistake indeed.

In terms of this Bill the Bantu can obtain liquor in the so-called White areas only for off-consumption. He cannot consume in the White areas but, of course, he can consume on the premises of his employer …

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Only with the consent of the owner of the premises.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I say that there are no bars or other places in which he can sit and have his drink. There are no hotels available in which he can enjoy his drink. And if he does purchase in what are known as the White areas, then he has to take his liquor back to his place of employment, provided he has the consent of his employer, and then he can consume it on the premises.

An HON. MEMBER:

And if he does not get that consent?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Now the point has been raised, what if he does not get that consent from his employer? That, of course, does raise a difficulty. The hon. the Minister may have to come round to a system in terms of which, if it is found by experiment after experiment that the system is not being abused, provision is made for on-consumption—even on the basis of this Government’s own policy—in the White areas for many years to come. There is obviously no question that if a Bantu is not entitled to consume on private premises, if the employers are going to take that line, their only means of consuming that liquor is to take it into one of the Bantu residential areas. But that may be very difficult indeed for them. Once again, the temptation to consume either in an open place or in a public place, or illicitly on their employer’s premises, may arise. Therefore one temptation would follow another which has been removed.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Only experience can tell how this will work out.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am glad the hon. the Minister has said that, because that brings me to my concluding remarks. The hon. the Minister began his speech on Friday by saying that this Bill is an experiment. I accept it as an experiment. I believe that the manner of its operation will have to be very carefully watched for a period of some two years. I believe that it may very well be found that by then, or even before then, serious amendments have to be made to it. However, I have told the Minister that I am prepared, in my individual capacity, to support the principle of this Bill; but that is subject to my being satisfied that with certain amendments which one may have to move at Committee Stage, certain objectionable features will be eliminated. Here, may I say, I can only wish that the hon. the Minister had introduced this Bill at an earlier stage. Even at this stage I believe most seriously that the hon. the Minister would achieve a great deal if he would take the second reading of this Bill and then be prepared to say he will send it to a Select Committee. not this Session, but to be ready to deal with it next session. I believe that that would have a profound effect for good. This sort of legislation should not be rushed through the House.

Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

It would be a great disappointment to the people concerned.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Which people concerned?

Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

The European people.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can convince the hon. gentleman at this late stage …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! I do not think the hon. member should try.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to convince the hon. the Minister that at this late stage he might agree, after taking the second reading, to say that he will postpone going on with the Bill until he can go further into the details of the practice. I am prepared to give him a vote for the principle, but I am not at this stage prepared to give him a vote for the practice. I am prepared, at this stage, to vote for the second reading of this Bill; but if I am not satisfied with the practice which is then laid down I may find myself compelled to vote against the third reading. I, therefore, appeal to the hon. the Minister, if he gets the second reading of this Bill, to allow time for further consideration of it. I believe that would be very wise indeed. I emphasize that this Bill has been thrust upon us in the last days of the Session. It is one of the most important Bills that has come before this House for a long time, and it may have profound effects on the whole economy and the social set-up of this country. In those circumstances I believe that the Minister, having established the principle—on which I am going to support him—would be very wise indeed if he then said: “I will hold over further consideration until next session in order to give full time for amendment and possible reconsideration by a Select Committee”. On that basis I am prepared to vote for the second reading, reserving future decisions until the Committee Stage.

Mr. HOLLAND:

When the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) took part in this debate on Friday, he referred to the Bantu people as the voiceless people of South Africa. I think he made a mistake. They might be voiceless, but they are certainly not more voiceless than the Government side has been throughout to-day and this evening.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. That point has been made over and over again.

Mr. HOLLAND:

With the greatest respect, Sir, I am referring to their voicelessness with regard to this Bill …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! The hon. member must obey my ruling, and come back to the Bill.

Mr. HOLLAND:

Hon. members who took part in this debate appealed to the hon. the Minister to impose heavier minimum and maximum penalties in regard to drunkenness. I sincerely believe that those appeals did not emanate from stupidity or hypocrisy, but I must say that there appears to be absolute ignorance as far as those appeals are concerned. They do not emanate from a scientific approach and they certainly do not conform to modern practice. In Cape Town, over the last few years, it has been proved that the imposition of heavier sentences for these offences is just the thing which should not be done. A few years ago the Cape Town magistrates decided to increase the sentences, especially as far as the Coloureds were concerned, because they are the biggest offenders in this respect. The sentence was first £1 or seven days, then it became £2 or 14 days and then it jumped to £5 or one month in an attempt to curb drunkenness. But the result of that was that the welfare organizations, both private and State subsidized, which have to look after the wives and families of these unfortunate people who sit in gaol for drunkenness, could not cope with the avalanche of demands made upon them because the heavier fines did not lessen the number of convictions. Such problems should be approached scientifically, and in that respect I come to my objection against the report of the Malan Commission in certain respects.

My objections are based on similar reasons to those mentioned here this afternoon by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). The hon. the Minister remarked that this commission sat for a period of four years. Well, I believe that they also stood, perhaps with a foot on the rail, even in Portuguese East Africa, in order to observe the practical side of liquor being served and drunk on the premises. But I fail to find that there was a psychiatrist or a sociologist on that commission. When it comes to the commission’s report, especially in regard to the consumption of liquor amongst the Coloured people and the illicit liquor sales amongst these people in the Cape, I find that this matter was not studied very thoroughly, and I wish to deal with that matter further.

Mr. Speaker, originally I had no intention of taking part in this debate. However, certain arguments were advanced that were based on wrong information, and I feel that as far as they concern my own experience as a person who has spent the major part of his life in this city and who has experienced the development of the population vis-à-vis the Coloureds, the Europeans and the Bantu in Cape Town, and who has, seen the development of illicit liquor selling, I feel I could be of some assistance to the Minister. I have in my hand a certain memorandum. I must say that this memorandum was the final straw on the camels back to make me decide to take part in this debate. It is from the South African Temperance Alliance, and I wish to quote only one passage from it. This is an appeal to all members of Parliament to oppose this Bill, and they say—

Have we the moral right, legally to expose a population of ten millions to the ravages of alcoholism and the resulting miseries without adequate measures to prevent alcoholism?

Now I want to re-read this and I want to change only one word—

Have we the moral right illegally to expose a population of ten millions to the ravages of alcoholism and the resulting misery without adequate measures, to prevent alcoholism?

And that is what is happening to-day, Sir. The hon. member for Simonstown, when he took part in this debate, referred to the fact that there were Coloured representatives in this House. I am a member of this House and I am a representative of the Coloured people, and in taking part in this debate I wish to assure this House that I have no interest whatsoever in any liquor concern, least of all in a liquor concern in a Coloured area. I have no pecuniary interests in any such concern or any such business. However, I have seen quite a great deal of these undertakings, and liquor activities, and I should like to tell this House a little story which is directly concerned with what has been happening up to now and what this Bill, as I see it, is designed to stop. Admittedly, as the hon. the Minister said, this is an experiment, and no experiment can bear the fruits that we want it to bear unless we keep a firm hand upon it and there is guidance and strict control. However I want to concern myself for the moment with the lives of a large number of people in this, country.

I know an African by the name of John. He works for a motor-car firm in Cape Town. He is a decent respectable type and I prefer him to drive my car whenever I take it for service and when it is delivered back to me. One Friday John decided to take a bottle of brandy to his home at Nyanga, as many others do from time to time. Over the lunch hour, when they were sitting outside playing dominoes or draughts, a Coloured man came up and John passed him £1 10s. The Coloured man went off. They knew him well, he always sauntered about the place and never had any regular work. During business, hours he was always available for this sort of thing. In due course a parcel was delivered to John. Now this was not the ordinary round bottle as we know it. Since the early 40s certain large liquor concerns and distilleries have produced a flat type bottle. I do not want to mention the brand, but it is quite obvious that those bottles were not produced merely because they wanted a different bottle. They are bottles which can be concealed much better under a mattress or in a coat pocket or in a lunch basket.

An HON. MEMBER:

Why?

Mr. HOLLAND:

For the reason that somebody wanted to buy that bottle of brandy and convey it somewhere with the highest degree of safety, yet keep it concealed. This sort of thing has been going on for years but nobody has bothered about that.

That parcel was delivered to John. He took the parcel and put it inside his lunchbox and in the afternoon at five o’clock he left his employment and made his way to the Cape Town railway station. He was careful to keep in the middle of the crowd and to get to the train without being spotted by a policeman and perhaps searched on suspicion of carrying brandy illegally. Eventually he got into the train on the way to Mowbray station where he would get the bus to Nyanga. When near Observatory station he saw to his consternation that there was a railway policeman in the coach coming down the aisle, speaking to various passengers and searching them. At Observatory John jumped out and waited for the next train. He caught the next train and eventually got to Mowbray. There he had to bide his time and take his chance of getting on to the bus because it was rather dangerous standing in the queue because if a policeman approached the queue and he left it the policeman would know there was something wrong. Eventually he got on to the bus.

To cut a long story short, Mr. Speaker, eventually he got this bottle of brandy safely home. He put it away under his mattress, to be drunk the following evening with his friends at his leisure. At two o’clock that night his front door crashed in and he, his wife and four children were herded out while the police searched the premises. He was lucky to grab his trousers and his shirt. He had that on by the time he was ushered into the police van. He was taken to the police station. On the Monday morning he was not at his work, but his wife was there to ask for some money to get him out of gaol and back to work.

There are nearly 100,000 such Johns in Cape Town. There are approximately 1,000,000 or more such people in the rest of South Africa. The point is, how are we going to overcome making criminals of these people who do not want to be criminals, or merely want a bottle of liquor such as they see other people buy and other people drink?

On the other hand, we find that in a city like Cape Town we have the Coloured community. The argument was used here to illustrate that shebeening will not be stopped by legalizing the sale of liquor to Africans, because the Coloureds have free access to liquor and. they say, look at the shebeening that goes on among the Coloured people. That is a fallacy. The Coloured people do not have free access to liquor. They had many years ago, if I remember correctly. The point is that I remember the days in the early 1930s when the builders and heavy industries worked on Saturdays, too. I grew up as the son of a builder and we never had any trouble about Coloured labour on a Saturday morning. They were there. The man got paid on Friday afternoon and went home and he could tell his wife to buy him two bottles on Saturday, and he had his liquor for the week-end. Then in the post-depression years, after 1933. a boom developed.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. He is wandering too far from it.

Mr. HOLLAND:

With respect, Sir, I am right on the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member must obey my ruling.

Mr. HOLLAND:

I am talking about the Bill, with respect, in so far that the argument was used that free access to liquor should not be made possible. I am merely trying to prove that this was tried before and it was a complete failure. The fact was that with the African population increasing and with the market being there to sell illicit liquor, the people who could get the liquor and sell it to them were the Coloureds. The redress was not to make it possible for those people, the Africans, who wanted to buy liquor to do so legally as this Bill envisages. Coloured women were prevented from buying liquor. That did not help and then the mailers developed, of which it has been proved that there are between 20,000 and 30,000 in Cape Town. When that developed too far, liquor licensing boards started hammering on the hours. First of all, Coloured people were precluded from buying liquor on a Saturday, and then the hours were shortened on the Friday. The result is that this market of illicit buyers still exists but the bona fide man who does his work and wants to buy liquor on a Friday afternoon to take home for the week-end cannot do so. because by the time he has finished work the bottle stores are closed, but the person who sells liquor illicitly to the Natives is free all day to do so, and why should he work? If he works, he earns approximately 15s. a day as an unskilled labourer, but if he carries one bottle of brandy a day to an African he gets 15s. 6d., because the price is 30s., whilst he pays 14s. 6d. for it. I use this argument to prove that the curtailment of hours never got to the root of the trouble. There are still hundreds of thousands of Africans who want liquor and who are getting it illegally and at a price, and the price is such that the man who carries the liquor is so tempted to do so that he does not take a job and work. He need only sell a few bottles of brandy a week to have an income equal to that of the man who does an honest job of work. I realize that it is a tremendous problem, but to argue that the present state of affairs should continue is just as futile. But I wish to appeal to the Minister at this stage. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) quite rightly used the example of what happened when he was a member of a liquor licensing board, and it is perfectly correct that Coloured women asked members to impose a restriction on the hours in order that their husbands might come home and bring their wages home. May I appeal to the hon. the Minister, with the experience of what has happened in Cape Town over the past few decades, that what should rather be done is to ensure that the workman brings home his wages, whether he is a Native, a White man or a Coloured—because the problem is just as acute amongst the Whites—is to shut the bottle stores and bars completely on a Friday, because on Friday they get their pay, but leave them open on Saturdays so that if they want to buy liquor in moderation they can do so without being forced to go to a shebeen. What has the curtailment of hours for the Coloureds done now? It has had the result that over the last 20 years shebeens have flourished in the Coloured areas, because they cannot get liquor at the bottle stores after five o’clock on Friday. And as far as the heavy and the building industries are concerned, they lose an hour per man per week, because most of them now have to pay their men at 4 p.m. on Fridays in order to allow them to get to the off-sales before 5 p.m. Just prohibiting them from getting it by cutting the hours will only result in further illicit liquor dealing.

While we realize that this is a difficult problem and that strict control has to be exercised, I quite candidly fail to see how I can agree with these people who are opposed to this measure in principle and who would rather see the present position going on. Various references have been made to prohibition in other parts of the world. In this circular sent out by the Temperance Alliance a very interesting figure is given, that seven per cent of the population of the U.S.A, are alcoholics and that a further six per cent are problem drinkers. But will any organization in South Africa or in the United States go to the Government and ask them to impose total prohibition again? Never, because the experiment failed. I have a cutting here to the effect that when the last illegal distillery of Al Capone was cleared up in Chicago the equipment alone in it was sold, at that time, in 1929, for 250,000 dollars. Therefore I believe that the figures of the profits and the rate of illicit liquor dealing in South Africa are not out of proportion at all. So we stand before this problem that as far as total prohibition is concerned, it did not work in America. Here we have partial prohibition, with the people prohibited from getting liquor living their lives among those who have free access to it or partial access to it, and how on earth can you prevent them from getting it? Must we have this corruption, this moral cancer, going on and on, without making some attempt to curb it by making these facilities accessible to the people in a legal manner? The argument might be advanced that it is contrary to the tribal customs or the natural habits of the African to drink brandy. The argument was advanced here that it is contrary to tribal custom for a young man or woman to drink, but when other measures are discussed in this House the same members go to great lengths to prove that the hundreds of thousands of Africans in the urban areas have become detribalized and are not bound by tribal laws and customs any more, but have acquired the ways and customs of the Whites. Just as I would not like to make two stories of that issue, I would not like to do it as far as the minimum fine which was suggested is concerned either, because I am against it in principle that the discretion should be taken out of the hands of the magistrates. We must be consistent in our approach to these matters, and the same applies when we talk about tribal customs of the Africans in regard to this problem. When I say this, I fully bear in mind that in Zululand and the Transkei and in other Native areas where you have the tribal laws and customs on a much more solid and firm foundation than in the urban areas, the position is different. I learned that at the University of Stellenbosch when I took Native Administration, but since those years the urban African population has increased a hundredfold and there are generations living in the urban areas who know nothing about the tribal ways of drinking of their forebears in the reserves. If you stand before the problem as to whether we are going to perpetuate prohibition on one part of the population on racial lines, and we hear the arguments advanced about the high percentage of alcoholics in South Africa, many hon. members who took part in the debate forgot one essential fact. They mentioned the high figures of convictions for drunkenness amongst the Coloureds, 2,983 out of every 100,000, but it does not mean that those 2,983 are all alcoholics. They might be problem drinkers or they might be regular drinkers, people who get drunk, but an alcoholic is a person who has become addicted to the drug alcohol and whose drinking is beyond his own control. In Sweden total prohibition was applied until a few years ago, and to their consternation they discovered that in spite of prohibition they had the highest percentage of alcoholics of any country in Europe except France, and as far as France is concerned scientists approach the problem on a different basis because there the problem is different in the sense that children grow up drinking wine, very much the same as applies to many Coloureds in South Africa as the result of the tot system on the farms. When we stand before these facts, how can we go on allowing 200,000 people every year to go to gaol and to be made criminals, just because they bought liquor, just what the next man is getting but they have to pay a much higher price on the illicit market? I fully agree that there is the problem that their families might suffer deprivation, but very few people in approaching this matter, like the Temperance Alliance or the churches which have now sent out so many circulars, have really consulted the sociologists and the scientists who have studied the problem and asked them why it is that the rate of drunkenness amongst the Coloureds is so high. I have read a great deal about this and I have had practical experience of it and it is a well-known fact, admitted by all scientists, that drunkenness amongst the Coloureds is mainly attributable to the fact that they have no normal family life in the sense that we know it. Overcrowding and bad housing and lack of housing are the root causes of it. A man goes from work and enters a bar and drinks because it is hell for him to go home to a small room with three families in it. That has been the finding of scientists from time to time, and when the Temperance people and the church leaders speak about this matter, did I ever hear any of them protest against the fact that the Group Areas Act held up housing for so many years?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. HOLLAND:

In conclusion, may I point out to the Minister that while one accepts the Bill in principle there are other factors which might be considered and which I hope the Minister will consider. That is, inter alia, the fact that a man of a low level of education and earning a low wage can go into places to drink, perfectly legally, but there is nobody in the form of the barman or the hotel proprietor to curb their drinking, and once he walks out drunk and is picked up by the police it is not the responsibility of those who sold the liquor to them. I wonder whether some form of control in that respect can be considered. The former speaker referred to the fact that the Minister had said that this Bill was an experiment and he asked whether we must experiment with the lives and the suffering of people. But, on the other hand, an experiment that has been a failure up to now has been playing with human passions and emotions, and with all the restrictions and the laws we have had up to now we have had no success and the problem has become worse every year. I hope that in voting for the second reading of this Bill and accepting the principle enshrined in the Bill as it stands now, we will be on the threshold on an era where we will meet better days in regard to this problem. May I express the hope that the forebodings many members expressed in this House will not be worse than what we have had up to now.

Dr. DE BEER:

I do not wish to detain the House long. This has been an extremely interesting debate, interesting for the combination of motives which have influenced hon. members either to vote for or against the Bill. The observer of the debate has experienced the delicious irony of hearing from hon. members on that side of the House, the protagonists of White supremacy, the argument that this legislation has to be passed in order that we should allow to the African those things which we allow for ourselves and on the other hand we have learned from hon. members on this side, who are normally to be found in the forefront of the fighters for the extension of privileges to the Africans, the allegation that the Africans are, after all, little better than barbarians and should be allowed very little in the way of liquor. So the arguments have gone on, and I say it with the greatest of respect to hon. members that they have revealed considerable confusion of thought. For most of to-day the opposition to this measure has been conducted by hon. members who have spoken of the evils of alcoholism and the nuisance of drunkenness. Now, one has had occasion to see a good deal of alcoholism, and a very terrible thing it is, and extremely difficult to cure in any way. But I think that anyone who has ever treated alcoholics will agree at once that you have not got the faintest hope of preventing any alcoholic from being one in South Africa by trying to withhold liquor from him. He will find the drink even in a totally dry country, but certainly in a country like South Africa which is two-thirds wet and one-third dry you can never prevent an alcoholic from getting what he wants. I do not know whether hon. members are acquainted with some of the things that alcoholics drink when they cannot get liquor, and I am talking about White people now. I do not know whether hon. members have heard of some hair oil preparations which are on the market and which contain a high percentage of alcohol, and which is consumed in large quantities by alcoholics when they cannot buy wine or brandy. I do not know whether hon. members know of the alcoholic content of brake fluid and of methylated spirits and the various things that an alcoholic will drink if he cannot get liquor. In regard to drunkenness, this is not quite so true. The ordinary cheerful Saturday night drunk probably will not get drunk on hair oil. but he also has the habit of finding his way to alcohol. So in the circumstances that exists in South Africa to-day, to pretend that you can check alcoholism or drunkenness simply by maintaining that an African cannot buy liquor is more futile than the old lady who sought to sweep back the sea with a broom. Conversely, if there were any truth in the argument that by prohibition you can prevent alcoholism and drunkenness, we will have to look ourselves in the face as Whites and prohibit liquor to ourselves in order to prevent the very widespread alcoholism that exists amongst South Africans of all races. If one believes that by prohibition one can check it amongst all races, there might be a case for prohibition in South Africa. Yet it has been common cause between all hon. members who have spoken that firstly there is no practical value in total prohibition, and that secondly the measure of prohibition which exists in South Africa does not prevent any man who wants liquor badly enough from getting it. That being so, alcoholism, horrible though it is, and the nuisance and the danger of drunkenness, have nothing to do with this Bill at all. The alcohol for those purposes will be obtained whether this Bill goes through or not. We are dealing here with a measure which must be judged by certain other criteria which I will come to, but not by alcoholism and drunkenness.

Now, the protagonists of the Bill suggest strongly that the main purpose is to stop the illicit traffic in liquor. A great deal has been said about this and I do not want to add very much to it except to say that I agree to a large extent with what was said by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) and by others, that while the passage of a Bill of this sort may, and I think will, reduce sharply the scope of illicit liquor traffic, I do not believe it will stop it or that it will stop shebeening. I think the moment the licensing hours are over the shebeens will open and you will always find people with a desire for these brews which are not normal liquor. I also think there is a good deal in the argument which has been put from this side of the House that even if this Bill does break the neck of the illicit liquor trade, the effect may very well be that the Africans will simply buy twice as much liquor because they will only have to pay half as much for it; and I would not be a bit surprised to find drunkenness amongst the Africans maintained or even increasing.

The next reason advanced by the supporters of the Bill is that it is a grievance that the African has that he is not allowed to buy liquor whereas the Brown man and the White man can, and that we should be prepared to free the African from this grievance. Of course hon. members will not be surprised to know that I have great sympathy with this argument, but it does seem to me to be extraordinary, as was pointed out by the Temperance organization in their memorandum, that if the object of the Government is to remove a grievance of the Africans, they should start with this particular one. There are. after all, so many statutory offences which send so many Africans to gaol and there are so many discriminations against the Africans which are applied every day to make them feel that they are inferior beings. I have little sympathy with the argument advanced by hon. members in favour of the Bill that it is necessary to remove one of the grievances from the lives of the Africans.

Then hon. members were at great pains to explain that none of them were speaking in the interests of the wine industry, although some of them have told us at length what a fine industry it is. I accept that nothing is further from the minds of hon. members representing wine farming constituencies than that their constituents should make more profits, but I think it is perfectly legitimate for the wine industry to want to make more profits. just as it is for the boot and shoe industry. [Interjections.] Hon. members on the Minister’s side of the House, while assiduously denying that they are interested in the future of the wine industry, nevertheless referred to that industry in complimentary terms. The Chairman of the Commission has told us that 60 per cent of the liquor production of this country goes to the illicit market. If that is true, and if all that liquor is being sold now, it is hardly likely that very much more will be sold now that it becomes possible for the recipients of the liquor to buy directly. The hon. the Minister of Transport interjected to ask me whether I was for or against the Bill. What I have been doing is to explain that I am not very much impressed by any of the arguments advanced in favour of the Bill, nor by those advanced against it. But I will put the Minister out of his misery and tell him that I will vote for the second reading and I will tell him why. What hon. members opposite are doing to a large extent is what T. S. Eliot, in one of the most penetrating lines in modern English poetry said—

The last temptation is the greatest treason To do the right act for the wrong reason.

And to a very large extent that is the position in regard to the support given to this Bill. I am going to support the Bill for a perfectly simple reason, a reason of principle to me which goes beyond and above any of the reasons advanced here. I am going to support the Bill because the liquor law as it is at present is a race discriminatory measure. I hate all race discrimination. It is true that this Bill does not completely abolish race discrimination, but it goes a very long way towards it. It takes away one particular stigma against people of colour. The principle of this Bill, as I understand it, is that the sale of liquor to non-Whites should be liberalized and extended and that the racial discrimination applied against them in this respect will now be removed. For that reason, to remove that discrimination, I will support the second reading, but I do not contend that alcoholism or drunkenness will be reduced in South Africa by this Bill going through. I do not believe the illicit liquor market will be abolished, and I do not believe that many of the other roseate dreams which have been sketched for us by hon. members will come true. I believe that if we want to get rid of alcoholism and drunkenness, what we require is widespread socio-economic reforms of a kind which you, Sir, would not allow me to discuss now. That, and not a Bill of this sort, is the answer to the evils of drink. The principle of the Bill is that liquor should now be sold to Africans and I propose to support that principle at the second reading. Like the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and others on this side who have taken the same line as I do, I am anxious about several of the detailed provisions of the Bill. Particularly am I anxious about the Minister’s control over the distribution of liquor to Africans. Enough has been said on that subject to make it unnecessary for me to go into details why I am concerned, but I am concerned with subsection (7) of the new Clause 100bis which deals with the distribution of profits, and I hope the Minister will be able to give satisfactory answers on all these matters. Provided he does, my support for the Bill will continue. If not, I too must reserve my right to vote as I please at the third reading. In principle, I have no doubt that this is a measure to ameliorate racial discrimination and for that reason I shall support it.

Mr. HORAK:

I do not intend to detain the House for long. We have had a very full debate on this side of the House. I am extremely sorry that we have not had similar contributions from that side. But we have had a full debate and a sincere attempt from these benches to assess the merits and demerits of the Bill. We have made an attempt to weigh up the possible advantages against the disadvantages. I believe that in casting their votes at the end of the debate members on this side will have had the benefit of a long and free discussion. But to put it at its lowest, in certain respects this discussion has appeared to devolve upon one thing, that if we give the Africans liquor legally they will drink too much in future. On the other hand, we have had the argument that if we continue the present system they will obtain liquor illegally anyway. In fact, it reminds me of a poem I learnt early in my life—

To stand up straight and tread the turning mill;
To lie down and say nothing and be still;
These are the two trades of man,
And which is worse I know not,
But I know that both are ill.

The debate in many respects has reminded me of that. The situation is very serious, but I think the Minister has not made his task or that of the House much easier by the manner in which the Bill was presented. I think it is an extremely difficult thing for any member to assess exactly what the effects of this Bill are going to be, because there is so much doubt as to the precise measures, administratively, which the Minister will adopt in implementing this legislation.

You first of all get the authority in the hands of the Minister to licence or authorize persons or associations of persons or urban authorities or Bantu authorities to sell liquor, for on and off-consumption, to Natives, and in that particular section, under these authorities, the Minister can decree what type of liquor can be madde available. Then you get Section 100ter, which is enough to frighten anyone out of his wits, because in terms of this clause it seems as if the Minister can and will extend liquor privileges to all classes of persons over the age of 18 in any area. Then you get to 100quin, in terms of which the Minister can exclude any areas from the provisions of 100ter. But the Minister cannot in terms of 100quin prescribe the type of liquor to be made available. So it looks to me that the Minister in terms of his powers under 100bis prescribes the type of liquor for sale in a certain area and that he then uses 100quin to exclude the provisions of 100ter. The thing is as clear as mud. One does not know, in attempting to arrive at an assessment of the effects of this Bill, what those effects will be, because of the tremendously wide discretion in the hands of the Minister and the doubt that exists as to the manner in which he will exercise it and the lengths to which he will go. He has not made the task of weighing the pros and cons very much easier.

I hope that in his reply the Minister will give us some idea of the manner in which he intends to apply this Bill. That will give us a much clearer idea as to what the situation is. You see, Sir, on the pro side there is the fact, I believe, that you will to a large extent diminish this tremendous racketeering that goes on in liquor in this country. Hon. members have often referred to the situation in America in the prohibition era. I want to say that from my personal knowledge that system of racketeering applies in the Native townships to-day to almost the same degree that it did in the days of Capone in the United States. I believe that the acceptance of this Bill will tend to diminish that, and that it will tend to improve race relations and that to a large extent we will be able to do away with liquor raiding. I believe that liquor raiding is one of those things in our social and political life which tends to aggravate and exacerbate race relations, and the tragedy of Cato Manor not so long ago is an example of it. I believe that the problem of alcoholism remains a problem whether we have this Bill or not. I do not think that it matters at all in regard to the question of alcoholism. One of my hon. friends on these benches made the point that our consumption of liquor in this country per capita was the highest in the world. I want to say that I do not believe that that consumption is legal consumption—I believe that a very high percentage of it is illegal consumption. As I say, Sir, there are pros and cons to this matter but I believe that in the final analysis the social evils that exist and arise from our existing liquor laws are greater than the evils that will arise from the application of this Bill. For that reason I am going to vote for the second reading. I hope, as I have said, that in his third reading speech the hon. the Minister will tell us how he intends to apply these three sections, 100bis, 100ter and 100quin. I think the Minister should do that in the interests of this House and in the interests of his own objectives in this Bill. I believe that this Bill will eradicate many of the social evils that arise from our present liquor legislation. For that reason I intend to vote for it and I also believe that this is an experiment and that in the course of that experiment the Minister should have wide powers. But I think he should tell us how he intends to exercise those powers. I think members on this side of the House will have many amendments to propose in the Committee Stage but at this stage I intend voting for the second reading.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Mr. Speaker, a wide field has been covered between Friday and to-day. I want to say at once that many speakers on both sides of the House have approached this Bill objectively and I am very grateful to hon. members for doing so. Of course there have been one or two exceptions to-day where hon. members have been unable to resist the temptation of dragging a little politics into the matter. It is probably difficult to hold a debate and not touch upon politics. The only objection in the political field, was, it seemed to me, that this side of the House is not acting like the official Opposition. I understand that the official Opposition have allowed their members freedom to speak and vote as they wish. So I understand. This side of the House is a party which when principles are involved, as is the position in this case, adopt a standpoint and if there are members on this side who feel that they would prefer to refrain from voting, then we say: Very well, do so. But the party as a party adopts a standpoint. That is the difference. There is nothing strange about it. I do not think it is correct to say that historically it has now become the practice in South Africa for the parties when the liquor legislation is being discussed, to allow their members to vote as they like. Since 1928 a large number of amendments have been made to the Liquor Act, and I think that on those occasions the practice which has been described to us to-day was followed. The attitude of the National Party is clear and it is that this is a Bill which involves a matter of principle; particularly since the events of last year representations have been made to the Government that the Coloureds and the Natives, and particularly Natives, have grievances. Their attitude is, quite correctly as far as this question of liquor is concerned, that they are treated differently to the White. The Coloureds have the same grievance. They complain that this constitutes discrimination. The hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) has referred to this aspect. That being so, is it so wrong of the National Party to say: Here there is a grievance which we see our way clear to removing in accordance with the principles which we uphold both as regards the Natives and the Coloureds. What is wrong with that? That is why I say this Bill involves a principle; there is an object underlying this Bill, namely that grievances must be removed; here we have discrimination which causes grievances. The hon. member for Maitland has asked why we have chosen this grievance while there are so many other grievances. But the fortunate position is that the National Party sits on this side of the House and it is in a position where it can choose. That is my only reply. If we had chosen another grievance, the hon. member would once again have asked why we had chosen that one. As I have said, there are grievances which cause evils and which must be eliminated. In this respect it did not seem to me that there was any difference of opinion between the two sides of the House; both sides have referred to the vast evils which have grown from the existing system. Some of the members who are opposed to the Bill have unfortunately rather exaggerated matters. These hon. members have depicted an unrealistic picture. They have not taken the facts into account. I have been sorry to see that certain hon. members have resorted to depicting pictures which are not realistic. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has also unfortunately gone so far—I did not expect this of him—as to say that, if this Bill is adopted, the Natives and the Coloureds will be able to buy liquor freely and how many assaults on women and children in isolated areas will there not be! But has the hon. member ever studied the present facts? I am—I can almost say—in the unfortunate position that I come into contact with the very worst type of case involving assaults, etc. But what are the facts? The facts are that under the present liquor distribution system most of these cases of assault are the result of these unsatisfactory conditions which prevail to-day. It is not the person who drinks decent liquor who commits these offences. It is those people who come from the shebeens, those people who are mad from skokiaan, shimiaan and other types of liquor which they drink there. It is this evil which we want to eliminate, and I have been very surprised that especially the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford), who is a medical practitioner, has tried to depict the picture to us which he has in fact depicted, I think for lack of better arguments. This is the very system we want to eradicate. What does the hon. member want? Apparently we must appoint more police in South Africa to see whether we cannot eliminate the shebeen queens and their pernicious activities. Must we appoint more police in order to destroy the illicit brews which are being made? How many police will we not have to appoint in this country to do all that? I am glad the hon. member for South Coast is back in his place because a moment ago I expressed my surprise at the attitude the hon. member has adopted and at the fact that he has asked us how many women and children will now be endangered. I have already expressed my opinion on that point. I do not think the hon. member has adopted a realistic attitude bearing in mind the present-day facts.

This Bill must go through this Session for the simple reason that we must try to eradicate this system which has developed in this country. The position cannot continue any longer as it is. The Malan Commission has told us that; the police have told us that and so have all the people who deal with these matters. They tell us that we must proceed with this Bill. Many representations have been submited to both sides of the House but I do not want to go into them. However, I think that the example to which the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has referred is worth emphasizing, namely, the opinion of the Institute of Race Relations in respect of this Bill. I shall just read their recommendation—

All non-White citizens in South Africa should be able to obtain liquor on the same basis and subject to the same conditions as apply to the case of Whites.

This is an opinion which is not opposed to this Bill. [Laughter.] Is it so wrong, because we do not always agree with what they say, for us to agree with them when they make a statement such as this? Hon. members have also said that the Bantu have not been consulted. But the Department of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, is in daily contact with the Bantu. We have consulted this Department and they have given us valuable advice in respect of this matter. I have here a letter from Dr. Matheson, the Director of non-European Affairs of the Benoni City Council, which reads, inter alia, as follows—

I had occasion to have a cursory glance through the provisions of the Bill to amend the Liquor Act of 1928. I hasten to assure the hon. the Minister of Justice of the wholehearted support of the vast majority of administrators of non-European affairs.

He is the Director of the Institute for non-White Affairs in Southern Africa and he to a large extent exercises control over the locations.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

Did he say that in respect of this Bill?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

This letter is dated 13 June 1961. The heading is “Supply of Liquor to Bantu”. I have also received this telegram to-day from the President of the Institute of non-White Affairs in Southern Africa—

On behalf of the Institute of Administrators of non-White Affairs in Southern Africa we unequivocally support the Liquor Bill in its present form.

These are a few examples which I could not resist the temptation to read. It is therefore not correct for hon. members to say that people who know anything of Bantu affairs are opposed to this Bill. There is another side to the picture as well.

Hon. members have discussed a number of points which I think can very well be discussed at the Committee Stage. We can use all the arguments we consider necessary at that stage but I just want to direct the attention of the House briefly to one or two of the main points which have been raised. In the first place I should like to express my thanks to hon. members who have indicated how we should enlighten the Bantu and the Coloureds when this Bill is placed on the Statute Book regarding the provisions of the Bill and the regulations which will be issued in terms of the Bill. The hon. members for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) and Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) have suggested, for example, that the Press and the radio should be used for this purpose. I shall go into the possibility of doing so because I agree that we should use the radio particularly to explain to the non-Whites the provisions of the Bill and the regulations which will be issued under the Bill. We shall of course welcome all assistance from the Press in this regard as well. These people must understand what their rights are in terms of this new legislation.

Hon. members have asked what we are going to do with the profits derived from the authorized drinking premises. My reply is the following: Let us assume that there is a Bantu or an association of Bantu in a Bantu area who obtain such an authority to run a liquor distribution point. In terms of our policy I think it is reasonable that the profits should be left in their hands. That is in the case of individuals. But when we turn to municipalities and local authorities, it will only be reasonable to hand over certain of the profits to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development so that he can plough them back in the form of housing, etc., for the benefit of the Natives of the area concerned. I think that this will be a reasonable way to use the profits.

Then it has been said that under this Bill the Minister is taking undue powers to issue these authorities to various organizations to enable them to control the liquor distribution points. I just want to say that if difficulties arise which the Minister must deal with, he will in any case not do so personally but will consult all the organizations concerned in this regard. I would be very sorry if a Minister who succeeds me were to do so because I should not like to give my personal attention to such a matter before, of course, it is submitted to me personally. I shall obtain all possible advice. I shall start with the National Liquor Board. If it is a matter involving the Bantu I shall consult the Department of Bantu Administration and Development; if it is a matter involving the Coloureds, I shall consult the Department of Coloured Affairs. Thus I should like to consult all possible interested parties before I take any action. While I have been told that I should be very careful in applying the provisions of this Bill, I have already told the House that I intend being careful so as to make a true experiment of this Step. Hon. members have said that once we have introduced such a measure we can never go back but after all the measure deals with the application and the control of the distribution of liquor. These are relative matters; one can change them from time to time. I just want to repeat what I said on Friday. If we find from experience that there are loopholes which must be plugged and that we must take other steps to improve the distribution of liquor, I will be the first to help in doing so. I have said that it is our intention to publish a consolidated Liquor Act roundabout October—I hope it will be in October—which will also cover the provisions we are now considering. When this Bill is published, the whole country will have an opportunity to comment on it and when it comes before the House, the House will have all the necessary information available and then we can give further consideration to the Bill.

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

In October?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I say that if it is possible I hope to publish the Bill in October so that hon. members will have a few months during which to study the Bill and so that we can obtain information as to what the general feeling is. A consolidated Liquor Bill has become an absolute necessity. Hon. members know what it means to understand the Liquor Act properly—the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Horak) has referred to this aspect—they know how difficult it is to interpret a Bill such as this when a whole series of other laws are involved. It is clear that we must have a consolidated Liquor Bill.

Then I have been asked whether the National Board cannot be extended. There are to be three officials: The chairman, probably a magistrate, the chief of police or his representative and the Secretary for Justice, or his representative. Then there will be a further three persons who, I hope, will in practice represent the following three groups: The consumers, the producers and the trade itself. The Government will have to appoint these three persons because I am afraid that if these three bodies must appoint a person to serve on the Board, they will never agree as to who they should appoint.

Mr. MITCHELL:

How will you decide upon the representative of the users?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

We shall look around and if there is a prohibitionist, we shall appoint him! Seriously though: In this case we shall consult the interested parties who should be consulted. We cannot extend the Board any further. If we add another person to represent another sector, we shall find that there will be three, four or more other sectors which will ask for representation. If we open the door I do not know where it will end. I say we must make the experiment and if it appears later that the position must be changed, we can always put forward arguments to prove why that should be done.

I think that these are more or less all the important points which have been raised …

Mr. LAWRENCE:

What will be the status of the persons who issue the liquor licences? Will they be public servants?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I shall be glad if the hon. member will raise that point during the Committee Stage.

I just want to raise one personal point. I was criticized on Friday when it was said that I as Minister of Defence stopped the supply of liquor to the Defence Force and now I have introduced a Bill of this nature. But let us keep to the facts; this is after all a place where one can occasionally be allowed to keep to the facts! The fact of the matter is that certain evils developed in connection with the consumption of liquor in the Defence Force, evils which we wished to eradicate. I adopted the attitude that for a period I would close the places where liquor could be obtained. I appointed a committee to go into the whole matter. The committee submitted its report and my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Defence, has implemented that report. Now that we have applied the recommendations of this committee all these evils have been eradicated. Thus we have achieved what we were seeking. And now we are seeking something different. Here we have evils which the Government feels must be eradicated. That is our object. I do not know why hon. members are now criticizing me for doing so. I think that in this case we must consider the facts realistically. When one listened to the arguments of certain hon. members to-day, one would have thought that there was no such thing as an illicit brew in South Africa, that there was no such thing as a shebeen queen, that there was no such thing as crimes as a result of drunkenness, that there was no such thing as the fact that these illicit brews not only make the Bantu so drunk that they lose all sense of reason, but that they cannot go to work on Monday or Tuesday, that they make them so ill that South Africa loses millions of working hours annually. We now want to improve the position. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has said that the people have asked us for bread and we are giving them brandy. Is that a fair submission to make? What happens to-day is that when the breadwinner receives his pay at the end of the week, instead of that money being used to buy bread for the family, it goes to the shebeen; that liquor is drunk on an empty stomach and then the father of the house is not in a position to care for his family. But I want to add this: These illicit brews have the result that thousands of families are deprived of their breadwinners annually because they mow them down like fleas, according to medical evidence. This is an evil which exists to-day and I think it is a very good thing that the Government has decided to introduce this Bill in order by so doing to destroy that evil once and for all.

Motion put and the House divided;

Ayes—96: Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Butcher, R. R.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Pisanie, J.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Durrant, R. B.; Erasmus, F. C.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Lawrence, H. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Lewis, H.; Luttig. H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Plewman, R. P.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Raw, W. V.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Swart, R. A. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Tucker, H.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waterson, S. F.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Noes—23: Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Eaton, N. G.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Hughes, T. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Shearer, O. L.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Swart, H. G.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Williams,, T. O.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

The House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

TUESDAY, 20 JUNE 1961 Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 10.35 a.m. PAYMENT OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT BILL

Mr. SPEAKER communicated a Message from the Hon. the Senate transmitting the Payment of Members of Parliament Bill passed by the House of Assembly and in which the Hon. the Senate had made an amendment, and desiring the concurrence of the House of Assembly in such amendment.

Amendment in Clause 2 put,

The MINISTER OF LANDS:

I move as an amendment to this amendment—

In lines 7 and 8, page 4, to omit “shall be payable to such member” and to substitute “may be paid to such member subject to such conditions as the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Assembly, as the case may be, may determine,”.

This amendment has been discussed by members of the various parties, and agreed to by them.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I second.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

Unikas-bank and Provisions of the Banking Act *I. Mr. EATON (for Mr. E. G. Malan)

asked the Minister of Finance:

  1. (1) On what date was the last report of Unikas-bank submitted to the Registrar of Banks;
  2. (2) whether his Department had satisfied itself that this Bank had complied with the provisions of the Banking Act in regard to (a) financial transactions, (b) limitation of transactions and (c) other provisions relating to loans and the conduct of business; if so, when; if not, why not;
  3. (3) whether, as reported in the Press, the Registrar of Banks is instituting inquiries into the affairs of this Bank; and, if so,
  4. (4) whether he will make a statement in regard to these inquiries.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE:
  1. (1) The last statutory returns were submitted to reflect the financial position of the institution as of 31 December 1960.
  2. (2) The returns referred to purported to show the institution as continuing to comply with the provisions of Section 19 (financial requirements) and Section 20 (limitation of transactions) of the Banking Act. Compliance with the provisions relating to loans and the conduct of business cannot be established from the returns submitted to the Registrar perse.
  3. (3) The institution, on the application by the Registrar, was placed under provisional judicial management by order of the Court on 7 June 1961. The judicial managers will of necessity inquire into the affairs of the institution.
  4. (4) It would be premature to make any statement on the judicial managers’ inquiries at the present stage.
Complaints about Effluents Discharged on Natal South Coast *II. Mr. COPE

asked the Minister of Water Affairs:

Whether any complaints have been received from local authorities and/or residents of the Natal South Coast with regard to the discharge of effluents into the sea; and, if so, (a) what complaints and (b) what steps have been taken to deal with the matter.

The MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS:

Yes;

  1. (a) complaints have been received from residents and local authorities on the Natal South Coast and from the Provincial Administration of Natal, as well as the Members of Parliament concerned, with regard to the pollution of the sea by the effluents of certain industries in the vicinity; and
  2. (b) directions for the prevention of sea pollution have been issued on the recommendations of a steering committee of experts, as a result of which the conditions have improved considerably. However, I intend visiting the area on 4 July 1961 in the company of an expert of the Department of Water Affairs and of the Members of Parliament concerned, in order to view the problem personally, after which I shall pay further attention to the matter.
Total Cost of 1958 General Election *III. Mr. EATON:

(for Mr. E. G. Malan) asked the Minister of the Interior:

  1. (1) (a) What was the estimated total cost to the State of the 1958 general election and (b) what were the costs of (i) the printing of voters’ lists, (ii) the printing of ballot papers and (iii) other printing in connection with the election; and
  2. (2) whether the salaries and allowances of officials who were busy with election work from the day of proclamation, are included in the total cost.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) R149,400;
    2. (b)
      1. (i) R31,200,
      2. (ii) R5,400,
      3. (iii) R 16,800.
  2. (2) Only the salaries of temporary units who were employed for the sole purpose of the general election, are included in the amount mentioned in paragraph (1) (a). With the exception of a few all the officials who were busy with election work from the day of proclamation to polling day, were permanent officials who had to do the work in connection with the election over and above their normal duties. Their salaries for this period were, therefore, not included in the amount mentioned in paragraph (1) (a).
Returning Officers in 1958 General Election *IV. Mr. EATON (for Mr. E. G. Malan)

asked the Minister of the Interior:

  1. (a) How many of the returning officers in constituencies contested in the 1958 general election were officials of his Department;
  2. (b) how many officials were from other Departments, respectively; and
  3. (c) how many were (i) magistrates and (ii) assistant magistrates.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (a) 17.
  2. (b)

Department of Justice i.e. magistrates and assistant magistrates are excluded.

6

Department of Bantu Administration and Development

1

Department of Inland Revenue

2

Department of Social Welfare and Pensions

1

Department of Labour

1

Civil Service Pensioners

2

  1. (c)
    1. (i) 77 magistrates,
    2. (ii) 29 assistant magistrates.

The officials who acted as returning officers in the election of members of the House of Assembly in terms of the Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951, and the election of members of the House of Assembly for the territory of South West Africa, are included in these figures.

Members of Bantu Affairs Commission

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT replied to Question No. *VI, by Mr. E. G. Malan, standing over from 16 June:

Question:
  1. (1) (a) What are the names of the members of the Bantu Affairs Commission, (b) on what date was each appointed and (c) what salaries, allowances and facilities do they receive; and
  2. (2) whether any members have resigned or left the Commission since January 1958; if so, (a) what are their names and (b) for what reasons did they resign or leave.
Reply:

(1) (a), (b) and (c)

J. A. F. Nel—1.6.1958: Full-time member: Salary R3,000 per year.

M. J. van den Berg—1.8.1958: Part-time member: Salary R2,000 per year.

G. F. van L. Froneman—14.9.1960: Part-time member: Salary R2,000 per year.

M. C. Botha—9.11.1960: Deputy Minister and full-time member: No salary as member.

D. T. du P. Viljoen—1.4.1955: Administrator of South West Africa and ex officio member: No salary as member.

Transport is provided for journeys in connection with the exercise of official duties and subsistence and transport allowance of R3.50 is payable in respect of such journeys.

(2) Yes.

(a) and (b)

S. P. Papenfus—on appointment as Commissioner-General.

F. E. Mentz—resigned.

A. T. Spies—on expiry of period of office.

W. A. Maree—on appointment as Minister.

J. A. F. Nel—resigned with effect from 1 July 1961.

Members who resign are not required to furnish reasons.

Railways: Fire in a Passenger Vehicle

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT replied to Question No. *VII, by Dr. de Beer, standing over from 16 June:

Question:
  1. (1) Whether any passenger vehicles of the Railway Administration caught fire in the vicinity of the Addo Park near Port Elizabeth recently; if so, (a) what was the cause of the fire and (b) what was the extent of the damage caused; and
  2. (2) whether anybody was injured in this incident.
Reply:
  1. (1) Yes. A road passenger vehicle caught fire.
    1. (a) The cause of the fire is not yet known. A Board of Inquiry is investigating the incident.
    2. (b) Except for minor charring of paint on the one side of the vehicle there was no damage.
  2. (2) Yes. Two passengers and the driver sustained burns of a minor nature.
Dismissal of Officials for Political Reasons

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR replied to Question No. *IX, by Mr. J. A. L. Basson, standing over from 16 June:

Question:

Whether any officials were dismissed from the Public Service during the past year on account of alleged membership of a political organization or taking active part in political matters; and, if so, (a) what are their names and (b) to which political organizations did they belong?

Reply:

No officers in the administrative, clerical, professional, technical, or general A divisions of the Public Service were so dismissed. Particulars of such dismissals, if any, from the general B division or the services, or of persons employed in a temporary or unclassified capacity are not readily available as these cases are dealt with by individual departments and administrations. It will not be possible to obtain this information before the end of this Session of Parliament.

Discharge of Raw Sewage into the Sea

The MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS replied to Question No. *X, by Mr. H. Lewis, standing over from 16 June:

Question:
  1. (1) Whether he has received an application from the Durban City Council for a permit to discharge raw sewage into the sea off Durban;
  2. (2) whether such a permit has been issued; if not,
  3. (3) whether he will undertake to have an independent investigation made by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research or a similar body into the effect of such discharge on marine life and public health and the pollution of beaches before a decision is made; and, if so,
  4. (4) whether he will make the report of such a body available to members and to interested bodies and persons.
Reply:
  1. (1) No;
  2. (2) consequently falls away;
  3. (3) it is customary practice to consult the South African Bureau of Standards. When firm proposals have been received from the City Council these will be studied in consultation with the South African Bureau of Standards, the Department of Health and Provincial authorities and such conditions will be included in any permit issued, as will safeguard the interests of marine life and public health and will prevent the pollution of beaches; and
  4. (4) the findings and the recommendations resulting from the investigation will be made available to members and interested bodies by the Department of Water Affairs upon request.
UNIT TRUSTS CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL

Bill read a first time.

SOUTH AFRICAN CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT BILL

First Order read: Third Reading,—South African Citizenship Amendment Bill.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.
Mr. MITCHELL:

It will not be necessary for me to detain the House very long on the third reading of this Bill, because I only want to return for a moment to two clauses of the Bill discussed also during the second reading of the Bill and at the Committee Stage, and relating to matters to which the hon. Minister promised to give further attention with a view to putting right in the Other Place what we on this side still believe to be wrong in the Bill. Before dealing specifically with these two clauses, may I just say that we, on this side of the House, accept this Bill because it will have the effect of making it easier for immigrants to come to South Africa and for people to acquire South African citizenship. From that point of view, we welcome the principle of the Bill. But the Bill as it stands—and I come now to the two clauses mentioned —still leaves in doubt the position of children of mixed parentage who may come as immigrants to South Africa. This is one of our objections to the Bill as it stands now. The second provision to which we object is the one which does not permit an appeal to courts of law in respect of Section 13. The Minister has, as I have said, promised to give this matter his further consideration and we appeal to him to consider what will mean a change in the contents of this Bill. We realize that he cannot change the contents in this House now but we ask him to do it in the Other Place, so that the contents of the Bill in its final form shall be different to what it is now in respect of these two particular provisions, namely Clauses 6 and 13. We think that immigrants to South Africa will benefit from such an alteration, but I leave it to the hon. Minister to effect the necessary amendments.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ALIENS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Order read: Third Reading,—Aliens Amendment Bill.

Bill read a third time.

RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

Third Order read: House to go into Committee on Railways and Harbours Acts Amendment Bill.

House in Committee:

On Clause 2,

Mr. EATON:

This clause gives effect to certain changes in the basic pensionable emoluments of Railway servants, and it also enables the results of consolidation to be given full effect to as far as the Pension Acts were concerned. There is one question which I would like to ask the hon. Minister in this regard. namely about the definition of “fixed date”. According to the Bill this date is either—

  1. (a) the first day of April 1961, if on the day immediately preceding the date of his retirement he was an officer or an employee paid on a calender month basis; or
  2. (b) the sixteenth day of March 1961, if on the day immediately preceding the date of his retirement he was an employee other than one referred to in paragraph (a).

I wonder if the Minister could indicate to us in this connection whether the Joint Superannuation Fund Board did at any time recommend that these provisions should be made retrospective so that existing members could get the benefit of the last seven years of their service as was the case with the partial consolidation. If the hon. Minister could clear this point up, it would help a lot.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

It has not yet been finally decided whether anything could be done to assist members in the service who have less than seven years to go. The matter is, however, still being discussed by the Joint Superannuation Fund Committee and I am awaiting the report of that Committee and its recommendation, if any.

Mr. EATON:

If the Joint Superannuation Fund Committee does recommend it, is it then likely that we will have further amendments next year to this Bill?

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Yes, it is possible.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

Mr. GAY:

I would like the hon. Minister to clarify this clause. As I read this clause, it safeguards the rights hitherto vested in the Governor-General, rights in respect of what might be called the private part, as opposed to the naval part, of the harbour at Simonstown. The hon. Minister knows that there have been certain transfers of properties and rights in a portion of that harbour between the Railway Administration and the local authority, transfers of works and buildings and a jetty which impinge upon the area below the high-water mark which is normally vested in the Governor-General under the Seashore Act. Will there be any change in that position under the provisions now in the Bill?

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

In order to meet the position, the Railway Administration is relinquishing jurisdiction over the harbour and intends handing it over to the municipality of Simonstown. That is the purport of this clause. I do not therefore think that there will be any change.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

I move the amendment standing in my name, namely—

In lines 65 and 66, to omit “whether or not the servant concerned knew” and to substitute “notwithstanding that the servant concerned did not know and to add at the end of paragraph (c) of sub-section (2) of the proposed new Section 3bis “including any case where the servant was aware of the overpayment”.

It is the present practice to confine the recovery of overpayments to 12 months where the servant concerned is not aware of the irregularity, but where such servant has been aware of such irregular overpayment, the Department has insisted on full recovery irrespective of the period involved. This amendment is in the interest of clarity and will ensure that where a servant is aware of irregular payments having been made to him, the Department will not be restricted in recovering the overpayments to any specific period.

Mr. DURRANT:

We have no objection to the amendment just moved by the hon. Minister on Clause 12. I would like to move as an amendment—

To add the following proviso at the end of sub-section (1) of the proposed new Section 3bis:
Provided that in the circumstances set forth in paragraph (a) the Administration shall permit the servant concerned to repay the amount recoverable by it under this section from such servant, in monthly instalments over a period which shall not be less than the period over which the irregularly granted increments were paid to such servant.

We feel that it is palpably unfair that when a servant has been overpaid without his knowledge and on the authority of a senior officer, that he should be made to suffer financial hard-snip when recoveries are made from his wages. It is clear from the wording of the clause that where a servant has been overpaid for a period of say 12 months, he can be called upon to pay it back within say two months. That can cause considerable hardship and I think that it would be fair to offer some protection to such servants. The object of my amendment is to give a servant who has received overpayment without his knowledge, an opportunity to repay the amount overpaid over the same period over which he has received it. The amendment is, however, so worded that it will not be binding upon the servant because he still has the discretionary right to say that he will repay the amount overpaid say in six months. From the point of view of morale my amendment is justified because the servant will at least know that he has that protection. I know the hon. Minister will probably say that each such case is properly investigated by welfare officers, but the Railway Administration is a large organization and as is the case will all large organizations there is the personal aspect which can easily give rise to ill-feelings. It is impossible for the Minister or the management to control each individual case, but by the addition of this provision, the staff will at least have the security that when a mistake is made and they are overpaid they will not be called upon to pay for that mistake.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member in regard to the question of the recovery of overpayments, but I will explain why it is not possible for me to accept his amendment. I had the whole matter investigated and I find that if recovery of an amount overpaid to a servant is spread over the same period during which the overpayment has been made, administrative difficulties may arise in that the remaining period of service of the servant concerned may not be sufficient to apply such legislative provisions—in other words, a servant might only have six months to go before retiring from the service whereas recovery would have to be made over a period of 12 months, or where he was aware of the overpayment, for a period of perhaps three years. If the Administration is going to be bound by this provision, administrative difficulties might arise and the Administration might be unable to collect such overpayments, and difficulties and complications might arise with the recovery of the balance still due. What I am, however, prepared to do is to give an assurance that in the application of the new Section 3bis recovery will be effected wherever practicable over a period which shall not be less than the period over which he was erroneously granted increments—in other words, I am prepared to give the assurance to do what the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has suggested, where that is practicable. But the Administration cannot be bound legally by the proposed proviso because it may be impracticable to apply it in certain circumstances. The Administration’s Chief Legal Adviser also considers that the inclusion of such a proviso in the Bill would be cumbersome. The present practice is that in determining the instalments by which an amount overpaid are to be recovered from a servant, such servant’s marital status, the size of his family, his rate of pay and financial position, the length of service before reaching the age limit, and other factors are taken into consideration. In the majority of cases, moreover, the servant concerned is asked to give an indication of what instalment he can afford and, if at all possible, recovery is made accordingly. In short, all cases are treated sympathetically. So that we go even further at present than what the hon. member asks for in his amendment, namely we ask the servant what he can afford to pay and the actual instalment might even be less than it would have been had he been required to repay over the period during which the overpayments were made.

*Mr. P. J. COETZEE:

I want to point out that where there is an overpayment the fault surely lies with the staff in the offices. It is due to carelessness on their part and if the employee was unaware of the fact that there was an overpayment, is it reasonable to hold him responsible for repaying money which was paid to him due to the carelessness of the staff? I do not think that is right. We have the same position in the Department of Pensions. Overpayments are also made to our old people in respect of their pensions and then it is subsequently deducted with the result that those people suffer. The same applies to the railway worker. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what happens in the office; are those people called to account when they are careless?

*The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

I agree with the hon. member that it sounds unfair that when a person has been overpaid for a certain period and he was unaware of it, that the money should be recovered from him. That is why we have the provision that money can only be recovered in respect of the preceding 12 months, although he may have been overpaid for a period of three years. But the fact remains that he has received money to which he is not entitled and which was not due to him. That is the position. If anybody, for example, receives stolen goods and he is unaware of it that it is stolen goods, it does not mean that he can retain those goods when the theft is discovered.

*Mr. P. J. COETZEE:

Quite right.

*The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

This is a case where the person was not entitled to the money which he had received. That is why he must repay it but we limit it to a period of 12 months from the date on which the mistake is discovered. As far as the officials who are responsible are concerned, if it is proved that there was negligence on their part action is taken against them under the disciplinary regulations and they are punished.

*Mr. P. J. COETZEE:

That was what I wanted to know.

*The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

That is done. If it is found that it was due to pure carelessness or inefficiency, that person is charged under the disciplinary regulations and punished.

Mr. DURRANT:

I must frankly admit that the point raised by the hon. the Minister in the case of servants who have been overpaid and have a certain period of service left to them which is limited, would obviously not be covered by this provision. I must admit that that point did not occur to me when I moved my amendment. I am happy to accept the assurance of the hon. the Minister in this regard, and I hope that that assurance will be conveyed to the General Manager’s office so that that information can be conveyed to the staff through the usual staff circulars and that it will not remain merely an assurance given in this House. With that remark I would ask leave of the Committee to withdraw my amendment.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Durrant was withdrawn.

Mr. EATON:

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

In lines 18 and 19, page 10, to omit “three years” and to substitute “one year”.

This amendment to Clause 12 is, I think, easy to follow. Clause 12 (3)bis deals with the recovery from the salary or wages of servants of increments irregularly granted. The amendment which I have moved will enable subsection (2) (a) to read this way—

… entitle the Administration to recover from the servant or former servant concerned any amount which was paid to him more than one year …

in place of three years—

… prior to the date on which the erroneous granting of such increment was officially brought to the notice of …

The effect of this amendment is that the treatment of the servants will be on a parallel basis. At present if they are underpaid for a period of three years they can only recover their underpayments for a period of one year. That is in terms of the present Act. The Bill as it now is will entitle the Minister to go back three years in respect of overpayments, and I think it is only right that the treatment should be the same whether there is underpayment or overpayment. It is for that reason I have moved this amendment. I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accepting it.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

I have no objection to that amendment and I am prepared to accept it.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Transport and Mr. Eaton put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 23,

Mr. DURRANT:

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I do not feel quite so happy about the amendment he proposes here in respect of the Level Crossing Act of last year. The effect of the amendment to the original Act that the Minister here suggests, is that when it is proposed to extend any bridges over any railway lines, or to widen them as a result of railway necessities, those additional works will be financed out of the Level Crossing Fund. As I read it that is the effect of this amendment. Now I do not think that that is a healthy policy, particularly when regard is had to the objective for which the Level Crossing Act was established. That Act was introduced for the purpose of speeding up the elimination of dangerous level crossings. But the effect of this amendment will be that wherever the Administration wishes to double any of its tracks, and consequently the bridges concerned, instead of financing that work from capital funds of the Administration, the Administration now proposes to finance those works from the Level Crossing Fund. That will mean that less money will be available for the elimination of level crossings. I ask the hon. the Minister whether that is a healthy policy? This looks to me to be a sort of back door approach to financing capital works of the Railway Administration from the Level Crossing Fund. Surely once a bridge has been built in order to eliminate a level crossing in terms of the planning of the Railway Administration, if, as a result of further development of railway traffic in later years it is found that that bridge has to be extended, that additional capital work should be financed by the Railways themselves. Obviously the effect of this will be that less money will be available for the elimination of dangerous level crossings. Is it healthy that we should embark on financial procedure of this nature whereby funds are taken from the Level Crossing Fund which has been established for the specific purpose of eliminating as soon as possible dangerous level crossings, and to use those funds in order to finance additional capital works for the Railway Administration? I put that point to the hon. the Minister and I should appreciate a reply from him as to why this procedure is now being adopted.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

The point that the hon. member has made is a good one, but I would point out that all I am now doing is to place the Railway Administration on the same basis as a local authority and a Provincial Administration. What happens in practice is this: It might be decided to build a bridge to eliminate a level crossing. At the present time the road traffic necessitates a narrow bridge only, but the local authorities know that in five or ten years’ time the road traffic at that point will increase to such an extent that a wider bridge will be necessary. When planning that bridge in terms of engineering designs, instead of planning it to provide for only present-day requirements, it is planned for future requirements. In other words, the wider bridge is not absolutely necessary at this stage. That wider bridge is financed out of the fund, so that all I am doing is to place the Railway Administration on the same basis. In other words, a bridge might be required for, say, a single line only at the present time, but the Administration knows that the traffic will increase to such an extent that in five or ten years’, time a double line will be necessary. Therefore, instead of building that narrow bridge now and making provision for a single line, the bridge is lengthened in order to provide for the future doubling of the lines. Formerly, under the parent Act, the Administration had to bear those costs, whereas the local authorities’ costs were paid out of the fund. As the Administration is a contributor on the same basis as the other authorities, we consider it is only fair that the Railway Administration should be placed on the same basis so that where the normal engineering planning requirements are for a wider or a longer bridge for the future, that that should be defrayed out of the Level Crossing Fund.

Mr. DURRANT:

I thank the hon. the Minister for that explanation, but can we perhaps follow the same procedure of getting a further assurance from the hon. the Minister similar to the one we received on an earlier clause? As I understand the hon. the Minister’s explanation, this will only apply in casts where it is decided to embark upon the elimination of a particular crossing. Therefore the money that will be used in terms of this provision will be for the elimination of that crossing plus additional requirements over and above what is actually necessary in terms of to-day’s traffic. Can I therefore have the assurance of the hon. the Minister that these moneys will not be used for later development once the original structure has been erected, and that the financing of those additional structures …

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

But the provisions of the whole Act are against that. This is only for the elimination of new level crossings.

Mr. DURRANT:

That may be correct, but this is an amendment to the Act …

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

No, the Bill as a whole provides only for the elimination of level crossings after a list has been compiled by the Committee. So that old structures that have already been built cannot be financed out of this fund.

Mr. DURRANT:

That is correct, but the way this clause is worded it does not read that way.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

This clause has to be read in conjunction with the other clauses of the Bill.

Mr. DURRANT:

I accept that, Sir. I am not quite sure of the legal aspect, but as I read the clause, this is the effect.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Standing by itself, yes.

Mr. DURRANT:

If the hon. the Minister will assure me that there is no intention to finance normal capital development from the Level Crossing Elimination Fund, I accept that.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

That is the position.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

Mr. EATON:

I dealt with Clause 24 at the second reading, and the hon. the Minister gave an explanation of the reason for the necessity to validate certain regulations which were passed as far back as 1956. I asked the hon. the Minister whether it was not possible to introduce a little streamlining in the control of the regulations which are agreed to and which are eventually put into effect; so that immediately a regulation is agreed to and becomes effective the necessary authority will be obtained from the State President to give effect to it. In most cases where these regulations are introduced in respect of payment, it is of benefit to the railway servants that they go through. One cannot envisage any action being taken against a servant because of a regulation being found to be ultra vires because it has not received the consent of the State President. But I am thinking more of regulations in terms of the Disciplinary Code. We might find that an amendment to the regulations in respect of appeal board procedure, where a servant is charged for some offence and where that servant’s defence can prove that the charge is incorrect because the regulations have not been approved of by the State President. I ask the Minister, if a regulation is agreed to and is put into effect, that there should be a streamlining of the procedure to make quite sure that at that point the regulation is submitted to the State President for approval in order to avoid the sort of thing I have mentioned. It does provide an escape for somebody who may be guilty of a very serious charge of misconduct. I feel that it is necessary that regulations do receive the approval of the State President as soon as possible.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

I can only say that that is the intention and the desire, that that should be done whenever practicable. But it does happen on occasion that it is found to be impracticable, and in those circumstances we have to come and ask for validation. But where it is in any way possible to do so, I agree with the hon. member that it should be done.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedule and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Amendments in Clause 12 considered, put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS SECOND ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION BILL

Fourth Order read: Second reading,—Railways and Harbours Second Additional Appropriation Bill.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.
Mr. DURRANT:

I do not wish to prolong discussion on this Bill because we had a very full discussion of its subject matter on the motion to go into Committee of Supply. However, we stand by our contention made in the course of that debate, that we think it quite a wrong practice that new items of the nature included in these Estimates should appear here and not in the Brown Book, particularly if they are items which fall under the general planning programme of the Railway Administration which is discussed every year by this House. We concur that when it comes to urgent works which have to be completed in a particular year or have to be started immediately, there is a good reason for putting them in hand. But when we get a long list of items accounting for some £22,000,000 to £25,000,000 of railway expenditure, we think this is the incorrect procedure to follow. I took the opportunity of looking up Kilpin on this subject, and it seems to me, from his interpretation of the objects of Additional Estimates, that they are to finance work for a particular financial year but not for succeeding years.

Mr. EATON:

On the Motion to go into Committee on this particular Bill, I raised the principle of enhancement of pay for overtime work, and the Minister indicated that this provision, as far as the Administration and the Staff Associations were concerned, had not been agreed to. However he accepted in principle the policy of enhanced payment for overtime. He said that he hoped that some time in the future that principle would be re-introduced into the service of the Administration. We fought this issue out earlier in the year, and I am not altogether happy about the position, but in view of the fact that the Staff Associations have accepted this position to get the full benefits of consolidation, and that they have accepted it as a temporary measure, I do hope that the finances of the Railways will be sufficiently buoyant in the very near future to enable the Minister to re-introduce enhanced payment for overtime, which is, I think, a principle which should be applied throughout. The present position should not be allowed to develop and create a precedent for others to follow to the detriment of the workers generally.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read for second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Schedules and Title of the Bill, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendments.

EXPORT CREDIT RE-INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL

Second Order read: Second Reading,—Export Credit Re-Insurance Amendment Bill.

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members of this House know, the Export Credit Re-Insurance Act of 1957 provides that the Government may reinsure exports to countries outside the Union and the losses on such exports when those losses are occasioned by political factors. The insurance usually covers a percentage of the amount. It may not cover more than 90 per cent of the loss and in actual fact it covers approximately 60 per cent to 90 per cent and the maximum period is five years. Furthermore, hon. members are aware of the conditions which have to obtain for an amount to be paid out under this re-insurance scheme. In order to refresh their memories I want to read out the items set out in Section 2 of the Export Credit Re-Insurance Act of 1957. It reads—

  1. (a) the operation of a law, or of any order, a decree or regulation having the force of law, which in circumstances beyond the control of the insured and of the buyer—
    1. (i) prevents, restricts or controls the transfer of payments from the buyer’s country to the Union; or
    2. (ii) prevents, restricts or controls the importation of goods into the buyer’s country;
  2. (b) the occurrence of war between the buyer’s country and the Union or any other country;
  3. (c) the occurrence of war, hostilities, civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, or other disturbances in the buyer’s country; or
  4. (d) such other causes as the Minister may, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, deem to arise from risks not normally insurable.

Those are the political factors in respect of which the Government may re-insure exports to other countries. The types of goods that may be re-insured are listed in Section 1 of the Act, and this is where the difficulty lies. The types of goods which are included in trade with countries outside the Union are dealt with, inter alia, in Section 1 (ix) which reads as follows—

(ix) “trade with countries outside the Union” includes any transaction (including a transaction for the rendering of service) involving a consideration in money or money’s worth accruing from a person in the course of carrying on business or other activities outside the Union to a person carrying on business in the Union.

The difficulty that now arises is that it would seem that certain types of goods which are exported to countries outside the Union are not covered by the existing Act. In the past goods exported from the Union and sent to agents and goods sent abroad on consignment were re-insured under the Act. Here I am thinking particularly of our deciduous and citrus fruit which is exported either to agents or on consignment and which is re-insured under this Act. Our legal advisers, however, have some doubt as to whether we can insure goods of that type. They feel that there must be an actual sale, that an agreement of sale must be entered into between the importer in the other country and the local exporter before goods of this type can be re-insured. It is necessary to get clarity on this point in view of the fact that those goods have been re-insured in the past and we will also continue in the future to re-insure under the Act goods which are sent abroad to agents or on consignment. It is necessary to clear up this matter and that is why we wish to bring about this minor amendment as well as a consequential amendment which will state the law clearly. No new principle is involved in this Bill.

Mr. WATERSON:

The object of this Bill as I understand it from the hon. the Minister is to fill a gap in the original drafting, and to make it clear that the original intentions of the Act can now be carried out. On that basis we have no objection to it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read for the second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL

Sixth Order read: Second Reading,—Industrial Development Amendment Bill.

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is similar to the one which I moved some time ago in connection with the Iron and Steel Corporation. The main object of this Bill is, in the first place, to increase the directorate of the I.D.C. from seven to nine members. The reasons are more or less the same as in the previous case, namely the tremendous increase in the activities of the I.D.C. It is not necessary for me to remind hon. members that when the I.D.C. started in 1941, it had a total capital of approximately £500,000. To-day they have a total capital of R117,000,000. If hon. members had taken note of the recent expenditure of the I.D.C. they would have noticed what a tremendous variety of interests were served by the I.D.C. and I think it is in the interests of the Corporation that its directorate be increased so that they may specialize in more directions, and so that a greater variety of interests may be represented on their directorate. That is the main object of this Bill. There are two further minor matters. The one is a purely technical matter, namely to substitute “Minister of Economic Affairs” for “Minister of Trade and Industry”. The second small amendment is to enable the I.D.C. to act as trustees for debenture-holders when debentures are registered. In the past the I.D.C. has acted as trustees for debenture-holders when debentures were registered. But recently there was a case in Natal where the Deeds Office doubted whether the I.D.C. had the power under the Act to act in this capacity. As in the case of the previous Act, the interpretation is that the I.D.C. does have that right. They have done it in the past and they wish to retain the right to do so in future as part of their activities. I suggest, therefore, that this be stated clearly in the Act.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

We have no objection to this Bill. We have already accepted the same principle when the hon. the Minister introduced the Iron and Steel Bill. We do however regret that we will not have an opportunity of discussing more fully the activities of the Industrial Development Corporation. There are a number of questions we would like to ask the hon. the Minister. We had no time during the Committee of Supply to do that and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us an opportunity next session to discuss fully the Industrial Development Corporation which is playing such an important role in industry and commerce in this country. I hope that the Minister will see to it that such an opportunity is given to this House in order that we may discuss the ramifications of this very large organization.

Mr. MOORE:

I should like to endorse what the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has said. This is not the opportunity to enter into a long discussion on the ramifications of the finances of the Industrial Development Corporation, but there are certain things, now that we have additional members of the directorate, to which we should give our attention. We have a vague idea—only a vague idea—as to how the money of this Development Corporation is invested. Then, when Amato crashed as they did, we found that the Industrial Development Corporation was involved.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order!

Mr. MOORE:

I am not going to discuss these, Mr. Speaker, I am merely mentioning them. We now find the Industrial Development Corporation is entering into shipping in a big way. I simply ask the hon. the Minister this question: Will he please let us know how public money is being invested? It is surely the duty of Parliament to know that. I should like the hon. the Minister to give that his very serious consideration, now that he is receiving these extra directors. It is unfair to the Minister of Finance; it is unfair to this House; and it is unfair to the country that we should be treated in this stepmotherly way.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

APPROPRIATION BILL

Seventh Order read: Second reading,—Appropriation Bill.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity presented by the second reading of the Appropriation Bill, which gives effect to the resolutions of the Committee of Supply and which is therefore the most important fiscal measure for the present financial year, to enlighten the House as to the budgetary position as I see it to-day. In my Budget speech in March I estimated the surplus on Revenue Account for the year 1960-1 at R38,000,000. The final figures are not yet available but according to the latest figures the surplus will be approximately half a million rand more. When I drew up my Budget I made allowance for a small reduction of imports and consequently also for a reduction of import duties in comparison with 1960-1 but not to the extent to which it now seems necessary as a result of the recent tightening of import control. On the other hand, the revised figures in respect of Inland Revenue collections during 1960-1 show that possibly we were rather conservative in our estimates for 1961-2. The net result, however, may be that our total revenue may be less than I anticipated, and the Treasury will therefore have to be very strict when considering applications by Departments for additional funds in the course of the year.

On Loan Account we started the year with a considerable unexpected surplus of R26,500,000, mainly as a result of the fact that the requirements of the Railway Administration were much less during 1960-1 than we had expected. On the other hand it now appears that it will be much more difficult than I expected to raise sufficient long-term loans internally to redeem local stocks in the sum of R128,500,000. Only R43,000,000 of the first loan of R75,500,000 which is repayable on 1 June, has been converted into new loans, and present indications are that new cash subscriptions will be insufficient to make up for the shortfall of approximately R30,000,000. If, however, the balance of payments position improves, as I expect, it is possible that the present tightness in the capital market may be eased and that when the two further loans totalling approximately R50,000,000 have to be converted later this year, we shall then be able to raise additional long-term loans. Here too, however, it is clear that the Treasury will have to be exceptionally careful and strict in considering departmental requests for further funds on Loan Account.

Mr. Speaker, I confine myself to this succinct exposition of the financial position. I will have an opportunity at a later stage to deal at greater length with specific matters of policy but I am always mindful of President Kruger’s words that it is often wiser to wait for the tortoise to put out its head.

Mr. WATERSON:

Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the hon. the Minister for deciding to wait, and as far as the tortoise sticking out his neck is concerned let me say at once that my immediate reaction to the Minister’s speech is to move the following amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House declines to pass the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill because, inter alia, the Government by pursuing its racial policies—
  1. (a) is responsible for the alarming decline in the country’s economy; and
  2. (b) is making it impossible to restore the expansion and rate of advance which is vitally necessary for the maintenance and increase in the national income and the standard of living of all races through the development of our natural resources to their fullest extent”.

Sir, as the Minister said, this is probably the most important Bill of the Session, providing as it proposes to do for the financing of the country during the coming year. The Minister has given a summary of how the budgetary position has developed since he introduced the Estimates, so this is the conclusion really of a series of discussions and debates on the budgetary position, and I think it is necessary in a very few words just to sum up the position as it was presented to the country by the hon. the hon. the Minister in his Budget on 15 March.

On that occasion you will remember, Sir, the hon. the Minister told us. that our economy showed “a sparkling health and vitality”. He told us that his main problem was the balance of payments difficulty, which he described as an old weakness. He said that as the result of the fall in reserves, the outflow of capital during past months, there had been a considerable fall in bank liquidity and the general credit position and he told us that in order to offset that position the Government had taken steps to maintain the credit position generally as far as possible. He told us that the Government had lent the banks some R51,000,000 on a short-term basis, and he told us that he had reduced the cash deposits which the commercial banks have to lodge with the Reserve Bank to 6 per cent, and he told us that he had kept the bank rate down, and that he thought the then pattern of interest rates was satisfactory and suitable to the country. In a few words, he told us that the object of his Budget was to encourage capital development, domestic savings and capital investment, to conserve foreign credit and to attract foreign capital, and he assured the House that he was firmly convinced that if his Budget proposals were faithfully followed and they were not affected by what he called economic gales from abroad, this year would be a year in which our economy would reach new heights. That was the picture presented by the Minister three short months ago. It is true that he did then, and has since, expressed some forebodings as to what the future held, but the official picture presented by him on behalf of the Government was. that we have an economy full of sparkling health and vitality and that he looked forward to reaching new heights in the development of our economy during the coming year. One is bound to ask what the picture is now.

Our reserves have continued to fall from R194,000,000 then to some R147,000,000 last week, an amount of about R47,000,000, in spite of certain special payments which the Treasury has received from abroad. As a consequence the Minister has been compelled since 15 March to reverse his whole policy. During the whole of last year while the position was deteriorating the Government’s policy was to expand, or if not to expand, at any rate to do all it could to maintain the credit facilities and the bank liquidity which are essential for the normal working of the whole economy of the country. In reversing that policy he has recalled the short-term Government loans, which was of course inevitable. He has increased the bank rate, which has led to a general upward revision of interest rates in all sections of the economy. He has increased again, instead of reducing, the cash reserves that the commercial banks have to keep with the Reserve Bank. I understand that he is likely to increase it still further as soon as he is able to do so. He has imposed severe currency restrictions which may have had some effect of reducing the outflow of capital but which has certainly also had an effect on restricting legitimate business. The buying of forward currency to meet future commitments, especially capital commitments, the giving of irrevocable letters of credit to cover deliveries, whether they are of consumer goods or of capital machinery and plant, are normal prudent steps taken by any sensible business concern which is able to do so, and to cut those off is a very serious interference indeed with the normal functioning of the economy of the country. He has in addition to that imposed severe import control and he has put on a larger number of new duties, some of which affect the industrial affairs of the country in that they are raw materials or manufactured goods, sometimes, used in things like the building industry. He has, with his colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, tried to cushion that with a system of rebates and suspended duties which make it very difficult indeed for the ordinary business man to do proper costing or to present proper tenders for work for which he hopes to get a contract. Then, of course, last Friday the Minister made this statement in regard to further restrictions. This statement, which was made quite unexpectedly on Friday evening, is the most drastic step so far that the Minister has felt compelled to take to preserve the financial stability of the country. In the first place, South African citizens are now prohibited from buying South African and Rhodesian securities on the London and Bulawayo stock exchanges. Apart from the importance of that, it seems to me to indicate very clearly what a topsy-turvy world we are living in. Last year, when the outflow of capital took place on a large scale, the Minister was at pains to explain to the House that this had its bright side, that as the result of patriotic South Africans buying up South African shares from abroad, the money was now in the country and strengthened our economy. In the beginning of this year the hon. the Prime Minister eulogized that practice. Talking of the outward flow of capital, he said that these “two phenomena have their credit side in that South Africa has acquired possession at low prices of valuable domestic shares, with the result that the dividends can be kept for our own fatherland and we can reap the profits”. You see, Sir, we have this extraordinary position that in January patriotic citizens were applauded by the hon. the Prime Minister for buying South African shares to strengthen our economy, but in June it is a crime accompanied by heavy penalties to do so. Nothing can be more clearly indicative of the change that has come over the country than these new restrictions the Minister has imposed.

The second main restriction, of course, is that the proceeds of securities—and may I say that it is not quite clear what the Minister means by “securities I think there is a certain amount of doubt in the minds of people as to what he means by it, whether it includes securities of all kinds, including bonds and mortgage bonds or even cash actually held by the banks here from overseas people, and I hope the Minister will clarify that when he replies to the debate. Anyway, the proceeds of securities sold in South Africa by non-residents will be blocked. That means that the overseas investor cannot get his money out of the country, and the effect of course will be that there will be no more private investment capital coming to this country from overseas, and thereby one of the main objects of the Minister’s Budget of three months ago, i.e. to attract foreign capital, is now being scrapped and made impossible by his own actions. There are certain works and undertakings in the course of erection in this country, and I suppose those concerns will have to complete them, but the prospect of any new investment capital coming to this country seems to have disappeared completely. There is no doubt that last Friday evening South Africa’s credit dropped with a bang. The hon. the Minister referred to the International Monetary Fund and said that he had discussed this matter intensively with the represents of the Fund when they were here recently. Well, the only inference that one can draw from his reference to the Fund and his statement that intensive discussion took place is this, that in introducing these restrictions, which the Minister himself has said he regrets very much having to do, he was acting on instructions from the International Monetary Fund as a condition precedent to obtaining the R27,000,000 for which he has applied. In other words, this country, which always prided itself on its strong financial position and its standing in the international money world, is now reduced to accepting conditions from the International Monetary Fund for the acceptance of a paltry loan of R27,000,000. What a position to be in! So, you see, Mr. Speaker, that in all the steps the Minister has had to take, he has had to reverse his whole policy of encouraging expansion, as he would have liked to do, and now he has a policy of contraction and restriction in an endeavour to prevent further deterioration, and he has landed us in what the economists meant when they spoke about South Africa preparing for a siege economy. Of course the results of these steps are already being seen, although not anything like the extent to which they will be seen in the near future. We have dearer money and less of it. The building society rates are up, which will affect every small bond-holder in the country, if not in the amount of interest he has to pay then in his period of redemption which will have to be lengthened to enable him to cope. The property market all over the country is moribund. Overdraft facilities and bonds are virtually unobtainable. Commerce, what with import control and currency restrictions and the growing contraction of credit throughout the country, is in a state of uncertainty. Retrenchment is being foreseen in many branches, of industry. I am sure the Minister can find out from his colleague behind him that what I say is true, and if they do not know I myself could give him instances of where retrenchment is being foreseen and feared, and other hon. members of this House can do the same.

Incidentally, the hon. the Prime Minister has done his best to add to the general uncertainty and bewilderment in the country by the way he has handled this question of a general election. From his flippant reply to the Chief Whip here a few days ago in the House, it is quite clear that he does not understand that a general election causes a good deal of uncertainty in the country, and the way he handled the matter when he replied to the Chief Whip gave me the impression that the hon. the Prime Minister has no conception of the state of affairs in which he has landed the country. There is no doubt that the past three months have seen a marked and startling deterioration in the economic and financial position of the country, and that the Minister’s hope of reaching new economic heights showed no sign whatever of being fulfilled. Indeed, if we read again the Minister’s speech in March, it reads like a pipe-dream. On the contrary, if we go on as we are doing to-day there is no doubt that we are heading for a very serious position indeed, because all these restrictions and contractions, and all these brakes on the economy of the country, must have a snowballing effect; they grow and grow until they reach every section of the community, and the position becomes critical for the whole country.

I regret having to move this amendment, because I think the position is so threatening for the whole country that it would be much better if it was not necessary to move an amendment of this sort, indicating that the Government is proving completely incapable of handling the position. I think unfortunately this amendment is the only way we have of trying to make hon. members opposite realize the responsibility that rests on their shoulders, because if we go on in the way we have been doing, and I must say that the hon. the Minister will agree that I am not generally regarded as being unduly optimistic in respect of his doings, but I have been surprised at the speed at which the position has altered in this short three months since the Budget speech was made. If we go on as we are doing now, and if the pace of the recession continues, before very long it will not be a question of what the Government can do but a question of all hands to the pump in order to try to save ourselves from running on the rocks. It may be that the Minister’s steps he has taken to stop the outflow of capital will be effective. I hope they will be. I do not think he has gone far enough yet, but I hope they will be effective because it is vitally important that this financial haemorrhage which has been taking place over the past year should be stopped without, if possible, further imperilling our credit.

The hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) usually comes into these debates and usually devotes himself to telling us what difficulties other countries are having. He tells us of the difficulties Canada, Australia and Britain are having, as if that had anything to do with us. We all know that those countries are having difficulties, but we all know that the causes of those difficulties are quite different from the causes of ours. I hope that if the hon. member for Bellville takes part in this debate he will devote his intellect to telling us what we are to do in this country and let him leave the other countries to settle their own troubles.

The South African pound has always been a strong currency, probably one of the strongest in the sterling area. One cannot say that to-day. There is talk of a possible debasement of our currency, devaluation. It is true that the hon. the Minister issued an emphatic denial that such a thing is contemplated or will be done, but when you look back at the number of strong denials the Minister has made before that there will be no restriction on the repatriation of capital, he will permit us to say that we doubt what value can be attached to his statement, although I concede that it is a statement a Minister of Finance is bound to make. But it is an indication of the way in which things are moving.

I also hope that the Minister will get his loan of R27,000,000 from the Monetary Fund. After the way he has toed the line, I think he probably will, but what will he do if he does not get that loan? Presumably he has an alternative, because for South Africa to be unable to meet its commitments overseas will just about be the last straw, and I hope that if the Minister is unable to tell us that he has got approval of this loan he will be able to give the country some assurance that if that loan is refused it will not be dealing a fatal blow to the credit and the standing of South Africa overseas. But assuming the Minister succeeds in what he is doing—and I hope he will succeed—what has he achieved? He will have cured nothing of the conditions from which we are suffering. He will have achieved the stoppage of the outflow of capital and he will have achieved the obtaining of a comparatively short-term loan from the Monetary Fund, but he will have succeeded at the unbelievably high price of a curtailed and restricted and a shaken economy. The Minister spoke to us about reaching economic heights. It is common cause that if we are to make full use of the opportunities for expansion and development and increasing the wealth of the country, we need at least some R50,000,000 a year from abroad for private investment purposes. In the restrictions that the Minister has imposed it would appear that he has abandoned any hope of any inflow of foreign private investment capital, and one asks where this money is to come from? It is no good blaming the Press or the United Party for the position with which the Minister is faced at present. The facts are staring us in the face. The difficulty is that the Government still refuses to face them. For the last 12 years we have never ceased warning the Government of the inevitable results of the path they were following. We have often warned them and offered to co-operate with them if they would stick to economic questions and bread and butter matters affecting the welfare of the country. We have done all we could to open their eyes, instead of which they have continued over 12 years frittering away our golden oportunities whilst they played party politics, scorning the goodwill which we had acquired and blandly assuming that it was indestructible, and recklessly imperilling the confidence that the rest of the world had in us and in our financial institutions and in the strength of our economy. All the time that we warned them they have been heading steadily towards isolation. Well, now we have it. We stand alone, and we stand alone at a time when our whole financial and economic fabric are shaken and are bewildered and have no clear view of the future. We stand alone at a time when we are threatened with the loss of South West Africa, and we are threatened with even worse than the loss of South West. I am not going into further details, but the Government knows very well what those further threats are. At the moment the Minister of Economic Development is puzzling his head over the question of the European Common Market. He made a statement last week saying that he was watching the position closely. I am afraid that is very poor consolation, because it is quite apparent that the United Kingdom, by economic circumstances, is being slowly compelled to join the E.C.G., and if she does the other members of E.F.T.A. will do the same thing and you will have a big economic bloc for the whole of Western Europe. What has held the United Kingdom back so far has been the question of Commonwealth preferences. As we have seen in the Press, the U.K. Government is now sending Ministers abroad to discuss with members of the Commonwealth way? and means of preserving for those members of the Commonwealth some measure of preferences in the event of Great Britain joining the Common Market. Of course that does not apply to us. If Great Britain joins the Common Market our preferences go. We have already had a slight indication of the problems in the sugar industry. That industry is desperately worried. They have been left out of the United States purchases of sugar to replace the sugar that they got from Cuba. They have an export quota which they enjoy under the Commonwealth sugar agreement and they are very much afraid that they are going to be excluded from that Commonwealth sugar agreement and if they are, of course, since the price which they are obtaining under that agreement is several pounds a ton more than the domestic price of sugar, it means that the domestic price of sugar will have to be increased throughout the country to make up the loss of the sugar industry and of course that will affect the whole of the canning and jam industries. If preferences go and if at the same time the costs of canning in this country go up as a result of the increase in the price of sugar, it simply means that the whole of our canning industry is going to collapse except in the internal market. That is just an indication of the things that are looming up that we will have to deal with in the near future. What is the Government going to do? The fact is that this little Republic of ours cannot stand alone—strategically, politically, financially, economically. Without friends—and we have good would-be friends in different parts of the world if we would only give them a chance to be our friends—without friends and without active supporters no country can survive and nor can we. This European Common Market is a case in point. All over the world to-day countries are forming into blocs and combines and groupings for their own protection and for their own economic interests. That is why Britain is being compelled to join the Common Market, and the question is where do we find friends with whom we can work? I say “we” because whether you like the Republic or not we are all members of that Republic; we are all subjects of it and we all have a common concern to see that it is a Republic in which we can all live in peace and security and, I hope, prosperity. That is the question lying at the bottom of all the problems which the Minister is having to face, that he is having to face as far as I can see, without any idea of how he is going to solve them, and it is a problem Which has been created and aggravated by the pig-headed refusal of this Government to face ineluctable facts. Sir, the second part of my amendment reads like this—

The Government is making it impossible to restore the expansion of the rate of advance which is vitally necessary for the maintenance and the increase in the national income and the standard of living of all races through the development of our natural resources to their fullest extent.

Nobody in this House will question the fact that what is implied in that part of my amendment is absolutely vital if we are to progress in this country, to raise the standard of living, to increase our wealth and to develop the enormous resources with which Providence has blessed us. I say that a government that cannot hold out concrete hopes and concrete plans whereby the country can reasonably expect in the near future that this development can be resumed, has no right to remain the Government of this country. I think that the lesson, the message, of the last three months is this, that the Republic is moving into great danger and I do not believe that this Government can save it. I think the moment of truth is approaching very rapidly for South Africa, and I charge this Government first of all with completely failing to warn the people of what is threatening or of opening their eyes to the dangers which are massing up in front of us and I charge them too with doing nothing either to meet the threats or to avert the threats if and when they come and therefore I wish to move this amendment as a mark of no confidence in the Government.

Mr. DE KOCK:

I second the amendment.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has made his customary speech this morning.

*An HON. MEMBER:

A good speech.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

The hon. member says that he has made a good speech. In other words, here we have one of his own supporters saying that in the past he has made bad speeches. The hon. member for Constantia has once again linked the question of this party’s racial policy to our economic policy and he wants us to change our racial policy so that our economic policy will meet his and the United Party’s wishes. This is a matter about which we have had much to say in the past 13 years. The National Party is determined to implement its racial policy, and it regards the economic pressure which may be exercised on it from time to time in an attempt to change that racial policy, as a cold war and as far as that cold war is concerned, it is prepared to play its part and not to give way. When we discuss economic matters, the House must accept that this Government has been elected to implement this racial policy, and it is going to do so even if it results in possible temporary setbacks in the economic field, as the hon. member claims. I do not think that it will cause such serious setbacks as the hon. member claims. We must accept that pressure is being exerted by people who think that by so doing they can achieve certain objects in spheres other than the economic sphere. We see this everywhere in Africa. Throughout Africa to-day we see that the outside world does not have the required confidence to invest in African countries. To the north of us economic conditions are to a large extent chaotic. In Rhodesia they are also trying to exercise pressure to persuade Welensky to do this or that and then everything will supposedly go well with Rhodesia, but Welensky is refusing just as we are refusing. I say that hon. members opposite want us to change our racial policy to fit in with an economic policy which will suit them. But even if we were to change our racial policy in South Africa and even if we were to do everything which the leftist-inclined liberals of the world want us to do, Europe and America will still say that South Africa only forms part of Africa and that it will be dangerous to invest their money here. I am not quite as pessimistic as the hon. member for Constantia. I am perhaps even more optimistic than the hon. the Minister. I think that our position in South Africa is by no means as weak as the hon. member infers from the measures the hon. member announced here last week. Let us just examine for a few moments what our economic position is to-day. I am now referring more specifically to foreign exchange and related matters. We find that we have a favourable balance of trade, and we have had this throughout. South Africa does not have any balance of trade problems. The problems with which we are faced are capital problems, problems of capital outflow, and I want to give figures to prove this. In 1959 we had a trading surplus of R128,000,000, in 1960 of R30,000,000, and in the first five months of this year a surplus of no less than R178,000,000. When one examines these figures and one also examines what certain economists have said, namely that South Africa should get away from the idea that she must obtain money from abroad to be able to develop, then I wonder whether we are not suffering from the growing pains involved in our development towards becoming a creditor country. I saw the other day that an expert—I almost think it was the brother of the Leader of the Opposition—said that we could redeem foreign investments to the value of R100,000,000 annually in South Africa and that it would not weaken our economy. I do not want to go into that aspect, because I do not think it is relevant; I am merely mentioning it.

A second phenomenon which we must bear in mind is the fact that every year, except when something exceptional happens, we have a fall in our foreign reserves during the period January to June/July/August, and we had the same position under the United Party. This is a fact which has become traditional in South Africa.

*An HON. MEMBER:

If that is so, why have these restrictions been introduced this year?

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

I wish the hon. member would make his own speech later on; I am now making mine. The point is that every year we have this seasonal fall in our foreign exchange reserves. Let us examine a number of past years: On 1 January 1947, our assets stood at R496.6 million. On 30 June they stood at R400,000,000, a fall of R96,000,000; in 1948 there was a fall of R167 3 million; in 1949 a fall of R82.1 million; and in 1951, when we had the tremendous rise in wool prices (wool to the value of £93,000,000 was sold in that year), we had a fall of R11.9 million. The figures for the following years were R30.6 million; in 1953, R52.8 million; in 1955, R54.3 million; in 1958, R51.8 million; and in 1960 R83.6 million. These were falls which took place between January and June, and this year’s fall up to the end of May—and at the moment the figure differs very slightly from the figure at the end of May—only totals R27.4 million, far less than during these other years which I have mentioned. Of course we take into account that in the meantime R27,000,000 has been borrowed from the I.M.F., but even this brings the figure to R54.4 million which compares very favourably with the previous years which I have mentioned. We therefore do not need to concern ourselves as far as that aspect is concerned. The difficulty is merely that in January this year we started with a slightly lower figure because last year we had an outflow of R 194,000,000 in foreign capital.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Where will we start in January of next year?

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

I also want to point out that the Reserve Bank’s cover at this stage is still over 32 per cent, while the legal requirement is only 25 per cent. It is very difficult to come down to this 25 per cent because when one’s assets fall, one’s liabilities after all fall as well. The Reserve Bank itself has a certain amount of foreign exchange which it can convert into gold and then it is immediately included in its gold reserves which can therefore also improve the position. Furthermore the commercial banks each have quite a few million pounds abroad which they are keeping for what they call “in case”—for contingencies. There are quite a few of them; there is only one commercial bank of which I know which does not keep any money abroad. This money can all be brought into account so that the position in reality is not as bad as it seems on paper or as bad as one would infer from the various arguments which have been put here. To-day we have the phenomenon that foreign companies which have branches in the Union are systematically withdrawing capital which they have invested in this country and attracting South African capital to these companies. I am completely in favour of this being done, but then the South African capital which they attract must have an interest in the sense of shares or joint control in that company. But that is not what is happening here. No, they are simply entering into loans with our commercial banks wherever they can and then they meet their obligations in their own countries with our money. I am glad that the hon. the Minister is taking steps to rectify this position. Last year alone R 16,000,000 was sent out of the country in this way. This of course excludes the R8,000,000 uranium loan.

An HON. MEMBER:

Please do not embarrass the Minister any further.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

I want to make another point and it is that in my opinion this capital outflow, this flow of capital from the country, is drying up. The figure I have just given, namely that there was a fall of only R27,000,000 over the last six months in our foreign exchange reserves, is already an indication that the flow is far slower than it was last year. But I want to mention one or two other facts that indicate that the outflow is declining. The first is this: Last year we had a tremendous rush to buy shares which foreigners sold here in South Africa. A matter of R 104,600,000 worth of shares was. bought by Union citizens from foreign holders; shares to the value of R37,200,000 were sold to the outside world; there was consequently a net loss of South African capital totalling R67,400,000. I am very sorry that we do not have figures for all the months since January 1961, up to date, but the closing months of 1960 showed a gradual decline in such purchases and also in foreign transactions. But in January 1960, only R6,000,000 worth of shares was bought from the outside world and there was a R3,200,000 increase in shares sold to the outside world. We therefore only suffered a loss of R2,800,000 for the month of January which is quite a normal figure and which is not at all disproportionate. As far as that is concerned, I am therefore inclined to agree with one of the British financial journals which has said that this outflow is drying up and that it cannot continue much longer. The foreigners who took fright have already pulled out. Those who remain do not frighten so easily and they will not lightly withdraw their money. I think that the hon. the Minister need not concern himself greatly about whether this outflow will continue.

We have a far greater problem, and this problem is represented not so much by foreigners as by people in this country, and I should now like to deal with this problem. I am referring to South African citizens who take their money and deliberately send it out of the country. They are not doing so on a small scale but on a large scale. If one can buy a South African investment in England which gives one a seven per cent interest yield and it gives one a six per cent yield if one buys it here, then one takes a chance. That may also be a reason.

Mrs. SUZMAN:

It is not likely.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

Well, it is quite probable. From what I know of certain businessmen in this country, they will do so if they can only earn one-eighth of one per cent. If they see an opportunity to circumvent the law, they will try to do so. We have the position in South Africa that there is a financial regulation which prohibits South Africans from sending their money abroad without obtaining special permission. This regulation has existed since 1951 and the object is that only persons, who can prove that they genuinely require money abroad to pay for certain things and who obtain the permission of the banks or the Treasury, may send their money out of the country. The law lays down that anyone who is found guilty of a contravention of the regulations relating to scrip, foreign exchange, gold, bank notes, cheques, postal orders, bills, bonds, redemption of debts, or goods is liable to a penalty of R10,000 or five years’ imprisonment or both. This is the legal position, but what do we find? When we examine the returns of the Reserve Bank, we find that at the end of 1959 the following amounts were invested abroad on short-term alone—I am not referring to long-term investment, although there may also be contraventions in the case of long-term investments—namely £27,200,000 in direct investments, and £38,900,000 in indirect investments, a total of £66,100,000 or R132,200,000. In 1960, according to the Reserve Bank’s latest report, namely that for March, the position was as follows—

A net outflow of R14,000,000 of short-term and R34,000,000 of long-term direct investment funds.

This gives a total of R48,000,000 which left the country in 1960. But I am only going to discuss the short-term investments. When we add these investments to this R132,000,000, we have a total of R146,200,000 which is lying abroad on short-term moneys at this stage. We do not have figures showing what happened during the period from January up to the present, but it is quite clear to me that this is happening on a far larger scale than ever before. I have here a statement by the General Manager of Volkskas, a person who often travels abroad and who investigates this type of thing. This is a person who has attended all these conferences with the Governors of the Reserve Banks and other bank heads; he therefore knows what is going on in this, regard. He gave an interview on the sixth of this month and he said the following—

The present difficult economic position in South Africa is attributable more to internal than external pressure. Our country is being sabotaged economically for selfish political reasons… The power of finance is now being used against our country and the expected and planned assault is at present in full swing. The main objects are to create depression conditions and to force reserves down still further in the hope of an eventual devaluation. Funds are being unlawfully sent out of the country, notwithstanding heavy penalties laid down by the law.

That is the position which I have just quoted.

*Mr. MOORE:

Is it illegal?

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

Of course it is illegal.

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

Afternoon Sitting

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

When business was suspended, I had pointed out that at the end of last year South African funds totalling R146,000,000 were invested in short-term investments abroad. Since then this amount has increased considerably; otherwise Mr. Hurter, the General Manager of Volkskas, would not have made the statement which I have quoted. He knows what is going on in this regard. The amount must be much more by now. I want to point out that these are exclusively short-term investments. This is money which one invests abroad with one or other institution on a short-term basis at a certain rate of interest. As soon as the money is used for buying shares or paying accounts, it is removed from the list of short-term investments. It is therefore clear that as this money is removed, it is continuously being supplemented and this process is increasing instead of decreasing. I want to point out that since January we have had a trading surplus of R178,000,000; the Monetary Fund has lent us R27,000,000 and our overall reserves have fallen by R27,000,000. This is a total of R232,000,000. One must of course make provision for invisible imports. One cannot determine how much they total; information in this regard is not yet available. They must represent a considerable amount. In any case it must be very close on R200,000,000 which has left the country by one means or another and is no longer available to-day. In this regard I think the main reason is not the purchase of foreign-held shares because I have pointed out that according to the statistics the purchase of foreign-held shares is declining. I think the main reason is the fact that people are sending their money out of the country; some with the approval of the authorities who should apply this regulation which I have quoted and which has been in its present form since 1951, and who are not doing so properly. I say that it is understandable that there will be short-term moneys lying abroad from time to time with a view to trading requirements, but we must remember that to-day we have very rapid air communications with the outside world and that one also has telegraphic transfers. One can send any amount abroad within 24 hours if one has to pay an account. Here we have an amount which is lying abroad on a short-term basis and which is sufficient to pay for approximately two months’ imports. I say that the amount lying abroad in short-term investments is completely disproportionate. It is somewhere between R150,000,000 and R200,000,000 and we must get this money back. The regulation which I have quoted is nominally applied by the Treasury but in practice it is applied by the Reserve Bank and the commercial banks. I feel convinced that these banks are afraid to take strict action against such people; otherwise we would already have had prosecutions under this regulation because money which should not have left the country has undoubtedly been leaving the country. If that is not the position, then the banks have knowingly allowed money to leave the country unlawfully and that is an unpatriotic action. I feel that if this outflow of money had not taken place by these means, many of the measures we are now taking to protect our foreign reserves would probably have been unnecessary. Allow me to say a few words on short-term investments in South Africa. In 1948-9 there was still reason for a person who had money to invest, to do so on short terms abroad because we did not have a properly developed short-term money market in South Africa. But Mr. Havenga then established the National Finance Corporation. Since then various other institutions in this country have also been concentrating on the establishment of a short-term money market and the Treasury is also playing its part. There are therefore sufficient facilities for a person who wants to invest money on short term to do so within the Union. He need no longer send his money abroad. Here I just want to say this to the United Party: I hope that they and particularly the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) who nowadays is also being imitated by the hon. member for Constantia, will stop their stories to the effect that the Government should not borrow short-term funds for long-term expenditure. If one has a short-term money market in the country, one must do so; otherwise one does not create investment possibilities for one’s short-term funds. I just say that in passing.

I want to conclude with these remarks: I say that if it had not been for this outflow of short-term funds—perhaps to a large extent unlawfully—then our foreign exchange position would have been far better to-day and it would not have been necessary to take all these steps which the Minister has now unfortunately been obliged to take. The hon. the Minister announced the other day that all persons holding foreign assets had to submit a return of those assets within 30 days. I am sorry that he did not make that period seven days, because I feel that this is a matter which calls for urgent attention. If this measure is applied effectively in future, I hope that we shall recover so much of this short-term money in the near future that most of these measures which the Minister has announced can be repealed to the benefit of the country. I feel that the measure relating to the blocking of the funds derived from shares sold by foreigners will be very effective in the short term, but I agree with the hon. member for Constantia to a certain extent that in the long run it may have a detrimental effect. I therefore hope that it will be found possible in the very near future to repeal this particular measure. I just want to mention this one point: In a year during which one does not have any foreign exchange difficulties, it is easy to relax the application of this 1951 regulation somewhat; it is easy not to apply it so strictly, but when one is faced with foreign exchange difficulties, as we had after Sharpeville last year, and the Minister of Finance asks for strict control to be exercised, one expects a fall in this type of foreign investment and that is not what has happened in the Union. In 1959 we had R132,000,000 invested in short-term investments abroad. This was the same figure as we had in 1956. From then on the figure remained more or less constant at approximately R130,000,000 —between R128,000,000 and R132,000,000. But during the very year that the Minister has asked that the foreign exchange regulations should be strictly applied, namely 1960, the figure increased to R146,000,000. Judging from Mr. Hurter’s statement which I have read, it is far higher to-day than this figure of R146,000,000. In other words, here we have the phenomenon that while the people who exercise control have been asked to exercise control more strictly, they have allowed such funds to leave the country on a greater scale than was the position when we were not faced with any exchange difficulties. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not seriously consider removing this whole question of the control of foreign exchange from the banks and placing the whole matter directly under the Treasury or under the control of the Treasury together with the Reserve Bank.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

Before I make some comments on the remarks of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), may I stake my claim to the prize for the best under-statement of the year by saying that the Republic of South Africa might well have been born under happier auspices and in better economic circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know which will embarrass the Government more, the very able and statesmanlike speech of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) in an attack that he would have wished not to have made, or the defence of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), who started his speech by demonstrating that such measures as these were hardly necessary, and went on to draw our attention to the fact that money was leaving the country apart from money which has been tending to leave because of the action of overseas investors, and then he suggested that even more drastic control, in effect an ultimate sort of nationalization of the banks, and control of credit would be a means to this end. I would ask the hon. member for Pretoria (Central): Why? And it is for this reason that I am not going to deal so much with the matters so well covered by the hon. member for Constantia, the line about figures, the argument between borrowing long and paying back short, and so forth, because I think we face something here—I could wish that it were not so—in our economic situation that goes beyond the normal conventional arguments which are made in a Budget debate. We face basically something of which the figures, if we are not very careful, are merely the symptoms. It is a disease that we face, a cancer at the heart of South Africa, both economically and otherwise, of which the financial repercussions are the outward manifestations. And on that question the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has given the usual answer of the Nationalist Party: “Ons sal nie buk nie.”

Mr. Speaker, the crisis that we face is a crisis of confidence, both externally and internally. It is very fine to have an economic machine that might under certain circumstances for a country of our size be the envy of the world; it is very fine to have human resources which under certain circumstances can rank with human resources of any country in the world; but if the spirit and the belief to work that machine is lacking internally and the belief is lacking externally that that machine can ultimately work without other changes than purely financial changes, then it is idle for us to get up, as so many of us have got up here on many occasions desiring, even if we voice criticism, the best for our country, and say “basically the economy of South Africa is sound”. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has said that this was not merely an income problem and that so far as our trade was concerned, there was much over which one could still be optimistic. He said it was basically a capital problem. As I have indicated it is a true diagnosis on the surface that the shortage of capital is the immediate problem that we are facing, but the basic problem is one of confidence. I do not want to go over the list of the deflationary steps that the Minister has been forced to take as outlined by the hon. member for Constantia, and I think in his analysis of the position, he exercised restraint. The consequences of such deflationary steps are not difficult to imagine in the short term. The hon. member for Constantia has indicated certain points in that respect for the country. For the ordinary man in the street, deflation means retrenchment, a diminished opportunity for work—a fall perhaps in the cost of articles, but also a drastic cut perhaps in the purchasing power, in the means to purchase. I don’t want to go too deeply into that, but it is my case here that if something is not done to restore the basic cause of the disease, then the only ultimate alternative to the deflationary path that the Government is forced upon at the present time, will ultimately be an inflationary path, the path hinted at by the hon. member for Constantia, the path where the rand of South Africa stands in danger. I do not need to tell the House that it is worth while taking drastic steps to prevent such a step as devaluation. I do not want to go too deeply into that, but what devaluation means for the ordinary man in the street is taxation of all the holders of money and savings to the extent that devaluation takes place and a transfer in effect of those resources to the sector of the entrepreneur. For a short time you get an artificial stimulation of the economy that will save you for a time, until such time as wages and prices begin to rise and compete again. To that extent even desperate measures such as the hon. the Minister has taken, or shall I say, serious measures such as the hon. the Minister has taken to safeguard the position, may in the short term be justified, but in the long term they can only be justified if they succeed in avoiding the step that I have indicated. Otherwise in many ways it might have been better to have gone straight to that step rather than that the Minister of Finance should be forced into the position where he has to make denials in a field where denials are always taken as a danger sign. On that head I do not wish to say much more.

What I wish to ask this House, is what is the picture that we present to the outside world, the world of whom we ask confidence; and what is the picture that we present to our people inside, the people of whom we also ask faith and confidence and hard work for the future?

In becoming a Republic we took a step that in the views of those who desired a Republic was the final corner-stone of the independence and the liberty of South Africa. Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister will forgive me if I quote a non-White politician on the Continent of Africa who said to his people “Liberty means sweat”. That is a thing that the South African people would be quite willing to undertake, the responsibilities that come if indeed our freedom is greater under a Republic than it was before; if indeed freedom involves greater responsibility, I am certain it is a step the South African people would be prepared to take if they felt they were following the leadership in which they could have confidence, confidence not for the immediate present, but for the long-term future. And what is the picture that our Government’s policies present to those citizens of our country and to those beyond our borders? In the first place, we are an individualist society, a capitalist society, and therefore broadly speaking the West will have no quarrel with us on that ground. But we are a capitalist society in which at the bottom we deny the elementary requirements of the successful working of a capitalist society, and that is great mobility of labour—the opportunity of men, not only to make their labour available where it will fetch the highest price, but also that internal mobility within an industry which enables a man to rise in that industry and through incentive to become a better worker, a more valuable member of the community. This is restricted in our country. It might be said by hon. members that it is traditional in this country to restrict. Mr. Speaker, we in South Africa have now reached what I might call the tertiary stage of development of a capitalist society. We have got beyond the stage of a largely undifferentiated agricultural production; we have got beyond the stage of a combination of that and primary production where we were purely a supplier of raw materials to countries who had need of them beyond our borders. We have got to the stage of great secondary industrial development, and I say at that stage if you are a capitalist society and you wish to win the confidence of people who have experience of that type of society, then you must not in your political policies adopt courses that are in direct conflict with the future success of that society.

An HON. MEMBER:

What are you referring to?

Mr. WILLIAMS:

It is that labour must be mobile, that capital should be mobile, that the labour can go where it can earn the highest return. This is the condition of an individualist society. But let me go beyond that. Let me give another aspect of the picture this society presents to the outside world. What country in our stage of development and with our population would seek to find the whole of its defence potential, the whole of its administrative potential, the whole of the executive potential of its field of commerce and industry and the higher class of its labour from one-fifth of the total population? Countries looking at us from the outside measure us by their own experience, and this is one of the questions they would ask: How is such a society without a great influx of new blood from the outside, holding to the tenets it does, to survive? Mr. Speaker, there is no country in the world to-day which has not come to realize that the greatest basic wealth of a country is not even its material resources, but is the potential to which you can raise the human resources of that country, and if we at the particular juncture of history at which we find ourselves desire that our total human potential shall be derived only from a small section of the population, then not only do we put ourselves into great disadvantage in the world, but we draw attention of the world to the ultimate weakness of the policies we are following. The Government divides the economic life of South Africa into two great sections, that section which is inhabited by 11,000,000 of our 15,000,000 population, the so-called White area, which more correctly perhaps could be called the permanently White controlled area, and another section with admittedly the lowest standard of living of the country where another 4,000,000 live, and the practical policy of our Government which it offers to the world as a solution—and I am talking in the economic sphere; I am imagining us being examined by the economic estimators of the world as a field for investment and so on—the policy is to say that that lowest developed portion of the country must now receive very special attention so as to carry a much greater population. In theory the Government says that they are so going to develop it that it is going to carry an immensely greater population than it does at the present time. The reality of what the Government does of course is another thing. I am speaking of the theory of the Government. Now obviously on the very tenets that the Government holds, the question of the need of capital from the outside becomes the greater when you wish to carry out a vision of that kind, as the hon. member for Constantia so well stressed: As we could measure the economy of the country before the policies of the Nationalist Government began to spoil it, when something like £60,000,000 to £70,000,000 a year of foreign investment were required for the development so to speak of this essential 11,000,000 area without regard to special diversion of resources to the 4,000.000 area. So that is one of the economic consequences of that policy that if you are to carry it out you need more capital resources. In other words, the sine qua non of carrying out apartheid is an expanding economy. I do not deny the sincerity of the preaching of such a doctrine, but it is at that time that the Minister of Finance is in a position of coming with deflationary measures. Now the Government will say that these policies of the Government bear little relation to the problems I am posing. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) explained to us that this is all due to the fact that we are in a cold war. Mr. Speaker, can hon. members on that side honestly maintain that position? We are now going to face a very rough and difficult road, all of us together, and as the hon. member for Constantia has stated, standing increasingly alone. What I want to ask this Government is this: Was the journey that we have to take now really necessary? Could it not have been avoided if the attitude of the Government and those they have persuaded in supporting them, had not been that in an epoch of revolutionary changes in all spheres in the world, an epoch in which the pressures are so great that even the strongest nations have to modify policies and bend ideas, that they stand and say: Here we stand, there can be no change.

Capt. STRYDOM:

Do you want us to modify and go under?

Mr. WILLIAMS:

“Ons sal nie buk nie” says the hon. member for Aliwal. Let us see even if that slogan is particularly true. When I first came to this House, gentlemen on this side of the House strongly urged that we needed immigrants to strengthen our population. but hon. members on the other side said “Nonsense! The honour to belong to South Africa is so great that we can apply a very severe sieve on what comes in; we don’t need all the immigrants you talk of, we only need a handful of specially selected people”. And this year, what does the Government do? It comes with a Bill relaxing the immigration requirements. Too late do they realize that some of the warnings given by this side of the House at least were wise. “Ons sal nie buk nie.” In another sphere we came at a moment of great crisis in South Africa, and we said “Why not listen to the grievances of certain people to avoid the type of emergency under which South Africa is in danger of permanently living?” and the leading spokesmen of the Government said: These are not grievances. These people do not want really what they ask for; they don’t want a pound a day; they don’t want a modification of the liquor laws; they don’t want modification of the pass laws, they want our country. And in a very recent debate, the Government came before us with a modification of the Liquor Act, and says “Gentlemen, this was a grievance, we must attend to it”. “Ons sal nie buk nie.” Since early last year this country has gone through some tremendous, and they should have been educating, experiences. Last year we had a state of emergency over the whole of the country, this year an emergency was declared in Pondoland; we had a virtual emergency over the period when the Republic was to be declared. And the only lesson that the Government learned from these experiences, other than the minor concessions that I have mentioned, was that they (the Government) are always right. In that same period, Mr. Speaker, we had votes against us at the court of world opinion, which even if subject to political influences, should be enough to make even a more powerful country than ours consider its position—not as to whether it should bend before world opinion, but its position as to whether perhaps it may not be just here and there mistaken.

An HON. MEMBER:

What do you want?

Mr. WILLIAMS:

I will tell you what I want. I have offered criticism, not negative, but criticism of the Government that is only fair, and when you offer criticism, you should offer something constructive in exchange. I speak primarily from the economic point of view: If you wish to expand the economy of this country, as it must be expanded, as it should have been expanded over the last 12 years, instead of being ridden right into the ground, then you would begin to consider the economic needs of your society, and not say at every turn: Self-preservation is more important than economics. In the last resort, in South Africa, economics is self-preservation. I once defined in this House a Nationalist as a man who believes in race suicide as a matter of self-preservation, and nearly everything the Government has done lately has confirmed that definition as a correct one. It is common cause on all sides of the House that we must expand the economy to raise the standard of living of all sections of our people and to make room for the mouths that are coming forward of all sections of the population.

Dr. DE WET:

How would you do it?

Mr. WILLIAMS:

I want to say to the hon. member for Vanderbilpark that you can only do it in the way it has always been done in human society, by giving every man the opportunity to express himself and to contribute to the wealth of the country, irrespective of colour. You cannot have a labour force indefinitely with one set of rules for the top section. You cannot save the top section in that way. So long as the gulf between the real wages of the bottom section of our population and the top section of the labour force remains what it is, the top section is always in danger of being pushed down to that of the lower level. Your only hope, speaking pure economics and leaving humanity out and leaving production out, is to lift that bottom level. If you wish to make the best use of your manpower in production, you cannot rely, however able they may be, and whatever case you may like to make for the better training and better opportunities for a small group, you cannot rely ultimately only on one-fifth of your population. I am not speaking anything but economics at the moment. I am not talking power politics or humanity. That is the way South Africa must go if it hopes to have a future. Because apart from everything else, apart from the pure economic angle, you cannot ultimately build a stable society based ultimately on the values that we have adopted so long, values of racial discrimination. The hon. the Prime Minister said that so far as his party is concerned, he recognizes that sooner or later we must turn from race discrimination, and he says the answer lies in the development of the reserves. Mr. Speaker, as far as our group here on this side of the House is concerned, do you suppose that if we could easily believe that such a policy was practical, if we could easily believe that such a policy was just, if we could easily believe that such a policy was the only salvation for our country, that we would not advocate it with you? Do you think we stand here, at this juncture in our history of our country, to oppose our own countrymen simply for the sake of opposing them, simply for the sake of some petty party political gain? We stand here to try and tell the truth so far as we can see it—we do not claim to have all the truth in our own hands—but we try to tell the truth to the Nationalist Party and South Africa, and we say that the policies followed by the Nationalist Party are in the last resort a running away from the truth, because in our belief ultimately they are quite unpractical policies. What have they amounted to so far in practice? To control the drift to the towns, one of the greatest problems of any society during an industrial revolution, and the Government has a dream of a drift-back of the factories to the borders of the reserves. And mark this, Mr. Speaker, that if we could move 10 per cent of our factories, and it could be done economically, and it could be justified purely on the basis of decentralization, how would it deal with the central problem—the central problem of that area of 11,000,000 people, that area where integration and partnership agreements are adopted, whether it be on an unequal basis or not, and have been adopted so long as we can remember? All that happens is you transfer the incidence of that integration policy from one geographical area to another. Where is the eventual disappearance of racial discrimination as your objective, as you justification for this policy, which we concede not to be unjust, but to be untrue, because it is deluding the people of South Africa in telling them that there is an escape route that way? If you succeed in some measure in doing this where in those border factories which are created will there be greater opportunities for the Bantu who have become more highly educated, because that is the case for the development of the reserves that certain people, those more fitted, will be given opportunities in their own areas to express that ability within them that they cannot express in the so-called White areas? And, Mr. Speaker, when we speak of the so-called White areas, it is not merely to adopt a political slogan; it is because nothing was built in those areas except by the joint efforts of White ability and Black labour, and in that respect has not the Black labour some kind of a claim to some kind of a say in those areas, as well as the White direction? Mr. Speaker, when you present this kind of case to the outside world, those who are hostile to us, you can imagine what they say; but those who are friendly to us and do not have to be here to examine the consequences of the general economic set-up, because they are familiar with it, they have more experience of it than we have, what do you think their attitude will be? The story that our problems in the economic sphere are peculiar because we have different races is nonsense. The economic problems do not alter according to the colour of a man’s skin. These men over there shake their heads sadly and they say to us “Look, the greatest countries in the world are making steps of adaptation in the world in which we find ourselves, in this dangerous world of to-day; you are a small country, we think you are mistaken in making no attempts in such an epoch to change what you are doing; cannot you reconsider the matter?” Mr. Speaker, I am not one that thinks South Africa should bow to the will of the outside world simply because it is the will of the out-side world. What we should do here we should do because it is right and because we can justify it. But on what basis can we ultimately, to anyone or before any court in the world, justify a society that is based, in this year 1961, on racial discrimination? And on a deliberately adopted policy of inequality in one sphere, unless we offer something more than the hon. the Prime Minister can offer in the other sphere. Because, able as the Prime Minister is, and logical as he is, once some major false premises have been got over, I think even he will concede that such an expression with regard to the future of the Coloureds and the Indians as “a state within a state” is not a policy, it is mystical moonshine. It has the same value as a slogan such as “Racial Federation”, unless these policies are backed with some concrete expression of the removal of discrimination that they claim to remove.

Mr. Speaker, my time is coming to an end. Before I move the amendment which I wish to move I would like to quote to the hon. the Prime Minister the words of the only republican that Great Britain ever knew—and, incidentally, something a dictator. He said once: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, to consider that perhaps you may be mistaken.” I move the following further amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and substitute “this House declines to pass the second reading of the Appropriation Bill unless and until the Government, with a view to restoring confidence in and promoting the expansion of the country’s economy—
  1. (1) abandons impracticable policies of separate development as a justification for racial discrimination;
  2. (2) accepts the inevitable consequences of economic integration;
  3. (3) takes steps to decrease inter-racial tensions; and
  4. (4) takes steps to improve our external relations and international standing.”
Dr. DE BEER:

I second the amendment. There is a proverb in the French language that has been quoted in this House before—“Plus ca change, plus c’est la même chose”. The more things change in the field of the economy of this country the more, to the regret I hope of all who have the interest of South Africa at heart, the more we come back to debates in this House that follow the same kind of pattern. For years past this side of the House has been warning that side of the House that the pursuit of racialist policies would sooner or later, apart from all their own wrongs and all their other harms, spell ruin to the economy of South Africa. Much has changed from the days six, seven and even eight years ago when the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House were able to point to every sign of prosperity, to a high credit rating for our country, to rather an optimistic economic outlook, as compared with the day now when the hon. the Minister has just had to take a step which is little more or less than an admission on his part that the chance of maintaining or re-creating confidence in South Africa’s economy has virtually vanished. Yet even in these circumstances, even when it has been made so apparent that the warnings given from this side of the House for so many years have been justified, we have the retort to which my hon. friend has referred, that the Government proposes to do what it can to improve the situation of the nation only within the framework laid down by its own ideological policy. In those days of some years ago when one spoke in economic and financial debates, and when one spoke chiefly of race relations, one was accused of dragging politics in where they did not belong. At least I believe it has now become clear even to that side of the House, that it is in their political policies, and especially virtually exclusively, their racial policies, that they must seek the cause of the economic troubles from which our country suffers. In this fact; in that political factor is almost the sole cause of our difficulties. In this fact lies the essential strength of the attack that the Opposition has to make upon the Government.

If it had been necessary to impose currency control and necessary to take all the steps that the hon. the Minister has had to take, because of some purely economic factor, because of a drop in the price of our raw materials on the world markets, or for some other reason such as that, then it would be permissible for the Government to come and to say “This, after all, is beyond our control, all we can do is to take the measures which we have taken and try to save the situation”. But that is specifically not the case, and hon. gentlemen on the Government side of the House point out to us that that is not the case. It is true even now that fundamentally the economy of the country remains sound and even profitable. The fact that we have reached the pass that we have reached is therefore due, virtually exclusively I say, to the political policies pursued by the Government of their choice and on their own responsibility, and on nobody else’s.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

What would have been the position if we had accepted your policy?

Dr. DE BEER:

We have had, in recent weeks, analyses of what has brought the country to the pass that she is in. We have had these analyses not only from those of us who take part in politics, but we have had them from some of the country’s leading business men. I make no apology for quoting some of these. I think we should have them as a basis for examining the economic situation as it stands before us. The Chairman of the Anglo American Corporation, Mr. Oppenheimer, formerly a member of this House, in the chairman’s report he delivered recently, referred to the need for economic growth and for a rising standard of living for all our people, more especially if any attempts were to be made to carry out the policies which the Government professes. To that aspect I shall return. He said that capital inflow on a fairly large scale is essential if we are to realize the country’s full economic potential. That point has been sufficiently dealt with here to-day. And he said, Sir, and I want to say this lest I be accused of misrepresenting the Government’s actions—and I want to say that I support this strongly—that in the circumstances of the continued outflow of capital the Government is compelled to resort to control, and that these controls were unavoidable and, as an interim measure, even right. Nobody disputes that. But what we are asking, and what my hon. friend, the member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Williams) asked a moment ago, is that we should try to see beyond the symptoms to the cause. And this Mr. Oppenheimer, in his chairman’s report, attempted to do. He said—

What we are suffering from is not any unreasonable disparity between our exports and imports; indeed, South Africa’s current account with the world outside is absolutely sound but for the flight of capital occasioned by a crisis of confidence. Confidence is not restored by strict controls, quite the reverse, in fact. And the best that can be hoped for from these measures is that they may give us time, if we are wise, to tackle the social, human and political problems that are the real causes of our difficulties.

Social, human and political problems, Mr. Speaker, that are the real causes of our difficulties. He says—

If these basic matters are not faced up to and confidence restored, we will only be able to protect our external balance of payments at the cost of stagnation in the economic life of this country.

This is the problem. Sir—the political, social and human matters in our country. There is no need for us to criticize, and we do not criticize the financial steps that the hon. the Minister has taken. What we do is to criticize the Government of which he is a member for having brought the country to the position where it was necessary for him to do so.

This, Sir, is the problem: these human relationships and these political matters. Can we not seek a policy to remove the cause of our disease instead of attempting to prescribe palliatives for the symptoms? Can we not seek a policy which is positive, a policy which seeks to build up prosperity for the country? Can we not have a prosperity policy instead of a series of palliatives, of temporary and dubious effect?

Mr. GREYLING:

What policy?

Dr. DE BEER:

The hon. gentleman asks what should that policy be. I am going to tell him, to the best of my ability, what it should be. I am going to begin by quoting again from the chairman’s report of one of our great mining and financial houses…

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

Multi-racial nonsense!

Dr. DE BEER:

… to see what those men as economists and leaders of finance prescribe. I quote again from the report of Mr. Oppenheimer to Anglo American. He said—

It is idle to contend that the dislike of South African policy abroad arises merely from misunderstanding. Certainly there is much ignorance and confusion about the nature and complexities of the country’s problems, and an unwillingness to give credit for what is being done in South Africa—which is considerable—for the benefit of the non-Europeans. Nevertheless the fact remains that the South African Government has been at great pains and considerable expense to explain its policies overseas, and, recently, the Prime Minister himself put his case at the highest level and with conspicuous ability, but without effect. The truth is that the fundamental principle on which South African policy is at present based is morally unacceptable to practically all the nations of the world, European as well as non-European. No amount of provision of social services for non-Europeans, no amount of development in the Native reserves, nor the granting of local self-government or even full independence in African tribal areas will reconcile the world to a policy under which African, Indian and Coloured people, no matter how high their individual capacity or character may be, are denied, on grounds of race or colour alone, the right of citizenship in the country in which they live.

Another report from one of our great mining and financial houses is that of Sir George Albu to the General Mining and Finance Corporation—

The doctrine of apartheid and its many applications in South Africa are regarded with growing repugnance throughout the world even by our closest friends, and the concept that any race, because of its colour, should be subservient to another is no longer tenable.

Then further on he says—

It is therefore important that we should work without delay towards the establishment in due course of conditions in which the potential of each individual, whatever his race, can be realized to the full for the benefit of all, and this, of course, can only be achieved in a society in which individual advancement in all spheres of activity depends upon individual merit. This is not possible, for example, when one section of the population enjoys a privileged position in respect of certain avenues of employment or when opportunities for advanced education are denied to the majority of the population.

This, fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, is the confidence requirement as my hon. friend put it just before I got up to speak.

The first confidence requirement is that if you want confidence from the Western world you have to behave like a Western nation. If you want the support and friendship of the civilized nations you must measure up to the standard of that civilization. And the first of the standards of that civilization is the recognition of the worth of human individuals—economic worth just as much as human worth and political worth. But this, of course, is not the only requirement for confidence. It is not merely true that all the nations that call themselves Western and civilized—in fact I think all the nations in the world believe in this, in the individual. It is not only a confidence requirement for our economy, it is also an efficiency requirement. If we want an efficient economy it is also essential that we should use the labour of every individual available to us properly.

Mr. Speaker, what is wealth? The wealth of the country surely is the output, the creative work, the production that can be done by each one of the people who work in our country. Our wealth is not the gold that lies in the banks or even the gold that lies untapped underground; it is what each of those who work in South Africa can contribute toward the welfare of the nation as a whole.

In previous debates in this House enough figures have been quoted for it to be unnecessary for me to quote again the evidence that while productivity, the measure of individual production, has been rising rapidly in so many other countries of the world, it has been stagnant, or perhaps even been falling in South Africa. Quite apart from the fact that we require and must have the confidence of the outside world, even if we want to try and pull ourselves up by our own shoestrings, let us try to do that efficiently. Let us try and make the best use of the greatest asset we have, which is the working capacity of our people. This relatively low productivity figure from which we suffer has been ascribed by leading industrialists, firstly, to lack of that capital which makes it impossible for us to mechanize as a modern economy should and, secondly, to lack of flexibility in the employment of our labour force; that lack of flexibility which results from the web of colour bars, pass laws, influx control, job reservation and all the other measures which make it impossible for the South African economy to operate in the same way that the economy operates in other Western countries. So that when the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) asks me what is the prosperity policy that South Africa needs, I say it must rest on these two points: The prosperity policy must rest on, firstly, being able to obtain the capital we require, which means that we must substitute for our racialist society a merit society; and, secondly, it depends upon using the labour of South Africa properly, which means that we must substitute for our controlled economy a free economy. Because it is, in fact, a controlled economy that we have when pass laws, influx control, job reservation, industrial colour bars and all these other restrictions operate to direct labour on the basis of considerations other than the economic requirements of the country. That is what I mean when I refer to a controlled economy.

It is at this point, Sir, that I think I should refer, in passing, to a most extraordinary remark amongst the many extraordinary remarks made by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) who, in the course of expressing his defiance, of the views of the outside world said—”Of course there are a lot of liberalists in the outside world who are seeking to apply economic pressure in order to work their political will upon us.” And he said that the same is being done in the Federation to Sir Roy Welensky. But, said the hon. member, “Sir Roy Welensky is refusing to listen to them”. Sir, to make a comparison in this House, of all places, between what the present Government of South Africa is doing and what Sir Roy Welensky is doing is surely far-fetched by even the most far-flung standards of Nationalist oratory! What is the policy that Sir Roy Welensky is practising? What is it in relation to the criteria that I have just put? Is it not the policy of a merit society? Is it or is it not a policy of qualified franchise without regard to race? Is it or is it not a policy of expanding economic opportunity?” I do not want to deal with the details of Sir Roy Welensky’s policy, but let us have it clear that his is a policy which strives to distinguish between individuals on grounds of merit and not on grounds of race. And what sort of economy is it? He had pass laws, certainly. But he has tried to do away with them.

Mrs. SUZMAN:

He got away from them.

Dr. DE BEER:

As my hon. friend says, he has got away from them. He is doing his very best, where remnants of a racial society remained, to remove it. But the hon. gentleman on the governing benches, not content with the height of the racial barriers they have already erected, are for ever placing precarious brick on precarious brick on top of the walls that are holding back our country from prosperity. I say that to suggest that what is happening in the Federation could conceivably be any justification for the policy of this Government, or for any other policy based on racial discrimination in South Africa, is to talk the worst kind of nonsense.

Why should it not be possible for all South Africans to subscribe to a plan for building the prosperity of South Africa? What, after all, is required? Firstly a willingness to grant rights to responsible civilized individuals on their merits. This is what, most of the time, unless we happen to be talking politics, we would call justice. Is there really any need for us to be afraid of it? Why is it that we should be afraid of allowing every human being to do the best work of which his hands are capable? It would appear to be not only justice but common sense. Why should we be afraid of it? Yet, as I say, these are the essential ingredients of a prosperity policy for South Africa. These are the basic requirements. [Interjections.]

Sir, I know there is a fear among the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that by implementing a policy of that sort you will be endangering separate development, which is to them a very much cherished idea. It will be endangering the separate development of the races in South Africa. But this is quite untrue. In fact, the contrary is true. If the hon. gentlemen really wish to implement separate development as they have put it forward as a policy, they know as well as we do that very great capital resources will be required to carry it out. And it is only with an expanding economy and with large-scale capital formation and capital imports that there is the remotest chance of the hon. gentlemen ever being able to carry out their policy of separate development. Of course we differ very widely indeed from the hon. gentlemen in the ultimate objective of their separate development policy, their separation policy. But we have agreed in terms—and I now do so again—that it is necessary that there should be intensive development of the areas which we call the Native reserves. My hon. leader has said in this House before that for any money sensibly spent on the development of those areas, the Government will have the full support of this party. I say that again now. That, after all, is the basis, economically, of what those hon. gentlemen say they want to do. So let us agree to make the intensive development of the reserves one of the first aims of our prosperity policy. There is no reason why it should not be. But remember that the Government will not have the resources to carry out any worthwhile development of those areas unless they have, first, restored confidence and mobilized their resources for the task.

What is the choice which we really have to face? Apartheid obtained by the methods which this Government has practised over 13 years has ceased to be an option. It has ceased to be part of the choice. The choice is whether we are going to have a multi-racial society which we have to-day, and which is a multi-racial society with poverty and strife, or whether you are going to have a multi-racial society with prosperity and harmony. Because for so long as the Government by its policies keeps South Africa starved of the capital which it would require for any measure of separate development, that separate development is even more impossible than it would be in circumstances of prosperity. The one thing that is getting further and further away as a result of the impoverishing policy that the Government is practising is the ideal of building up separate development on any worthwhile scale. For us to obtain prosperity in South Africa we must have good race relations and we must have civilized standards of government. It is quite simple.

Mr. GREYLING:

What is the test?

Dr. DE BEER:

The test of whether we have these things or not—in terms of the hon. member’s interjection—is what the hon. the Minister had to do last week. That is the measure.

In the time that is left to me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow this general thought that I have expressed into a more particular channel. After all, we are not the only people in South Africa who have been saying for a long time past that it is essential from the point of view of South Africa’s external relationships, and from the point of view most particularly of her economic position, that something should be done, that some sort of gesture should be made that will indicate that the Government is prepared to move away from the policies that have done the country so very much harm. Singled out by very many speakers, not only politicians but by businessmen and others—singled out for special mention have been the Cape Coloured community. It has been felt that within the ambit of Government policy it might be possible to do something for the Cape Coloured people which the Government would be unwilling to do for Africans or Asians. Or it has been felt by many people that because of the special historical and demographical position of the Coloureds vis-à-vis the Whites, the Government ought to do more for the Coloured people than for the other groups. I want to say at once, before I start to discuss the position of the Cape Coloured community, that the Progressive Party has no special policy for the Cape Coloured community or for the White or the African or the Asian groups. We believe that all South Africans must be treated on their merits, and we make no distinction whatever on a group basis. So that what I am going to say with reference to what I believe ought to be the policy for the Cape Coloured people applies equally to all the other groups within our society. I speak of the Coloured people because others have been doing so and because I believe it may be beneficial, it may be constructive and helpful to do so.

Just recently—I think quite wisely—the Nationalist Party, with the Deputy Minister of the Interior in the lead, held a conference at Goodwood where they discussed the question of policy as affecting the members of the Cape Coloured community. It appears to have been, as far as it went, a great success, in that all those there present pronounced their satisfaction with what this Government was doing. I want to point out in passing that all those present were not only Nationalists but that all those present were White. But whether it was just White people deciding what was good for the Coloureds or whatever it was, I think what was said at that congress deserves to be examined very thoroughly. I think that credit deserves to be given where credit ought to be given for what little is being done. The hon. the Deputy Minister made a speech there, as reported in the Burger on the 12th of this month and he spoke of the necessity for socio-economic advance. He said—

Die aandeel van die Kleurling in sulke rigtings van ons staatshuishouding word nie gering geag nie.
As jy hom sosiaal-ekonomies ophef, as jy hom van verydelinge onthef, en as jy hom ’n eie menswaardigheid help bereik, kan hy ’n bate wees vir die Westerse Christelike beskawing.
Die grootste deel van die Kleurling-bevolking verkies ’n eiesoortige ontwikkeling en verwerp die gedagte aan sosiale en ander ineenstrengeling. En selfs waar die die Kleurling organisasie bewus geraak het, het hy homself probeer uitleef in sy eie organisasies op byna elke gebied.
In ons benadering tot toekomstige rasseverhoudinge is dit bo alles noodsaaklik dat die Blanke se posisie in ons toekomsstaat nie vernietig word nie. In die Blanke se veiligheid lê ook opgesluit die goeie orde van ons republiek en die veiligheid van die Kleurling.

So what the hon. gentleman is telling us is that certain socio-economic advance is necessary and that the Coloured man has a great contribution to make, but that paramount must be the interest of the White man wherever the Coloured man is under consideration.

What is it that the Coloured people deserve? What is it which, so far as one can see, they want? I concede at once the validity of much what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. They require schools, they require amenities, they require institutions. Above all, they require jobs. They require socioeconomic opportunities. The hon. the Deputy Minister has and I am prepared to accept that the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing whatever can be done within the framework and with the resources available to him to provide them. As to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said about the Coloured people choosing “eiesoortige ontwikkeling” I would concede that, at any rate, very many of them do not want to be integrated socially with the Whites or with any other type of group. I think that what they do want is social dignity—that “menswaardigheid” of which the hon. the Deputy Minister speaks. One has to consider what, for a Coloured man—let us say a man of some development, a man who has been through a school, who has a matriculation certificate and who is perhaps an artisan—quite an average ordinary sort of Coloured man—what is “menswaardigheid” for him? Surely the first essential of human dignity for a Coloured man is freedom of opportunity, freedom to do the best work of which he is capable; freedom to earn as much as he is able to earn so that he may give to his children an even better standard than he himself has attained. And surely one immediate barrier standing in the way of the “menswaardigheid” of the Coloured man is job reservation. Another is the Group Areas Act, and all those regulations, if not laws, which in various ways restrict his opportunity.

Apart from economic opportunity, surely it is part of the “menswaardigheid” of the Coloured man who, as we are told day in and day out, is after all a Western man, a man very closely related to ourselves in so many ways—surely it must be part of his “menswaardigheid” as it is part of ours that he should have the share to which he is entitled in conducting the affairs of the community in which he lives and making the laws which he must obey.

This question was put to the Deputy Minister at Goodwood, according to the Burger of 10 June—

’n Afgevaardigde het gevra of dit nie beter is om die Kleurlinge nou maar regstreekse verteenwoordiging te gee nie, aangesien hulle tog vir hierdie voorreg sal veg en dit uiteindelik sal moet kry. Mnr. Botha het geantwoord dat daar by openbare besprekinge ’n voorstel gekom het dat die Kleurlinge se huidige Parlementêre verteen-woordiger tot regstreekse verteenwoordiging omskep word. Die Eerste Minister, dr. Verwoerd, het daarop gereageer. Die Federale Raad het sy standpunt bekragtig, nl. dat soiets nie die Nasionale Party se beleid is nie. Net die kongresse kan die beleid verander en as dit voor ’n kongres kom sal ek een van dié wees wat dit beweg.

Then the Minister goes on with an explanation for the reasons why it is his view that to have Coloured Representatives in Parliament would lead to integration and why he was not prepared to have it. Nowhere in the whole of this answer is there any suggestion that there is a better reason for keeping Coloured men out of this House than simply that White men do not want them in this House. In other words, here again, whatever is done for the Coloured people is done on the basis that first the White man must have what he likes and he must have his paramountcy, and then the Coloured man, this man to whom we want to give “menswaardigheid”, can come in and get some of the crumbs that have fallen from the table.

What do hon. gentlemen think the Coloured people want? I believe many of them are in frequent touch with Coloured people. I am quite sure the Deputy Minister is. The Coloured man wants freedom of opportunity. He wants to be treated like a human being, and he will not rest under inferior treatment in any sphere. One more thing I would say from my own knowledge, that the Coloured man also will not rest as long as some other group in South Africa is being given inferior treatment on the grounds of race. He wants freedom of opportunity for himself and also for the African. That does not mean that he wants to mix with the African. In many cases he does not. The Minister is right when he says that. It does not mean that he is even fond of the African. In many cases he is not. The Coloured men, at any rate those to whom I talk and who belong to what is regarded as the right wing of Coloured opinion, are very insistent on this point.

Now let me turn to the practical, if not the ideal, sort of approach, the sort of approach taken by the Deputy Minister when he deals with the Coloureds. He simply says there are things we can do and we are doing them, and there are things we cannot do because the leader of the Nationalist Party and the Federale Raad say we must not. Further on in the same speech the Minister says: “Moet ons nou sê wat oor 50 jaar die posisie moet wees?” I think that is wise, certainly, for a man in his position. But the Prime Minister does not lay any such restriction on himself, either when he speaks of the Coloureds or of any other group. He insists on seeing the future, if only dimly, for a very long time ahead. He tells us where the ultimate destination of the Coloured people is, something which the Deputy Minister wisely refrains from doing. The Prime Minister tells us that eventually the Coloured people will have their own Parliament in their own state within our state. I do not want to spend time on this, but I do want to tell the House what was told to me by a friend of mine who is a member of the legal profession, when I mentioned this policy of the Prime Minister to him. He said: What happens when there is a Coloured Parliament and a White Parliament, each having jurisdiction over its own people, and the Coloured Parliament prescribes that its people should drive their motor-cars on the left-hand side of the road, and the White Parliament says they must drive on the right of the road? Both the parties in that collision will be entitled to sue for damages. [Interjection.] Is it not apparent that this is nonsense? This mystical moonshine, as my friend so aptly called it, this suggestion that you can end up with two Parliaments with jurisdiction in the same area, of course we know in practice perfectly well what it means. Again this policy, if it is ever applied, will be applied in the practical manner of the Deputy Minister. It will be applied so far as the interests of his own party and the White people allow it to be applied. It will end up with the Coloured people having as their supreme body some sort of legislature with some delegated powers, but entirely under the control of this Parliament. The Prime Minister has told us that when that stage is reached, the Coloured representatives will go out of this House as did the Natives’ representatives. What is offered to the Coloureds is a Parliament which is manifestly inferior to this Parliament, and you are back to the one simple fact of racial discrimination. When everything has been said about good neighbourliness with proper boundaries and every vague phrase has been produced which can be produced to make it look that in the case of the Coloured the Government is really determined to give him “menswaardigheid”, we will find that there is nothing of the kind. I have given credit where it is due. I believe the Government will spend money to provide socio-economic assistance for the Coloureds, which is badly needed, and as far as it goes I will accept it, but there will be no “menswaardigheid”. Sir, I have Coloured professional colleagues who qualified with me at the university here, who wrote every examination that I did and did better than I did in most of them, and who have gone further in the profession and have taken degrees higher than I have been able to reach, who are to-day distinguished professional men rendering outstanding human service and living according to the highest civilized standards. What reason has the Government ever produced why these men should not be here? The reason that the Minister produced at Goodwood is a perfectly adequate reason as far as he is concerned, that the Federale Raad does not want it and his party does not want it. But then they talk about “menswaardigheid”. Let us have it clear. I believe that the Coloured people on the whole and with exceptions do not insist on social integration. I believe that in the same way they do not insist on the universal franchise, but I believe they insist on the “menswaardigheid” of which the Minister speaks, and that means to the Coloured man, as it means to me, that every man and his wife in all the provinces are entitled to political and economic privileges according to their merit as measured by objective criteria. It is as simple as that. As long as a different yardstick is to be applied to the White man or woman and the Coloured man or woman, the Coloured people will not be satisfied and will not feel that they are getting a square deal and that they have “menswaardigheid”. What I have said about the Coloured people applies, I believe, with very minor variations to people of all races in the country, and certainly in our view without any variation the treatment meted out to the members of one race as the treatment meted out to the other, because that is both justice and common sense. So our appeal to the Government and to the country is that sheer prejudice as a guide to policy should be thrown overboard. Policy should be guided by some sort of consideration which can be objectively measured and demonstrated to be true. A policy based purely on prejudice, which is to-day buying South Africa nothing but poverty, should be thrown overboard, and instead policy should be adopted which will buy for South Africa the other alternative, prosperity in a multi-racial society.

*Dr. LUTTIG:

At the end of the hon. member’s speech he appealed to us on this side, but the test for that appeal will be when he puts it to the electorate and sees what the results are. We cannot answer that appeal; the voters of South Africa must give the answer.

But let me turn to a point on which we agree. It is gratifying to hear from hon. members on those benches, and this applies to the United Party as well, that in recent years we have reached a great measure of agreement as regards the development of the Bantu homelands. There may be differences as to the methods we use, but in the main we are gratified that we have gained their support for this policy of ours and that they agree fully with us that the development of the Bantu homelands is essential for the continued existence not only of the White man but of all of us.

There is one point which has struck me particularly while members of the Progressive Party have been speaking, and it is that they are so fond of using the word “merit”, but I have never yet heard one of them give a definition of the world. When one of them participates in the debate again, we should very much like him to tell us how he defines the word “merit”, and what exactly do they mean by it because “merit” is the key to their whole policy.

We have listened with very great interest to the Opposition saying—and this also applies to the United Party because basically there is no difference between the amendment they have moved and that of the Progressives—that we are responsible for the fact that our economy has retrogressed and how different the position would have been and how we would have flourished if we had followed a different policy. We can answer this allegation in various ways, but I want to do so on a purely financial basis. If what hon. members say is true, namely that if we had followed a policy which is being followed elsewhere in Africa, we would not have been faced with these difficulties, we could also have expected the yield on loans floated by those particular countries to be far higher than those of South Africa, but what is the actual position? Take Kenya’s loans. There they have a per cent loan. The price today is £63 and the yield is £8 16s. 3d. In East Africa there is a 5 ¾ per cent loan at £72 which gives a yield of £8 17s. 6d. In Uganda there is a 3½ per cent loan which is equal to £70 and gives a yield of £8 18s. 3d., while our South African loans at 5½ per cent stand at £80 and give a yield of £7 19s. 7d. In other words, if that policy is so economically sound, these loans should have stood at a considerably higher level than those of South Africa because even though we have gold they after all have the confidence of the world.

Allow me just to make one remark before I proceed, and I am referring to the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). I find it so striking that the hon. member approaches our economy on the basis that any progress we make depends solely and exclusively on the vicissitudes of the outside world, as though we have no enterprise or initiative or confidence ourselves. Throughout his whole speech he said repeatedly: This will happen abroad and this will be the effect on South Africa. He even had to go so far as to meet imaginary difficulties, just as the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) who came within a hair’s breadth of referring to devaluation and then swung away. Thus the hon. member for Constantia has also said that if we lose South West, and he has put forward all sorts of scaremongering stories in that regard, but he never mentioned that we also have an inherent faith in our economy and that we can meet these difficulties ourselves. After all it is not £. s. d. which are decisive in any economic system, but the spirit of the people who set the pace of that economy. We have had economic problems in the past and we shall certainly have them again in the future, and we are not the only ones either, but the fact remains that as we have shown in the past, so we shall show in the future that we have the enterprise and the confidence to meet these problems.

We are living in a period of prophets of doom and Jeremiahs and to-day we have two types. The one type consists of the type of person whom we heard speaking here to-day in the shape of the three Opposition speakers. These are the politicians. It may be their right to carry on as they are doing. Whether it inculcates confidence in our economy and stimulates our economy I leave to the imagination of the House, but let them have that right. In any case the voters do not believe them. But characteristic of the attacks of the politicians is that they always try to create the impression that South Africa alone is undergoing a period of economic tension and no other country, and this only applies to South Africa because we are following a racial policy which is in conflict with the policies of the other countries of the Western world.

The second type of prophet of doom which we have—and I am surprised that the hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) has quoted with such great pleasure from these speeches—consists of the chairmen of certain large companies, and it has almost become customary in South Africa when they hold an annual meeting for them to exploit the platform represented by that company for political purposes. This happens year after year. This year we had this again in the case of Mr. Oppenheimer and recently also in the case of Sir George Albu. If it is the ambition of these chairmen of such financial institutions which also have shareholders who support this side of the House, to make political speeches then they should enter the political arena, but why do they seek out their annual meetings to advocate a policy which is aimed at undermining confidence in this country and undermining the policy of this side of the House? We want to warn these people that, as they are businessmen, they must confine themselves to the business world and if they want to enter the political arena they have every right to do so, but they must not use their annual meetings as a platform to attack this Government and deliberately to sow suspicion against this Government which is neither in the interests of South Africa nor in the interests of the shareholders of their companies.

I have said that it is so characteristic of the Opposition that they claim that the period of economic tension which we admit we are experiencing is unique to South Africa. Let us examine the position in comparable countries. In the first place I want to remind the House of what happened recently in Australia. Their reserves were also at a very low level, namely £A250,000,000, as a result of the removal of their import control measures. At the beginning of this year Australia was also obliged to approach the International Monetary Fund for assistance and that assistance was granted. Take New Zealand. [Interjections.] Why do hon. members say that this tension is unique to South Africa and that it is solely attributable to the Government’s racial policy? The Opposition amendments make it quite clear that it is only South Africa which is undergoing a period of tension and that this s solely due to the Government’s racial policies, but I am proving that we are faced with a world symptom and that it is not unique to South Africa. Take New Zealand. Her reserves also stood at a very low level at the end of last year, that is to say at £50,000,000. New Zealand has never belonged to the Monetary Fund, but as a result of the difficult problem facing her as a result of the fall in her reserves, she has now also applied to become a member of the Monetary Fund and the application is now under consideration. But there is another aspect. Approximately 14 days ago New Zealand floated a loan on the London market under particularly favourable conditions, and what was the result? The underwriters were left with approximately 80 per cent. South Africa has never had such an experience.

Let us examine the position in Great Britain. Her balance of payments is also facing exceptionally severe pressure. Her export position is not satisfactory, with the result that the monetary authorities are experiencing heavy pressure to consider increasing the interest rates, to such an extent that the question of devaluation will come pertinently to the fore. In Canada there is a conflict between the Bank of Canada and the Government over certain measures which are being taken to restore steady economic growth, because Canada is also going through a period of depressed economic conditions and unemployment. We in South Africa are not yet even experiencing the same measure of unemployment as Canada. Is it necessary to refer to America’s position. Hon. members are surely all familiar with it. Here I have given examples of comparable countries which show clearly that what we are experiencing at the moment is also symptomatic in their case. Consequently, in the light of these facts, can hon. members take it amiss when we criticize the Opposition for the fact that these prophecies of doom are aimed at undermining confidence in South Africa which is basic to our economy? If they were to approach the matter along these lines and say that in comparable countries the same problems are being experienced, we would have common ground on which we could argue, but when South Africa is singled out and it is said that it is as the result of the policies of the Government that this and that is happening and that this and that will happen in the future, we cannot discuss the matter with them. We shall oppose these methods in order to retain confidence in our economy for so long as it is possible.

I concede that there are two factors in our own economy which are having a very limiting effect. One factor is the tendency of our country to import. We can do something about this. South Africa is a country which still imports 30 per cent of its national income. This is one of the highest, if not the highest figure, in the Western world. We know of no other country which has such a high import figure. I concede that to a large extent these imports also include capital goods which we require, but in addition there are far too many luxury articles which are not necessary. Just walk down the street and you will see imported sweets, imported clothes and imported shoes. This is one of the factors which represents one of our greatest difficulties. I want to go so far as to say that in my opinion the tendency to import is the greatest single factor which is responsible for the disequilibrium in our balance of payments position. We know that the Minister of Economic Affairs has tried to do a tremendous amount in this direction, but it is the task of all of us to support him; it is not only a task for the Government. We must not only say: “Buy South African,” but we must also produce our essential requirements in this country and we should concentrate on exports. The policy which the Minister has followed has had an exceptionally salutary effect, as we also saw from the report in last night’s Argus which referred to a large increase in our exports and to a fall in our imports. We are gratified that the measures which the Minister has introduced have had these results, but when we bear in mind that in 1958 we over-imported to the extent of £80,000,000, this was one of the factors which contributed to our reserves falling to £72,000,000 in May 1958. But we did not accept that position. Our economy is so active that it fought back and 18 months later our reserves again stood at £156,000,000. Last year we once again over-imported to the extent of £60,000,000. I concede that this was unexpected because we did not expect these developments. But it is the task of every one of us, and it is in this regard that I criticize the Opposition, namely when it is essential to build up confidence and to establish equilibrium in respect of our tendency to import, they are the very persons who are trying to sow lack of confidence.

The second factor which is a problem in our case is that South Africa surely occupies a unique position in the world as regards foreign shareholdings. There is no other country in the world where so many of the shares in its most important product, namely gold, are held abroad as our country. It is a very good thing when the sun shines and the weather is fine, but when dark clouds build up it can disrupt one’s economy. Thus we have found in recent years, when there were rumours of war or of tension between America and Russia with which we have nothing to do, the Stock Exchange declined. Our fate is settled by all those who say “Buy London or sell London”. No other country except South Africa is in this position. The Minister has now taken all these other steps which will make us less dependent on the vicissitudes of the London market. How often has it not happened during the past year that we have had to pay for what has happened in Africa? When there are difficulties in Algeria, it is in Africa and then South Africa has to suffer as a result. Nor is it in the interests of foreign shareholders that their shares should be subject to these fluctuations. When the Minister takes action aimed at trying to maintain a certain position in this country which will be reflected by the Stock Exchange of this country and which is a far better position than being subject to all the vicissitudes of the outside world, we are told that South Africa is rapidly approaching her doom. These statements are being made just because we have drawn a distinction between the Stock Exchange of this country and that of the world. No, we have also come of age in the economic sphere. This is the same argument as hon. members have used so often hitherto—the argument of foreign capital. Of course we welcome foreign capital, but the time when foreign capital set the pace for our industrial development is past. Let the true position be reflected by our Stock Exchange without it being subject to all these other fluctuations. The measures which the hon. the Minister has taken are not only in the interests of the shareholders of South Africa, but the interests of the other non-resident shareholder are also being looked after in this way.

I do not want to be long. Hon. members opposite have concentrated their motion on the racial policies of the Government, and have urged that we should accept another policy; that we should amend our racial policy. No, I also see great changes taking place in the Western world, and these changes will be reflected in our economic position as well. Let us look at the position in this way: Hitherto tremendous pressure had been exerted to the effect that Britain should grant citizenship and other rights to non-White citizens of the Commonwealth when they arrive in Britain. The Afro-Asian members of the Commonwealth enjoy citizenship rights in that country. Pressure is also being exerted on Canada to absorb some of these non-Whites but the reverse is not true. Let us take Ghana as an example. In Ghana the British do not enjoy citizenship rights. In Ghana the English-speaking White is an expatriate. In no other country in the world is there as much discrimination as there is in Ghana itself, the very country which attacks us so bitterly, and the same applies to other Afro-Asian countries. They are the people who take the lead in attacking us at UNO. We are accused of being the worst oppressors and discriminators, while our policy is aimed at achieving self-government without discrimination and without domination. And they do this while they themselves apply the worst forms of discrimination. I therefore say that this process which is taking place will in the course of time cause a reaction amongst the Whites of the Western world; they will see quite clearly that what is happening is that the non-Whites have an open door in the Western countries, but that the door is shut fast to Whites in the non-White areas. Is this the brotherhood of nations, or is this discrimination in its very worst form? UNO itself will eventually realize that a policy of discrimination is being followed which is not in agreement with the principles of the Charter.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

I am surprised at the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) warning the chairmen of two of our mining houses for making speeches in which he said they imported politics. Surely the hon. member for Mayfair as a man who has had experience in the business world knows that a chairman of a company is responsible to his shareholders. He must report to them in his annual report, and in accounting to them in that report he must explain why there is no further development and why development must be curtailed. Either these mining houses must get their capital for development from within their own organization or they must get it from overseas or from the savings of people in the country and if they find that conditions in the country are such that they are precluded from developing their mines and their options to the extent that they would wish to do so, surely they would be failing in their duty if in their annual report they did not indicate to their shareholders those factors which prevented them from developing as fast as they would have liked. I am surprised at the hon. member for Mayfair not recognizing that fact. He is not assisting the Minister of Finance by giving a warning such as that, because surely if the Minister of Finance wants to get the position right in this country—and I am sure he does—he want to reverse the outflow of capital and get capital flowing back to this country because the Minister of Finance has always said to the outside world that he is in favour of the system of private enterprise and therefore he wants capital to return to this country. I am sure that capital will not be encouraged to come to this country if the Minister of Finance gave a warning to company chairmen on the lines of the warning given by the hon. member for Mayfair. Surely it is the duty of the chairmen to tell their shareholders the truth as they see it. If they find that further capital is necessary and that capital must be encouraged and that there are factors in the country which discourage that inflow of capital, factors such as the policies of the Government, they should say so. Similarly if they find that the policies of the Government with regard to labour conditions are such that they militate against the development of the mines they should also say so. I have yet to find some of the other organizations supported by the Government side refraining from praising the Government when it suits them to do so but of course when a financial organization supported by the Government praises the Government it is not politics—then it is just good finance.

The hon. member referred to the sterling position in Britain and drew a comparison. I want to draw his attention to a statement made by one of the financial writers a day or two ago who said this—

Britain was forced into a position as a result of a war to defend freedom. Sterling is not only the currency of Britain but it is at the same time a world trading currency in a pool freely drawn upon by a host of countries. South Africa is being forced into its present state because the Government is voluntarily creating a state of war in which to suppress freedom. And the rand is a parochial currency of little account in world circles. The problem here is not one of balance of trade. It is a capital problem precipitated by loss of confidence. Sterling’s domestic difficulty is primarily a balance of payments crisis.
Dr. LUTTIG:

When was that written and by whom?

Mr. HOPEWELL:

Two days ago by Harold Fridjohn. The hon. member knows that the problem in this country is a capital problem. He admitted during the course of his remarks that the country’s exports exceeded its imports, and he admitted that imports had decreased. What we are faced with now is a capital problem and if we are going to have any improvement in the position in this country, we need to have further economic development and in order to get that we have to have political stability and economic growth.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

But we have political stability already.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

I did not think that the Chief Whip on the Government side would rise so quickly. I thought he was more intelligent than that—I am sorry to have over-rated him. I can take the hon. the Chief Whip through the various portfolios, when he talks about political stability. Let us start with this new Republic. Did we have political stability when we had our celebrations with many of our young fellows called out on defence duties and when we had virtually a state of emergency throughout the country. Is that what you call “normal”; is that what you call political stability…

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

But you wished to have a revolution.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

Is it political stability when you not only alert your Permanent Force but cancel all leave for the police and call up certain A.C.F. regiments? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Horak) calls it a cold war. Fortunately it is not a hot war. But to call that political stability is stretching credulity too far altogether.

Let us examine the various portfolios. Let us start with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister on his first journey out of South Africa as the leader of this country failed overseas. He failed to accomplish what he had promised to accomplish and when he returned and introduced his Republic, he had to have it virtually with an armed guard. We had republican celebrations behind bayonets and a state of emergency throughout the country. There is plenty more to be said about the Prime Minister and his administration of the country by other members, but let us come to the Minister of Lands, Forestry and Public Works. The Minister of Lands has not told us this Session where the lands are going to be for the Coloured people. There is uncertainty amongst the Coloured people who want to know what their future is to be. The Indian people in Natal are very uncertain as to what the Government’s policy is going to be with regard to them on the question of land. This Minister is also responsible for forestry. Go to any of our timber producers throughout the country and you find that they are disturbed. They want to know what the long-term policy of the Government is going to be. They are concerned because the Minister of Forestry is planting trees, the Minister of Bantu Administration is planting trees and the farmers are planting trees, and they want to know what is going to be the economic effect of this on their industry, long term. Last year the wattle farmers ran into difficulties and they asked the Minister to intervene. He went on a trip to South America and we have heard little or nothing since, but their main grievances have not yet been settled. The wattle industry is still in difficulty. Sir, there is no time to go into greater detail as far as the Forestry Department is concerned, but that is another Department which is causing anxiety amongst the timber farmers. Then I come to the next portfolio in order of seniority—External Affairs. External Affairs is certainly not the brightest jewel in the Cabinet crown. The Minister of External Affairs has failed and failed miserably. His tirades against the Press, both internal and external, are well known in this House and of course his venture with the Press Commission has been enlarged upon so often in this House that there is no need to mention it again. Next, in order of seniority we come to the Minister of Justice. Can we say that justice is evenly handed out for all people in this country, irrespective of race, colour or creed? Surely when the Chief Whip of the Government party talks about political stability, he cannot talk about political stability as far as the Department of Justice is concerned.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

You are making a queer speech.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

Sir, we are dealing with a queer Government, because all these factors form the background against which you have to measure the economic growth of the country. If the body politic is sick your economy will be sick and all these factors, as reported in the outside world, and the acts of the Government as reported in the world outside, are factors which militate against the return of capital and the re-investment of capital in this country.

Then I come to the Minister of Transport. In his Department we find that on frequent occasions recently South African Airways going overseas have made non-stop journeys from here to Europe. Is that because there is a danger of airports in Africa being denied to South Africa? Can the Minister give us any information? Has he had any threat because there are rumours to that effect? If there are rumours to that effect and those rumours are allowed to continue, they are factors which increase the economic risk for overseas concerns as far as investment in this country is concerned. There has been more than one air journey which has been non-stop. The Minister of Transport has told us nothing about that.

Then take the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. What is he contributing to uniting the nation with his division of children in the schools? The Minister of the Interior has a lot to answer for. With his administration of the Group Areas Act and the Population Register Act the Minister is responsible for the administrations of Acts which have caused more suffering and bitterness amongst all sections of the country than we had ever seen in the years prior to 1948. The administration of those Acts has caused racial frustration and tension which have a marked effect on the economy of this country.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

There is much more tension all over Africa.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

Sir, I suggest that what we are concerned with here is the position of South Africa. It is no consolation to me to be told that something is worse somewhere else. What I am concerned about is that things could be a good deal better in this country with a different Government, and it is because of this Government’s policies that our economy is in the sad state in which it is to-day.

Mr. BOOTHA:

Why don’t you become a dictator and refuse to allow people to vote?

Mr. HOPEWELL:

We are well on the way to dictatorship now. Then we come to Bantu Administration which, as we all know, is the bone of contention and has bedevilled the debates in this House for the last 13 years. There is no peace in this country and tensions have increased throughout the past 13 years, and the position has been worse in the last year and a half than at any other time in our history. The administration of Bantu Affairs has its effects on our economy and it is contributing to the deteriorating position. Then take Agricultural and Technical Services. Sir, ask any member of the farming community how difficult it is to get decisions from the present Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. Even this Session his handling of the Water Bill indicated to us that the Prime Minister might be well advised to make a change in that Department. Then we come down to the next Minister in order of seniority, the Minister of Bantu Education. There we find more and more people having to be provided with educational services from a fixed amount, and that amount is getting less and less. Is the Minister of Agricultural Economic and Marketing satisfied with the way in which the co-operative societies are conducting their affairs? We have had very little time during Committee of Supply to deal with the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, but he is concerned with the co-operative societies and I wonder if he is going to do anything to allay the fears of the canning industry in the Cape Province. Is he prepared this Session to tell us anything about the Langeberg Co-op?

Mr. WATERSON:

I do not suppose he has ever heard of it.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

I have here the balance sheet of the Langeberg Co-op and the auditors’ reports.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

You are giving us a political mixed grill.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

It is all very well for the hon. member to laugh, but here we see in the balance sheet of the Langeberg Co-op. that all stocks have been valued at selling price less 7½ per cent and there is even provision for the valuing of stocks for 1958-9—stocks which are more than 12 months old and unsold. The auditors have qualified the balance sheet. Their report runs into over three foolscap pages qualifying the balance sheet under various headings. It refers to the fact that they are not satisfied with the stock valuations. They refer to the lack of information in the pool account; they refer to the diminishing reserves and they refer to an amount of R2,450,000, which is the pool shortage as at 31 October 1960. Here we have an industry in which the farming community in the Western Cape is vitally interested and we find a balance sheet which is qualified in many respects. [Interjections.] No, they show no profits, only losses.

Mr. WATERSON:

What do they owe the Lank Bank?

Mr. HOPEWELL:

We find that they owe the Standard Bank R1,800,000; they owe Volkskas R1,800,000; they owe the Land Bank R1,511,758 and they have a further loan of R10,911,000 with the Land Bank. This is all owing by Langeberg to Volkskas, the Standard Bank and the Land Bank. Sir, here we have farmers who are wanting assistance in times of difficulty and in times of falling prices and when they go to the Land Bank, the Land Bank tells them that they are short of funds. That is where some of the funds of the Land Bank are—tied up in the Langeberg Co-op. Is the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing satisfied with the running of this organization?

Sir, when we go to the various Departments of State we find cracks in every single one of them. It is not only the policy of the Government which is to blame, it is their administration of these Cabinet portfolios. The administration of these portfolios is a contributory factor in this economic disaster which is facing this country.

The Minister of Economic Affairs has been doing his best with regard to the development of markets overseas. He has sent three missions overseas recently. We have had no detail this Session as to what has happened. It is true that these missions have only just returned and we commend the Minister for having sent missions overseas to develop our export markets. Sir, there are many other facets of the Minister’s Department about which we require information. We have the Industrial Development Corporation at times entering into the field of the private sector and competing with the private sector. Only last year there was a suggestion that the I.D.C. was going to finance the buying of a big commercial distributive organization which in our opinion is contrary to the objects of the I.D.C., which is mainly concerned with industrial development. The I.D.C. was not required to enter into the commercial distributive field. Fortunately at the last minute they were out-bid by another organization, so they did not proceed with that venture. We also want information in this House about the I.D.C.’s interests in Rhodesia. Then we want further information about the development of Escom, the Electricity Supply Commission which is a great organization, and yet comparatively little has been done over the past 13 years to supply electricity to the agricultural community. When we hear the Prime Minister telling us that it is part of his policy to develop border industries, one of the first questions that we have to put to the Minister of Economic Affairs is “What is the Electricity Supply Commission doing to establish power stations in the vicinity of these border areas and what facilities are being provided for these border areas?” Because it is foolish to establish border industries without power and without transport.

Then we come to the next Minister, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Perhaps the less we say about him the better. It is no good asking him anything about the radio because he says he has no control over that organization whatsoever, so I do not know where we can discuss slanted news. Lastly we come to the Minister of Defence.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

Please spare him.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

I can assure the Minister of Defence that I shall not be too hard on him because he has only recently taken over this portfolio and he did not have a very good legacy to take over. But we are entitled to know what the Department of Defence is doing in South West Africa, because when the Department of Defence mobilizes troops it becomes world news and it affects the flow of money. Surely the Minister knows that finance is very nervous.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

Where did we mobilize troops?

Mr. HOPEWELL:

Has or has not the Minister sent troops to South West Africa?

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

I said how many—a few.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

My point is that when you move troops to South West Africa, unless the reason is publicly stated that movement of troops is the basis of rumour, and that rumour starts the uncertainty. The Minister says that the troops were sent there to stop smuggling. What was being smuggled—diamonds, liquor or arms, or were they smuggling Nationalists from over the border back to South Africa again? Sir, when you send troops beyond the ordinary borders of South Africa—and the Minister knows that it is not part of our mandate to keep troops in South West Africa—then the country is entitled to an explanation.

Sir, I have left until last the Minister of Finance, not because he is last in seniority but because he is responsible for the administration of the nation’s purse, and on the efficiency with which the other Departments are administered will depend his ability to conduct the finances of the country on a sound and efficient basis. The Minister has not given us very much encouragement. We find great difficulty in accepting everything that the Minister has said. On 17 April the Minister said this when he referred to the question of prohibiting capital from leaving the Union—

This is a time of rumours, some of them deliberately spread for ulterior motives. The bearish element is always there. Most of these rumours are so foolish that it is hard to understand that anyone can seriously give them any attention at all… But I take this opportunity of saying that the rumours of restrictions on the repatriation of overseas capital or of the income earned thereon are completely false. Even in most difficult times when our balance of payments position was in a far more parlous state than to-day we never imposed any such restrictions and we are certainly not considering the imposition of any such restrictions at this time. It is indeed regrettable that these rumours should have been given currency and publicity at a time when we want to build up confidence. We all know how sensitive the Stock Exchange is to rumours of this kind.

Mr. Speaker, during the Budget debate I and others raised this matter, and that was the reply given to us by the Minister of Finance. We raised the matter again and the hon. the Minister on 4 May said this—

I repeat it is not the intention to restrict the repatriation of foreign capital or the income or dividends on it. The rumours about such restrictions as well as other measures such as devaluation are completely unfounded.

The hon. the Minister couples these two together—

The rumours about such restrictions as well as other measures such as devaluation are completely unfounded. On the contrary I am convinced that these measures together with those on which my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, is working will be sufficient to safeguard the economy and the balance of payments.

Has it been sufficient? On 4 May, only a month ago, the Minister made this statement, and in spite of the denials when we raised the matter during the Budget debate, when the Minister replied on 17 April he told us the rumours were baseless and that he had the position under control; and again on 4 May the Minister told us again that the rumours were baseless. He coupled it then with the question of devaluation. I can see the Minister coming to this House in a few months’ time and telling us that there is now unity in South Africa, unity of the highest kind because he had been able to unite the funds of South Africa with the people of South Africa by getting the funds of South Africans overseas, and bringing them back to this country to unite them with the people. But of course that won’t be called “forced transfer of capital back to South Africa In ministerial language it will be called” uniting the funds Then the Minister will go on to tell us that the South African rand is now equal in value to the currency of that other great republic, the United States of America, the rand being equal to the value of the dollar. But in other language it will be that the South African currency has been devalued. How much faith can we place in the assurances of the Minister? Already to-day we have two rounds. We have the one rand that is equal to 10 shillings sterling, and we have the other rand that is already being quoted by the Swiss banks at a discount of between 7 and 10 per cent. We would like to know from the hon. Minister of Finance and from members on his side what suggestions they can make to improve the position. The hon. member for Constantia said we were suffering from financial haemorrhage. Mr. Speaker, what we need to-day, if the patient is not going to die, or alternatively is not going to take a long time to recover, is a blood transfusion, and we need blood-donors. Is the Minister going to look for his blood donations to the public of South Africa? Is he going to insist on higher taxation in order to make up his short-fall? Or is the Minister going to look for overseas capital, and if so, how is he going to get it? Because, Mr. Speaker, so long as the Government pursues its present policies, so long as the Government carries on in the way it is doing, it is not going to get any blood donations from the outside world, because it is the policies of this Government which are militating against capital development and against the introduction of further capital into this country, and I deny the suggestion of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) when he says that the policy of this Government has nothing to do with the economy of the country. Mr. Speaker, it has a great deal to do with the country, and until such time as this Government changes its policy the financial haemorrhage will continue and the patient will surely die.

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

The hon. member who has just sat down opened his speech, and this was the main theme of his speech, with a catalogue of criticisms of the Government and the National Party. I now just want to tell him this: If this is a preview of the propaganda criticisms which that party intend levelling at this party, then it is not an advertisement of their readiness for battle, but an indication of their pending destruction. As far-reaching as his criticism was, so flat was it, and while he has perhaps tried to make a “new look” Budget speech, it was merely a repetition of the “old look” criticism of the administration of this regime. As regards the hon. member’s closing remarks which were relevant to a certain extent, I shall come back to them in dealing with the speech of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) because the hon. member for Constantia, in marked contrast to his colleague, has made a speech to which any parliamentarian could listen with pleasure, although a South African must have been struck by the terrible tone of “from the depths of misery”. He sung this refrain to such an extent that he came to the conclusion that this was an instance where even he and his party wanted to assist. Then we must realize that he regards the position very shortly. The hon. member made one remark which I consider unfortunate and to which I want to refer. At one stage he referred somewhat disparagingly to “this little Republic of ours”. I just want to tell the hon. member this: I cannot imagine that when the House of Commons debates whether Britain should join the European Common Market, a speaker will rise and refer to the economic problems which are forcing Britain to join the European Common Market and speak disparagingly of “this little kingdom of ours”. In any case, I would not speak in that way. But we are on the way to better days, and I hope the hon. member will come with us.

The first submission which I want to make in contra-distinction to the main theme of the hon. member, is this: Although we are experiencing difficulties to-day, indisputable difficulties, which call for our attention, South Africa is a rich country. We are a rich country in comparison with, if I may put it in this way, Australia, for example, 60 per cent of the exports of which are represented by primary products such as wool, meat and grain. Only 15 per cent of our country’s exports consist of wool, fruit, meals and other agricultural products; the remainder are not agricultural products and are not so sensitive to price changes. About 50 per cent of our exports come from gold, uranium and diamonds. Basically we are blessed with the resources which make us a rich country, and those who are far more hostile towards us than the United Party, for example the editorial writer of the Economist which has taken so much delight in recent times in always saying the worst about South Africa, made this concession as recently as 3 June. He said—

South Africa’s economy can probably stand a lot more battering than many people think. The talk everywhere is of a siege economy. The likelihood is that the siege will last a long time. Most businessmen expect a slower rate of expansion to be forced on them in the next few years. Some expect a reduction in the standard of luxury living. Very few fear a complete economic collapse in the near future.

If this is the worst our enemies can say, I think we are entitled in making it our primary basic premise that here we are dealing with a very strong economy. From which point of view should we regard this position? In the first place I want to associate myself with the two basic submissions which formed the central premise of the hon. member for Constantia, and I think the whole House agrees with them. In the first place we on this side and the Government too believe and are showing by our actions that South Africa’s economy must maintain its expanding tempo for every possible reason—our own self-interest, our guardianship over the non-Whites, and from every possible point of view; in the second place—and this is an associated aspect—to be able to maintain our expanding economy, the capital required for expansion must be made available. Then we come to the basic premises which are at dispute between us. The hon. member for Constantia at once based his criticism on the fact that this Government’s racial policies were frightening capital away from the Republic in order by so doing to attract capital. In principle this is what the Progressive Party are also asking. Here I associate myself with what the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) has said, namely: When we speak of South Africa’s economy, we must accept this racial policy of the National Party Government as an unalterable given fact. The public has repeatedly chosen this policy and we stand for the principle that White self-government will be maintained in our areas. Consequently it is an unfruitful basis for debate to say that we should try to protect our economy by removing this basic given fact. Our National Party policy in this matter is as basic an economic fact for South Africa as the fact that we do not have navigable rivers or that gold is found in the earth. It is a fact which we must take into account to-day and which we must not try to argue away. I therefore want to ask: Within the framework of this policy which is a political and social given fact at the moment, how can we achieve the expanding economy and find the required capital? In this regard I want to remark in passing: It is always being said that this policy must be sacrificed and then we shall have a position which will result in a more favourable economic climate. But the policy which the hon. member’s party advocate in this regard, and which is advocated far more strongly by the Progressives, is that they always base their stand on the argument that if we change our racial policy, the Whites will still retain political leadership in South Africa. But this is not a justifiable contention. This is a contention which they put forward but it is a completely unjustifiable presumption.

Then I come to the next point I want to make, namely: In his speech the hon. member for Constantia made it his main point of criticism (and the Progressive Party even more so) that adjustments to our policies would attract capital from abroad and that only by an adjustment of our policies would the Government be able to create a climate which would attract capital. I now want to ask hon. members: Is there anything to substantiate this presumption? I say: No! The facts show the reverse, namely that no adjustment of racial policy will attract capital because in Rhodesia there is limited “partnership”. Is it attracting capital to Southern Rhodesia at the moment? No. In Northern Rhodesia there is a more for reaching “partnership”. Is it attracting capital? No. In Kenya there is complete capitulation and that is not attracting capital. And in the various Black countries such as Nigeria and Ghana there is a limited measure of capital inflow, but there is not a capital inflow of such scope that they can achieve an expansion whether in their total national income or in their per capita earnings which is comparable with that of the Republic of South Africa. In other words, the realities of the African situation show that such a so-called adjusted policy will not attract capital either.

Before I submit my opinions regarding the solution of this problem, within the framework of our policy, I just want to touch upon this point with reference to what the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has said regarding the measures which the Minister of Finance has taken and which are aimed at preventing the repatriation of foreign investments which are realized by the sale of shares in this country. The hon. member has described this as a form of breach of faith as a reason to reproach us. I just want to make this submission: Seeing that that party’s main speaker has based his attack on the fact that South Africa has had to take steps to find capital for the maintenance of an expanding economy, is it logical for the hon. member for Pinetown to criticize us on this point? Does the hon. member not see that every £1,000,000 which is spent on buying back foreign domiciled shares, represents £1,000,000 which cannot be used in the expansion of South Africa’s economy and new industries? And with a view to the attitude which that party itself has adopted, namely that above all else we must provide for the capitalization of an expanding economy, they must surely concede that, seen from their point of view, it is quite correct also that the capital resources of South Africa should be preserved and utilized in the first place for the object of expanding our present economy still further, rather than to repatriate foreign investments to South Africa. In saying that, I am in no way derogating from the general premise that we should like to repatriate foreign investments to South Africa because it may be profitable for South Africans. But that is seeing the matter from the point of view of the individual investor. From the point of view of the country it is obviously the first priority that capital should be found to maintain the tempo of an expanding economy, and seeing that we have now once and for all crossed this most important rubicon, by restricting the repatriation of foreign capital, I believe that we must not lightly repeal this present decision until such time as we are sure that South Africa’s capital resources are adequate to maintain our expanding economy, and in addition we can, as a bonus, repatriate foreign capital as well. Before I put the point which I should like to discuss, I want to reply to the suggestion, made particularly by the Progressive Party, and a suggestion which the United Party have made not on this occasion but on previous occasions, namely that a root weakness in South Africa’s economy is that we are not utilizing our potential man-power resources because, as they allege, we do not want to utilize our Black man-power resources; we encircle them with colour bar restrictions on their movements, etc. In this respect our reply is in the first place that this party’s policy of border industries and development within the reserves will in fact create unequalled possibilities to utilize such increased potential as is available in the shape of our Black labour resources. Why do not hon. members support that policy? Why does the Opposition as a whole not support that policy? Let the improved utilization of Black Labour then take place within a social framework which is acceptable to the whole country. Why do they oppose that policy? In this regard I want in the second place to put this pertinent question to hon. members opposite: They claim that the most effective economic cure will be to remove economic restrictions on Black labour in South Africa. But there are no statistics or information as to what additional production would result from the removal of all restrictions on Black labour in South Africa. In other words, what would be the additional production potential of Black labour if all restrictions were to be immediately removed. It is very easy to generalize and to say that if the colour bar and the restrictions on their freedom of movement were to be ameliorated, South Africa’s national income and her per capita earnings would rise tremendously. That is guessing. They have no information in this regard. And when we examine the production of the Congo before the debacle caused by the disappearance of Belgian supervision, we find that production in that country had risen to a national income of approximately £380,000,000 per annum; the per capita rate of production by those Natives was at that time infinitely lower than our per capita production in South Africa. I do not say that a substantially higher productions is not possible; I am only saying that it is absolute nonsense to claim that the removal of restrictions from Black labour so that they can move wherever they like, can bring about a proveable or significant increase in the wealth of the Republic.

I now want to explain my attitude and to express my faith in the policy of the Minister of Finance and the Government for meeting this obviously difficult situation. The first point I want to make is that we must form capital by means of import control. The hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) has already made the point that 30 per cent of our national income goes abroad to pay for the importation of all sorts of edibles and things to wear and to ride and to pay for all sorts of things which represent the pleasures and luxuries of life. Let us just examine the importation of motorcars. In 1956 things went well and we only imported over 78,000 motor-cars, which figure rose to 111,000 in 1957, to 124,000 in 1958 and by 1959 (the last figures I have available) the figure was 114,000. It is obvious that these imports are excessive, and when we think of our total imports to the value of approximately R1,200,000,000 it is clear that enormous savings can be effected and an enormous amount of capital formed. The hon. member has committed himself to a figure and has referred to R25,000,000, but I think he meant £25,000,000. per annum in capital which would be required from abroad to enable us to maintain our growing economy—that is to say R50,000,000. Sir, we can save R50,000,000 many times over through the application of import control which is already being done, and I believe that if our Government can go further as regards import control, it should go as far as possible. We concede the natural limitation in that one cannot destroy bilateral trade by import control, and that one cannot excessively restrict the State income which is based on import duties, but bearing in mind these factors, I believe that this is the first method for overcoming our capital shortage. The second method for creating capital and wealth is the possession of technical knowledge. Technical knowledge is to be found in our own brains, our own universities, our own research institutions. We must develop these assets. These are our inexhaustible gold mines. May I refer the House to the description by the Nobel Prize winner, Seminov, of the people I now have in mind. He said—

In this sphere one talented person can do ten times as much as a person who is mediocre, and can do it ten times better.

One real technician is worth 100 ordinary workers. It is said that 20 per cent of the total population cannot provide the industrial leaders required for the whole population which includes the non-Whites. What is the position in mighty Russia? An elite consisting of 5000,000 members of their Communist Party provides the leadership for the whole 200,000,000 people. If we develop fully the brainpower and the mental resources available in our nation, we shall have the basic strength to create wealth. And next to technical knowledge, I believe in work, and this applies to the Whites and the non-Whites, but perhaps primarily to the Whites. South Africa has become a little easy-going as regards work. It is not without reason that the extract which I have read from the Economist refers to a “standard of luxury living”, and that later in the article they refer to the highest standard of living in the world. Our capital formation must take place through work. We need only look back 15 years over the history of Germany. It is true that to a certain extent Germany had the assistance of outside capital, but the primary instrument, the primary raw material which made Germany the richest country in the Western world to-day, was work, They started with half bricks and worked. South Africa must also achieve wealth through the formation of capital by means of work—technical knowledge and work.

A final aspect which I want to mention is something in respect of which the hon. member for Constantia and his comrades-in-arms could certainly do a great deal, namely, the fact that there must be co-operation between the State and the business man. The State can give guidance. The State can provide a measure of inspiration. Through the development of its technical resources the State can make a great contribution. But eventually if the mutually enriching processes of brain-power, labour and capital are to be combined in order to produce new products or to produce our own products more rapidly and more cheaply so as to create wealth through the production achieved by our labour so that the surplus can remain for the formation of capital, it is the private industrialist, the private entrepreneur, who must co-operate. And far too often we find the attitude in South Africa that the private industrialist and entrepreneur does not want to use the given facts which are at his disposal. He wants to undo this basic socio-political given fact, namely, our policy for separating the races and their separate development. Let them once and for all accept this given socio-political fact, and within the framework of that policy let them show their undeniable ingenuity. Within that framework they can ask this Government for help and concessions where necessary. This Government cannot really be reproached for ever having refused any reasonable representations from the business world or from industry during the 13 years of its régime. I believe that if our industrialists and our business men will cooperate closely with the State instead of adopting an attitude of hostile opposition, we shall be able to set in motion this process of creating wealth by which we shall not only be able to improve to an ever-increasing extent our current international balance of payments, but by which we shall be able to provide our total capital requirements of £300,000,000 per annum plus the amounts required for investment in the private sector in order to maintain our expanding economy. Then we shall also have the production required to repatriate further foreign investments and we shall then be able to withdraw these present restrictions which we must regretfully accept but to which we must give our full support as an indication of realistic political action. But as long as the United Party acts as the godfather to this critical and unco-operative attitude of the business world, for so long as the whole Opposition tries to disparage every attempt by this Government, for so long as this Opposition continually casts the spotlight on just one aspect, namely, our declared basic racial policy, for so long will they help to hamper us in our attempts to achieve prosperity and to regain foreign goodwill, goodwill which we can regain to a certain extent as well.

But we shall only regain the goodwill of the outside world and of the foreign investor in one way and with this I want to conclude: Not by making concessions in respect of our colour policy; nor shall we regain it by any international reorientation. We shall only gain foreign goodwill and investment in one way, namely, by making a success of our own productive economic system.

Mr. MOORE:

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has given us his reasoned approach to the new, modern siege economy in South Africa. He accepts the present situation and he has given us his approach. He has given it sincerely, and I think he has given us something constructive to think about to-day. I am sorry that he did not like the approach of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). What has impressed me in this debate is that hon. members on the Opposition side who have spoken have tried to assist the hon. the Minister of Finance. With the change in the Minister’s statements since the Budget statement three months ago, the Opposition could have flayed the Minister and the Government but they have not done so.

Mr. BOOTHA:

They could not do it.

Mr. MOORE:

The Government is more to be pitied than blamed—that is the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Constantia in his approach. I am sorry that the hon. member for Kempton Park did not appreciate that. However, I do thank him for his kind words about South African gold production and what the gold mines have done. I shall come back to that and I shall have a word to say which will reinforce his views on this matter. I do not know why the hon. member does not like the Economist. For many years now we have had hon. members from the Government side, such as the hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) and many hon. Ministers, quoting gaily from the London Economist. I have never quoted the London Economist but they have done so. It does not help to quote from a paper only when it agrees with you; the time to quote it is when it gives an independent opinion.

I should now like to deal with this question of capital. Our greatest asset in South Africa, if we had sufficient capital to develop it—and we do not require a great deal—is the human resources that we have in this country. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Williams) spoke about it this afternoon. That is why I agree so far with the hon. member for Kempton Park, who says that we must develop the reserves with the human capital that is there available. I should like to ask him: “Is he prepared to accept White capital for machines and equipment and technical services from the Whites?” I do not ask for an immediate reply because I do not wish to embarrass the hon. member. This is a question I should like to put to the Government side: are you prepared to accept our policy or do you want the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister who says that the Africans must provide that capital themselves, from their own resources? We say it is impossible and it cannot be done. Therefore I should like the hon. member for Kempton Park to try to meet us as we are trying to meet him.

The hon. member spoke about Rhodesia. We know about the remarkable development that has taken place in Rhodesia since the Second World War. Both Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia have developed tremendously. There are the copper mines in Northern Rhodesia. The wealth of the Federation comes from the copper mines. There is the great development of those wonderful citites and the great development in agriculture in Southern Rhodesia. Where did that come from? Surely not from the inhabitants of Rhodesia, at the beginning? It was capital from abroad. They used that capital, and they are using it to-day. Why should we say we do not need capital of that kind? We do need it; we need capital from outside and from inside. The hon. member predicts a long siege. There he is probably right. We shall have to tighten our belts—”fasten your seat belts” will perhaps be our order later, for we are going into heavy weather. I do not think it helps for the hon. member for Kempton Park to tell us that the demise, the death of the United Party is approaching, because at the moment we are not discussing the future of the United Party but something much more important, the future of South Africa. That is what is at stake to-day.

I should now like to say a word about this Appropriation. Three months ago the hon. the Minister of Finance gave us his Budget speech. In introducing that Budget he used those medical metaphors that the hon. member for Constantia has referred to. He spoke about our economy being in sparkling health and of its exceptional vitality. He went further. he said this—

The beat of its heart is regular and strong, even under pressure. Organically there is nothing wrong with our economy, but there are certain impurities present in the bloodstream which require watching. The inflationary animal fats in the blood need to be strictly controlled, otherwise we may be heading for a financial thrombosis.

Was the announcement on Friday the financial thrombosis? The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) says the treatment for a financial thrombosis is to get the patient to run a hundred yards sprint! That is not the treatment for a thrombosis. The treatment for a thrombosis is what the hon. the Minister himself indicated in his speech to-day. I jotted down what he said: The Treasury will have to be strict and careful. That is quite correct, quiet for the patient. The other thing he said was this: “As President Kruger said, we will wait for the tortoise to put out its head, wait for what is coming.” But we do not do that in finance. We do that in politics, but in finance you do not wait for the tortoise, you take action well in advance. I am afraid that that policy will not do.

Now I want to come to the first point of the hon. the Minister of Finance, because I think it is a good one. How is he going to be strict and careful? He, as Minister of Finance, has a very important duty to perform. He has to see that there will be savings in his own Government departments, to set an example to the country. I will indicate one or two savings—not many. There are many, and the hon. the Minister knows better than I what they are. I should like to suggest, first of all, this: There is a Press Commission sitting in South Africa. I do not know whether hon. members in this House know there is a Press Commission…

Mr. GAY:

It is a national monument.

Mr. MOORE:

… but that Press Commission has been there much longer than many hon. members in this House. I am now in the company of the leading Nationalist newspaper in the Transvaal, the Transvaler, and they say “scrap it, finish it off”.

Dr. FISHER:

Start a new one.

Mr. MOORE:

No, we do not want a new one. When the hon. the Minister of Finance has dealt with the Press Commission, he should deal with all the budding commissions he sees in this country that will never achieve anything, excepting the re-statement of Government policy. Scrap them as well. There is no future for them in South Africa. We do not need them.

The next thing I would suggest is this: Speaking of these commissions, we had a Select Committee on an advisory council in education. We shall need an advisory council, perhaps in the dim and distant future, but we do not need an advisory council on education when we are in a siege economy. Scrap that too. The next I should like to mention is that we have created in South Africa Native Commissioners for the Native Reserves—I am sorry, what are they called? High Commissioners?

Mr. HOPEWELL:

Their Excellencies.

Mr. MOORE:

Their Excellencies—these gentlemen who have been sent to the Native Reserves.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Commissioners-General.

Mr. MOORE:

Thank you. Commissioners-General! We do not need them in this siege economy. We might have needed them as a luxury. We might have needed them when there were gentlemen asking for jobs, but we do not need them now. I would suggest he should scrap those as well. I have mentioned these three only, and I suggest that that is a satisfactory number. Having done that, I would suggest that a departmental committee should be appointed by the Minister of Finance to go through this book of Estimates and decide what is really superfluous and unnecessary for the development of our country and the government of South Africa. I would do that first.

The next point I should like to make is that the hon. the Minister has told us that in this siege economy the development that will take place will be in the next ten years—I gather from the hon. the Minister of Finance that the siege is going to last as long as that at at least.

In the next 12 years there will be development to the value of R1,000,000,000 in those four utility corporations, Sasol, Escom, Iscor and Foscor.

Mr. MITCHELL:

R2,000,000,000.

Mr. MOORE:

May I ask the hon. the Minister, was it R1,000,000,000 or £1,000,000,000?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAF:

R2,000,000,000.

Mr. MOORE:

I am referring to the hon. the Minister’s Budget speech. I do not know whether this is a misprint, but it says R1,000,000,000 will be spent on those four utility corporations.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

By the time it got to the State President’s speech it was up to R2,000,000,000.

Mr. MOORE:

Perhaps I had better read it from the Budget speech—

The four Government corporations, Iscor, Escom, Sasol and Foscor, with their important expansion schemes which, in the aggregate, will run into upwards of R1,000,000,000 are bound to make a significant contribution…

And so on.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I think it should be pounds.

Mr. MOORE:

That is R2,000,000,000. Now I would like to know, in our siege economy, where we are going to get R2,000,000,000 in the next 12 years? The hon. member for Kempton Park says we must produce it out of our own savings and so on. We must work harder. But that is a lot to ask for. R160,000.000 per annum for that alone! The hon. the Minister has told us that it will come out of savings. Well let us take the first of these, Sasol. There have never been any savings in Sasol. Sasol is a company that owed £12,000,000 to the Government, and m order to show that they could break square they asked the Government and this House to convert the £12,000,000 loan into 12,000,000 £1 shares. And we agreed to do it. And with money at 6 per cent, that is £720,000 a year—R1,440,000 a year. That is what we handed to Sasol. The shares were not worth £1 with a capital of £48,000,000 for their development. Everybody knows Sasol was not worth £48,000,000. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs of those days, Dr. van Rhijn, told us that part of it was experimental, that it was not only for the production of oil. However, I would like to know where that money is going to come from.

We come next to Escom. Escom is a utility corporation which has developed on loan capital. That is a modern way and a good way, and Escom has done extraordinarily well. But it is going to be very difficult now to maintain the loan capital policy.

Foscor: I cannot see Foscor providing this money. It cannot provide it in the next four or five years, that is definite. We all know that.

The only really good producer will be Iscor. Is it suggested that Iscor will be loaded with this amount? I ask the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt)—surely that is not the intention of the Government? I should like that explained because it is no good boasting of what we are going to do. We want to know what this siege economy is going to bring us to.

I should like to refer again, if I may, to the hon. the Minister. I am not going to repeat an appeal, but during the Budget debate I asked the hon. the Minister why he had discriminated against the gold-mining industry when he reduced company income tax by 3 per cent of the 30 per cent—in other words 10 per cent reduction? And he gave his reasons.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

May I just make a correction, please. For the four items mentioned in the Budget speech, it is as stated there. More than R1,000,000,000 is the figure. The R2,000,000,000 was the figure given in the State President’s speech, and that refers to those items plus the Railways and other items such as private industry. It was the total of incentives that would now be introduced. But for the four items in the Budget speech it is more than R1,000,000,000, not pounds.

Mr. MOORE:

I am very grateful to the hon. Minister for his explanation.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

But he is wrong again.

Mr. MOORE:

It has just been pointed out to me, Sir, that that is not correct. The President’s speech says—

The extensive programmes recently announced of the expansion of the operations of Government-controlled undertakings such as Iscor, Escom, and Sasol are conclusive proof of the Government’s own faith in the future economic growth of the Republic of South Africa. These expansion programmes will involve an estimated capital expenditure of R2,000,000,000 during the next 12 years.
Mr. HOPEWELL:

Just double the Budget speech figure.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Nothing about private enterprise.

Mr. MOORE:

However, there is some misunderstanding, I am not going to press the point.

Mrs. SUZMAN:

After all, what is R1,000,000,000?

Mr. MOORE:

Yes, what is R1,000,000,000 between friends?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Well, hand it over between friends.

Mr. MOORE:

The hon. the Minister of Finance will remember that I raised this question of gold-mining taxation and the discrimination against the industry. What was the attitude of the gold-mining industry to this discrimination? They rendered good for evil; they turned the other cheek. I suppose the hon. the Minister has noted this offer of extra shares for the Western Deep Levels. I suppose he has seen what has happened there. The Anglo American Corporation and its associated companies, and other South African finance companies had to raise money for the second stage of development of the Western Deep Level Mine, which is the deep level of two of the richest mines the world has ever known—two of the biggest and richest, West Driefontein and Blyvooruitzicht. And the hon. the Minister is more interested than anybody else in the profit of those mines because he takes the lease profits and the taxation. In trying to raise this money the finance groups hesitated because of the serious financial situation in South Africa. This is what they were confronted with. Up to March this year, to bring the mines to the present state of development has cost R32,400,000. For the next stage of development which will bring the mine up to production in the Ventersdorp Contact Reef, they will require another R16,800,000. The question was: Were there finance groups in South Africa that would underwrite it? They hesitated. They said they would not give a decision until fairly late in April. The economic position was deteriorating in South Africa. Then they decided they would underwrite. If they had not underwritten, what would have been the position? Hundreds of men would have been out of work, unemployed, and one knows what that means for these people. However, the financial groups decided they would go on with this development, and they did so.

Mr. Speaker, the ordinary shareholder took up only 4 per cent of those shares and the Anglo American Corporation with associated companies took up 79 per cent, the remaining 17 per cent being divided amongst other finance companies. I should have thought the hon. the Minister would have made a statement in this House expressing his appreciation of the manner in which the gold-mining industry had come to our assistance in this manner. I think it is a splendid thing. But instead of that the gold-mining industry gets criticism. I think it was a very great gesture, and all we get here is that the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. H. G. Luttig) says that the chairmen of these finance companies at their annual meetings should not talk politics, should not talk about the economic situation in South Africa. But that is their job. If a man is a shareholder in a finance company he expects the chairman of that company to survey the position as the hon. the Minister of Finance does in his Budget speech.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Only more accurately.

Mr. MOORE:

Well, perhaps so.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

They do not make mistakes of R1,000,000,000.

Mr. MOORE:

It is his function to be objective and explain what the prospects of the country are. And these chairmen have done that. The chairman of the Anglo American Corporation, the chairman of General Mining, the chairman of the Union Corporation have all done that—but not the chairman of Lange-berg. The auditors spoke in the case of Lange-berg. They did not have the chairman there; it was the auditor who said what he thought about the prospects. I do not know what the chairman is going to do. That is the position.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) spoke about what had happened in 1947 and 1948. Well, I think the hon. the Minister of Finance must have a nostalgic feeling when he thinks back to the great days of 1948 when this Government first came into office, and when he thinks of the financial chaos they have created in this country. The first Budget introduced by Mr. Havenga in those days was a United Party Budget, which was not presented before the election. To-day we are scrounging around for a few pounds in order to build up our reserves. We tried to hold them round R150,000,000. What was the position in those days with the reserves? The election was on 26 May—which is a national day in the Nationalist Party calendar. On the previous Friday this was the position: There was in the Reserve Bank £101,000,000 of gold—R202,000,000. This country was so rich and flourishing, the finest young nation in the world in those days, that they had lent Britain £80,000,000 in gold—R160,000,000. At the same time the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) spoke about …

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

And a deficit on current account of £162,000,000.

Mr. MOORE:

I think the hon. the Minister had better wait until he gives his reply, when he can give those figures, and explain the R2,000,000,000.

The next point is this: we will stick to Mr. Havenga’s pounds of those days. That was the position of the reserves’ £181,000,000 in gold, and in addition to that £77,000,000 in Foreign Bills. Let us work that out. That is £258,000,000—R516,000,000 in our money today—and really more in our money to-day. because the price of gold then was 172s. an ounce. If they had held on it would have been 248s. an ounce. Then it would have been almost R700,000,000. What a country we had! And they called it a “Bankrot Boedel”. Well, let us all go bankrupt in South Africa if that is a bankrupt “boedel”.

We have had the Budget this year and we have had the Appropriation. Now, with this feeling of nostalgia let us see what Mr. Havenga thought about the situation in 1948 in that wonderful speech he delivered. Here are a few short extracts. It will do us good. I think, to look back to the good old days. He said—

The accounts for the past year ended with a surplus on revenue account of £8,900,000.

And the next one—

We have attracted a large amount of overseas capital and we are continuing to draw it. The Union has latterly been a strong magnet for capital.

But this is the peach, listen to number three—

Reserves are there to be used, and, as I shall show presently, we are still well above the safety limit.

Number four—

There is, as there has always been in the past, a readiness on the part of foreign capital to seek investment here.

The hon. member for Kempton Park is not here at the moment, which is a pity. Here is the next remark—

The picture which I have painted shows the existence of an essentially sound position—healthy opportunities for international trade, healthy opportunities for profitable investment on a mutually advantageous basis.
I have indicated that funds are available to finance a great deal of development.
I therefore propose that a sum of £1,000,000 be voted in this period of buoyant revenue as a contribution to the National Road Fund.

Then he proposed to distribute largesse to all the interests of South Africa: Income Tax surcharges £3,000,000 reduction: Increased rebates on Income Tax £1,290,000: Minor concessions on Income Tax £180,000: Abolition of wartime surcharge on Transfer Duty £400,000: Reduction of Tax on gold mines £900,000. And then he said this—

So much for the present, what of the future …

Mr. Speaker, this is the future. We are in the future now. They were ringing the bells in 1948, they will soon be ringing their hands. That is what we have come to in South Africa. And why have we come to this? Why has this great country with such wonderful assets, with its great opportunities, and its great people come to this sorry pass? Because the Government has taken the wrong road. The answer for South Africa is to go back and to get on to the right road. They are lost in the bush. Go back and get on the right road.

Mr. VAN DER WALT:

What is the right road?

Mr. MOORE:

The right road is the policy of the United Party as adumbrated by my hon. leader. But what is the Government’s remedy for this situation, Mr. Speaker? They say “Let us have a general election”. But there is no money in the house and we have nothing to live on. They say “If there is nothing to live on and you have no money in the house, let us play the gramophone”. That is their remedy. Nothing in this country will be put right by having a general election. I think if we have a general election we shall probably be in a worse state that we are to-day.

I say in conclusion? Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment or two ago, let us get back to the right road, back to “die pad van Suid-Afrika”.

Mr. ROSS:

I do not think the effect of this statement of the hon. the Minister of Finance has reached the country yet. We all know that vast sums are needed for our reserves, the Native reserves, and for other things. And I must admit to a considerable amount of surprise at the carefree acceptance by the Government side of the position that has now arisen.

Overseas confidence, as my hon. colleague has said, has disappeared entirely and it will be a long time returning. If ever there was a time for a change of Government, if ever there was a time when a Government should resign, it is now. And if the Government will not this hon. Minister should. Confidence in this country will be a long time returning. Wild dreams of cures for our difficulties have brought us to this financial position. All funds are now frozen. What is going to be the Government’s next step? It looks as if the next step will be devaluation. I think that that would draw them on to temporary advancement, dishonest though its implications are. What will devaluation mean? As usual, the watering down of the people’s savings, the erosion of their pensions, and businesses with liabilities overseas and assets here will be ruined by a stroke of the pen. That is what will happen when the next step is taken.

Sir, I am not exaggerating, because the way in which the country’s finances have been handled in the last few years makes it quite clear that anything can happen. It was a sorry picture indeed that the hon. the Minister of Finance gave us. Even if our reserves improve, as I think they will under the steps he has taken, he will not dare to relax the chains in regard to foreign investors taking their money out. He knows the moment he does, there will be such a flood that he will be forced to clamp down again. Our credit has gone, and it has gone for so long that my colleague was right when he said there will be a wringing of hands in the years to come, and not so far in the future.

When I look back on the Minister’s Budget Speech I cannot help being reminded of the old nursery rhyme of “Humpty Dumpty”. You will remember it went this way—

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.

Of course we should use the term State President in place of king here. But a large amount of our difficulties have been brought about by the coming of this State President of ours and the leaving of the Commonwealth of Nations, added to the policy of this Government. That is what has brought us to this present stage.

I really want to expand on the question of the encouragement and the establishment of industries on the borders of the reserves. We all know how Government actions can affect jobs. As a Transvaler I have seen the effect of Government policy on the jobs of the garment workers in Germiston. I have seen Germiston slowly die. We all realize that there are consequences still to come. This was all caused by Government encouragement and the unfair encouragement of industries in Native areas. We are therefore entitled to demand that Ministers of the Government should have some understanding of economic laws and their effect. They should understand that if wages are lowered in one area, other things being equal, the product of that area will be cheaper, and that cheapness will bring unemployment in the first area, and not only wages but railway rates, electricity and water supplies, all those items subsidized by the Government, if they bring unfair competition they also bring unemployment elsewhere. Unfortunately the Government replies to questions of this sort in recent years show no sign that they appreciate this elementary proposition. In fact, their replies indicate that they have given very little thought to the possibility of unemployment in the established areas. I ask them, however difficult it is for them, please to try to understand that there are economic laws which, if disobeyed, bring unemployment and loss in their wake. They must understand that they can create conditions which put businesses out of business and men out of work. It is not only Black men they put out of work, by job reservation, but White men. I also want the Government to stop talking with two voices. I want to know what the real policy is in regard to these industries on the borders of the reserves. Is it the policy enunciated by the experts of the Economic Advisory Council, or that enunciated by the Minister and other Government spokesmen, because the two are obviously in conflict with each other? In November 1960, Dr. S. P. du Toit Viljoen, vice-president of the Board of Trade, assured the Executive Council of the Federated Chamber of Industries that the border areas’ plans were in no way aimed at forcing any established industries in White urban areas to the verges of the Black reserves. These areas, he said, had to be developed on economic grounds and not purely for the sake of an ideology. He said, further, that there was no intention of depressing the wages of non-Whites working in border factories. All incomes would be fixed by the Wage Board and not by industrial council agreements between the employers and their Black workers. That statement was like a breath of fresh air to the industrialists of the country. He went on to say, further, that railway freight rates serving the border areas would also have to be neutralized so that they would not provide established factories elsewhere with unfair competition. That was common sense, and now I would like to tell you what Dr. D. H. Steyn, the chairman of the Economic Advisory Council, said last November to Assocom—

Dr. D. H. Steyn, chairman of the Economic Advisory Council, said that the main difficulty appeared to be the fear of dislocation in existing industrial areas. But the Prime Minister had emphasized a number of important principles which Congress seemed to have lost sight of, namely, that the Union’s economy should be developed as a whole and that considerable development in the border areas could take place only in a general atmosphere of development. If it were accepted that the present rate of development was not satisfactory, it could be assumed that the Government would not take any action but would damage industry in the existing areas. In an expanding economy there was no reason why additional manufacturing units should not be set up in border areas.

Mr. Speaker. that is cold economic common sense. He went on to say—

Industry had been assured of continued consultation and he could not imagine that any established industry, faced with the problem of surplus production, would be harmed by the subsidization of competing factories in border areas. Furthermore, the Prime Minister had said that there would be no large-scale transfer of industries to border areas. On the question of wages, the principle had been accepted that in areas where agreements applied, these would not be disturbed. In other areas wages would be fixed by the Wage Board but would be subject to regular review. In view of the various assurances given, Congress was not justified in adopting a negative attitude to the question of border area development.

Again, that is cold economic common sense. These statements agree completely, or largely, with the views of labour and organized commerce and industry. Fair competition is necessary, advisable and acceptable. Any attempt to subsidize factories in the border areas to compete with established factories in other areas would mean putting one man out of work to give another man a job, and if that is not crazy nothing ever was. Government advisers and Commerce and Industry are all agreed about the possibility of encouraging industry in the border areas, but these must not be subsidized at the expense of existing industries, nor must new jobs be provided at the expense of existing jobs. They must not pay preferential wages or receive preferential railway rates. Everything must be supplied at economic rates to eliminate unfair competition, which has set industry in this country by the ears. I repeat again that the same people approve of assistance to new industries, provided it is done fairly. It must never be forgotten that in economic rules the prices of products will rise under this scheme and it must never be forgotten that the gold-mining industry is the backbone of this country, particularly now. Any increase in costs will cost us dearly indeed. If anything happens to our gold-mining industry, it will cause our whole economy to wither and die. There is no question about it that unfair subsidization of industries in the border areas will bring about this result. I repeat that these economic facts were forgotten in regard to the clothing industry. Now, in contrast with the words of Dr. Viljoen and Dr. Steyn, I want to quote the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and his under-study, the hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak). This is what they said last year and I would like to compare this with the words of the economic advisers. This is what the Minister of Economic Affairs said in 1959—

When it is a question of the survival of the nation, that nation is prepared to break economic laws.

And the hon. member for Bellville said in 1960—

The Opposition approaches the question of the border industries from the economic point of view and when it comes to the establishment of industries they consider the economic factors only. If we give that right to the industries it would mean that the industries would govern South Africa and not the Government, and we cannot allow that.

And what did the Prime Minister say in the Budget debate last year? We had been battling to get some idea of the cost involved, and the Prime Minister was dealing with the development of the Union from 1910 to 1960 and he said—

Was anybody so ridiculous as to ask that such a picture should be given together with details of cost?

Shortly afterwards, he said in the same speech that “this development will be achieved without complying with the nonsensical request to provide replies to these questions in advance”. Of course I have to admit that the Prime Minister said different things after that speech. He even agreed with his economic advisers recently, but he so frequently changes his ground. In plain language, it is astonishing what incoherent balderdash is being spoken by Government supporters about this border industries scheme. Of course I realize, in fairness to the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. member for Bellville, that they were speaking with their tongues in their cheeks at the time. I know they share the views of the financial experts but they were frightened of the Prime Minister. You cannot run a country when everybody is afraid of one man. This border industries pipe-dream of the Prime Minister is another dream which will cost us dear. Industry is being held up to a great degree and it is very difficult to realize that confidence has been lost completely. When the Minister of Economic Affairs said that a country with its back to the wall breaks economic laws, I know he was perhaps thinking of Afrikaner Nationalism, but perhaps he has now come round to the views of the Economic Advisory Council. I wonder whether the Minister and the hon. member for Bellville will now admit that this was a pipe-dream of the Prime Minister and that these border factories will never develop. That is what their own experts say and I wonder whether they will admit it. Surely everybody ought to know it. As the months are passing, conditions are changing rapidly and not for the better. We on this side of the House pointed out that independent Bantustans would put industrialists in the position that factories on the borders of the reserves would be entirely dependent for their labour from foreign and possibly hostile states. What a picture, and what an inducement to any industrialist who wishes to open a factory there! It is not logical to argue, as Government supporters argue, that Africans will be forced to work there or else they will starve. Surely we are pledged to see that these reserves are developed so as to be capable of maintaining not only their present populations, but they must even be enabled to maintain the urban Native who has to remember that that is his homeland. I have never heard such rubbish in my life! That is the picture the industrialist has to consider when he thinks of opening factories in the border areas. The Minister says he will have preferential railway rates, low wages and cheap water and power and the Economic Advisory Council says that is not so. It is only fair that they should tell industry which is right. The industrialists know that there is a great reservoir of Black labour, but if through Government action it is cut off it will not be a great inducement to them. They also know that if this ridiculous suggestion of getting special help from the Government comes into being there will also be other interests which will try to deprive them of it later. We on this side have pointed out repeatedly that in Britain it cost £1,200 per worker to decentralize industry. They spent £500,000,000 to find jobs for 400,000 workers in the new towns. So here we will need to find another couple of thousand million pounds which will be needed for this pipe-dream. The final cost of this fantastic proposal of the Prime Minister will be astronomical, but the Government goes on flogging this horse that can never run. It is stone dead; why do they not admit it and let people who have industries at the moment get on with the job without the fear of having to face unfair competition? Fortunately, although much harm has been done and much confidence has been lost, there seems to be a change of views and I only hope that someone on that side will see to it that in encouraging these new industries economic laws will apply. This scheme will remain a pipe-dream unless it is properly developed. Thirdly, care should be taken that no Hong Kong industries which are subsidized are started on the borders of the reserves to compete unfairly with established concerns elsewhere and throw people out of their jobs. Mr. Speaker, this is so important. It can possibly affect the workers on the mines and the factory workers and they want to know whether this thing will be done in this ridiculous manner or not. What worries me about it is the question of the lack of trust, which has arisen for very good reasons. The Income Tax Bill was put before us right in the very last days of the Session, and in it is provided that special allowances for depreciation of machinery and buildings can be granted on the recommendation of the Departments of Bantu Administration and of Commerce and Industries. This is one of the best-known ways of subsidization and it can be one of the most unfair ways of subsidization. I think they had better drop this, in spite of what the Prime Minister says. We are now financially imprisoned in this Republic, I expect that within a very few years there will be many people looking back with longing to the happy days when we were a Monarchy. Money cannot be got out of the country. Our reserves are dwindling. Foreign confidence has been lost, and where are the new industries? I said in the beginning that it would take many years for this confidence to be restored, and I repeat it. We need money for the new industries and for the services to give to these new industries, and where is that money going to come from? Sir, I wish they had handed the whole scheme over to Dr. Steyn and Dr. Viljoen. Then we might get somewhere. I suggest that the Government ought to resign.

*Prof. FOURIE:

The Minister of Finance probably feels as old Shakespeare felt when he made Hamlet say: “The time is out of joint; Oh, cursed spite that ever I was born to set it right.”Only the other day we had a beautiful and rosy picture, and a few days later “everything is out of joint”. Where does the trouble lie? Here we have a country that is unequalled throughout the world. There is not another country like South Africa. It seems as if Providence put us here for a really great task and a great challenge. Here you have a White nation that I can regard, without being vain, as the equal of the best among the nations, and here you have a non-White population which we must admit, if only we were to try to gauge their qualities, are really wonderful people. Yet we find that during the past few years this nation and this country has gone deeper and deeper into a maze, and it sometimes seems as if we shall not be able to get out of it easily. We are a nation of ideas. My Nationalist friends also are people with thoughts. On this side we also have thoughts, as we heard from the hon. member for Benoni, who still hankers after the days of yore. I believe in the might and the power of the idea, of thoughts. We the Afrikaner nation had ideas in the past that led them through deep waters, but always to something positive and something great. An idea can fortify and elevate a nation, but an idea that has no foundation can destroy a nation in spite of its good motives, and no nation has the right to accept an idea that has no foundation, and still less has any nation the right to sacrifice the future and the existence of the nation to an idea, and that is what is happening in this country of ours to-day. With the background of the Afrikaner nation—I am talking to my fellow South Africans, possibly my last speech in this House. There sits the hon. member for Vanderbijl-park. He has told me repeatedly that I do not have sufficient faith. I have as great faith and perhaps greater faith than he has, but with the best will in the world I cannot attach belief to an idea that is defective and not on a firm basis. I say again the Afrikaner nation must bethink itself to-day. Do not go back to the past and think that because it was thus in the past, in the future it will be thus too. There is a challenge to this nation of South Africa that is greater than we will accept thus far. During the past months I tried to understand every direction of thought that has found expression here and outside among the people. At one time I found myself in harmony with my hon. friends opposite when they were talking about the republican idea. I was with them and sympathized with them, for I felt in the past, more than the majority of them felt—I went through the fire for that idea, but that was the right idea on the right road of Afrikanerdom, and that is why I stood by it. But I regret to say that my fellow-Afrikaners did things and passed legislation in this House that have sullied that beautiful idea which was the greatest aspiration of the Afrikaner.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member may not say that legislation sullied.

*Prof. FOURIE:

I withdraw that. What I mean is that my hon. friends adopted a course which polluted that ideal, and to-day we are paying a price for it, for those polluting factors. I shall tell you what price we are paying. It is very difficult for the English-speaking South Africans really to take the world of my fellow-South Africans. I am jealous of my own people. Once before I said here, in connection with the Coloured Persons Act, that I would not blame my friends if henceforth they were to doubt the word of the Afrikaner. I am mentioning it here, and I must be forgiven for it, that things have had a polluting effect on the magnificent idea of the republican aspirations of the Afrikanerdom. [Interjection.] The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I do not mind if the Afrikaners will not forgive me when I speak the truth. [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! These interjections must now cease.

*Prof. FOURIE:

Frequently along the way we adopted a course where the end began to justify the means. I have pointed out before that when a nation adopts methods that are not in harmony with its highest aspirations, it pollutes those aspirations. When the end must justify the means, I want to warn my people. We have another idea which according to the hon. member for Ventersdorp has become virtually the religion of the Afrikanerdom, namely apartheid and Nationalism. These are some of the ideas polluting the highest aspirations of the Afrikanerdom when we do not stay within bounds with it. National pride, that feeling of pride in your own people, is good and any nation should have it. But when a nation begins to make an idol of those things, and they become their goal in themselves, and when they begin to adapt themselves to that goal, then I say to my people: Watch out, you are on the wrong course. Another of those ideas that gripped my nation originally was a hollow word, an election winner, the word “apartheid”, which now becomes separate development. There is much to be said for the idea of separate development, but to go and regard it as a solution for our racial problems now and in the future, look out. The development of our Bantu areas is a good thing, and I wholeheartedly support it. I am surprised the Government does not have the courage really to get on with it, but the “good” frequently is the greatest enemy of the “best”. To use that idea of the development of the Native reserves to evade the the substantial and inevitable problems here in what we call White South Africa, will ere long lead us to the road of death. My hon. friends must realize that. You come into conflict with the entire world revolution that is now in progress. There has never in all the history of mankind been such a human revolution as that which we are now experiencing. During the past 30/40 years new revolutionary dynamic forces have been unleashed to which regard should be had also by this small nation on the southern corner of Africa, and if we disregard it, if we go and stand in a spirit of reaction and like granite, we shall as sure as we are alive—optimist though I am—be destroyed on the present course followed by the Government.

*Mr. M. C. VAN NIEKERK:

Oh. no, man.

*Prof. FOURIE:

My hon. friend may say “oh. no, man”. If I had the time I would tell them in advance what steps they will have to take during the next few years.

*An HON. MEMBER:

You are too pessimistic.

*Prof. FOURIE:

They have already taken, one after another, the steps I predicted seven years ago, and there are unavoidable steps that will still have to be taken. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) to-night already gave an indication of it. He says the racial question is settled. Mr. Speaker, the Lord help us if we think it is settled. If the hon. member for Kempton Park or any other member says it is settled, I can only say that I am most profoundly amazed that they think so. These problems of the Minister of Finance are only a few of the small problems. It is not comparable to what is still going to come. Let us stop all this big talk. We have a wonderful country, but on the wrong course you can destroy a wonderful country. It will not be the first time. Most of my hon. friends sitting here are still young but you, Mr. Speaker, will remember the dark days of 1929 to 1932. There also you had a national government, stubborn in outlook, granite-like and unyielding, and at that time my hon. friends also told me that I spoke like a jingo, not like a true Afrikaner and as an Imperialist…

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

Quite right.

*Prof. FOURIE:

I told them then that there was only one salvation, and that was that they would have to go off the gold standard. They then said we should put South Africa first. What does it mean to put South Africa first? All of us can use “South Africa first” as a hollow cry, but when I see that in a discussion of the most important national problem my hon. friends opposite had been silenced, that they sit there like a lot of will-less sheep that may not open their mouths, for days and hours on end, and that in connection with the greatest question which is going to affect the future of the counter most profoundly, then I ask: Are they putting South Africa first? I doubt it. You should not put South Africa first in the warm weather and in the sunshine; you have to go through the melting-pot with your people. You must be prepared to fall for your people. There is not one of the hon. members opposite who is prepared to fall. They all want to stand within the bond of the National Party. But when they come into the lobby outside, they say things that are entirely different.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Who says so?

*Prof. FOURIE:

I am saying so, and if the hon. member will not believe me, I could mention names, but I do not wish to do so. I have spoken to hon. members, and I can affirm that. I am not saying this from hearsay. The time has arrived for Afrikanerdom to break away from parties, and to be true to themselves and to their consciences. Let them truly begin to put South Africa first, and not the National Party and self-interest.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is now reflecting on hon. members when he says they put self-interest first.

*Prof. FOURIE:

I am not referring to financial interest. I mean politically, but I withdraw it with great pleasure. The time has arrived for us in South Africa to really examine our thoughts. If the hon. member for Kempton Park has examined his thoughts so that he could come along here and say that the racial question is settled in South Africa, and that anybody who suggests anything or talks, should talk within the framework of the National Party’s policy of apartheid, and that if they do not speak within the framework of that idea, then they really are odious…

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

You do not know your history.

*Prof. FOURIE:

No, I know my history and if my hon. friend knew his history, he would know that throughout the history of the world that kind of thing has led nations to self-destruction. Mr. Speaker, I have myself examined the ideas, and there have been times that I have asked myself whether my faith was too weak, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) told me. I took it seriously. I should like to say this, that his faith is very superficial, and I shall not exchange my faith for that of my hon. friend. There are deeper factors.

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

You do not have any faith in your people.

*Prof. FOURIE:

My children and my grandchildren are in the country. I believe they love South Africa, and I also love South Africa, but what is going to happen if we continue along the course we are now following? I am not a pessimist. South Africa cannot be broken by this Government; it is too tough. South Africa cannot be broken easily. We shall temporarily overcome the difficulties there are now, but if we do not change our course, if we do not face the actual realities in South Africa, also as regards our economy, if we proceed on this false foundation of White domination and racial discrimination, where will we end up? All my hon. friends could try to bluff the world, that they are not standing for White domination…

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is again offending hon. members by suggesting that they are trying to bluff.

*Prof. FOURIE:

I might have put it differently in parliamentary language if that is not permissible then.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member should not use other words to evade a ruling of the Chair.

*Prof. FOURIE:

I shall not evade your ruling.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member must withdraw the word “bluff”.

*Prof. FOURIE:

I withdraw it if one may not use the word “bluff”. I say hon. friends cannot give me the false impression that I do not understand the meaning of their policy. I am glad the hon. the Prime Minister is here now, for it struck me when he said in London that his policy steers away from racial discrimination. That struck me, but the best construction I could place on that is that at its best it is only a partial steering away from racial discrimination as regards the Native areas. As regards the Coloureds, the Indian, it is not even a partial steering away from discrimination. No. The policy of the White man in South Africa has been and is White supremacy, White domination based on racial discrimination.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Do you want Black domination?

*Prof. FOURIE:

The hon. member talks about Black domination.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

That is the alternative.

*Prof. FOURIE:

Any form of domination is repulsive to me, whether it is White domination or Coloured domination. Any kind of domination is repulsive to me, and until such time as we realize that this policy of domination of the hon. the Prime Minister stands on a false foundation, and that that edifice assuredly will fall down on that foundation…

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

Is the right of self-determination domination?

*Prof. FOURIE:

Right of self-determination for whom?

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

Of the Whites for the Whites.

*Prof. FOURIE:

Yes, the right of self-determination of Whites for Whites, but also give the right of self-determination to the people who for 300 years have built up South Africa with us to where it is to-day.

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

In their areas.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

And where are the areas for the Coloureds?

*Prof. FOURIE:

I should like to make one further point here. We started here in the southern corner of Africa with a system of slavery, and for more than 200 years we proceeded with the contradiction that we Whites here as it were were sent by the Almighty to do wonderful missionary work here in dark Africa, and yet for more than 200 years we maintained slavery here, and we were quite satisfied with that.

*Dr. DE WET:

That is not true.

*Prof. FOURIE:

That slavery was subsequently abolished as a result of pressure from outside, and not on the initiative of the White Chirstians here. Unless the hon. the Prime Minister can tell me and the people that he stands for total territorial separation—not the sort of separation where 6,000,000 or 10,000,000 non-Whites still remain in the so-called White area to live under White domination—then his whole policy and his whole idea is built on sand and on an un-Christian foundation. If he cannot say that—and this is as I understand the policy of the National Party Government as it is developing at present—then the policy really is a future together for White and non-White within what we call White South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister will still have to proceed with his policy of White domination and my hon. friends of the United Party will continue their policy of White leadership with discrimination. That is diametrically opposed to the great revolutionary forces that have been unleashed in the world at present and we, with our domination and racial discrimination, will simply be crushed and pushed out of the way of the world revolution that is going on at present. I tested the ideas in all sincerity. There was a time when I thought I could go along with my hon. friends opposite and that I could help. But I came to the conclusion that I am unable to help because their basis is completely unacceptable to me. Mr. Speaker, it is a crisis in my own personal life for me. I have never yet been afraid to commit political or any other kind of figurative suicide. It does not make very much difference to me whether I am here or elsewhere. I am not prepared to abandon what to me is the truth for what I know in my heart to be an untruth.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND MARKETING:

Who expects it of you?

*Prof. FOURIE:

If I were to join that party on the present basis, I would be proclaiming to the world that I believe in something in which I really cannot believe. To my hon. friends here (the United Party) I should like to say this. They are failing South Africa in its greatest crisis with the policy they are propounding—to-day this and the next day that—without a definite policy, without a goal and without a basis.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND MARKETING:

You are still more of a whirligig.

*Prof. FOURIE:

There is only one more thought in this House that I can accept in these times—it is the greatest challenge that South Africa has ever been faced with—that we should progressively steer away from racial discrimination, at a time when my hon. friends over there want to go progressively far in the direction of racial discrimination.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND MARKETING:

Won’t Jannie go far enough to your liking?

*Prof. FOURIE:

The hon. the Prime Minister laughs.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

No, I am merely thinking that Dr. Steytler is now getting a new member.

*Prof. FOURIE:

No, he has not got a new member. I have supported that idea. I do not wish to offend the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party now, but I supported that idea many years before I knew that the idea had taken root with him, and I am proud of that. Where I am committing political suicide if the Prime Minister were to hold an election, he will not be able to destroy that idea. Neither the Prime Minister nor anybody else will be able to destroy that unassailable idea in these times. On the contrary, I believe in this idea that you should recognize a human being as a human being.

*Dr. MEYER:

One man one vote.

*Prof. FOURIE:

That indeed is the fundamental principle of the Calvinistic doctrine. We must not think that we can carry on and rely on our white skin and one by one throw overboard all the values that have brought us to where we are to-day. We must not think that we can save ourselves on the basis of colour, without the standards of civilization. We should not be afraid of the product of our own civilization, like the hon. the Prime Minister. It is not the barbarian the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration is scared of. For that very reason they are so very much in love with the Bantu in the reserves—the relatively primitive people. They are afraid, and the National Party is afraid, of the products of their own civilization and it is a tragedy to me that we are scared of that, that we are regarding all of them as agitators, for they are saying the same things my own little nation said in 1902, in 1906 and in 1910 and until quite recently. They are saying precisely the same things. The leaders of that little nation of mine were similarly denounced as agitators in their day, and history will show that many of the non-Whites who are now denounced by us as agitators will in reality be regarded as the people who gave expression to those profoundest sentiments—sometimes wrongly—which neither this Prime Minister nor anybody else will be able to suppress in the long run. It is that “divine discontent” which is innate to every human being and nothing will be able to stop it in the long run.

I am concluding and I wish to say openly here to-night, although it means political suicide, that I stand by the idea which I believe should be accepted as a challenge by us and by every nation in the world, otherwise we shall be destroyed. I say I accept the idea on this side, with the small Gideon’s band sitting here (the Progressive Party). I bow to them.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Why did you wait 18 months before you came to that decision?

*Prof. FOURIE:

South Africa and this Parliament will miss them when they are no longer sitting here. I still believe, in spite of what we are doing and of what we are saying, that there is a divinity which shapes our end, “rough-hew it as we may”. The National Party most certainly has done a little rough-hewing to our South Africa, and to the economy of South Africa, and we are now beginning to see the first results. These things that are happening to-day, that for the first time in its history South Africa virtually has to repudiate indebtedness to overseas countries financially—temporarily at least, for that is what it means—is one of the consequences. It is the first time in our history that we have to tell a creditor of ours: Look, old chap, we owe you the money, but you cannot have it now; you will have to leave it here with us.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

You have also asked people for an extension of time in which to pay already.

*Prof. FOURIE:

Of course, one can ask for deferment, but the Government is not asking for deferment. It simply tells the creditor what it is going to do. This is the first time in the history of South Africa that a government has to go so far that it has to partially repudiate its debts in respect of countries overseas.

*An HON. MEMBER:

It is not debt.

*Prof. FOURIE:

It is the first time in our history that it cannot or will not pay, and it is a tragedy to me. The indications are very clear that we shall have to go further and further to begin a lager-economy here, and I shall be able to give the Minister of Finance a number of positive hints to save things in that lager-economy. I know the economy of the lager just as well as the hon. the Prime Minister who is sitting laughing over there.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I think your suggestions will be dangerous.

*Prof. FOURIE:

Yes, it will be very dangerous, for the lager to-day is the most dangerous place in the whole world to be in economically or in any other respect. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister in the short time at my disposal: Stop import control. It is a senseless negative measure you are imposing temporarily. It cannot help anybody to do anything constructive behind that temporary little wall he is putting up. If he wants to go into the lager, like the hon. members for Kempton Park and Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), then build a tariff wall behind which you can safeguard your economy. Openly consider the increase of tariffs then, and build your economy behind that, for in the future South Africa will have to resort to an ever-increasing extent to its kraal-economy, within South Africa. So go in for a policy of protection; protect that kraal and rely on your own strength. Isolate yourself more and more, for that apparently is what the hon. the Minister and his Government believe in.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

And what further?

*Prof. FOURIE:

There are many others I could mention but my time has expired. I say let us stop these temporary remedies of import control that have been used during the past 10-12 years. It is a useless negative measure which does not bring anybody anywhere. I say to the Minister of Finance: Take your courage in your hands and start with a policy that really protects, so that we can build up our industries here. I want to warn him that every time he comes along with temporary import control, as he is doing now again also, it means that he is increasing the cost of agricultural and other primary industries such as the mining industry, and eventually that goose that lays the golden egg will have a progressively harder time until the Minister of Finance will be obliged later on to face the facts. The farmers will not be able to hold out, even if he were to pump another R40,000,000 or R50,000,000 into agriculture. Within a short while more and more of them will become insolvent, and the worst will be that he will be compelled once again to devalue the South African pound, in spite of all his assurances. That is the tragedy. South Africa is being destroyed step by step along this course of the Prime Minister. What is going on to-day is a kind of paralysing process, but he believes that it is the salvation of the White man in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, he has a wonderful brain, but there have been other people in the past who have had an equally wonderful brain, but they led their people onto the rocks. I say to the hon. the Prime Minister, with a full sense of responsibility, that he is engaged on a policy that is going to destroy South Africa and the White man and Afrikanerdom and I hope he will consider it worth while to go and reconsider once again whether he really is right. I do not wish to repeat what the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) said here, but the hon. the Prime Minister should consider once again whether he is not on the wrong track, possibly.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

I am glad the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) is present because I just want to tell him that in the case of the human being there is such a thing as national pride and racial pride. I can still remember that when I was a little boy we had an orphaned donkey. We put him in a cattle camp but he was very unhappy and went through the first gate which was left open to look for his own kind, even though he had to roll on an ash heap. All the hon. member has done this afternoon is to vilify the Afrikaner people, and I can tell him that if we are to save South Africa and the White people of South Africa with people who have so little courage and so little faith in the future as the hon. member for Germiston (District), then I agree with him that South Africa is lost.

*Prof. FOURIE:

Big talk!

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

It is not a question of talking big. We are fully aware of the difficulties awaiting South Africa. We know that there is a sickly post-war psychosis which regards the Black skin as the only passport to salvation. We know that. And we know what dangers await South Africa. We are not indulging in ostrich politics. We are realistic. But we do at least know that despite all the dangers, despite the misapprehension under which the West is labouring, we still have courage and faith and we still have confidence in the inner strength of our own people. This, and I am very sorry to say it, the hon. member has quite lost.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

He only thinks internationally.

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

With such pessimists we cannot build a future for our people. We need men with courage.

*Prof. FOURIE:

Big talk!

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

The hon. member has condemned the Afrikaner people from the earlier times onwards. He has said that for 300 years we have been nothing but oppressors, and that outside forces have had to come to release us from slavery.

*Prof. FOURIE:

That is true.

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

The hon. member does not know his history. Does he not know that those who wanted to free us from slavery controlled the biggest slave traffic in the world? Only when America had a bigger slave trade than Britain did the philanthropists rise and urge that it should be abolished. It was a question of £ s. d.

*Prof. FOURIE:

You do not know your history.

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

I have never heard such a Jeremiad as I have heard from the hon. member this afternoon. I have never heard such vilification of the South African people as we have heard from the hon. member today. The hon. member always poses here as the member who is upright and sincere in politics, but I have never heard such a turnabout speech as the one he made to-day. A little while ago he said: “I see a future for apartheid in South Africa.”

*Prof. FOURIE:

I was referring to positive apartheid.

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

Will the hon. member tell me what is positive apartheid and what is negative apartheid? The hon. member is after all opposed to the positive steps which this Government is taking. He has said for example that we are in a groove, that we on this side of the House may not speak, that we must think what we are told to think. But in the same breath he says that members speak freely here in the lobby. I now ask the House: If one is ruled with an iron hand, how can one say what one likes in the lobby? I just want to tell the hon. member this: There has never been a party in South Africa in which one could speak more freely than precisely the National Party. I take myself as an example. Not one of the Nationalists sitting on this side of the House is afraid to say what his policy is, and not one is afraid to differ from the others. Precisely because we differ and can speak freely, we have been able to draw up a fruitful policy for the nation. The hon. member has had a great deal to say about the fact that we believe that the end justifies the means. He has said that we have polluted the republican struggle. I ask him where we have done so. Did this party not submit the question of the Republic to the people by way of a referendum and a free vote? Is that pollution?

*Prof. FOURIE:

Look back a little.

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

No, the hon. member also voted for a Republic. Is he then so weak that the National Party which he has condemned here to-day was able to pollute him so that he voted for a Republic?

*Prof. FOURIE:

You are missing the point.

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

No, the hon. member is seeking a bridge so that he can cross over to the Progressive Party. From the start his whole speech showed clearly that he wanted to go over to the Progressive Party. Those hon. members have had the courage of their convictions and this hon. member has sat on two stools and has not supported them for 18 months. He has criticized one side and then the other side, and at long last, now that he wants to seek a bridge, he has made these libellous statements about the Afrikaner and the National Party. He has said that we are making a god of the object we are seeking to achieve. I never expected a man who boasts that he is honest, that he holds honest opinions in politics, to level this accusation at the National Party and the Afrikaners, as he has done. Did he attend the inauguration at Pretoria? There the people bowed humbly before the Almighty and thanked Him for what He had given us. We do not boast of our own strength.

*Prof. FOURIE:

You are completely off the point.

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

No, you do not want to take your punishment. We humbly thanked the Almighty for what He had given us, and now the hon. member accuses the Afrikaner and the National Party of making a god of an object. I say that is a slanderous accusation.

*Dr. STEYTLER:

You are quite wrong. He did not say that.

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

He said that apartheid was of the devil. I have told the hon. member that racial pride is not only to be found amongst human beings, but he has come here to-night and by implication he has paid tribute to the Black nationalism which is being artificially awakened in Africa.

*Dr. DE BEER:

Nonsense!

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

He has said: forces have been let loose which must be taken into account, and that is Black nationalism and we must take it into account.

*Dr. DE BEER:

Of course. Do you not want to take it into account?

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

He rejects national pride. The hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) must keep quite. He said something this afternoon which was contradictory to what the hon. member for Germiston (District) has said; now he is praising him. He has said that forces have been let loose in Africa which we must take into account.

*Prof. FOURIE:

Quite correct.

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

But we must not take into account the forces which have been let loose in the White man. That is something of the devil. It cannot be allowed. I want to tell the hon. member this—I take one case—that the Congo is enjoying the sympathy of the sickly psychotic movement in the West. And what is the position in the Congo? There is murder and carnage. And that is what the hon. member wants here in South Africa, in the Republic. He does not want national pride here. He wants a Congo here and then the hon. member says it is the policy of this Government which has got us into such a bad economic position. I want to make the accusation to-night that it is not the policy of the National Party which has created economic difficulties, but it is the deliberate sabotage, the deliberate subversion of the Opposition.

*Mr. TUCKER:

On a point of order…

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member may not accuse the Opposition of sabotage.

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

Then I withdraw it and I say that it was deliberate sabotage on the part of the United Party.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! No, the hon. member may not say that either.

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

May I then put it in this way…

*Mr. TUCKER:

I ask that the hon. member must withdraw that.

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

I withdraw. Allow me to put it in this way: When the National Party came into power in 1948, none other than the United Party’s main financial speaker, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), and none other than the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), the leader of the United Party in Natal, and none other than the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) travelled throughout the country telling the people that because this Government was in power, industry would be destroyed, the banks would close and they could give the people the assurance that South Africa would not get one single penny from Europe or America.

Mr. MITCHELL:

It seems to me we were right.

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

They are still making such speeches. I hold the United Party and the Opposition in general responsible. The only salvation which they see is to bring South Africa to her knees financially. The only possibility which they see of ever returning to power is if South Africa can be brought to her knees financially and they do not care what disasters, what misery and what dangers they might bring upon the South African nation and the Republic by these tactics. They will do everything in their power to create misconceptions abroad in order to do South Africa financial harm. I say it is a scandalous method which they are using and they now say that it is the policy of this Government which is to blame for the fact that South Africa is not in such a favourable financial position to-day.

*Mr. TUCKER:

Will the hon. member answer a question?

*Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

No, I just want to conclude. I want to tell the Opposition this: Whatever they may do, they will not succeed in bringing South Africa under this Government to her knees. The people of South Africa and the Nationalists and thousands and thousands of their supporters are prepared rather to have a poor White Republic than a rich Black monarchy in South Africa.

Mr. GAY:

Generally Parliament views the occasion of the Appropriation Bill as an occasion to conduct an audit of the Government’s administration and policies, an audit to search for positive results of the expenditure of the very large amounts that we are asked to approve of in the Appropriation, an appropriation in this particular one before us now of just below the R1,000,000,000 mark. What we want in that audit is to try and ascertain just what positive results the country is getting in administration, in development, in security, in racial harmony as a result of that expenditure, things that flow from it.

Never in the history of this country, I should say, has it been necessary for a more searching examination to be made than at the present moment, because when you start to look at the ledger on the credit and debit side, it does present a pretty sorry picture. There are far too many entries which in a bookkeeping term would be classified “as being in the red”, and that is not a healthy state for a country to be in.

Mr. MITCHELL:

The country is in a suspense account.

Mr. GAY:

Yes, the hon. member has put his finger on it. The public of this country are certainly in suspense, wondering what is going to happen next. The finances of the country are certainly in a state of suspense after the hon. the Minister to-day told us that under existing conditions there was a possibility, a probability that he would not be able to meet certain loan repayments falling due shortly. One only needs to look at the first results of the Minister of Finance’s control on the movement of capital and finance, only look at the first results which are flowing in from the second statement made last Friday, the hon. Minister’s second financial control statement. Both the statements made by the hon. the Minister of Finance are supposed to provide a remedy, and each one failing in its aim mainly because despite the power of hard cash and finance, they find that they are unable to surmount the granite wall which is being imposed by the Government’s own internal policy. That is where they fall down. One has not got to go any further than to look at to-night’s paper, and I am sure that there is no member in this House, on whichever side he is sitting, who is not concerned and perturbed at seeing the financial turn things are taking against us in the Republic. Because we are all in the Republic, it is not an Afrikaner Republic, it is not an English-speaking Republic, it is a South African Republic…

HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Mr. GAY:

It is very nice to hear the “hear, hears”, but they do not cut any ice, unless the members who say “hear, hear” are also prepared to put their shoulders to the wheel to help South Africa out of the mess we are in. Their applause for the sentiment does not cut any ice with the bank managers, Sir. That won’t cut any ice with the Reserve Bank. We are all in the cart together.

An HON. MEMBER:

What do you suggest should be done?

Mr. GAY:

I always understood that it was the Government which told the country what to do. It is a sorry state of affairs when in a financial crisis such as we are in to-day, we have members on the Government side in this Parliament appealing to the Opposition to tell them what to do. It reveals a bankruptcy of control and a bankruptcy of ideas as how to get out of the mess they have got themselves into! Let us carry that a little bit further: We have pledged, all of us our loyalty to the Republic that we now belong to. It is our Republic. You can’t be loyal to the Republic by sitting on your seat and declining to take an active part as a Member of Parliament representing your constituents in respect of matters of moment dealt with by this Parliament. You can’t represent your country if you permit yourself to be muzzled and told to be silent so that party policies can take precedence over national interests! That is not loyalty to the Republic. We had matters dealt with yesterday of the greatest moment to this country, and for four hours there was not a single Government member allowed to speak. Is that loyalty to the Republic? We had the position this afternoon again, dealing with this Bill before us, when for a period of well over 2½ hours not a single Government member was allowed to take part in this debate. The Opposition had to carry on the debate. Is that loyalty to the Republic? Are those hon. members doing all they can to help to promote the interests of the Republic? That is not the path of loyalty as I understand it, and I doubt whether it is the type of loyalty the country understands. I don’t believe it is the type of loyalty that the general run of Afrikaners in this country will understand. I would like to put that thought to hon. members on the Government side that they are here to represent their own constituents who are likely to suffer just as badly by any calamity which may befall us, as anybody else is likely to suffer. It is their duty as the representatives of their constituents and as representatives of this Parliament of our country to put country before party on an occasion like this.

An HON. MEMBER:

Did the Cape Times not admit that it is a sign of good discipline?

Mr. GAY:

What an admission to make! Disciplined by their own party into silence. A Government party which has lost its voice owing to good discipline! Surely the people of South Africa should take notice of an admission like that! Disciplined into silence by their own party in order not to embarrass the party and to help maintain them in office! That is what I would term a magnificent example of Parliamentary democracy!

Coming back to the financial position, what is the position as revealed in to-night’s advices from London as a result of the hon. the Minister’s latest control measures? It amounts really in effect to an unofficial depreciation of the Republic’s currency by 25 per cent. Holders of stock in London are prepared to throw their stock onto the market and accept 25 per cent below their value in order to get out of sound stock of this country. They throw sound stock on the market, being prepared to accept such discount because of their fear of the financial security of this country. What a state to be in within a month after our declaration of a republic! Where do we hope to carry the Republic if that is the pattern? Those shares which are being thrown away in London are as good as ever they were. They are sound shares. They are not accessible to the public in South Africa, but foreigners in England to-day can reap the benefit of the cheap sale of these shares under this Government’s policy.

I want to come back to the origin of the shares themselves, in respect of which an eloquent plea was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), viz. the goldmining industry itself. You see, Sir, under the conditions which we are now running into, the goldmining industry has once again moved into its traditional position as the sheet-anchor of the financial security of South Africa. It is the sheet-anchor on which this Government will have to exist for a number of months to come, and I want to make an appeal to this Government that knowing that (and the hon. the Minister of Finance must know it as well as anybody in South Africa), knowing that fact he will see that the Government’s policy towards the gold-producing mines of this country is tempered with that caution, is tempered with that justice to that industry as to help it to carry on and to render the service they will have to render to South Africa under very difficult conditions. Because don’t forget that their capital on which they have to exist, to expand and develop, and to carry on their activities, must also to a very large extent depend no longer on external confidence, but on internal confidence, internal South African confidence in them, operating under the system of taxation to which they are subject under the Government’s control, under the system of taxation now applicable to them. It is going to be a very difficult job for them to retain the confidence of the people who support them, unless the Government itself adopts a much wiser and much saner policy towards the goldmining industry. I want to make that appeal to the hon. the Minister to-day. It is a 100 per cent financial matter that in a time of crisis like the one we are in to-day and in which we will exist for some time—rightly or wrongly we are in it—that the Government must recognize that the financial security of this country depends on the goldmining industry, because every other industry, from agriculture upward (or downward, whichever way you like to take it) depends on the security and the soundness of the goldmining industry. I want to leave that thought with the hon. the Minister of Finance. It does not stop with the Government’s policy, it does not stop with national security—it affects the security of every man, woman and child in South Africa—the small man with his life’s savings, the small man with his small investments on which he depends for his old age, and on which he has to depend for his children’s education, the big man who is in big business for his developments, the big industry which gives employment to thousands of people—everyone of them in some form or other comes back now to the financial stability of this country and they in turn are linked for better or for worse, whether we like it or don’t like it, they are linked with the goldmining industry. Therefore the Minister of Finance and his colleagues will have to think very hard and very clearly to see that nothing happens to handicap, but that everything possible is done to lessen the burden on these mines so that they are not choked out of existence by over-taxation, in the situation that we are now heading into.

I want to turn to another aspect of the Appropriation Bill. I want to deal with the matter of the hon. the Prime Minister’s appeal for unity, unity between the White races in South Africa. I am sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister is not present, but I trust that my comments will be conveyed to him in due course by the hon. Minister of Finance, and also to the hon. the Minister of Transport to whom I wish to refer. You see, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister on a number of occasions, and in this House recently, during the course of the debate on the State President’s address to the Joint Session of Parliament, appealed again in the best interests of South Africa, in the best interests of the Republic, for unity, for a spirit of unity between the White races. The hon. the Prime Minister’s words were—

We are striving to bring about increased and greater unity between the Whites, without recriminations, reproaches or grudges about the past. I make an appeal to all those who are pro-national—and I hope that those who are in the opposite camp will also heed this appeal—to remember in future in their speeches and with all their actions that with the establishment of the Republic outside the Commonwealth, we have reached the end of an epoch and from now onwards we will all have to concentrate when we speak on talking about what lies ahead of us rather than to level reproaches in regard to what lies behind us.

That was the Prime Minister’s appeal, a very strong and sound appeal and it has been made on a number of occasions, but this time on 8 June (Col. 7576, Hansard). One would have expected that an appeal like that…

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

… would be appreciated by all.

Mr. GAY:

I can heartily endorse the hon. Chief Whip’s sentiments. One would have expected that an appeal so sincere, made by the Prime Minister of this country, would have been appreciated by all. There are bound to be some in a nation—you will always get the odd one who will kick over the traces—but by and large, I cannot echo too strongly the sentiments expressed by the Chief Whip. A sincere appeal, appreciated by all! And that is why it is all the more a damning indictment against the hon. the Minister of Transport for his reactions to that appeal in the same debate, almost within an hour of his own Prime Minister speaking. I quote again from Hansard from the speech of the hon. Minister of Transport, also on 8 June (Col. 7594 of the same Hansard), and the Minister of Transport, dealing at that stage with the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s speech and referring to his Prime Minister’s appeal for unity, in a reply to an interjection by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) who had said “a real unity speech”, the Minister of Transport said—

We do not want unity with the Opposition. Heaven preserve us from that!
Mr. Hughes: Afrikaner domination.
Sir de Villiers Graaff: That has given the game away.
The Minister of Transport: Are these hon. members under the impression that when the hon. the Prime Minister spoke about unity he meant unity with the Opposition? Good heavens, such an idea has never entered our heads. You cannot mix oil and water.

Now the hon. Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party earlier in an interjection referred to the sincerity of the Prime Minister’s appeal.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

Will the hon. member allow me to put a question to him?

Mr. GAY:

As the Chief Whip said, it was an appeal which would have been respected by all, but what a shocking indictment it is then, that the first man to repudiate the hon. Prime Minister’s appeal for unity, was a Minister of his own Cabinet, namely the hon. Minister of Transport.

Mr. M. C. VAN NIEKERK:

That is a false interpretation.

Mr. GAY:

No, it is not a false interpretation and I will show the hon. member why it is not a false interpretation. You see, the hon. Minister of Transport referred, as I have quoted earlier, to the fact that it was not meant to have unity with the Opposition. Who is the Opposition in this House, Sir? What are they? What do they comprise, and who do they represent?

HON. MEMBERS:

Nothing!

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member a chance to deliver his speech.

Mr. GAY:

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the type of interjections we are getting is most enlightening of the spirit of unity which is abroad in the Prime Minister’s own Party. I must admit that, in the point of view of this side of the House, it is a shocking reflection on their loyalty to their own Prime Minister, because what is the Opposition? Let us examine the point for a moment and let us see what Opposition the hon. Minister of Transport is referring to. That hon. Minister, Sir, repudiated unity with the Opposition. In reality the Opposition on this side of the House is the official representation in this Parliament of English-speaking South Africans working in the closest co-operation with tens of thousands of Afrikaans-speaking South Africans who refuse to accept the dangerous policies of this Government and are working together in unity, the unity asked for by the Prime Minister, in order to re-establish South Africa to its rightfull place from which this Government has taken it. That is the Opposition with whom the hon. Minister of Transport refuses to have any dealings, an Opposition, Sir, which represents by and large, roughly one half of the White population of South Africa, people who have given evidence of their desire to help to rebuild this country as was their record right down in the history of the country long before it became a Republic and also in the Republic now and to be. They are part of the warp and the woof of this country and without them this country could never have prospered. Is there anybody on any side of this House, who dare get up in this House and say that he feels that the Republic can prosper and advance in future without us all working together? The hon. Prime Minister does not say that, but he took the other course, the correct course, and appealed for unity. He realized that without that unity the Republic was doomed before it started because you could not have a country divided against itself. The hon. Prime Minister realized that, but now he is being repudiated by his own Minister of Transport. I want to ask the hon. Prime Minister to tell us in the course of this debate—because this is one of the most important statements that has ever been made from Cabinet rank during the closing stages of this Session—whether he subscribes to the doctrine enunciated by his Minister of Transport or whether he will repudiate him. Whether the appeal which he made for unity was addressed also to those people in South Africa who are represented in this House by the Opposition and its supporters. Does he accept the definition of unity given now by the hon. Minister of Transport? Sir, he owes that to the country, because in accepting the hon. Prime Minister’s appeal as a fair and honest request from a Prime Minister of the whole of the Republic—which the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party agreed it was—the question arises as to how that can be reconciled when taken side by side with the statement made by the hon. Minister of Transport? These two statements just do not go together, because here we find that—to use his own words—oil and water do not mix—the oil of the hon. Prime Minister’s appeal and the water of the statement of the hon. Minister of Transport do not mix and cannot mix and it is for the Prime Minister to tell us now who was right. The country wants to know that.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

Cannot you have national unity without political unity?

Mr. GAY:

Again I want to refer the hon. Chief Whip to the expression of the hon. Minister of Transport about oil and water. The Chief Whip wants to know whether we cannot have national unity without political unity. You can have national unity, but you cannot gain it by attempting to sabotage one half of the population and the people in this House who represent them as was done by the hon. Minister of Transport. [Interjections.]

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member cannot use the word “sabotage” and must withdraw it.

Mr. GAY:

I withdraw that, Sir, and I substitute for it the word “destroy” because that is what it means in the long run—it destroys one half of the people of this country. Unless we can together make a success of this Republic, it will destroy the Afrikaner people equally as it will destroy us. It will destroy White South Africa. So there is no question of any half measures in it. I want to repeat my request to the hon. Prime Minister to make it clear to Parliament before this debate closes, and to make it clear to the country and to those people who were repudiated by his Minister of Transport, that the latter was not expressing his (the Prime Minister’s) views and that he, accordingly, repudiates the statement which the hon. Minister of Transport made.

I now want to go a little further into this question of unity and deal with a couple of matters which have arisen in connection with defence. I told the hon. Minister of Defence that I intended to raise these matters here but unfortunately he could not be present to-night. I also supplied him with copies of the correspondence, because these are most important matters particularly with regard to the defence forces of our country, where above all things, above everything in this Parliament, it is essential that we work together for the defence of our country, more so at this juncture than probably ever before. The first of these matters is the re-instatement of the Officer Commanding the Kimberley Regiment. Hon. members would have learned from the Press that the commandant of this regiment, Commandant Souderland, was removed from his command at short notice. This officer holds a very distinguished military record. He has been highly commended by the Defence Department for his service to Defence. Since he took over the Kimberley Regiment, he has, by his own effort and personal leadership, converted that unit—which prior to his taking over was primarily an English-speaking unit—into a fully bilingual unit and for this he has been highly commended. He has gone further than that and has helped in the building up of a magnificent spirit of co-operation between the Kimberley Regiment and the other forces in his area—again a very worthy ideal because these forces must work together. For this he has received a letter of appreciation. But when the Regiment was called up to deal with the last undeclared emergency and while he was in his office with his Second-in Command, he was rung up and told there and then to hand over his command to his Second-in-Command by four o’clock that afternoon and to proceed on indefinite leave. Representations have already been made in connection with this matter to the hon. Minister of Defence. The City Council of Kimberley takes a grim view of the matter because it is more aware of the reputation of the officer concerned, and concern has been caused in the district as a whole. They also sent a message to the Prime Minister as well as to the Minister of Defence asking that the decision in this matter be examined and that the officer, in view of his integrity and his record, should be reinstated. Up to late last night, they have neither received a reply, nor has anything been done to reinstate the commandant or to inform him why he was removed from his command. I met this man, Sir. The only reason for the action that one can deduce for dismissing him, is that in the days when Unessa was formed this commandant joined it. Now, like any other movement of that nature, it started off as a cultural movement for educational purposes with the object of protecting and promoting the English language in the schools—that was its charter. Commandant Souderland, like many other English-speaking persons at that time, gave that object his support but when he found later that it was deviating from the policy originally laid down, he in writing officially resigned from the organization and since he has taken over command of the Kimberley regiment he has disassociated himself entirely from that organization’s activities. This is the only flaw which one can find in the whole train of circumstances and which maybe could have given rise to a security report resulting in the commandant being dismissed from his post. This, Sir, is not an example of the building up of unity between the two races. Here we have an officer who has won the highest commendation and we assume—we can only assume because nobody will ever know—that because someone had received a security report, his military career has been closed and all the work and effort he has given to build up South Africa as far as defence is concerned, has been thrown to the winds.

But that is not the only case I want to refer to. There is another case where there has been to my mind an even more blatant betrayal of military interests in favour of party political affiliations. I have here a letter, a copy of which has also been sent to the hon. the Minister of Defence and to the member of Parliament representing the constituency concerned, which deals with the state of affairs prevailing in the Hartebeesfontein Skiet-kommando. The letter reads as follows—

I am an ex-serviceman who served through the North African campaign and the Italian campaign with the South African Artillery from June 1940 to September 1945. Last year, with the disturbances at Sharpeville and Langa, I felt it my duty as a citizen to make my services available in defence of law and order. I therefore immediately offered my services to the local police and was advised to join up with the local skiet-kommando, which I did. Before signing any papers I made my political affiliations quite clear to my present Platoon Commander, and was assured that politics had no bearing whatever in this organization.

The writer is a member of the United Party and has been an active member of the branch of that party in his areas, for which he deserves full credit.

Under these circumstances I signed the necessary enrolment application and was accepted as a burger in the Hartebeesfontein Skietkommando and posted to Platoon C8. My military number is 050723. At the end of April of this year, I sacrificed six days of my annual leave to attend a military course at the Potchefstroom military camp. Last week I was informed that I had been recommended for promotion but that the recommendation was not approved “because I was a United Party Chairman”. This upset me, not that I was concerned about the promotion, but because party politics had been introduced into a military organization. I then approached by section leader, as laid down in the Military Discipline Code, who referred me to the Platoon Sergeant. The Platoon Sergeant confirmed the allegation, as he was the person who made the original recommendation. I then asked to interview the Platoon Commander who had turned down the recommendation. I was accompanied at this interview by the Platoon Sergeant. After stating my case to the Veldkornet, he informed me that he was under the impression that as a United Party Chairman I would be too busy to accept the responsibility. (I may point out at this stage that several N.C.O.s in the platoon are very active workers of the Nationalist Party.) I then pointed out to the officer that, if my duties as political chairman prevented me from carrying out my duties as a citizen, I would not have volunteered my services to the Kommando. And this was when the Platoon Commander dropped the bombshell (at least as far as I and the sergeant were concerned). He stated and I quote “No person may become an officer in the Skietkommando unless he is a member of the Nationalist Party”. I can assure you, Sir, that I was for a moment dumbfounded and then asked him if he was sure that what he had said was correct, and he again assured me that that was an order given to him by the adjutant of the Hartebeesfontein Kommando, Captain Lemmer. The sergeant then asked him if it was now necessary for a person to be a nationalist to be able to defend one’s country. I then immediately asked to be brought before the Kommandant, and the Platoon Commander instructed the sergeant to make the necessary arrangements the next morning. Five days have now elapsed and I have heard no more about the matter.

A copy of this letter was, as I have said, handed to the hon. Minister of Defence and as he is shortly going overseas and is going to investigate the matter, I leave it there. But in the interests of unity in this country, and in the interests of unity in the defence forces, and in the interests of unity in this Parliament when we deal with defence matters I bring these matters to the notice of Parliament because they are a direct refutation of the…

Mr. SCHOONBEE:

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. GAY:

I am not prepared to answer any more questions. The hon. member could have stood up and made his speech if he was not muzzled by his own party. Now, I have referred to these two cases because it is essential that that sort of thing should be stopped. I do not for a moment accept that the hon. the Minister of Defence and his high level officers had anything to do with the action taken. I have enough confidence in the hon. Minister not to accept that. The trouble is being caused by those lower down the scale who cannot forget their party affiliations in preference to being good soldiers. If the hon. Prime Minister wants the country to combine, and if he wants co-operation, and if he wants us to unite as one republican people, then he has got to help to stamp this sort of thing out, otherwise the Republic is doomed before it has got very far. If we hope to make it run smoothly, we would have to get together to do it. You see, Sir, this Appropriation Bill deals not only with the bigger things in life, not only with the bigger things in the national life of the country, but also with small things, which although small in themselves represent the greatest unit of strength in this country—the family life of the people of South Africa, and what we are going through to-day must have its inevitable repercussions on that family life and on the cost of living of those families, on the security of the people of this country, and on their standard of living. We cannot live in isolation. How many more times does the Government need to have that drummed into them before accepting that as a fact? [Time limit.]

*Mr. HAAK:

We have listened attentively to what the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) said, particularly that we should build up national unity and cultivate a feeling of loyalty towards the Republic, and that we must all stand together to obtain that unity and to foster a national pride. As the result of previous speeches made by the hon. member in this House, we are aware of the strong sentiments he had in respect of our Queen at the time and the connection of South Africa with Britain. Therefore, where he said that we were all in the same situation, that we were all members of a Republic outside the Commonwealth, that we were all bound to this one State and that we would all as White people remain here or go under, English as well as Afrikaans-speaking people and whatever our political sentiments might be, we felt that we could all agree with that statement. But to-night was the first occasion the hon. member spoke about our becoming a Republic, now that we have the opportunity to build up that loyalty towards South Africa and to foster this feeling that we should all stand and fight together here; and I want to ask the hon. member now what really his contribution was towards obtaining that greater national unity. [Interjections.]

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order!

*Mr. HAAK:

The hon. member for Simonstown referred to the skietcommandos. We know that our skietcommandos and our military forces are matters which should be outside of politics. Here the hon. member quoted from a letter in which the statement was made that it was impossible for any man to become an officer in a skietcommando unless he was a member of the National Party.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

That is true.

*Mr. HAAK:

The hon. member for Simonstown quoted from a letter, and I am able to say that the statement in that letter is an untruth. The hon. member already takes such an interest in defence matters that he ought to know it.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

On a point of order, what right has that hon. member, and is he in order when he says that the quotation read here by the hon. member for Simonstown is an untruth?

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

The hon. member for Bellville may proceed.

*Mr. HAAK:

I say what is contained in that letter is an untruth, and not what the hon. member for Simonstown himself said. I say that the statement contained in that letter is an untruth, and that the hon. member should have known that that is the case.

Mr. MITCHELL:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, did you not ask the hon. member to withdraw it?

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

I said that the hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) may proceed.

*Mr. HAAK:

The hon. member for Simonstown knows that the position is not as stated in that letter. He is not a newcomer in this sphere. He knows what the position is, and what unity has he promoted by quoting a thing like that, which he himself ought to know is not correct?

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

How do you know that it is not correct?

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member has now repeatedly raised that point.

*Mr. J.A.L. BASSON:

Sir, on a point of order, is the hon. member in order to tell a member of the public here that he is telling an untruth?

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

The hon. member for Bellville may continue.

*Mr. HAAK:

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that that hon. member wants to protect members of the public in this House. I want to continue and say that when we talk here about loyalty to South Africa we are not dealing only with a feeling of loyalty towards South Africa, but also with loyalty towards South Africa in the economic sphere. We are dealing here with a situation which arose as the result of conditions in the world, and as the result of our policy, and then one at least expects that when we find ourselves in this position we will make South Africa economically strong, not for the sake of the Government or of the Opposition, but for the sake of all persons living in South Africa. That being the position, we ask ourselves, when dealing with these matters, whether we should not reveal loyalty in this respect also. We should not see only the bad things, but also the good ones.

The hon. member referred to a depreciation of our currency, as he said, of 25 per cent. But, Mr. Speaker, surely that is not the only thing which is a barometer or an indication of our economy. Let us look at to-day’s newspaper. It appeared in the Burger this morning and also in to-night’s Argus, if the hon. member prefers to read that paper, and in this morning’s Cape Times. There we see that although we find matters difficult in so far as our economy is concerned, in so far as our internal economy is concerned, there are also signs other than those which indicate that things are difficult, and that there is 25 per cent depreciation, as the hon. member said. We see in this morning’s paper that our imports are beginning to decrease, but that our exports are increasing. Then we also see that when the exports of the past five months are compared with those of last year, there was an increase in our exports of almost R10,000,000. We see that a comparison of our exports shows a small decrease. It was a small decrease, but we took steps to achieve it. I also see in this morning’s newspaper that our building plans are increasing. I also see in the Bulletin of Statistics that in regard to our employment there was a considerable increase. In mining, where the average figures of employment last year were 593,000, it rose in January to 613,000. That is an increase of almost 20,000 above the average for last year. If we look at the opportunities for employment in our factories, then we see that the average last year was 692,000. In January this year it was 696,000. There also we had an increase. Although last year there was also an outflow of capital, and there was a sale of South African shares, it had no effect on these aspects of our economy so that we can say there was depreciation or a diminution. But I also want to ask the hon. member this. He belongs to a party, one of the front-benchers of which is a certain Mr. Russell of Wynberg. Now I want to ask him what the effect of it is when an hon. member makes a speech here and says “South Africa has reached a stage of naked Nazism and rule by force”. That is a statement made by the hon. member for Wynberg when we were expecting possible difficulties and when the Government was taking steps to ensure that good order would be maintained and that there would not be lawlessness. When these essential steps were being taken the hon. member made that statement about it. Mr. Speaker, is that not enough to sabotage South Africa in the economic sphere? It will not promote unity. It will not make South Africa strong when we make this type of statement.

But in fact we know that it is these precautionary measures adopted by the Government which again to a large extent restored confidence overseas, after an atmosphere had been built up here as well as overseas that South Africa was coming to a downfall and that we were standing on the eve of a revolution. It is no wonder that immediately thereafter, after the riots for which an atmosphere had been created did not break out, after that reassuring statement was made by the Prime Minister in this House, in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, a measure of confidence was regained. Small wonder that the correspondent of the Cape Times had to write from London—

Mood of depression on London Exchange after big shakeout.

Then he proceeded to say the following about South African shares—

Relief that the expected strike in South Africa did not materialize gave a boost to the London Kafir Market, which for the most part was the only firm section.

There we see that these steps taken by the Government created confidence there, but these same steps taken by the Government are described by the hon. member for Wynberg as “naked Nazism”. When we take steps to restore confidence, which has an effect overseas, we find this subversive statement being made by the opposite side of the House against our economy in South Africa.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) referred to what he called the “good old days of 1948”. He said there were large balances and our reserves were great. There was plenty of money and we could even lend Britain £80,000,000. But, Mr. Speaker, is that really the correct picture? If that were true, and if things went so smoothly here, I am convinced that the National Party would not have come into power in 1948 instead of that party. We know what conditions were then. They were not as rosy as is pretended here. It is true that there were reserves, that the money was there, but we all know that it was flight capital. We know it was capital which fled from Britain because the people there were afraid of the Labour Party coming into power. They were afraid of nationalization. That is why the money came here. It came here in bigger amounts than ever before, but it was not effectively invested in our economy and according to the then president of the South African Reserve Bank it created inflationary conditions for us and made shares on the Stock Exchange rise out of all proportion to their actual value. But if the hon. member wants to glory in that so-called prosperity of 1948, and if he says that we are now where we are because we took the wrong road, let us see where we landed whilst we were taking this so-called wrong road.

At that time we were not even importing £300,000,000 worth of goods, whereas now we are importing to the extent of over £600,000,000. Our exports in those years amounted to only £85,000,000, whereas now it is £353,000,000. There is progress. There was activity, in spite of the wrong road we followed, according to the hon. member for Kensington. The income of our Railways at that time was £74,000,000, and it has now increased to £180,000,000. Our national income in that year in which everything was flourishing in South Africa was only £850,000,000. Now that we have followed the wrong road it has increased to over £2,000,000,000. That is what happened. At that time we had an inflow of capital which was not investment capital, which was not development capital. Then our internal capital formation was only £256,000,000. In 1958 it was £565,000,000—more than double. Whereas in those years we were to a large extent dependent on foreign capital for our development, we are now in the position that we can provide almost 90 per cent of our capital requirements from our own internal sources. No, Mr. Speaker, I think those few data in which the hon. member gloried are not a true reflection of what the economic position was at the time. I am convinced that no voter in South Africa would prefer the position in which we were then to the one in which we are now.

But we know we have problems. Those problems are mainly problems which arose as the result of our balance of payments position. They are due to two things. It is due to our heavy imports and the outflow of capital, mainly because we bought shares bought abroad, as a result of which capital flowed out. But corrective steps were taken by the Government. Only to-day the hon. the Minister of Finance said that we should be cautious in regard to our expenditure and our Loan Account. The impression has been created that South Africans cannot obtain capital abroad because of the policy we follow. [Interjections.] The hon. member over there says that is correct, but now I would like to ask the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) what is wrong with the Australian economy which makes it impossible for Australia to float loans on the London market. Is it due to apartheid or to the policy of the Government? I read in the Statist of February 1961: “Australian loan’s mixed reception”. They floated a loan on the London market of £10,000,000 and “some 82 per cent was left with the underwriters”. If Australia cannot get capital, it is due to a lack of capital. Then other reasons are to be found for it, but when South African cannot raise loans it is due to the policy of the Nationalist Government. There is also New Zealand. In the Argus of 27 May the political correspondent wrote the following—

It is interesting to note that South Africa is not the only Commonwealth country that has difficulty in raising capital overseas. I see that the R40,000,000 public issue made in London last week by New Zealand was a flop. In spite of the seemingly attractive terms—six per cent stock at 98½, redeemable in 11½ years—88 per cent of the issue was left with the underwriters.

That being the position, we must accept that there is a world shortage of capital for this type of investment purpose, and it is not only due to the policy of the Government, as the hon. member for Kensington wishes to intimate.

But the Government has also taken other steps to draw upon the International Monetary Fund. Members of the Fund were here recently and negotiations took place for the borrowing of R27,000,000. The fact of the matter is that South Africa, on complying with certain requirements, has the right to draw another £54,000,000 from the Fund in the course of time. But I would point out that the Monetary Fund was established specifically to assist countries to overcome their problems. Britain made arrangements to borrow approximately £600,000,000 from the Fund and she also made arrangements to borrow £400,000,000 from the Imports and Exports Bank of America and this was not regarded as a reflection upon Britain. The Fund is there to assist countries. Let us look at the other countries. At the moment Australia has already made arrangements. I do not know what our first withdrawal was, but it was not a large amount, and negotiations are now taking place for a loan of R27,000,000. According to the report of the Australian National Bank, Australia drew £78,000,000 from the Fund, and in addition to that she made arrangements for an assistance loan of £45,000,000. In other words, Australia has now drawn approximately £120,000,000 from the Fund, much more than South Africa. New Zealand, which has a large deficit of £70,000,000 on her trade balance, has now joined the Fund and the World Bank so that she can make use of the facilities available there. The fact therefore that a country makes use of these facilities is not necessarily a reflection on the solvency of the economy of that country. The fact that the Government has taken steps to keep within South Africa the short-term funds which are invested outside South Africa is welcomed here, because it is estimated that the South African capital invested abroad on short-term amounts to R146,000,000, and it is high time that gap was effectively blocked so as to bring that capital back to this country. The Minister of Finance recently raised our bank rate from 4½ per cent to 5 per cent. Britain also raised her bank rates and then lowered them again. We had to raise ours mainly so as to rectify our position vis-à-vis Britain because we found that there was an outflow of South African capital to Britain. Sir, it is with a certain amount of concern that we read in the newspapers that Britain is considering the question of again raising her bank rate next Thursday so as to adapt the rate to her own internal economy. We have often had to follow suit when it has not suited us to do so. I want to express the hope that if Britain again raises her bank rate, it will not be necessary for South Africa to raise bank rates further because we feel that at this stage it may retard internal development and that there are other measures that can be applied so as to make it unnecessary for South Africa to follow Britain’s lead. I want to go so far as to express the hope that the steps which have already been taken will be so effective that it will be possible to lower our bank rates. These bank rates were raised so as to curb imports into this country. Since other remedies have now been applied, this may not be necessary perhaps. What is needed at the same time is a greater relaxation of credit restrictions to strengthen and to stimulate our own economy. I also hope that as far as the banks are concerned it will not be necessary to increase their reserves, thus curtailing credit.

In the last instance I also want to refer to another aspect to which reference has already been made to-day. Various attempts have been made in recent times to sabotage South Africa’s economy. One of the methods that has been used to achieve this has been to spread rumours that South Africa is going to devalue. It is interesting to note what deliberate attempts have been made to spread those rumours. I refer to the attempt by Prof. Hutt of the University of Cape Town. In a letter which he wrote to the Argus and which appeared on 26 May, he said this—

I am astonished at the apparent acquiescence of the business world in the pending devaluation of the rand.…

He has supposedly been informed that devaluation is “pending”—

Can it be that commercial men and industrialists do not realize that a devaluation is imminent?

He then goes on to say that it is high time the Minister of Finance took steps to kill that rumour, but he himself spread this rumour; he started it. On the 29th the Minister of Finance is reported to have said—

Dr. Dönges, the South African Minister of Finance, described as unfounded the rumours in South Africa and in Britain of the possible devaluation of the rand.

He put it very strongly. He said that the rumour was “unfounded” and that he was deliberately making this statement because there were people who, having regard to the possibility of devaluation, were being hoaxed into buying shares in the hope of an appreciation of share values. He issued that warning. Immediately after the Minister’s denial, Prof. Hutt wrote another letter in which he said—

Dr Dönges’ assertion that a devaluation of the rand is not intended will hardly reassure a world which has not forgotten the unequivocal denials of Sir Stafford Cripps in 1949 that Britain would devalue the pound.

The Minister says that it is untrue, but Prof. Hutt says “Dr. Dönges’ assertion that a devaluation of the rand is not intended…”. He himself starts the rumour and when it is killed he comes along with a different excuse. He sticks to his story because he knows that the effect of it will be that people will buy shares and that more capital will flow out of this country, and he also knows that if we allow devaluation to take place people will immediately use their import quotas to buy goods before devaluation takes place, and that in turn will also have its effect on the situation. This is one example of what has been done to sabotage our economy.

But I want to come to another aspect, and this is something to which reference has already been made and which rather upset hon. members on the other side. I refer to the latest report of the chairmen of Anglo-American and General Mining and a few other companies, reports which one can hardly call anything but political reports. Hon. members did not like these references to the speeches of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, Sir George Albu and John Schlesinger. We know that these chairmen also have a duty towards their investors and shareholders and that they have to keep them informed about economic conditions, but they went a good deal further than was necessary to enlighten their shareholders. We know that they have to try to create confidence in the minds of their own people, but we also know that Mr. Oppenheimer resigned from the United Party and now supports the Progressives, and he ought to know that his political views are subscribed to by a very small minority of the Whites in this country, Whites who are afraid, now that there are rumours of an election, because they know that not one of them will be returned to this House. Here we find that in his addresses as the chairman of big companies he puts forward propositions which are in conflict with the views of the vast majority of the voters of this country, and since he is closely associated with the political stand that is taken by a minority party, I want to ask whether it is wise on his part to associate himself to that extent with that political trend in a chairman’s speech. Mr. Oppenheimer and these other chairmen are entitled to their political views and to state their attitude, but let them do so on he ordinary platform, and then nobody will hold it against them. But I doubt the wisdom of their making use of these platforms to promote the interests of a particular group. It has been stated here that he did this in an attempt to instil confidence in his companies, but did he really instil confidence? The very next day after he had made this speech about Anglo-American I noticed the following headlines: “Oppenheimer causes weakening of share prices.” In making that speech he did not instil confidence; he caused share prices to drop. The chairmen of these corporations said: “Let us have development.”They advocated a multi-racial State; that is the direction in which they want us to develop. But Anglo-American’s interests are not confined to South Africa only; they have very big interests in the Federation and in Tanganyika and in the Congo, and Mr. Oppenheimer ought to know that. [Interjections.] The point is not that he has interests there, but he makes the statement here that there is a shortage of capital in South Africa, and that if we change our policy in the direction of equality and partnership and bring about a constitutional change under which the Black man will have a greater say, everything in the garden will be lovely. But Mr. Oppenheimer ought to know better. They have interests there and yet in the Federation, where there is partnership, we notice that Sir Roy Welensky says—

Africa stinks. He makes the important point that it would be wrong to expect foreign capital to pour into the Federation, even when the constitutional position was finalized. Last in the queue for public aid, all Africa is a leper to most private investors.

He makes the statement that Africa as a whole is regarded by the private investor as untouchable, but he also says that even if the Federation’s constitutional problems are resolved and if a greater measure of control is given to the non-Whites, it will not solve the capital problem.

But we can also go further. In Kenya the position is the same. We read in the Statist of 29 April of this year—

The ill-wind and Kenya: Kenya has suffered hardly less severely than any of the other main African territories in this respect, even though the leaders of African parties that will dominate the new Government have asserted that the business community has nothing to fear from them.

We also notice that—

Since the constitutional conference at Lancaster House in January, capital has been flowing out of Kenya at about £1,000,000 a month.

Here we find that there is constitutional progress, but it has brought no economic and financial security. It has not made these countries more attractive. The fact of the matter is that the greater the share of the Black man in the government of a country, the less confidence the investors have in that country. I notice that the financial editor of the Cape Times wrote—

Stock Exchange authorities think they know best: Whilst Westminster and Whitehall propound the theories and enforce the policies which will allegedly ensure the peaceful growth of civilization in Africa, the London Stock Exchange, not many minutes away by taxi, is selling out at prices which are a direct contradiction and prove that the higher the political power of Africans, the lower the chance of economic survival by the standards of practical Western businessmen.

There we have the crux of the matter. It is being said to-day: “Change the policy and put the United Party into power; then there will be confidence and an inflow of capital.”But hon. members who believe that are labouring under an illusion, firstly because the outside world does not even know what the policy of the United Party is with regard to these matters. They themselves do not know it. How could they create confidence with their policy? Then there is the policy of the Progressives, which goes in the other direction, and even that policy does not create confidence. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) says that I often quote from the Economist. Let me quote now from the Statist of 30 May 1961. As far as this specific aspect of our policy is concerned, they make this important statement, if we should change our policy; they say that they expected South Africa to take the steps that we have just taken to prevent an outflow of capital because that is the one problem that we have to face—

The only aspect of the Union’s economic policies that it is realistic to question is whether it is acting sensibly in making so many sacrifices for the sake of not interfering with the exodus of foreign capital.

They expected us to take the steps that we have just taken, and they support the wisdom of those steps. We are being told to-day that we ought to change our policy and work in the direction of integration and that then there will be an inflow of capital. But listen what the Statist says—

For it has to be recognized that even a decision to make an about-turn on apartheid policies… would not necessarily bring any relief to the external payments position at this stage.

Then it goes on to make this statement (and this refers particularly to the policy of the Progressives)—

This is because, if it meant giving more power to African elements, it might initially be interpreted to mean that the future of foreign capital in the Union had become even more uncertain.

In Africa we have the position that this policy of partnership has not attracted more capital. The fact that a Black Government is going to take over in Tanganyika or Kenya or in the Congo is not going to mean that more capital will be attracted to those countries. No wonder, therefore, that we read in the Investor’s Guide of 7 June (after we had become a Republic)—

The three-day strike called by Coloured workers for Republic Day to protest against Nationalist Government policy was a flop. This means that political opposition is much less organized than had been expected.

And then they come to this conclusion—

On the other hand, many of the doubts and fears about the future have temporarily been cleared up. This prospect of political stability has been reflected on the stock exchange by a small rally in prices.

With regard to this reference to what happened on the exchange, there are certain things which do affect us adversely, but I have tried to indicate here that South Africa’s economy is basically sound. We have the resources and the power and the will to do this, and once we have reduced our imports and got rid of luxury items, so that capital will not go abroad unnecessarily, then if we canalize our capital in the right channels, and if we plan properly, as this Government has done and can do in the future, then I believe that we can overcome the problems facing us today, and that we have the means and the will to rectify matters. There is no alternative for us but to go on, because even if a different policy is followed it will weaken South Africa’s financial position and economic future.

Mr. OLDFIELD:

The hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) is acknowledged as one of the principal speakers on financial and economic matters on the Government side of the House. That being the case, I was rather hoping that that hon. member would have given a greater and fuller exposition as to how South Africa is going to tackle the present financial crisis. Instead of that, we have a large number of quotations from all over the world telling us what difficulties are occuring in those countries. We also had other exhibitions which are consistent with speakers on that side of the House, to find a scapegoat for the problems facing South Africa to-day. It is consistent with Government members to try to find a scapegoat, and that scapegoat is anyone who criticizes the Government, whether it be the Opposition or persons in industry or commerce, and more particularly if it is the Press. I must say that I am disappointed that the hon. member for Bellville did not give us a comprehensive and more thorough exposition of the policy of the Nationalist Party in regard to solving the problems facing South Africa. He dealt with the question of national unity, and here is something which this side of the House has always propounded, the policy of national unity. Therefore it comes as a shock when we have interjections and statements from the hon. the Minister of Transport, a responsible member of the Cabinet, and also the question which was put by the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party, the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter), when he mentioned the question of national unity without political unity and then went on to say that oil and water cannot mix. There is a vast difference between national unity and political unity, but he said that oil and water cannot mix. It means that if oil and water cannot mix, those of us who are divided politically can never have national unity because oil and water cannot mix. That is an unfortunate simile for a responsible member of that side of the House to make in regard to national unity. We of the United Party practise national unity. We have on these benches people from the English-speaking as well as the Afrikaans-speaking sections. We are a party which places South Africa first. Criticisms which we make are in the interest of South Africa, because we believe that those criticisms are justified and that there is a saner path to be followed in the government of this country than that at present being followed by the Nationalist Party.

We must bring about national unity in practice. It is useless for anyone to preach it without putting it into practice. By putting it into practice I mean the bringing together of our young people, beginning in the schools where they can learn to know and love each other so as to bring about national unity on that level, because it is something which will only grow with the development of our country. As a young land, if it follows the correct political policy, this country has a great future. It has great potential. But it is incumbent upon the Government to show some practical form of bringing about national unity. We do not merely want lip service; we want to see it in some practical form. It is significant that in the Nationalist Party itself they create separate branches for the English-speaking people who belong to that party. Surely that is not conducive to national unity. The more separation we have between English and Afrikaans-speaking people, the more difficult it will be to implement true national unity. Therefore organizations that come from all groups and sections in South Africa should be brought together. Only recently I was approached by an organization, the Hostels Association, which endeavoured to bring together South Africans of all sections, and one of their mottos is to put South Africa first. I believe that these people who approached the Government over a year ago are still waiting for a reply to their request for financial assistance. It is organizations such as this, which is non-denominational and is drawn from all language groups, which should receive financial assistance and support from the Government. This type of organization receives a great deal of support in other countries, and it is recognized as something which will bring together the young people of the country and so bring about national unity. Therefore I ask that the Government should bear in mind that it is practical steps the country is looking for in regard to national unity.

That leads me on to deal with the position facing South Africa, particularly in regard to our financial position. One does not have to be an economist to realize that an expanding economy will bring about greater prosperity for all, and that it is absolutely essential that we should have an expanding economy if this country is to survive. If we are to have a static or a declining economy, all will suffer. It is in that regard that I believe it is a great tragedy that with the vast potential we have in South Africa, the vast natural resources and raw materials awaiting that expanding economy and dynamic exploitation, it is not being exploited to the full at present. Speaking as a young person who hopes to have many more years to live here, I feel it incumbent upon me to protest at the way the Government is not exploiting those natural resources to the full. Over and over again we find that rather than the exploitation of our natural resources we have an exploitation of racial prejudice and fear, which is becoming a political watchword, like apartheid, a word which is boomeranging on the good name of South Africa and our prosperity. Therefore it is to be hoped that racial exploitation and prejudice will not continue in the new republic. The foundation stones that have been laid along the path of rigid apartheid will bring about, and indeed has brought about, a static economy and a situation whereby the whole future of our country is placed in jeopardy. The steps which have been taken by the Government will affect the future and the destiny of South Africa. Therefore those persons, many of whom are much older than I am, who are governing the country to-day, are putting South Africa on a path which it might be very difficult to turn from in the future. If it is the wrong path, it is particularly the young people who will suffer. Therefore I believe that concrete steps must be taken to exploit our natural resources and to bring about an expanding economy. I believe that every member of this House wishes to see prosperity and confidence in South Africa restored, and we must find positive steps to restore that confidence. When we look at the reports tabled by the Viljoen Commission and the survey of the Tugela basin, it shows the vast potentials awaiting development. When we read these reports we find that there are prerequisites to bringing about an expanding economy. We must have a political climate which is conducive to confidence on the part of overseas investors. We must have that confidence created which will bring about an inflow of capital and immigrants. The Government has unfortunately let the question of immigration slide for so many years that it will now be difficult to find desirable immigrants, but I hope that their policy of immigration will be expanded and will be a success. So the position is that we find ourselves to-day with an outflow of capital and persons leaving South Africa. I believe that this is one of the greatest tragedies facing us to-day because these people are leaving South Africa, and 12,000 of them left last year—a large number of them are married couples with small children, qualified and professional people