House of Assembly: Vol1 - FRIDAY 23 JUNE 1961

FRIDAY, 23 JUNE 1961 Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 10.5 a.m. QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

Training of School Cadets in Musketry *I. Brig. BRONKHORST

asked the Minister of Defence:

  1. (1) What arrangements are made at present for training school cadets in musketry; and
  2. (2) whether rifles recently withdrawn from school cadet detachments will be reissued to them; if so, when.
The MINISTER OF LANDS:
  1. (1) When cadet detachments do shooting exercises .22 rifles and ammunition are issued to them for this purpose. They are, however, again withdrawn immediately after the exercise.
  2. (2) Yes. .22 rifles as soon as it is considered safe. Carbines for drill are being made harmless and as soon as this task is completed it will be re-issued.
Removal Orders Against Bantu Persons *II. Mr. WILLIAMS (for Mrs. Suzman)

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) Whether any removal orders in terms of Act 38 of 1927 have been issued against Bantu persons since 31 January 1961; if so, (a) what is the name of each person concerned, (b) from what place was he removed, (c) to what place was he sent and (d) what were the reasons for the order in each case; and
  2. (2) whether any of these persons or their families are in receipt of any allowances; if so, what allowances.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1) Yes. Three orders have been issued but only one has been served and the following relates to that order:
    1. (a) Tuntubele Qeliso.
    2. (b) Libode.
    3. (c) Bendstore in the Duiwelskloof area.
    4. (d) As regards the reasons, the hon. member is referred to my reply of 31 January 1961.
  2. (2) No. He has been placed in employment.
*III. Mr. COPE

—Reply standing over.

Persons Arrested in Connection with Stay-at-Home Demonstrations *IV. Dr. FISHER

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (a) How many persons were arrested in connection with the stay-at-home demonstrations on 31 May 1961, and (b) how many of them have been (i) released, (ii) charged, (iii) convicted and (iv) imprisoned.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Owing to the amount of work, time and expense that will be involved in obtaining particulars, I regret that the desired information cannot be furnished at this stage.

Unemployment Registrations in Big Centres *V. Mr. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Labour:

  1. (1) What are the latest available figures for registered unemployed (a) Europeans, (b) Coloureds and (c) Asiatics in (i) Johannesburg, (ii) Cape Town, (iii) Durban and (iv) Port Elizabeth;
  2. (2) what were the corresponding figures as at 31 May 1955, 1959 and 1960, respectively; and
  3. (3) whether steps are being taken or are contemplated to relieve the unemployment position in these centres; if so, what steps; and, if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

(1) and (2) The latest available figures reflect the unemployment position as at 25 May 1961 and since the hon. member no doubt desires the information for purposes of comparison, the following figures are all for 25 May;

(a) Europeans:

1955

1959

1960

1961

Johannesburg

1,817

5,763

5,230

5,909

Cape Town

997

1,634

1,399

1,543

Durban

794

2,610

2,576

3,211

Port Elizabeth

306

950

709

1,141

(b) Coloureds and Asiatics (except for Durban, separate figures are not available for Coloureds and Asiatics respectively):

1955

1959

1960

1961

Johannesburg

1,115

2,691

2,125

2,374

Cape Town

3,172

5,415

3,881

3,958

Durban (Coloureds)

534

1,306

2,792

1,584

Port Elizabeth

370

1,075

731

1,201

(c) Asiatics:

1955

1959

1960

1961

Durban

1,924

2,668

2,881

4,374

(3) The unemployment position in these centres is not considered to be so serious as to call for special steps other than the intensified placement campaign launched recently by all local employment offices of the Department. The position is being closely watched.

No Ban on Entry of Vessels into Durban Harbour *VI. Mr. RAW

asked the Minister of Transport:

Whether a ban has been placed on the entry of certain vessels into Durban harbour in order to discharge cargo; and, if so, (a) what vessels, (b) why and (c) how long is it expected to be necessary to impose this ban.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

No ban has been placed on any vessel that can safely enter and be accommodated in Durban harbour from calling at the port to discharge cargo. Oil companies have, however, recently been informed that in future only tankers having a maximum draft which would permit of their lying afloat safely at all states of the tide would be accommodated at the Island View oil berths.

MEDICAL, DENTAL AND PHARMACY AMENDMENT BILL

First Order read: Third reading,—Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Amendment Bill.

Bill read a third time.

PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATORS’ PENSIONS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Order read:

Report Stage,—Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Amendment Bill.

Amendment in Clause 1 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

PENSIONS (SUPPLEMENTARY) BILL

Third Order read: Third reading,—Pensions (Supplementary) Bill.

Bill read a third time.

REVENUE LAWS AMENDMENT BILL

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

House in Committee:

On Clause 6,

Mr. RAW:

Where is the Minister of Finance?

The MINISTER OF LANDS:

I am looking after this Bill.

Mr. RAW:

Would the hon. the Minister in charge of the Bill please explain the meaning of this clause and the exact effects?

The MINISTER OF LANDS:

It is perfectly obvious if the hon. member reads the Bill. It says here—

A market gardener in respect of the sale of produce raised or grown by himself and a farmer in respect of the sale of livestock, bread or produce raised or grown by him or bought in the course of his ordinary farming operations.

For an astute mind it is perfectly clear what that means.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I move—

In lines 52 and 53, to omit “first day of July, 1961, if such duty remains unpaid at the date of commencement of this Act” and to substitute “date of commencement of this section, if such duty remains unpaid at that date”,

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 9 put and negatived.

On Clause 10,

Mr. TUCKER:

I move the amendment standing in my name—

To add at the end of the clause “and by the addition of the following sub-section:
‘(10) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (9), when property is sold in execution of any order or judgment of a court of law, and the purchaser is the holder of a mortgage bond over the property, the value on which duty shall be payable shall be—
  1. (a) if the purchase price exceeds the fair value, the purchase price; or
  2. (b) if the fair value exceeds the purchase price, the fair value or the amount due to the mortgagee under the mortgage bond, whichever is the less’.”

This clause in the Bill deals with the question of values for transfer duty purposes. There is an amendment which provides that, whereas ordinary auction sales fix finally the value for transfer purposes, in the case of sales in execution, the Department is not bound by the price at the sale in execution and the property can be valued. The provisions of the amendment seek to bring about this situation, Sir, that the value for transfer duty purposes will be what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It is obviously incorrect, as has been the case in the past, that where a property worth a great deal is bought at a nominal figure, transfer duty is only paid on that nominal figure. It must be remembered that the sales in execution very often are at the instance of the mortgagee, or in any case there is very often a mortgage over a property sold in execution and the experience is that in the vast majority of cases the mortgagee finds it necessary, particularly in difficult times such as we are passing through at the moment, to buy in the property personally and then to resell it. In the case of various institutions the law provides that they must sell the property as soon as they reasonably can. My amendment is to provide that, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (9), when property is sold in execution and the purchaser is a holder of a mortgage bond over the property, the value on which duty is payable, if the purchase price exceeds the fair value, will be the purchase price; but if the fair value as determined exceeds the purchase price, the duty will be payable on the fair value of the property or the amount due under the mortgage bond, whichever is the less. Sir, very often it is found that, although a value may be put on a property, that is not a value which can be obtained at that time. The mortgagee obviously only wants to protect his mortgage, and it is unfair that he should pay on a figure which is greater than the mortgage which he is protecting. The invariable practice is immediately the amount is reached which covers the mortgage, the mortgagee is no longer interested and a third party is allowed to buy. I think the amendment as put on the Order Paper provides a fair solution and I trust that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to accept it.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

In the short time I have had to give consideration to this amendment, my first impression is that I cannot accept it. There are three reasons why I cannot accept it. The first is that it would be introducing another distinction in respect of the same kind of sale, namely in a sale in execution. I can distinguish a sale by public auction from a sale in execution. The one is a forced sale, the other is not. But now, if I adopt this amendment, it means that I have to introduce a further difference in the same type, the sale in execution. The second objection is that at a sale in execution everything is in the interest really of the purchaser, and if you consider that a person who is able to buy property at the value of his mortgage, is really getting a bargain…

Mr. TUCKER:

No.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Undoubtedly he is getting a bargain. It may be that he does not want the property at that moment, but it is quite obvious that the market value is higher than the mortgage, and the purchaser is getting an advantage, an advantage which is greater when you have a sale in execution. For those three reasons I cannot accept the amendment, but I will say this to the hon. member that if I have had a further opportunity of discussing it, and if I can, I will effect an alteration in the Other Place, but my first impression is that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

The amendment to the Transfer Duty Act appears to us, to put it in colloquial terms, tickey-snatching. Surely the Minister is going to be in this difficulty when he wishes to arrive at a “fair value”, that he has no criterion. The Commissioner is going to raise an objection when he finds that the value at a sale in execution is, in his opinion, below the fair value. How is he going to determine that fair value? Is he going to determine it on his own opinion, or is he going to get a sworn valuator? If he is going to get a sworn valuator, the sworn valuator’s value would be fixed on a date after the sale, and who is going to say what is the sworn valuation at the date of the sale? You see, Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious to us that, at this time of the Session, the hon. Minister has not had time to consider this matter properly and his Department cannot consider it properly, and now the Minister suggests that he can deal with it in Another Place. No, Mr. Chairman, this is the place to deal with it and now. We are not going to be put off by the suggestion of the hon. the Minister that he will consider it when he takes the Bill to Another Place. We are dealing here with “fair value”, and surely the fair value is the value at the date of the sale. The hon. the Minister knows that in a sale in execution the practice is that there must be notice to the whole world; a sale in execution must be advertised in the Press, so that not only can the bondholder protect himself, but anyone else who wishes to buy can come into the market. And when a bondholder only takes the property over at the value of his bond, then it quite frequently happens that he protects his bond because there is not even a buyer available at the bond’s figure. Surely the hon. the Minister knows that in a sale in execution the last thing the bondholder wants is to have the property on his hands and, quite frequently, when he takes it over at the value of his bond, the market price at that particular time is less than the value of his bond. How can the Commissioner suggest that a fair value is above that figure? The bondholder at that time is more than anxious to get rid of the property. His business is not holding properties; his business is the lending of money and the collection of his interest, and here the bondholder takes over the property at the value of his bond, and now the Minister suggests that the fair market value is a figure higher than the price realized at the sale. Anyone can come to this sale, the property is advertised, and I think this is splitting hairs on the part of the Commissioner. He is trying to get something more than the fair market price, he is trying to suggest that the fair market price is above the execution price. My submission is that in respect of many properties to-day it would be very unreasonable to fix a fair market price above the execution price. The so-called fair price fixed by the Commissioner would be an artificial price, a price based upon the opinion of the Commissioner, unless of course it is based upon the price given to the Commissioner by a sworn valuator, and a sworn valuator’s price must be a price fixed after the date of the sale in execution, and the valuation made after the date of the sale cannot be a fair price, because it is made after the date and not on the date of the sale.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Why not?

Mr. HOPEWELL:

Conditions differ. After all if there were a change of Government today values would change overnight. Obviously, if this Government went out and we came in, property values would go up at once.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

We are dealing with realistic considerations.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

Quite, what I am saying is realistic. I want to show that a fair value given after the date of the sale in execution is artificial. The Minister may devalue the day after the sale, and then what will be the position? No, I think the Minister is running into trouble when he suggests that the Commission of Inland Revenue should have this discretion. It is much better to be realistic and stick to the sale price at the sale in execution, because everyone who is interested in the property has an opportunity to come to the sale and to buy, and if the bondholder unfortunately has to take over the property, then that should be the fair value for the purpose of determining the duty payable.

Mr. TUCKER:

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that it is reasonable that we should accept the amendment. I am going to put certain reasons to him. I have had a great deal of experience of sales in execution. A sale in execution takes places inevitably after the owner of the property has done everything he possibly can to realize at least the amount sufficient to cover the liability in respect of his mortgage bond. It is not as if sales of execution are made when the property is in excellent condition and the owner of the property having kept it in perfect order, could easily sell it for a figure much higher than what is reached at the sale in execution. The invariable experience is that where sales in execution take place, it is not something that happens overnight. A period of notice has to be given, there are legal proceedings, there is the fixing of conditions of sale, which entails a lengthy delay. During that period the owner has a full opportunity of selling that property for the amount of the mortgage or anything in excess thereof which he can get. An owner invariably does everything he possibly can to find a buyer at a figure which can at least clear him of his debt and, if possible, provide him with a surplus. A sale in execution takes place in circumstances where, for various reasons, the owner has found himself quite unable to dispose of the property privately, sometimes because the neighbourhood has deteriorated, sometimes because the property is damaged and cracked. Occasionally there is the operation, for instance, of the Group Areas Act—but I do not want to drag that into this discussion. I want to try and deal with the ordinary case not the extraordinary one. In the ordinary case, my experience has been that when a property is sold in execution in this way, it has usually been allowed to go to rack and ruin; the property has not been properly looked after. In the first place, I say that the mere fact that the sale in execution has become necessary, shows in the large majority of cases that the owner has not been able to dispose of the property at a price sufficient to cover what he owes. The figure should not be above that figure for duty purposes especially in the circumstances I have mentioned. The buyer is not a willing buyer. He is a buyer who is buying the property in order to protect his security.

Sir, the proposal that I have made does not go as far as that put by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell). I will concede this that in many cases of sales in execution the prices received are out of all proportion to the true value. I know of cases quite recently where property worth £1,000 has been bought for a nominal figure of £5, and transfer duty has been paid on that figure. That is the situation that the hon. the Minister is attempting to meet. I have conceded that the principle is that an auction sale should determine the value. The hon. the Minister desires to change that position in regard to execution sales. I have therefore accepted that. But that does not alter the fact that we must determine the true value. The views of valuators of property differ enormously in my experience. Very often one finds that a property is being sold because unknown factors have arisen and must be taken into consideration. I mentioned one case of which I have personal experience where it was found that there was a spring under the floor of the property, which appeared in wet seasons—it might be only once in five years. That sort of factor does arise. That property, when inspected in the dry season, was in such condition that not one single penny could be taken off the intrinsic value of the property, on a physical inspection. It is for that reason that I hope the hon. the Minister will agree to deal with this matter in this House. This is the House which should deal with finance. If the hon. the Minister would like a little time, I would suggest that he might let the matter stand down so that he can go into it more fully. The simple fact of the matter is that if the Minister wishes to do justice, taking into account the principle which he is determined upon, namely, that in sales in execution there will be a right of valuation, I ask that an arbitrary figure should not be fixed. My suggestion is that the figure accepted should be either the fair value—because very often the property cannot be realized at the amount owing on the mortgage—or, alternatively, it should not exceed the amount which is owing. The reason I suggest that is that the mortgagee, in my experience, never offers a price above what is owing for the property. He is only too glad to get anybody to take it over once the amount due to him is reached, or a figure close to that. I submit to the hon. the Minister that it is reasonable that he should accept this amendment. If he wants to consider it further, I do ask that instead of saying he will deal with it in the Other Place, he should rather let this matter stand over. If the hon. the Minister were prepared to do that, I would certainly ask this side of the House to agree, if necessary, to give stages later in order to dispose of this Bill.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

It seems to me that in our discussion of this clause we are rather missing one another. The amendment of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) which has been supported by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) means that they want to replace one arbitrary value by another arbitrary value. When we come to the arbitrary valuation of properties, then I still say that I would prefer to accept the valuation of a sworn valuator who is an official of the Supreme Court to that of anyone else. The argument of the hon. member for Pinetown regarding bonds which are of a higher value than the inherent value of the property does not hold water.

*An HON. MEMBER:

He is not an official of the Supreme Court.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

Well, he is appointed by them and he is responsible to them. I say that argument does not hold water because a bond holder who gives a bond which is worth far more than the value of the property is stupid from a business point of view and he should suffer for it. But I want to say that the amendment the Minister is making has many implications. I can see the problem which the Minister wishes to meet, and I think it is a serious problem. But rather than try to correct this matter in the Other Place—I am not certain whether it can be done there; I do not know the rules of that House, but I understand that they may not decide on financial matters—I want to ask the Minister whether this matter is so urgent that it cannot stand over until the beginning of next year, if something must be done about it, rather than accept the amendment of the hon. member for Springs, because that amendment would rather aggravate the position.

Mr. ROSS:

I thought the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) was going to agree with us but the sting was in the tail of his speech. I must admit that, like the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) I personally know of cases where ridiculous prices have been received at a sale in execution. I know of one case where £5 was paid for a property valued at £1,800. The property was not worth £1,800, but it was certainly worth a lot more than £5. I think the position is that this new clause has been introduced just to provide for those cases, and it will bring in fish that have never been thought about. It is going to cause endless argument. In all fairness I have to admit that normally the discussions between the bondholder and the revenue officers are amicable and reasonable, but in this case I think the hon. the Minister has gone too far. Let us look at the practical side of this matter, as the hon. member for Springs has tried to do. One thing that happens is that if there are sales in execution that have been advertised, speculative builders arrive. They will come to the owner and say “How much is your bond?” If he says “It is £2,000”, they say “Oh no, that is too high, I am not prepared to pay that for the property” and away they go. Then the bondholder is forced to buy the property at that figure of £2,000. The mere fact that a man who reckons he knows his business is not prepared to pay the amount of the bond, is surely sufficient warrantage for the Minister to agree with the proposition of the hon. member for Springs. Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is bringing in a clause that is going to cause a lot of unnecessary trouble, and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Springs will give the necessary answer that is looked for by the Department of Revenue, and it will save a lot of trouble. I support the amendment.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

This matter is not quite as easy as the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) has suggested. I want to point out that if a bondholder, by private arrangement with the owner, comes to an agreement to take over the property at the value of the mortgage bond, then he will have to pay transfer duty on the fair market value.

Mr. TUCKER:

Quite right.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

If he buys it by public auction at a sale in execution, the hon. member wants the law to say that he need not pay on the fair market value. Then, I say, it introduces a distinction in duty between a sale in execution and at the same price when there is a private arrangement; the transfer duty must differ, although the value of the mortgage bond is the same.

I want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) that the usual practice is to accept as the basis of the fair value, the sworn appraisement. It is not a question of the discretion of the commissioner. There is an appeal from the decision of the commissioner. But, as I say, the whole matter bristles with difficulties because you are bound, somewhere or other, to make distinctions which, in fact, are distinctions between the same type of thing. The ordinary rule is that transfer duty is payable on the fair value, and the only difference that has been introduced into the old law is when there is a sale by public auction. Normally at a sale by public auction you have a free seller and a free purchaser. But when you come to a sale in execution, the owner of the property has abandoned his right to bargain for the price. It has to be sold; it is in fact a forced sale.

On the other hand, it is quite true that if that particular property is bonded, to a certain extent the bondholder is also not a free person. He might not have bought that property had it not been for the fact that he was a bondholder and wanted to protect the property.

Mr. TUCKER:

That is so.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

In any case, the bondholder had his choice when he gave the bond. He knew that that was a likelihood, and if he was at all a cautious lender of money he would have seen to it that his bond was not in excess of the fair value and was, in fact, below the fair value—60 per cent or two-thirds or something of that nature. However, as I say, I can see the point of the hon. member. I can also see very much of the other side. All I am prepared to do now, therefore, it so move the deletion of the clause altogether. I will then not introduce these distinctions between transactions which are really not distinguishable. I shall then, at a later stage, consider whether it is necessary to introduce something to catch people who are getting an unnecessary bargain at the expense of the fiscus. I now suggest that this clause be deleted. As I have said, I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendmnent because I do not know where it will take me. It is likely to make the whole Act illogical. I would therefore rather have a continuance of the old position, even if it is anomalous, until I have been put in a position to examine the whole matter carefully.

Mr. TUCKER:

I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that I appreciate his attitude very much indeed. This is an example which supports our contention that if only we could get these Bills a little earlier in the Session, there would be more time for us all to consider them. I would like, in respect of one point made by the hon. the Minister, to tell him of the circumstance that arises. I will give him one example. He should not say that mortgagees have acted carelessly. As an example I refer to a famous case in Brakpan where the Railways raised the railway line and immense damage was done through the damming up of underground water. About 100 properties became completely unsaleable. These circumstances do arise. However, I am grateful that the hon. the Minister has taken what I think is a very correct and reasonable attitude.

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

Clause 10 put and negatived.

On Clause 11,

Mr. HOPEWELL:

I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some more information with regard to sub-section (b). The hon. the Minister referred to this generally yesterday and indicated that this was a further provision allowing for debentures issued by the Land Bank to be included in the property of the deceased. Could the hon. the Minister please give us some further information on this subsection?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

The position in regard to Clause 11 (b) is quite clear. Under the existing law you can deduct from the amount of the estate which is liable for estate duty an amount of R10,000 which you have either in the form of an insurance policy or in the form of Government stock. What we are now doing is that we say that that R10,000 may be made up of either an insurance policy or Government stock or Land Bank stock. That is all we are introducing as an additional item which goes to make up the R10,000.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

In Clause 11 (c) it is provided—

By the addition at the end thereof of the following paragraph:
(o) any amount included in the estate in respect of—
  1. (i) the value of books, pictures, statuary or other objects of art; or
  2. (ii) so much of the value of any shares in a body corporate as is attributable to such body’s ownership of books, pictures, statuary or other objects of art;
if such books, pictures, statuary or other objects of art have been lent under a notarial deed to the State or any localauthority within the Republic or to any institution referred to in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (h) for a period of not less than 50 years, and the deceased died during such period.

Is it the intention that the notarial deed must have provided that the works of art must have been lent to the State during the period of the deceased’s life-time, or what is the position should a testator provide in his will that these works of art be lent to the State after his death for a period of 50 years? One gets the impression from the reading of the clause that the notarial deed must have been executed during the deceased’s life-time, and must continue for a period of at least 50 years. Is there any difference where there is a notarial deed executed for 50 years bust commencing during the life-time of the deceased and continuing for 50 years from the date of the execution of that deed? Or is it necessary that the notarial deed under which the loan to the State is made should come into operation from the date of the deceased’s death for a period of 50 years? It appears to me that this provision is made for one particular trust, that in respect of the Robinson Collection. It would appear that this clause has been framed having regard to that one particular example. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that there may be other examples and provision should be made for a person who has a valuable collection which remains in his possession during his life-time, and not until after his death does it become available to various institutions for a period of 50 years. It can happen that a person in those circumstances may not have provided a notarial deed but may have a provision in his will stating that the property shall remain available to the country for a period of 50 years. One can imagine the case where there is no notarial deed. For example, the hon. the Minister might have a valuable collection and might leave it to the nation for a period of 50 years, where after it goes to members of his family. In those circumstances I submit that would not fall under this subsection, although it has been lent to the State for 50 years, because there is no notarial deed and might have been lent by way of a bequest. Has the hon. the Minister considered that matter?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

The position is that this clause is concerned only with a gift of the “bruikleen” of the objects of art made inter vivos during the lifetime of the grantor. That is all that is covered here. He has to make a notarial deed, and there are certain conditions under which he makes his grant of the “bruikleen”, the use for a fixed period of time. If the heir of that property which has now been granted in these circumstances in trust to the State or to a municipality dies, his estate is free, and each successive heir during the period, which should not be less than 50 years, has an unencumbered estate with regard to any duties in respect of the collection. But if there is a definite bequest in a will, then that is not covered by this clause as it stands. If there is an out and out bequest without any time limit, that is not covered at all. However I think it is a suggestion which one could probably consider in order to encourage people to make bequests of valuable possessions; in view of the fact that this year we have taken the first step we can probably go further later on and exempt from taxation any bequest made in a will of the full ownership rights in the collection of pictures or whatever objects of art there may be.

But the present clause, if I may say so, deals only with a certain problem that came up, and I have not gone into the matter much further than that immediate problem. We wanted to encourage people who have these valuable collections to give them on loan to the Government for a fixed period, and we will assist them as far as the payment of estate duty is concerned. But the other point is one that I will consider. However, it is not covered here, this merely has to do with a gift during the lifetime of a person of certain collections of art on loan for a fixed period of time.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

I want to get this position quite clear from the hon. the Minister. An out and out bequest to an institution, to the Government or to a local authority, of a collection of art treasures such as is envisaged in this sub-section, are exempted from estate duty now. But on the other hand, if a person were to provide in his will that those art treasures were to be on loan for 50 years and thereafter go to the great grandchildren, there would be no exemption from duty. For the purposes of duty there would be a calculation of the expectancy in 50 years’ time of what that collection was worth, and that duty would be payable. My point is this: there is provision here for a particular class, but there is no provision for the other class I have mentioned. Yet the argument is valid that you are making a law here to provide for a special case, whereas the Minister accepts the general principle. I think that when the Minister said he was prepared to go into the matter in future, he should have borne in mind that this is a case which merits consideration as he has accepted the principle of this clause.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

An out and out bequest does not fall into this picture. That is in any case exempted. But if there is a bequest of the loan, then it raises a number of legal difficulties. For instance, the person to whom the loan is made may not be prepared to accept it. When it is inter vivos, then you know. It is only when a loan has been made under certain conditions, and those conditions have been accepted that there is an agreement. Anybody who wants to make such a bequest now, in view of this legislation, need not wait until he is dead. He can make his bequest now. He knows that it can be done during his lifetime, and then he can save the estate duty. And then it will only save his estate if it is accepted. The hon. member will see that it is very difficult to make provision now contemplating all these difficulties. I have never heard of a loan bequeathed in this way, it is usually a gift made by a person while he is living. It may be that the right is given to the heirs, and the heirs can enter into a notarial bond. But it will raise the difficulty of what happens if the loan is not accepted because the conditions are unacceptable. We are therefore confining it to the circumstance that is comprehensible, one that we can see. Here is a person who has a valuable collection; he does not want to leave it out and out to the state or to a municipality, but he is prepared to give it on loan if the other side is prepared to accept it. In that case his estate is exempted from the payment of estate duty on that particular collection of art treasures. I do not think we should go further than that. I think that this will cover all the cases. If there is anyone in the country contemplating a bequest of the loan of art treasures, I would advise them to do so now and make the loan while they are alive and they can still get the kudos for it, rather than wait until they are dead when it will raise all kinds of other problems.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

The hon. the Minister treats this matter as if it is something quite unusual, but I want to point out to him that it is not something unusual. There is, for instance, my own experience. I am an executor in an estate where certain valuable pictures have, in terms of the will, been made available to two municipal art galleries. The testator knows very well that his children do not appreciate art at all.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Well, he can do it during his lifetime.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

He is of the opinion—and his opinion may be wrong—that those pictures may be very valuable one day. I may say I share his opinion. He has provided that those pictures shall go on loan to two municipal art galleries, and 30 years after his death those pictures can be sold and the proceeds divided amongst his issue. I thought that this was an unusual case, but making inquires at one of the municipal art galleries has shown me that they have several pictures on their walls from various estates. Here we are making provision for a particular case where we have accepted the principle, and I would suggest that the hon. the Minister look into the matter further. He can possibly encourage works of art to remain in this country for the benefit of the country by making the general principle of this section well known to the public. They may not wish to make a specific notarial deed during their lifetime, but could make a provision in their wills which would be exempt from duty, and in that way we would keep art treasures in the country.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown that if anyone wishes to bequeath it in his will there is no reason why he should not do it in his lifetime, and he can put it into a notarial bond that it will only come into effect on his death. That would have the same effect. The example given by the hon. member seems as if it was made retrospectively. At any rate, 30 years would not be sufficient to bring it in here. It would have to be for a very long period. But if a person wants to put ft into his will and make use of the collection during his lifetime, he can enter into a notarial bond and make it one of the conditions that it will only pass to the grantees on his death. In the meantime the grant or can have the use of it, and the grantees will have the opportunity to say, during his lifetime, whether they are prepared to accept the conditions. I will look into the matter again, but it seems to me that that is the way in which a person can meet the problem mentioned by the hon. member.

Mr. TUCKER:

Supposing it were a donatio mortis causa, would that be free of duty? Because if that is so, should not express provision be made in this section?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

If it is a donation, it is not liable in any case. If it is a donation and not a loan, that would include a donatio mortis causa.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

Mr. ROSS:

This amendment on the face of it should be acceptable, but I raised objections last year with regard to the valuations of the shares of a private company that were not accepted by the Minister. For instance, there is the provision that the provisions of the memorandum and articles of association must not be considered in valuing shares. This clause is supposed to amend some of the difficulties, but I do not quite know what the intention of the amendment is and I wonder whether the Minister can tell us something more about it.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

This amendment in Clause 12 (a) removes the distinction which previously existed between companies controlled by the deceased and those not controlled by him. In practice this distinction is difficult, if not impossible, to maintain owing to the difficulties experienced by accountants who have pointed out that in undertaking the valuation of shares in a particular company an accountant cannot be expected to make, in addition, a thorough examination of the shareholdings of all the associated companies of which the deceased may have exercised control. It is as the result of representations made by the accountants that this amendment is introduced and the enactment now makes the valuation of all unquoted shares subject to the same conditions as laid down in Section 5 (1) (f)bis of the principal Act.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

Mr. EATON:

This clause amends the cinematograph films tax. The Act came into operation on 1 July 1960. The effect of this amendment is to ease considerably the burden upon the organizers of many small cinema shows which are given for the benefit of charity. Now the result of this amendment will be of considerable benefit to organizations which give shows for charitable and other purposes, as mentioned in the Act. The Act came into operation on 1 July 1960, and this amendment—I am not quite sure what date it will be of legal effect. This Bill does not indicate the date. If it is to be from 1 July 1960, of course that would be quite simple, but it does not say so. I ask what the operative date of this amendment will be.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

This clause is not retrospective. We are giving the concession now as from the date of commencement of this Act. I think it is a considerable concession, but we are only making it operative from the date of commencement of this Act.

Clause put and agreed to.

On the Title,

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

In view of the amendment I introduced to delete one clause, I move the amendment to the Title—

To omit “the Transfer Duty Act, 1949”.

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments and specially an amendment in the Title.

Amendment in Clause 7, the omission of Clauses 9 and 10, and the amendment in the Title, put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

PROHIBITION OF SPORTS POOLS AMENDMENT BILL

Fifth Order read: House to go into Committee on Prohibition of Sports Pools Amendment Bill.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL

Sixth Order read: Report Stage,—Liquor Amendment Bill.

Amendments considered.

In Clause 2:

Amendment in Clause 2 put,

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

I am opposed to the amendment in line 20. It is linked up with the amendment in Clause 8 which would permit the proprietors of mines and works and other employers to sell liquor to their Native labourers. I shall deal with the matter when Clause 8 is discussed. At this stage I shall content myself with protesting against this amendment and I shall also object later on to Clause 8.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

As the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) has said, this amendment must be linked with the amendment in Clause 8, in terms of which the Minister may grant authority to sell for on-or off-consumption to any bona-fide employer, regularly employing Native labourers. Unfortunately this amendment was not fully canvassed during the Committee Stage, and I feel that we require some further information from the Minister as to what he has in view and what may be the consequences if this amendment is accepted. I I understood the Minister when he introduced the amendment to Clause 8 which flows from introducing the term “employer” in this clause, he had in mind the sale of liquor to Natives employed on the mines. I would be glad if the Minister would elaborate that. He suggested that if this provision were not implemented, Natives employed on the mines would be able to obtain liquor from other sources provided by the Bill; there would not be effective control and therefore it might lead to abuse. Conversely, he said that if the employers, presumably the mine owners or those in control of a mine, were able to sell liquor, they would be able to exercise full control and the danger of abuse would be reduced. I am not sure that I am fully aware of the conditions of these Natives who are employed on mines. I am under the impression that most of them are kept in a compound, and that they do not have opportunities of going into the surrounding areas and mingling in those areas. The Minister also, I under stood, suggested that up to now it has been competent for the mine authorities to provide gratis a certain amount of kaffir beer to its employees, but said that, in view of his decision to drop Section 7 of the original Act, it would no longer be competent for such employers to provide kaffir beer gratis. Therefore, said the Minister, we must now give this opportunity for the sale of liquor generally. Now prima facie I would regard that as being potentially dangerous. We are now dealing with a large number of persons who are engaged in potentially perilous work. They go underground. They are for the most part Natives who, many of them, have come from other countries and they are, I understand, of a primitive or semi-primitive nature. I must confess that I have grave doubts about the advisability of opening facilities for the general sale of liquor to such Natives in these compounds, even though it is to be under control. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether he has consulted the Minister of Bantu Administration, and the Minister of Mines, and the Chamber of Mines or those who are responsible? I think before this clause is accepted—what I have to say now obviously will apply to the amendment in Clause 8—I would certainly require greater assurance than I have at present from the Minister that this will not open the door, not merely abuse, but to possible grave dangers affecting the safety of the mining industry.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

May I suggest that this clause stand over until Clause 8 has been dealt with?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

This amendment to Clause 2 is consequential to the amendment which we are proposing in respect of Section 100bis in Clause 8. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has asked whether the Chamber of Mines has been consulted. The answer is in the affirmative and the Minister of Bantu Administration informs me that he has in fact consulted the Chamber of Mines. This amendment to Clause 8 is cognate to the amendment to Clause 2. The amendment which we propose making to Clause 8 inserts a new paragraph (e). I want to explain that there are employers who have a large number of Native workers as defined by the Native Labour Regulation Act of 1911. These are Natives who are employed in the mines or other industries. Most of the mining companies and other large industries already provide kaffir beer gratis to their works under ministerial authority in terms of Section 127 of the Liquor Act. The reason is that it prevents the workers going to the drinking places outside. It is very essential that these mines and industries should also be able to ask for authority to provide liquor to their workers who are accommodated in compounds. The control there is good. There is no complaint about the way in which the mining companies particularly control their compounds.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

But previously it could be given and now it is proposed that it can be sold. Will that not have an effect on their wages?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

It may be. It can be arranged, but of course they are forbidden to give the liquor as part of their wages. It is most essential that these mines and industries should be able to ask for authority to provide liquor to their workers. I think we must be very careful here. If the Natives cannot obtain their liquor in the compounds, they will obviously go outside with permission to obtain liquor elsewhere. I would feel far happier, as the Bill now provides, for them to obtain their liquor in the compounds under control, and I think that the Minister of Bantu Administration would also feel happier with the control provided in the compounds. Under the present system they can obtain kaffir beer.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

Is there any question of the sale of liquor under the control of the mines being handed over to a concession holder?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

It will depend on whether it is decided to make such a compound one of the distribution points. In terms of the authority this could in fact be done, but that is a question which will have to be decided later.

A possible solution would be to allow them to provide liquor gratis to the Natives, but as a result of the withdrawal of Clause 8 that will no longer be possible. They can no longer do so gratis as a result of the withdrawal of Clause 8 which dealt with the tot system. I want to add that the profits made on these liquor sales in the compounds will be dealt with in accordance with sub-section (7) of Section 100bis. In other words, there will have to be consultation with the interested parties and particularly with the Department of Bantu Administration. Thus the amendment proposed to Clause 2 is consequential on the new Clause 8, although it actually precedes Clause 8.

The House divided:

Ayes—71: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.: Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Hertzog, A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.: le Riche, R.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A., Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Raw, W. V.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; 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 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.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

Noes—18: Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; de Beer, Z. J.; Dodds, P. R.; Eglin, C. W.; Fourie, I. S.; Lawrence, H. G.; Malan, E. G. Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Smit, D. L.; Swart, H. G.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Amendment in Clause 4 and the omission of Clause 8, put and agreed to.

In Clause 9,

Amendment in sub-section (1) of Section 100bis inserted in the principal Act by Clause 9, put.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

I object to this amendment. I refer particularly to the new paragraph (e) in the proposed new Section 100bis. This amendment will authorize the Minister to grant authority to any mines or works or other place of employment that may be described by him to sell European liquor to any Native labourer of or above the age of 18 years. I say that this procedure lays itself open to all manner of abuse. In order that hon. members may appreciate the extent of the undertakings that will be covered by the Minister’s authority I want to refer them to the definition of “Native labourer” in Act No. 15 of 1911 as amended by Section 1 (f) of Act No. 56 of 1949. It reads—

“Native labourer” shall mean a Native recruited for employment on or employed on work or working on any mine or works and (b) a Native recruited for employment or employed in any occupation or in any area or under conditions which the Minister may by notice in the Gazette declare to be an occupation in which or an area in which or conditions under which a Native so recruited for employment or employed, shall be a Native labourer for the purposes of this Act, provided at least three months’ notice of his intention to publish such a notice has been given by the Minister by notice in the Gazette.

So here the Minister may grant permission not only to mines and works but to any other class of employer whom he may prescribe. In terms of Section 127 of the Liquor Act the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette authorize any mine or works or other undertaking to brew kaffir beer for consumption in reasonable quantities on the premises to be supplied gratis to their Coloured or Native employees…

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The authority only lasts for 12 months.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

… and if the Minister finds that there has been any abuse he may withdraw this privilege. I think it is important that I should read this section under which the Minister to-day acts. Sub-section (1) of Section 127 reads—

The Minister may by notice in the Gazette either generally in respect of any province or any district or particularly in respect of any mine or works, as those terms are defined in Section 2 of the Mines and Works Act, 1911 authorize the brewing and consumption upon the premises, mine or works of any employer regularly employing and housing more than 50 Natives or permanent employees, of reasonable quantities of kaffir beer to be supplied gratis by the employer to such employees. Powers exerciseable under sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 96 may mutatis mutandis be exercised in respect of any employer or the supply of any kaffir beer under this sub-section.

That concluding paragraph does not apply to the Trannsvaal. Sir, under Section 127 the mines have developed a magnificent system of supplying, gratis, kaffir beer of approved strength on the most hygienic lines to their Native workers for consumption on the premises, and this beer contributes very largely to the good health of the Natives. Most of the Natives come from the reserves. Kaffir beer is their national drink and satisfies all their needs. If permission is granted under this new Section 100bis, employers at any time or works or other occupation approved by the Minister will be entitled to sell European liquor to their Native laborours, both for on-and off-consumption. I do not think hon. members appreciate what is happening here. Here we are supplanting the system of kaffir beer to be consumed gratis on the premises by the sale of European liquor of any class that the Minister may prescribe for on-or off-consumption. That means that they may be permitted to take the liquor away. This system is, if anything, even more pernicious than the tot system, and it will help to encourage the taste for strong drink. It will also make another drain on the hard-earned savings of these Natives which are remitted to their wives and families through the deferred payment system. It is all the more dangerous when one takes into account the immense congregations of Natives housed in the compounds and on the mines. There must be well over 300,000 Natives employed by the Witwatersrand mines alone, and I say that the supply of cheap wines or spirits will not only depress the quality of our labour but it will aggravate the tendency for various tribal groups to indulge in fights and other disorders. I would like to ask the Minister what is to happen to the profits, because these mines are going to make money out of this business if they do undertake it, which I hope they will not, and I would like the Minister to answer that question.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I explained that a few moments ago.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

This is just another attempt to procure an additional market for the wine farmers. I do not know to what extent the mines have been consulted; the Minister referred to that just now but I do not care whether they have been consulted or not. I say that it is a shameful business and that the Minister and his Government will live to regret it.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I want to support my colleague who has just sat down. The hon. member has pointed out that this is not only a question of permitting an employer to sell liquor to Natives in mine compounds. There are a very large number of activities which fall under the definition in the relevant Act—quarries for example and other works of that kind—and probably people employed in sugar mills, as distinct from the work in the fields, would be permitted in terms of this provision in the Bill to acquire by purchase from the employer liquor such as may be decreed by the Minister. Sir, I want to look at the 1911 Act for a moment. I remember it very well because once upon a time and for many years I recruited tens of thousands of Natives, so I know that Act. Provision is made in that Act that you cannot even get an agent’s licence for the recruitment of Natives if you are associated in any way with the sale of liquor. The Legislature in the past was so determined to keep liquor and liquor interests away from Natives who are here defined as “Native labourers” that that disqualification was laid on people who even attempted to recruit Natives. But my mind goes back to an interview which I had as a very young man with the late Gen. Hertzog in connection with this particular matter of supplying liquor to Natives and I remember very well a statement which he made on that occasion. He said that nothing could be more demoralizing than to permit hard liquor, European liquor, to be made available to Natives in our mine compounds. Sir, we have to remember that as far as mine compounds are concerned and compounds which in the main are run on the same pattern as mine compounds, you are not dealing with a cross-section of humanity; you are dealing with a class of person who for this purpose consists entirely of male Natives in their hundreds and in some cases in their thousands who are kept together under very strict restrictions as to their movements and so forth. They are not living a normal life; they are not an ordinary cross-section of humanity; they are living a very artificial life, coming as they do mostly from the rural areas, as the hon. member for East London (City) has said. These are people in the main who go and work for, say, nine or ten months in the gold mines and then, having saved their money or remitted it, they go back to their kraals. Their employment from time to time and throughout their lifetime is on the mines. They are not people who are habitually employed elsewhere, and for nine or ten months they are living a very artificial life under extreme conditions of physical strain because they have to work very hard. Sir, here it is proposed to make available hard liquor for sale to people living under those circumstances. I am not concerned for the moment whether it is Bantu people or any other Coloured people. You can imagine what is going to happen if you introduce liquor for sale to a vast group of males living under those circumstances and working under the conditions under which those people work. I want to make this position quite clear, and here again I come to the underlying principle. The principle of this Bill is to sell more liquor. The effect of it is to sell more liquor, and where more profit can be made on the sale of a product, profit will be made. I can only repeat what I was told as a young man by that great South African, the late Gen. Hertzog. I can imagine nothing more demoralizing than the sale of hard liquor in our mine compounds to the Bantu working in those mines.

*Mr. PELSER:

I think the hon. members for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) and South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) have rather misinterpreted this provision as well as its application. This provision is in fact being inserted to protect the Bantu worker, particularly on the mines. We all know that if there is one place where there is proper supervision and control over Native workers, it is in the mine compounds. The hon. member for East London (City) has said that it will be a tragic day if kaffir beer which is the natural drink of the Native is replaced by the White man’s hard liquor. That is not the intention. Section 127 of the Liquor Act still remains in force so that the hon. the Minister can still grant authority to employers to give their Native workers kaffir beer under certain conditions, and I expect that the hon. the Minister will also do so in the case of Native compounds. They will still be able to receive their natural drink, kaffir beer. But what is the position now that the White man’s drink, hard liquor, will be freely available outside? Then the mining authorities will find themselves in the position that unless it is provided in the compounds,

they will always be having trouble because their workers will go and buy liquor outside the compounds in quantities which will be more than is good for them. The result has been that the employers have approached the Minister and said: Make special provision for us so that we can also provide the White man’s drink to our workers under our own supervision. If the two hon. members will read the provision, they will see that the Minister’s powers are very wide. He can prescribe whether the liquor can be provided for on- or off-consumption. I take it that in the case of the mine compounds he will prescribe that it will only be for on-consumption. He can also prescribe what kind of liquor it should be. I take it that he will use his discretion in consultation with the employers. Furthermore, he can prescribed what is to be done with the profits and I want to take it upon myself to prophesy that the Minister will prescribe that the profits, after deducting the ordinary expenses, must be used for the development of the Native areas. I think that will be proper and right because the workers in the mine compounds come mainly from the reserves and it will therefore be no more than right that any profits which may be made should be made available for the development of the Native areas. That is also the request I want to make to the hon. the Minister.

Dr. DE BEER:

I also rise to express dissatisfaction with this clause in its present form, but my reasons for being dissatisfied are somewhat different from those of the hon. member for East London (City) and South Coast. The fact that my reasons are different from theirs flows, of course, from the fact that I am in favour of the principle of this Bill and they are not, and since I have already voted in the earlier stages of the Bill for liquor other than kaffir beer to be made available to Africans, whether or not they are labourers, it would be illogical for me to take the line that I want to prevent Africans under certain circumstances from getting that sort of liquor. However, there are two or three matters in connection with this clause about which we have no clarity and in regard to which we are not satisfied with the explanations that have been given. Firstly, we are dealing here with men who live under abnormal circumstances, under the compound system, which in my view is something that we should get away from as far as that is practically possible for all sorts of reasons, of which this would only be one, under circumstances in which they are peculiarly vulnerable not merely to the pharmacological effects of liquor but peculiarly vulnerable to the operations of people who may in an unscrupulous way wish to exploit their taste for liquor. It is in this connection that I want to raise a second point that disturbs me, and that is the question which the hon. the Minister allowed the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) to put in parenthesis when he was speaking on an earlier clause. The hon. member for Musgrave inquired whether under this system it was likely or possible that liquor would in fact be sold by concession storekeepers or similar people who might, in other words, have the right delegated to them by the mines, or whoever the employer may be, to sell liquor and who may be selling on their own account for the purpose of making a profit. I think it is established that that sort of system, necessary as it may be, already lends itself to certain abuses where the material sold is not intoxicating liquor, and if under a concession system liquor is to be sold, then the whole host of possible abuses presents itself which will have to be met and dealt with. It might not be impossible to satisfy us that these will be met and dealt with, but so far we are not satisfied from the explanations we have had. There is un-clarity, I think, as to the relationship between the powers given under this proposed section and the powers which already exist under Section 127 of the principal Act. In the one case kaffir beer is given gratis. I am not clear as to whether, when this clause comes into operation, employers at present giving kaffir beer under Section 127 will cease to do so and will sell kaffir beer in addition to other forms of liquor in terms of this clause. I am not clear whether it may be held to be unprofitable or uneconomic to provide the kaffir beer at present being provided when liquor of other types is available for sale. As the hon. member for Salt River said earlier this morning, it is a pity that in the circumstances there was not much opportunity in the Committee Stage, as there might otherwise have been, to canvass this whole matter and obtain clarity on it, but unless and until we can be satisfied as to these doubts that we have I at any rate do not see my way clear to voting for this particular amendment.

Mr. RAW:

I do not wish to give a silent vote on this matter. I would like to give my reasons which are that the authority which will be granted for the supply of liquor by an employer is still subject to the same conditions which the Minister accepted in regard to the granting of authorities. In other words, that it will be subject to recommendation by the National Liquor Board and that therefore there will be some control in granting the authority. The other reason that I wish to give is an historical one. I have here the book by J. S. Marais “The Fall of Kruger’s Republic”, in which there is a chapter on the concessionaries in which he says the following—

The Volksraad did in fact legislate to curb drunkenness amongst Native mineworkers. Between 1892 and 1895 it enacted several amendments to the liquor law making it more stringent and in 1896 to prohibit altogether the sale of liquor to Natives on the Rand.

The same problem was therefore experienced before the turn of the century in regard to Natives on the mines. He goes on to say—

So much for legislation. It proved easier in the Republic, as elsewhere, to enact restrictive liquor legislation than to enforce it.

The old Republic found itself unable to enforce restrictive liquor legislation, and now under the new Republic we find the Minister extending it. He goes on to say—

It was generally agreed that Native drunkenness on the Rand appeared to be increasing during the last decade of the Republic, but there the agreement ends. Estimates as to the average number of mine Natives incapacitated by the violent poisonous liquor supplied by the dealers varied widely.

He goes on to estimate that figure at anything from 12 per cent to 30 per cent. The point is that 60 to 70 years ago the same problem was encountered, and I feel that it is illogical, if you accept the principle of granting liquor to Natives, to say that these Natives, because they happen to work in the mines where because of their conditions of service they are unable to get the same facilities as other Natives, should be penalized, and therefore I am prepared to support this clause. It appears to me to be the only logical step to take. There is control over the profits, there is control over the granting of an authority and I am satisfied that those controls can prevent abuse. I do not believe that by refusing liquor to Natives who live in compounds, you are going to get a position which differs in any way from the position which obtained in the 1890s, a position where liquor was completely banned, gradually by stages, until ultimately it was completely banned. Both when it was partially banned, when it was half-banned, and when it was banned to mine Natives and not to other Natives, and when it was banned to all Natives, the matter could not be controlled. This chapter goes on to give the reasons; it describes the difficulties of the police, and I believe that we would have exactly the same difficulties to-day. Rather than create those difficulties. I am prepared to vote for this amendment.

Mr. EGLIN:

While it is quite clear that the principle of the clause which was accepted was that merely on the ground of colour, people should not be denied access to liquor, but it is quite a different matter whether you should not take into account, not the colour or the racial aspects but the conditions and the circumstances under which certain groups of people may live. In respect of the Bantu workers employed in our mines and housed in compounds, there can be no doubt that here is an exclusive group of citizens who live under conditions quite different from the conditions applying to the rest of the free community. It has been pointed out that these people live for large portions of their lives not under the circumstances of normal family life; they live under circumstances of bachelorhood, whether they be married or not. Secondly, there is no doubt, whatever the argument may be for extending facilities for access to liquor to people who have become westernized and who come into contact with the normal western way of life, that these people almost to a man are people with extremely primitive tribal backgrounds. Not because of their colour but because of the circumstances in the areas from which they are recruited they are people who do not conform with the normal cross-section of the community of South Africa. Thirdly, there is no doubt that these people are recruited from areas and amongst groups of people who traditionally have not gone in for the liquor habits of the vast bulk of the rest of the people of South Africa, whether those habits have been legally or illegally enjoyed. These people drink kaffir beer as their staple drink and do not come under the attraction of anything other than this particular form of liquor.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

And yet there are many from outside the Republic who in their areas are used to buying liquor.

Mr. EGLIN:

I would like the hon. the Minister to indicate to me in which territories other than Kenya and Uganda there is free access to hard liquor—I am talking in terms of spirits—for the African community.

Mr. SPEAKER:

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

Mr. EGLIN:

Sir, we are dealing with the question as to whether these people have been recruited from areas where by tradition they have access to this type of liquor. Whereas in the Protectorates and the Rhodesias hard liquor is available under permit, all the evidence is that the permit is very scantily granted. These people by and large have not become accustomed to this type of liquor. Anybody who has been to the compounds would realize that kaffir beer has become and is the staple and satisfactory drink as far as these people are concerned.

Mr. GREYLING:

Who are “these people”?

Mr. EGLIN:

“These people” are the people referred to by the Minister in terms of his amendment on page 6. Sir, here we have a group who, not because of their racial background, but because of their tradition and the peculiar circumstances under which they live should not be subject to an extension of these liquor facilities. Not only because of this but because this extension could only take place through a virtual monopoly of supply through an employer. I think it is the wrong thing on the one hand…

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The principle hasbeen accepted. The hon. member cannot argue against the principle, he must come back to the amendment.

Mr. EGLIN:

The amendment provides that any bona fide employer regularly employing Natives may be given authority to become a supplier of liquor.

Mr. SPEAKER:

That principle has been accepted.

Mr. EGLIN:

Sir, this is the amendment. I want to deal with the exact terms of the amendment, and that is whether or not we should approve that in Native compounds the employer of labour should be the source of supply of liquor to the Natives in that compound. I think it is a bad principle. I think it is a bad thing to allow only one person, who is also the controller of labour, to be the sole supplier of liquor which is otherwise freely available to these people. It would tend to create a monopoly of supply. Secondly, there is this question of the employer passing on a concession to someone else in that compound or in that area. In this respect we should like a further explanation from the hon. the Minister whether he is going to make the same conditions, as are applicable to other authorities, applicable also to the profits which accrue from the sale of liquor in these compounds, or whether the profits in respect of liquor sold in the compounds is going to be dealt with as though the liquor was sold by private individuals. In other words, is it going to be free either to the employer or to the person who holds a concession as a result of the employer handing that concession to him to make use of this facility in order to make a profit out of the employees in this area? Without conflicting with the general principle of the Bill, I believe that here we have a case for restricting the supply of liquor to people, not on the ground of their race but on the ground of the background from which these people come and on the ground of the circumstances under which they live.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

There is no question of concessions, but one of the conditions on which I shall insist very definitely and one of the regulations which I envisage will provide that kaffir beer can be provided gratis to the Natives in compounds. Although we have withdrawn Clause 8, dealing with the tot system, the Government, nevertheless, has the right under Section 127 to allow them to be given kaffir beer gratis, and it is the intention to make such provision. A great deal has been said about the way in which these Natives will obtain liquor in the compounds, and it has been claimed that the control will perhaps not be adequate. I have received a letter from the President of the Chamber of Mines, Transvaal and Orange Free State, in which certain points relating to the Bill are made. He writes, inter alia, as follows—,

It has always been the policy of the mining industry, with the support of the Government, to encourage mine Bantu labourers to stay as much as possible in the compounds. In furtherance of this policy, the committee urgently requests that Section 100bis should be amended to make it clear that a nominee of an employer of not less than 50 compounded Bantu mine labourers might be granted an authority under that section to sell liquor.

The Gold Producers’ Committee has made these representations to me, and I am merely reading this letter to show that these people are prepared to exercise control—

It has always been the policy of the mining industry to accept that the provisions of the mining laws which prohibit trading on mining ground do not apply to the sale of liquor in such circumstances.

He now urges that they should have the right to sell it—

The Gold Producers’ Committee envisages the sale of liquor under an authority granted under Section 100bis to mining companies to be conducted in a closely controlled portion of the compound laid out attractively in the form of a beer garden, thus creating an added social amenity for mine labourers. I should add that there is no intention to abolish or reduce the existing free issue of kaffir beer to mine labourers, which is regarded as a valuable part of the Bantu mine-labourers’ diet.

I think that, in view of this opinion which has been expressed by the President of the Chamber of Mines, we can say that we are doing the right thing, or rather the right two things. The first is that we will make provision that kaffir beer can be provided gratis and in the second place we must accept the assurance of the Chamber of Mines that very close supervision will be exercised. I want to add a third point, to which I have already referred in an interjection, namely, that there are thousands of Natives from outside South Africa and that there are Native customs regarding liquor which are not the same as ours. For this reason it is essential that proper control must be exercised over these people so that they will not go outside to other places where they can obtain liquor.

As regards the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit), I think the hon. member has overlooked the fact that Section 127, which he has read out and which deals with the brewing of beer and its consumption, the brewing of kaffir beer on certain premises, has since been amended. I formed the impression that the hon. member was still quoting the old Section 127, but this section was amended in 1956 and again by Act No. 58 of 1957. Without reading the section, as amended, I want to refer him to those amendments.

The House divided:

Ayes—70: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H.R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Raw, W. V.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; 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 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.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

Noes—17: Butcher, R. R.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Eglin, C. W.; Fourie, I. S.; Gay, L. C.; Lawrence, H. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Smit, D. L.; Swart, H. G.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Amendments in sub-sections (7) and (9) of Section 100bis inserted in the principal Act by Clause 9, put and agreed to.

On amendment in sub-section (11) of Section 100bis inserted in the principal Act by Clause 9,

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I want to take this opportunity of once again trying to get information from the hon. the Minister. The hon. Minister has accepted the amendment, which now makes it obligatory for him to have a recommendation of the National Liquor Board before he may grant an authority under Section 100bis. But there are a number of questions which immediately arise as to the manner in which the National Liquor Board will carry out its functions. Unfortunately we were not able to traverse that question as fully as we would have liked to yesterday, and therefore I want to take the opportunity of putting a few questions to the hon. the Minister. Now it is quite obvious that the Board will not be able to function properly unless the Minister issues certain necessary regulations dealing with their functions and activities. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he proposes to issue certain regulations. The Bill is an experiment. I would have preferred that the procedure of the Board, the functions of the Board in regard to these matters, should have been written into the Act itself; and it may well be that after the hon. the Minister has made the experiment, when he introduces an amending Bill next year—or when his successor as Minister of Justice under the new Government next year introduces a Bill, a consolidation measure—that as a result of the experience gained by then, it will be possible to write such provisions into the Bill. I want to put a few questions very crisply and pertinently to the hon. the Minister. The first is: In what form must an application for an authority be made?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Surely we have not yet reached that stage.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

The Minister may feel that he is not yet able to give an answer to these questions, but it seems to me that if this system is to work properly, regulations will have to be made. At what stage, and how will applications be initiated? In terms of the existing Liquor Law there is an annual meeting of the Licensing Board, and potential applicants know that they have to follow a certain procedure if they wish to obtain a liquor licence. They must submit an application in written form, and other procedures have to be observed. There is nothing whatsoever said about this in the present Bill, and I think it is necessary to lay down some procedure, unless the Minister is going to take the initiative in seeking applicants for this special privilege.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! Those points were raised during the Committee Stage. They are points of detail.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I did raise these points, but I did not get a complete answer and with due respect, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the amendment provides that no authority shall be granted under sub-section (1) except on the recommendations of the National Liquor Board. I am putting my questions very briefly because they are of public interest, and, again, with due respect, they arise out of the fact that the hon. Minister, in terms of this amendment, must have a recommendation from the Liquor Board.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member cannot now raise all these questions in detail.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Mr. Speaker, this House is being asked to confirm this amendment, and I only want to have it on record so that the Minister can apply his mind to these questions. I am not necessarily expecting him to give me a full answer to-day, but I think they should be on record because they are germane to this amendment. My questions are: (1) In what form must applications be made; (2) how will the Board deal with the applications; (3) will an applicant be entitled to appear personally before the Board; (4) if so, will he be entitled to be represented by council and/or attorney?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I think the hon. member is now going into too much detail. This is the Report Stage.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Sir, surely this is consequential upon the amendment? We are asked now to accept an amendment. I am not going to discuss this matter any further, I am merely putting a few questions: Will there be public hearings; will there be an opportunity to lodge objections to be heard by the Board? Will the Board make recommendations in regard to the profits referred to in Section 100bis (7)? Those are my questions. If the hon. the Minister is not in a position to answer at this stage, I hope he will consider them, and maybe he will answer them in Another Place. In any event, I hope he will consider these questions when he comes to drafting the regulations.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I hope the hon. the Minister will not at this stage reply to these questions.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I would have liked to carry a little further the questions posed by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), but in view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will not do so. I do, however, want to make one or two comments on this amendment. I believe that the amendment is an improvement and we are grateful that the hon. Minister saw fit to accept it. However, it remains extremely vague, and that is my objection to it. We are now dealing with very substantial powers given by Clause 100bis. As the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) said, we are dealing with the distribution of liquor to two-thirds of our whole population. Up to now the granting of liquor licences has been hedged in with all kinds of limitations and conditions, but here wide arbitrary powers are given. As the hon. member for Salt River has indicated, in contrast with the kind of application which is prescribed under the existing Act, in the case of an application in terms of this section no details are given at all. In the Liquor Act great detail is given in Section 31, but here we have no details at all. I would like to support what the hon. member for Salt River said, namely that we require much more detail in regard to the procedure for making an application to the National Liquor Board. The second point I want to make is that once the recommendation has been granted by the National Liquor Board, then the hon. Minister will have complete discretion whether to grant or refuse a licence. We are not opposed to that.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! These are matters of detail and should have been dealt with in Committee. The hon. member must now refer to the amendment only.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Yes, Sir, I am discussing the amendment. I am expressing the view that the wording of this particular amendment is vague.

Mr. SPEAKER:

That has been settled during the Committee Stage.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

The very fact, Sir, that we are able to discuss the amendment, shows that it has not been finally settled. That is why, with all respect, we are discussing this amendment. I shall be very brief, but the point I want to make is this: Once the National Liquor Board has made a recommendation, then it is open to the Minister to decide what conditions he imposes and as the Bill now stands he is subject to no limits in that respect. Once the recommendation has been made by the National Liquor Board, the hon. the Minister has complete discretion as to the conditions which he imposes. I would like to know in what form this recommendation is going to be made? Is it going to be a recommendation which prescribes conditions for instance that a certain person be granted authority to sell liquor at a particular place, within certain hours, or will the recommendation be made in open form leaving the Minister with complete discretion as to the conditions which he thereafter imposes?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I am rather amazed that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) who has had a lot of experience in this matter, is now adopting this attitude. Only at a very late hour last night I accepted an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Salt River that only on the recommendation of the National Liquor Board, can the Minister act. Now it is quarter-past-twelve the next morning, and the hon. member wants me now to tell him what the procedure is going to be and what the conditions are going to be under this amendment which was accepted last night.

But in any case, the hon. member’s observations will receive attention at the right time. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I can say that as a result of this amendment I will have to move in the Other Place, that the Chairman of the National Liquor Board will have a casting vote, because there are six members, and you may easily get a recommendation which is not unanimous. So it is very necessary that such an amendment is adopted in the Other Place.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Section 100bis inserted in the principal Act by Clause 9 put and agreed to.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I move—

To omit in Clause 9 the proposed new Section 100quat.

This is not the most important sub-section of what is an important clause, but nevertheless because it received very little attention last night, and we received no reply from the hon. the Minister, I put this amendment on the Order Paper, and I would like to advance arguments on it. This proposed Section 100quat makes it an offence for any Native, Asiatic or Coloured person to consume any liquor on private premises, or to be in possession of any liquor on private premises without the consent of the owner or lawful occupier. In my view it goes very far indeed, further than it should go. As far as the possession of liquor is concerned, if a non-White buys liquor in the course of his day’s work to take home, he must, if he does not want to contravene this provision, go straight home; he can do nothing on the way. If for instance he wants to visit someone on the way, he will have to leave his liquor at the gate before going inside.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Or he must have the permission of the owner or occupier.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Yes, but he may have to go on to the premises to get permission. I know this is not a point of very great importance, but what I believe it does do is to create a large number of technical offences. I agree that in 99 cases out of a 100 no prosecution will ever take place. But nevertheless it seems most unsatisfactory to make a law which makes for contravention by a large number of people for use possibly in one outstanding case. There are numerous examples which one could give of how one could contravene this section in the normal course of one’s day. There is the question of going on to premises without in advance getting permission; or one may take a short-cut across someone’s ground on the way home. One would be contravening this section. If one were to go into a shop—I am not certain whether that would be regarded as “private premises” in terms of the Act, but it might well be—one would be contravening this section. We are creating a large number of technical offences.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

He would not drink in the shop.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

The hon. Minister may be right there, and if he feels that the consumption of liquor under sub-section (a) should remain, I am prepared to suggest that only sub-paragraph (b) should be omitted from this section. But the mischief is sufficiently covered by offences which are already in the Act. In Section 166 one has already, in paragraph (i), the provision that a person is guilty of an offence if he is drunk, violent or disorderly upon any licensed premises, or is drunk on or near a road, street, lane, shop, store, any place of entertainment, etc. That provision is wide, and again in terms of this amending Bill further offences are created by Clause 19 which introduces a new (i)bis making it an offence to consume any liquor in any street, road, lane or other public thoroughfare. I believe that those provisions are quite wide enough and it is unnecessary to add this subsection (b). I leave the question of consumption under paragraph (a) and will argue the point merely on sub-paragraph (b), that is the possession of liquor. I believe that that is much too wide and will create an enormous number of technical offences, quite unnecessarily. Further an offence is created here only when committed by a non-European. The hon. Minister said in introducing this Bill that he wants to get away from discrimination unless there is very strong justification for it, and I agree entirely with him.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

A European has off-consumption.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I don’t understand the effect of that interjection. Sir, it is to be an offence if a Native, Asiatic or Coloured person is in possession of any liquor on any private premises without the consent of the owner or lawful occupier. It is not an offence for a European. I can’t see the point of discriminating against the Native, Asiatic or Coloured person in relation to this offence. The hon. the Minister says he wants to get away from discrimination, and here he leaves a clause which is obviously discriminatory. I cannot see the justification for it. If it is undesirable in relation to these people, why is it not undesirable in relation to the Europeans? That, Sir, is an additional reason why I should like to see this clause deleted. I hope the hon. the Minister will consider this matter seriously.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I second.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The hon. member said that he did not want to discuss the consumption, but then he moved his amendment. He has now moved both parts of his amendment. He has said that we are discriminating and making it an offence for the Bantu, because he may not consume his liquor in a White area nor may he be in possession of it on private premises. The Bantu can now buy liquor from the White man’s bottle stores, but he may not drink it there. He can consume it on the premises of any owner who gives him the right to do so. The hon. member must understand that in this case the Native is moving in an area that isnot his own area. This may be a matter of dispute between the hon. member’s party and the National Party. But there it is. The hon. member cannot simply call it discrimination in that sense of the word. The Bantu are being given certain rights in the White areas. The Bantu can buy his liquor, but he may not consume it there. He must take it away with him. The Natives who work in flats or on the premises of individuals, must just obtain the permission of the owner and then they can consume their liquor there. That is all. The hon. member now says: Yes, but if he takes his bottle to that place he will be arrested. He admits himself that in 99 per cent of the cases there will not be arrests. I think that as far as the remaining one per cent is concerned the police will have to use their commonsense if the Bantu says that he was on his way to this or that place to ask Mr. X whether he could consume the liquor on his premises. We must prevent drinking dens. I am sorry; I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. Kaffir beer can be brewed on premises outside urban areas with the permission of the owner. That is the position as far as Kaffir beer, the drink which the hon. member says the Bantu like to consume. In the city there is a prohibition on Kaffir beer, but with the permission of the municipality Kaffir beer can be brewed in such areas.

Amendment put and negatived.

Amendment in Clause 13, the omission of Clause 16 and the amendment in Clause 22, put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

More than two members having objected.

Bill to be read a third time on 24 June.

APPROPRIATION BILL

Seventh Order read: Adjourned debate on motion for second reading,—Appropriation Bill, to be resumed.

[Debate on motion by the Minister of Finance, upon which amendments had been moved by Mr. Waterson and by Mr. Williams, adjourned on 21 June, resumed.]

*Mr. P. S. VAN DER MERWE:

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. P. du P. Basson) who was the last member to speak in this debate is not here at the moment. It seems that he is following the advice of the fox who said that it was sound tactics to run, but one must start in time. While I have risen to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Namib. I actually find it difficult to answer him. If I do not answer him, his voters in South West will criticize us for not replying to him when he makes all these nonsensical statements. If I do reply to him, then it seems as though I am taking notice of him, and that is definitely not so. I think the result of the last election in Namib will already have given the hon. member an indication that not even his voters in that constituency take any notice of him, and why should I do so? But I want to make it clear that while I am going to reply to him, I want to state specifically that I am now going to do so for the last time, and that in future I shall ignore him completely.

The hon. member has made quite a few statements. He has warned the Government that the Afrikaners will be held responsible for its mistakes. This is not the first time that the hon. member has tried to hold the Afrikaners responsible for the mistakes he has made. As a matter of fact this is not the first time that he has tried to incite the Bantu and the non-Whites against the Afrikaners. I have here a report which appeared in the Cape Argus of 4 February 1960. These are comments which one of the Bantu members, Paul Mozaka, made on a speech by the hon. member for Namib. This Bantu is chairman of the African Chamber of Commerce and is a member of the Institute of Race Relations. Inter alia he said the following—

It is well that this voice (that of the hon. member for Namib) of warning has come not a moment too soon from an Afrikaner. Mr. Basson’s speech has spread like wildfire among the Africans who welcome it as a timely and courageous warning.

But then he goes on to say—

In his daily thinking the African clearly distinguishes between Afrikaans-speaking Whites and those who do not speak Afrikaans. The biggest curse of any White man is that he is a Boer. In that word is concentrated all his hatred of oppression.

That is what he has to say about the Afrikaans-speaking Whites. He then continues, and I just want to read his last few words. This extremist Bantu leader who has now called in the hon. member for Namib as an ally, said—

The salvation of the Afrikaner still rests in his own hands. He has such a wonderful opportunity to make friends with the 10,000,000 embittered people, if he stretches out his hand to the Africans, not as master to servant, but as brother to brother.

It is quite clear that the hon. member for Namib only wants this partnership between the Afrikaans-speaking people and the Bantu if it is a partnership of “brother to brother”. I want to ask the hon. member whether he wants this “brother to brother” partnership to continue, and in which spheres should it exist—in the social sphere, the political sphere, the economic sphere and in which other spheres?

I also want to read a few extracts to the hon. member for Namib from the latest issue of Drum. This is a Bantu journal. In it they reply to this mutual compliment which they have paid him. The article deals with “What the leaders say Here they give the comments of a whole series of leaders, for example, Walter Sisulu, Nelson Mandela and many others. The newspaper interviewed them as to how they felt about the demonstrations on 31 May. I first want to read a few of the remarks which a few of these so-called leaders made. Walter Sisulu said—

The time has come for the South African people to demand a big change. We cannot allow the Nats to continue to disregard the call for a non-racial democracy.

And then there is what Nelson Mandela says—

The people will be called upon to continue their protests until their grievances are met. Alternatively we want the Government to call an all-in national convention to discuss an entirely new constitution here.

Various Bantu leaders were interviewed. This is “what the leaders say”. Inter alia I see that they report what the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) had to say about the demonstrations on 31 May. Now I must give the hon. member for Queenstown, the leader of the Progressive Party, a good mark for at least not encouraging them in their mischief as far as 31 May was concerned. His comments were—

I do not advocate the holding of demonstrations on 31 May other than official events where the Republic is celebrated through the proper authorities, either Government or municipal. I would advise very strongly against demonstrations. I do not think these would serve a useful purpose.
*Dr. STEYTLER:

What do you say about that?

*Mr. P. S. VAN DER MERWE:

I have no comment to make. But now I want to read to the hon. member for Namib what he himself said. In this House I have always thought that the hon. member for Queenstown was the most leftist person in this House. But I want to tell him that the hon. member for Namib has outpaced him by quite a long way. The following is what the hon. member for Namib told this Bantu paper in connection with the demonstrations on 31 May—

I have no objections to any group or race expressing their political opinions at any time whatsoever in a proper manner. Anyone is entitled to express his political views. If the demonstrations fall within this category, then very well.

In other words, he gave them yet more encouragement to continue with the demonstrations on 31 May. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have been very disappointed at the fact that the demonstrations which he regarded as a natural expression of their feelings by the Bantu were not more successful.

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

Afternoon Sitting

*Mr. P. S. VAN DER MERWE:

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned for lunch, I was just showing how the hon. member for Namib in his message to the Bantu journal, Drum encouraged the Bantu to continue with their demonstrations on 31 May. His words in this regard were as follows—

Anyone is entitled to express his political views. If the demonstrations fall within this category, then very well.

In this way he encouraged the Bantu to continue with their strike on 31 May. I also pointed out that the hon. member has even outpaced the most progressive thoughts of the hon. member for Queenstown. I now want to go on to take the hon. member for Namib to task for one or two of the other statements which he made the day before yesterday. The hon. member said for example: “The country is being governed by a sectional Government in which the English-speaking people have no share.” He should know that the Government has thrown open its doors to the English-speaking people. We do not ask what language a man speaks before he joins us. If people are English-speaking, German-speaking, whatever language they may speak, they are free and welcome to join the National Party as long as they are prepared to subscribe to the principles of the National Party. The hon. member for Namib should know that. As a matter of fact he has said so himself in this House. I read from the Hansard report of 31 March 1955 when the hon. member said the following—

The hon. member…

And he was referring to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope).

… has alleged however that the National Party is a section of a section, the implication being that the party is deliberately arranging things in such a way as to exclude the English section of the population. We all know that that is not the position. The National Party is open to the English-speaking people in just the same way as it is open to the Afrikaans-speaking people, and if the English-speaking people do not join our side, it is certainly not our fault. The opportunity is there, and time andagain an appeal is made by the leaders of this party and by the hon. the Prime Minister to the English-speaking people to forget their prejudices.

Those were the comments of the hon. member for Namib. He went on—

If the English-speaking person does not join this party he cannot possibly become a candidate, and if he does not become a candidate for the party he cannot take his seat in Parliament on this side and he therefore cannot be considered for high political posts, such as a Cabinet post. Those are the simple facts of the matter.

Seeing that he knows exactly what the position is, seeing that he knows how welcome the English-speaking people are in the ranks of the National Party, I now ask what right the hon. member had to make these deplorable statements the day before yesterday to the effect that we have closed our doors to the English-speaking people? I wonder whether these statements of his are not just as irresponsible as the one he has made to the effect that Mr. Kobus Louw was one of the Hermanus people. He must have seen in this morning’s Burger that Mr. Kobus Louw has denied that allegation. What right does he have to mention Mr. Kobus Louw’s name in this House at all and what right does he have to claim that he was one of the people who tried to work against the National Party in that way.

In referring to the Coloured problem, he has also said that a party which is prepared to go as far as A should not have any objection to a party which is prepared to go as far as B. That is quite correct. It is precisely for that reason that the National Party is not prepared to say “A”. It is for that reason that the United Party, the Progressive Party and the hon. member for Namib and all Opposition parties are moving step by step through the alphabet. The one has reached C and the other D, but they are all heading towards X, Y and Z. He should know that. Mr. Speaker, it is the principle of the National Party not to allow Bantu representatives in this House for example because we believe that once we allow Bantu representatives in this House, we must automatically go further. Then it will not only be four representatives; it will be the eight representatives which the United Party wants, or the 22 which the hon. member for Queenstown and his party want, or perhaps even more. There will be a whole series of demands which will eventually force one to reach Z. That is why we adopt this attitude. But the hon. member for Namib should know this. He himself has said in this House that there is no such thing as partnership with the Bantu. He cannot adopt the attitude that one can give the Bantu a joint say in the government of the White man. I want to quote what he has said, and I am reading once again from his speech of 31 March 1955. He said the following—

It stands to reason that if the Native receives political power in White South Africa, he will not be satisfied with the political guidance of the White man. He will demand an equal say, and when he has finished with “political guidance” and he has his “political partnership”, he is not going to be satisfied to accept separation in social life. The first step which the Native will take, if he can get a sufficiently big say in the government of the country, will be to exert pressure to have all colour bars wiped out in the social sphere. The whole policy will therefore lead to integration. If one accepts point No. I, “integration in economic affairs” then “integration in political policy, social affairs and in all other matters” follows automatically. Surely that is logical. I say that the old dispensation must fall away and there are only two courses open to us. The one is that of integration. The other is that of territorial separation or parallel development.

And, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that it was precisely the hon. member for Namib’s main point that the Bantu representatives should not be kept in this Parliament, the very matter which he has advocated over the years. He has contended that we cannot sit with them in this House. I want to read his words to the House—

I am convinced that this policy of territorial separation will also have the approval of the world if it is properly explained. The idea of parallel development is nothing new in the world. As a matter of fact, it has been in the past few years of post-war liberalism that the principle of apartheid has achieved its greatest victories in the world. We have the example of India, where even people of the same colour could not live together in an integrated community and had to be separated in Bahrat and Pakistan. And the world approved of it. And this happened under the trusteeship of England herself. We have another very interesting case in Palestine where, as the result of religious, historical and cultural differences, the Jew and the Arab were not prepared to live together in an integrated community and they separated into what are to-day Israel and Arab Jordan. The principle of separation was also applied in this instance and it was done under the trusteeship of U.N.O. itself.

Seeing that he advocated this policy for years in this House, I ask what right the hon. member for Namib now has to change over and say that he is in favour of the Bantu being represented in this House and that there should not be parallel constitutional development for them.

The hon. member for Namib has criticized the Government because it does not hold consultations in connection with South West. I want to ask him whom the Government mustconsult? Only its legal representatives, the members of Parliament of the National Party of South West, as the Government does, or does the hon. member want to be consulted himself? What right does he have to speak – on behalf of any South Wester and what right does he have to claim that the Government of the country should consult the United Party of South West? He knows himself that the United Party of South West takes up one attitude today and a different attitude to-morrow, just as he does. The United Party of South West has again shown clearly this year that it cannot keep its word. We were prepared to take the international problem relating to South West out of politics altogether and they agreed to do so, and we were to consult with them, but they left us in the lurch and the hon. member for Namib knows it. He has said himself that one cannot consult with the United Party of South West. I want to read to him what he said in his speech of 19 September 1958—

I must say in all honestness and frankness to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we had this pitiable experience that the United Party of South West, which organizationally is quite independent of the United Party of the Union—I want to emphasize that clearly—subsequently rejected in a most unfortunate way the agreement which had been reached in 1948 with the National Party of South West and the United Party of South West and subsequently with the Prime Minister. They also admitted openly that they had changed their opinion with regard to this matter.

And now we have the important point—

Consequently as far as the Government Party in South West is concerned, there is an understandable reluctance to tackle anything there on a two-party basis with the United Party of South West.

Even he was not anxious to consult with the United Party in South West. Why should we do so?

But the hon. member for Namib has also accused the Government of being dictatorial. He has said that the Government is a strong (kragdadige) Government which challenges the whole world; it consults no one and it simply decides to do something and then it goes ahead. I should like to read what the hon. member for Namib said in respect of this same matter on 6 February 1953 in this House. He said—

One of the charges repeatedly laid against this side of the House by those opposite is that we curtail personal freedom and are aiming at a dictatorship. Allow me to tell them that if there is one section of the population of South Africa which would never tolerate a dictatorship it is the Afrikaans-speaking section of the country… We on this side believe fervently in democracy. We believe in freedom and we have no desire to deprive any person of his freedom. But there is one exception, and that is that we are not prepared to allow anyone the freedom to destroy freedom. The communists notified South Africa what they would do if they were to get the upper hand, and it is clear that it would be the end of the Europeans if they came into power; it would be the end of democracy and the end of our freedom. Must we now give the freedom to destroy freedom and democracy? No, Mr. Speaker, we believe in a pugnacious and militant democracy and not in a weakling democracy that lies down before the onslaught of Communism.

That is exactly the reverse of what he says to-day.

*Mr. DURRANT:

In 1953 there was a different government, a different Prime Minister.

*Mr. P. S. VAN DER MERWE:

It is the same government and the same policy. When he adopts this attitude, if what he says in the morning does not agree with what he says in the evening, can the hon. member for Namib expect the voters to take any notice of him? Does he really expect, if he is not certain about a matter himself and speaks as the wind blows, that he can make an impression on the voters. No, the hon. member for Namib with his turncoat politics is not only rendering a disservice to the few followers he has, but to the whole country. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Education has called him the Elvis Presley of South African politics, but I do want to say this. Elvis Presley stopped his silliness after he went through a course in the army, but it seems to me that the hon. member for Namib will never stop. He has simply closed his ears and has gone on with his rocking and rolling. He is making a fool of the Whites who think that he can offer a solution for our colour problems. and he is creating false hopes among the non-Whites who can utilize their own resources for the upliftment of their own people in their own homelands. Someone has said that the hon. member for Germiston District (Prof. Fourie) has only made an emergency landing in the ranks of the Progressives and that once he has refuelled he will resume his flight, but the hon. member for Namib reminds me of the Russian missile which was fired at Venus and which never made a landing and for all we know will never reach Venus. He is simply in the air and he is flying the devil only knows where to.

I want to conclude. I just want to make one point. I want to issue a warning. We have once again seen that a great deal has been said about South West Africa. I do not want to say anything at all on that subject. because I abide by the sub judice rule. namely while the South West issue is before the World Court. we shall say nothing about it. But I notice that apamphlet by one Ronald Ballinger has appeared under the title “South West Africa, the Case Against the Union I want to tell those who write about South Africa that they must please be careful. If this gentleman had only taken the trouble to consult other books dealing with the same subject, such as those of Henri Rollin, Rouard de Card, Diena, Mondaini, Makowski, Lindley, Baty, Woolf, Goudy and A. H. Keith, all constitutional writers of name and repute—he would have seen that the matter had quite a different side. I want to issue a warning that we must expect various publications dealing with South West to appear in the next few months and year. I do not want to anticipate trouble, but I expect an increasing campaign by cranks and liberals who will try to weaken the strong case which the Union has in respect of South West by means of such articles. It forms part of the organized campaign against the Government’s policy aimed at creating the impression that the Government must sacrifice its colour policy if it wishes to retain South West. Allow me to state that if there are legal grounds why South West should be taken from the Union, the same legal grounds will exist whether we have 100 non-White representatives in Parliament or whether we are prepared to sacrifice South Africa lock, stock and barrel to Communism. To put it in this way, for those inhabitants of South West who would like to retain South West for Western civilization there is only one choice, and that is to strengthen the hands of this Government.

Mr. WARREN:

I am extremely interested in the attack of the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe) on the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). All I can say on that score is that the hon. member for Namib must have got right under his skin. It is quite obvious from that outburst that they are afraid of the hon. member for Namib. [Laughter.] I want to assure the hon. member that the hon. member for Namib has behaved himself in an exemplary manner in this House. His observations are eagerly awaited and listened to by everyone in this House, and read with interest outside. I was very interested in one of the remarks of the hon. member for Middelland, that the doors of the Nationalist Party are open for the enlistment of any English-speaking people who want to join, on condition that they must subscribe completely to the policies of the Nationalist Party.

An HON. MEMBER:

Does that not count for your party, too?

Mr. WARREN:

If the English-speaking of South Africa join the Nationalist Party they reach political maturity, but if the Afrikaans-speaking people join the United Party they do not have political maturity. Can the hon. member reconcile that?

I want to deal fairly fully with that particular aspect. It arises out of what the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling). had to say yesterday. In his attempt to talk on the question of co-operation and unity, he made some serious observations which I want to follow up. But first of all may I remind the hon. member that his leader, the Prime Minister, throughout the period before and during the referendum, preached the great desire for unity and every possible attempt at co-operation. The hon. member yesterday by his observation seemingly wants just the reverse. What he wants is greater division. I want to quote to him a remark he made yesterday: “Afrikaners aan die Opposisiekant is aan-hangsels van die Engelssprekendes.” One feels ashamed when one gets remarks like that from an hon. gentleman who should show more responsibility. The hon. the Prime Minister has told us, and it has been echoed in a chorus by members of the Cabinet and other hon. members on that side of the House, that there are thousands of English-speaking people joining the Nationalist Party.

An HON. MEMBER:

Quite right!

Mr. WARREN:

By the same token, are those English-speaking people who joined the Nationalist Party regarded in the same light as in the statement made by the hon. member for Ventersdorp?

Mr. GREYLING:

No.

Mr. WARREN:

Will the hon. member tell me why not?

Mr. GREYLING:

Because they are good South Africans.

Mr. WARREN:

May I pose this question to any of these hon. members. In a newspaper report which appeared quite recently it was stated that new English-speaking recruits to the Nationalist Party must not be absorbed in the Afrikaans branches. It appeared in the Press and it has not been contradicted. They must be encouraged to join the English branches. [Interjections.] May I ask the hon. members whether the John X. Merriman branch of the Nationalist Party…

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

That story is absolutely untrue. It is a Sunday Times story.

Mr. WARREN:

You have the John X. Merriman branch and the Emily Hobhouse branch confined to English-speaking people.

An HON. MEMBER:

Not confined.

Mr. WARREN:

Can any hon. member tell me why they are segregated in English branches? It is because they are regarded in the same spirit as we had from the hon. member for Ventersdorp, that they are hangers-on of the Afrikaans-speaking people.

An HON. MEMBER:

You should rather speak about agriculture.

Mr. WARREN:

I want to tell that hon. member that I am no less a South African than he is, and I have made my contribution. May I say that I as a good South African hope that I never have my mind warped so that I think along those lines of my fellow-South Africans. I think it is a disgrace to think like that of any of our fellow-South Africans.

I want to say this before I go on to another subject: Are my friends over there blind to what is happening? I try to discuss these things with them from time to time and I get the old reply: “Alles sal reg kom.” Let me say that at this stage of our history nothing will come right unless we make a material and spiritual approach towards trying to correct the wrongs in this country and to bring about that mature state of mind which will seek good fellowship and a keen desire to find common ground. Only by searching for common ground amongst each other can we expect to solve the many difficulties with which we are faced. While we remain indoctrinating our little children in hatred against each other… [Interjections.] I am making the speech, and not the hon. member for Aliwal. With these opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, let me assure this House that we are heading for disaster if we continue along the lines we are following at present.

Now I want to come to a point with which I have already dealt in this House and which I think the House should be reminded of again. That is the question of our interests, particularly on this side of the House, in the affairs of the fruit farmers of South Africa. I refer particularly to the Langeberg-Co-operative. Let me preface my remarks by saying that having dealt with the matter before and having become conversant with all the facts, I speak on behalf of thousands of fruit farmers who are members of the Langeberg-Co-op. As time passes on, so have we become more convinced that there is something wrong with Langeberg. May I remind the House that in 1956 I warned this House of the pending disaster unless action was taken. When I came down this Session, as I normally do I inquired into the affairs of Langeberg from the most responsible people I could find. I was told, to my utter surprise that Langeberg was making wonderful headway and that it was paying off £700,000 a year from its debt. Well, that is hardly in conformity with the disclosures that we have found in the Auditor’s reports and the observations that were made in those reports, and the fact that there must be a certain amount of truth in it is indicated by the fact that every possible effort has been made to cover up things since. I had occasion then and perhaps more so to-day to ask for an investigation into this matter, and I have occasion to do so to a greater extent now than then. At that time I had occasion to refer to the gentleman who was involved in bringing about this state of affairs at Langeberg. I referred to him as a slick gentleman and it was objected to on that side of the House. Sir, that gentleman got himself established as joint managing director of Langeberg at a salary higher than that paid to Ministers, to give only one-third of his time to the affairs of Langeberg. He was at that time managing director or a director of 63 other companies. Can you imagine what time he could devote to Langeberg, and is it any wonder that Langeberg has got into the state it has? My contention was then that he would bring about the downfall of Langeberg, and it has progressively happened from 1956, and in 1961 we have Langeberg obliged to pay interest on R16,000,000 per annum before it can make any contribution to paying for its fruit. Is it any wonder that the fruit farmers of South Africa are faced with this position, that in the Auditor’s report they talk in terms of disloyalty? Sir, can you not expect disloyalty when in fact you have private enterprise paying from £6 to £10 more per ton for the same quality fruit as compared with Langeberg? Is it any wonder that you have had resignations and forfeitures which are also referred to in the Auditors’ report! Of course not. Why? Those men cannot afford to, nor can the fruit farmers afford to, carry on as they are, and I to the fruit farmers of South Africa to set think the Minister of Agriculture owes a duty up a commission to investigate the complete story and the administration of that Co-op.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND MARKETING:

I have done that already.

Mr. WARREN:

And is the Minister doing anything about it? The Land Bank is involved to the tune of many millions. Then may I direct my remarks to the hon. the Minister of Finance? The same gentleman to whom I referred to at that time is now involved in another fiasco, and I want to ask the Minister what he is doing about that? Is he causing an investigation into the affairs of Standard Druggists? The same man is involved. I ask this question of the Minister of Finance. I understand, and it may be rumour, that that is the company which was covering the insurance on farm bonds under the Land Bank and that it has withdrawn its guarantee or withdrawn from its obligations, and if so, has any other company taken over to guarantee those bonds? If not, or if so, has the Land Bank lost anything in the process? It is an extremely important matter to the farmers that these matters should be adjusted. Is a judicial inquiry to be made into the affairs of Langeberg?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND MARKETING:

I did not say a judicial inquiry; it is a committee.

Mr. WARREN:

If it is only a committee, I am very sorry, but I think no less than ajudicial commission should be appointed to investigate the affairs of Langeberg. They warrant it.

I want to direct these questions to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture. Agricultural finances are getting into a parlous state in South Africa. Insurance companies have now, I think, completely withdrawn from farm bonds. Financial organizations have withdrawn in a great measure. The temporary accommodation that is so essential for the good conduct of farming is absent, or practically absent. The Minister will know that the banks have clamped down to such an extent that it is impossible to get even a measure of temporary accommodation. In view of those circumstances, and in view of the trying period we expect to pass through as the result of the shortage of money, will the Minister investigate ways and means of seeing that agriculture first of all has its long-term credit and also its temporary accommodation provided as early as possible?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reply briefly to certain very distasteful remarks which the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has made. The hon. member has taken it upon himself to try to tell this House what the National Party’s attitude, particularly in the Transvaal, is towards its English-speaking members as organized into branches. [Interjection.] No, I have listened to the hon. member and he must not try to change what he has said. The hon. member has referred particularly to the John X. Merriman Branch of the National Party and to younger branches such as the Emily Hobhouse branch which have been established recently. The hon. member does not even know in which area the John X. Merriman branch operates.

*Mr. WARREN:

In Johannesburg.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

It may interest the hon. member to know that I was one of the founders of the John X. Merriman branch, together with Senator Brink. At that time we were all. including the English-speaking members, members of the Parktown branch and English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking persons belonged to that branch. That was during the late 1940s. That English-speaking branch, the John X. Merriman branch was not established, as the hon. member has incorrectly claimed, to segregate the English-speaking people from the Afrikaans-speaking people. [Interjection.] I shall come to the report as well. This branch was established on the initiative and at the request of the English-speaking Nationalists themselves and here I want to mention someone’s name. If I remember correctly, the first chairman was Mr. Jesse Williams who to-day is a pensioner and lives here on the coast, and his son Paul to-day is one of the leading figures in that branch. In that branch we have a wonderful collection of South Africans, all of foreign descent. There are members of purely English descent; there are members from the European Continent with all sorts of varying descents; there are many members of that branch who are more at home in the English language, who understand it best and for whom it is the most practical medium, and this was the only reason why they asked for that branch. The position is not that we as Afrikaans-speaking people segregated them into that branch. As I have said, I myself was one of the people who assisted at that time and during those initial stages, the Afrikaans-speaking people at their request did a great deal in that English branch to help them get under way and to move forward with the movement. No, the hon. member must not try in this way to incite feelings when he sees that unity is developing in a natural way between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking members of the National Party.

Mr. WARREN:

They are not hangers-on of the National Party.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has had an opportunity to make his speech.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

The hon. member has relied particularly on a report. I shall deal with the report presently; I shall not forget it. When the hon. member discussed the John X. Merriman branch to-day, he insulted many loyal South Africans of un-South African descent, all of whom were born abroad and who have given their hearts to South Africa to-day, to no less an extent than the hon. member for King William’s Town himself—and perhaps to a greater extent. These are the people who are keeping the branch going; these are the people who as loyal South Africans are doing their duty in many national spheres. There is a certain member in that branch whose name I do not want to mention because I do not have his approval, who openly participates in the activities of this branch. I do not think he would object if I mentioned his name. This is a person who held a government post in another country in Europe. To-day he is one of the most active members of that branch which is one of the most enthusiastic branches and which supports the National Party’s policy most wholeheartedly. The hon. member has offered these people who are becoming South Africans in such a fine natural way a great insult by referring to them in this way. And in other branches we find English-speaking people serving with Afrikaans-speaking members. I want to give him examples of a few branches which in practice are exclusively Afrikaans-speakingbecause the members are overwhelmingly Afrikaans-speaking and because their proceedings also take place mainly in Afrikaans. I want to give him the example of an area which I know very well because it formerly formed part of my constituency and is now situated in the constituency of the hon. member for North-West Rand. There are three English-speaking persons whose names I now want to give the hon. member, namely Mr. Buxton, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Seizz, English-speaking people who are office-bearers of the branch to which they belong in North-West Rand. Here Afrikaans- and English-speaking members serve together for one simple reason, namely that these English-speaking members have not yet of their own accord thought of and asked for the establishment of a separate English-speaking branch, while in the case of John X. Merriman branch and other branches this is in fact the position.

Mr. WARREN:

On a point of order, the Deputy Minister is now creating a completely incorrect impression.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That is not a point of order.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Much closer to my own constituency, in Florida, we have someone an English-speaking business man of Johannesburg, namely Mr. Dove, who opposed the late Mr. Tighy—a man who can in fact speak Afrikaans but who is more at home in English. I serve with him on various bodies. Mr. Dove was not only a candidate of the National Party but he is the chairman of a branch which for the rest consists almost exclusively of Afrikaans-speaking members. Mr. Dove has not been segregated out of that branch and sent to Johannesburg to join the John X. Merriman branch or to join the Emily Hobhouse branch. Mr. Dove has been accepted by the large majority of Afrikaans-speaking members in that branch to such an extent that he first became chairman of his branch, then member of the divisional executive and eventually a National Party candidate. No, the hon. member for King William’s Town must not try in such a pitiful way, where unity is developing within the National Party between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking peoples, to force them apart by using such deplorable methods.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

Stanley Uys’ nonsense.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

That interjection brings me back to that report. The hon. member has relied on the supposed facts which he has quoted from a report in the Sunday Times. That is his political Bible. It is the political Bible of by far the most hon. members opposite. I sincerely hope that it is not the only type of Bible which they ever handle. This report of the Sunday Times on which the hon. member relies consists from beginning to end of the most unadulterated falsehoods and lies which one can imagine, but the hon. member and other hon. members lap it up as though it is political gospel. Is their case so weak that they have to accept such obvious lies to raise their own spirits? This allegation which has been made on more than one occasion regarding the chief secretary of the National Party in the Transvaal, namely Mr. Steyl, to the effect that he is furthering this type of segregation of English-speaking members and to which the hon. member has referred, is nonsense. I do not know whether the hon. member is prepared to accept my word as against that of the columnist of the Sunday Times. He will probably not do so but I can assure him that it is nonsense. Just as nonsensical is the other allegation which has been made to the effect that Mr. Steyl is now trying to unseat a large number of National members of Parliament in the Transvaal in order to get them out of politics because they are so well-disposed to the English-speaking people. If that were to be true… I see the hon. member for King William’s Town is laughing. He is laughing because I have explained the position to him but at the time he read it, he believed it and then he thanked the stars for it. Can the person who wrote this newspaper report believe it? If it were to be true that Transvaal members of the National Party are to be executed politically because they co-operate with the English-speaking people and make appeals to them, would the Prime Minister then have made the appeals to the English-speaking people which he has in fact made? If that were to be true, then the Prime Minister should be the first on the list for political execution because the Prime Minister recently expressed his regret at the fact that English-speaking persons had not been appointed to the school boards and the result was that two of them were appointed inter alia, Mr. Paul Williams of the John X Merriman branch. Then the Prime Minister is the first person whom the Transvaal secretary should deal with.

Mr. WARREN:

Will the Deputy Minister repudiate the statement which has been made on this side of the House that Afrikaners on this side are hangers-on of the English and, vice versa, that English-speaking people who belong to the National Party are hangers-on of the National Party?

*Dr. JONKER:

The one is true and the other not.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I know nothing about that remark relating to “hangers-on”. We do not regard English-sneaking people who support the National Party as “hangers-on”. We have English-speakingpeople who support the National Party, who support the National Party fully with all their hearts and minds and who subscribe to the National Party’s policy, and we accept them in the same spirit. But as regards the Afrikaans-speaking persons opposite who belong to the United Party, the Lord only knows why they belong to it. I wonder whether He knows.

I want to conclude with these few words. I want to tell the hon. member for King William’s Town and other hon. members opposite once again that they must promote their cause by positive means and not grasp at such nonsense as this report to the effect that even the Broederbond is one of the organizations wielding the axe. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the other day that he would very much like to have an election this year. Do they really want to enter a general election with such nonsensical policies as this?

*An HON. MEMBER:

That is why they always lose.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Or do they want to enter an election with the type of scare story which the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) tells but which he cannot convert into action? Hon. members can safely learn from the National Party, and if they do not want to learn from the National Party of to-day, they can safely learn from the National Party when it was in opposition. It did not get into power by means of scare stories, it did not get into power by using such nonsensical stories, nor by repeating lies; it came into power by offering the nation a political synthesis and a proper positive political policy of self-preservation and the continued existence of the White man. The people understood this synthesis and accepted this policy and put this party into power. That is how a party comes into power; and if the United Party can devise such a policy, they may come into power, but they cannot and that is why they will not come into power.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I want to avoid any attempt to reply to what I would call the small-change of this debate, which has taken place so far. and that goes for most of the remarks of the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just spoken. But before coming to what I would particularly like to say I would urge the hon. the Minister of Agriculture who has stated across the floor of the House that he has appointed a committee to investigate certain aspects of the activities of Langeberg, that he should take the first opportunity of publicly stating what the position is that he has found. I would have thought, quite frankly, after there had appeared publicly in print the report of the auditor of Langeberg’s affairs, and bearing in mind the vital importance of Langeberg as a market for the products of a very large number of farmers, that the Minister would very quickly have made some public announcement so as to allay the fears which may have engendered in the minds of the people who are dependent on the well-being and financial strength of Langeberg, and that where doubts may have arisen as to whether the farmers are going to be caught at a time like this, with falling prices and so forth, and suddenly find their market either so diminished that it is worthless or entirely taken away from them, that this was a case where the Minister would have come in very quickly indeed to explain the position. I am very sorry that he has not already done so. Surely the position is this—and I think the Minister will agree—that where the well-being of these farmers is concerned, Parliament may have to apply its mind to the problem. I do not see how Parliament can wash its hands and absolve itself from all responsibility in regard to the well-being of the farmers; how badly they are caught and what the precise position is, I do not know. That is why I regret that the Minister has not already made a public statement, either in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs or the Minister of Finance or whatever other department of State may be involved. But I think this is a time when we have to recognize that in South Africa to-day there is a large body of farmers who are filled with anxiety as to what their position is and who will be anxiously waiting for some kind of authoritative statement so that they shall know precisely where they stand and, if it is necessary for some relief measures to be extended to them, to what extent those measures will be made available.

Now I want to move on from that point and deal with a question which has been stressed both my hon. leader and other members on this side of the House and has been referred to from time to time by the Prime Minister, and that is the question of unity in this country. We find ourselves to-day with a de facto Republic in South Africa, a Republic which has been brought about by legal means through parliamentary action in accordance with the powers of Parliament. The legal power of Parliament so to enact legislation is beyond question. That nearly half of the total electorate who voted in the referendum were against what Parliament did, does not matter for the moment. We are concerned with the fact; we are concerned with the fact that the Republic is here notwithstanding all the efforts of those who ere opposed to it and who faught against from beginning to end, so long as a constitutional fight was possible. But to-day the Republic is here and I find myself in this difficulty, a difficulty which was emphasized by the hon. the Deputy Minister who spoke before me: How does an ordinary person in his language discriminate between his love, his respect and his loyalty for his country and his complete abhorrence of the Government and its policies? That is the practical difficulty in which I find myself and in which the bulk of the English-speaking South Africans find themselves in this country. That difficulty, as I say, was emphasized by the Deputy Minister who spoke before me, because he referred to certain good folk who are members of a Nationalist Party branch, which of course they are entitled to be. Heaven knows, Sir, I welcome all the Afrikaans-speaking people who join us from time to time and there are many still coming to join us. If there are English-speaking people who want to join the Nationalist Party of course they are entitled to do so.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND MARKETING:

Yes, and they are welcome. You are also welcome.

Mr. MITCHELL:

The point made by the Deputy Minister was that people from outside our borders have come to South Africa, and he went on to say that they were born outside South Africa, but that they had truly given their hearts to South Africa. They have become members of a Nationalist Party branch. Sir, it is not necessary for them to become members of a Nationalist Party branch to give their hearts to South Africa Why does the Deputy Minister apply a test like that? There are plenty of us who have given our hearts to South Africa, who regard South Africa as our only homeland but we are not members of a Nationalist Party branch, and we have no intention of ever becoming members of a Nationalist Party branch. We can give our hearts to South Africa without doing that. We proved our love for South Africa differently, in a manner which has been found unacceptable to hon. members opposite in the main.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

Don’t quarrel about that.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I am not quarrelling about it; I am emphasizing the difficulty experienced by myself and those who feel as I do. We say that we abhor the Government and its policy but we love South Africa. We are prepared, and we will, indicate our respect for our country. But when hon. members opposite, from the Prime Minister downwards, from time to time speak of unity, we want to know what is this unity? I am tired of hearing the word used repeatedly by hon. members opposite.

Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

Do you think you have a monopoly of it.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Sir, there is something of which that hon. member has a monopoly; I will obey parliamentary procedure and refrain from explaining it in precise words of two syllables.

The position is this: We find ourselves in this position that the word unity is used repeatedly, but nobody from the Prime Minister downwards on the other side ever attempts to define it; they never attempt to give it substance; they never try to give it form; they never attempt to particularize. Indeed when the Prime Minister made a speech here the other day, where the word “unity” was taken in its ordinary meaning, how quickly, Sir, he was repudiated by the hon. Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport repudiated him immediately and he made a speech which categorically said “We are not seeking unity with that side of the House”.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Political unity.

Mr. MITCHELL:

That is not what the Prime Minister was thinking about. The Minister of Transport repudiated the unity of which the Prime Minister had spoken and for which the Prime Minister had appealed.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

They are two different things.

Mr. MITCHELL:

It is no good the Minister of Finance trying to exonerate his colleague the Minister of Transport; it is no good trying to excuse him.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

You are under a misapprehension; I am trying to correct you.

Mr. MITCHELL:

May I interpolate for a moment and say if the Minister of Finance can correct some of his own mistakes he will be serving S.A. very well. Let him clean his own doorstep before he tries to correct my mistakes. Let him deal with South Africa’s financial position in the world to-day; let him get us out of this mess into which he and his Government have put us, and that will be time enough for him then to speak about correcting other people’s mistakes. Only last year the hon. the Minister was giving us assurances, in fact a written statement, in regard to what was to happen in London and he emphasized it in his usual manner. He is never more emphatic than when he is wrong.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

That is autobiographic.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Sir, the signs are well known to this side of the House; as soon as the Minister of Finance makes dogmatic statements in an emphatic manner we know he is wrong; we know that before very long events will prove him wrong; we know that it won’t be very long before he is available with his great natural ingenuity to try to escape the consequences of his own faultiness.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

What about the repatriation of foreign capital?

Mr. MITCHELL:

The repatriation of foreign capital is merely one of the cases where the hon. the Minister was wrong. Before this debate is over the Minister of Financewill be proving that it is in the interests of South Africa to have lost all this capital; he will be showing how highly privileged we are to have a Minister with a policy which has drained South Africa of capital.

Mr. HUGHES:

He has put the plug in; the water is not running out any more.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Sir, I was speaking of unity. I say that the Minister of Transport repudiated the Prime Minister. This word ‘unity’ is simply dead sea fruit in the mouths of the hon. members opposite. It means nothing to them; they give it no form and no substance. I admit that we in this country have to seek unity. I support the appeals which have been made from this side of the House.

Mr. SCHOONBEE:

Your type of unity.

Mr. GAY:

Certainly not that of the Minister of Transport.

Mr. MITCHELL:

If we accepted that political unity is out, which we must accept because undoubtedly it is out—I remember that some little time before the referendum the hon. the Prime Minister forecast the time when in the Republic the differences between the various political parties would disappear once the Republic came into being. I think that is a fair way of putting it. He foresaw the day when the Nationalist Party would ‘verdwyn’ (disappear) because in the Republic all these difficulties would be cleared up and gradually all these old political differences would disappear; the racial aspect of political differences would disappear and we would come down then to the kind of differences which would be based on conservatism on the one side and liberalism on the other. The Prime Minister went so far as to advise the English-speaking South Africans to form their own conservative party so that he could talk and negotiate with them. Sir, to get true unity was to destroy all the old differences between political parties; to get true unity was to create new political boundaries, the boundary to be the difference between the conservative and the liberal element in South Africa.

Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Where are you?

Mr. MITCHELL:

I am in Parliament at the present time if the hon. member has no eyes to see. Sir, where in that pretty picture that was painted came the Afrikaans-speaking members of the United Party who sit here with us, those who do not come into that picture at all? May I make this point: It is no good the Prime Minister or anybody else using the word ‘unity’ without giving it form or substance, without being specific, when there is implicit in it and by direct condemnation of hon. members opposite, the association of the Afrikaans-speaking people in the United Party with those who are English-speaking South Africans? Sir, there can be no unity on that basis. Unity in this country has to come on the basis of the unity that already exists in this party between Afrikaans- and English-speaking. That is the only basis, a basis where it is our resolve, where it is a basic principle and where of set intent we avoid references to Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking South Africans because we are all South Africans. We hope that even the use of that language will disappear and as far as this party is concerned we will be only too pleased to see it go. That is the position in which we find ourselves here. What kind of approach, in that respect, do we get from the other side? None whatsoever. What we get from the other side is condemnation of the Afrikaans-speaking people who sit with us. Why are they condemned?

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

Who condemns them?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I shall be glad if hon. members would give the hon. member an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Sir, they are blamed for no other reason than that they sit here with us who are English-speaking South Africans. If they would be prepared to sit on the other side amongst Nationalist members and accept the policy of hon. members opposite, then they would be some of the finest people in the world. If the Minister of Transport meant that they did not want unity with us on political gronuds, then what he was saying was again condemnation of the Afrikaans-speaking people on this side of the House. He was saying that so long as those people have their present political outlook they are not welcome as far as the Nationalists are concerned to form part of the South African nation and that, Sir, we repudiate with the greatest emphasis at our command. Where do we go from here? Economically and otherwise, we occupy a dangerous position and here may I pay my little tribute to the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) who so aptly recalled a prophecy which I made a few years ago in regard to the parlous condition that our finances in South Africa have reached under the Nationalist Government. He referred to it with great unctuousness for some reason or other; I do not know why, but this is a time when a prophet would have wished to have been found mistaken. However, there it is. We are in this trouble and we go from bad to worse. Neither the Prime Minister nor anybody on that side makes an honest endeavour to bring the people together. The hon. the Prime Minister has had his opportunities and he has thrown them away for no other reason than that he is a leader of a political party and not a Prime Minister of South Africa. That is the big trouble. He cannot regard himself as the leader of a political party and also PrimeMinister of South Africa, the Prime Minister of all the people in this country whatever their race or their political opinions may be. He sees himself continually as Leader of the Nationalist Party and he is continually hampered and hamstrung by the fact that he is Leader of the Nationalist Party with pressure groups within his own party continually driving him forward. He must forever be exercising his authority, as we have seen exercised recently in the debate on the Liquor Bill. He must continually do that; he cannot sit back and let the wheels of democracy in this Parliament just naturally roll themselves onwards under a democratic system of government. He will be overrun by the juggernaut if he does that. He must be continually exercising his authority; he must continually be holding his own back-benchers in check. I do not think that any of them are really rearing to go to break away from the control that the Prime Minister is exercising. I believe they like it; I believe it suits their outlook, but that is besides the point. The Prime Minister is a party political Leader; he is not a Prime Minister of South Africa, and unhappily we are going into the crisis that is facing us in this position at the present time. Sir, we are out of the Commonwealth. We are out of it because the Prime Minister decided under the circumstances of the time to withdraw our application to remain in. I think it was a fatal error. I think that South Africa ought to do its utmost to get back into the Commonwealth. My hon. Leader has been most clear that the change having been made and South Africa now away from the Crown, that step is probably irretraceable, but so far as the Commonwealth is concerned it is not irretraceable. I find in one of the most responsible Afrikaans newspapers down here that I am criticized when I say that South Africa should try to return to the Commonwealth, and I am beginning to wonder whether indeed it was more by intent than by accident that we find ourselves outside the Commonwealth, in view of this immediate attack that was made upon me when I suggested that we should try to get back to the Commonwealth. Hon. members on the other side keep saying, Sir, that we can only get back to the Commonwealth at a price of “one man one vote That of course is a bogy-man set up by hon. members on the other side. We have not got to concede “one man one vote”, and I want for a moment to deal with one or two aspects of this question. The hon. the Prime Minister pulled out our application to remain in the Commonwealth at a time when the wind of change was not blowing in Africa, but blowing throughout the world, blowing throughout the Commonwealth. We don’t know what is going to happen in Africa. We don’t know what is going to happen in the Commonwealth. If there is a time of change coming in Africa, and undoubtedly not only is the change already here, but vast further changes are coming along and we can already see the portents of many of those changes—it may be hard to evaluate them, it may be extremely difficult to decide precisely in what direction they will go, but I think of this we can be absolutely certain and that is that the present situation in Africa is a shifting situation, a changing situation, an unstable situation politically and economically. It is a thing of pieces to-day. When Africa was carved up by the European powers, the various Metropolitan Powers who acquired their possessions here, people took into account all sorts of reasons for revising the political boundaries that they were going to establish: The Sudan, the French possessions, the Portuguese Possessions, the British possessions, the Belgium possessions, but in not one single instance were those lines drawn because of political affiliations between the aborigines concerned, the Bantu people, and in the north, the Nilotic peoples. Nobody cared what they thought about it: They were a bunch of savages and cannibals, and what they thought about it did not matter. The nations decided amongst themselves just exactly where they were going to draw the line and there they drew the line, with the result that people who have got the closest affinity to one another are found on both sides of two lines, which to-day constitute different peoples. But affinity being what it is, those people will tend to come together in spite of all efforts of mankind, and in the movement to and fro, the whole of the structure of society in Africa, not in Southern Africa, but in Africa, is going to be shaken. It will be changed and the political structure will change with it. And here we are, Sir, at a time like this, with these changes on the Continent of which we form a part, and we stand divided. And in the greater world, the Commonwealth, changes are also taking place. Tributes have been paid in the past by British Prime Ministers, and by the present British Prime Minister to the capacity of the Commonwealth to adapt itself to a changing world, to changing circumstances, and it was recognized, many years ago—I think it was referred to the first time by the late General Smuts, and also by Dr. Malan—that you have got these changing circumstances, this set-up, the basic understanding, the affinity between the various members comprising the Commonwealth pending to change, emphasis laid here now and laid there at another stage, and there grew up in practice what was an inner circle of the Commonwealth and an outer circle. That was established at a time when India became a republic. The position was this that at that time when India became a republic, and undoubtedly because of the pressure of the East, there was the development of an inner ring and an outer ring, but now a new factor comes into it and that is the manifold differences between the outlook of the new African Prime Minister, the Prime Ministers of the new African states who are members of the Commonwealth, and the older members, and I would like to say this, that in my humble opinion, Sir, we are going to find that the affinity of the African for the African is in the last resort a far stronger bond and tiethan the rather tenuous bonds which are binding together various parts of the Commonwealth, one with the other, and if events, such as for instance the possibility of Great Britain joining the Common Market take place, if Great Britain adheres to the Common Market, I think that that will have its repercussions in Commonwealth circles, repercussions which again at the moment we are quite unable to determine. We do not know what the result will be. But that there will be specific results which will flow from such a step, I have no doubt whatever, and if my feeling is right, here in Africa members of the Commonwealth who are at the same time because of their race and the situation in which they find themselves, part and parcel of the African population on the African Continent, we will find a tendency for those bonds here in Africa to grow stronger, notwithstanding the extreme antipathy, between one African country and another, antipathy which may be so strong that they may lead to open warfare between them until such time as there may be a re-approachment hereafter, in the future. But the feeling of the African for the African will be a strong feeling. The feeling of the African for the New Zealander will take very second place, and to my good friends in Malaya I say that it will take a very, very third place indeed. It is inevitable. Where do we stand under these circumstances? Surely there is not only a reasonable but entirely logical and essential step for South Africa to take, and that is to try and see whether we cannot go back to the Commonwealth under circumstances which naturally are going to be of benefit to South Africa, but also of benefit to the other members of the Commonwealth who are in it under those circumstances. But that the Commonwealth as it is to-day, will remain in its present form, I do not believe. I don’t believe that it will continue to exist in its present form for another decade, and South Africa should be willing to get back for the purpose of that community which we have enjoyed so long, ever since the Union of South Africa, for the last half century. We should be prepared to make a definite effort to get back. Sir, we want the community of spirit with our co-white peoples in the Commonwealth in exactly the same way as the Africans will want the community of spirit and affinity with the Africans in the other African countries. Sir, it is a dangerous thing, from the point of view of South Africa, from the point of view of our country, an extremely dangerous thing, that we should be putting not only political values in the way, but that there should be an attempt made by responsible Nationalist leaders to create some kind of, what I would call, spiritual barrier in the way. Sir, that is committing a great evil against the best interests of South Africa. Let us adopt this as our policy that for the purpose of the return to the Commonwealth, we leave the door open. We willingly do nothing whatever which will in any way exacerbate feelings which may have been roused as a result of past happenings, but we try whether agreement cannot be found with Commonwealth countries and to develop that agreement, so that against the day that it is possible for us to find that we can get back, we will achieve that. In that connection I want to say this quite frankly, that one of the points in respect of which we in South Africa will have to view that picture must sooner or later be from the point of view of a true national unity in South Africa, not on the basis of the Nationalist ideologies, or on the basis of the policy of the Nationalist Government. Because that we have tried for 14 years. And I speak now for myself: What have I as an ordinary representative English-speaking South African got out of it. Consultation? Never!

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Out of what?

Mr. MITCHELL:

An attempt to meet the wishes of the people I represent? Never! A smack in the face occasionally for luck? Yes, Sir. On more than one occasion. Take for example the question of language. I am not making a point of it, I merely point to it in passing. The hon. Prime Minister says “Yes, two languages, the two sections must stand together”. Look at the hon. Minister of Agriculture’s little Landbounuus. The articles in that number approximately 21 or 22 every week—I think it comes out weekly. And how many do you find in English? Two or three and on occasion one. All the rest of it in Afrikaans. My agriculturalists come to me, the agricultural associations and say: “What is this?”, and every time the thing crops up, it creates further difficulties.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND MARKETING:

Where do you get Landbounuus?

Mr. MITCHELL:

It is posted to me, probably by the hon. Minister’s Department.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND MARKETING:

You can get everything in the two languages.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Some of the articles are not only of very great interest, but of very great importance. I think I have got three or four here in my office in the House, and if the Minister would like to have a look at them he is welcome. As I say every edition contains some 20 or 22 articles, and I doubt whether ever more than four have been in English lately. On occasion the overseas news, which they receive in English, is the only article that is in English in that whole publication. It is a minor matter and I touch on it in passing, but I want to come back again to this central theme of unity, and I want to make this point before I sit down:

The Government is the party in power. The Prime Minister is a man who has got the authority in his hands to-day, unquestionablyso far as the Government is concerned. The initiative lies with the Government. As long as the Government goes on to talk about unity and they don’t give form and substance to it and define it, so long as they do not recognize that there is another point of view and they are willing to concur and to discuss and to consult with other people who hold different points of view from themselves, and they go on with their ideas regardless of the cost to South Africa, they cannot expect us to go with them. They cannot expect us to participate in a unity which will have by direct implication an approval of the Government’s apartheid policy and apartheid philosophy. We cannot be associated with any form of unity with a party when by implication we are going to be associated with a policy which is leading South Africa to catastrophe. Part of the policy of the Government, as you may be aware, Mr. Speaker, is to divide up my province in two or more fragments of white areas, build a corridor until small fragments of the white area are left, what I call a policy of fragmentation and dispersement of the White population. I have spoken in this House about it before, and I say again: I speak now as a South African, and I speak as a South African whose province is being carved up by the Government pursuing its stated policy to do so. It is not by accident that it happens. It is a specific policy attested by Ministers under this Government. And, Sir, we won’t stand for it. We are not going to have our province carved up until there is a White corridor left, which can never, never be maintained in the face of Black hostility. If hon. members opposite believe that with their Bantustans they are going to create states which will be friendly disposed towards the White man in South Africa, and who will be prepared to live in peace and harmony with us when once they have acquired not their independence, Sir,—long before they acquire their independence, they will show their hostility. They will show their hostility for no other reason than that they will be demanding their independence quicker than this Government is prepared to give it to them. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development recently in regard to the Transkei said: It will be some few years yet before they get their independence. Is it for the hon. the Minister to determine when they will get their independence? He may think it is. But, Sir, history, the history of the last few years has shown all over the world that it is not the “baas” for the time being who dictates when their independence is to come. When the boss for the time being has said it will be five years or six years hence, and the people concerned say “No, it is going to be this year or next year”, and they turn on the pressure, they have not failed once. Look at history, the history of our own country. It is not for the hon. the Minister to determine when the Transkei will get its independence. The people of the Transkei having been promised it, will go out now for the fulfilment of that promise. To say that they are not economically viable, that they will be a poor, starving little state with no resources, “maak nie saak nie”. That has not been the consideration which has led all the countries in the world when seeking independence. On what was the independence of Ghana based? On cocoa. A resource, Sir, which was particularly liable to attack, and indeed at the time of their independence was being severely attacked because of a disease that was attacking their cocoa trees. But Ghana was seeking independence and got its independence. And the hon. the Minister has gone further and at the opening of the Ngoya University he promised independence to the Zulu people. I don’t know what ground he has to believe that he can control the Pondos. I am not interested in that particularly, Sir, but I can assure the hon. the Minister that when he deals with my Zulus, he is dealing with a different kind of man there. What is more, in the case of Pondoland he is giving them an enclave; he has got White people all around it. But when it comes to Zululand, he has not got an island like in the case of Pondoland. He has got a country that has got its back up against the Usutu River and Portuguese East Africa on the other side of it, and the hon. Minister is perfectly aware of what has been going on in respect of the firearms squad up there. He knows of the Portuguese mausers that have been taken from the hands of the Natives in Zululand. This, Mr. Speaker, is the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. And at a time of financial crisis, at a time when we are meeting these troubles, which were inevitable under this Government and its policies, at a time when these things are blowing up, the Government still persist in going along with its policy of fragmentation of our country, of establishing these independent states, on parallelism now—as if the use of words is going to make any difference. Let us face the facts. The fragmentation of our country and the splitting up of it, Sir, into independent kingdoms of chieftanships or call it what you will, which are held out—there is not a single of these Bantu Authorities, not a single one of these Territorial Bantu Authorities, but it will be under the control of a dictator, call him chief, king or what you like. The moment he can get his people behind him that will happen, because that is the kind of government the Zulu understands. And then will this same Government that brought this into being by its policies, then ask the United Party to assist them in the interest of unity to get out of those troubles, to overcome the difficulties? We have never been appealed to in vain, Mr. Speaker, but the time to appeal to us is now, not by means of words, but by means of deeds and by actions, and at no time was it more necessary than at a time of financial chaos such as we are in at the present time, and such as faces us in the future.

Mr. BARNETT:

I do not intend to follow the trend of the previous speakers in regard to what appears to me the old story of political fights, without in any way confining themselves to the tragic economic position which we find ourselves in in this country.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

What is so tragic?

Mr. BARNETT:

I intend shortly to deal with the position of the Coloured people and to try to instil into the minds of hon. members opposite the part the Coloured people can play and should play in the economic life of this country. Up to now, Mr. Speaker, we have as White people persisted in what I want to call one of the curses of this country, and that is that as long as a man has not a White skin his economic position does not require the same reward for his services, and as a matter of fact we have placed the Coloured man in a sub-economic position. It was my painful duty a day or two ago to go to Stellenbosch in regard to the Coloured people who were evicted. There was a happy result, and I am happy indeed to say that the Stellenbosch Municipality has put these people back into their homes. But I want to say that anyone who will go and visit that area and see the conditions under which these people are living, will find that the roads are completely neglected…

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! Roads fall under the provinces.

Mr. BARNETT:

Yes, Sir, I am merely citing this to show the House that where houses are built, roads, electricity, sanitation, etc. are necessary to enable these people to live in decency. I do not want it to be said that I am not grateful to the Government and the Deputy Minister of the Interior for the work they have attempted to do to try and lessen the burden on the Coloured people. I know that many houses have been built, I know that much has been done in other respects, but I would like to say that having read the newspapers this morning, hon. members will have seen that similar conditions unfortunately exist in the northern areas where an appeal was made in regard to the squatters. We saw interviews with people interested in housing saying that something like 100,000 people still need houses. I maintain that a Coloured man is entitled to sell his services to whomever he likes, and if such a man is properly paid for his services, these Coloured people will be able to pay for their own houses and it will not be necessary to get assistance from the Government. We must try to rid ourselves of this cancer in our political set-up to refuse to pay the Coloured man according to the services he renders. I therefore want to try and show to the Government, and particularly to the Minister of Finance, that there is a scarcity, a great scarcity in the Public Service of suitable applicants, and figures have been supplied which indicate large-scale resignations from the Public Service. I do not think there is any honourable member in this House who can stand up and say that there is one department in the Public Service that has not deteriorated because they cannot get the people to fill the posts. I ask therefore: Why not fill those posts with Coloured people? Why not give the Coloured man the right, which he is entitled to as a South African citizen, to enter the Public Service of the Government in every department? Why do you keep him back? Why don’t you make use of this great reservoir of outstanding men and women who can serve this country as well as anybody else in the Public Service? What is the position? That the Government in order to get suitable applicants for the Public Service actually had to have what was called a special recruiting staff. They had to advertise, they had to give lectures, they had to go right through the country in order to get people to join the Public Service, and yet, in spite of the fact that they got recruits, more and more people are resigning, more and more people are resigning from the Public Service. Why, I do not know. But what is the effect? I can tell from personal experience in the Master’s Office, in the Deeds Office, in other departments that there is a backlog of work. There are complaints that they cannot get the people to do the work. And yet, Coloured boys, matriculated, and who have high degrees of education, as the hon. Minister of Education must know, are walking the streets of Cape Town unemployed or doing certain work for which they are not suited. We give education to the Coloured man and yet we do not make use of the services which he can render to his country. We deliberately refuse to recognize his work for the economic uplift of our country.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Where do you get that? It is not a correct statement you are making.

Mr. BARNETT:

I do not say that they cannot find employment in certain departments up to a stage. But how many Coloured men can become the Postmaster-General of Cape Town? [Laughter.] Why not? How many Coloured men are in the Public Service in the various departments?

Mr. KNOBEL:

There is no Postmaster-General in Cape Town, only a postmaster.

Mr. BARNETT:

Can he become a postmaster of Cape Town?

Mr. GROBLER:

Can you become Postmaster-General?

Mr. BARNETT:

I do not want to be postmaster, neither do I want to become a general in the Ossewa-Brandwag like the hon. member. I want to be a servant of the people whom I serve in this House and to try and inculcateinto the minds of the Government that the Coloured man is a full South African citizen entitled to all the rights and privileges. He should have the same rights as the hon. member, and that hon. member was even prepared to sabotage during the war…

Mr. GROBLER:

That is a lie.

Mr. BARNETT:

Alright then I withdraw that.

*The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member for Marica (Mr. Grobler) should also withdraw the words: “That is a lie.”

*Mr. GROBLER:

I withdraw.

Mr. BARNETT:

I have indicated from the reports of the Public Service Commission the dearth of suitable applicants and the number of resignations in the Civil Service, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance why the Government still persist in refusing to acknowledge the rights of the Coloureds and to accept them in the Public Service.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Where do you get that? You are making incorrect statements.

Mr. BARNETT:

I am prepared to sit down and answer any question the hon. the Minister wants to put to me. “Where do you get that?” I will tell the hon. Deputy Minister. They won’t even allow a Coloured man to be a parking meter attendant. Now where did I get that from? From the Government’s own actions. We know that a few months ago the City Council of Cape Town wanted to employ people to read the parking meters and they advertised and Coloured men applied. And then the Government stepped in. “No Coloured man shall read the meters; that is reserved for Europeans only.”They do not come into contact with the drivers of the cars, they do not come into contact with persons, all they have got to do is to walk along the streets and see if a man has overstepped the mark in regard to his time, and to take the number of his car and put a ticket on his windscreen. But the Government says: “No, a Coloured man shall not do that work.”

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

That is a completely distorted presentation of the position.

Mr. BARNETT:

No. I do take strong exception to the hon. the Deputy Minister telling me that I have given a wrong impression. I say, and I emphasize, that the City Council of Cape Town wanted to employ certain Coloured men to be parking meter readers, and for no other purpose, but the hon. the Minister of Labour stepped in and said: “You shall not employ them.”

Mr. MILLER:

Why does not the Deputy Minister of Coloured Affairs know about this?

Mr. BARNETT:

I do not want to have a row with the hon the Deputy Minister. I think he is as upset as I am about it.

Mr. MILLER:

Well let him tell us.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

It would not help to tell you anything, you would not understand.

Mr. BARNETT:

I repeat, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is as upset as I am about it.

An HON. MEMBER:

But what is he doing about it?

Mr. BARNETT:

He can do nothing about it. He can do nothing about it because the hon. the Minister of Labour said they shall not be employed, and they are not employed.

The hon. the Deputy Minister also asked me where I get the information from, that Coloured men are not allowed to enter the Public Service. I am very pleased to hear from him that they can enter the Public Service. I hope we will soon see them in the Revenue Office accepting money from people, becoming Chief Clerks in the Revenue Office. I would also like to see them soon in the Master’s Office attending to estates, and perhaps becoming Assistant Masters of the Supreme Court. I would like to see them in the Post Office, going higher and higher in the Public Service.

An HON. MEMBER:

You would like to see them in Parliament too.

Mr. BARNETT:

Yes of course I would.

An HON. MEMBER:

Well why do you not say so?

Mr. BARNETT:

I do say so, and they would be a lot better than some of the members of Parliament anyway. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, order!

Mr. BARNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have said and I will repeat for the benefit of my good friend here that I would like to see a Coloured man sit in this Parliament. And I would like to say that he should sit here not as a Coloured man but as a citizen of this country, because he is entitled to sit here as a South African. I have said so before and I will repeat it. But the Government will not recognize the fact that these people are valuable to us except for the Minister of Transport who suddenly made an admission which was very significant. He suddenly realized the worth of the Coloured man in our economic sphere, and this is what he said a little while ago. He was dealing withthe question of the threatened demonstrations on May the 31st. He took the United Party and the other Opposition parties to task for the temerity, as he called it, of encouraging these demonstrations. He was annoyed about it, because he said this:

“Peaceful demonstrations to air grievances”—that is how it was regarded. A three day strike, according to this newspaper was a peaceful demonstration. A strike which, if successful, could paralyse our whole economy was a “peaceful demonstration”.

This Minister of Transport admitted in his speech in Hansard on the 8th of June, column 7592 that if the Coloured people had demonstrated for three days they would have paralysed the economy of our country. Why do we not recognize in every phase of our communal life, in every phase of our economic life in South Africa, the work of the Coloured man? Why do we restrict him? In every phase of life, and in his work the Coloured man is restricted. In pensions the Coloured man must get less than the white man whether he is blind, maimed or otherwise, it makes no difference, he must get less. If he is an old person he must get less because he has a brown skin. The teachers in the Coloured schools—although this has nothing to do with Parliament I bring it forward as an example of the same unfortunate attitude of the people of South Africa. A Coloured teacher who has many more pupils to teach, who works as hard and who has to have the same responsibility and the same education, who has to live up to a certain standard must, because of his brown skin, get less than the white man. Mr. Speaker, until we realize—as indeed the hon. the Minister of Transport has realized—the value of the Coloured man to our economy, we will continue to go backwards as we have done over the last thirteen years.

Thirteen years ago no one would have believed that we could reach a stage in our economy where the Minister of Finance would be forced to get up in Parliament and say “I will not permit foreign capital to leave South Africa”. The hon. the Minister tried to soften the blow by quoting what happened in England and in other countries. He said it had happened in England, that they had to bring in the same controls. But England suffered very severely in the last War. It took them many, many years to recover the billions of pounds that it cost them to wage that War. South Africa did not suffer that reverse because after the War, whilst England was struggling and had to take every possible step to protect their finances, we were in a financial position which was better than we had ever been in in the past.

Mr. HUGHES:

We lent England £80 million.

Mr. BARNETT:

In 1948 when the Nationalist Government took over, South Africa did not require money. Our coffers were overflowing. But what has happened over the past thirteen years? What has happened that after thirteen years we have reached this position? Quite apart from other considerations and other reasons, this is due to the fact that this Government will not let us make use of the people who could help us to build up our country. They restrict them in every direction.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

[Inaudible.]

Mr. BARNETT:

The hon. the Deputy Minister will soon come here and sit with me because he feels the same way as I do about this.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

You are competing with the Progressive Party for your seat.

Mr. BARNETT:

My seat is as safe as that of the hon. the Deputy Minister, at any time. There is only one thing in which I will compete with the hon. the Deputy Minister and that is for his seat in the Cabinet—but that too will come one day.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make use of this opportunity to stress very sincerely and with all the emphasis at my command that unless and until the White man of this country realizes the worth of the Coloured man in every phase of our activities, until he realizes that job reservation must go, that the public Service in every phase must be opened up to the Coloured man—until we realize that we will never prosper. We are deteriorating in every branch of our national economy. I want to make an urgent appeal to this Government to make use of the Coloured people, to open the door to them. The educated Coloured men who are walking around the streets must be accepted on the basis of non-discrimination in the service of the country. I am sure that if that is done many of our economic evils will disappear.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I should very much like to take this opportunity to say a few words to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). He is the leader of the United Party in Natal. He is one of the hon. members who is a fighter par excellence in this House. We admire this characteristic of his. We have a particular regard and respect for him. When we say a few words to him, it is not to belittle him because of the speech he has made. On the contrary, there is a great deal in the speech he has made this afternoon. He has asked us: “What is this unity?” I know that he did not ask this question in order to undermine unity in this country. I admit that it is his sincere desire, just as it is the desire of every honest, well-meaning South African, that weshould achieve national unity here in South Africa.

*Mr. MITCHELL:

Yes.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

The hon. member, and even other hon. members opposite, and we on this side of the House long to achieve White unity or national unity in order by so doing to solve the common and difficult problems facing our fatherland. The hon. member has now dealt with this matter as seen from his point of view. By so doing he did not intend to sow suspicion. He often gives the impression that he is perhaps a little embittered, but we know that he is emotional, just as I myself am on occasion. But now I am quite calm, perhaps for the very reason that on occasion I am emotional. I now want to tell him this frankly. We want to leave all bitterness behind us; we do not want to have hatred in the country in order to try to solve matters by those means, because hatred will destroy us. That is why I am following the fine example of the hon. member and hon. members can see how calm I am to-day and how sincere I am when I give the hon. member the answer to the question which he has put…

*Mr. HUGHES:

[Inaudible.]

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

Krusch… Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reply to that hon. member. I want to reply in all calmness to the question of the hon. member for South Coast: “What is this unity?” I want to tell him that it is quite correct; I too do not see this unity in the fact that one population group speaks Afrikaans or in the fact that the one group speaks English. I do not think that unity is to be found in the language, or merely in one’s history or merely in one’s fatherland. I consider that unity goes deeper than that; it is rooted in the essence of the nation. It is their common emotional experience of the same love for their fatherland of both the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans in this country. I therefore want to tell the hon. member: I agree with him entirely. He must not reproach us for perhaps advocating a nationalism which is exclusive. That is not so. He has said here that he invites Afrikaans-speaking people to join his party, and he does not regard them as hangers-on but he regards the nationalism which he advocates as a common sentiment for both good English-speaking South Africans and good Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. So do we. To make speeches which are embittered—and the hon. member has not done so this afternoon—to arouse English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people against one another at this difficult time, is a political crime in our country. It represents out of date politics. We are in a new era. We consider that nationalism should not be something exclusive. It should be our common sentiment. But now the hon. member who is quite clearheaded in his political approach, must not be a little malicious and tell me that he cannot differentiate between party unity and political unity and national unity. When we established the Republic, we said that we regarded this as the essential constitutional basis on which we must achieve national unity, or White unity. But we certainly did not intend that we would only have one party in our Parliamentary system. Then we would be heading for a dictatorship and that would be too dull. We would never be able to differ from one another and we would not be in this House. There will always be political differences in order to achieve objectivity in our approach to a great problem and to reach the truth. That is why we do not hold it against one another when we criticize one another and put our different points of view. But the hon. member is making a great mistake when he thinks the Prime Minister said that. Not only the present Prime Minister, but successive National Party Ministers have made a political confession of faith to the effect that they want a White nation in this country, that they advocate a nationalism which does not exclude the English-speaking people of this country. I want the hon. member to accept this, and here it is that we have common ground to-day, is that not so? But let us be reasonable. We must distinguish between political unity and national unity. Does the hon. member think that the Progressive Party for example and we could belong to the same political party? People who advocate a “multiracial state” advocate a policy which is unacceptable to us and irreconcilable with our policy which stands for the preservation of our race and the preservation of the Whites. Hon. members over there know that they do not stand for racial self-preservation. They advocate a racial solution in a “multi-racial state”. These are the two conflicting, irreconcilable, political schools of thought in South Africa. If the hon. member for South Coast wants us to come together in one party, then it is impossible. If he wants that, then we must have the division to which he has referred, namely, conservative against liberal. But then let him be reasonable. On this side of the House we have political conservatism. I am glad that the hon. member still associates himself with the conservatives in this country…

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Do you not mean political extremism?

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

What does conservatism mean? It does not mean extremism, as the hon. member has just said. I am sorry the hon. member has made that remark. I thought that here we had common ground; but that hon. member will not distract me. I want to say that what we want in this country is that the hon. members should admit that they are conservative, and I hope they are all conservative. I hope that the hon. members for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) and Constantia (Mr. Waterson) are as conservative as the hon. member for South Coast. But even if a groupof people are all conservative, they will not accept a political party unless that party guarantees the security of the White race in this country. That is the common ground—the preservation of the Christian White race on the southern tip of Africa. There we have the common ground for both the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking sections. For that reason I am glad that the hon. member’s speech shows how they too long for White unity and national unity so that together we can solve our baffling problems in South Africa. I do not want to be hurtful. I want to be quite objective and if we continue in this spirit, the House will probably adjourn to-morrow night…

*HON. MEMBERS:

No.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

If hon. members do not even want to co-operate with me, how are we going to solve these greater problems! But I do want to make the point which I am discussing. I say that political unity is unthinkable, and that is why I am glad the gulf appears to be becoming ever greater between the Progressive Party and the United Party. Because I want to tell the House that we can only achieve White unity on certain bases and principles, namely, the preservation and the safeguarding of the Christian White civilization on the southern tip of Africa; the preservation of our White race and the safeguarding of our continued existence. If the hon. member says he is conservative and he upholds the principles I have just set out, well, then we can achieve national unity. As far as the English- and Afrikaans-speaking peoples are concerned, I have always said that racial hatred is of the devil. It is something which must disappear from our political vocabulary. The English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking peoples are not two separate races. Our differences are not racial in origin. There is a certain measure of cultural difference, but that does not trouble me. Every new nation which is established, can have these cultural differences. Hon. members can speak the English language and we can speak the Afrikaans-language. The best is that we should respect and speak both those languages. These are the things which bring unity: Our flag, our national anthem, our fatherland, and these two languages. But we can only achieve this deeper unity through our love for South Africa and the White race, and our concern for the continued existence of Christian White civilization on this southern tip of Africa. If I read the signs correctly and when I listen to the speech of the hon. member—no matter how angrily he may speak on occasion; we both do so and it seems as though we are angry, but both of us have hearts that beat warmly for our nation—then I say let us end the strife between the English- and Afrikaans-Speaking peoples. I say that this strife is a crime. Do not say that we do not want national unity. We must be absolutely clear as to our definitions of people, nation and population. We must distinguish between population groups and a true nation. The White nation which is different to the other nation, namely, the non-White nation, is here, and we shall have to evolve a policy which will not result in conflict, because it is precisely in the “multiracial society” which hon. members talk about that we shall find the cause for conflicts in a multi-racial state. It is the breeding ground of racial conflict in South Africa.

So we come to adopt what was described in the old days as segregation. Sometimes hon. members also spoke of segregation and said that apartheid was also their policy. As far as our approach is concerned, we all uphold the traditional policy that there are great inherent differences in civilization and also differences in development between Black and White. When the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) spoke this morning on the Liquor Bill, he said that it was not a question of a difference in colour which represented the great difference between the races. He said that there were also great differences as regards traditions. That is what we must also understand when we speak of national unity. It does not mean a “multi-racial unity”; that is what the Progressive Party stands for. The hon. member for South Coast wants national unity, a common national sentiment for both Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking peoples—we want that for all White South Africans. And this White nation, as the Christian guardian, must bring to an end the conflict between the two components of that nation as soon as possible in order by so doing to form one White nation which can speak with one voice to the Black man, with a policy which has a common foundation, and then in our common wisdom we can also end the conflict between Black and White in our fatherland. If we do that, there is hope for South Africa.

Dr. RADFORD:

I was surprised at the honeyed words with which the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) commenced his speech. He wooed the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Mitchell) to cross the floor to join him. He particularly emphasized how calm he was. He wanted us to notice particularly that he was not excited. Slowly but surely as he carried on, he worked himself up to a pitch of emotion until his speech became an outburst of ecstacy.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Are you speaking as a medical expert?

Dr. RADFORD:

I recognize the symptoms. He hypnotized himself into believing what he said.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

You are giving the wrong diagnosis.

Dr. RADFORD:

The hon. member talks of unity, but always of unity on terms of the Nationalist Party…

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

No, no.

Dr. RADFORD:

Always on the terms that they must tread upon the culture of the English-speaking people of this country.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Do not talk such nonsense.

Dr. RADFORD:

We know, we have had this before.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I did not say that. You misunderstood me.

Dr. RADFORD:

I hope I did. Let us refer to the hon. the Minister of Transport for a moment. On 8 June 1961, in Hansard column 7594, the hon. the Minister of Transport is reported as putting it this way,—

This shows you what was behind it.
Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk:

A real unity speech.

The Minister of Transport:

We do not want unity with the Opposition. Heaven preserve us from that!

Mr. Hughes:

doubt Afrikaner domination.

Sir de Villiers Graaff:

That has given the game away.

And note this, Sir—

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.

That was said by the hon. the Minister of Transport. Sir, unity is unity. We went into Union in 1910 and we did not make any reservations. We did not say we were going to do this or we were going to do that afterwards, we entered it freely and we intended to go into a partnership. But what have we got out of it? As the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) has said: No consultation, no request for help, no offers of help. At the best we have been able to get a couple of our ears boxed now and then. That is the best we could get out of it.

We on this side of the House welcome the Afrikaner with us. We regard the Afrikaners as ourselves. But the hon. the Deputy Minister reminds me of the old saying that there is more rejoicing in Heaven over one sinner saved than over all the saints” and that solid phalanx of Nationalists rejoice—and I do not blame them for rejoicing—because they have told us to-day they have converted one Englishman…

Brig. BRONKHORST:

No, three.

Dr. RADFORD:

My hon. friend says three—well, they can have five. But there is great excitement about it.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

You are just a silly old man, that is what you are.

Dr. RADFORD:

That hon. gentleman always descends to abuse.

However, Mr. Speaker, this hardly fits into a debate on the Appropriation, and in order to get back to that subject I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance to a form of export for which he is getting no return; money that is leaving the country and is lost forever. And I refer to this terrible export of educated young brains which are leaving this country at the moment. That is something which we will never get back; something which is such a loss that you cannot count in terms of cash. In the last three years the University of Cape Town has lost 26 of its senior staff. The University of the Witwatersrand have lost 62 of its senior staff.

Mr. GROBLER:

Why did they leave?

Dr. RADFORD:

This happens to include, also, general turn-over, so it may be a little exaggerated. The University of Natal has lost 50 of its senior staff. In Natal,… [Interjections.]

Mr. HUGHES:

Mr. Speaker, may I appeal to you to keep the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) quiet and give the hon. member an opportunity of making his speech.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order, order! The hon. member may continue.

Dr. RADFORD:

Seven professors, 21 senior lecturers and 22 lecturers, a total of 50 resigned to seek employment elsewhere. In Johannesburg eight professors, 22 senior lecturers, 27 lecturers, and three research officers have resigned. And these figures include the normal turn-over of staff. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order, order!

Dr. RADFORD:

And it is not only the English speaking who are going. Then there is the C.S.I.R. In their 15th annual report they say—

Experienced research workers continue to be lost to the Council, and usually to the country.

And note, Mr. Speaker, that the highest proportion is not the professors. Those are older men. The highest proportion is among the junior lecturers. Those are the ones we can least afford to lose because they are the future leaders. That is the effect of the policy of this Government. This Government has, I believe, deliberately set out to destroy the educational basis of the non-White people. I believe that they think they can keep these people forever as hewers of wood and drawers ofwater. What did they take over? They took over a service which was providing a certain number of educated non-Whites. The university institutions of this country have produced 2,080 non-White graduates. Of these, 1,200 were contributed by Fort Hare and 437 by the University of Natal. What has happened to that source of supply at Fort Hare, and what will replace that source of supply? What happened to the non-White section of the University of Natal? A survey by Dr. Malherbe—he went round the continent—showed that there were roughly 6.000 university graduates, non-Whites, in the whole of Africa, and most of them had come from this country. That included teachers with diplomas, not necessarily graduates. He found that the leaders in the emergent countries were nearly all university graduates. He found, also, that there was no enlightened proletariat. In other words, the leaders in these states were unique. They were almost irreplaceable. The only ones who could replace them were the odd rivals who could push them down and climb on their shoulders. But the leadership of Africa is in the hands of the universities. It can only come from non-White graduates of the universities, and this country was supplying them. It was supplying the civil servants for the rest of the continent, and what has happened to-day? The supply has been cut off at its source. These people had goodwill towards this country. Some of these Black graduates who graduated overseas were unable in their own country to find women of their own class to marry and the great bulk of them came down here and married Black women of our country and took them away. In other words, they took with them goodwill towards this country, but what has happened to that now? It is almost impossible for any of these people to get into this country, and those Black graduates that we have in our country, where can they live? They live in the Bantu urban areas. With whom can they associate? With nobody. They are banned from every meeting. They are banned from every possible hope of improving their minds, and what happens? They are very soon labelled as agitators. No, this country is losing too many of its friends and it is failing to produce any more. Dr. Malherbe found from a survey made in Natal by the university that the supply of non-White matriculants was falling away, that since the introduction of the so-called ethnic colleges the supply of matriculants suitable for university education was falling away, and I believe that it is done deliberately. I believe that it is being made more and more difficult for non-White teachers to be trained. Where can they be taught? It is becoming impossible to find teachers, and so the whole educational set-up of the non-Whites is being destroyed.

I want to draw attention to something which I think should be a bitter reproach to the hon. members opposite, because I am thinking of Scotland. Scotland has one strong resemblance to the hon. members opposite, and that is that it is Calvinistic, and the great characteristic of Calvin and his followers was that they were very keen on education. It is the backbone of Calvinism that they shall educate their people, but what does this party do? It is making no effort whatever to educate the people for whom it is responsible. I hope that you will permit me, Sir, to read portion of that great speech of Lord Macaulay on Scotland, speaking of education in Scotland.

An HON. MEMBER:

Are you a Scot?

Dr. RADFORD:

No, I am a South African. Lord Macaulay says—

A hundred and fifty years ago England was one of the best governed and most prosperous countries in the world. Scotland was perhaps the rudest and poorest country that could lay any claim to civilization. The name “Scotsman” was then uttered in this part of the world with contempt. The ablest Scottish statesmen concentrated on the degraded state of their poorer countrymen with a feeling approaching to despair, to such an extent that Fletcher was so distracted and dismayed by the misery, ignorance, the idleness, the lawlessness of the common people that he proposed to make many thousands of them slaves. Nothing, he thought, but the discipline which kept order and enforced exertion among the Negroes of the sugar colonies, nothing but lashes and the stocks could reclaim the vagabonds who infested every part of Scotland from their indolent habits and compel them to support themselves by steady labour.

What followed, Sir? The Parliament in Edinburgh passed an Education Act, and with what result?—

An improvement such as the world has never seen took place in the moral and intellectual character of the people. Soon, in spite of the rigour of the climate, in spite of the sterility of the earth, Scotland became a country with men who had no reason to envy the fairest portion of the globe. The Scotsman of the 17th century had been spoken of in London as we speak of the Eskimo. The Scotsman of the 18th century was the object not of scorn but of envy. The cry was that wherever he came he got more than his share. What produced this great revolution? The Scots air was still as cold, and the Scots rocks still as barren, and all the natural qualities of the Scotsman were still what they had been when Fletcher advised that he should be flogged like a beast of burden, but the State had given him an education. Is there one who will stand up and say in his opinion the Scots would now have been a happierand more enlightened people if they had been left during the last five generations to find their own instruction?

Among the objections to this education was the question of costs and I think that is very interesting to hear the answer of Macaulay. He says—

If we look at the matter from the lowest point of view, if we consider human beings merely as producers of wealth, the difference between an intelligent and a stupid population estimated in £ s. d. exceeds a hundredfold the proposed outlay.

[Interjections.] If the hon. member would listen, he would learn a little more.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. members must ask question in the ordinary way or else keep quiet.

Dr. RADFORD:

He goes on to say—

For every pound that you save in education you will spend five in prosecutions, in prisons and in penal settlements. I cannot believe that the House, having never grudged anything that was asked for the purpose of maintaining order and protecting property by means of pain and fear, will begin to be niggardly as soon as it is proposed to attain the same object by making the people wiser and better.

Sir, here you have a lesson of what has happened to other countries, because there is a curious belief amongst the White people that they have always been civilized. Of course it is the most absurd nonsense to think firstly that civilization began with the Whites, and secondly that the Whites were always civilized. They, too, came down from the trees, and some of them have not been down long. Civilization can be included into people and it can be lost, and the only salvation for this country is to devote every possible penny to educating its people and to bring them to a state of civilization so that they appreciate what civilization is and what law and order really mean.

Mr. R. A. F. SWART:

I think it a very sad commentary on this Parliament that in these very abnormal times in South Africa this debate should have run such a terribly normal course. These are extremely difficult times in this country, but with few exceptions throughout this debate the pattern has been the same as before. We have had the same sort of arguments advanced by hon. members on the Government side and we have had the same sort of excuses offered, and one would have thought that everything in South Africa was running in a fine and prosperous way and that there were no difficulties confronting the country whatever. This afternoon we had the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) who intervened in the debate to have a private discussion with the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) on the subject of national unity. Of course all right-minded people in South Africa believe generally in the idea of national unity. It is a fine ideal, but once again, one must ask before one talks about national unity—and of course it must take into consideration party-political differences—what the basis of that unity is going to be. It is no good simply using the word “unity” as an empty word unless one is convinced that that unity must be unity around something in which people believe. We had the hon. member for Brits talking about this unity. He also suggested in regard to the Progressive Party that we could not be part of any unity—not that we would want to—because we believe in a multi-racial state. Of course I think it is high time the hon. member faced up to the situation that South Africa is a multi-racial state and it is totally unrealistic for a senior member on the Government benches to make a speech such as he made to-day on the subject of the Progressive Party wanting a multi-racial state. I think it is high time that we in South Africa accept the fact that we are a multi-racial state. Then for the hon. member simply to look for some sort of unity on the basis, as he said, of White unity, we believe is totally unrealistic. That is in no way going to assist South Africa.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Do you regard the State and the nation as one?

Mr. R. A. F. SWART:

It depends on what state you are in. I am talking about a multiracial society. We will not argue about words, but let us say that the fact is that we in South Africa are a multi-racial society, in that there are various racial groups comprising the population. As far as we are concerned it is no good pleading for unity if that is to be an exclusively White unity, and if one implies by pleading for that unity that it will be a ganging up by one section of the population against another section. I think it is high time that we realized that the issue in this country today is not so much the question of whether we can reconcile the points of two conservative White groups, but whether we can reconcile the point of view of the reasonable and responsible White person with that of the reasonable and responsible non-White. That is what we should be endeavouring to do at this time of our history. As I said, the debate has run along the normal pattern. If anything, there has been one common factor, perhaps reluctantly as far as Government members are concerned, but I think it is true to say that there has been general agreement that South Africa is in difficulties at present and that our economic difficulties are far more serious than they have been for many years. But there have been differences as to the degree and the cause of the difficulties and differences as to the remedy for our economic difficulties.

As to the degree. Government members have by and large been at pains to explain that really things are not quite so bad. On the first day of the debate we had the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), who, when one listened to him. one might have believed that in fact South Africa was passing through a period of prosperity and that the measures announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance last Friday were in fact unnecessary; the hon. member painted a fairly rosy picture and said that in fact things were not really so serious and that he felt that there should be complete confidence as to the future. Needless to say that that attitude of confidence on his part was not evinced by the Minister himself when he introduced this Bill, and one has always thought that the was an undercurrent of lack of confidence on the part of many Government members.

As to the cause for our economic plight. one might also have thought that there might have been general agreement on the two vital factors which stand out for all to see, the one being the fact that we find ourselves externally in a state of isolation, and the other being that there is a considerable amount of internal insecurity. But the Government’s defence did not take any notice of these two vital factors. Instead of that, we had excuses offered and the Government blamed these people and those. They blamed the commercial banks and the Press and the Opposition for the general economic situation internationally. They blamed everyone except themselves. Surely that is totally unrealistic and one might have hoped that this Government at this stage of our history might have done some heart-searching in regard to their own policy.

They went even further. They attacked individuals in South Africa who had dared to suggest that there is in fact something wrong in regard to the internal political situation in the country and that that was having an adverse effect on our economic situation. We had the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) and the hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) and the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. Marais) attacking Mr. Oppenheimer and Sir George Albu, because in their speeches to their shareholders they had dared to suggest… [Interjections.] We had the situation that these gentlemen, the heads of large financial groups in South Africa, reported to their shareholders and suggested that our economic plight was largely due to the political situation in this country, and then we had these hon. members, presumably speaking on behalf of the Government, attacking those gentlemen for the statements they made. The hon. member for Mayfair went so far as to warn Mr. Oppenheimer and Sir George Albu not to sow suspicion and no confidence in South Africa. What did the hon. member for Mayfair mean by that warning, and what sanctions had he in mind if that warning is not heeded? I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance owes an explanation to the House when he replies to the debate as to whether he agrees with the attitude adopted by these hon. members. I believe the Minister of Finance should tell us whether he supports the warnings given to these gentlemen not to sow suspicion and no confidence in South Africa. I can conceive of nothing which can do South Africa more harm overseas than this sort of attack coming from our Parliament. I hope the Minister of Finance will tell us what his attitude is in regard to statements of this kind. These, I believe, were important matters and I think that no credit was done to the Government case by warnings or threats like this being thrown across the floor of the House. I said it should be clear that the basic cause of our economic difficulties is the internal policy being pursued here. We have the situation where one-fifth of the population is denying rights and opportunities to four-fifths of the population. It is always dangerous to oversimplify matters, but I believe that in that fact lies the root cause of the difficulties with which we are confronted on the economic front and on other fronts as well. This is the root cause of the present criticism which comes to South Africa from outside and it is the root cause of the internal insecurity within our borders. Either the Government cannot see this, in which case I think they are guilty of considerable negligence, or they can see it but will do nothing about it, in which case they are guilty of the utmost recklessness in regard to our future. But I believe that the Government can see it. I believe that certainly the Prime Minister can see it, and I am sure the Minister of Finance can see it. because despite the attempts of hon. members opposite to make other excuses and to blame other people, it is clear that the Prime Minister realizes that the root cause of our difficulty in South Africa is that we practise racial discrimination, which cannot be justified either in our own country or outside our borders. We know that the Prime Minister has on numerous occasions said that he believed that no policy based on racial discrimination can succeed in this country. Only a month ago the Prime Minister told us that it was the policy of his party to endeavour to move away from discrimination as the basis of his approach to the racial affairs of South Africa. Of course we agree with that entirely, but we say that it is sheer hypocrisy to suggest that the policy of separate development as enunciated by the Government can mean a policy of non-discrimination. Therefore one believes that the Nationalist Party becomes even more culpable when one realizes the difficulties with which South Africa is faced at present.

Of course the question of discrimination was the cause of the Prime Minister’s failure at the London Conference. It was quite clear that if we were going to send to the conference an advocate for our policy of separate development, we should have chosen no more able an advocate than the Prime Minister, but despitehis ability the Prime Minister was unable to convince his fellow-Prime Ministers at the Conference that what was being done in South Africa did not amount to racial discrimination. I think it is important at this stage to make the point again that it was not only the Afro-Asian countries at the conference who were opposed to the policies being pursued here. All ten Prime Ministers expressed their disapproval of that policy of racial discrimination and they made it perfectly clear that it was impossible to justify racial discrimination. I think it is necessary to repeat that it was not only the Afro-Asian Prime Ministers who took up that attitude. Is it any wonder that the Prime Minister was unable to justify the policy of separate development, and that we in South Africa at present are unable to justify it? When one looks at what is being done even on the basis of the Government’s declared policy, and when one looks at what is being done to give practical effect to the very extravagant claims made from time to time by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration, it is little wonder that it has been found very difficult to convince people that the Government are even serious about the policy of separate development and that they can indicate it as a policy which moves away from racial discrimination. We maintain, of course, that no policy of separate development, unless it is absolute, can mean non-discrimination, and we have stated our point of view on many occasions, but even on the basis of the Government’s plan there is very little tangible evidence of their earnestness in regard to their policy of developing the African areas and consequently one must be left in serious doubt about the ability of the Government in any way to alleviate our problems on the basis of this policy. Six years ago we had the report of the Tomlinson Commission. At that stage there were certain vital factors which one had to bear in mind in considering the recommendations of the Commission. Firstly they suggested that there was considerable urgency about implementing their proposals. Secondly, they presupposed that the Protectorates would be incorporated in the Union before their proposals could be implemented, and they took a fairly long-term view, and much of what they proposed was based on a period of 45 years. But those factors are no longer present. One now has to test what the Government has done in six years, since the time of the report, in order to see whether they are really serious in regard to their policy of separate development. The Commission. e.g., suggested a total capital expenditure of £10,000,000 a year for ten years, and it also suggested a substantial increase in the administrative expenditure in regard to development in the Native areas. So far, according to the Minister of Bantu Administration, the Government has spent over the past five years some £20,000,000, and even that figure does not square with the figures that have come from the Department of Bantu Administration in recent years, although obviously the figure given by the Minister of £20,000,000 in five years must, I presume, include administrative costs and also the cost of purchasing additional land. I am dealing in pounds because the Tomlinson Commission of course dealt in pounds. But that figure falls very far short of the recommendations made by that Commission. In regard to urban development the Tomlinson Commission suggested that it would be necessary to spend £12,000,000 in ten years. What do we find? Over the past five years only £250,000 has been spent on urban development in the Native areas of South Africa. In regard to secondary and tertiary development in the Native areas, we find that the Tomlinson Commission recommended the expenditure of some £30,000,000 in 10 years. and we find that after five years only £110,000 has been spent by the Government. Is it any wonder then that the Government finds it difficult to convince anybody that they are serious in presenting this programme of separate development as a solution to our problems?

We have had previous speeches in this House dealing with the question of the consolidation of the Native areas, and it has been shown conclusively that until there is a great deal in regard to consolidating the various Native areas in S.A., it is nonsense to talk about creating separate homelands and consequently separate Native areas. In fact the Minister of Bantu Administration admitted that in the Senate during this Session when he said that unless one could embark upon a policy of consolidation of the various Native areas. separate development would not be a practical proposition, and yet we find that there has been no consolidation on any sort of scale of the Native areas over the past 5 or 6 years. We find in the province of Natal, for example, in regard to the question of the removal of black spots, that whereas in 1954 there were 211 black spots, to-day there are 210.—not a very impressive record in that regard.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

There will be a good many more under the Liquor Bill.

Mr. R. A. F. SWART:

That might well be. If one examines the record of this Government in regard to the implementation of their policy in the Native areas, it is clear that the policy of separate development cannot be regarded as a serious attempt to meet the situation and cannot in any way be an answer to the accusations which are made that we are following a policy of racial discrimination, and it is no good of the Prime Minister or any other member opposite standing up and saying that by this policy South Africa can move away from racial discrimination because it is quite manifest from the figures I have given here this afternoon that it is impossible for the Government to implement its policy in such a way as to remove discrimination. But of course, the Government is adept at using the non-White question for a variety of purposes. They have done it at great cost to this country. Theyhave perhaps attained fairly considerable advantages for the Nationalist Party. They have been able to use their attitude in regard to the non-White groups to bring short-term political advantages to the Nationalist Party, and we know that the psychology of the Government is to try to use the fears and the prejudices which exist in the minds of very many people in regard to the colour issue, to exploit those fears and prejudices for the advantage of the Nationalist Party, and we find that when the Prime Minister returned from London he was able to say to the people of South Africa that he had no alternative, that he had to get out of the Commonwealth because of the peril of the Afro-Asian bloc. Those have been the tactics of the Nationalist Party as we have seen since then in the debates in this House, that the Prime Minister did what he could to save White South Africa. The Government, when they talk about unity in this country, as we heard the hon. member for Brits talking here about White unity this afternoon mean unity against the other racial groups. Their entire appeal to English-speaking South Africans is an appeal to prejudice and to fear and they hope that on the basis of that appeal they might get support from English-sneaking people in South Africa. It is clear therefore that this Government—desperate and committed to an impractical policy—is going to proceed on this basis and is going to bring us to our knees. It is our duty and the duty of responsible and right-minded people to warn the people as to the dangers unless this Government is halted, unless South Africa can produce a change of heart in our attitude to other racial groups in this country. We believe that it is vitally necessary for us to discard racial discrimination as the basis of our approach to the colour question. We believe it is necessary from the point of view of our internal position; we believe it is necessary from the point of view of our prestige outside this country, and let me say too that we believe it is vital, if there is going to be any chance of South Africa’s being re-admitted to the Commonwealth that we should have a policy which is not based on racial discrimination. Those are the remedies both in regard to the economic situation and also in regard to the general situation in South Africa to-day The Government, as I have said, evidently are committed to a policy which cannot be acceptable to any civilized people. They are committed to a policy which may bring short-term political advantage to the Nationalist Party but a policy which can only bring disaster to South Africa. One would hope that on the part of the Opposition parties there would be a much clearer realization of the dangers with which this country is confronted. The other day, during this debate the hon. the leader of the Opposition, in dealing with the policy of the Government and that of his own party, turned to the Progressive Party, and he disagreed with us because we believe in a policy which does not recognize racial discrimination, and he then said, “No matter what the standard of education of the Black man is, it does not make him any less a Black nationalist”. I believe that that was an appalling statement, because surely inherent in that statement is an admission of failure, an admission that it is going to be impossible in a multi-racial South Africa to have harmony between the various racial groups comprising the population. Surely one is entitled to wonder what the future of South Africa will be if that is going to be the sort of dictum that we are going to follow in our public life. We are a multi-racial country and we have to recognize that while there may be loyalties as between groups, what we have to try to do here is to create a common patriotism, a patriotism which can be subscribed to by every South African, whether he is a White man, an African, an Indian or a Coloured man. That is the real issue confronting us at the present time. Unless we are prepared to face up to that issue, it follows that South Africa must find itself in a situation where it is going to be impossible to reconcile the points of view of the various population groups. We say therefore that what is needed in South Africa is that a sincere effort should be made by all the inhabitants of this country to develop a common loyalty to a common fatherland. That is the basis of the policy of the Progressive Party. We believe that unless we are going to base our approach to the problems of South Africa on the basis of recognizing people on their merit as civilized human beings, on the basis of a rejection of racial discrimination, then it is going to be impossible for us to foresee a peaceful future for South Africa. On the basis of the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition the other day, I want to see how that fits in with the speech made by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) just now, who in a curious way suggested that the door should be left open for South Africa to return to the Commonwealth. Surely it should be plain that if that statement that no Black man, however educated, can ever be less of a Black nationalist, is going to be the basis of the thinking of my hon. friends on my right, surely there can be no hope of South Africa regaining Commonwealth membership, and surely on that basis there can be no hope of South Africa re-gaining the prestige of the Western world in general. I believe that we have to be realistic and realize that events are changing; we have to realize that certainly since the end of the last war, the ordinary bounds of national sovereignty have been transcended to a very large extent by virtue of the fact that people believe that human beings have to be recognized on the basis of their individual merit. We have to realize that both from the internal point of view in South Africa and also from the external point of view, it is absolutely necessary, if we are going to be worthy of being called a Western country, a country which practices Western civilization, if we are going to be worthy of being part of the Westernworld, then we have to adhere to the standards and principles demanded by civilized people throughout the world.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

Before I proceed to say what little I have to say, I would like to remark upon the attitude adopted by Government members in this particular debate. We have spoken here to an empty House. Opposition speakers have followed one after the other and we have had little or no attention paid to this debate by either Ministers or Deputy Ministers. One or two have given their attention to this debate and to them I am grateful. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has spent quite a lot of time here and so has the Deputy Minister of the Interior, but apart from that little attention has been given to this debate by Ministers. Their lack of interest has been emphasised by their absence.

I do not intend to criticize the speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. R. A. F. Swart) who has already left. I do not believe that this is the time or the place for us to put forward our particular party policies. I think that what we are here to do is to talk on the Appropriation Bill where I think the Government policy is under consideration more than the individual policies of the other parties. I want to do that with a particular approach, although I am not a financier, to the opinions which have been expressed in this debate by people who obviously know quite a lot about finance and included in those is the hon. the Minister of Finance himself. During this last week the Minister has had to take steps which are an indication to us that the finances of the country are not as good as they ought to be. We live in a country which is blessed with natural riches, and we all hope and look forward to a higher standard of living for all, derived largely from this natural source of wealth of ours. Here we are taking panic measures to stop capital leaving the country; we seem to be failing to attract it any more; and listening to the experts debating this aspect of our problem, it becomes apparent that they attribute the flight of capital from South Africa largely to the policies of this Government. What are the main policies affecting that? The main policy that affects that is obviously the colour policy of the Government, and here we are being asked to vote money largely for the implementation of those policies which have caused us to become so unpopular. Although I am no financial expert, I find it very difficult to understand the vicious circle into which we have got whereby we create policies that destroy our financial position and yet vote more money for the implementation of those policies. Sir, when you look at it from that angle you start to look more broadly at the policies. The first one I want to look at is the policy of separate residential areas for each section of the population. As far as the Bantu is concerned, we have dealt with that matter at length. We have some idea of what it will cost the country because we have the Tomlinson Commission report which gives us estimates of what money should be spent. I do not intend to go into that at greater length. But when we come to the group areas, largely in relation to the Indians and the other non-White groups in the urban areas, I am somewhat at a loss to know what it will cost us. I have not seen or been given or been able to find any authentic estimate of what we can expect to have to pay for the implementation of the group area policy of this Government. I can get certain leads which are frightening. For example, in Durban I have seen an estimate which has been given by a reliable authority that to move one section of the population which is probably the smallest, namely, the Indian group and to re-settle them in the areas in which the Government has decided that they must live, will cost the city of Durban some R100,000,000. That is an awful lot of money for a city of the size of Durban. In addition to the Indian population, the other Coloured groups will have to be provided for in Durban. Assuming that the cost of moving them will be something in that vicinity, hon. members can build up for themselves some idea of the fantastic costs of the implementation of this policy in one city alone, and we must assume that it will be just as costly in other places. What is the ultimate cost of this scheme going to be throughout South Africa. It is going to be fantastic. Can we afford this luxury at a time like this. I very much doubt whether we can because we cannot implement it to that stage which will make a success of it from the Government’s point of view. We cannot find those sums of money in the time which we have available to be able to say to the world or to South Africa that our policy of group areas is complete and that it works, and until we reach that stage we do not know whether it is going to work. The indications are that it is not going to work. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Finance when he wonders where he is going to find the money to implement these various Government policies must have some very big headaches. I know that the responsibility for finding this money is to some extent palmed off on to the local authorities, wherever the Government can do it, but they cannot afford these fantastic costs, and even where they do have to pay them, it is all incorporated in the finances of the country; it is still the nation as a whole that has to pay. Sir, in a debate a little while ago I was told,” Why should the rest of the country bear the cost of re-housing the Indians in Durban; why should Paarl contribute to that? They have no Indian problem Of course it is a national problem and I wish the Government would realize that. If they are going to implement a policy such as this, then, of course, they have to pay for it, not the individual areas which happen to have this problem in the biggest degree. If they doimplement that policy what are they going to gain by it? Nobody is against providing better housing for all groups of the community, but to do it under the system that is being imposed under the Group Areas Act is something which is just stupid and that will achieve nothing. As far as the Indians are concerned, they are going to move them into areas far removed from other groups of the population. In Johannesburg and other big cities these people have been moved to areas quite apart from the places where they normally earn their living. We know that the Indian group cannot live off Indians alone. They are part of our economy; they are integrated in our economy, and to remove them in such a manner is just absurd. The hon. the Minister, in introducing a Bill this Session, said that as a concession he would allow these people to trade where he approved in the business Demises which they now occupy. On what basis can we build up a stable economy for these people if they are allowed to trade during the pleasure of a Minister or Deputy Minister in the premises which they at present occupy?

I want to come now to another aspect which is costing this country dearly not necessarily in money but in people and souls. I think it is tied up largely with what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said, and that is the question of the population register. Here, Sir, is a thing—I call it a “thing” for want of a better name: I do not think it deserves a better name—which has caused so much misery and so much hatred of our country amongst the people to whom it has been applied and people outside, that I think it is time the Government really took steps to improve the administration if they intend to stick to the Act. Here is a thing which has cost us. according to an answer I got the other day, R3.460.402 up to date for its administration. What has it achieved? It has reached this stage of development—and I hold in my hand a roneoed sheet which in official language I would imagine is called Form V.R. The one I have here is addressed to a man and his wife and this is what it says—

I have to inform you that, according to information at my disposal, there exists a measure of doubt as to the racial group to which you and your wife belong. Unless you can, therefore, within three weeks of the date of this letter furnish me with proof in the form of certificate or affidavits by at least one or two of the following, namely, (a) officer in charge of a police station, (b) school principal, (c) Minister of the Church, (d) employer, (e) Senator, Member of Parliament or provincial councillor, and at least two certificates or affidavits by family friends that you and your wife are regarded and accepted by them as White persons, I shall be compelled to register you for the purposes of the population register as belonging to the racial group which would seem to be most clearly indicated by the information at my disposal and to issue your identity cards accordingly.

Sir, this is a cheap-looking document. I should imagine that they send out hundreds of these. There seems to be a big drive on the go at the moment. In addition to this I have one which was addressed to this man’s son. Sir, let me give the background to this, and tell you who these people are. This gentleman to whom it was addressed is a man who has been in the Civil Service for 30 years and who holds a high post. I personally have inspected both his birth certificate and his wife’s, their marriage certificate and the marriage certificates of their parents on each side and in each case there is no indication that they are other than White. This man was good enough to have been chosen for his country as an Empire Games trialist not so many years ago and yet this is what has happened to him. His son is an officer who has signed on and has taken an oath to serve his country in one of the country’s best regiments. He. too, is cast in doubt. What I want to find out from the hon. the Minister is on what ground such people can get a thing like this sent to them. On what basis is it sent to them?

Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

Disgraceful.

Mr. DODDS:

That is the way you make unity.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

On what possible grounds can this man’s colour be in doubt? Why should he be picked out in this particular way? Is it because he lived in a street where there were one or two Coloured families? Is the reason that everybody in this street has been sent one of these things? I also want to make this point: By the time you have got these affidavits to furnish proof that you are White you might as well move out of the district anyway, because you have to go to all your friends in the district and ask if they accept you as White, and the affect of that, whether your classification remains White or not, is as good as re-classifying you as Coloured or some other race, because you can no longer move among those friends. It works on the old principle that where there is smoke there is fire. When once people have received a thing of this nature, that is virtually the end of them in their little community. What is the affect on people? Here is a man who was fortunate enough to know somebody to whom he could go for help and he got it. I give the Department that attends to us here in Parliament full marks; they attend to these things wonderfully, but more often than not the damage has already been done by the time it comes to them. Here is a little letter of thanks that I got for having handled this matter and I just want to read out two short extracts from it, just to give you the reaction of these people. He says “Myfamily and I wish to thank you for your valuable assistance to us in our recent sad and unforgettable experience. We do not know, how it came about, but if it has been through mean spite, it still has left us with a sadness which I am afraid we will never forget.” And Sir, they never will forget it. Through the rest of his life this man will have this fear hanging over him of receiving another document such as this. It is all very well for certain people to laugh about it; it is no joking matter at all. I would like to remind every member of this House that they might easily get one of these forms to-morrow, because in the particular case which I have mentioned there is probably less reason for having such a letter addressed to him than there is in the case of many members of this House. Sir, I could produce many like this, but I would like to mention just one more. This is the case of a man and his wife who have become divorced and who now sent their little girl to a boarding school for European girls. They have now received a form of this kind. They have one big fear to-day. They are living in different parts of the country and their one fear is that their daughter at school will get one of these too. Fortunately the Department has given me the undertaking that they will not have one of these things sent to this little girl. Just imagine the effect upon that child in the school if it is sent to her. I do not know if it is the policy to send it or not. I do not know on what grounds people get these things. The policy of the Department and the administration of the Act should be gone into thoroughly and investigated and overhauled so that everybody in this country will not have the threat of this hanging over their heads.

Then I just want to mention a letter dated 19 June just to show you what we are reducing people to. This letter is from a person who received one of these letters during the last few days. It was addressed to her and her husband. She says she hopes she is not being presumptuous in asking for my help. She is a member of my constituency whom I have known for many years, and she says that she needs my help badly. She goes on to say—

It is in connection with our identity cards. We have received a letter from the Population Registrar in Pretoria requesting us to furnish affidavits or some form of certificate to prove that we live and are accepted as White people. We got them from our parish priest and we have had to go to our personal friends but we hope that you will give us the last one we need.

Now, Sir, I come to the point: Apart from the fact that they have lived in a house for 11 years—and they are White people—this is the point I want to make—

Through the non-issuing of our cards, I have not been able to have my son admitted to school and it is holding the child back. Until we receive them he is on my hands and cannot be educated.

This is not the only case that I have had to do with. I had a little child that I used to see around my business in Durban and I used to ask him why he was not at school, and then the sad story came out. His grandmother had been classified as a Coloured, his mother had been classified as a European. For two years that child could not get admission to a school, because the European school put him out and said”There is some doubt about your colour”. The parents said “Alright, we must accept it, but the child must be educated”. So they took him to the Coloured school, and the Coloured school said “No we are not satisfied he is a Coloured, we can’t accept him”. For two years that child was not able to receive any education. And I can go on giving you examples of this where families are classified, where within one family the members of the family are classified differently. And when people think they are fixed up as far as the colour aspect is concerned, all of a sudden find that their case is being re-investigated and they have not been fixed up at all. So I make this plea to the Government that if they have to stick to these policies they have enunciated, for goodness sake find means of administering these laws in such a way that you do not cause all the bitterness that they are causing at the moment. It is not doing us any good. It is not doing anybody any good. It is obviously the basic cause of the vicious circle that we have got into now, and I do not know how we are going to get out of it, unless there is a complete and utter change either of Government, or on the part of this Government.

*Mr. G. P. KOTZÉ:

Allow me to dispose of a matter which I should have liked to dispose of in my maiden speech in this House, but which had to stand over as a result of the time limit, before I deal with the matter I actually want to discuss. The drought is over and our farmers in the stricken areas owe a great debt of thanks to the State. I must start with the hon. the Minister of Transport who made tremendous sacrifices and who worked under tremendous pressure, together with his staff, to make a gigantic contribution to the favourable course of events. Our sincere thanks! Then we thank the Minister of Defence who on various occasions had to use the Mobile Watch to help the farmers overcome a critical position. He made a great constructive contribution. Our sincere thanks! Then the twin departments namely the Departments of Agricultural Technical Services and Agricultural Economics and Marketing. They have always had to act as the buffer when farmers have been in difficulties, and we can say, and I do so on behalf of my constituency, that they have never let us down, that they have always treated us very sympathetically during these most difficult years. And then ofcourse there is the hon. the Minister of Finance who is always very sympathetic. And then the Cabinet as a whole, with whom the final responsibility rests. We can give them the assurance that the sympathetic approachability which we received from the Government made no small contribution to the high morale which the farmers in the stricken areas were able to maintain. Then I cannot omit to thank the Cape agricultural organization for the leading role it played and its emergency scheme which offered private persons the opportunity to make private contributions as well. I also want to convey our thanks to the farmers of Namaqualand, South West Africa, the Northern Cape, the Eastern Cape, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal who made grazing available on very reasonable terms and who not only made this grazing available, but who also received our farmers in a most friendly spirit throughout. We say to them: “Thank you very much.” And now that the dead-like chill with which each morning broke in the drought-stricken areas for four long years has been replaced by the blue and soft mistiness with which each new day breaks in these areas and now that awakening nature has already appeared in her full glory, and now that the grass is once again waving on the veld, a thankful farming population also bow in deep humility before their Creator,

I now come to the matter I actually want to discuss. I may take a long time, but I have listened to many speeches about goodwill in this House and I believe that there is great goodwill because everyone cries: “Peace, peace”. But alas! It seems to me that peace does not want to come. I want to discuss a matter which has become of actual importance in recent times. It is being discussed everywhere, and I have sat here in this House while people have been discussing this matter in which I have a direct interest and in which my voters have a direct interest. I have been instructed by my voters to put their point of view in respect of this matter. It will not surprise me if their attitude is not also the attitude of the entire North-West. I am thinking of the occasion when the waters of the Orange River were under discussion, when people walked into what must really be regarded as our pantry and shared out our supplies and said—one hon. member was so kind as to say: “Then there will still be enough left for you.” It was very kind of him, but to a certain extent we object to the kindness which is being shown us, and I want to discuss the utilization of the waters of the Orange River to-day. I want to base my argument on three reasons. The first is the climate of the area through which the river flows; then the economic contribution which the waters of the Orange River can make to our national economy and thirdly the basis which the waters of the Orange River should or will form, when they can be utilized, for supporting and strengthening our racial policy. I shall deal with my final point at the end of my speech in order to link up with what has been repeatedly emphasized here today and ever since I entered this House.

To turn to the Orange River, I just want to say a few words about the Orange River itself before we go any further into the matter. The first point is that we must remember that the Orange River obtains 90 per cent of its water from the confluence of the Caledon River and Orange River itself, and the remaining 10 per cent is caught up over the thousand-mile course which the river runs before it flows into the Atlantic Ocean. We must examine the climate of the area, and we then find that as far as the eastern side is concerned, as far as one can ascertain, the temperature varies from 77 degrees in the vicinity of Kimberley—it is very difficult to obtain this information because there are no statistics, and then one comes to Upington where it is 86 degrees and eventually one reaches Goodhouse which is more to the west, where it rises to 89 degrees. I do not mention the extreme temperatures rising up to 118 degrees in the vicinity of Goodhouse and 105 degrees in the vicinity of Upington. Together with this, we must say that the rainfall also gradually declines as we move westwards. Seeing that we are dealing with the utilization of irrigation water, we must necessarily have a dry climate to achieve maximum success. The rainfall at the confluence is approximately 15 inches, while at Upington itself it is only 6.1 inches and at Goodhouse only approximately 1.53 inches, while a little nearer the coast, south of the mouth of the Orange River, it is 2½ inches, taken over an extended period. We must take as a basis in discussing this matter that water is and will be the limiting factor in our country as far as our industrial development is concerned. The Orange River is a national asset, bearing in mind also the long way it flows right across our country, and the situation of the area through which it flows which is, as the rainfall indicates, a semi-desert and desert area.

This brings us to the utilization of water which is a limiting factor in the country’s development. Many points of view have been put forward in the past. One point of view which has been put forward is that the water of the Orange River should be diverted outside the catchment area of the Orange River. When we are dealing with the utilization of water, it is necessary that we should know what we have available, what water can be diverted to another part of the country outside the catchment area because we shall always have to bear in mind that in utilizing the water of such a river within its catchment area there are economic factors which must be taken into account.

What is the average flow? The flow during one dry year is 500,000 morgen feet; the average flow over two dry years is 1,000,000 morgen feet; the average flow over three dry years is 2,000,000 morgen feet, and the maximum flow during one year has been 7,500,000morgen feet. The average flow over many years has been in the vicinity of 2.9 million morgen feet. Now it appears to be a fact that we have irrigation land everywhere in the country, but it is just as much a fact that we do not everywhere have a climate which is equally favourable for irrigation. This does not mean that if we have wonderful irrigation soil in one part of the country that we must take the water to it, particularly when we are dealing with a country where water is a limiting factor. One must reserve the water for those parts of the country where one can irrigate on the most economic basis, in other words, where one can achieve the greatest production per morgen with the water and the greatest success. If we divert the water from the Orange River catchment area, it is self-evident that in the areas where one irrigates, one will build up communities and towns, and when one builds up large communities, one develops industries. No one in this House can say what the end will be because the population and development lead one from one stage to the next.

I submit that the waters of the Orange River are not so plentiful that one can irrigate to an unlimited extent. We must irrigate in that part of the country where one can achieve the maximum results. If we do not have sufficient water for utilization throughout the country, then it is surely economic and profitable that we should use the water in that area where we have the most land available. Otherwise we shall be creating two costs in respect of the same productive capacity of the same water. Let us utilize the water where we have land available for the water; then we shall surely make the maximum progress. When we turn to the economic aspect, there are certain things which one must take into account, namely: What the country requires and what the land produces per morgen per morgen foot of water when one uses it on that land. At the present time, we are importing certain articles into this country. For example we are importing cotton. I think the domestic consumption is 90,000 bales of 500 lb. each, and we only produce 23,000 bales of cotton. The quality which we produce in the north-west is of the very best. I want to read to the House the remarks of the cotton-grader of our country dealing with the quality of the cotton which we produce in the north-west in the catchment of the Orange River. He writes as follows—

My classification, according to universal standards, of lint ginned at Upington is average strict middling white 1 5/32 inches. This classification has been confirmed by all manufacturers spinning Upington/Orange River cotton, and is accepted for valuation purposes.
This quality is equal to the best Californian and Arizona types and is in the top 15 per cent of world production. Only Egypt, Sudan and Peru grow cotton in quality of higher value. Upington/Orange River lint has a reputation both in the Union and overseas for its exceptionally high even white colour and good strength.
During the past five years the demand for this class of South African cotton has steadily increased, particularly from Lancashire, and I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that so long as it continues to be properly graded and efficiently ginned and marketed, any increase in production would be readily absorbed.

The man who drew up this report is an immigrant whom we have brought from England to do this work for us.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the subject he is now discussing has already been discussed during this Session, that speeches have been made on it and that a resolution has been taken. I shall be glad if the hon. member will not make unnecessary use at this late stage of his right to discuss any subject, seeing that this is a matter which has already been disposed of.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing one of the most important Bills, namely the Appropriation Bill, and as far as I know it is customary to allow a very wide discussion which in effect covers the whole field of public affairs, or national affairs. Any infringement on this right would be an infringement on the rights of Members of Parliament.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

A wide discussion is in order, but not on subjects regarding which a decision has been taken during the Session.

*Mr. G. P. KOTZÉ:

Mr. Speaker, I shall accept your suggestion immediately and turn immediately to the crux of the matter. I want to emphasize that with the desert climate we have there, we can cultivate crops which are eminently suitable for the world market and which we also require in this country. I have referred to cotton. I can add crops such as lucerne, sultanas and wheat. Seeing that we have a long summer season, such as one finds in any irrigation area, it is obvious that our production rate is higher than in other parts of the country. It is sometimes said that the Orange River flows into the desert at Upington, but when I examine the position throughout the world I find that the greatest irrigation schemes of the world are in fact situated in dry areas. There is Tigris-Euphrates area in the Near East and the Indus River plain inthe East. The Colorado dam was also built in a dry area. What about the Nile River of Egypt where a whole nation with a very long history has been built on the irrigation works which are dependent on the waters of the Nile. Consequently, when we discuss the utilization of the waters of the Orange River as a long-term matter and as a national matter, we must regard it in that light, seeing that we find that the Egyptians as a nation for example…

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member has been asked not to cover such a wide field.

*Mr. G. P. KOTZÉ:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I shall come to the point at once. Hon. members has also urged that we should invest millions in the areas where the Natives live on the eastern border of our country. We are investing in education, we are investing in hospital services, and we are investing in agriculture. There is hardly any sphere in which we are not investing millions, but I have not yet heard one hon. member say that we should invest millions in the northwest. I shall therefore tell the House why I make this submission. I say that the waters of the Orange River should be utilized to further our racial policy. We know what the racial composition of the population of the Cape is, I shall give the House the figures showing the number of children attending school in the Cape to-day. There are approximately 201,000 White children, and approximately 616,000 non-White children. The Whites therefore only represent one-third of that total. It is quite clear that the sphere of influence of the White people and the Coloured people and the centre of those populations is on the western side of the country. But we find that the eastern side is continuously being emphasized. It is urged that millions should be invested in development. Has it not become time that we should invest millions in the Western side of our country so that the Western side can develop seeing that this is where the Whites and the Coloureds have their origins? Have we ever thought of the fact that by the year 2000 there will be just as many Coloureds as Whites? They are established in the western part of the country. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is always concerned about the fact that we have placed the Coloureds in the desert. I do not know whether she has ever been there. I can just tell her that the Whites have the poorest areas in the North-west. After the Coloureds had picked their areas, the Whites had to make do with what was left. I therefore hope that the hon. member for Houghton will support me in this regard.

Let us just consider the population growth since the establishment of the Union of South Africa. From 1910 to 1951 the percentages represented by the various population groups remained more or less constant. There were approximately 21 per cent Whites, 8 per cent Coloureds, 2 per cent Asiatics and 67 per cent Natives. But from 1951 to 1960 there came the change: 19.2 per cent Whites, 9.4 per cent Coloureds, 3 per cent Asiatics and 68.2 per cent Bantu. But it is estimated that by the year 2000 the Whites will only represent 14.1 per cent, the Coloureds 11.6 per cent and the Asiatics 4 per cent, while the Bantu by that time will be 69.8 per cent. In other words, by that time the Coloureds together with the Asiatics will outnumber the Whites. We now come to the point: If we must carry a greater population on the eastern side of the country for which provision has to be made, then we shall naturally also have a denser population on the western side of our country. But what I find strange is that no one ever refers to the western side of our country. We have a limited area of arable land on the western side of our country with the high percentage of arable land on the eastern side. What do we intend doing with the Whites and the Coloureds on the western side? What are our aims for them? As I see the position there are only two things which can be done to consolidate and to safeguard the position of the White man on the western side of the country, in order to retain the balance between the west and the east, namely the utilization of the only significant natural resources on the western side of the country, particularly in the north-west, in order to strengthen the population groups on the Western side of the country, i.e. the waters of the Orange River and the mineral wealth of the north-western areas. To the extent that we gradually take water for other purposes to the eastern side of the country, to that extent we are gradually throttling the development of the north-west and the western side of our country which is so essential for the strengthening of the population groups on the western side of the country, until we shall reach the stage where we shall be faced with a dense population on the western side of the country for which there will be no future. It may be racially conscious, but economically it will be in a weak position because we shall have deprived them of and we shall have utilized that which was their own, that which nature gave them, and we shall have given it to a part of the country which was well endowed by nature. We have a reasonable average rainfall towards the east, and a reasonably independent population to the east. But the further west we move the poorer the people, both White and non-White, become.

What must we do in the far-distant future? What natural resources must be utilized to balance this position? In the east we have railway lines; to the east we have tarred roads; there are diesel engines, doubled railway lines, electricity. Millions and millions of rand have been invested. During the past ten years more than £40,000,000 have been derived from the two mines on the west which have gone to those areas. The north-west has never been petty about it. You have never heard us complaining about it. We do not begrudge the development of the country one penny that we can contribute. But with a view to the acute racial problem in our country we can expect that something will also be done to stimulate the development of the north-west which will bring us industries, which will bring electricity, which will bring us roads and which will bring us means of communication, so that our economic position will balance that of the eastern part of the country. Would that be unsound? Would that be a bad national policy? I ask for the support of hon. members. We have all had our say in this House. I want to test this matter. Taking into account the intensified economic policy which the hon. the Prime Minister has announced, is it not time that the waters of the Orange River are utilized for the development of the western side of the country in order to safeguard our future livelihood? Not that we begrudge the Bantu races their livelihood, but I make the plea that we should safeguard ours together with theirs.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I am sure the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow on the theme developed by him. I do so not because I think he was out of bounds, but because I feel quite sure that he has dealt very well with the local problems and the local needs of the area which he represents. I think he has dealt adequately with the resources, especially soil and water, which nature in this country has provided for the agriculturalist. I will come back again to the needs of the agriculturalists and their difficulties. But let me first indicate that we are witnessing fast moving changes in every direction in South Africa, whether you like it or not. Moreover, whether we like it or not, it is now abundantly clear that things are likely to look as different a year hence as they did a year ago. Sir, we certainly have reached the roaring 1960’s, and unless we can keep abreast of the changes that are taking place around us—political, racial and economic—then inevitably they must overtake us. I wish to concentrate my remarks on the economic sphere and I wish to support those hon. members who from this side of the House pointed out the rate at which the economy of the country is slowing down. On 15 March 1961—South Africa’s fateful Ides of March—the hon. Minister of Finance commenced his Budget statement with some fine words. I know these words have already been quoted but I think they bear repetition, because this is what he said—

I shall begin by saying that our economy shows sparkling health and exceptional vitality.

Now, three months later, we are told that the country is in a serious state of economic uncertainty, with a grave shortage of liquid funds and a graver shortage of investment capital. All this uncertainty is due to the Government’s mishandling of the country’s political and economic problems. So serious is the position being regarded in financial circles, that it has been described as leading to nothing short of economic disaster. That was the position before last Friday, Sir, which was South Africa’s new Black Friday, when the hon. Minister announced his desperate steps in an endeavour to stop capital outflow from the country. Sir the Leader of this party has indicated that these steps amounted to dishonouring an obligation and that they were a breach of an undertaking given to foreign investors. Whether those steps are going to serve adequately the purpose for which they are designed, remains to be seen, but there can be no doubt about it at all that those steps have shattered confidence in South Africa. The country now finds itself in what has been very aptly described as “a state of economic siege”. There has been the sudden drying up of money in the hands of the banks and of the building societies. Financial reports indicate that the building societies, over the past few weeks, have had to sell, generally at a loss, some R8,000,000 of gilt-edged securities. Mortgage lending by building societies has virtually dried up. The Land Bank, which is a wholly owned Government institution, has also run dry and has had to turn off its lending tap. It is quite evident now that the failure of the recent loan issue by the Treasury, is as much the reason for the hon. Minister’s desperate control measures as the tumbling of our gold and foreign reserves. Recent reports are that during the week ended 16 June they tumbled a further R4.7 million and then stood at something like R142,000,000. Sir, the more rigid the control, the weaker becomes world confidence in South Africa. The financial world judges economic strength and stability not by how well or how rigidly enterprise is controlled in the country, but by how freely enterprise is permitted to operate in the country. Even before the new rigidity in currency control was announced, the mining industry had already been cut off from its normal sources of supply of capital from abroad. That industry remains the kingpin of our economy and will now, for the first time in its long history, have to rely on its own monetary resources to finance its capital developments and to finance further exploitation of the country’s mineral resources. This will, of course, bring about a chain reaction, because there will be a corresponding drying up of medium and short-term investment by mining companies through banks, the National Finance Corporation and other financial institutions.

I said once before during this Session, and I say again, that the disturbing consequence of the country’s difficulty, following upon its getting into an economic tight corner, will be the large-scale unemployment which is likely to arise in our urban areas. There are ominous signs already that this is beginning to happen.

And as unemployment grows, so will the level of retail trade drop and there will follow grave economic deterioration as the wheels of commerce and industry start to turn slower.

Admittedly there are theorists who claim that South Africa can live on its own economic fat and that there is no need for the further importation of capital from abroad. I do not want to go into this because it has already been dealt with, but if we reason along those lines, then, as someone has suggested, we can make a case also for stopping the importation of mechanical propelled vehicles on the score that South Africa can breed its own ox-power. But what will eventually happen in that case is, of course, that we will return to the pace of the ox.

I want to return however to the hon. Minister’s fine words expressed on 15 March when he assumed the role of a bio-economic diagnoser of the fiscal and monetary health of the country’s body economic. Sir, when I criticize the hon. Minister in this regard, I want to make it clear that there is nothing personal about it. But if a Minister chooses to guess aloud, and then guesses wrongly, he must obviously expect criticism for what he has said. Now this patient of his, on which he carried out his diagnosis, what did he get for his pains? The hon. Minister said firstly—

The beat of the heart is regular and strong, even under pressure.

I pause here to say that what he quite obviously was referring to was our gold and foreign exchange reserves. Then he found—

The blood circulation satisfactory.

Here I assume that he was dealing with the country’s liquid resources. Lastly he found—

The liver and the kidneys in fine shape.

Here he was referring to agriculture and secondary industry. I have time only to comment upon the hon. Minister’s diagnosis of the liver, and possibly of the kidneys. Most certainly, the hon. Minister should have been more cautious about the condition of the liver. Let us see what a specialist on that organ of the body has to say. I am referring to the Land Bank as a source of supply of capital for agricultural development. The Board of the Land Bank, in announcing in 1961 a new and sterner lending policy to farmers, had this to say in its most recent report—that is for 1960—

During May of the year under review, the Board floated a public loan of £10,000,000, at par, and at interest rates of 5.25 per cent for 10-year and 5.375 per cent for 15-year subscriptions. The response to the issue was disappointing and only £5,156,900 of which £4,495,000 was for 15-year debentures, was subscribed. Although sufficient cognisance was perhaps not taken of the rising tendency in long-term interest rates which was discernible even then, the lack of interest must be to the then prevailing conditions in the money market. Subsequent events did not improve the market, and the idea of offering a further issue later in the year was abandoned, although the Board, with the kind co-operation of the South African Reserve Bank, raised £6,000,000 in three-year debentures which were privately placed at an interest rate of 4.85 per cent during August last.

Then it sets out to outline its sterner lending policy for the future and says—

In view of the course of events, the Board since May last gradually revised its lending policy, and it is clear that for the present the Board will not be able to continue its liberal assistance, and that it will have to adapt its advances to the loans it is able to float. Inasmuch as an increase in long-term interest rates now appears to be unavoidable the Board will necessarily also have to review its own interest rates to farmers. As a matter of fact, this was foreshadowed last year.

This report is dated 7 February 1961 and must obviously, therefore, have been in the hands of the hon. Minister of Finance before he made his budget statement, and in which he described the condition of the liver as “in fine shape”,

That is, however, only one part of the story. I mentioned earlier that the Land Bank has had to turn off its lending tap. An examination of the financial statements of the Bank for 1959 and 1960 shows rather disturbing results. The main capital source of the Bank is no longer loan moneys appropriated by Parliament. Instead the Bank was given authority in 1958 to borrow on the open money market under Government guarantee. One result of this is that long-term borrowing has now very largely been replaced by short-term borrowing. The obvious reason for that is the inability of the Bank to raise sufficient long-term money in the local money market to meet the needs of the industry. Nevertheless, the sums advanced by the Bank on farm mortgage jumped from R10.2 million in 1958 to R63.1 million in 1959. A lending spree of that order could not continue. It had to come to an end out of sheer exhaustion in the shape of lack of funds. And that is precisely what has happened, because the tap has had to be turned off. That may be a convenient thing to do in order to get out of the financial difficulties, but it is certainly not good business, nor is it a healthy economic symptom for the industry itself, or for the country as a whole.

The second disturbing aspect of farm mortgage lending is equally serious and unsatisfactory. An analysis of the Bank’s operationfor 1959 and 1960 reflects the following results: Long-term lending to farmers exceeded long-term borrowing from the public by R26.2 million in 1959 and by R48 million in 1960. That in practice means that over two years the Bank was borrowing short and lending long to the extent of R74.2 million. That I regard, Sir, as a most unhealthy state of affairs. The Financial Mail comments as follows on this kind of financing to meet the needs of the farming community. Under the heading “Bad Practice”, it said—

The practice of borrowing short and lending long, is wholly bad. The danger is not that the bank might fail; that would never be allowed to happen. It is that as this short- and medium-term money matures, it may only be possible to replace it with much more expensive borrowing and in the end any increased cost of the Lank Bank’s own borrowing must be passed on to the farmers, who now face a sharp increase in loan charges. The Bank itself will rightly be blamed when that comes about, for it has enjoyed great advantages in the capital market. It enjoys a big block of government-owned capital on which the Treasury exacts a rate of return that is on average not excessive. It has favourable overdraft facilities with the Reserve Bank and the commercial banks. It issues Bills which are discountable at the Reserve Bank, and its stocks, already enjoying high investment status, are about to be made more acceptable to the Public Debt Commission. Yet in the 2½ years since the Land Bank has been cut free of its Treasury leading strings, it has raised only R9,000,000 of reasonably long-term debenture stock. The balance of that debenture borrowings, that is 43.3 million, are of five years or less.

The report then goes on to deal with some of the shorter term borrowings and ends by saying—

Money has not got cheaper; it has got much dearer and the farmers and co-operatives will now foot the bill. I

I think the position disclosed is positively alarming. It is positively misleading to describe this financial state of affairs of the agricultural industry as being “in fine shape”, to use the term which the hon. Minister has used. This House, and the country, are entitled to know what the truth is in regard to the capital financing of the agricultural industry.

This brings me to the matter which was raised by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) earlier, namely the serious financial position in which the Langeberg Co-operative Society finds itself. There is a dearth of Ministers in the House at this moment. I would have liked particularly the hon. Minister for Agricultural Economics and Marketing to be here because I think, in view of the facts which have been disclosed in this House in regard to this Co-operative Society, the House is entitled to an explanation of how the Government views this matter. Langeberg Co-operative Society has been described as an important exporter of canned fruit and as an earner of foreign currency for South Africa. Its weakness is now a matter of public concern and its present financial difficulties cannot be slurred over. There is therefore a very good reason why there should be an independent enquiry into the state of affairs of this cooperative society. That is why I wished that the hon. Minister for Agricultural Economy and Marketing had been here because my remarks should more appropriately have been directed to him so that he could give this House an indication of how the Government views this development, and why there should not be this enquiry by some competent and independent body to examine the position.

I come now, Sir, to the kidneys, that is, secondary industry. Most businessmen know that the hon. Minister was equally remiss in describing secondary industry as being “in fine economic shape”. No wonder that the hon. Prime Minister felt obliged to take a hand in the matter to try and formulate plans to bolster up a wilting industrial growth. In order to stimulate a stagnating economy, the hon. Prime Minister proposes to inject into it over a period of 12 years a capital sum of some R2,000,000,000. This, as hon. members know, was announced on his behalf to both Houses of Parliament by the State President on 5 June this year. What is in contemplation in some form of planned capital spending by certain Government-controlled undertakings, such as Iscor, Escom, Sasol and I assume also the S.A.B.C., now called Radio South Africa. In this regard, we are told that the envisaged capital projects will be financed “mainly from the funds possessed by these undertakings themselves”. Here, again, I am sorry that the hon. Minister for Economic Affairs is not present, because it is quite clear that my remarks should be directed to him. The hon. Minister of Finance indicated earlier on in the debate that he was not quite sure whether it was R1,000,000,000 or R2,000,000,000. It seems to me to be quite a mistake and a case of guessing again and guessing wrongly. It is for that reason that I would have liked to have addressed my remarks in this connection to the hon. Minister for Economic Affairs. What is being contemplated is not something which is entirely new. A similar sort of announcement was made last year, but after the establishment of the Republic, there was rethinking about the matter and the total capital spending has gone up from R1,000,000,000 to R2,000,000,000 which the hon. Minister of Finance overlooked. On paper this scheme is commendable and everybody would like to see it get under way. Blueprints of that kind are, however, easilyprepared. What this House, and I am sure also the country, would like to know, is where the money is to come from. The envisaged programme would demand an annual capital outlay of R166,000,000 over a period of 12 years. If the money is to come mainly from funds possessed by the undertakings themselves, then the immediate cash resources of these undertakings must be sufficient not only to start the projects, but also to finance them for the first few years at least. Let us see what the position is in this regard and let us start with Sasol which has been in operation for 10 years. Sasol with a share capital outlay of £48,000,000, showed in 1960 for the first time a profit of £381,000. (I quote £ because the accounts are drawn up in £.) It is quite obvious, therefore, that no reserves have been built up and that this undertaking still has to operate on a hand-to-mouth basis. It is also obvious, therefore, that no capital contribution from this source can be expected now or in the immediate future. I come next to Escom which is a very well-administered undertaking but one which is prohibited by law from making profits. Escom happens, however, to be a taker and not a supplier of capital funds. Less than two months ago it raised a loan of R16,000,000 to finance its capital needs. It admittedly has a redemption fund and also a betterment fund but it has no spending reserves. In the nature of this undertaking it cannot have such reserves because both the betterment fund and the redemption fund are provided for specific purposes and must be so employed.

I come next to the S.A.B.C. This undertaking is also a borrower and not a lender. It can, therefore, make no capital contribution to this scheme. Parliament during this Session granted an appropriation of R1.7 million to this body as a loan in order to enable it to finance its immediate capital requirements. As everyone knows, Parliament has also recently given this body the power to raise funds by way of debenture stock. Only yesterday provision was made for exemption of this body from stamp duties in regard to these debentures. That leaves Iscor, which has been in operation for 31 years and which, admittedly, is in good financial standing. It made a net profit of £11.5 million in 1959-60 against a net profit of £8,000,000 in the previous year. Its general reserve account stood at £44.8 million at 30 June 1960. On paper that is a very substantial reserve, but the bulk of that sum is being used and has to be used as working capital—it has to be used for stocks and for work in progress. The cash resources at 30 June were therefore below £16,000,000. There was actually a drop in cash resources last year as compared with the previous year because at the end of June 1959, this figure stood at £24,000,000. It is obvious that during last year some £8,000,000 of Iscor’s capital resources were used for capital expenditure to meet its own recent development programme. This £15/16,000,000 admittedly can go some way, but only a short way, in financing an annual outlay of R166,000,000. Admittedly too profits will continue to increase with Iscor over the 12 years, but if Iscor is to be the main source of capital supply, then the rate at which its annual profits will have to be stepped up to meet the capital requirements of the scheme, is completely outside the bounds of possibility. The rate of progress will have to be such as to provide a net profit of £150,000,000 in 12 years’ time. That is so obvious a case of wishful planning. I say therefore, the country should not be bluffed in this way in regard to this R2,000,000,000 million scheme over 12 years. Unless these undertakings have hidden reserves on which to draw, where are the funds to come from? If they have hidden reserves, then the hon. Minister should disclose that to the House; if not, then all I can say is that the country is being fooled. If my analysis of the present financial state is incorrect, and if I am wrong, then I invite the hon. Minister to correct me. But if I am not wrong. Sir, then the whole scheme is a colossal mirage. It is a complete phantasy to say R2,000,000.000 will come “mainly from funds possessed by the undertakings themselves”. I underline the word “possessed”. I specially underline the word “possessed”, which, if it has any meaning means held now in some tangible and liquid form.

Mr. WATERSON:

Either that or the Minister is possessed.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

Well, I think not only the Minister but possibly the Government is possessed—possessed with an obsession, and we know what the obsession is. I shall come back to it. But “possessed” certainly does not mean this airy-fairy accumulation at some time to come.

Sir, this is a serious matter. Not only has there been an official statement sometime during the last year, but there was a very formal statement made to both Houses of Parliament as recently as 5 June 1961, when this scheme of R1,000,000.000 was stepped up to R2,000,000,000. That is a serious matter and I think the country is entitled to more information. The hon. the Minister might have the answers, and that is precisely why I am asking him the question. I think he should give us the answers because they are certainly not disclosed in the financial statement of the undertakings themselves, nor have I ever seen anybody associated with these undertakings make any announcement to confirm the Government’s statement.

I said at the beginning of my speech that the current serious economic position has to be laid at the door of this Government’s racial policy. The Government’s apartheid policy, to my mind, is like the Dodo. Modern history will record about it exactly what one, William Cuppy recorded about the Dodo when he wrote this—

The Dodo never had a chance. He seems to have been invented for the sole purpose of becoming extinct, and that was all he was good for.
*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

When one listens to the prosperity stones which various hon. members opposite, and particularly the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, have told us, and particularly when one listens to the attacks made on anyone who dares to say anything to the contrary, one wonders what will be the final fate particularly of the farmers in our country. Especially when one has heard the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) in which he has just outlined the position of the Land Bank and the speech of the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) dealing with the Langeberg Koöperasie, then one wonders what the final fate of the farmers of this country will be.

Mr. Speaker, the farmers of South Africa are exceeding one record after the other. They are reaching one new achievement after the other. We are given the most striking statistics, and when we take into account the individual efforts made by the farmers, the energy with which they care for their farming interests, one can come to only one conclusion, and that is that the farmers as such, man for man are doing better than they have ever done before. Having said that, one would expect that they would be economically prosperous. But despite what I have said, namely, that the farmers man for man are doing better and better, it is nevertheless a fact that it is quite impossible for the farmers to make ends meet.

The production statistics tell a story of wonderful achievements. I have already said so, and when one reads the annual report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing—the latest one available to us is for 1959-60—one finds that the physical volume of agricultural production has been steadily increasing. Thus we find that, between 1952-3 and 1959-60, the index figure for agricultural production as a whole rose from 149 to 185. This is indeed a remarkable rise. The gross value of agricultural production has also increased tremendously, that is to say, by R18.3 million in one year, so that by 1959-60 it stood at R384,000,000—when one takes all this into account, then one would expect the farmers to be prosperous. But when one investigates the position a little further and one studies the prices received by the producers of agricultural products, one finds a different picture. In the year 1952-3 the index figure for mealies, for example, was 316. By 1959-60 it had fallen to 307. In the case of ground nuts it stood at 371 in 1953 and by 1960 it was 343. As regards the index figure for wool it was 624 in 1953 and has fallen to 433. In the case of poultry and poultry products it has fallen from 231 to 229. That is not such a great fall.

During this same period one finds that the implements, spare parts, fuel, etc., and lorries which the farmer requires have all risen in price so that in 1953 the index figure for ordinary implements was 271, and it has risen to 302. In the case of spare parts it has shot up from 284 to to 315. In the case of lorries the position is still worse—it has risen from 338 to 391. In the case of tractors it has risen from 250 to 269, and in the case of fuel from 190 to 206. When we take these figures into account we begin to see that the picture which has been described here is really not all that correct, and that most farmers, as I have said, are finding it difficult to make ends meet.

Mr. Speaker, the simple fact of the matter is that the financial position of the farmers at the moment is disquieting and I am sorry that, although farming interests have been discussed during the past hour, not one of the responsible Ministers has been present. They have been absent all day, and it seems to me that they are not taking the slightest interest in this debate.

*An HON. MEMBER:

They are busy with farmers.

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

The hon. member says they are busy with farmers. I can believe that they are perhaps busy with farmers. Perhaps they are persuading those farmers to vote for them at the next election. Perhaps the difficulties of the farmers are so great that they have to pay attention to individual farmers and that then do not have time to give their attention to matters of greater national importance. The truth is that the farmers owe millions of pounds to the State and private persons, and that they have incurred these debts during a period of rising incomes, and that these debts now have to be repaid during a period of declining net income. That is the truth. The farmer must be a superman to-day to make a living. He has to be a works manager, a factory manager, a technologist, an economist, a mechanic, and, then above all, he must have the superhuman ability, while he is producing more and more, to manage with less and less. I have said that during this period of rising expenditure the farmer has to be satisfied with a falling entrepreneur’s wage, and my hon. friend opposite, who is so ready to make interjections, knows better than anyone else in what difficult circumstances the farmers find themselves. I shall not be surprised if he is not in the same difficulties himself. Nor will it surprise me if he feels very concerned about the co-operative society in he is interested.

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

It is a good co-operative society.

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

In 1959 the State advanced to the farmers the largestamount it has ever made available in one year. During that one year the Land Bank lent £32,500,000 to the farmers, the farmers Assistance Board £4,750,000 and the Emergency Loan Board £250,000. Of this gigantic amount of £43,500,000, £31,000,000 was used to redeem debts. Only £12,500,000 represented new capital. Mr. Speaker, when one takes into account the fact that during the preceding year the Land Bank granted loans totalling £22,000,000 to farmers, one sees that during this period of 18 months, as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has said, the gigantic amount of £63,50.0,000 had to be used to keep the farmers on their farms.

*Mr. VOSLOO:

A good Government.

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

When I say that, I can add that the figures which I have just given, do not reflect the correct position. There are factors effecting the economic prosperity of the farmers which should receive serious attention. I want to mention one or two of the difficulties facing the farmers. I want to discuss the citrus industry which last year experienced a disastrous collapse of its export market. Last year the Citrus Board exported 9,878,000,000 boxes of citrus, but despite that fact the citrus farmers found themselves in an unprecedented economic position. The fact of the matter is that oranges to-day are the cheapest fruit which one can buy in our country. Not one of these farmers knows what the future will bring for the citrus industry and what the position on the export market will be in the near future. This year we find oranges being sold on the local market which are in excellent condition and one can only come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the export market, that serious difficulties are once again facing the citrus industry.

The poor meat farmers do not know whether they are coming or going.

*Mr. MARTINS:

How can you say that?

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

We have had the abolition of the permit system, and as a result the stock farmers are right back where they were before the first meat board was established. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom knows nothing about it and as far as I know he has sold his farm and I do not know whether he has already bought another one. Then I come to the mealie industry. We must definitely expect a world record mealie crop. There is a record production in the United States and a record production in the Soviet Union. It is expected that the mealie crop this year will be 44 per cent higher than the average for the period 1950-4. It is estimated at 128,000,000 tons. That is 3,000,000 tons more than last year.

*An HON. MEMBER:

A good Government.

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

That poor hon. member did not even hear me refer to the United States and the Soviet Union. He says it is a good Government. Perhaps I agree with him that the United States has a good Government. I am not quite sure about the Soviet Union; perhaps the hon. member knows more about them than I do. In South Africa a crop of 46,000,000 bags is expected, while last year it was 41,000,000 bags. But the difficulty in this regard is that the consumption of mealies has remained constant since 1955. Seeing that we had a surplus last year, we shall have 5,000,000 bags more this year which we will have to dispose of.

At the outset I said that the farmer was producing more and more. One can only say that he is doing his best to an ever-increasing extent, but in this instance he has had to be satisfied for years past with an entrepreneur’s wage of 9s. 2d. per bag. It has definitely remained the same, although the costs of production have risen. However, the cost of production figures which the department takes into account have remained unchanged. In the meantime the cost of living is continually rising. When one considers the position of the producers of fresh fruit, the position in the dairy industry, the position of the wattle bark farmers, of the pineapple producers, of the sugar farmers, of the poultry farmers and of the onion producers, one asks oneself what attention the Government is giving to the difficulties of all these farmers. Mr. Speaker, I want to state clearly that the only reaction which one has had from hon. members opposite in the past is that they have said that hon. members on this side are crying over the unfortunate position in which the farmers find themselves. We have now been pointing out to the Government for the past three or four years that the farmers’ financial position requires attention, and the only reaction we have had has been to make loans available to farmers in order to keep them on their farms. I want to say quite clearly that the £63,500,000 which the Government has spent has not been spent to improve the position of the farmers but simply to keep them on their farms. When one takes into account the fact that in the past commissions have been appointed and have submitted reports, and that it is already some years since a report was laid on the Table dealing with the depopulation of the platteland, one wonders why the Government is doing so little in respect of these matters. This report points out that prior to the last difficulties, the platteland was becoming denuded of Whites. While there were 163,000 White farmers in 1921 there were 137,000 in 1951. This commission quite clearly indicates the reasons. It states quite clearly—

The commission agrees that the land will eventually be owned by him that cultivates it in the sweat of his brow; and the commission is convinced that, if the tide does not turn and the growth of non-White preponderanceon the White platteland continues, this state of affairs will in the end hold out a serious threat to White civilization in this country.

The commission goes on to say—

From personal observation and after weighing all the evidence at its disposal, the commission has come to the conclusion that the main reasons for rural depopulation and the exodus from the farms are of economic origin.
*Mr. M. DE LA R. VENTER:

And why are the land prices still rising?

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

That hon. member is living in a dream world. Land prices have not risen but have fallen in the Union during the past two years. A farmer can hardly sell his farm to-day. The fact of the matter is that land is hardly changing hands to-day. Farms are remaining in the hands of present owners, except in those cases where farmers are bought out. A farmer who wants to sell and who wants to get a decent price for his farm cannot do so.

I have asked what the Government are doing about this matter. What are they doing about this commission’s report dealing with the depopulation of the platteland? What is the Government doing to attract more farmers to the platteland? The Commission says clearly that depopulation of the platteland is a threat to White civilization, and hon. members opposite are always telling us that they are the guardians of White civilization. What is the Government doing about the provision of credit to the farmers? What is the Government doing to assist the farmers? In 1949 777 farmers applied for assistance to be able to buy land; 228 were assisted. In 1949-50 there were 4,644 applications of which only 150 were placed on land. In 1957-8 when this Government had been in power for ten years, there were 1,755 applications, of which exactly 87 were placed. I want to compare those figures with the position in 1947 when 313 were placed. That is more than have been assisted at any time during the National Party’s regime. During the 11 years of the regime of the National Party there have been 23,586 application for assistance in acquiring land, and those applications have been rejected. There were 23,500 people who wanted to go to the platteland and who could not do so because this Government did not have the money to help them obtain land.

I have asked what the Government is doing about the provision of credit. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has pointed out that even the Land Bank is drying up. The farmers are finding that industry represents a more attractive investment field for any private person than the agricultural industry. One wonders where the money is to be found for agricultural development. We are always being told that the farmers must farm scientifically. When I say that, I want to refer particularly to the various motions which the House has considered during this Session. During the years that I have been in this House, I have never seen so many motions dealing with farming interests before the House than during this year, which is surely a clear indication that no matter how hon. members opposite may try to conceal it, they are nevertheless concerned about the farmers. It is said that the farmers must farm more scientifically. To do so money is needed. To do so implements are required. The farmer’s labour is expensive and scarce. To be able to farm more scientifically, he must be able to mechanise to a greater extent. I have asked what the Government intends doing about providing funds to the farmers. A report dealing with the provision of credit to the agricultural industry has been submitted. Not one Minister has even referred to that report. They have simply maintained a deathly silence. I simply want to say here that the National Party is spreading a false story of prosperity, and I want it on record. Mr. Speaker, I say here that the Government is sacrificing the prosperity of the farmers on the altar of its ideologies, that there is a period of stagnation in the economy, and that this economic retrogression will effect the farmers first.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

Give us the figures.

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

The hon. member has been hearing the figures all afternoon. Mr. Speaker would call to order for tedious repetition if I were to go through them again. I have already said that when one discusses the difficulties of the farmers, the Nationalists say that this is a boring sob story. When we discuss coming difficulties, it is said that we are sabotaging South Africa. We find that during this debate hon. members opposite have even issued threats. Thus we find the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) for example saying that the chairman of the great financial houses who use their annual meetings to express criticisms, will have to be silenced. In the same way the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) has referred to a cold war which is being waged against South Africa when people say that we are experiencing economic difficulties. The same member threatened the commercial banks by saying that a certain control should be taken from them. On 15 March, the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to a robust and sparkling economy, but at that time he did not tell us that the position was deteriorating. He then referred to new investment capital which South Africa was attracting.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I said the most dangerous aspect was the outflow of capital.

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

At that time you did not refer to an outflow and a danger.You then referred to a robust and sparkling economy. The hon. the Minister says so many things that he can no longer remember what he said on what date.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

And you only read half of it.

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

On 15 March he referred to a robust and sparkling economy, and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has already dealt with that in the greatest detail when he showed how the hon. the Minister referred to a lively and robust economy, and compared it to a human patient. The hon. member has shown in the greatest detail how that patient is no longer lively, robust and sparkling, but sickly. Last Friday we heard a different story from the Minister of Finance. Then it was a question of far-reaching restrictions. In January it was a good thing to buy South African shares abroad. Now it is an offence. The fact is that overdrawn accounts and loans are unobtainable today in the private sector. If they are unobtainable to the ordinary man, then I ask what the position of the farmer is going to be, the farmer who to such a large extent is already tied to the Land Bank. I have mentioned the funds of the Land Bank. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister will tell us in detail what the future plans of the Land Bank are and what hope the farmer has of obtaining any financial assistance from it. I have said that difficulty is being experienced as regards the repayment of loans which are falling due. The farmers are faced with falling incomes and also declining markets. Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this Government is sacrificing the financial position of the farmers for the sake of ideological plans and aims which it has for this country. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis) has said this afternoon that they are sending out thousands of forms to people in which doubt is expressed as to whether they are Whites. This Government has time to deal with such petty matters and to cause heartbreak in this country and to allow matters to reach a stage where the Land Bank has to lend £63,500,000 to farmers in a period of 18 months. But this Government does not have time to seek new markets and to tell us where we can sell our products. During this period of falling incomes and difficulties, the farmer will be the first to feel the pinch, because we shall have difficulty in selling our products. I want to take this opportunity to tell the Government once again that it is time they gave more attention to the farmer and his needs and less to ideology.

*Mr. VOSLOO:

If I remember my history correctly, the first farmer in South Africa was a woman, one of the sturdy mothers of our nation, Antjie Somers. While we listened to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) I wondered what the attitude of Antjie Somers was when her first holding was allotted to her so that she could farm and whether it was similar to that of the hon. member for Drakensberg. I do not think so. I do not think that she indulged in complaints and jeremiads. Her task was to show the D.E.I.C. that farming was a profitable industry provided one took off one’s coat and did one’s work. But I shall come back to the hon. member for Drakensberg a little later in my speech.

I am glad the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) is here. I want to refer to his speech. I do not like praising any member, but in considering his speech, one must examine the hon. member’s background for a moment. The hon. member is one of the persons whom I am sure is just as little filled with racial hatred as I or any member on this side of the House. As a matter of fact, in King William’s Town itself where I know the Nationalists and the Afrikaners well, he is someone who stands in the highest regard. I know that it is even difficult for a Nationalist to stand against the hon. member for election because he is held in such high regard. But it was a painful experience for me to hear even that hon. member dragging a racial matter into this debate. I am sorry that the hon. member has allowed himself to be so influenced by certain groups of people as to make himself guilty of this crime of which many of his party colleagues are guilty. One just wonders whether the hon. member did not have to do so in order to prove his loyalty to certain elements within that party because there may be an election this year and because he thought that there might be others who could play the racial drums louder than he has done in the past.

At this time, after the establishment of the Republic, when we are all inspired with the great ideal of building a nation in South Africa with its two languages, cultures and traditions, but with one single loyalty to South Africa alone, it is painful to hear racial hatred being aroused. I was in the hon. member’s constituency during the referendum last year. I addressed a few meetings there. I thought that I had rendered a service even to the English-speaking people of that area. I was disappointed by certain things which happened there. We had a republican agent, a very good friend and relation of mine, namely Mr. Hendrik Coetzer, a very fine young man. As we all did, Mr. Coetzer also circulated the personal letter which the Prime Minister addressed to the voters, but his difficulty was, as it was mine, that as a result of printing troubles our Afrikaans copies of that letter arrived before the English copies were available. Consequently, as I did, he posted Afrikaans letters to English-speaking persons. I am not quoting this example because I want to engender racial hatred or because I want to do anything harmful to my English-speaking friends, but I want to quote this example to show the hon. member for King William’s Town how great his task and my task in South Africa still is if we are to achieve this aim of national unity. Mr.Coetzer also posted such a letter to someone in Stutterheim and if the hon. member asks me for the name and address of the person, I shall give it to him. I am even prepared to do so in the House, but I do not think it would be fair to do so. This is, however, someone the hon. member knows very well. This is the answer Mr. Coetzer received. It was posted in Stutterheim on 22 September 1960—

Dear Mr. Coetzer, Verwoerd’s insulting letter has been received through the medium of yourself. Will you kindly convey to the writer of the letter my disgust at his impertinence in writing to me personally as a friend and secondly in a bastard language and by insulting my intelligence by suggesting that I can be swayed, as perhaps may be the case with one of his “bywoner” friends. Your misleading statement that the polling booth will be open for two hours only from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m.…

And all of us can understand that this was a typing error, seeing that he meant from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.—

… is yet another of the deceitful methods adopted by my so-called friend Verwoerd and his satellites. The fact that the letter was left open to avoid the payment of 3d. postage is another example of depriving the Government of its lawful revenue. Forever your bitter enemy…

I shall not read the name. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is asking why I am raising these matters. It is because I simply cannot express myself strongly against the incitement of racial feelings in South Africa.

Mr. WARREN:

Seeing that that gentleman has been attacked, may I make a very brief statement on the matter?

*Mr. VOSLOO:

I thought the hon. member wanted to ask a question, but I do not think it is fair to interrupt me now. [Interjections.]

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

The hon. member may continue.

*Mr. VOSLOO:

I am mentioning this because one again I want to make an appeal to the English-speaking people in heaven’s name to stop this type of racial hatred which is being aroused in South Africa for political gain. [Interjections.]

Mr. WARREN:

Is the hon. member aware of the fact that that person was courteous enough to apologize to him for all the things he said in that letter?

*Mr. VOSLOO:

No, I am not aware of the fact that this person apologized for his deplorable behaviour.

Mr. WARREN:

And I agree with you.

*Mr. VOSLOO:

I am glad to hear the hon. member agrees that these are not the methods we should use, and if he will use all his resources, I shall also use all mine to eradicate this kind of hatred.

I now want to come back to the hon. member for Drakensberg.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Why are you wasting our time?

*Mr. VOSLOO:

The hon. member asks why I am wasting time. Is it not of importance that we should eradicate this sort of thing root and branch if we want to build a nation.

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

For every one case you can give, I can give far more on the other side.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member for Salt River must stop making interjections.

*Mr. VOSLOO:

I shall not say any more on this point, but I also want to tell the hon. member for Salt River that he too must devote all his energies to this task, and I am prepared to do the same in order to eradicate this type of thing.

I now want to come back to the hon. member for Drakensberg. What does she want to do and what does the United Party want to do with the farmer of South Africa? We have seen these methods which she has used ever since the first day of the Session when they gave notice of a motion of no confidence in the Government, i.e. of putting forward a whole lot of complaints and saying how terribly badly the farmers are faring. The hon. member for Drakensberg has taken it upon herself to give figures showing how prosperous the farmers were during the period 1952-4 and later. Does she not realize that even at that time a National Party Government was in power? But now she wants to compare the position which prevailed at that time with the position in 1960 and 1961. She then gave the figures reflecting our income from wool, what the price of wool was at that time and what it is to-day, and she claims that it is the National Party Government’s fault that the market has fallen. Is the hon. member living in a fool’s paradise when she tells me that it is the Government’s fault that the wool market shot up during the period from 1952 to 1955 and has now fallen to 36d. during the past season? That is the fault of the world market and not of the Government. She has asked what the Government is doing. Does she not know what is being done by the Wool Board which the Government supports, and which is in the first place the organization which is responsible for seeking better markets for our wool? Does she not know of the international conferences which have been held to discusshow the use of wool can be promoted? Is she not aware of the publicity which is being made for wool so that wool does not need to bow before the tremendous competition from synthetic fibres? Does she not know of the research which is being undertaken in this regard and the attempts being made to establish an international organization which will lay down a minimum price for wool which will be an economic price? We in South Africa have already laid down a minimum price and when that price is not reached, the Wool Commission through powers given it by legislation of this Parliament buys in wool. The necessary co-operation has been achieved with New Zealand which has a similar scheme. Is it this Government’s fault that it has not yet been possible to persuade Australia to participate in a similar scheme? No, the hon. member has simply made a lot of cheap remarks. This is the same party which through the hon. member for Drakensberg has had so much to say because the two Ministers of Agriculture have not been present, but how many members sitting over there are people who earn one single cent from farming? At the moment there are only three members of the United Party and four Progressives, but not one of them is a farmer.

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

Where is the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture? It is ridiculous.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order!

*Mr. VOSLOO:

That is the party which takes such a great interest in the troubles of the farmers, but it has only three representatives listening to agricultural debates, and they started this debate, not us. [Interjections.] The hon. member has had a great deal to say about the citrus industry. I represent a constituency which is one of the greatest citrus producing areas in South Africa and some of the best citrus is produced in that area. After listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Drakensberg, we can only make one inference, namely that she knows nothing about the citrus industry; otherwise she would not say that the citrus market has collapsed and that this Government has done nothing about it. Everyone who knows anything about citrus knows that the industry is based on the foreign market and is dependent on world prices. Last year the position was such for various reasons which I have given in a previous debate that the citrus market collapsed, but is it this Government’s fault that Britain last year did not pay the same price for citrus as before and that surplus citrus from other countries was dumped on the London market? But then she asks what the Government is doing to seek other markets for the products of our farmers. Are the Opposition Rip van Winkels? Do they not know about the trade missions which have been sent abroad to seek new markets? Do they not know of our ambassadors throughout the world who are seeking new markets for us? But because they expect that there may be an election this year and because they know that the farmers have experienced a drought and that we are living in a period when there is a falling tendency in the prices of primary products throughout the world, they want to see whether there are not a few dissatisfied farmers who will vote for the United Party. Mr. Speaker, I know the farmer. The farmer knows his job. He knows what his obligations and his problems are. But there is one political party which he knows as well as he knows his difficulties, and that is the United Party. He knows what the attitude of the United Party Governments towards him has been over the years. He knows how his meat was requisitioned and how no attempt was made to find new markets for him. They can forget about getting support from the farmers. My time is nearly up and I just want to refer to one other point.

The hon. member for Drakensberg who is so concerned about what is happening under this Government says in the same breath that the mealie crop this year is 46,000,000 bags as compared with 41,000,000 bags last year, and then she complains in the same breath that the entrepreneur’s wage is still practically the same as last year. But she also says that our domestic consumption is remaining constant. That is not correct, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that she is correct. If she is concerned about the domestic consumption, I assume that she wants it to be increased, and how does she intend increasing it if she wants the entrepreneur’s wage to be raised because then the price would after all rise automatically since the surplus must be exported at a loss in order to keep the domestic market constant. How does she reconcile these two aspects? No, she is merely revealing her ignorance to the farmers by using this type of argument to the effect that the entrepreneur’s wage must be raised but the domestic consumption must also be increased because we have no control over the foreign market and that is where we must sell our surplus. The mere fact that she mentions the 46,000,000 bags as compared with the 41,000,000 bags of last year and then says that we are not ensuring that the farmer is prosperous destroys her whole argument.

I want to conclude. There are factors which are making matters difficult for the farmers, for example climatic conditions, foreign markets and international repercussions, but the farmer is not prepared to sell his birthright for a mesh of pottage, and he is not prepared to accept the United Party with its disastrous policy which must eventually result in the White man losing his control over South Africa in order perhaps to earn a few extra cents. The farmer would like to make an honest and honourable living but he also has another ideal. He wants to keep South Africa White and he appreciates that this can only be done bymaking this National Party Government ever stronger and that is why he has been consistently doing so at every opportunity he has had since 1948 up to 1961 and if we do hold an election, he will prove this clearly once again. I hope I shall have the opportunity to come confirm this next year.

Mr. MILLER:

One would have imagined that the desire of the Government side of the House to make an appeal for unity might have resounded through the nation with one voice, instead of which we have heard very many voices presenting this appeal for unity in very many ways and some very peculiar ways. When one compares the viewpoint of the last speaker and his apparently earnest appeal with that of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) and one or two other speakers on that side, what sense of unity is one to assume they wish to present to the country? What is the purpose of the appeal when in that appeal there is so much bitterness and unpleasantness and criticism always of the conduct of this side of the House and of the English-speaking people? Sir, there is a desire for unity in this country, greater even than the appeals on the Government side indicate, and I think one can say categorically that if there is failure to achieve unity it is due to the policies of the Government side and their constant provoking of conflicts of opinion between the two White sections of the country in order particularly to present red herrings to the public to keep them in power. As soon as there is the possibility of discussions on a high level, you constantly get the granite stand which has become the pattern for every level of discussion. There has never been at any time a greater desire to do something for the benefit of South Africa and for all sections of the community, but whenever such an effort is made that effort is immediately spurned. I remember yesterday or the day before the manner in which the business people of the country were severely taken to task because they had the impertinence to introduce in their annual reports some comment on the state of the country.

An HON. MEMBER:

That is tedious repetition.

Mr. MILLER:

I just want to draw attention to one or two of the comments made with regard to the desire of people to do something for the benefit of the country. I read from one report which says this—

Engendered by a love of South Africa, my most earnest desire is to ensure that your society and its associated companies play their fullest part in helping to attain our nation’s great destiny in keeping with the noble ideals of the many great men of honour and fame who were its founders.

Then this further statement—

I have the utmost confidence in our country’s ultimate future.

That is one businessman who commands some £50,000,000 to £60,000,000 of capital invested in this country. Then you get another speaker who says this—

The establishment of a republic in South Africa should present no obstacles to the solution of the problems which I have outlined for I am confident that those who have with pride and loyalty served this country’s interests during the 50 years of union will continue to do so under the Republic.
I would go further and express the hope that under the regime now established the Government for its part will set this country upon the path of international rehabilitation by initiating on a true national basis a system of consultation and discussion such as I have advocated.

In other words the business people in this country have one objective and that is the goodwill and the future prosperity of our country. Another businessman says this—

But in spite of all the mistakes and missed opportunities of the past, there are undoubtedly great resources of goodwill.

The first speaker was the chairman of the African Life Assurance Society Ltd., the second was the chairman of the General Mining Finance Corporation Ltd. and the third the chairman of the Anglo American Corporation of S.A. Ltd. These three companies probably represent hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds, in fact I would go so far as to say there must be £2,000,000,000 of capital tied up in these companies, companies which give employment on a large scale to people of this country. They play a very big part in the development of South Africa and they have enabled South Africa to reach the financial standing that they have to-day. These people who preach goodwill in the interests of their own investors and in the interest of the country, who preach that there should be a greater measure of goodwill and co-operation find that their views are spurned by that side of the House. Other views expressed on this side of the House in the interests of unity are spurned and criticized as we have heard over the last few days. As soon as there is any suggestion of a measure of compromise which, after all, is the art of good government, it is immediately spurned by that side of the House. Sir, we have just heard the hon. member for Somerset West (Mr. Vosloo) challenge an English-speaking member on this side of the House and challenge the community generally that we should show a change of heart and build our Republic on the basis of love and affection and respect for our language and culture and tradition, and that we should do everythingin our power to build up a united nation. But, Sir, just listen to the various comments and interjections when anyone tries to analyse these appeals for unity. One is met with jeers from that side of the House. That is the response to valuable suggestions put forward from this side.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

Tell us about the good things in life.

Mr. MILLER:

There is no question that the Government side of the House is prepared to remain in power even at the expense of unity. If they wish to make an appeal for unity they have to realize that the opinions of all people in the country must be taken into account. You cannot have unity on the terms of one section only; you cannot have compromise on the terms of one section only. You have to take into account the viewpoint of all the people who helped to build up the country and who play an important part not only in the material but also in the spiritual and cultural life of the country and the community. These businessmen to whom I have referred have all played their part, not only in making certain suggestions as to how the country’s affairs should be run but have actually endeavoured to play an important part. Some years ago when the hon. the Minister of Labour was challenged with regard to the minimum wage for unskilled labour in this country, he said that it was no concern of the Minister of Labour or of the Government, that it was a matter that concerned only the commercial and industrial entrepreneur, that the Government could give no lead; in fact, that the Government was not concerned with it because it was not prepared to advise businessmen how to run their affairs. A couple of years later when the matter became of greater moment, when the Government became somewhat more conscious or was obliged to become conscious of the problems facing the country, the Minister of Economic Affairs said that he felt that it was right that minimum wages should be improved and brought to a very much higher level to meet the demands in the country. But he said that he was not prepared to suggest that the Government itself should give a lead; that the lead should be taken by industrialists and the commercial people of the country. But he said that the Government supported the idea, that the Government believed that it was right that that should take place. The extraordinary thing is this that in other countries such as a sister Republic, the United States of America, the question of minimum wages for the unskilled worker is a very important factor. In fact, in the initial message of the new President to Congress, he advocated an improvement in unskilled wages by 25 per cent. A Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives and thereafter into the Senate to give effect to that. Speakers there said that it would take anything up to four years to bring about the overall improvement to the many millions who would benefit by it, but the President said that he had no fear and the American Parliament passed the Bill. He said that he had no fear of inflation, which was one of the fears expressed by Government speakers when the motion of unskilled wages was debated in this House. He said he had no fear with regard to inflation, with regard to unemployment and with regard to the destruction of the economy of the country; that in any sound economy can absorb an increase in cost because it would bring with it tremendous additional spending power internally, which would improve the consumers’ market in the country and give a much healthier and better citizen. As has been quoted in another context, that increase of a rand or two in cost would bring in its wake immeasurable benefits that would far outweigh the greater expenditure now facing the country because of the inability of this huge mass of unskilled workers to live decently and to maintain a good standard of health and to give the production which the country requires. In this sense these great industrialists to whom I have referred have made a big contribution to the welfare of the country. They have of their own accord in the last 18 months infused a further £30,000,000 into the improvement of wages in order to try to reach the ultimate figure of £70,000,000 to £80,000,000 per annum. That £30,000,000 per annum is not only going into the pockets of the worker but it is going from the pockets of the worker into the spending power of the country, into general circulation. It is bringing about better production and an improvement in the living standards of the workers. Sir, I would like to say this with regard to this question of production. The hon. member who earlier in the Session introduced this motion on the question of unskilled wages referred to an organization known as the Bantu Wages and Productivity Association. This association is composed of persons who all represent big and important industries in this country. They are spending money on publicity and public relations to educate the industrialist and the commercial man on the methods to be used to improve productivity and to make better use of labour. That is something which the Government itself should be doing. Here we are facing a financial situation which can only be improved if we improve the productivity of the workers. We are imposing import controls which means that the South African will be called upon to buy his own country’s production, so it is essential to improve the productivity of the worker; it is essential to improve his standards and to bring a greater number of people into the productive life of the country. Instead of a private body of men undertaking this important task it should be the duty of the Government to give a lead in this direction; to set up some organization for this purpose; to encourage the imposition of a minimum wage at a level which would be nearer a civilized standard of living. Sir, Australiahas an economy which is very similar to ours; agriculturally it produces the same types of goods as we do; she also produces minerals, and if a country like Australia can give a lead through its Government in the matter of a minimum wage for the unskilled worker, why are we afraid to do it.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

Thirteen pounds a week.

Mr. MILLER:

In American the minimum wage is $1.25 per hour for the unskilled worker. In Australia if a man sweeps the floor of a shop he has to get a minimum of £13 per week. Such an increased minimum wage would enable us to get an increased production; it would improve the whole economy of South Africa and we would not have to live in fear as to what is going to happen under the financial restrictions imposed by the Minister of Finance; we would not have to live in fear as to what is going to happen with regard to the other problems with which he is wrestling at the moment and from which it seems he cannot rescue himself.

*Mr. WENTZEL:

You will have to go into that matter again.

Mr. MILLER:

Sir, we cannot run away from these facts. It is all very well for the hon. member over there to interject. The facts are there and we cannot run away from them. We look forward with interest to hearing from the Minister of Finance how he is going to make up these various shortages without imposing additional taxation. We know that South Africa is a country which has had a great deal of prosperity in the past, and I am sure that very shortly—certainly in the next Budget—some serious changes in taxation for the man in the street are going to take place. That is the only way in which this policy of reaping your capital requirements from current revenue can continue, as there is no capital coming into the country.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

What is the productivity of the unskilled labourer in Australia in comparison with that of the unskilled labourer in South Africa?

Dr. DE BEER:

The question is why.

Mr. MILLER:

I have no actual facts at my disposal but I would say that because they are maintaining a civilized standard of living their standard of living, their standard of production must be much higher. I want to tell that hon. member something else and that is that you would only be able to regard something as your own and enjoy the fruits and benefits of it if you work yourself, and if you want others to work for you they must work with you and contribute to that production and share in the benefits. That is the simple answer to the whole thing without going into the whole field of the Government’s racial policy.

Mr. SCHOONBEE:

You have never worked yourself.

Mr. MILLER:

The Government and Government members have realized that unless they are prepared to take into account the whole of the manpower of our country, we are facing very serious times. I want to say this too: The industrialist, the mining magnate, the financier is very concerned not only about the outflow of capital from this country but he is also very concerned about the loss of technical manpower that this country is suffering. That is a very serious factor in the whole of our economy. The hon. member made an interjection earlier which was quite in keeping with his appeal for unity when someone said that it was not only the English-speaking technician who was leaving the country but that it was probably mostly the Jews who were leaving. I assume that he said that in order to create some rancour. But if he takes the trouble to read the newspapers or to get the information he will find that the departures from this country in the technical field include members of all sections of the community of varying faiths. They are all South Africans. I would regard them as only South Africans, but, of course, expert racialists on the other side of the House would divide them into Jews, Catholics, Calvinists, Seventh Day Adventists, Whites, Blacks, Coloureds, Protestants, Apostolics.

An HON. MEMBER:

Everyone has to be labelled.

Mr. MILLER:

All these people have to be technically grouped and categorized in their proper little niches so that we can place the blame for anything on specific shoulders. Whether there is a purpose in that for the future, I do not know but it is extraordinary. These financiers are concerned with the loss of this manpower. We are losing some of our finest men in the medical and technical fields, men in the field of nuclear physics. These men are going to other countries and giving those countries the benefit not only of all their knowledge but of all the thousands of pounds which we have spent on their training. Those countries, in the shape of these men, are receiving what is just as good as foreign capital. If you get 100 technicians, fully trained, coming into this country, that is probably worth £250,000 to you in training. All that money is now flowing into other countries. I say that it is a very serious situation that we are facing and something must be done about it. One of the other disadvantages—and I think we should get an answer to this—is that our teaching standard in the universities is dropping. Here I have an extract from the Medical Journal of 6 May 1961 in which it says this—

In the U.S.A. three per cent of the profession is engaged in research. Insofar as a comparison is permissible, the South African figure is 0.6 per cent. The medical requirements of South Africa will only reasonably be met by something like 4,000 additional practitioners by 1965, whereas the estimated yield from our medical schools will be fewer than 2,000.

This is a symptom of what is taking place in all professions. It is a well known fact that in the engineering profession—and these figures were given some years back—the shortfall in the Union by 1965 will be in the region of 6,000 to 8,000 engineers. The shortage is constantly increasing, and that is the position in a country where we still have enormous areas of land to develop such as the eight Bantustans which have to be developed technically, agriculturally and in the civic sense and which have to have medical men, hygiene officers, agricultural experts. We require a tremendous amount of manpower and yet our country has done everything in its power to chase that manpower away. Why? Because the Government spurns the advice of the businessman. Because the businessman supposedly has no right to interfere in the life of South Africa; his job is only to be productive and to create more and more wealth but he has no right to advise the Government on matters which are of great importance in the interests of South Africa. He is spurned; he is regarded as a liberal, as a racialist, as a friend of Nkrumah. Sir, how can you expect these people not to be critical when you find for instance that a company like General Mining has lost 40 per cent of the market value of its investments in 18 months—R24,000,000. Take the loss of Anglo American. There too there has been a considerable drop in the market value. Everyone knows the figures very well indeed. The market value of their investments fell by 23 per cent from R260,000,000 to just under R200,000,000, a loss of just over R60,000,000 in a short period of 12 months. How long is the financier or the entrepreneur going to retain the courage, the initiative and the enthusiasm to continue to put everything he has into this country and into its future?

Mr. SCHOONBEE:

Of course he cannot if he listens to you.

Mr. MILLER:

He will not bother about what I say but he will take a great deal of notice of what the Government is doing. Industrialists are not concerned with what I have to say; they are concerned with what the Government is doing, and this is what they say…

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Mr. Oppenheimer.

Mr. MILLER:

I do not need to talk of Harry Oppenheimer. I can tell of at least 20 different industrialists and financiers who would tell you the same story. He says this—

I have the utmost confidence in our country’s future if a rational policy of developing our great potentials is reinforced and maintained and provided that a real effort is made to utilize, to the fullest unfettered degree, the manpower available to us, irrespective of race, colour or creed. But the strife and bitterness to which I have referred is deterring our progress and opportunity is slipping by. Let us avoid at all costs making a political football of these grave issues. On the contrary, let us approach the problem in a spirit of co-operation and understanding amongst all sections of the community.

This was said by the chairman of African Life Assurance Society, Limited. He is concerned with what the Government is saying and doing. We are trying in some modest way to draw attention to what is taking place outside the confines of this House where members sit back in comfort and ease, and to let them realize that certain things are taking place outside this country and that notice must be taken of what these people say.

I just want to deal finally with this question of an improvement in wages. I know that a great deal was said here by the Government member who specifically introduced this motion on unskilled wages. He said that the Government should be encouraged to continue its efforts but pointed out all the dangers of moving too fast. We have heard a discussion in this House for some days now on this question of people earning money too fast. Our difficulty is going to be that if we are going to spend years and years before a man can qualify to live decently because his colour is different, then I am afraid that we are not going to spend years and years in the comfort that we enjoy to-day. The cause of all the problems will be the insistence of the Government on maintaining the rigid attitude which it has been maintaining over these many years. I want to go further and say this: We have in this Session come to certain conclusions with regard to the attitude of the Government. The attitude of the Government is obviously one of fear; it is afraid of the financier being critical of the Government; it is afraid of the Press being critical of the Government. It is afraid of so-called intellectuals or thinking people criticizing the Government. It is afraid of the Churches changing their way of thinking.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

And you are afraid of the election.

Mr. MILLER:

It is afraid of a multi-racial convention which would enable people to discuss their various problems. Why do we come to the conclusion that it is so afraid? Because right throughout this Session there have been threats from one Government member after another against the various institutions to which I have referred. Just recently a statement appeared in the Press to this effect—

Nat. M.P.s censure tycoons who talk politics.

Speakers on the other side, like the hon. members for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) and Bellville (Mr. Haak), and others who are regarded as the principal speakers on that side on financial matters have been severely critical of financiers and industrialists who make any comment or proffer any advice. A year ago the Chambers of Commerce and Industry led a deputation to the Prime Minister in order to give him their point of view and they were politely told that the Cabinet was not interested in their point of view. These people are threatened and warned to keep their noses out of the political life of the country; they are told that they should give their attention purely to the business side. It almost reminds one of the little South American Republics, where nobody plays any part in politics; everybody is busy looking after the material side and a handful of politicians shoot it out between them and have fun and games and changes of Government. That is not the sort of thing that we want in South Africa. Sir, then we come to the Press. At every turn the Press is blamed. Everyone on that side criticizes the Press, from the meanest backbencher to the Prime Minister himself. If this Government thinks that the Press is destroying national unity in this country and that the Press is destroying the “volk” of South Africa why don’t they do something about it? No, they have a Press commission which has been sitting for ten or 12 years. They will probably have a new type of commission which will deal perhaps with the so-called unscrupulous liars in the Press. Sir, my hon. friends should read newspapers from abroad, newspapers of the highest integrity which have the greatest affection for the South African and which warn the country to try to see the light of day sooner in order that they may preserve this standard of Western civilization in South Africa. Then we had this very interesting experience where the Churches of South Africa attended a world council meeting which took place here and which passed certain resolutions. What happened? All the party organisers got busy; all the laymen who were elected to the synods were taken to task and in no time the Church came to heel.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

Better leave the Church alone.

Mr. MILLER:

I have the utmost regard for the Church. I wish that hon. member would have the same regard for the Church and refrain from making the Church toe the line and comply with Government policies; then we would have a much saner outlook in this country than we can have when we make the Church the lackey of a party Government.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

And that coming from a former mayor of Johannesburg!

Mr. MILLER:

I know what I am saying. I have nothing to be ashamed of when I criticize the Government for having the impertinence to force the hand of the Church. What has been the result? It has destroyed the spiritual life of our community.

Then we come to the question of consultation. The Government has been saying for months now “Of course, we have consultation”. The Minister of Bantu Affairs says “Of course we have consultation”. But nobody can consult except with the Government. That is the extraordinary situation in this country. We have been warned by the Prime Minister that he regards in a very serious light this getting together of people to hold what is called a multi-racial conference where White and non-White can discuss things around a table because the Government has appointed itself as the only avenue of consultation in this country. In fact, if any private individual should be found discussing anything at all with a non-White he immediately becomes suspect under the Suppression of Communism Act. That is the state to which the country has come with regard to consultation. And then finally the warning to business people not to interfere in the affairs of the country! A country, Sir, which is not prepared to take into its confidence those who are playing a yeoman part in the development of the country, such government is acting inimically to the interests of its citizens. So the conclusion we come to is this that the Government is a government of fear because it is a government that lives only on threats. Any movement by the people of this country, whether it be on the highest plane of seeking unity, whether it be with the object of engendering goodwill between the various sections of our community, whether it is to improve racial relations between White and non-White, whether it be the efforts of the churches of the country to play some part in the life of the country to the benefit of the country, whether it be the interest of the thinkers of the country in the affairs of the country, all that is being threatened by various members of the Government as an interference with the political life of the country, and they are being warned that they must restrain themselves and not make any comment on the affairs of the country. Is that the sort of life to which the Government is bringing this country? The hon. Deputy Minister of Education gave us a very interesting diatribe the other day of the so-called intellectuals. He wanted to tear to pieces all these people who had the impertinence to say something about their country. I feel sad to think that he, who is after all a member of the Cabinet of my country, decries the intellectual, the thinker, or any person who wishes to make some contribution to the life of this country, of which he should take note and which he should consider and weigh. I don’t want to make loose references to other régimes of this nature. They had the same problem, the problem of not wanting to listen to anyone, always knowing everything, the know-alls of the country, the know-alls of all our problems. We South Africans want to live in peace and harmony in this country. We South Africans want to build a future in this country. We South Africans want to feel that we have a chance to build a future in this country. All of us who love our country want to feel that we have a chance of building this country, not for ourselves only, but for the future. And that is deliberately being destroyed by people who refuse to listen and who use the façade of so-called democracy, refusing to allow anyone, hundreds of thousands of South African citizens, to make any contributions to the thinking of South Africa or to the improvements of its problems. And when you begin to decry, not only your churches, but your universities, your teachers, your thinkers, then you can realize that your country is on the downgrade. I want to tell this Government that the country is not going to slip so easily downgrade as they think. The time will come when the electorate of South Africa will make a stand against this Government. They may laugh at the fact that elections have been lost, but a change will come among people in this country who think. Gradually it is coming. If it were not so, why should the hon. the Deputy Minister try to destroy by jeering the efforts which are being made amongst his own people? It is no good to say that they are “Sappe”. That is nonsense! Greater dynasties have fallen away. It is when the intellectuals in the country awaken to the problems of the country, then you may be sure that there is going to be a change in the political life of the country. If you take the history of France, you will find it was the intellectual who eventually led the people out of the morass and out of chaos into light and into a new and enlightened form of democracy. [Time limit.]

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

The hon. member who has just sat down has again referred to the intellectuals. He was not referring to himself. But one would really think that there are no intellectuals on this side of the House. One would have thought that a man like the hon. the Prime Minister, a man with the degrees he has and many others who also hold degrees are not also intellectuals. Mr. Speaker, one can count the so-called intellectuals who are opposing the policy of the National Party on the fingers of one hand, or perhaps two hands. But the overwhelming majority of the intellectuals in South Africa support the National Party and other thinking persons are members of the National Party. People who cannot think can only belong to the United Party.

I found it strange to listen during this debate to the Jeremiads which we have heard from members opposite. And do you know, they are so false that the Opposition members themselves who have had the opportunity to speak all day because we have given them the opportunity, have killed the debate completely. They do not even have a quorum to listen to them. We on this side have had to help maintain a quorum for them. Their own people have simply not been here. Their prophets of doom have talked them out of Parliament.

You know, Langenhoven said that a handkerchief was a very useful thing when tears were coming, but also when tears did not want to come. The hon. members who are now speaking as if South Africa is on the way to destruction unfortunately do not have a handkerchief. They could not conceal the fact that the tears would not come. They have actually proved to us that they rejoice in the fact that South Africa, according to them, is on the way to its destruction. Their main theme, apart from the fact that South Africa is on the way to economic destruction, has been “national unity”. We know that this is one word which the Opposition has always peddled with over the years. To them it has become an article of trade. They have never told us why they want national unity. National unity is after all not an object in itself. It is a means to an end, but they have never told us what they want to do with that national unity. What point is there in getting a group of people together if one does not give them a task to carry out. They have never told us what the object of their national unity is. But we on the other hand actually say that we want national unity. We say we want national unity in order to preserve White civilization here in South Africa. We say that we want co-operation for that reason. We do not talk of political unity either. We have never spoken about coalition. That is all the Minister of Transport meant when he said that we did not want to co-operate with the Opposition. He was referring to the fact that he was not seeking political unity, that he was not seeking coalition, but national unity, as are all of us who sit on this side of the House. We believe that this national unity will come. We believe that the Republic will bring it for us. We believe that the Republic breathes the spirit of South Africa, the spirit of South Africa first, the spirit of South Africa only, the spirit of South Africa our one and only country, and just as this spirit has transformed those of us who were first Dutchmen, Germans and Frenchmen into sons and daughters of South Africa, so will this spirit transform those English-speaking people who are not yet sons and daughters of South Africa in their hearts and minds, into sons and daughters of South Africa. The hon. member for South Coast has also discussed national unity once again to-day. I would say that the first thing a man should do if he really wants national unity is at least to learnthe language of those with whom he wants to co-operate. The hon. member for South Coast appeared before an Afrikaans audience the other day and he had to address that audience in English. He has not done the least that can be expected of him, that is expected of a man who wants national unity.

*Mr. HOLLAND:

Why do you not speak English?

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

It is not necessary for me to speak English here in the House, because hon. members should be able to understand and speak both languages. I speak Afrikaans here, but when I appear before an audience consisting of English-speaking people or an audience which includes English-speaking people, I speak to them in their own language. In any case, I can speak their language, but there are hon. members who cannot speak my language and they are the people who have so much to say about unity and cooperation.

In the second place, when one speaks of national unity, one would at least expect that when a person decides to support a political party other than one’s own, he will not be vilified. If he happens to be an English-speaking person and he decides to support the National Party, then if the Opposition really want national unity, they would not do as they have done in the past, namely, criticize those people continually and as it were ostracize them from their community. I am thinking of the case of a very prominent English-speaking person in the Transvaal who openly associated himself with the Republic, who openly propagated the Republic, who was even a referendum agent. And how has he not been insulted and vilified! How often has he not been threatened over the telephone. They have even threatened him with death. They have threatened his children and said that their father was going to die; and the next day they arrived with a hearse and said that they had come to fetch the body of Mr. So and So; they understood that he had been murdered the night before. These tactics have been used against people who genuinely want to co-operate. Co-operate in this case with a political party other than their own. Such people are even threatened with death. Whether these are psychological tactics or not, the fact remains that these people have been threatened with death. They are the people who have so much to say about national unity. In practice one sees very little signs of such national unity in their ranks, because it is precisely because the Afrikaner does not feel at home in the United Party that the Afrikaners have left it in the past. Precisely because that is the position in the United Party, the Blaar Coetzees and the Abraham Jonkers and thousands of others like them have left the United Party, because they found that there was no place for the Afrikaner in the United Party. One must be prepared to sell and to barter one’s soul if one wants to be a member of that party.

And now I come to a matter which I find very painful. It has perhaps happened before in this House that an Afrikaner has risen here and attacked the English-speaking section of the population. We say that such behaviour is deplorable. And it has perhaps happened before that an English-speaking person has risen here and attacked the Afrikaner people by name. And we say that such behaviour is deplorable. But what has certainly never happened before is that an English-speaking person has risen here and attacked the English people, the English population group, in this House. And it has certainly never happened before that a Jew has risen here and attacked the Jews by name. But what we have experienced here has been that an Afrikaans-speaking person rose the other day and attacked the Afrikaans section by name before other population groups, in public, and he did not only attack them but he vilified them and he accused them of being a nation which wanted to practise slavery. I am referring to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie).

*Prof. FOURIE:

I just want to say that what the hon. member is saying is completely untrue.

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

The hon. member can read his Hansard report and see how he attacked the Afrikaner nation by name and how he accused us by name of having to be forcibly compelled to abandon slavery in this country.

*Prof. FOURIE:

That is true.

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

He has attacked the Afrikaner people here in public, before other population groups.

*Prof. FOURIE:

Read your history.

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

I must say the hon. member always gives me the impression that he is ashamed of being an Afrikaner, and I just want to tell him that we are also ashamed of the fact that he is an Afrikaner.

*Mr. HOLLAND:

Quite possibly!

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

I have heard about many race haters in my life. I have heard of Afrikaners who hate the English-speaking people; and I have heard of Afrikaans-speaking people who English-speaking people hate, but I have met a rare person in the hon. member for Germiston (District). He is the first race hater whom I have met in my life who give signs of hating his own race

*Prof. FOURIE:

You are talking nonsense.

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

I am not talking nonsense. In the presence of those friends with whom he is now sitting the hon. member has attacked his fellow Afrikaners in this House, and it was quite clear to me why this attack was made. He has got cold feet in the face of world opinion. He wants to dance to the tune of foreign opinion. We must sacrifice everything for the sake of foreign opinion; we must sacrifice our racial policy in South Africa. But we refuse to do so. The hon. member has said that we talk big, but I want to say this: We would rather make ourselves guilty of talking big than make ourselves guilty of the vilification of our own nation. We shall continue without those people. We shall not ask what world opinion says. We shall ask what is right and we shall do it, no matter what world opinion says. We are following the road of justice and we leave it to someone higher than us ourselves to decide what will happen and what the result will be.

*Mr. STREICHER:

If I had not known that the previous speaker was the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk), I would have said that he must have been the hon. member for Bitterfontein, for the simple reason that the speech which the hon. member has just made has given us the very best proof of how little progress South Africa has really made on the road towards true South Africanism. Because you see, Mr. Speaker, we in South Africa, so it seems to me, can simply not get away from thinking about the past, from thinking in terms of those who are Afrikaners and those who are not Afrikaners. Has the time not come for the magic wand to be waved over South Africa, and particularly over this House, so that members who rise and make the type of speech that the hon. member for Boksburg has made, can see South Africa in the light of true South Africanism and not in terms of sectional nationalism? South Africa cannot make any progress along these lines. We shall never become a united nation in this way. For this reason I am glad to a certain extent that the hair of the hon. member for Boksburg is going grey at the sides, so that we still have hope for the future when we think of the young men who are growing up and who do not think along those lines…

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

What lines?

*Mr. STREICHER:

The lines of narrow nationalism which is only aimed at furthering that which is one’s own. That should not be our aim in South Africa, and I think the hon. member who has just sat down should rather take to heart the words of his Prime Minister in which he has repeatedly asked us in this House and during this Session to make South Africa a greater country and a united nation.

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

I support that entirely.

*Mr. STREICHER:

I hope that that is the last speech of this type which the hon. member for Boksburg will make in this House. We know him outside as a pleasant person and a friendly man, and also a man who, I believe, would not hate his fellow man. Why must the hon. member make this type of speech?

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

I shall make it again.

*Mr. STREICHER:

If the hon. member does not understand himself what type of speech he has made, then I deplore it.

Since the introduction of this Budget, the mills of time which can grind so mercilessly have not stood still at all. The hon. the Minister of Finance introduced his Budget at a time when there was still a little optimism as regards the financial and economic future of South Africa. Although we feared that we could lose our membership of the Commonwealth, there was always in the subconscious mind of our people a growing feeling of hope that such a disaster would not strike us. But the disaster has struck us and now the consequences of the disaster are beginning to follow us like a troublesome conscience. Only three and a half months ago the Minister of Finance told us that leaving the Commonwealth would not have any detrimental consequences. But now, after three and a half months, he has had to take drastic steps to save our balance of payments from ruination. And now the hon. the Minister tells us that he does not want to say anything more about South Africa’s economic position. No, he says we must now wait until the tortoise sticks out its head. I assume that the hon. the Minister was referring to our economic position as a tortoise and in passing, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister could not have taken a better example, because it seems to me that our economy is going to move ahead at the same pace as that of a tortoise. The hon. the Minister is waiting in vain for the tortoise to stick out its head because facing that tortoise is the odour of unemployment, of restricted credit facilities, of falling turnovers and a complete lack of confidence. The Minister is now waiting for the tortoise to stick out its head after the Minister himself has created the dragon which has caused the tortoise to withdraw its head. During the past few days I have had the opportunity to go around in Port Elizabeth and on no previous occasion have I heard so such concern being expressed about the economic position of South Africa during the 13 year regime of this Government. Everyone wants to know where it will end. Everyone realizes that unemployment is increasing. Important factories in the Eastern Province have already paid off hundreds of people.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

Such as for example?

*Mr. STREICHER:

It is estimated that since January this year between 600 and 700 people have been dismissed in the motor assembly plants and related industries. Labour officials are visiting the factories to inquire after vacant posts which the unemployed can fill. One finds a general feeling of depression and a feeling of great pessimism amongst many businessmen as a result of the steps taken by the hon. the Minister. So far Port Elizabeth, one of our great industrial areas, has been the worst hit by these restrictive measures, and we find in addition that the purchasing power of the public is declining. And whether one talks to hotel-keepers, shop-keepers, property agents, industrialists or taxi drivers the optimism of all regarding the future of South Africa has been dampened as a result of the policies of this Government. Although the restriction is still localized to a certain extent, everyone expects that the snowball effect will strike far more people later on. I spoke for example to a prominent sportsman in Port Elizabeth during the past few days. He is a property agent, and he told me that to get property bonds is just as hopeless as looking for a needle in a haystack. There are some people who say, and I think this is also correct, that stricter import control may promote our industrial development. But it is immediately conceded that even the increased demand and the increased production of certain articles can be completely overshadowed by a decline in the purchasing power of the people who require those articles. We already find for example that whereas a man ordered 50 articles in the past, that number has now been reduced to 25. One must bear in mind that the fact that industries which are detrimentally affected by these restrictive measures or by the economic retrogression, such as the motor assembly plants, will produce less, will also have a detrimental effect on other industries which are dependent on these large industries. The effect of these restrictions on industry can therefore be transferred to others. When production is curtailed for example and workers are dismissed, one finds that credit is also restricted in order to ensure a regular flow of working capital. It is therefore transferred from the one to the other—from the factory to the wholesaler and from the wholesaler to the retailer, and then to the consumer. Before one knows where one is, the consumer is required to pay. This is what a large number of people who have studied these developments have said. That is what they fear. If the position elsewhere in our country is similar to that which prevails in Port Elizabeth to-day, and which we have observed in the past week, then the future of South Africa as a whole is very sombre. And the hon. the Minister in the meantime is waiting for the tortoise to stick out its head. No wonder the Burger hid his speech below a cartoon. The hon. the Minister will have to do something to make this tortoise move. There are certain things which one should not do to a tortoise. What one should do is to scratch its back, one should tickle it. That is what the people expect of the hon. the Minister, namely that he should “tickle” our economic and financial position. It must be encouraged.

*An HON. MEMBER:

You are a tortoise expert!

*Mr. STREICHER:

Something that this Government apparently has not yet realized is that a sound economic policy will facilitate the solution of so many of our other national problems. The present racial policy of the Government cannot solve our economic problems. The potentialities of our economy, the exploitation of our resources, and the proper utilization thereof can improve our race relations while the Government is creating still greater economic problems with its present racial policy. What does it mean when one says that a sound economic policy can lay the foundations for improved race relations?

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

An hon. member may not read another hon. member’s speech!

*Mr. STREICHER:

It is most certainly not the speech of the hon. member for Heilbron. Mr. Speaker, we know that human relations adjust themselves of their own accord and do not need official guidance. This can be left to the spiritual leaders of this country and m reality they also regard it as their sphere. Every man is striving to-day to achieve an existence which is worthy of a human being. He wants a house, his own piece of land; he wants a radio, books, a motor car; he wants a bank account, and the money to pay for his pleasures. He does not want to be tied down and modern people in particular do not want to be tied down by a lack of money. He would like to be productive and that is why he must not be denied opportunities. He wants all these things which a modem standard of living demands. As a matter of fact, what is wrong with that? And if one gives a person—whether he be Black or White—these opportunities, what does one find? Does one find that he only becomes a materialist? Of course not! An increased standard of living without financial worries is the ideal of all of us. If we can offer ourselves a higher standard of living and also our non-Whites, then we shall find that South Africa will be less neurotic, that it will be more spiritually content, and that its people will be better people as far as their cultural life is concerned. If that is so, why would such a person then destroy that which he had built up over the years? What does one find? That together with financial impoverishment, we also have spiritual impoverishment because then we are creating unhappy people. The emotional and psychological effect on people who want to get ahead but who see their purchasing power becoming ever less, must find expression through that person’s relations with his fellow human beings. That is one of the things which Sharpeville and Langa made South Africa realize. We know that the Black man to-day is striving to earn more money, and to live a better and more decent life. If he is not given that opportunity, then he will be like a bull in a china shop—he must get out, and if a door is not opened for him, then he causes tremendous damage. We have been given a lead by the hon. the Prime Minister himself who, according to a report in the Eastern Province Herald, said the following on 14 October of last year in a speech made in Pretoria—

It is high time that the State should give more attention to the question of economic development.

By creating improved economic opportunities for the non-Whites and by the improved utilization of his services so that his purchasing power can be increased, White leadership in South Africa will not be destroyed. On the contrary, it will be strengthened because the non-Whites will gain greater confidence in the leadership of the Whites. If the White man does not do so, the non-Whites will always be suspicious of the Whites and the White man will be suspected of wanting to take everything for himself. And if there is something in South Africa, if there is an important factor which must be removed from the South African community, then it is suspicion between White and Black. With suspicion between us, our race relations must of necessity deteriorate. There are many farmers, businessmen and industrialists who are already paying higher wages, and there are still others who would like to do so but who cannot do so as result of various factors, such as restricted profit margins, high costs of production, small turnovers and poor markets for their products. The Government must not overlook the importance of these factors. If a sound economic policy is followed, we can take a great step forward and place our race relations on a sound basis.

Mr. Speaker, what is expected of the Government in this new era? We have reached the stage in our country where we should talk a little less about colour policy and we should pay more attention to the economic position of South Africa. We must concentrate our attention on this aspect in order to prevent the capital outflow continuing and by so doing to change lack of confidence in our country into confidence. We must create a better climate in South Africa and then we shall find that the “wait-and-see” attitude amongst industrialists which makes them hesitant to undertake new developments and also amongst investors will be transformed into new confidence in South Africa. Let the Government place emphasis on the positive, namely on increasing the purchasing power and the standard of living of its citizens. If we do that then it must pay dividends for South Africa. I want to conclude my remarks on this matter by quoting from a speech made by Mr. Harvey, the executive chairman of Assocom before the Chamber of Commerce in Cape Town. I do not agree with everything which he says in the preceding part of his speech, but the part I am now going to read is of importance. He said—

I believe that, given such evidence of a genuine desire to change direction, given such fresh hope and incentive to all the people of South Africa…
*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

He is a Progressive!

*Mr. STREICHER:

Yes, I know and that is why I said that I did not agree with everything he said—

… given the restoration of South Africa in the eyes of the world as an attractive investment potential, given freedom of opportunity, patriotism and pride of possession could be developed and would enable us to show an example to the world which other countries would be eager to copy, and not least important, would enable us to take our rightful place as the workshop of Africa.

I hear hon. members opposite saying “hear, hear!” I agree with them because this is the task which South Africa must now set herself, particularly during this difficult period through which we are now going, and particularly in view of the fact that we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth of Nations and the steps which the hon. the Minister of Finance has had to take in recent days. If in future we pay more attention to economic development in South Africa, an improved and higher standard of living is possible here. If there has been a lack of confidence in our country in the past, I cannot see how that lack of confidence can disappear overnight. On the contrary. It will take a long time before we can get over the shock. I know that in future years we shall have to pay a heavy price for leaving the Commonwealth. Dr. M. S. Louw said as long ago as 1958 that it would cost us a great deal if South Africa became a Republic outside the Commonwealth. He also said that it would weaken our defence, and our air force and our navy and that in preparation we should take the necessary steps to expand our trade with other countries, particularly in Africa and on the European continent. We shall have to build up our own mercantile marine. At the same time he pointed out that hitherto we had only one merchant shipping company of any significant size “which at present owns seven modern cargo boats”. He said this in 1958 and he also pointed out that to do all this would cost money. We therefore expect that the Government will pay still more for the so-called freedom it now possesses. Let theGovernment therefore be warned that the country has a serious economic problem to meet. But in addition our relations between Black and White and also between White and White are such that they call for the most serious attention of the Government. There are certain things which must be given priority. As a result of our losing our membership of the Commonwealth, the animosity of many Black States has been given a great fillip. They have taken courage and in future we shall become the target of these people to an ever-increasing extent. This will also result in the extremist section amongst our non-White people revealing greater courage and impetuosity. To an increasing extent they will make the position difficult for those non-Whites who have always taken the side of the White man and who appreciate the value of the White man in South Africa.

The question which the Government must ask itself is what it must do to prevent these moderate non-Whites who have always stood by the side of the White man falling into the hands of the agitators. The Government will have to pay particular attention to these people. They will have to be given a say in our political life. We cannot ask for their support unless we consult them and we govern with their consent. That is why it is gratifying that people like Prof. Olivier, Prof. Cilliers and other prominent leaders of Sabra are trying to help this Government to decide on these important matters. They are convincing this Government that points of friction must be removed as soon as possible. What we must remember is that we in South Africa must build up a common patriotism between Black and White. Only if we do that will we create an important basis for meeting any sanctions or physical action which may be taken against us in future. To think that these sanctions or physical steps can never be taken would be foolish. There are many foreign agitators, particularly amongst the Black states of Africa, who think that now that South Africa is out of the Commonwealth we shall be “a walkover” for them in future, because they think that we in South Africa are faced with millions of dissatisfied non-Whites. My argument is that before we go any further in seeking friends abroad—something which is certainly of great importance—we must look to our friends at home and ensure that there are as many of them as possible. I realize that race relations is necessarily a task for the individual and even if a Government makes many mistakes, race relations can nevertheless be saved through the efforts of the individual. The non-White does not look at matters like we do. Their outlook on matters is often still primitive, as is also their way of life in many respects. To win these non-Whites for the way of life of Western civilization will be the task of every White person in this country. I feel that we should make more contacts with these people, or if we already do so, we should place such contacts on an even more friendly footing. But I am of the opinion that there is far too little contact between the Whites and the non-Whites in South Africa and that we still understand far too little of the ways and minds of the non-Whites. That invisible curtain of ignorance between the White and the non-White in South Africa must disappear.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon. the Minister in this regard that if we want to build up a future here, we must think more in terms of a larger White population in South Africa. In this regard I want to quote none other than the Deputy Minister of Labour. Last year he said the following when opening the Congress of the South African Iron and Steel Industry in Pretoria—

It is often contended that the immigrant takes the bread out of the mouth of the local worker, but it is overlooked that every immigrant is a man who must live and eat, who must have a home, food and clothing, and who influences the economy of the country in many other ways.

Then he expressed the following enlightening thought—

But countries like America, Canada and Australia in times of disquitening unemployment in fact concentrate on still greater immigration. In this way these countries keep the problem of unemployment under control. In the Union the admission of immigrants in times of unemployment may also be the very means of countering unemployment.

It is absolutely essential that we should have a larger White population if we want to maintain our position. The idea is being expressed by prominent economists, businessmen and others, and also by practical politicians because if we can do this, there will be a better future for us. Then, too, I shall also find it possible to believe that our economic position will improve considerably as a result.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

This Bill provides an opportunity, at the end of the Session, for a valedictory review of the state of the nation at the present time; and for a consideration of what contribution the Government has made to our welfare and security in the course of the past six months. It is as well, therefore, that there should have been a full opportunity for hon. members on both sides of the House to participate in this debate. I could only have wished that more members on the opposite side of the House would have done so, because when we are asked to vote supplies, the opportunity is given to a free Parliament to range over the whole gamut of human relations and to deal with other matters of importance.

I want to approach the survey, which this Bill gives me an opportunity of making, from two angles, namely, firstly from the angle of our internal situation as it affects all sections of the population personally; and, secondly, our external situation which affects not only those individuals who make up our multiracial population, but also the State itself. What is obviously essential for the peace and prosperity of our people at the present time is confidence within the Republic and confidence in the Republic from without our borders. No one, however, can disguise the fact that it is abundantly clear that South Africa finds herself at the moment in a position of crisis—a crisis of confidence—which has been highlighted by the unprecedented measures taken last Friday by the hon. Minister of Finance when he blocked the capital repatriation of certain external investments and when he announced that we were not in a position to meet our international loan obligations. What exacerbates the situation is the blow delivered by the Government to the good faith of South Africa by the giving of assurances which have proved to be false. I want for a moment to go back to the beginning of the Session and to review it for a brief moment and, therefore, I want to go back to the beginning of the Session and to have a look at the opening speech of the Governor-General. We were then the Union of South Africa and it was the Governor-General who made the opening speech. Let me refer you, Mr. Speaker, to one or two items in that speech, a speech which expressed the views and the policies of the Cabinet, which was put forward with such optimism and contained such glowing forecasts when it was made on 20 January this year. Let me take one item. His Excellency the Governor-General said—

The outstanding feature of the session of the United Nations General Assembly was the admission of 17 new African States as members of the Organization, bringing the total membership of African states to 27. This considerable addition of African states has given a new importance to the African Continent and has, at the same time, a profound effect on the relative positions, in the Organization, of the Western and of the Afro-Asian nations.

Then I quote another paragraph in the speech which was delivered at the opening of Parliament—

Co-operation with African states and territories in matters of common concern, particularly in the technical and scientific fields, continues to be fundamental to the Government’s policy, despite whatever problems there might be.

Let us just for a moment consider those two items. There was reference to the fact that a number of new nations on the African Continent had been admitted to the United Nations. And there is this statement that co-operation with African states and territories was a matter of particular concern to this Government. Of course, Sir, that expressed a very vital aspect of our policies. We at the southern end of Africa, with all the resources of our technical knowledge, of 300 years of civilization, have a great contribution to make to the African Continent. But what has been done in the course of this last session to implement the glowing words which were used on behalf of the Government at the opening of the session? We should be the link—in the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs some years ago—between the new independent States of Africa and the West. But what has the Government done to realize that goal, to respond to the potential destiny which is ours? Let me dwell on a few things that have happened.

Only last year the Government boycotted the Nigerian celebrations of independence. That was last year, and it may be said to me that that was before this speech. But what has the Government done to show that co-operation with African states and territories continues to be fundamental to Government policy? Did this Government send any representatives to be present at the independence celebrations of Sierre Leone in April of this year? What attempt has this Government made in the course of the last six months to establish reciprocal diplomatic representation with any of these new African states? Nothing. On the contrary, the hon. the Prime Minister has categorically refused to establish such diplomatic relationships, a refusal which was no doubt a decisive factor in our exclusion from the Commonwealth. So far from establishing closer relations and implementing those glowing words which were used in the speech from the Throne in January last, so far from establishing new relations, some of those contacts which we had have been withdrawn. The United Arab Republic has withdrawn its Ambassador. Here we stand with virtually no representation whatsoever for the Republic of South Africa on the whole of the Continent of Africa.

Now I come to another one of these glowing terms given in this prospectus which was held out to the people of South Africa by the Prime Minister in January last—because this is the Government prospectus. This is the sort of thing which was put before the people, and they were asked to contribute to South Africa on the basis of this prospectus. We have had this bogus talk about co-operation in Africa, which means nothing at all. It means absolutely nothing at all in view of what we know of the past six months. Let us take the next item in this bogus prospectus. We have known of many company directors who have been gaoled for much less than this; and this is on a national basis! These are the assurances which were given to the people of South Africa, and to the people outside South Africa, about our stability, about our security and about our economic integrity. So let us take the next point in this astonishing prospectus which was issued at the beginning of the session, because now I have the opportunity of dealing with this in my maledictory speech tonight. Let me quote it…

An HON. MEMBER:

That is right, your valedictory speech.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I say my maledictory speech, not my valedictory speech, because I am certainly coming back. Let us take this next ironic statement in the speech made in January—

The revival in economic activity during the second half of 1959 continued in the past year, and even showed greater improvement. In addition, the country’s exports increased considerably and the economic prospectus for the new year are therefore encouraging.
Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

They are still increasing.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

They are still increasing, says my hon. friend. But the hon. the Minister of Finance is now repudiating his debts. Is that the sort of thing we should have? I say that if directors of a company had put forward such a prospectus and we had had this result, those directors would probably have found themselves in a very difficult position in the criminal courts at the present time. And let me say that this is the gravamen of my charge against this Government, that they have deluded the people of this country, into believing that we could go on living in a sort of fools’ paradise. What did the hon. the Minister of Finance say on 17 April last? I will curtail it, but he said that rumours of the restriction of the repatriation of overseas capital were completely false. That was the statement of the Minister of Finance on 17 April. But they are not false to-day. And then, of course, we had this echo of the hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), this financial stooge who then added to that false declaration in the prospectus. The hon. member said—

There is nothing disturbing in the decrease in South Africa’s foreign reserves during the first month of this year. I can see nothing abnormal in the present state… I think a balance of about R100,000,000 in foreign reserves would be a safe margin for South Africa; and that could be provided by about three months production of gold. South Africa is in a very favourable position as far as foreign reserves are concerned.

This is the expert!

Mr. RAW:

Does he still think so?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

This is the expert from Pretoria (Central). Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Republic’s reserves have dropped by 50 per cent since Sharpeville a year ago; since 4 May when the Minister of Finance announced certain adjustments and financial restrictions, there has been a fall of some R16,000,000. And the net withdrawal of foreign capital during 1960 was about R160,000,000.

I want to say to-night, how does the hon. the Minister of Finance justify his indignant repudiation of 17 April when he said that any question of the restriction of the repatriation of the foreign capital was false? You see, Sir, the Minister is in a fiduciary position, not only in relation to the people of South Africa but also in relation to foreign investors. Good faith is and always has been the essence of our financial stability. And here you have a Minister of Finance who has come along and made a categorical statement that nothing would induce this Government to put a bar, a stopper, on the repatriation of foreign capital; and then, with a stroke of the pen, in a somewhat morbid statement last Friday, he announces that he now proposes to do that very thing. I say that this is not a case of “wolf, wolf”, but the converse. What has been happening in the course of this Session, which I am trying to review to-night, is that not only the Minister but his stooges in the Nationalist Party have been trying to create an impression that all is well.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! I do not think the hon. member should refer to other hon. members as stooges.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No, no, Mr. Speaker, just sycophants. And I say that those assurances…

HON. MEMBERS:

You must withdraw.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “stooges”. I say these willing sycophants have been prepared to carry out this plan of trying to concentrate on this myth that all is well. I say, again, that if the directors of a public company had been guilty of such conduct, not only would they have been hounded out of society but they would have been brought before the criminal courts, and no doubt justice would have been done to them there. And now these assurances of stability have been refuted by the facts.

Let me take another item from this bogus prospectus that we had at the beginning of the year—

Although the Union last year experienced a phase of economic readjustment, a state of full employment still exists.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will tell us if a state of full employment still exists in South Africa to-day.

I have before me the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. That Select Committee had to deal with the position of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I find this stated in this report at page xii—

While there has been a progressive increase in the amount of benefits paid out of the Fund…

from 1953 to 1960—

… the annual income of the Fund has remained more or less constant.
This increase in the obligations of the Fund is attributed by the Accounting Officer firstly to an increase in unemployment from 1.2 per cent in 1958 to close on 2 per cent in 1959, and secondly, to the improvement in the scale of benefits.

Then when we look at the evidence which was given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, we find that the Secretary for Labour, who was cross-examined, said this—

I may just mention that we were of the opinion at the time when the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1946 was amended in 1957, that the income of the Fund would more or less keep up with the expenditure. At that time we, of course, did not expect that unemployment would increase to such an extent during 1959.

This Select Committee has recommended that there should be a special actuarial investigation of the Fund in order to deal with the possible consequences of increasing unemployment. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us any information in regard to that increasing unemployment.

Then I come to my next item from this glorious prospectus which was issued at the beginning of this year. It says this—

The South African Defence Force is constantly being strengthened by the acquisition of modern equipment. Progress is being made in the local manufacture of arms and equipment. Adjustments are being made in the training of the South African Permanent Force, the Citizen Force and the Commandos.
High priority is therefore given to the safety of the State.

There is nothing in this prospectus to say that a Bill would be introduced during the present Session making semi-conscription essential.

Mr. SCHOONBEE:

Is that the point you want to make?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Yes, that is the point I want to make.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! The hon. member may not reflect on legislation that has been adopted by this House.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am not reflecting on legislation, Mr. Speaker, I am reflecting on the reasons which have led to that legislation.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! That legislation has been dealt with…

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No, Mr. Speaker, I say that this bogus prospectus suggested that all that was necessary was to get a few rifles and increase the discipline in the Defence Force. But what have we found? We found, in the words of the hon. the Minister of Defence himself, that it is now necessary to put this country on a basis of semi-conscription in order not only to deal with a suspected threat from without our borders, but in order to be a sort of supernumerary Police Force to deal with prospective dangers from within. That is something we were not told about in this prospectus. We were not told that we might have to be a garrison State; we were not told in this prospectus that the Defence Force was going to be reorganized as a Police Force in order to put us in the position of a garrison State on a larger basis in order to defy the whole world.

Mr. SCHOONBEE:

There was no Angola at that time.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Then let me come to another item in this bogus prospectus—

The Government is proceeding with the socio-economic development plans for the benefit of the Coloured population. The Department of Coloured Affairs will be strengthened…

and so on. This is offered to the Coloured population! It is put here in this bogus prospectus in order to make people both in this country and outside this country believe that all is well with our Coloured population and that they are entirely happy. What progress has been made in the socio-economic development plan for the benefit of the Coloured population other than edicts of the Group Areas Board to evict Coloured persons who have lived in those areas for a long time? What are the socio-economic benefits that they have received? They are just words—words—words. What are the benefits that have been promised to the Coloured population after that bogus prospectus was issued, other than the word of the Prime Minister who warned the Coloured representatives in this House that they would probably have to go when he gets to his extraordinary situation of a State within a State; that the Coloured representatives are merely here on trial until such time as he produces his State within a State? What relaxation of job reservation has there been since that statement in this bogus prospectus? What relaxation has there been of the harsh provisions of the Group Areas Act?

Having dealt with those aspects of this bogus prospectus, I come now to another phase of the pattern which has emerged in the course of the past six months during this Session which is now coming to its close—a Session which I find the Government so anxious to close. I wonder why they are so anxious to close the Session? Members of Parliament have a duty to do. I understood that we were told the other day that we are responsible people and have what amounts to almost a full-time occupation. I regard it as essential that Members of Parliament should have an opportunity of presenting their views in this House, and that is why I find it difficult to understand the inarticulateness of hon. members of the Government side.

Mr. GAY:

They are following the example of the Cabinet.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I say, having dealt with those bogus promises, I am led to another manifestation of this Session, namely, the question of threats. This Session has been marked by a number of threats by the Prime Minister and by some of his hirelings on the backbenches. It is quite obvious that the Government…

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! The hon. member may not refer to other members as “hirelings”.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No, no Sir, I withdraw…

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member must withdraw the word at once.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I withdraw the word immediately. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was using the word in an old English sense. [Interjections.]

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order!

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Mr. Speaker, I say at once that if you think I was making a personal imputation, I apologize. I did not mean it in that sense. I was meaning it in the sense of the word as I use it in English, as followers…

*Dr. JONKER:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member specifically said “a number of hirelings on the back benches”… [Interjections.]

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! The hon. member has already withdrawn and apologized. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Mr. Speaker, if I gave offence I did not mean to and I apologize. I say I did not use it in that sense.

I say that there has been a pattern of threats running through this Session. It is quite obvious that this Government resents criticism.

Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Oh no, we welcome it.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Well they certainly have not shown that they welcome it. They resent criticism from members on this side of the House, they resent criticism from the Press, they resent criticism from overseas. There is now a pattern which shows that they are trying to concentrate on the so-called English Press. I say, in view of these implied threats, where do we go from here? Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, of what the hon. the Prime Minister said in this House on 14 April. He said the Government may take steps against the Press. And then he added this—

I say that no Government wishes to intrude upon the freedom of criticism, no Government wishes to intrude upon the freedom to present news, properly put. But a Government must view with great concern, and may be forced to take steps, if South Africa is harmed by what goes beyond the exercise of freedom.

I say to-night, is it South Africa that is being harmed or is it the Prime Minister and his Government? Is he worried about himself and his Government or is he worried about South Africa? Because South Africa has a high reputation in the world.

Mr. HORAK:

She had.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

But what is being criticized at the present time is not the country South Africa; not this great country which has done so much for the rest of the world. What is the subject of criticism at the present time is not South Africa; not you and me in our individual capacities Sir—what is the subject of criticism, and devastating criticism, is the policies of this Government which fail to bring themselves in line with the views of the outside world. I say that the Prime Minister’s indictment of the Press—and it quite obviously seems to be directed at the English language Press…

Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

You are quite right.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) supports me. He says I am quite right. The indictment is directed against the English language Press. I say that that indictment was remarkable, because not only did it anticipate the findings of the ten-year-old Press Commission—and I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what has happened to that Press Commission? Can he tell us to-night where it is?

Mr. GAY:

It is lost.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Has it gone astray?

Mr. RAW:

They are in outer space.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Has it gone into orbit? Has it been lost in outer space? Is it in Venus? What has happened to that commission? Not only did the Prime Minister’s statement anticipate and prejudge the findings of the ten-year-old Press Commission, but it is also vague and embarrassing because it fails to furnish particulars of the general charges made by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister’s imputations against the Press were implied and not specific. He said that he objected to untruths; to libellous comments; to distortions; and to anything which could harm our country. But he failed to produce a single piece of evidence to substantiate these accusations. And let me add this, he failed to add whether his threats against the Press were directed against the whole Press or merely against the English language Press. He failed to indicate whether they were directed against, for instance, Dawie’s comments in the Burger; whether they fall within the scope of his condemnation. And so in view of that vagueness it may well be asked whether there is any likelihood of the Prime Minister implementing these threats against the free Press of South Africa. Is he earnest? Does he mean what he says? I would say to-night that in considering that question which is very vital to the future of this country, in the situation in which we find ourselves at the present time, one must necessarily view it against the background of recent Nationalist back-bench criticism of those leaders of commerce and industry who have pleaded for a relaxation of the Prime Minister’s granite-wall policy of apartheid. Sir, you have heard these criticisms in this House of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, Sir George Albu, the Chamber of Commerce and others. It has been suggested that these people have no right to make political comment. A very sinister suggestion indeed. I regard that as a most sinister thing. But it is entirely in keeping with this totalitarian concept which is growing stronger and stronger every day in this House, and which shows that this Government is determined to stay in power if it can, but only on the basis of a garrison State of force, of Saracens, of bannings and of censorship.

It is essential to view this question in the significant light of something recently said by the hon. the Minister of Justice, in parenthesis, when he was replying to the debate on the second reading of the Indemnity Bill. What did the hon. the Minister of Justice say on that occasion only a few weeks ago? He said—

If we had banned all meetings last year, Sharpeville might not have happened.

Let us take that to its logical conclusion. You ban meetings because you want to put down an expression of opinion. But then you must not stop at banning meetings. You must ban the Press. And then eventually you must ban the Opposition. And then you get eventually to the stage that you can say that we have to have a moratorium in this country and the Government must take control and we will not allow an Opposition, because the Opposition is playing into the hands of the communists, the neo-communists, the English language Press, the enemies of South Africa; and therefore we will not have a Parliament and the Government will govern by itself alone. I have no doubt whatsoever, and I warn this hon. House to-night, that unless democratic instincts assert themselves amongst hon. members on the Government benches, who now prefer to submit to the whip which has been put on to them—those who are inarticulate on the other side—unless they become articulate, we in this country will find ourselves in two or three years in the position where the Government will be in power and will say that there will be no future Opposition.

I say I have no doubt from the Prime Minister’s warning, and the manner in which it was given, that he would not hesitate to impose some form of Government Press control if the pressure for it among the young Broederbonders in the Nationalist Party grows any stronger.

An interesting sidelight on the hon. the Prime Minister’s present threat to the free Press of South Africa is a comment which the late Mr. George Wilson, who was at one time the editor of the Cape Times, made at the time of General Hertzog’s resignation as Prime Minister in September 1939; a comment one can only hope will not be diabolically prophetic. General Hertzog toyed with the idea of bringing in a Bill to deal with the Press. Fortunately he did not go on with that. I was in the Cabinet at the time. This is what Mr. Wilson said—and I want to say this in justice to General Hertzog, that he was toying with the idea, but he did not go on with it. Mr. Wilson said—

With him disappeared the Bill for the restrictions of the liberties of the Press, which is never likely to make its appearance again unless this country should have to submit to a Government constituted on the disastrous lines of the Nazi regime.

I want to say to-night that it is ironic that it should be the present Prime Minister who is now complaining about the “licence” of the Press, about “distortions”, about “untruths” being sent overseas through channels of the South Africa Press which may harm our country. Has the Prime Minister forgotten that he was the editor of the Transvaler during the War years? Has he forgotten that a Judge of the Supreme Court held that, in his capacity as editor, he acted as a tool of the Nazis and he knew it?

So much for the threat against the Press. There have been threats against the Coloured population. Only the other day the Prime Minister said that when we have this State within a State the Coloured representatives would go. And now recently we have had more threats. We had the threat made by the Deputy Minister of Education against the so-called Afrikaner “intellectuals”. The speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday was a direct kick in the pants for Cape Nationalists. He was put up by the Prime Minister to push down the Cape Nationalists, who have been thinking along what have been called “liberal” lines. It was a deliberate attempt to crush the free thinking amongst the Cape Nationalists. It was a Verwoerdian slap in the face for dissident Cape Nationalists. So I ask myself to-night, as we are coming towards the end of this Session—and I hope that we shall go on until next week as we obviously have to do our duty—I ask myself: Is this series of threats, threats to the Press, threats to the Coloureds, threats to the so-called intellectuals, threats to everyone, threats of banning, to be the pattern for obtaining unity in the Republic? When I give this farewell message and make this farewell speech at the end of the Session, it is not a valedictory speech but a maledictory speech.

An HON. MEMBER:

It is your political farewell.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No, I shall be here. We shall all be here. Do not worry about that. One would have thought, in view of the Prime Minister’s shock tactics, that he would have amended our Public Holidays Act so as to have “Election Day” as a public holiday! But I ask where do we go from here?

An HON. MEMBER:

Into the desert.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Last year at Sharpeville 70 Africans were killed and 200 wounded, and not a single White person was hurt. Yet 15 months afterwards five Africans are sentenced to gaol. I do not go into the merits of the conviction, because it would be improper for me to do so. Rut what I do say, however, is that this is how the world outside will see the result of an attempt by Africans to free themselves of the indignities and the hardships of the pass laws. I may be asked to-night, having made a destructive speech, what do we do about the situation, and what do I do about the situation in which we are isolated from the world and our race relations are condemned? In order to highlight what we are trying to do in the Progressive Party, let me remind you, Sir. of what is happening at present in Southern Rhodesia. There are proposed constitutional changes. Earlier this year Sir Edgar Whitehead, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, said this. He said that Southern Rhodesia had come to the parting of the ways and had three choices before it. I think we have come to a similar parting of the ways. He said that one choice was to attempt to maintain White supremacy by force. That is the choice of this Government. The second was to introduce Black supremacy, which could only lead to bloody civil war; and the third was a genuine determination by the races to work together. Now, Sir, the agreement arrived at in Salisbury earlier this year was an attempt to give practical expression to the third choice. And what were those amendments of the franchise, and how do they compare with what the Progressive Party offers to South Africa? Let me just remind you for a moment of what the proposals are which are going to a referendum in Southern Rhodesia. Under those proposals there will be an ordinary roll in which one of the qualifications will be citizenship; under the Progressive Party policy it is also citizenship. Under the Southern Rhodesian proposals the age will be 21 years—the Progressive Party also 21 years. In Southern Rhodesia there is the qualification of R960 annual income plus Std. VI—the Progressive Party, Std. VI plus R600. In Rhodesia, R2,000 property ownership—the Progressive Party. Std. VI plus £1,000 property ownership. For the ordinary roll, matriculation plus R600—Progressive Party, Std. VIII. In Rhodesia, literacy in English plus R1,440—the Progressive Party, literacy plus R1,000 ownership or income. [Time limit.]

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the debate itself there are a few points—and many stupid statements—which I want to dispose of; but before doing so I must devote a few moments to the speech of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). I think that in one of those unwitting moments of truth the hon. member said that this was his “valedictory” speech. [Interjections.] Whether he meant that does not matter, but I am afraid it is a fact. Mr. Speaker, it was a tragic valedictory speech by a man who has been in this House for so long. What a valedictory speech we heard him make to-night! All that was missing was that you did not ask him to withdraw from the Chamber! Then the hon. member would have been entirely true to form. He had a great deal to say about a “bogus prospectus”. He is, of course, an expert in that field because to-day he is the “bogus” representative of his constituency in this House. He was not elected by his constituents on the principles and the programme which he upholds to-day. I say, therefore, that the hon. member is the last person in this House who should use the word “bogus”. The speech which he made here to-night was nothing but a political post mortem. He has already expired politically; hence his post-mortem speech. Hence the bitterness of his speech. One could detect the bitterness of parting in his speech—the almost hysterical note. To me he sounded like one of these space missiles which simply cannot escape from its own frustration and bitter bondage. He has made statements in this House in the past which have sometimes amused me greatly, and this was his valedictory speech. I say it is tragic. But I think in many respects it is better perhaps that I should now let the curtain fall on the hon. member just as he let the curtain fall to-night on his own political career.

I have said that I want to discuss a few of the points and perhaps I should start with the economic stupidities that we have heard here to-night. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Muller) has referred to the terribly low wages which the workers receive in this country as compared with America. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago a survey was carried out by one of UNO’s sub-divisions in respect of the wages earned per hour by a worker in America, expressed in food value, and how long that same skilled industrial worker has to work in other countries to earn the same food value? I do not know whether the hon. member knows that it appeared that the average industrial worker in South Africa only has to work 58 minutes to earn the same quantity of food as the worker in America earns in one hour’s work?

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has also spoken here. If we are to believe her, then the agricultural industry in South Africa is bankrupt already and the same applies to industry… [Interjection.]

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

Their party is bankrupt.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Yes, that is the only thing that is bankrupt. May I just give the hon. member one figure relating to the national income. This is the contribution made by agriculture to the national income during 1959-60 as compared with the previous year. This is the country in which there is stagnation in the agricultural sphere. In 1959-60 the figure was R42,000,000 more than that for the previous year; and the comparable figure for the gold mines, which have experienced such tremendous development, shows that that industry only contributed R50,000,000 more than in the previous year. And does the House know that secondary industry, which has also experienced spectacular development, only exceeded its figure for the previous year by R41,000,000, while in the case of agriculture the figure rose by R42,000,000. [Interjections.] I am referring to agriculture as an industry, and these are the reliable figures given by the Reserve Bank in its quarterly bulletin. [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! If hon. members do not maintain order, I shall ask them to withdaw from the Chamber. The hon. the Minister cannot even hear himself speak.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

With respect, Sir, you must at least appreciate the feelings of hon. members opposite. [Laughter.]

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) has also put forward his customary point and that is that we are using short-term money to grant long-term loans in the Land Bank. This is a point which he raises regularly every year and this year he has raised it at least twice. But after all the tendency to-day is that one can no longer obtain the long-term loans of the past, not only in South Africa, but everywhere. If the hon. member will examine the experience in America, he will find that one cannot get a loan for longer than five years. Long-term loans are simply no longer obtainable except in very exceptional cases, and South Africa’s position is still one of the most favourable.

I have said here on a previous occasion that in respect of our short-term loans as compared with our long-term loans and our total loans, South Africa is in a far better position than any other comparable country. As far as the ratio of long-term to short-term loans is concerned I said on that occasion that ratio was much lower than it was during the regime of the United Party.

The hon. member has also asked once again how we are going to finance the tremendous expansion of Sasol, Escom and Iscor; that we cannot get the money! This question has been asked here before and I replied to it; my colleague has replied to it but the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) repeatedly asks the same question. We have told him that Escom will finance its expansion in the normal way as in the past through loans which it obtains locally together with loans which it obtains from the World Bank. We have told him that as far as Iscor is concerned, it has built up tremendous reserves over the years and these are adequate to finance these expansion plans. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has told him that Sasol has reached the stage where it is producing profits and that it can use export credits, apart from its own resources to finance this great plan, and that it only expects to need a temporary loan for a couple of years during the fourth or fifth year to meet expenditure which it cannot meet from its own funds.

Let me turn to the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). He says that there has been “a reversal of the whole policy”. At the outset, when I became Minister of Finance, I said that our difficulty in South Africa was that we were always faced on the one hand with a domestic economy and on the other hand with an external economy, and therefore our financial policy had to be elastic. [Laughter.] The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) does not understand the difference between the two. Perhaps I can make it a little easier for him. Our difficulty two years ago was that we had magnificent reserves and our balance of payments position was excellent; the weakness lay in our domestic economy. The method we then used was to stimulate the domestic economy. In the very next year there was a fall in our balance of payments. Too much had been imported and the terms of trade were against us. We then had to take the necessary steps, but there was still a tardiness in our domestic economy. This year the position, and I said so in my speech on 15 March, is that our external economy is vulnerable, and in this respect our balance of payments position, particularly on capital account, is such that we must take special steps to meet the position. I said that this was the weak point in the economic health of South Africa at that stage. And that is still the position. It is the position not only in the case of South Africa but in the case of so many other countries as well. I shall come to that presently.

The hon. member has asked what I meant by “securities” in the statement I made last Friday. “Securities” read in the proper context means “shares”. The hon. member has also suggested that the measures which I announced last Friday are measures which the Monteray Fund laid down as a condition for the granting of a further instalment withdrawal on the Fund. That is not the position at all. What happened was this. We applied to the Fund for these further installments, and as is customary in such cases they sent a mission to South Africa. Officials of the Fund paid a courtesy visit to me and I told them that our problem was the outflow of capital and I said to them: “You are people with great knowledge of similar problems in many other countries. When you go to Pretoria and hold discussions with the Reserve Bank will you please assist them with your expert knowledge?” There was never any question of imposing any condition. The hon. member has simply sucked this out of his thumb.

I now come to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), who has apologized for being unable to be present. He referred to the wonderful legacy which we inherited in 1948. For the purposes of the record it is as well that I should quote from the annual report of the President of the Reserve Bank of July 1948. As the House knows, this Government came into power in June 1948.

*HON. MEMBERS:

May.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

The election was held on 28 May. and the Cabinet was appointed on 4 June. There was a “caretaker” Cabinet. The hon. member for Salt River who has sung his swan song was a member of that Cabinet and he did quite a lot of things before 26 May. He did not have cold feet at that time. [Laughter.] I want to read what this impartial person had to say about the wonderful legacy which we inherited in 1948—

After taking into account the gold output, the Union’s current deficit with all countries amounted to £120,000,000 in 1947, as compared with £65,000,000 in 1946.

And, I may add, as compared with a surplus on current account this year. This tremendous deficit on our current account was concealed. [Interjections.] It was concealed because there had been a great inflow of capital. People did not realize what the position was because at that time there was a tremendous inflow of capital and the reserves were consequently left unaffected because this deficit on current account was more than compensated for by the surplus on capital account. But what sort of surplus was it? It was funk capital, and this is what the President said—

The unprecedented net influx of capital from the sterling area which must have been about £180,000,000 for 1947 and the first half of 1948, has distorted the whole financial picture in the Union.

It gave us a completely distorted picture. He went on to say—

It has, in fact, served to obscure the underlying adverse trends and to introduce additional inflationary pressure at a time when anti-inflationary influences were required in order to counteract the growing disequilibrium.

In other words, at that time there was this great inflow of capital, but it was not capital which came to this country for the purpose of direct permanent investment, and that is what the President was warning the country about here. The position became so bad that the then Government was obliged to take steps to check this inflow of capital. [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Then Dr. de Kock said—

One of the measures which may yet be found to be unavoidable, if adequate relief is not obtained soon from one source or another, is the re-imposition of some form of import control. Otherwise restrictive credit and fiscal policies may have to be followed deliberately in order to reduce the volume of purchasing power in the Union.

These are the people who talk about the wonderful legacy that we inherited! They had to resort to exchange control to keep this capital out of South Africa. The hon. member also referred to the gold mines. It is not the first time this Session that he has urged that taxation on the gold mines should be reduced. I have already told the hon. member in my reply to the Budget debate that the gold mining taxation formula has been reduced by five per cent since 1948, while it has been increased by 20 per cent in the case of ordinary companies. I told him at that time and I want to repeat it—perhaps he will hear it better in absentia—that in reality the gold mining companies have received far better treatment than other companies since 1948, and it is certainly not their turn to ask for any relief.

I just want to say a few words to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), who referred to foreign exchange control and suggested that we should perhaps control it ourselves through the medium of the Treasury and the Reserve Bank. I want to assure him that that is quite impracticable. It is incapable of implementation; we simply cannot do it. He also referred to short-term foreign assets. I just want to tell him that I think it is quite possible that a proportion of these short-term foreign assets which represent a considerable amount to-day—a total of more than R150,000,000—have been acquired irregularly and that we are going into this matter. I just want to assure him that we are giving our attention to it.

I now come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who asked me a very important question. He says that we are faced with a R30,000,000 deficit on the loan that we are to float, and he wants to know where we are going to find this money? I have told the hon. member that that is quite wrong. What I said was not that there was a deficit of R30,000,000. What I did say was that there was a loan of R75,000,000 which had to be converted. Only R43,500,000 has actually been converted and it is unlikely that we shall get the full amount to meet the deficit of R30,000,000. But the hon. member has done what the Cape Argus also did. This was their headline across six columns: “Dr. Dönges tells of R30,000,000 loan deficit”, which is not true at all because the loan has not yet been closed, and that is the maximum that the deficit could be. I now want to give hon. members the assurance that it is not going to be R30,000,000, nor is it going to be R25,000,000, and for the rest they must restrain their curiosity. The hon. member wants to know where I am going to find the money. That is the 64-dollar question. [Interjection.] Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Constantia himself cannot hear—and he would like to hear—because there is so much noise around him.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I am sorry to say that the hon. the Minister has a heavy cold and he is speaking with a sore throat. I think it would only be fair for hon. members to remain silent and to give the Minister an opportunity to give the House the information which he has been asked to give.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Speaker, it is really not as bad as all that. If the hon. member had only read the statement I made, which I have read here and which he says he heard, and had given a little attention to it, the answer would have been apparent from that statement because this is what I said in that statement—

On loan account we started the year with a considerable and unexpected credit balance of R26,500,000.

The hon. member can surely understand that if I must get a maximum of R30,000,000, I already have R26,500,000! But the hon. member’s knowledge of finance is just sufficient to be dangerous to his party. And if he had listened a little longer, he would…

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

What about the R28,500,000 which must still be converted?

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

The maximum which has not been converted is R30,000,000. However, other private money is coming in, and it will consequently be less than R30,000,000. Then there are two other loans which total R50,000,000 and which must be converted later in the year, and in this regard I said—

It is possible, however, that if the balance of payments position improves, as I expect it to do, the present stringency in the capital market will be alleviated and that when two further loans totalling plus-minus R50,000,000 have to be converted later this year, we shall be able to obtain additional long-term loans.

I can now give the House the assurance that proportionately speaking a much greater proportion of these two loans will be converted than was the case with this first large loan. As I have said, if the hon. member had just listened a while, it would not have been necessary for him to ask this question.

The hon. member made an election speech here; it did not contain much about finance. He made a very interesting statement when he said: “We are always prepared to alter our policies in the interests of South Africa”. I must say that the “interests of South Africa” have really changed tremendously during the past few years because the hon. member has changed his policy so often! While he was speaking and saying that he was always prepared to change his policy, it reminded me of that politician in America…

*HON. MEMBERS:

That is an old story…

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

This remark of the hon. member reminded me very much of the politician in America who explained his principals at a meeting. When he came to the end of his speech he said: “Well, gentlemen, those are my principals; if you do not like them, I have others”. (Interjections.) I do not know whether it is necessary for the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) to make so many interjections at a farewell function.

I come back to the hon. the Leader of theOpposition. I do not want to follow him in all his election talk. Apparently he is so impressed with the election rumours that he thought he must get in first and make an election speech. I want to tell him that the basic error in his argument is that he goes so far and no further. When he must criticize destructively, he does so with a dexterity which I admire, but as soon as he has to put forward his alternative to the policy of this side of the House, then he is silent. He no longer has a policy which he can change, because if he had to apply that alternative in practice, he would have to go still further than the Progressive Party—that is the logical consequence of his argument. I therefore say that the hon. member cannot get away from it; he is in the grip of this basic error in his whole argument. He will see that we shall go through this election—whether it be in 1961, 1962 or 1963—without the people of South Africa knowing what the policy of the United Party is as regards racial matters.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) started on a very restrained note. He spoke with an awareness of the seriousness of the position and he expressed himself as he felt and he expressed himself well. I do not think that he entertained any feelings of malicious delight; he made no attempt to embarrass South Africa or to embarrass our financial position. But I am afraid that when the Leader of the Opposition rose this tone changed completely and since then quite a few other hon. members have revealed a measure of irresponsibility towards South Africa’s interests. Is the United Party so filled with hatred, is it so politically bankrupt, that it must resort to this method, a method which is only calculated to do South Africa harm, in the hope that it will gain a few votes?

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has made a very interesting speech, but I do not want to go into the details. However, he has said something which struck me greatly. He said that he and many persons who thought as he did were in a great dilemma. They did not know how to reconcile their love for the state, as he expressed it, with their hatred of the Government. I am afraid that during this debate there have been many hon. members whose hatred for the Government is far stronger than their loyalty to the state. It requires great courage to make such an admission and the hon. member was honest enough to do so. It requires courage to admit that this conflict is taking place in one’s mind. One wants to be loyal to the state, but one hates the Government and what must one do? The best advice I can give him is to accept the remedy which is always prescribed in such cases. I advise him to seek something higher in order to sublimate these conflicting feelings in his own heart. If he finds something higher, this struggle will not take place in his mind. If he says together with this Government and together with all South Africans who have the interests of their country at heart: “We are prepared to stand together and to strive to retain for future generations what we have achieved.”

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

If we get rid of this Government, it will be so much easier.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I do not think it is necessary to deal with all the other points which have been raised. It is late and I want to make haste. However, Sir, I want to say that the debate which we have had during the past few days has apparently been a debate which has been held in the shadow of an approaching election. The United Party has stolen something of a march on the Progressive Party; the latter did not really realize what was going on. During this debate the United Party made speeches which were obviously aimed at an election. As the Prime Minister asked them: Are you not a little premature? We shall see. This was a record debate, this was a debate on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill and it lasted more than 20 hours. It is a record which we have never equalled before. I have never participated in a debate during which so many quotations have been made from previous speeches, without due acknowledgment of the source! This was not the first time that I have heard many of these speeches during this Session. There was a rush as it were to sing swan songs, but the member who outpaced everyone else in this regard was the hon. member for Salt River. I am certain that the United Party had its eye on the election and the members of the Progressive Party on the fact that they will not return to this House.

What were the issues during this debate? Financial matters were raised to a far greater extent during this debate than in similar debates in the past. Nor is it saying much when I say that there were more such speeches, because the real theme of this debate has once again been—the racial policy. The statement I made last Friday on the control measures merely represented a new hat rack on which to hang an old hat. This debate was really yet another debate on racial policies and I think that it was the fifth debate of its type which we have had during this Session. We had the no-confidence debate. We had the debate on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, we had the President’s address and we had the motion of the hon. member for Queenstown. I think that we have already had four or five of these debates and many of the speeches which we heard during this debate simply represented a repetition of those which we had heard during one or other of the previous debates. The phrasing has, however, been somewhat different. The theme has been that our racial policy is the cause of all our economic ailments. That is the refrain we have heard throughout. Let me examine this submission a little. The allegation has been made that all our economic ailments are a direct result of the Government’s racial policy. As I have said, this has been the theme of the speeches, but allow me to say this: There are many countries which do not follow our policy and which are suffering from the same ailments. Is it necessary for me to remind hon. members of a country like Canada which last week went so far as to devalue? Is it necessary for me to remind you, Sir, that there is another country where there is talk of devaluation, or of raising the bank rate, and which is faced with a tremendous deficit on its balance of payments on current account? Do I need to remind the House of a country like Canada with an unemployment figure of over 10 per cent, or the United States where it is 6 per cent; of Australia, the reserves of which are lower than they have ever been before—during the past 20 years at any rate; of New Zealand which is faced with the same difficulties; of Australia which has already had all the drawing loans which we are only now asking from the Monetary Fund? In not one of these countries is there apartheid. Not one of these countries applies apartheid, but because South Africa is suffering from this economic ailment, they attribute it to apartheid! In the other countries which are suffering from the same ailment they do not seek for a cause. We have the example of the Federation. Hon. members have quite rightly said that their political policy is completely different to ours, but economically they are in a worse position than we are. I wonder sometimes if Mr. Harry Oppenheimer had to make a speech to his shareholders in Rhodesia, what he would tell them was the cause of their economic ailments? Would he tell them that it was their policy of integration? Integration is a policy which hon. members opposite advocate and this policy has not saved the Federation from its difficulties—it is sicker than we are. One of the reasons for the difficulties in Rhodesia is the great fear amongst investors that their economy will fall under the control of the Bantu. That is the thing which shocks confidence the most. Investors abroad regard South Africa as part of Africa and they are also afraid that they will one day wake up to find that there is a Black government in this country and that their savings will be used as they are being used to-day in other countries in Africa. When we examine the position, we find that apartheid is not to blame; otherwise the securities in other countries where they apply the reverse of apartheid would not give a higher return abroad that our securities have. The hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) has given us the figures. The return on Kenyan securities is £8 13s. 6d.; East Africa, £8 17s. 7d.; Southern Rhodesia £8 15s. 9d.; Uganda £8 18s. 3d. etc. These returns are all higher than the comparable figures for our securities which give a lower return, and in those country they have a policy which is the reserve of apartheid! The fact that they are following a policy of racial integration, a policy of partnership, has availed them nothing. They are in difficulties as far as their balance of payments is concerned. Did hon. members read the other day in the newspapers how large a deficit the Canadian Minister of Finance has had to announce? The deficit is over R500,000,000.

*Mr. RAW:

On the Budget.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Yes, that is his budget deficit. Our reserves are low in South Africa, but reserves are after all not there to be kept permanently at the same level. They are there to be used. I spoke to a representative of the Bank of England the other day and he said that it had to be impressed on the public that it was a normal thing to borrow funds from the Monetary Fund. Our reserves are low, but it is not only in this country that they are low. In the United States of America, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia—countries were there is no apartheid—they are low as well. In the case of some countries they are low in respect of the capital account, as in South Africa and the United States. In the case of others again, such as the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, it is the current account which is at a low level. These countries are suffering from the same ailment but the causes differ. The cause of the deficit on capital account in the United States is different to that which applies in the case of South Africa. All these countries have falling reserves. There are only one or two exceptions in the whole civilized world, namely those countries which were involved in the war and lost it and which have now recovered to such an extent that they have been able to build up a vast new economy. This submission that our present economic difficulties are the direct result of our racial policy is not substantiated by the facts. No proof has been submitted to substantiate this contention. Even if we were to change our policy as hon. members opposite would like to see us do, it would not change our position. The Statist has discussed the possibility, although it regards it as very remote, of a change of policy and said—

For it has to be recognized that even a decision to make an about-turn on apartheid policies—and there are no indications that Dr. Verwoerd is prepared to countenance this as a means of extricating the country from its mounting economic difficulties—would not necessarily bring any relief to the external payments position at this stage. 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.

We must therefore not think for one moment that if we were to follow the policy which Kenya and Uganda are following, these balance of payments difficulties of ours would disappear like mist before the morning sun.

I think that there are two charges against me. The first is that by the statement I made last Friday, I have broken faith. Hon. members were cautious initially, but later they made this accusation directly. The second is that by so doing I have shocked foreign confidence in South Africa’s economy for all time to come and that we shall never again attract capital. I think it is necessary that I should deal with these two points. I should like to remind hon. members that when I made my statement on 17 April and again when I spoke on 4 May, I did say that it was not the intention to restrict the repatriation of foreign capital. I said that it had not yet been discussed, and it had not yet been discussed. At that stage it was not necessary to do so either. Approximately two months had elapsed since my statement of 17 April when I made my statement of last Friday. I made one statement on 16 June and the other on 17 April. The first statement was on 17 April, that is to say approximately two months before 16 June, and my statement on 4 May was made approximately six weeks before 16 June. During these two months the reserves fell by about R35,000,000. In other words, when I made my statement on 17 April, the reserves were R35,000,000 higher than on 16 June when I made the further statement. In my statement of 27 May I did not specifically, although I did by implication, refer to capital restrictions.

Hon members have also claimed that what I said on 15 March, 17 April and 4 May was misleading and that I was too optimistic about our financial position. I just want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether hon. members expect me to join the chorus of prophets of doom? If I had done so, we would have been obliged to take the steps we took on 16 June far sooner. If I had also just said how weak South Africa’s position was, we would have been forced to take those steps far sooner. It is perhaps because I have confidence in the economy of South Africa that I have acted as I have. Our one difficulty is that we are vulnerable and will always be vulnerable for so long as we have a large amount of capital lying here which can so easily be withdrawn. This is what is called non-direct investment. These are not permanent investments such as for example investments in a factory which cannot be so easily withdrawn when the investor feels that things may go wrong. I therefore say that we would have been able to avoid these steps if it had not been for the fact that so many of the residents of South Africa have placed their own pockets above the interests of South Africa. Free repatriation of foreign capital has always been the ideal of every government and it is the ideal of this government. We upheld this principle until South Africa’s balance of payments position became endangered by the continuous leakage of capital. The steps we have taken will in fact help to protect that foreign capital which is still here, while it can still earn high dividends. Should I, like a modern Don Quixote, have unrealistically assaulted an impossible position, or should I have fought to the last ditch in an attempt to maintain an impossible position, while I could perhaps have lost the whole economic war for South Africa? I have not revealed such wonderful originality in this regard. As long ago as 29 April the Statist was saying that I should take these steps.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

After that you said that you were not going to do so.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

The hon. member thinks that I read the Statist and despite that, I said we were not going to do so. This Statist only reached me afterwards because it did not come by airmail. This Statist is the one for 29 April and it says—

It would, of course, have been more convenient in many ways in the immediate sense for the Union authorities to have tackled the balance of payments crisis by extending to non-residents of the Union the restrictions they have been imposing on transfers of capital abroad by their own residents during the past year.

But then it goes on to say: They have this feeling that they do not want to restrict foreign capital, and what is the point in quarreling with people who do the wrong thing from such good motives? That is what the journal said at that time, and it repeated this later on 13 May. We must remember that foreign capital investments in South Africa do not only involve capital which is invested in shares. We must also remember that there are the direct permanent investments in South Africa. But these investments in gold shares which are regarded (not all of them) as non-direct investments, are so easily withdrawable and because they are so easily withdrawable, they make the balance of payments position so vulnerable because if they can be withdrawn at the slightest sign of danger, they are often withdrawn at the very moment when we require that capital most. It is like the man who offers one an umbrella when the sun shines, but as soon as it starts raining he says: “Now I want the umbrella.” This type of non-direct investment is a danger, and traditionally in South Africa it is a far greater danger than in all other comparable countries because a far larger proportion of foreign capital has been invested in this country through the London Stock Exchange and in gold shares. There are also those non-direct investments in gold shares which are in the hands of bona fide investors and not of speculators and tickey snatchers”. We must also think of the position of these people who do not want to withdraw their money at the slightest sign of danger and to protect them we have had to take steps to assist the South African economy through this balance of payments crisis. It is also to protect these people, not only those who have direct investments here, but also the bona fide investors in indirect investments. But we also want to protect the direct investors in industry. They cannot withdraw their money as easily as those who have made indirect investments, but their investments are also endangered, and will be seriously endangered if we do not take steps to safeguard our balance of payments position. Indirect investments are estimated to total R600,000,000, but direct investments total more than R2,000,000,000. This type of investor is not a danger to one’s balance of payments position because their investments cannot be so easily withdrawn. Now hon. members speak of a breach of faith on my part! I say that if I had not taken these steps, I would have been breaking faith, not only with South Africa, but with all these other people who still have the remainder of the R600,000,000 and who have the R2,000,000,000 invested here in South Africa. What would have happened if this R600,000,000, i.e. the indirect investments, had been withdrawn to an ever-increasing extent and our reserves had consequently fallen? Then the indirect investments of those people who were not amongst the first to withdraw would have been endangered. We are not prepared to endanger the position of the overwhelming majority of the foreign investors who have placed their confidence in us because there is a small minority who have acted in such a panic-stricken way, supported by the greed of foolish residents of this country. That is why we have taken these steps because this group of people have become panic-stricken and they have been supported in their efforts by the greed of our own people in South Africa. I say that we want to protect foreign capital, even if we have to do so by temporarily blocking it, while we are after all allowing their dividends free exit. The charge against me, if there should be a charge, cannot be one of breach of faith, because I want to say that as far as the charge of breach of faith is concerned, I am an unrepentant sinner. I shall do the same thing again tomorrow under such circumstances and I shall do so whenever it is necessary to protect South Africa and to protect investors in South Africa. If there should be a charge against me, it can rather be that I did not take these steps earlier. There would have been some grounds for such a charge. Allow me to read to the House what the Statist said on 13 May—

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.

I therefore say that as far as I personally am concerned, I am an unrepentant sinner. On the contrary, if under these circumstances I had not taken these steps I would have been guilty of a breach of faith, and I would have been unworthy of the confidence of the people of South Africa.

I now come to the other part of the charge, namely that foreign confidence has now been destroyed and that we shall not attract capital again. This has also been said here, particularly during the later stages of this debate when the election spectre became a little more evident. In this regard I just want to say that although these measures were only taken after very serious consideration and with great regret, they must not be regarded too tragically. Hon. members must remember that similar provisions exist in the United Kingdom. We have in effect taken them over from the United Kingdom. And furthermore similar measures have also been taken for example in the Netherlands and Denmark, apart from the less developed countries which I do not need to mention. These measures only affect securities and do not affect fixed property anl bonds, and foreign investors retain the freedom to sell their shares abroad or to sell them locally and to invest the yield in other quoted shares. The House will have noted the reaction. In London the reaction has already changed completely. At the outset they were also panic-stricken by such headings as that to which I have just referred in the Argus, but they are now coming to their senses and hon. members will see that quite a different position has arisen. While hon. members opposite have stated, almost with a measure of delight in certain cases, that our shares have declined by 35 per cent in London, they will see that that is no longer the position. These measures only affect securities and foreign investors retain the right to draw dividends because dividends and contractual obligations are not affected at all. As I have said, we have in fact already been criticized abroad for not taking these steps sooner.

Let us now examine this argument to the effect that we shall not attract capital to South Africa again. Have we on balance attracted share capital over the past three years? No, on the contrary, long before we took these steps we noted a steady outflow, and if hon. members will examine the Reserve Bank’s figures, they will see that, as far as this particular type of leakage through shares is concerned, it is something which has been going on for quite a few years already. Ever since the first African state was given its freedom this withdrawal has been going on. People have said: South Africa is part of Africa; we see what is happening in those countries, and we are afraid that it will happen in South Africa as well. At that time already this withdrawal started. In any case there was this withdrawal. I now ask: Would we attract more capital if we were to allow this outflow to continue unrestricted? Would it attract more capital if by so doing we were to aggravate our whole balance of payments crisis? We must solve this balance of payments crisis. That is the prerequisite for attracting capital again. And simply to say that we should have allowed capital to leave the country and that we should not have taken these steps, would have meant that the people abroad would have said: We cannot trust this Government; it cannot even take the steps which are required to prevent the outflow of capital. I ask the House to-day whether there is any sensible bona fide investor, whether direct or indirect—any person abroad who has direct or non-direct investments here or who wishes to make such investments—who will not realize that the steps we are now taking are in fact calculated to protect their capital in this country by assisting the country over its balance of payments crisis? They will realize it. Can we as South Africans not realize it as well? I can assure the House that in responsible financial circles these steps will be regarded as redounding to our credit, namely, that we did not hesitate to take such steps to safeguard our own economy. Experts from abroad, such as the chairman of the World Bank, already said to me when we applied import control in 1949: “That is one of the things which we like about South Africa; you are prepared to take steps, even if they are not popular, but the security and the stability of your own economy is your first concern.” But I now ask whether similar restrictions in Great Britain, Holland and Denmark have stopped the capital inflow? In Great Britain, such restrictions have been applied for many years already—since the end of the Second World War. Have they had the result of halting further capital inflow into those countries? We still saw recently that, as a result of the great “take-over bid” by American Ford for British Ford, a large amount of capital entered the country despite the restrictions which they have. One hon. member—I think it was the hon. member for Musgrave—has said that this will cause inflation. But I want to tell him that the increased stability of our balance of payments and on our stock exchange should in fact be an important factor in the restoration of domestic confidence and the encouragement of sound development. Foreign investors may be hesitant to invest in South Africa, but we hope that they will realize that, to a certain extent, our difficulties are artificial and that it is our earnest desire to relax these protective measures as soon as possible, and those who have the necessary confidence can achieve an important advantage over their competitors.

But I just want to say a few words in conclusion. We have discussed the present position. What now of the future? When one examines South Africa’s position, we see that it is under fire from quite a few sides. It is under fire to-day as a pawn in the cold war. It is under fire to-day as part of Africa. It is under fire as a penance for past behaviour which is on the conscience of other people. They want to salve their consciences by acting against South Africa. And we are under fire as the victim of one of those great tides in the history of the world over which we have no control, over which no one has any control and which one can only endure. And then we are also under fire as the Government which the Opposition would so much like to replace. All these various movements concentrate and rationalize their behaviour by attacking our policy of separate development in South Africa. This attack is the means which they want to use to achieve this rationalized purpose—the attack from various quarters by people who do not have much in common with one another, but they all have in common the fact that when they make an attack on separate development they stand together, even if they are diametrically opposed to one another in many respects. They have now rationalized their behaviour and this is the attack being made, and one of the methods they want to use is the economic method, the financial method. They hope by so doing to bring us to our knees. We, therefore, know that we shall experience these difficulties in the future. We should like to have foreign capital. But if we cannot get it, what are we to do? That is the question we must consider. I think that if we can restrict the outflow of capital—and it is felt that these measures will be adequate to achieve this purpose—then even if there is not a net inflow it is not impossible for us, if we achieve a slightly higher savings rate, to continue with our development at a somewhat reduced tempo, particularly if we can retain this balance on our balance of payments current account—the balance which we have had in recent years. As I have just said, there was a deficit of £127,000,000 in 1947, while we now have a credit balance. If we can maintain this position, then I say that if we do not intend under-estimating our own abilities, we can overcome our difficulties. Allow me just to tell the House what well-known economists, successful financiers, in South Africa have said. Dr. van Eck has said—

He could see no reason why capital should always come from abroad and why the Union could not achieve a dynamic future without outside help. “It is high time South Africans realized their own dynamic strength, not only in the economic sphere, but also in our experience in living together in a multiracial society.”

And, on the next day, Prof. Wijnholds, professor in Commerce, Currency and Banking, said—

Foreign capital and the “know-how” which accompanied money invested in South Africa were welcome, but the extent to which South Africa depended on this capital should not be exaggerated.

That is what I also say. We welcome foreign capital. If we want an accelerated tempo of development, we must get it. But if we cannot do so, then we must not think that we should lie down on the ash heap and wail. These are people who can speak with authority and we must have a little more of this spirit. Prof. Wijnholds went on to say—

I have said this for the past ten years. I do not say this capital would not be welcome, but we can do without it. I have always said we should not rely too much on foreign capital. Our savings are so high that we can to a great extent rely on them.

And does the House know that the difficulty facing Canada to-day is that she has allowed so much foreign capital to enter her country. That is the reason why she has had to devalue. I say that we must just not under-estimate our own abilities. The balance of payment difficulties which I have described, are not insignificant. I do not want to under-estimate them, but we must view the problem in the correct perspective. It is not our whole economy which is experiencing difficulties; it is not our whole economy which has suddenly fallen ill since the examination of 15 March, as some people are trying to say. Let us retain our sense of perspective in this case. The basic foundations of our fundamentally sound economy in South Africa are still present, are still the same as they were. Take our natural resources and our mineral wealth; take our sound financial economic structure which we have built up over the years in South Africa, and which is a stabilizing factor in our economy; take our political and economic stability which is envied to-day by so many other foreign countries; take our technological and executive resources which are of the highest quality compared with world standards; take the balanced economy which we have developed here—these are the basic things, these are the things which decide whether an economy is fundamentally sound or not. We have them. And what is the factual position to-day?

Let us examine for a moment what the factual position is, now that I have described the basic position to the House. What does the Reserve Bank say? In its bulletin for March, the Reserve Bank gave the following survey in respect of the year 1960—

The foregoing brief review indicates clearly that, notwithstanding a number of adverse factors, which were reflected mainly in a net outflow of private capital, the picture of the Union’s internal development in 1960 was one of continued expansion.
Nearly all the indices reviewed above showed further increases from 1959 to 1960, and the preliminary national accounts figures indicated not only a rise of about 6½ per cent in gross national product and market prices, but also an increase of approximately 5 per cent in the real gross national product.

And when one examines the June issue which has just appeared, one sees that it is said that this 1960 tendency has continued during the first quarter of 1961. This is the material, this is the factual position, these are our raw materials, i.e. the labour, the people and all the things I have mentioned, and I tell the House that we can build on this basis, even if we must do without the capital which we should like to have and which would help us to develop yet more rapidly; then we can still develop and we can develop at a satisfactory tempo. We can save a little more. A few days ago the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) said that there was a great deal that could still be done in this regard, and I agree with him. When we take into accountthat we lost R100,000,000 in South African capital last year through the purchase of South African shares in established businesses in this country—this is not capital which was put into new productive fields; this was used to buy shares held by non-residents—then we can see what the actual position is. If we had not had to send out that R100,000,000, then this R100,000,000 would have been available in South Africa for investment in new productive fields of development. We can save. We have a high savings rate, but we can save still more. We work hard, but we can work still harder. It is not impossible to increase our present rate of capital formation. We can do it. But then we must not have people in South Africa who have political water on the knee. Then we do not want people who are small South Africans, who always want to emphasize how weak South Africa is, how dependent she is, that she cannot take a step forward in the world if she does not hold someone else’s hand. These are not the people we need if we want to make full use of this material! We do not want people who want to force an inferiority complex on South Africa. If we have people who have the courage, the enterprise and the faith, then we shall overcome this balance of payments crisis, perhaps sooner than we think. But it is not only courage and enterprise which is needed. Besides courage and enterprise, we need loyalty. And if we have a strong sense of loyalty to South Africa amongst all her peoples, if we feel that we may not harm South Africa even if we hate the Government and no matter how much we hate the Government, then I say that we shall overcome this balance of payments crisis, perhaps far sooner than we think.

Question put:

That all the words after “that”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—60: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Hertzog, A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; 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 der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—42: Basson, J. A. L.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cope, J. P.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Eglin, C. W.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamup, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

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

Question affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

More than two members having objected,

Bill read a third time on 24 June.

The House adjourned at 11.8 p.m.

SATURDAY, 24 JUNE 1961 Mr. Speaker took the Chair at 10.5 a.m. PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATORS’ PENSIONS AMENDMENT BILL

First Order read:

Third reading,—Parliamentary Service and Administrator’s Pensions Amendment Bill.

The MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND PENSIONS:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr. MITCHELL:

We must launch our formal protest at the contents of this Bill as it is now up before us for its third reading. We still feel that the principle is wrong to provide for the extension of this principle that people who are in effect civil servants, can claim these dual pension rights as a result of service in another capacity based merely on previous parliamentary service, which must also in terms of the Bill be tied up immediately, in other words there cannot be a break, there cannot be a gap; from being a member of Parliament, they must go straight to the other position and it is not associated with the new position which they hold or their capacity, but a distinction is drawn between two men who otherwise as far as we are concerned, are equally capable and able and holding the same position; distinction is drawn clearly in this Bill: The one gets those pension benefits and the other one does not get the pension benefits. We feel it is altogether wrong, and we will record our protest and vote against the Bill.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—63: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.: Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges. T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Jonker, A. H.: Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. L; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; 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 der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; 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.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—39: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Cope, J. P.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

REVENUE LAWS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Order read:

Third reading,—Revenue Laws Amendment Bill.

Bill read a third time.

LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL

Third Order read:

Third reading,—Liquor Amendment Bill.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

I do not intend taking up the time of the House with further discussion of the effect of the various clauses of this Bill. The warnings that some of us have endeavoured to give have fallen on deaf ears and nothing we can say or do, will, I am afraid, deflect the Government from the disastrous course upon which it has embarked.

So far-reaching a measure should have been introduced earlier in the Session; it should not have been brought suddenly into this House in the dying days of a revolutionary Session, without mature consultation with the people of South Africa—not merely with this White Parliament, but with all the racial groups of our multi-racial population whose lives are going to be affected by its provisions.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must please confine himself to the contents of the Bill.

Dr. Dr. D. L. SMIT:

Very well, Sir, but I say that it has brought with it a sense of deep concern to the churches and welfare organizations throughout the country. Liquor control has always been one of the thorniest problems confronting the human race and in a country like South Africa it is complicated by the complex set-up of our society.

The changes in this Bill should have been very carefully considered before a measure of such great import should have been placed before Parliament.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the contents of the Bill now.

Dr. D. L. SMIT:

Sir, the effect of this Bill will be to flood our countryside with cheap wine and brandy and our towns and villages will be the rendezvous for a lot of drunken, under-developed Natives and Coloured people. It is a strange picture. On the one hand Clause 8 of the Bill will allow these people to get as much liquor as they like. On the other hand in Clause 18 the penalty for the very drunkenness that is being encouraged by this Bill is being increased from a moderate fine of £25 or three months to a fine of £200 or 12 months.

I repeat that the large majority of the Natives in this country are not sufficiently advanced to exercise the necessary self-control in their use of intoxicating liquor, and that Clause 8 permits any Native of the age of 18, of whatever stage of development, to obtain European liquor without limitation at any bottle store or institution authorized by the Minister. It is an abuse by the Government of its position as the guardian of the spiritual and economic welfare of these people. The effect will be to degrade and retard their progress and put the clock back for South Africa for many years to come. Not only that, it will add to our calendar of serious crimes of murder and vice and rape and it will far out-balance the time the police think that they will save in administering the drink traffic.

In conclusion, Sir, I wish to associate myself with the following statement issued by the Federal Council for Combating Social Evils of the Dutch Reformed Church, representing the churches of the Transvaal, Free State, Cape and Natal, in which they condemn all the proposals contained in this Bill. I am going to read now shortly the opinions expressed by this great church—

In a statement to-day (14 June), the Federal Council for combating social evils, which represents the churches of the Transvaal, Free State, Cape and Natal, condemned the proposals. These, it said, would lead to the demoralization of the Bantu and place a major obstacle in the way of the churches’ mission work.
The council said the Bill went further than the supply of light wine suggested by the Malan Commission, which in itself was unacceptable to the Church.
It also condemns the proposed supply of liquor to 18-year-old Natives as being against Native custom, under which only older men are entitled to liquor.
The Bill does not take into account the fact that the great majority of Bantu live in primitive conditions and have not reached the standard of civilization under which they would be proof against the devastating effects of alcohol. The lesson is clear—the liquor of the White man may not be given freely to less developed peoples.
The White man has not only a duty as the Christian guardian of the non-White to shelter him against alcohol, he also owes a duty to his own safety and civilization because of the crime, disturbance and moral dangers that follow on the abuse of alcohol.

The Transvaal and Cape Synods of the Church, as well as the Church congress in Bloemfontein and the Federal Missionary Council, had all taken strong resolutions against the extension of liquor facilities and the tot system to the north.

The Federal Council trusts that Parliament will not accept this comprehensive law in its present form, but will obey the voice of the churches.

The Government has given no heed to the call of their spiritual leaders, and, Sir, I say they will continue to ignore this warning at their peril. All I can say is “God save South Africa from this Government!”.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

At the third reading I want to comment briefly on the contents of this Bill, as amended, particularly as I was unable to be present at the second reading of the Bill.

May I say at the outset that I am not opposed to the principle contained in this Bill, which is to lift the restrictions on the supply of liquor to Natives and to other non-Europeans in the Northern provinces. Clearly one cannot be certain of the effect which this Bill is going to have. One has one’s misgivings because one has seen evils attached to the use of drink, particularly where the people concerned are unable to afford drink. On the other hand, one has seen that there has been a tremendous illicit traffic in drink, that Natives do in fact get drink if they wish in spite of the law, that the drink which they get is often poisonous, and has to be drunk in abnormal circumstances. One has seen that in Southern Rhodesia restrictions have been lifted with advantage; one has found support for the measure from the Institute of Race Relations and from other people, and on balance one feels that this step is a wise one.

As to the contents of the Bill, I feel that the provisions laid down in this Bill are not satisfactory, and I hope that the hon. the Minister when he comes with his further proposed Bill next year, will have profited from the experience gained during the next few months, and that he will lay down with far more precision the manner in which he will give authority to people to supply drink to non-Whites. At present I feel that the provisions are far too vague. In the proposed Section 100bis, the hon. the Minister has a very wide discretion indeed as compared with the very strict limitation of powers to grant licences under the present Act, and it is clear that both the procedure for applying for written authority in terms of 100bis will have to be laid down in detail in the Liquor Act and secondly, that other safeguards will have to be introduced. One of the major safeguards which exists at present against the abuse of liquor and the abuse of the right to sell liquor lies in the opportunity which the public has to appear annually before the liquor licensing boards when liquor licences are reviewed and to raise their objections. Compared with that the only provision in this Bill which acts as any kind of safeguard in the granting of written authorities under Section 100bis is the provision that within 14 days after the start of a session, details shall be laid upon the Table of this House of the authorities given. That in my view is quite insufficient. There will have to be further opportunities for reviewing the grant of written authorities annually I also believe that in regard to applications for written authority, the Bill will have to lay down clearly the procedure to be followed. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has accepted the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Salt River that he shall not be able to grant a written authority in terms of Section 100bis until he has had a recommendation from the National Liquor Board. The hon. the Minister has stated that he will during the recess promulgate regulations as to the manner in which applications will have to be made. I feel it should not only be done by way of regulation; it should be clearly laid down in the Act itself.

A matter which has not been dealt with is the relationship between the present liquor licensing boards and the National Liquor Board in making recommendations for the granting of a written authority in terms of the new Section 100bis, which recommendations are to be considered by the Minister. It seems that there should be provision at least for consultation between the Minister and the National Liquor Board and the liquor licensing boards before any authority is granted in terms of Section 100bis.

Generally, the power of the hon. the Minister is very wide indeed. I want to draw attention, in particular, to the fact, that the hon. the Minister is taking power not only to grant a written authority to sell liquor within the Native urban residential areas and Native villages, but he is taking the power to grant written authority to sell liquor to Natives within the so-called European sections of any town. It may well be that this will seriously affect the sale of liquor through the present channels. Not only has the Minister the right to grant a written authority to sell liquor to non-Whites within an urban area—but in terms of Section 100quin the State President has the right to declare that no liquor shall be sold through the normal channels to Natives in those areas. That clearly would give persons who had a written authority from the Minister a very decided advantage over other sellers of liquor, a virtual monopoly. That, too, is a power which we feel should be severely limited.

It is therefore clear that there are a number of clauses in this Bill which will have to be reviewed when the hon. the Minister introduces his Liquor Bill next year. I am prepared to support the third reading of this Bill although I am not altogether happy about its contents which, I believe, have left the provisions for granting written authority far too vague. I hope that when the hon. the Minister introduces his new Bill next year he will have profited by the experience which he will have gained during the next few months and will present us with a far more precise Bill.

Mr. OLDFIELD:

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I wish to register my opposition to the third reading of this Bill, because I believe that the provisions and the effect of this Bill are going to be detrimental to the morals of our people, and more particularly to the Bantu people. I feel it is going to lead to a greater use of alcohol and a deterioration in the behaviour, particularly of our urban Bantu youth. The effects of the provisions of this Bill will lead to a greater consumption of liquor and the abuse of alcohol will become more evident and will in general become aggravated. I feel it is ironic that we should be voting to-day on the third reading of this Bill to make strong liquor more readily available to the great masses of the inhabitants of South Africa when only a few days ago, on 19 June, I read in the Natal Daily News the following—

Because the misuse of alcohol is regarded as of national importance and only a few minor investigations have been conducted into it, the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, Mr. J. J. Serfontein, has instructed the National Bureau of Educational and Social Research of the Department of Education to undertake research into the use and misuse of alcohol in the country. A grant for this research has been made. One thousand five hundred people will be visited by field workers and asked to complete questionnaires. No one who answers the questions will be embarrassed in any way. Names will not be made known.

So at this stage, when an investigation is being carried out on the misuse of alcohol, we are to-day being asked to vote for the third reading of a Bill which will lead to greater drunkenness and which will aggravate the position in regard to the use of alcohol by making it readily available to 18-year-old Bantu youths, and youths of all other races.

Mr. BUTCHER:

In the second reading of this Bill we were told that this measure could be regarded as a measure of social reform and as an experimental measure. I accept it as such. I voted for this Bill in the second reading, and having examined the amendments that have been introduced at the Committee Stage, I propose to vote for it in the third reading. My only regret is that this measure of social reform affecting non-Europeans has been given priority over so many other more urgent measures of social reform, and may I mention particularly the question of poverty, of malnutrition…

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! I cannot allow a discussion on those matters.

Mr. BUTCHER:

Sir, I do not propose to discuss them, I merely mention them in passing. I regret that this Bill was given priority because I do think it has had the effect of creating suspicion in the minds of many people.

Mr. Speaker, my responsibility is a very grave one indeed, because in my constituency I have the whole of the area of Cato Manor. Therefore I am well aware of the vast extent of the evils under the present system in operation to-day. I do not suggest that the conditions that operate in Cato Manor are typical of all the Bantu residential areas, but I do believe that because of the conditions prevailing there, the evils are possibly accentuated and are more easily seen by those people who come in contact with those conditions in that area.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

They are frightening enough.

Mr. BUTCHER:

What I propose to do is to refer to one or two clauses of this Bill, because the duty of all of us is to try and assess dispassionately whether the advantages that may be gained by this Bill do outweigh the possible disadvantages, or the possibility that opening the door may have in increasing the consumption of alcohol. I do not accept that this Bill will necessarily lead to a large scale increase in the consumption of alcohol or to an increase of drunkenness. On the other hand, it will undoubtedly lead to a tremendous degree, to the removal of the evils of bootlegging and of shebeening and encourage sane drinking habits. One particular aspect which I think should concern us all is the implacable hatred which is growing up in the Bantu residential areas between the African population and the South African Police who are entrusted with the task of administering the present system of liquor control. To me that is a most important factor, because I do believe that under the existing conditions the police are being misused. They are being regarded as persecutors rather than protectors. They are being used for a purpose for which no Police Force should be used, and I am concerned with trying to get a better relationship between the South African Police and the non-European inhabitants of this country.

I want to refer, very briefly, first of all to Clause 6 which provides that the Minister may give authority to “a person”. Presumably there is nothing to prevent that person from being a person resident in the area of a local authority. The hon. the Minister accepted an amendment moved by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), to provide in the proviso in Clause 11, that any authority may be granted only on the recommendation of the National Liquor Board. That does provide a safeguard to a certain extent, but I do not believe that that provides an adequate safeguard for a local authority. There is no provision for the Minister to consult or secure the concurrence of the local authority or to consider any opinion that the local authority might have for or against such an appointment. I urge that the hon. the Minister should consider that matter when this Bill is reviewed.

The second point I should like to mention is the question of the retention of the tot system in the Cape Province. I believe that that is a very serious defect in this Bill, because although it does not extend the tot system to other provinces we in Natal certainly regard the existence of the present state of affairs in the Cape as a threat to us in Natal. As long as that system operates in any portion of the country, I believe people in other parts of the country will regard that as a possible threat for the extension of that system to other provinces.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! The hon. member must confine his remarks to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. BUTCHER:

Mr. Speaker, there are certain defects in this Bill in that it has taken one aspect of the distribution of liquor in isolation from the rest of the liquor trade. I should like to mention these very briefly.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member may not mention the defects, he must confine himself to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. BUTCHER:

May I say that this does flow from the contents of this particular Bill. I refer to Clause 8, Section 100bis (1). Liquor sold by any person or authority under the provisions of that clause creates certain difficulties. What I want to know is this: Will liquor sold by any person or authority under that clause be sold at established retail prices? Is there going to be any attempt to regulate prices so that they conform with the prices established by hotels and bottle stores in urban areas? If not a most serious position could arise. If the local authorities under-quote bottle stores or hotels with off-sales licences, one may wellhave the position of Europeans in European residential areas buying liquor through Africans or even through their own African servants from local authorities. I believe that that is a serious matter which deserves the Minister’s attention.

The second point I want to deal with is in relation to the new Section 100ter. This provides for the granting of off-sales facilities for non-Europeans in European urban areas. At present there are a very limited number of licences for off-sales in any particular urban area. If this clause is accepted and the Bill goes through, it will mean that a tremendous increase will immediately occur in the number of persons who are able to obtain off-sales from any licencee in an European area. That applies not only to Africans, but in the City of Durban in certain areas it applies more particularly to the Indian group. The number of licences in any area is related to the number of male voters in that area. Therefore if the number of persons who are able to apply for off-sales is suddenly increased by 100 per cent, or even by a greater percentage, chaotic conditions are going to develop in the areas where these off-sales licences are situated unless additional off-sales licences are granted, particularly on a Saturday morning. I think the hon. the Minister should explain to us what he proposes to do about regulating these conditions. Would he also indicate whether, in respect of the purchase of liquor by Africans, it is his intention to give a monopoly of off-sales to local authorities or their nominees in terms of Section 100bis? The position will arise that in these European urban areas where there are off-sales licences at bottle stores or hotels, there will not only be chaotic conditions, but highly undesirable conditions due to the congregation of vast numbers of non-Europeans, particularly on Saturdays, for the purchase of liquor at the limited points of distribution, resulting in highly undesirable social conditions for the people in the area.

I hope, also, that the hon. the Minister will tell us some more, when he replies to this debate, about what he proposes to do about the proceeds from the profits from the sale of liquor in terms of Section 100bis. Is it proposed that these profits are going to be devoted to the local authorities in order to swell the Native Revenue Account, and will those proceeds be confined to the improvement of social conditions for the Africans and the non-Europeans generally, or what is the intention? I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister will deal with these matters in his reply.

Mr. GAY:

Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to keep very closely to your ruling with regard to dealing with the contents of the Bill. I want to say outright that when one studies the contents of the Bill in its present form, even allowing for the improvements affected by the various amendments which have been incorporated in the Bill as it is now before us, it still comes to us for its third reading in a form which can be regarded as little else but a revolution in the method of liquor distribution throughout the Republic. As a direct result of the contents of certain of the clauses, particularly Clauses 2, 3 and 4 and 9, I envisage a number of difficulties. They provide for what is virtually the complete removal of all restrictions on the supply of strong liquor in unlimited quantities to any section of the community.

Clause 9 in particular, in effect, establishes a dual system of the distribution of liquor, an overlapping system which will come into force as a consequence of the provisions of this Bill vis-à-vis the existing liquor laws operating under the Liquor Licensing Boards. Unless those difficulties are foreseen and carefully provided for, they might cause difficulty and chaos in the distribution of liquor supplies of the country. When we examine these particular clauses as they now are before us, we find that they extend to the hon. the Minister or to his nominee authority to deal with a number of different bodies, enumerated in these clauses. It gives them an authority for the supply of liquor in the same areas and to deal, to a large extent with the same public as under the existing liquor laws. That is why one of my objections to the Bill as it is now before us is that, for instance, in Clause 9 it gives the hon. the Minister very wide discretionary powers in respect of the authorization of the distribution of liquor, and when you take that power in conjunction with the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill, and other clauses which establish far-reaching measures for the control of liquor supplies, it can lend itself to interference with the legal activities under liquor licences which have already been granted in terms of the existing Act. In previous stages of this Bill the hon. the Minister, when referring to objections to certain of these clauses, has repeatedly stated—and one accepts his statements as being correct—that to a large extent a number of the provisions of this Bill must be regarded as experimental. But in a matter of this sort, and in view of the general information given to us in the contents of this Bill, coupled with the debates which have taken place, I personally would regard it not as experimental but as a very dangerous gamble with certain very important facets of the national life of this country. I think this is something we are likely to regret at a later stage.

As a result of the number of amendments introduced in the Committee Stage, the Bill now before us has had a number of its more glaring defects remedied. In that respect one can accept the Bill up to a certain point, as being a better Bill than the one originally introduced. Despite that improvement, however, and particularly in view of the far-reaching potential for difficulties which any measure—not necessarily this measure—but which any Bill dealing with liquor supply must carry with it, I say the Bill as it is now before us reveals a need for far greater advance preparation than this Bill has received. On that ground I findmyself unable to accept it in the form in which it now appears before us.

This Bill, as you know Mr. Speaker, has been brought before Parliament in an endeavour—which I believe to be a sincere endeavour—to destroy the influence of the people controlling illicit supplies of liquor. In that respect I think the Bill, even in its present form, has the blessings of all of us. But when one studies its contents clause by clause and realizes the possible consequences of this measure, I am not so certain that it will have the desired effect, or, that it does not reveal that in respect of these shebeen queens and illicit liquor traffic, there has been a very marked weakness on the part of those in authority in the control of the supply of illicit liquor at its source. To a large extent this Bill does nothing about that. Hitherto control has been exercised as far as possible over the runner and the distributor, but there has been a marked laxity on the control at the source of supply. If those supplies had been cut off the necessity for this Bill would probably have fallen away to a very large extent. Despite the fact that the Bill before us in its present form has had the benefit of the very searching examination of the Malan Commission, and despite their recommendations—not all of which are now incorporated in the Bill, in fact some of the more important recommendations have been ignored altogether…

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order; I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss anything outside the contents of the Bill.

Mr. GAY:

Very well, Sir, I will not pursue that. I was going to say that despite that backing this Bill still reveals in many of its clauses, certain weaknesses. Let us consider Clause 3 which amends Section 53 of the principal Act. It says—

Section 53 of the principal Act is hereby amended—
  1. (a) by the substitution in sub-section (1) for the words “licence under this Act shall” of the words “licence under this Act other than a temporary liquor licence or a late hours occasional licence shall”; and then we have paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and

other sub-sections. Clause 3 (1) (b) says—

By the addition to the said sub-section of the following paragraph—
(d) in or within half a mile of the boundary of any area set apart for the occupation of Coloured or Asiatic persons.

And there are various other sub-sections to that effect. The contents of that clause deals very largely with the extension of liquor distribution points in terms of the Bill and its relationship and application as affected by the provisions of the Group Areas Act, also, the State President’s authority to direct the decisions of the Statutory Liquor Board. When we go into that aspect further—sub-sections (b) and (c)—with the others on page 4 lay down the conditions governing the transfer of liquor licences in respect of premises which were granted licences under the authority of the State President. And here we have one of the points of overlapping which I mentioned and which, unless foreseen and carefully provided for, is likely to cause trouble. In this clause as it is, although it provides for the transfer of licences, (d) reads—

No licence for the sale of liquor granted or renewed under this Act in respect of premises situate in any place to which any prohibition of paragraphs (a), (b) or (d) of sub-section (1) applies, shall be transferred to any person unless the State President has, subject to the provisions of the Group Areas Act, 1957 (Act No. 77 of 1957), authorized the licensing board to consider an application for such transfer.

There is no safeguard there to the effect that the premises to which such a licence shall be transferred shall have the same status, the same standing, or the same necessity for the supply of liquor at that particular point, or that the premises themselves are comparable in all respects and not inferior to the premises previously holding the liquor licence. This is a most important point which has to be considered in the transfer of licences. Then we go on to Clause 8. This, as you know, Mr. Speaker, was originally to have been deleted by the amendments, but it will now remain in slightly altered form. It provides that—

Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) and of Section 127, no person shall supply any kaffir beer or any liquor to any Native, Asiatic or Coloured person in his employment.

That is a very definite banning on the supply of liquor to any of those particular groups. But then, under sub-section (2) of that particular clause, a lot of the authority and value of that banning is undone by the provision that—

The provisions of sub-section (1) do not prohibit the supply by an employer of wine containing not more than 12 per cent by volume of alcohol and malt liquor to any Native, Asiatic or Coloured person of or over the age of 18 years in his employment; provided that any such liquor supplied to any such employees shall be supplied gratis and shall not be given or purport to be given as, or as supplementing, the employee’s wages or remuneration or as a reward.

The clause as now before us in this Bill certainly provides that the tot system cannot be used as a substitute for the man’s wages. That is made quite clear. But it does re-establish the tot system. It does also, in sub-section (1), prohibit the supply of kaffir beer.

Mr. SPEAKER:

To what clause is the hon. member referring?

Mr. GAY:

Clause 8 which amends Section 96 of the original Act.

Mr. SPEAKER:

That has been omitted.

Mr. GAY:

No, Sir, not by the new clause which is now substituted in the Bill now before us. It was to have been omitted by the original Bill but it has been replaced. It restores, to a large extent, the status quo in regard to the tot system. I will not pursue this, I merely wanted to make the point that one of the reasons why there should be further examination of this provision is that there has been ample evidence as to what was held to be the nutritional value of kaffir beer, the supply of which has now been prohibited.

Turning now to Clause 9—the long clause which may be considered to be the hard core of the Bill—this is the clause which lays down the various people who can be granted authority, and provides for a wide range of liquor distribution points by means of Ministerial authority. It is now Clause 8 but it was previously Clause 9. Sub-section (2) gives the Minister certain powers and goes on to state a number of conditions which apply and also provides for consultation with the local authority. In sub-section (7) it says that all profits derived from the sale of liquor shall be dealt with in the manner specified in such authority after consultation with the Treasury.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! What purpose does the hon. member think he serves by reading every clause?

Mr. GAY:

I am referring to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Yes, but the hon. member is reading practically every clause.

Mr. GAY:

I am sorry you put that construction on it, but as there have been such substantial changes in some of these clauses, and as many members did not take an active part in the debate…

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the contents of the clause.

Mr. GAY:

This clause commences what is practically a new departure in liquor control in the country. Although we have debated it at considerable length there has not been a satisfactory reply which warrants my support of that change. There is no evidence in the clause that the magnitude of the task we are embarking upon has been thoroughly realized or that adequate steps have been taken in this measure to deal with such a task. Despite this lengthy clause, there remains a real danger of chaos developing in the liquor trade as a result of its application.

To go further, on page 8, sub-section (13), we find that there has been a provision that the Minister shall table a report of the next session of Parliament. There again the safeguard imposed comes too late. Once having put the new system into operation, there is little prospect of going back on it later. Section 100quat as now printed deals largely with the consumption of liquor by any Native, Asiatic or Coloured, or the possession of liquor on private premises, and lays down the conditions under which the owner may give authority for that to happen, otherwise an offence is committed. There again, the clause gives ample scope for the creation of a new type of criminal, and the Minister has not been able to satisfy me that that danger is not still inherent in the clause. I do not think we are justified in passing legislation which is vague and which may result in creating further difficulties rather than in improving the position.

Clause 13 deals with the authority to set up the National Liquor Board and the constitution of the Board and its duties. There one can go a long way with the Bill. It has been improved by the acceptance of an amendment in the Committee Stage and it will now undoubtedly give the Minister the benefit of advice.

*Mr. PELSER:

On a point of order, evidently the hon. member still has the Report Stage of the Bill in mind and before him. This is the reprinted form. I just want to draw your attention to that.

Mr. SPEAKER:

What clause is the hon. member discussing now?

Mr. GAY:

It is the new Clause 12, which was originally Clause 13, and which provides for the establishment of the National Liquor Board. I think the hon. member will see that I am perfectly correct. That clause enables us to go a little further in support of the Bill, because it gives the Minister additional assistance in dealing with applications, but even there one feels that it does not go far enough. There seems to be room for widening the scope of the National Board in order that the Minister may have the benefit of further advice with regard to local matters.

Coming back to the Bill in general, I find it difficult, even after studying the Bill as it is now, to believe that any responsible Government, particularly one which follows the policy of this Government, should have launched what the Minister called an experiment on so tremendous a scale with such obviously faulty advance preparation to deal with the consequences of the Bill. As revealed by the contents of the Bill and by the debate, the effect will be that liquor will be made available to some extra millions of consumers amongst the poorest sections of the community, and they will be exposed to the temptation of spending their money on liquor instead of on food.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That is irrelevant.

Mr. GAY:

Then I will not pursue it. But in conclusion, I think that in a country like this with its vast open spaces and with its multi-racial population, one has the right to expect that before a measure like this comes before the House, drastically changing the liquor laws, the whole of the consequences would have been far better appreciated.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That is irrelevant also.

Mr. GAY:

Then I want to conclude on this note, that taking the Bill as a whole, despite all that has been done to improve it, I am not able to support the third reading and shall vote against it. I believe that a case has been made out for a relaxation of the restrictions on the supply of liquor but the method proposed for applying that improvement is not sound and it is not evident in this Bill. It is ironical and rather frightening that a Bill of this nature which withdraws the restrictions on the supply of liquor to the country has in itself imposed a ban on the members of this House from taking part in the discussion of the Bill where they disagreed with it.

*Dr. A. I. MALAN:

This Bill will make it possible for the Bantu to obtain liquor and thus to enjoy a privilege that could not have been withheld from them much longer. They will now obtain freely what they really are legally entitled to obtain, for it will mean that the Bantu will now be able to obtain liquor lawfully, and they are in any event to-day obtaining it unlawfully.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must not talk about the effect of the Bill, but on the contents.

*Dr. A. I. MALAN:

It will stop liquor smuggling, and it is indeed strange that that is not appreciated by everybody.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

That is not relevant.

*Dr. A. I. MALAN:

Then I proceed to my third point, and that is that the most important manner of distribution of liquor in terms of this Bill is through the beer halls of local authorities. I want to emphasize that, for it is a method of distribution with which fewer wrong things are associated than any other method of distribution. The Bill therefore makes it possible to create conditions that are as good as any we could get in the circumstances. The fourth point in the Bill, and to which objections have been made, is the powers that are given to the Minister. With such a great change in our method of control of liquor distribution to non-Whites, it is necessary to have control, and through the powers that are entrusted to the Minister it is possible to bring about a great change in the method of distribution of liquor to the Bantu, without bringing about the chaos hon. members fear. It will mean that if there is even a sign of abuse, the Minister shall have the power to act. It can rightly be said that this Bill will be welcomed by everybody.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! Are those the contents of the Bill?

*Dr. A. I. MALAN:

I wish to give my blessing to the Bill.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The Bill does not provide for blessings.

Mr. HORAK:

I will not detain the House long. Although I voted for the second reading, I intend to vote against the third reading. The contents of this Bill constitute the framework within which a new experiment is to be conducted. This experiment has been referred to as a dangerous one.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must come back to the contents of the Bill. What clause is he discussing?

Mr. HORAK:

During the second reading I asked the Minister how he would use his powers under 100bis, ter and quin, and the Minister has not given that explanation. I believe that the Minister is to be trusted in regard to this specific matter, but he will not be here forever. In fact, after the next election he may be the Ambassador in Brazil. This Bill gives too much ministerial power and in such an important and dangerous matter I cannot find it in my conscience to vote for the third reading.

Mr. RAW:

I supported the second reading of the Bill and most of the clauses in the Committee Stage, but as the Bill is before us now I have difficulties which, whilst they do not lead me to vote against the Bill, unless dealt with in the Minister’s reply, will compel me to abstain from voting on the third reading. My reason is that the Minister has failed to give a full explanation of how he intends to apply Clause 100. I believe that the principle is correct, but as the clause stands now it leaves too much which should either be detailed in the Bill or by ministerial statement in regard to the method of application. The Minister has said that he will use his discretion and tread warily, but the Bill does not say so. If the Minister will give an indication of the method he intends to follow in the application of 100bis, I may change my mind and vote for the third reading, but failing that detail either being in the Bill or given to the House by the Minister, whilst being in favour of the principle, I cannot commit myself to accept its final form without such explanation.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I will be very brief and confine myself strictly to the contents of the Bill. The contents of the Bill have been improved since the second reading, although not as far as I would have liked to see. I will accordingly vote for the Bill in the third reading. The contents of the Bill make it possible to have reasonable administration of the Bill. That rests with the Minister. He is given the power to do so and if it is done, well and good, but if not, I will have an opportunity of voicing my views when the consolidated measure is introduced.

Dr. RADFORD:

All the discussions on this Bill have unfortunately not persuaded me to change my mind. The question really amounts to whether social habits are desirable or undesirable. I am one of those who are convinced that the free use of liquor by uncivilised people is undesirable. Formerly it was a crime.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member must confine himself to the contents.

Dr. RADFORD:

The contents of this Bill change an act which was a crime into an act which is not a crime. The point I want to make is that it has now brought the non-Whites into the law and it has put the Minister beyond the law. The powers which the Minister has been given by the Bill place him completely beyond the law. He is the only man in this country who has never been able, if he wished to—I do not say he will—sign a decree making all liquor available at all times to all people. Nobody else has ever been able to do that. Parliament has given him the power to be an absolute dictator on the liquor question and that is a power I do not believe should ever be given to any individual.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I shall be very brief. I have listened attentively particularly to the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) who has taken the lead in the protests against the bill. I should like to tell him and other hon. members and persons outside the House who are opposed to the Bill, that one listens with great respect to the objections that have been raised, and we have listened with great respect. But now we have to take into account that it is clear that the vast majority of Parliament and of the electorate outside welcome this Bill, and for that reason we have to resign ourselves to the inexorable.

Now there have been two admissions this morning that were pleasant to hear. The first came from the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) that he is not opposed to the principle of the Bill. I may tell him that the points he raised, if he sees to it that it is clear in Hansard, will be considered by us to see to what extent we can meet him. I do not say we shall be able to give effect to it, but we shall consider it. The other admission came from the hon. member for Simons-town (Mr. Gay). He said it is a better Bill than we have had thus far. He admits it is an improvement.

*Mr. GAY:

It is a better Bill than the one first introduced.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

While listening to the hon. member I thought of a definition of someone talking about a subject, viz.: “A member of the legislature who, in opposition to the proposed action of the majority, obstructs or prevents action by the extreme use of dilatory tactics.” I do not wish to accuse the hon. member of that, but the definition did come to mind while I was listening to him.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

That is not in point.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I appreciate what the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) said. Everybody assisted to get the Bill into a form where it is enjoying more general support.

The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Butcher) asked me what about the price of liquor sold in the authorized places. I can say that it will be one of the conditions laid down that the price of liquor sold at an authorized place should be the same as that usually charged in that area by licencees.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—68: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Lawrence, H. G.; le Riche, R.; Lewis, H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, E. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Plewman, R. P.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.: van den Heever, D. J. G.; van de Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; vander Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; 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.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and J. von S. von Moltke.

Noes—19: Connan, J. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Horak, J. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; 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 third time.

APPROPRIATION BILL

Fourth Order read: Third reading,—Appropriation Bill.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

The debate on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill, I understand, has created a record in this House in respect of its duration and in respect of the many and important matters and subjects that were raised by members of the Opposition. I think it also created history because in spite of its great importance against the background of the times in which we are living, it was boycotted by the Cabinet The only near-members of the Cabinet who participated in the debate were two hon. Deputy Ministers who are better known to the country as politicians than as statesmen and national leaders and their contributions to the debate were of a political nature. We know that those two hon. gentlemen are very often used to undertake tasks of which the Government is either incapable or too tired to undertake, such as meeting the Nationalist voters of the Cape Province for example on the question of the position of the Cape Coloured people. It would seem that in the Appropriation debate they were also used to do work for which the Cabinet was either too tired or in respect of which the Cabinet did not feel itself competent to act. But we had a long reply from the hon. the Minister of Finance, a very long and discursive reply, but no answer to the points raised by the hon. members of the Opposition and I think it should be a matter of interest to the House and the country to note the issues that were carefully avoided by the Government after they have been pertinently raised by the Opposition. I think it is necessary to do it early in this third reading debate to give the Cabinet and the Minister a second chance to do their duty by the country and to give the necessary reassurances and statements of policy to which the nation is entitled to in these days. There was no answer by the hon. the Minister of Finance to the very pertinent question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition as to how he intended to service his loan requirements in the new financial year. The best reply we got was that we will have to restrain our curiosity. That was the furthest he could get. There was no reply to the most outstanding speech made by my hon. friend, the member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) on the position of the Land Bank, the Land Bank which seems to have difficulty in finding the necessary funds to save the farmers who are in difficulty from insolvency; the Land Bank which at the moment obviously does not have the funds to advance to farmers for the development of our agriculture. Again, Sir, the reply of the Minister was no answer. He merely threw up his hands in despair and said: “Here I stand; I can do nothing else; I must try to finance the long-term commitments of the Land Bank by means of short-term money from other sources.” Then there was a very interesting point raised during the debate on the position of the Langeberg Koöperasie, one of the major farming enterprises of South Africa affecting the livelihood of thousands of farmers and whose fate may affect one of our important export industries, the canning industry. But we had not a word from anyone on that side. Then there was the most outstanding speech made by the member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) on the state of agriculture in South Africa. The Minister’s very short reply was no answer. He thought that he had given us a reply when he had quoted figures to show that the increase in the contribution of agriculture to the national income was third on the list after mining and secondary industry. I take it that if the contribution of mining were to drop below that of agriculture, the Minister would not be worried that this is happening to mining; he would make a speech to show how agriculture is flourishing in South Africa. Then there was the very pertinent question put to the Government on this very vexed and very difficult and most worrying question of South West Africa. We know the difficulties, and nobody wants the Government to go into details of the legal issues of a matter which is sub judice, but as my hon. Leader has put it to the Government before, in this case before the International Court at The Hague, the Government is acting on behalf of the nation. The nation is in a manner of speaking the client of the Government in this case in a legal action, and surely it is the duty of anyone who is briefed to defend a client’s interests, to tell that client what his prospects are and above all what the consequences may be to the client if the decision of the court goes the one way or the other. But not a word. As far as this Government is concerned apparently South West Africa does not exist as far as the interests of the people of South Africa in that matter are concerned. Then there was another question. Several speakers on this side of the House wanted to know from the Government what action it proposes to take to protect South Africa’s interests in the light of developments that are taking place in the relationship between the European Common Market and the United Kingdom. We know that for many reasons it is possible that the United Kingdom will gravitate towards the European Common Market; we also know that the United Kingdom is most jealous of the rights against her of members of the Commonwealth should she undertake such a step. We know that consultations are taking place at the moment between the United Kingdom Government and other members of the Commonwealth to discuss the consequences of Britain’s entry into the European Common Market should it take place. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that South Africa’s interests would still be protected should that happen now that we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth On that very pertinent point we got neither a reply nor an answer from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. MITCHELL:

He does not know.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

I must say that when one finds that the Government, when it is given the opportunity by a vigilant Opposition to state its case, to reassure the Nation, loses that opportunity, one is compelled to ask oneself whether the Government has an answer; and is that perhaps why there is talk in Government circles that the date of the election should be anticipated and that we should have an election this year? Is it because the Government hopes by refraining from taking the Nation into its confidence, that the effects of the failure of this Government’s policies will not be known to the people by the time the election takes place, and is it their intention to maintain their silence until after the election in the hope that the nation will only discover what is happening to South Africa under this Government once the election has been held. We know what will happen. This Government, if they do go to the nation at an election, will do what we have seen in this Appropriation debate. They will avoid the real issues before the nation and they will fight the election once more on this simple question, “Wil jy hê jou dogter moet met’n kaffer trou?” That will be the theme and the spirit of this election in the hope of diverting the attention of the nation from what is really happening to South Africa after 13 years’ of mis-government by this Government.

In so far as the Minister attempted a defence against the criticism of the Opposition, his failure was abject. I would like to give you a few examples. The hon. the Minister depended to a great extent on a comparison that he attempted to make between the situation that obtained in South Africa in 1948 when this Government came into power and the present situation in South Africa. Sir, when I was young and I had to learn a lot of things under compulsion, one of the things that I was taught is that a false analogy is the last refuge of a bankrupt disputant, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he came to this House with a false analogy in referring us to the position that obtained in 1948 and asking us to accept that the position is similar to-day. He quoted from the speech of the then president of the Reserve Bank, Dr. de Kock, to show that there was an adverse trade balance and that gold was flowing out of South Africa. He also quoted that an influx of capital was creating a distorted picture of South Africa’s economic situation because as a result of the inflow of capital it was not obvious that South Africa really had an adverse trade balance. Fair enough, but that speech was made, I believe, shortly after the Government had come into power. Then I want to know, if the Minister to-day tells us that he accepts the judgment of Dr. de Kock in 1948, why he was willing to sit in the Cabinet sharing the responsibility for the statements and policies laid down by Mr. Havenga in August of that year. Because Mr. Havenga painted a completely different picture, and Mr. Havenga showed very clearly that the position that obtained in South Africa in 1948 was utterly different from the misery of South Africa in 1961. First of all we had gold reserves at the end of the war, at the beginning of the 1947 financial year, amounting to £231 million—not rand—gold reserves only. Mr. Havenga told us that during the year 1947 those reserves declined to £187 million, but why Sir? Because people had lost confidence in South Africa, as is the position to-day? Because capital was fleeing from South Africa, as is the position to-day? Because there was disinvestment? Was that the reason? Let me call Mr. Havenga as witness—

This fall is to be accounted for by the payment in gold of the Union’s lend-lease commitments and the gold subscription to the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank and by settlement in gold of adverse exchange balance.

Then he went on to say—

In the course of this year (the year to which the Budget of 1948 applied) the loan to the United Kingdom of 9,275,000 ounces of gold approved by Parliament last session caused a further decline while further foreign exchange balances had to be settled in gold.

Now, Sir, you see what a distorted picture has been painted to us about the situation then as compared with to-day. And what is very interesting is that Mr. Havenga at the time had to face certain interpretations by the Press of the time, which corresponded with the interpretation which the Minister gave yesterday and this is what Mr. Havenga said about that picture—

The combined effect of all these payments has naturally been a heavy decline in our gold reserves. The nervousness created by this and by the picture which has been given to the public by Press comment—at times I will permit myself to remark “a somewhat distorted picture”—makes it necessary that I should attempt to present the position to Parliament.

You see what happened, Sir, under this Government. I wonder if it is going to happen again in ten years that those Press reports which they describe to-day as distorted will be used by them in ten years’ time to defend their position as it will then exist? Because that is what the hon. the Minister did yesterday. What is interesting is that according to Mr. Havenga, the use of our reserves in 1948 was not something about which we had to be as concerned as South Africa is concerned to-day about the loss of our reserves because of capital disinvestment to-day. Mr. Havenga could point out to us that what was happening was really a most commendable process and that South Africa by allowing her gold reserves to be used as they were used in 1948 was making a major contribution as the world’s greatest gold producer to world recovery after the war, and that as a result of that contribution and recovery of world international trade, South Africa too would benefit eventually. Listen to Mr. Havenga—

It cannot be said that the world’s greatest gold producer has failed in its duty in making this solvent gold available. Its free use its gold has assisted materially in the process of recovery. Its contributions in gold to the International Monetary Agencies, its gold loan to Britain and its payment of gold to liquidate balances of payment, have eased the difficulties of many countries. It could have maintained its former high gold reserves by placing obstacles in the way of the export trade of other countries. It has purposely refrained from doing so.

How bad was the position in 1948? To what extent could it be compared with the position to-day as the hon. the Minister of Finance tried to do? Here is Mr. Havenga’s judgment—

It will be the policy of this Government to maintain the freedom of its citizens to purchase the goods they desire as long as this policy does not introduce instability into our financial structure. We shall not maintain reserves not required for financial stability merely to prevent the reserve ratio from dropping from its previous exceptional height. Reserves are there to be used, and as I shall show presently, we are still well above the safety limit.

Are we well above the safety limit to-day? What the hon. the Minister should have done, if he wanted to present a true picture to this House, was to contrast South Africa’s position in 1948 where by the use of our gold reserves, according to Mr. Havenga—and he was right—we were making a major contribution to world recovery after the war. But the unfortunate position in which South Africa finds herself to-day is that people who in good faith have invested their money in South Africa and who wish to disinvest are told by the Government that they may not do so, against every assurance given by successive Governments and by successive Ministers of Finance. Sir, what a contrast! And the Minister tried to make it a comparison. The hon. the Minister said that he wanted to say certain things for the record. I too want to say something for the record. Mr. Havenga pointed out why there was a decline in our gold reserves in those days and he gave three reasons. The one was that there was a backlog of demand for consumer goods and for capital goods as a result of the stringencies of the war or, as the Minister put it so picturesquely, the shelves in the shops were empty. They have been replenished. But the interesting thing is that during the war South Africa could build up the reserves to make that replenishment possible and pay off our lend-lease obligations and pay in gold our obligations to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank—a very wise step taken by the previous Government before May 1948 which has on more than one occasion saved the skin of this Government since, because they have been able to make use of the facilities so created in those international financial agencies. The second and most interesting cause given by Mr. Havenga was that our gold reserves declined in 1948 because of the terrific demand for capital goods in view of the spectacular economic development that was taking place in South Africa. He quoted how many secondary industries from overseas seeking greater security and opportunity were rushing to South Africa, and he pointed out that in establishing those industries they required capital goods, and the people who established them also consumed consumers’ goods. Is that the position to-day? Furthermore, Mr. Havenga pointed out that one of the reasons was the limited convertibility of currencies overseas. Is that the position today? How dare the Minister come and make this comparison? It is a stark contrast between South Africa to-day and a country so powerfully placed in 1948 that according to a Nationalist Minister who had just taken over from the United Party Government, South Africa in those days was in a position to make a major contribution to the solution of the trade and financial problems of the world by using its reserves. How can the Minister make these comparisons? How dare the Minister compare South Africa’s position to-day with that of Canada or with that of Great Britain or with that of Australia? The position in Canada is not that Canada is desperatelytrying to save money from flowing out of Canada. What is happening in Canada to-day is that the Canadian Government is taking extraordinary steps to get rid of Canadian dollars, to sell Canadian dollars.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

The same trouble that we had in 1948.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Sir, can you imagine the Minister of Finance to-day taking special measures to sell rand? And yet he compares our position with that of Canada.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

In 1948. They are having the same trouble now that we had in 1948.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Of course, that would be fair.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

That is what I said.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

How dare the Minister compare our situation with that of Britain? Britain had to block her currency because of the tremendous expenditure of sterling on the war effort outside Britain, especially in places like Egypt. Is that the position with South Africa? How dare he compare us with Australia? Australia’s difficulties arise from an adverse balance of trade, but it is one of the boasts (which I will not deny) of this Government that we have such a remarkably favourable trade balance on current account…

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Exactly.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

How then can he say that we must take consolation from the fact that Britain and Canada and Australia are in the same position as South Africa when they are not, when they are in the opposite position?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

As far as the reasons are concerned, although the causes are different. That is what I said; do not distort.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Sir, this is when politics become more important to the Minister than financial considerations. In not one of those countries is the problem the fact that world confidence has been shocked in the country concerned, nor was that the problem in South Africa in 1948, and that is the only explanation of what is happening to South Africa to-day. We have a favourable trade balance in South Africa to-day. We have one of the world’s greatest economic potentials, but what has happened to us is that we have become the “muishond van die Westerse wêreld”. It is as simple as that. Sir, what should be tragic to the hon. the Minister, as it is tragic to me, is that all the things that this Government has done, all the bigoted policies of which they have been guilty, which have brought South Africa to this pass, have been done in the name of the Afrikaner—his people and my people.

What is going to happen, Sir, if this Government stays in power with these wrong policies and continues with the defamation of South Africa in the eyes of the Western world? The Government may be able to stop, by special measures, the outflow of capital, but can it recover the inflow of capital? Can it bring a new inflow of capital? You see, Sir, South Africa still needs investment capital from overseas and I should say that if we really want to do something positive, either in accordance with the outlook of the Government or in accordance with the outlook of any of the opposition groups, to relieve race tension in South Africa, we shall need more capital in the coming years than what we have needed before. That is when we really want to do something bold and imaginative, either on the lines of separate development, or of racial federation, or on the lines of surrender. Whatever we do, we shall need capital investment urgently in order to raise the standard of living of all people in the country. During the last 13 years, and on balance, we have had a considerable and the most encouraging inflow of investment capital—hundreds of millions of rounds on balance, yet all the Government could do was to invest something like £100,000,000 for the housing and transport of the urban Native. That is all the money they could spare. At the same time they, or rather the economy of the country, did bring about a slowly rising standard of living for the people without an infusion of capital from overseas. We have been warned by economists that we will have difficulty in maintaining the required increase in the standard of living of our people and to avoid a deterioration in those standards. Where will our capital requirements have to come from, Sir, if any content is to be given to the policy of separate development and if this Government remains in power, if the inflow of capital can only afford an amount of £100,000,000 in 13 years for the urban Native? If there is going to be a similar inflow of capital, a similar expansion, and similar available capital resources for the next 13 years, and even if they were to spend £200,000,000 on the reserves, they will not bring us nearer to a solution of our race problems in South Africa, because it will be inadequate. Unless this Government can restore confidence in South Africa as a fit member of the Western democratic union of states, they will have failed South Africa more utterly than they are failing him to-day, because they will render themselves impotent even to carry what is worthwhile and positive in their own policies. Now one can understand why they want to rush the country into an election before the truth becomes known. I want to suggest that where one has a Government which, as their showing on the second reading of this Bill proved, takes up a flippant and contemptuous attitude to the real problems of South Africa, then it becomes necessary for the Opposition, Sir, to take extraordinary measures to draw the attention of the nation to the truth as it exists in South Africa to-day. Therefore we have no option but to take the unprecedented step of voting against the third reading of this Appropriation Bill. It is not any easy step to take, Sir, because an Opposition normally, after having stated its case, will not attempt to withhold from the Government the funds it requires for the administration of the country’s services. These are, however, extraordinary times, and this is an extraordinary incompetent Government.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

You are an extraordinary Opposition!

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

The hon. Minister will probably in his reply draw great confidence for himself and his party from a dilemma in which any member of the Opposition, or any person who really loves South Africa, may find himself to-day, namely whether one’s opposition to the Government should be carried so far that he may criticize us, as he tried to do, as becoming an embarrassment to the country. I would like to give the hon. Minister of Finance some advice and that is that he must consult the Prime Minister on psychology and to ask him to give him a definition of the sentiment which is known as hatred. He will then find that hatred is a combination of anger, frustration and respect and that is what has happened, namely that they have forfeited the respect of the Opposition, and of the nation, and of the world and hatred towards such a Government is, therefore, a psychological impossibility. I want to put this to you, Sir, that when the people see that a Government, representing the minority of the people and offering the nation policies which it cannot carry out, ruining the nation and the country, that the Opposition also representing that people, should take extraordinary measures within the democratic machinery allowed to it. We are taking such measures to-day because if this decision of ours to vote against the Government on the third reading of this Bill should succeed, should some members opposite realize their responsibilities and do what their hearts and their brains tell them to do according to confessions which they are making to people all over the country, the result will be the immediate collapse of this Government, and a new Government and hope for South Africa and new prospects of restoring the dignity and prestige of our country. How can the Opposition entrust this Government on its own performance with the administration of a Budget running into several hundred million rands, when that includes their own salaries which the people should withhold from them because of their incompetence and utter bankruptcy?

*Mr. MARTINS:

When one makes a statement that statement is only as strong as the weakest link in it, and if South Africa now wants to take note of the irresponsibility of the Opposition they must just analyse the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). I cannot but say that his speech is a Budget vulture speech. The hon. member was not here when certain matters, about which he kicked up such a fuss, were dealt with yesterday under the Appropriation Bill. I just want to mention one example of it. He has mentioned the hon. member for Drakensberg as a person who stated a case in the interest of agriculture in which she criticized the agricultural policy of this Government. I want the country to know that when that debate was replied to by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) and agricultural matters were discussed, there were only three United Party members in this House for over an hour. The others were conspicuous by their absence. Then the hon. member is so irresponsible as to say that the Cabinet boycotted the Budget debate. This is the hon. member who said that it was difficult for the Opposition to vote against this third reading, but it is not difficult for an irresponsible person to vote like that! They do not bear any responsibility. Besides, they know that even though they vote against the third reading of this Bill it will still become law. It reminds me of the days when the members of the Executive Committee of the Provincial Council assisted in drawing up the Budget, but thereafter ran away from it and voted against it. That is the sense of responsibility now being revealed by those people. He knows that this Bill will in any case become law, even though they vote against it. I think it is scandalous to run away from one’s responsibilities and then, by making a great show, to try to give the public to understand that they voted against the Bill, well knowing that it would in any case have been passed.

The hon. member said a moment ago that South Africa was the polecat of the Western world.

HON. MEMBERS:

The Burger said so.

Mr. MARTINS:

That hon. member rejoices in these polecat stories. I will come back to it, because I want to show that if that were true it is because there are people in South Africa who befoul their own nest, and they are the hon. members sitting opposite. I just want to mention one example of this. Mr. Speaker, have you ever in the history of any country read that the Leader of the Opposition writes to the foreign Press to say what his party will do in the country to obtain foreign assistance, or where the foreign Press is used by such a leader against the voters of his own country? That is what this Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly done. A thing like that simply is not done, Mr. Speaker. There is no other leader of a political party in the whole world who knows that his own Press no longer trusts him and no longer wants to state the policy of his party and who then runs away overseas to make use of the Press there in order to try to create an impression. There is no other leader of the party who will invoke the assistance of the foreign Press in his correspondence and letters against his own country. It is this sort of thing, this sort of behaviour, which results in a newspaper stating that South Africa is the polecat of the Western world. [Interjections.] When the Burger said that, it was merely stating a fact to expose why it is so, namely that we have newspapers and members of the Opposition in South Africa who befoul their own nest by besmirching South Africa in the eyes of the world.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

They are always using unsavoury political bait.

*Mr. MARTINS:

The hon. member for Yeoville said that the problems and matters raised here by the Opposition yesterday and the day before have not been dealt with effectively. But was that hon. member not here last night when the hon. the Minister of Finance replied fully on every point? I want to mention one example. In order to support this accusation, he referred to agriculture and to the Land Bank. I want the country to know and every farmer producing fruit for canning to know that the United Party is against assistance ever having been given to the Langeberg Co-operation, and that they would have preferred that fruit to lie and rot than that it should have been made possible to can it.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Why did you sell your farm?

*Mr. MARTINS:

That hon. member does not know what he is taking about.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I do not think it behoves hon. members to be so personal.

*Mr. MARTINS:

I think the farmers in South Africa are grateful to the Land Bank for having assisted Langeberg to develop in this way and to carry on. If one reads the annual report of the chairman of the board of directors of Langeberg, it will be noted that he very clearly points out that Langeberg is not insolvent. It is certainly not the first time that a co-operative in South Africa has suffered losses, or that co-operatives have had to write off debts as the results of losses suffered. I would like to tell hon. members opposite that during all the years the Land Bank has financed co-operatives, and provided co-operatives with export advances, with instalments, and supplied capital loans, there has not yet been a single case where the Land Bank or the taxpayer in South Africa regarded it as a loss, because over the years and when the position was consolidated it was found that it has always been a favourable proposition. In the same way, Langeberg will also be a paying concern in the long run, because by having Langeberg with all its branches throughout South Africa the facilities are provided for the farmers to can their fruit.

I want to pause to deal briefly with this accusation in regard to our agriculture. The hon. member for Yeoville has now told us that the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) made out such a good case yesterday of how badly things are going with the farmers and with agriculture in South Africa. One of the aspects she touched on was the meat market, and she said that control of the meat market had now been destroyed because the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing stopped the permit system. But what is the true state of affairs? This, that in 1958 1,122,418 permits were issued, of which only 535,827 were used—in other words, only 48 per cent of the permits issued were used! Does anybody want to tell me that a system where the control is exercised by means of permits can work effectively if only half the permits issued are used? If twice as many permits are issued as are received in the controlled areas, surely there is no control at all! During 1959 1,740,334 permits were issued, of which only 574,355 were used—in other words, only 53 per cent of the number of permits issued. Therefore twice as many permits were issued as were received in the controlled areas. If hon. members want to criticize the fact that the permit system was abolished, they should have the courage of their convictions and tell the farmers that they will again have a permit system with a compulsory clause and a penal provision to the effect that a permit which is issued must be used. But they will not dare to do that. The responsibility of an Opposition here is not merely to come along with Jeremiads, but also to give an alternative and to tell the electorate that it disapproves of a matter and to offer a solution as being its policy. Will this Opposition dare to do that? Let us see what the position is in regard to permits for sheep. In 1959 5,198,532 were issued, of which only 3,420,588 were used, or in other words, only 59 per cent. I repeat that if hon. members want us to revert to the permit system, a permit system of £85,000 which has never been effective, because it represents only a small portion of the total marketing scheme, then they must have the courage of their convictions and tell the farmers that they will add a provision to it, or that they suggest an alternative. This, however, they cannot do because they have no policy. They just remain the old yes-no party of the past.

Let us look at this marketing scheme further. The hon. member also spoke about the marketing of meat. Let us see what the position is there. Has any one of them ever dared to say that the price of meat in South Africa is too low? No, they do not do that because they know that they also have to rely on the consumer for votes, and because they know that the consumer will then have to pay the increased price. Now they just want to criticize one aspect of it whilst failing to have the correct perspective and to realize the true position; they cannot understand that one has to keep the balance—one must satisfy the consumerand also the producer. Therefore one cannot criticize the one and forget about the other because one always has to bear in mind the whole of the community and its purchasing power. What is the position now in regard to meat? I just want to mention a few examples.

If we look at the average floor price and we take the Newtown market for 1959, we find that for the first five weeks there was an average floor price of 99s., whereas the actual price was 133s. 11d. per 100 lb. Therefore the auction price was 135 per cent of the average floor price. During the 19th and 22nd week the auction price was 111s, 11d., whereas the average floor price was 99s. 2d. In the 49th and 50th week the floor price was 111s. 6d. and the auction price 143s. 3d., i.e. 128 per cent of the floor price. With reference to these figures, I want to make out a case that with this system of meat marketing, i.e. where there is a floor price, one does not give the farmer or the producer the opportunity to derive proper benefit from what the consumers can offer over and above the guaranteed floor price. At the moment we find this to be the best system, after having tried all other systems. We also know that the hon. the Minister is not satisfied with the position and just leaves it as it is, but that he appointed a commission to investigate and to report in regard to the slaughtering potential, and that this commission at the same time must investigate the provisional facilities for frozen meat and to have that frozen meat boned in order to be able to offer that boned, frozen meat on the foreign market if there is over-production here. We also know that the hon. the Minister told that commission that when meat is bought in Cape Town at the floor price it should not be transported to Johannesburg to be offered for sale there again so that the buyers will know that there is a surplus of meat which cannot be disposed of, but that this meat should be kept here and offered for sale by catalogue. Then if an acceptable bid is not obtained it must be exported, thereby informing the consumers that meat will not be allowed to pile up and to be sold later at a loss, and to make them realize that they must buy it, or else it will be exported. Has the hon. member in this respect ever expressed a single word of thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for having taken this positive step, where there is over-production of meat, to create a foreign market, and to make the consumers here realize that they must at least buy at the floor price or else they will not get meat? All we had from that side of the House is criticism without any alternative suggestion having been made. The hon. member for Drakensberg quoted a long list of figures here yesterday, but all those figures did was clearly to show a picture of increased production of progress in production. Do you want to tell me that if agriculture is so uneconomic we will still have increased production? No, Mr. Speaker, we know very well that the commission of inquiry into agricultural credit divided the farmers into three categories. The first group—and that is the largest group—consists of those who require no financial assistance from the Land Bank or from State Advances or any other Government body, but who can obtain the necessary capital in the private sector because they have enough credit to do so. The second group of farmers consists of those who have always got their capital loans from the Land Bank and will still obtain them in future to purchase land on mortgage bond. Formerly the loans were for 66 per cent of the valuation, but that percentage has been increased by the Government to 80 per cent.

*Mr. DURRANT:

You can no longer obtain loans on mortgage bond.

*Mr. MARTINS:

Yes, you can. Only yesterday I still obtained a loan for a farmer. The Land Bank will of course not give that hon. member a loan because he is not a farmer. That group of farmers received the necessary assistance together with the hypothec loan introduced by this Government to give the man the opportunity also to buy cattle and therefore to be able to carry on his farming operations. This commission of inquiry pointed out that there was still a third category of farmers, those who at the moment are being assisted by the Department of Lands and those who are given subsidies in terms of the Soil Conservation Act, as well as those farmers who were assisted by State Advances. Of course we know that the Public Service Commission is now studying this report of the commission with a view one day to take consolidated action in respect of this third category of farmers. In other words, this Government, in regard to its agricultural policy, keeps its eye on the future and its finger on the pulse of the needs of the farmer, and it makes the necessary adaptations whenever necessary. It ensures that these farmers will be kept on the land.

In regard to this matter, I want to say, in conclusion, that when hon. members say that the platteland is becoming depopulated, that is not true. This report clearly proved that the platteland is not becoming depopulated, but is becoming Black because the percentage of farmers on the platteland in South Africa is still higher than in the case of any other country where there is intensive industrial development and industrial prosperity. Do hon. members want the soil of South Africa to be cut up into uneconomic plots in order to keep a larger percentage of farmers on the land where they become impoverished? Does the United Party want a farmer to cut up his farm and divide it between three or four sons, and that this land should now carry four families whereas formerly it carried only one family? This Government is applying a policy in terms of which it is not made possible for all these people to remain living on the land, but it is made possible for them also to be absorbed in the industrial development of the country. Hon. members opposite do not always just come along with a half-truth, because a half-truth is like the white lie with which Eve caught Adam. They have repeatedly told these stories to the voters, but they have been rejected time and again in the platteland constituencies, and that is why the hon. member for Yeoville is so terrified of an election. But their mouths have not been closed, and they can therefore again go and state their policy and receive an even bigger beating than they got in the past.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

I should have liked to have said a few words to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education, particularly after his visit to Fort Hare. I noticed that he had returned but unfortunately he is not here, and consequently it will be pointless raising the matter. As far as the hon, member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) is concerned, I want to congratulate him on the fact that he has allowed himself to be misused by the Ministers of Agriculture who are absent but who should have been here, and that he has stepped into the breach for them in the agricultural sphere, one of the most important portfolios in our country. But these Ministers are not even present in the House to reply to the allegations which hon. members on this side have made.

*Mr. HORAK:

They cannot reply.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

As I have said, the hon. member for Wakkerstroom has been used to cover up the incompetence and the inability of the hon. Ministers. While I am discussing this point I want to say that I regard it as a scandal that during an important debate such as this, in view of the critical position in which the country finds itself, there have in fact only been two Ministers who have been regularly in their places, namely the Minister of Finance who must be here because his portfolio is under discussion and the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

He has nothing else to do.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

I understand the Minister of Foreign Affairs is absent through illness and we excuse him. Where is the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs? The Minister of Defence is overseas. Where are the others? There are fourteen, fifteen, twenty of them. Where are they? In a debate as important as this not one single Minister as such has replied to the submissions of this side. This is the first time that this has happened in all the time I have been in this House, and it is a pity because we would have expected hon. members opposite who bear the responsibility, the Ministers and also the members—because those benches have in general been empty—to be here.

*Mr. VOSLOO:

You have emptied them with your speeches.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

No, I have only just risen to speak. But the absence of their Ministers has apparently forced those who have already spoken out of the House, but we would have expected more hon. members opposite to have risen to support their Minister of Finance, seeing that he is in such a critical position.

What has struck me particularly during this debate has been in the first place the financial predicament in which we at last find ourselves after 13 years of this Government, and there is certainly not one single hon. member opposite who will deny that 13 years ago we warned against this kind of thing. I am not going to go into that aspect again, but for thirteen years we have warned that if the Government continues along its chosen course, we would eventually find ourselves in financial difficulties. That is exactly what is happening to-day, no matter what evasive reply the hon. Minister may give. What has struck me in the second place, as the previous speaker on these benches has already said, has been the trivial and unsatisfactory reasons which both the Minister and other members opposite have given for the financial difficulties in which we find ourselves at present. Furthermore, what has struck me has once again been the feeling amongst hon. members opposite, the feeling which they have revealed over the past 13 years, namely the belief in the so-called infallibility of the Nationalist Party. It cannot make a mistake; it does not listen; it does not pay any attention to anyone else; it goes on alone along its chosen course; there is no one who can teach it anything. That is the crux of the arguments of the Nationalist Party; it is always right; it cannot be wrong; you are always wrong; it will see to it that South Africa comes right; it will see to it that South Africa continues to exist even if the whole world is against us.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

No, we are looking for an Opposition.

*Mr. HORAK:

No, you are seeking scapegoats.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

I repeat that the country is practically bankrupt; nevertheless that is unimportant as far as my hon. friends opposite are concerned, so long as no one interferes with their own self-importance and the infallibility of the Nationalist Party Afrikaner, because they associate the Nationalist Party with the Afrikaner, just as long as no one derogates from this infallibility, this inviolability of the Afrikaner, this ego of the Afrikaner (of the Nationalist Party). According to the hon. the Minister of Transport and other hon. members opposite, they do not need our assistance; they do not need us and they say that no one—the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) repeated this yesterday—who is not a Nationalist is an Afrikaner; he is a renegade. It is not the first time that hon. members opposite have said this. Those of us who try to co-operate in South Africa with the other language group are described as Anglicised Afrikaners and renegades.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The word “renegade” is not parliamentary.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

It has been said, and the hon. member has done so.

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

I did not.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

However that may be, we are described as traitors to our nation.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

The word “traitor” is also unparliamentary.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Perhaps one should explain this psychologically and expect it, because those who speak in this way and insult people who think differently are usually the people who have done the least for the cause about which they have so much to say and people who speak in this way usually have to trumpet the fact that they are Afrikaners because in reality they have done nothing to further the culture or anything else belonging to the Afrikaners. I therefore want to say this: Anyone who attacks us in this way, who attacks so bitterly those who try to co-operate is psychologically ashamed. He feels inferior. He has to make a fuss and trumpet it forth, because otherwise no one outside would be able to see from his actions and behaviour that he is really an Afrikaner. But then the hon. member went further. He has not only attacked people of his own blood, members of his own race, his own people.

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

I deny emphatically that I said anything against my own people.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

He has not only attacked me and other Afrikaans-speaking members of this side; he has also attacked other racial groups in South Africa. Everyone is the enemy of the Afrikaner; everyone is the enemy of the Nationalist Party; and if one is an enemy of the Nationalist Party—as I have said, they associate the Nationalist Party with the Afrikaner—then one is against the Afrikaner.

At present hon. members are also attacking anyone who is not Afrikaans. They are attacking the English-speaking people, the Natives, the Coloureds, the Asiatics, everyone, the whole outside world. There is only one group that is right and that is the Nationalist Party.

*HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Yes, there we have it, and this is the most interesting phenomenon which has revealed itself during this debate, particularly on the part of the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Boksburg, and this is notwithstanding the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has pleaded during the past twelve months, and I take it that he was sincere, for the co-operation of the English-speaking section of our population. We on this side of the House have never asked for political co-operation. We realise just as well as the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Finance that it is impossible to co-operate in the political sphere with the Nationalist Party for so long as the basis of their policy remains unchanged. We have never urged that. It is therefore pointless to argue on that point. What we have urged is that there should be closer co-operation between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking peoples. That is what we have asked, and that is what the Prime Minister wants, although it is strange that he only does so when South Africa is in difficulties, when the Nationalist Party wants assistance. Then hon. members come and ask for assistance. I must admit that this request has also come from other hon. members opposite who are also saying: “Come, we are now entering a new era; let us see whether we cannot come together.” In the bitter speech which the hon. member for Boksburg made, he asked: “What is national unity?” I think that is a reasonable question. What is national unity? What is racial cooperation? And then he asked: “How can we achieve it?” In my simplicity I am going to give him a few examples of how one can achieve it. In the first place one can achieve racial unity in South Africa between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking peoples only when both are treated on an equal footing. And it is in this respect that so many of us have tried for so many years (I am now speaking as an Afrikaans-speaking person) to promote the interests of the Afrikaner to such an extent that he could be on an equal footing in every sphere with our English-speaking countrymen, and it was only after that stage had been reached that I personally extended my hand of friendship to my equal, to my English-speaking countrymen. This stage has long since been reached. We need no longer argue on that score, and that is why I want to make an appeal to hon. members to move forward and not to make this type of bitter speech either here or outside this House.

But let us go further. We must be prepared to grant the other language group that which we demand for ourselves and we should not ask anything of the other man or demand anything of him which we do not demand of ourselves. In other words, we must treat one another equally; then we shall achieve racial co-operation. Furthermore we must accept and love the same fatherland; we must be prepared to make sacrifices for our common fatherland; at the same time we must admit that in this fatherland we have two White population groups, two language groups, and that we should never ignore the language, the traditions and the culture of the other race. If we do not recognize the language, the culture and the traditions of the other language group, we shall never achieve co-operation in this country.

*Mr. VOSLOO:

We all say that.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

That is why I hold it so much against my hon. friends opposite that they do not give themselves the opportunity to achieve that unity.

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

Afternoon Sitting

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

When business was suspended, I was enumerating certain of the requirements which are necessary if we want to achieve racial co-operation. I said that in the first place I wished to speak as an Afrikaner to Afrikaners, and in the second place that before we could hope for racial unity and racial co-operation, the two races should be on an equal footing; that everyone should be prepared to give to the other the same things as they demanded for themselves; in other words, one should be prepared to demand nothing more than that which one is prepared to give. I went further and said that one should love the same fatherland; that one should be prepared to serve this common fatherland and that one group should not only respect the other’s traditions, but should also regard those traditions as their common traditions, as their own, and that they should respect the other language group’s traditions and culture. But the most important point is that while one may feel in this way and while one may feel in one’s heart that this is what is needed, one should put it into practice.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Why do you not do so?

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

I do so everyday. It is because I do so that I am sitting on this side of the House. [Laughter.] I have tried to live up to what I feel. There may be much that may be said against me, but one thing hon. members opposite cannot say of me, and that is that I am not an Afrikaner.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

You must say it, because otherwise one does not know it.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Unfortunately I cannot say that of that hon. member; I cannot say of him that he is a true Afrikaner!

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

It is not necessary to do so.

Dr. STEENKAMP:

Let us leave it at that. But allow me to add this: If hon. members opposite, or my English-speaking friends on this side of the House, do not give one another the opportunity to get to know one another, to associate with one another—and you will forgive me if I refer to this—if there are not for example more occasions such as you, Mr. Speaker, created the other day, where we were able to get together, to meet one another and to learn to respect one another’s traditions and language, we shall not achieve that desired unity.

*Mr. BOOTHA:

May I ask the hon. member a question? Seeing that he is a Transvaler, I just want to ask him whether he can tell me how many private English-medium schools there are in the Transvaal and how many private Afrikaans-medium schools there are?

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

I do not know, but that brings me to my next point, and it is that one must start young. If we do not start young, we shall not achieve any success if we first reach our age and then try to comply with the requirements I have set out. And it is so easy in South Africa for the two White language groups to do so. Because we have the same origins, and we speak practically the same language; 50 per cent of my language is the same as that of my English-speaking countryman; 50 per cent of his language has the same origin as mine. His outlook on life is the same as mine, his religion is the same as mine. I therefore tell my hon. friend who put this question to me yesterday: There are no obstacles on the road before us; we must just give one another the opportunity to come together; we must be prepared to do so. But if the hon. member for Boksburg goes on in this way and if there are friends on this side of the House who reveal the same bitterness towards the other language group, then we have no future here; then we shall never have national unity in South Africa. The result will be that we shall be destroyed; we shall die out; because we cannot continue divided as we are. We are only a small group of White people encircled by a Black danger, not only here in South Africa, but we are also located on the strategic southern tip of Africa, between the East and the West. We are divided and we fight one another. We are always arguing in this House. I know that the hon. member is one of the most pleasant of persons outside the House. He never reveals any racial feelings outside. That is why I was so surprised that he could make such a speech in this House.

*Mr. G. L. H. VAN NIEKERK:

May I ask the hon. member a question? I want to ask the hon. member whether I criticized the English-speaking people in my speech?

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Yes, and I think you will be ashamed when you read your speech and when you see what you said about them, and what you said about those who differ from you. That is what I meant. But allow me to say this: If I have offended the hon. member personally, then I apologize because I do not want any division—I am asking that we should come together.

But when we have found unity and have established co-operation between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking peoples, what then of our relations with the other racial groups, what of our relations with the non-White groups? This problem is just as important and urgent. It is essential that we should build up one South African nation in this country, but it is just as important that we should try to retain the goodwill of the others, of the non-White population groups—whether it be the Coloured people, or the Asiatics or the Bantu—in order to have peace and unity in South Africa. It is so important, and it is for this reason that I have risen and it is for this reason that I am so sorry that there have been so few of our Ministers present during this debate to reply to the questions we have put to them. Their answers could have been important as far as the near future is concerned.

*Mr. MARTINS:

Then you must not ask silly questions.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

That may be—with all humility. But I am nevertheless asking the questions, and as a member of this House I have a right to receive an answer from the Minister of Agriculture and not from the inefficient member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins). I repeat: Let us have no more of this type of speech. I can give my hon. friends the assurance that if that speech had come from this side of the House I would have risen and criticized it as strongly as I am now doing.

*Mr. MARTINS:

That is nonsense.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

I would have done so. I do not only do so in this House, but outside as well. This does not only apply to one language group, but to both the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking groups, namely that we should act in such a way as to make it possible for us to build up a South African nation.

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

In the short time at my disposal I should like to say to the hon. member that he objected most strenuously to the judgment of members on this side of the House in respect of Afrikaans-speaking members opposite. I want to ask him whether he is serious. If he is serious, then I should like to say to him, and indicate briefly, what a difficult road he will find within his own party. There is hardly a single man in this House who is keener than I am to see the Whites in South Africa draw closer to each other. When the hon. the Prime Minister appeals to the House and to the public for us as Whites to find one another, and when we listened to what happened during the past few years during this debate, and when one thinks of what was said in recrimination—last night even, Mr. Speaker, let me draw your attention to it—that a serious attempt was made by that side of the House to sow suspicion in respect of that Prime Minister; it is being done in the House every day—that being so, I say the hon. member over there has a long way to go. Mr. Speaker, I should just like to quote a few phrases that have fallen from that side of the House, and then I should like to ask the hon. member, as well as the member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), whether that meets with their approval. I should also like to ask why it happens, and why it persistently occurs in this House, coming from members opposite. Mr. Speaker, was it from this side of the House that this sentence came: “To hell with your Republic”; “Go and be damned”; “To hell with the Government and its English-speaking supporters”? I repeat: That hon. member has a long way to go.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Who said that?

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

It was said in the House. I do not wish to mention names, for I am not looking for recrimination. Last night the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) said here that the Afrikaans Church during its sitting in Johannesburg, during the sitting of the World Council of Churches, passed a resolution. That is completely wrong; it is not true. Then he made this remark: And then the party organizers came along and they set aside that resolution of the Church—and he says: “The Church had to tow the line.” Mr. Speaker, if he persists in that, then I should like to ask the hon. member for Yeoville, who knows more about the Afrikaans Church than that hon. member, whether he approves of that. Do that hon. member and the hon. member who spoke just now, think that it will promote good racial relations to broadcast from this House such a public lie—to proclaim such a public lie to the world from this House?

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has broadcast a public lie to the world from this House?

*Mr. SPEAKER:

I should like to hear first what the hon. member said.

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

Mr. Speaker, I said it is a public lie the hon. member for Bezuidenhout told, that the party organizers swooped down upon the church deputies “and they had to tow the line”, and that thereafter they had to support the policy of the Government in relation to the Bantu. That is an untruth and I emphasize it. It is to the disgrace of that hon. member when he wants to defend it.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

The hon. member says that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in this House abused his position as a member to broadcast a public lie to the world. I should like to have your ruling whether that is in order.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

I do not understand that the hon. member referred to what occurred here in this House.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Mr. Speaker, I think we might have some clarity. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) alleges that the action of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in this House has broadcast a public lie to the world.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member says that what the hon. member said here in the House, is not consistent with the facts of what occurred outside. Is it so, or not?

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

That is 100 per cent correct.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Mr. Speaker, when one person alleges that another has told a lie, then it means that that person has told an untruth, well knowing that it is an untruth. In other words, he accuses the hon. member of immoral conduct. If the hon. member had said it is an untruth, we could have no objection. But to use the word “lie”, is to make an immoral imputation against the hon. member, and I should like to ask you with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, not to permit one hon. member to make such a charge against another hon. member.

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to go further and to say that if that hon. member wishes to defend it, then I wonder whether the charges that are alleged to come from this side of the House do not contain some truth, for the hon. member is aware of the falsity of that statement.

*Mr. HUGHES:

The hon. member accused the hon. member for Bezuidenhout of telling a lie, and whether he referred to facts that occurred outside the House or not makes no difference. The point is that he said that the member told a lie in this House. As the hon. member for Yeoville indicated, he accuses him of an immoral act. I ask you therefore to give a ruling on the point that has been raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, before the hon. member for Pretoria (District) proceeds.

*Mr. P. J. COETZEE:

On a point of order, can it now be expected of this hon. member to withdraw if all of us are convinced that it was a lie?

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when one hon. member says that another hon. member in this House has broadcast a public lie to the world, then surely it is a public lie. Outside it is regarded by the whole of South Africa as a public and infamous lie, for the party did nothing of the sort.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is now making a speech. The whole matter concerns something that occurred outside this House, and I cannot control the facts outside this House.

*Mr. TUCKER:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Pretoria (District) will not deny that he said it was a lie that was broadcast to the outside world from this House. It is a direct charge that a person in this House has told a lie, and I ask that he be requested to withdraw that.

*Mr. VOSLOO:

This matter of a resolution having been adopted at Cottesloe can be checked, and it can be proved that no party organizer influenced the Church to change its attitude. In other words, it is a lie the hon. member told.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

That is not a point of order. The hon. member is now arguing about the matter. I shall ask the hon. member to withdraw the words “public lie”. It is not good parliamentary language.

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

If you rule that it is not good parliamentary language I shall withdraw it. But let me put it this way. Any hon. member opposite who wishes to defend the statement of that hon. member here this afternoon makes himself guilty of a grievous injustice to a church that means so very much to this country, and which has done so much. For what has been said here is devoid of all truth.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who sits next to the hon. member who is speaking has just said: It is a shameful distortion.

*Mr. VOSLOO:

Mr. Speaker, no, I said: The hon. member is a disgrace to Israel.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member must withdraw the word “Israel”, for Israel is not concerned with the matter.

*Mr. VOSLOO:

Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance…

*Mr. SPEAKER:

No, the hon. member must withdraw. The hon. member must not offend Israel.

*Mr. VOSLOO:

With all due respect to Israel—I have much more respect for them than for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—I withdraw the word “Israel”.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Mr. Speaker, I think there are a number of us who have not got clarity. I should just like to ask your ruling. Suppose something is said in this House.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That is not a point of order. We cannot come here and put all kinds of hypothetical cases and ask the Speaker to give an explanation or a ruling.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Mr. Speaker, I ask your indulgence for I should like to have your guidance—guidance for me, if it does not apply to anybody else.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member can only rise on a point of order.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. When anything is said in this House, you hear it and the House hears it, and I know it is not so, have I to remain silent…

*Mr. SPEAKER:

No. The hon. member may not put a hypothetical case.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

But here it is not hypothetical; here we are dealing with reality.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria (District) may proceed.

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

Last night when I told the hon. member here by way of interjection that the world outside would note the words he spoke here, he said the world took no notice of me. But this morning it is reported in the Cape Times that the Prime Minister is threatening the Press in South Africa, and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) went so much further and said that members in the House are threatened in three months’ time as regards their presence. Those of us who listened in to the one o’clock news this afternoon heard that Sir Malcolm Barrow, a Minister of Southern Rhodesia, used virtually the same words that our Prime Minister used in this House a few weeks ago. I could go so far as to say that in Rhodesia he begged the Press to call itself to order and to discipline itself. What more did our Prime Minister do? It is untrue to say that he used a single threatening word. The hon. member on the front bench over there appealed to us for our co-operation, and I should like to ask him why his party persistently comes along with these things that can only cause quarrels. If they persist in propagating those things in our country, can we then have rest and co-operation between White and White in a united South African nation? Those utterances from that side of the House sound so fatuous and insincere to me. I am mentioning to you the untruths that are broadcast to the world in connection with threats, and then coupled with that they say that South Africa is now heading for a Nazi or Hitler state under our Prime Minister. The first thing that is said in that connection is that the Press of South Africa is being threatened. The hon. the Prime Minister has urged that the Press should discipline itself. Here a Minister of Southern Rhodesia comes along and urges the same thing in virtually the same words. Is there a gentleman or a lady in this House this afternoon who will come and tell me that they approve of the Press in South Africa? Let me say I find them disgusting, even on the touchlines of the football field. They run up and down there like a lot of mad men, so that one cannot see what is happening there. I say that in South Africa they are also running up and down the touchlines and they besmirch our fatherland. One asks oneself whether some of those gentlemen have any patriotism at all. All they want to do is to create sensationalism for the outside world to read. I want to repeat that if that hon. member feels as he spoke here so earnestly this afternoon, then he can do much pioneering work and mission work within his own party.

The next point made by the hon. member was the bridge there should be between English- and Afrikaans-speaking people, particularly in our schools. Now I should like to tell him something. I was a teacher in an English school in the Transvaal, where I taught English for 21 years. Let me tell him this, that in the Transvaal we had parallel-medium schools from one end to the other, where the English-speaking child had the opportunity of learning English and Afrikaans side by side with the Afrikaans-speaking child. Those schools existed from south to north and from east to west, but the English-speaking people did not place their children in those schools. I want to make this point. There is the Potchefstroom Boys’ High, which is one of the outstanding English high schools in the Transvaal, and the language in the classrooms and on the playing fields is English, but the language of the staff room is Afrikaans. I once again ask hon. members with all due modesty, as a South African who knows only this fatherland: My future and the future of my children are here. Have those hon. members then the right to say this; was it this side of the House that introduced politics into the Transvaal Provincial Council, and into the schools? Was it this side of the House that did those things?

*Dr. DE BEER:

Of course.

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

That hon. member knows a lot about medicine, much more than I do for I know nothing about it. But I do know that when it comes to education, and he makes such a foolish remark, it shows that he knows absolutely nothing about it. I have already told the hon. member that for 21 years I was an English teacher at an English school. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) paid me on these benches a compliment that no other hon. member in the House received—and he was an inspector of schools. So, I repeat this and I emphasize it, that the bridge can only be built, firstly when a feeling of belonging together and co-operation comes into existence among the people of the country. It is no good us establishing parallel-medium schools if the English-speaking people refuse to send their children to those schools. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) asked a question which the hon. member opposite was conveniently able to evade, for in South Africa there are no private Afrikaans schools. The public schools are good enough for our children and my children received their education and their tuition in those Government schools, and they received their degrees in our universities. I am not ashamed to compare them with any young man or woman who received their degrees at another university or in another country.

Now I should like to address the two Jeremiahs of this House, the member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) and the member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). When I came to this House in 1953, and heard the first budget speech of the member for Constantia, I left here feeling very downhearted, for I really imagined that if that was the picture of South Africa we were going to have a very lean time. I have now heard that speech from 1953 to 1961. Now the hon. member must not blame me if I begin to doubt the lamentations he has uttered here. He has now acquired a very good mimic in the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). I put it to this House that South Africa is a country with a gigantic potential. I wish I could shout it out throughout the length and breadth of this country so that everybody could hear it, for the first task that is necessary is for us to acquire self-confidence. If we do not have that, how can we expect other people to have confidence in us? If we constantly paint as gloomy a picture as possible, it is obvious that there must be a dark and gloomy day for South Africa. South Africa is going from strength to strength in the economic sphere. Let me dwell for a moment on agriculture. In passing, I should like to say just this to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs S. M. van Niekerk). She referred to the land settlers. In the past the United States also tried land settlement. I had a good deal to do with the matter, but I do not know of a single person they settled on the land who is still a supporter of that party. Do you know why? Whether or not he paid the money he owed, he never received his title deeds. They were never his. That is the truth. I am sorry the hon. member for Salt River, who was a member of that Cabinet, is not present now, but he will be able to confirm that that is what happened there. When we talk about land settlement to-day with those people who were settled on the land in the time of those hon. gentlemen they simply scoff at you, for they know what a fiasco it was. It was under the Minister of Lands of this side of the House that land settlement became possible and proceeded on a large scale, and on a larger scale than under any other Government.

When we look at the black picture painted by those gentlemen then we think, on the other hand, of the gigantic potential in our agriculture. We see what agriculture has achieved during past years. We look at the enormous possibilities for to-morrow and the day after. Can we then still have any doubts? Look at the development that took place in the Free State goldfields in a few years. Let us bear in mind that there are gigantic goldfields that are ready for further development. I know what I am talking about. Are hon members here aware of the fact that a large part of the Witbank district, and almost the whole Bethal district and a large part of the Springs district are under option, and that it is anticipated that within five years a gigantic mining area will come into being? Then I ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout what the Prime Minister has done and what this side of the House has done to promote economic development. [Interjections.] I should like to say to the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Horak) that I had the courtesy to remain quiet while he was talking. I should like to receive the same courtesy from him. I want to say just this to the hon. member opposite. Was it the hon. members opposite or was it our present Prime Minister who appointed the Economic Planning Council, and who got a person—not a member of this party—who by his conduct showed what he was capable of—I am referring to Mr. Goldberg.

*Mr. HORAK:

May I ask the hon. member a question?

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

No, hon. gentlemen have unfortunately interrupted me too much already. Is that the conduct of a bigoted and hard block of granite, as the hon. the Prime Minister is called? What right had they to do that? He is the Prime Minister of South Africa, which is our fatherland. Let us vote against him and work against him if we like, but good Lord, surely there are ways in which to do it. The great things done outside by the Opposition, and the great things done by us, are proof of the maturity that we as a nation have achieved; and if we cannot prove it, if we are so naive that we cannot be courteous to each other, I can see no future for the White man in South Africa. What have hon. members opposite done now that fills one with disgust? Think of the language of that member opposite who was a former Minister, where he referred to me, an elected member just like himself, as a hireling of the Government.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. The hon. member must withdraw that word.

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

It is withdrawn, but I am just referring to it in passing.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Yes, but the hon. member must not do so.

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

The hon member has also used the word “stooge” before. On a point of order raised by me he withdrew it, but last night he repeated it. It seems to me he is a kind of greedy calf. He is hit away from the cow, but he returns again and again, too greedy to drink.

Before I leave this point, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the statistics came to hand last week that the coalfields of South Africa can produce coal for a further 2,000 years at the present rate of consumption. I repeat that the potential of this fatherland of ours is so great that we can refer to it with pride. I am convinced that if we as a nation—and these are the people who should set an example—could bring it home to the people outside, I do not for one moment doubt that it would go well with us. But if we continue at the present rate, hurling recriminations at one another and finding fault with one another, then I can tell you that truly it will not go right with us as Whites. Before we can try to win the confidence of the non-Whites, we must first see to it that we as Whites establish solidarity and co-operation among ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, in this connection I should like to say something to the House. I was recently visited here by an English-speaking member of Parliament from Kenya. He said he was visiting South Africa for two reasons. The first was to find out whether English-speaking people would be welcome here if they were to emigrate to this country. In the second place he wanted to find out whether the White man in South Africa had a hope of holding his own. I had a lengthy letter of eight pages from him. He bought a car here and toured the whole country. He tells me that he is satisfied that the White man will be able to hold his own. Then he comes to the relations between the English- and Afrikaans-speaking people. He writes that he believes, and he gives his reasons—he also refers to recriminations between the English- and Afrikaans-speaking people; time does not permit me to quote from his letter—but he says he believes it, for so many English-speaking people have told him: “Don’t you worry, in time of crisis we will stand together”. One could almost pray for the “time of crisis” to come so that we can escape from these pusillanimous trivialities.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude, and if it is of any value I should like to side with that side of the House which really and sincerely wishes that we as White people would act hand in hand, not for this or that reason, but from sheer love of this fatherland of ours. Then we could proclaim that it is our fatherland; then we could pride ourselves on loving it and being prepared to sacrifice for it. But if we continue to act in a pusillanimous manner towards each other here, as in the past, we shall achieve nothing.

Mr. EGLIN; Much has been said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, and by the other hon. members on the subject of national unity. I hope I will be forgiven if I do not proceed along these lines, not because I do not believe that national unity is important, not because I do not believe that there is a desire among many people to unite, but because I wonder whether South Africa would not have a greater degree of national unity if there had been less talk and more action on the subject. Let us realize that a people does not unite around a vacuum, but around an idea. I believe that when the people of South Africa can find for themselves a common ideal we will have the unity for which we are all striving.

I want to return to the hon. the Minister of Finance and the main subject which has been exercizing the attention of hon. members of this House at this time, and that is our parlous economic and financial position, some of the causes of it and the way out of the difficulty which confronts us. We heard the hon. the Minister replying to the second reading last night. No doubt it was a gallant attempt to square the circle. But seldom have we heard the Minister less convincing and seldom have we seen him more uncomfortable than he was. I do not believe he was uncomfortable so much because of the financial position. That was not the main cause of his discomfort. I believe the main cause of his discomfort was that he found himself in a position, as Minister of Finance responsible for much of the economic well being of the country, trying to defend indefensible ideological policies which have been forced upon him by the Prime Minister. While some of his discomfort may have arisen from our financial position, much of his discomfort, I believe, arises from the fact that he realizes that we will never get on to an even keel in South Africa, either in our racial politics or our economic situation until there is a change of approach and attitude either on the part of the Government or on the part of the people of South Africa. The Minister’s speech was notable not so much for what he said but for what he failed to say and for the many obvious evasions and gaps in the replies he should have given to some of the devastating criticism that came to him from this side of the House. I think it is fair to say that never have we seen the hon. the Minister use arguments which were more specious than the ones he used last night. He explained to this House that one of the major reasons why he has put this embargo on the repatriation of share capital is because he wished to protect other shareholders who, at this stage, did not want their capital withdrawn. But did these other shareholders ask for such protection? We have heard the Minister on previous occasions indicating his desire to extend protection. We have heard, in this House in the past how the coloured people should be protected in the exercise of their political rights, and therefore that they should be placed on a separate roll. We have heard how he wanted to protect the courts from political interference, and that is why he said we should have a High Court of Parliament. We have heard how he wanted to protect our universities, and therefore he has denied them academic freedom in South Africa. We have heard the hon. the Minister in this apparently passionate desire to defend all kinds of people and institutions who do not want his protection; we cannot help being filled with a certain amount of cynicism about his desire to extend his protection to them.

I would have expected that, of all people, the hon. the Minister of Finance would have issued some word of repudiation of certain hon. members on his side of the House. One of the notable features of the debate during the past few days was the unbridled attack and criticism from hon. members on the Government side against business men and financiers who dared to say anything which was critical of the Government. We heard member after member on the other side of the House attacking these people who, just like other persons in South Africa, have an interest in South Africa which, they believe, should be protected by sound policies. We in this corner of the House welcome statements by people, whether they are politicians or not, if it affects the welfare of the country. Who are we as legislators to assume to ourselves the right to be the only people either to criticize the Government or to make constructive suggestions as to how Government policy should be shaped in the interests of the country? Could it be held that we have the monopoly of knowledge and responsibility, and that we are the only people entitled to try to influence the course of events in South Africa? I welcome this very refreshing sign that more and more of the commercial, industrial and farming community are starting to realize that politics and economics are interwoven, and that one cannot be divorced from the other. I think it is a refreshing sign that from all sides of the South African people there is an increasing interest in politics, not only from those people who belong to political parties in the formal sense, but also from others who realize what an important bearing political policies can have on the economy of the country.

Let me mention one or two of the interesting, and I think useful criticisms of the Government which have been made. The hon the Minister of Finance made great play of the fact that during the year 1959/60 there was an increase in the contribution which secondary industry made to our national income. He indicated that that increase was in the order of R41 million. But what he did not indicate was that this represented the worst feature of our expansion programme that year, that this was the very branch of our economy which should have shown the most rapid rate of increase, but that it turned out on the basis of the figures given by the Department of Census and Statistics to be the branch of our economy which showed the slowest progress. And this is what the financial editor of Die Burger had to say on this subject. It is directly contradictory of the glowing terms in which the Minister of Finance reported to this House.—

Dit val op dat nywerheidsuitbreiding, waarvan die toekomstige groei in die Unie se welvaart in die grootste mate afhang, nie so ’n groot bydrae tot die groei van volksinkome gelewer het nie.
As ’n mens die bydrae van die verskillende produksietakke uitdruk ’n persentasie van die geografiese inkome, blyk dit dat daar verlede jaar ’n teleurstellende daling in die aandeel van die nywerheid was.

That is the financial editor of Die Burger writing about the disappointing drop in the contribution made by industry which, by certain skilful verbal juggling the hon. the Minister of Finance presented to this House as a notable increase.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, Order! I do not think the hon. member may use the term “skilful juggling by the Minister”.

Mr. EGLIN:

Mr. Speaker, I mean nothing ulterior by juggling. I think it is a matter of some skill to be able to juggle.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I agree, but the hon. member must withdraw the word juggling.

Mr. EGLIN:

Mr. Speaker it is not my intention to cast any reflection on the character of the hon. the Minister, and I will certainly withdraw the word if that is your interpretation of it. It was not my intention that it should be used in an incorrect parliamentary sense. I say that the facts and figures which were presented to this House were presented in a way which was really not consistent with the real facts and the real figures and a true analysis of the position, even by an expert such as the financial editor of Die Burger. But criticism of Government policy in the financial field has also come from other people who are expert in the field of our economy. Mr. J. A. Hurter, Managing Director of Volkskas, according to an article in Die Burger, criticized the Government’s raising of the bank rate. He said—

Hy glo dat dit ’n stremmende invloed op die binnelandse ekonomiese ontwikkeling van Suid-Afrika sal uitoefen. „En dit is juis wat die land nie nou wil hê nie, want die tempo van uitbreiding is reeds aan die afneem” het mnr. Hurter gesê.

Then there are other people who have referred to the fact that we need additional capital to raise the standard of living of the South African people.

Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

Why do you not quote the first part?

Mr. EGLIN:

I quote an article from the Natal Mercury on the 16th of March this year in which it is said—

Although the average income of our non-White groups is considerably higher than in any other part of Africa, I am convinced that a stable flow of foreign capital will be necessary to accelerate the rate of economic development sufficiently to promote the welfare of our people and to raise the standard of living of our non-Europeans.
Our ability to attract foreign capital will depend on whether we can convince the foreign investor that his investment will be safe here by showing that we are able to maintain, in the long run, good order in the political and economic spheres.

Now that comes from no one other than Mr. C. R. LOUW, the Chairman of S.A.N.L.A.M.

I welcome the fact that people outside this House who have a keen interest in the economic welfare of South Africa are coming to the fore in the economic-political debates which are taking place at this stage. There is little need for me to emphasize the gravity of South Africa’s present economic plight. I think the action of the Minister eight days ago was sufficient to indicate the seriousness of our economic position. The hon. the Minister’s action on Friday a week ago indicated that we are in a graver financial position than he has, up to this stage, been prepared to admit. I regret that the hon. the Minister has not taken his courage in his hands and that he has not taken this House and the people of South Africa into his confidence. When one reflects on the gravity of the step which he took eight days ago, one asks: What could have motivated the Minister? I can only suggest that he was motivated by utter cynicism towards overseas investors, or by the realization that we in South Africa were in a critical financial position. Because what the hon. the Minister has done I presume he has not done without very carefully weighing up our position. He has created a position which cannot easily be redeemed. It is all very well for people such as our Ambassador in the United Kingdom to say that these restrictions will be repealed at an early stage, but this is not a stop gap measure. This is not a measure which can immediately be lifted, and when it is lifted we must not think that we can immediately get back to our former position. It would be naive for anyone to think that the effects of this measure will not linger on for very long in South Africa. While the hon. the Minister has attempted to block the outflow of capital from South Africa. I believe that he has effectively blocked the inflow of capital both for the immediate future and for a very long time to come. Here is a Government which, in spite of the construction the hon. the Minister last night placed on his earlier statements, in the eyes of financiers throughout the world, has gone back on its word. This action of the hon. the Minister comes very close to applying economic blackmail to people who have invested their capital in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has been cynical enough to say “You will not invest more money in South Africa, you are not allowing your capital to come into South Africa, now we are going to see that you will not get it out either.” This is not the action of a Government which has confidence in South Africa’s own ability, through normal financial measures, to redeem the position in South Africa.

We must realize that for a very long time indeed South Africa, as a result of the actions of this Minister will not be able to attract foreign investment capital. What is the effect going to be on South Africa? I believe it is going to have profound political repercussions, not in the short term party political sense; I believe that the action of the Minister in closing the door to foreign capital in South Africa has been the final shuttering on the Government’s pipe dream of separate development. Every economist, every financier, every one who has studied the problem of developing our national potential has come to the conclusion that we require additional capital. There are very few financiers who will say we can manufacture sufficient capital from within. In fact, the overwhelming weight of opinion is that for a very long time in the future we will have to be aided by capital from outside.

We all know that we need capital to maintain our normal rate of development. We need additional capital to see that the standard of living keeps pace with the increase in the population. We believe that there should be rising standards of living. All that, in normal circumstances is possible. But this Government does not depend for the success of its policies on normal economic expansion. It depends for its success on abnormal, extravagant, wasteful economic expansion. The Government policy depends on uneconomic development schemes being proceeded with, of artificially stimulated development in either the borders of the Reserves or in the Reserves themselves. I believe that the South African people can cease to argue about whether they believe in separate development or not. The fact is that as since last Friday, separate development has been dead. Separate development in the sense of really building up separate independent states has vanished into the myths of the past, not because of the arguments of either side of the House but because the Government’s policy has crashed on the hard rocks of economic circumstances.

What is the second thing which has befallen South Africa as a result of these actions? I want to make a direct accusation to the hon. the Minister. I believe he has placed the future living standards of both White and non-White in South Africa in jeopardy. I will go further and say that the action of the hon. the Minister, seen together with the actions of the whole Government in recent months heralds the return of poor Whiteism to South Africa. We know that we can only build up the living standards of the lower income groups in South Africa by a dynamic, progressive industrial expansion. Now we realize that we will have to struggle to maintain existing standards, let alone raise standards in the future. All the evidence before us is that there has been a slowing down in the tempo of economic expansion. There has still been expansion but it has not been at the rate which we have enjoyed in the past or which we could have hoped for in the future. We have now started on a rapid downward spiral.

It is all very well for hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to say that this is Jeremiah talk, that this is selling South Africa short. I ask them to go and ask their friends who have businesses involving the import of goods from overseas what their position is today. Let them ask those people who are involved in the retail or wholesale trade of so many consumer goods, what their position is to-day. I would ask them to ask their friends who are architects, who are builders, who are building artisans, who are suppliers to the building trade, what their position is. This measure by the Minister at the close of this session heralds a period of increasing insecurity, of unemployment and personal hardship for many people in South Africa.

It would be inadequate of me merely to criticize and to condemn. I believe that at this stage at least one should try to put a constructive note on any address made in this House. Mr Speaker, if we are going to be constructive in this matter it behoves us to try to analyse the basic malady affecting the economy of South Africa. I doubt whether there can be any dispute with the statement I will make, and that is that this is brought about by an acute lack of confidence in South Africa as it is governed by the present Government. This lack of confidence in the ability of the Government to govern is not confined to the outside world alone. Indeed, I believe the Minister’s action in bolting the door against outside capital reflects his own lack of confidence in his ability to remedy the position in South Africa, other than by taking extreme measures of this kind. One might well ask why this lack of confidence; why this lack of confidence in a country which has progressed as well as it has over the past three hundred years? Why this lack of confidence in a country whose economy is basically sound, with its vast untapped resources in both mineral and human fields? We in this corner have stated time and time again that the root cause of this lack of confidence, both inside and outside South Africa, is the persistence of this Government to continue with policies based on racial discrimination. It is their insistence on following policies which amount to a flagrant denial of opportunity to citizens of South Africa on the ground of race or colour. They persist in following policies which amount to a callous disregard of fundamental human rights to people, merely on the grounds of race or colour. We can say, as has been said by the hon. the Minister last night, why should we become the victims of circumstance? Are there not other countries which also do not have their hands clean? I concur that there are very few other nations whose hands are completely clean in the field of race discrimination. But I know of no other country in the world which makes a virtue of this thing. I know of no other country which makes it a matter of high principle. I know that every other country is trying to steer away from race discrimination.

It has been suggested that we are the pawn in the struggle between the East and the West. That may well be, but let us face up to the fact that there is a struggle going on between East and West—and I assume the hon. gentlemen on the other side would like the West to win. It is said that we are the unfortunate victims of the rise of non-White people throughout the world, of the newly gained independence on the African Continent. That may well be, but the fact is that we are now no longer one of the four independent nations of Africa; we are now one of thirty independent nations all of which are non-White. I think we all appreciate, whether we agree with the outside world or not, that it is our racially discriminatory policies which have been the basic cause of our having to leave the Commonwealth, which have earned us the 94 to 0 vote at the United Nations. Indeed we realize that it is this policy of discrimination which has caused us to get a 44-nil vote at the conference of the International Labour Organization.

We have become accustomed to attacks from outside. We can understand, perhaps, the highly emotional way in which the rest of the world considers this thing called race discrimination, but, I want to come to something which is a little more fundamental. I believe that while the rest of the world and the politicians might well act because of their emotions, I cannot believe that the hard headed business men are influenced merely by their emotions and their own political views. Hon. members on the other side of the House have pointed out quite rightly, in the past, that money normally flows to a country with a stable Government. Countries where there is turmoil or impending turmoil, where there is uncertainty, generally tend to lose investment capital or can only attract it at very high rates of interest. Hon. members on the other side have time and time again pointed out that where there are trouble spots in Africa, where there is turmoil, where there is either too rapid evolution or revolution, investment capital has withdrawn from those states. I agree that where there is real stability there is always hope of attracting investment capital, but where there is no real stability that investment capital dries up or flows out. I think we in South Africa should ask ourselves in all seriousness—particularly hon. members on the other side of the House—why it is that in spite of the Government’s electoral successes in recent months, why it is that although there appears, superficially at any rate, that there is every sign of stability in South Africa, money is no longer coming into the country? It is not because of their emotional or political attitudes, but because of their hardheaded business sense that people outside South Africa cease to consider South Africa to be a good risk under the present Government. I believe that others, looking at South Africa from outside, see in the South African situation all the elements of instability, not in the distant but for the comparatively near future.

Government members time and time again have indicated that by taking strong action, by adopting the tough approach, by increasing expenditure on military defence on internal security, by nation-wide bannings, the Government is reassuring the outside world and the foreign investor. Let me tell the hon. the Minister and the other side of the House that these actions by the Government fill the people outside of South Africa with growing alarm for the future of South Africa. These are not seen by these people as signs of strength, these are seen as evidence of weakness. These are seen as evidence that in South Africa you have a Government which is unable to cope with the changing circumstances, unable to govern South Africa except by the use of strong arm measures. People outside see that even the limited democratic tradition which we have had in South Africa is breaking down under the present Nationalist Party Government.

The Government is showing some ability to bottle up the pressures which are building up in South Africa, but the Government is showing no ability whatsoever to ease these pressures and to bring about peaceful co-operation within the country. I believe with others— including some of those who were our traditional friends and are perhaps not motivated by this tremendous emotional surge towards a demand for human dignity by all—that in our multi-racial country sectional domination cannot be maintained indefinitely. I believe that there is to-day in South Africa an accelerating shift, a transfer of what I would call real political power amongst the various racial groups which compose our population. People from outside see a Government that is either unaware of this shift of real political power, or a Government which is defiantly refusing to follow policies which will allow this real political power to be expressed in a peaceful way in South Africa. We must realize that this balance of real political power, this ability to influence the future of South Africa, is coming under the impact of the industrial revolution which is and has taken place in South Africa over the past few decades. We have a duty to guide these growing forces. But I believe it is the height of folly to think that you can cut them off, that you can close your eyes to them merely by passing laws in this Parliament curtailing their franchise rights. I believe that people from outside seeing this thing objectively, and not involved in the emotionalism of the situation are asking themselves not whether the non-White people should or can share in the real political power of South Africa, but how are we, the White people, going to allow them to express it, and how will they use it when they get it. That is the question which we too have to answer, and that is the reason why many people are losing confidence in the ability of this Government to steer the difficult course which lies ahead.

There is one other important force which I would like to deal with and that is what we see before our eyes the development in South Africa, particularly over recent years of two emerging nationalisms. Two emerging nationalisms which are developing with the encouragement of the present Government or as a reaction to Government policies. Can we be unaware that there is developing in South Africa. White nationalism on the one hand and a growing Black nationalism on the other? I see no orderly future for our country if within the borders of our country there are two growing nationalisms, each hostile to the other and each competing with the other for domination. That is the shortest road to ruin and chaos for all of us in South Africa. It therefore behoves us to ask ourselves what is the cause of these two strong emotional forces building up in South Africa; why do we see in South Africa a growing anti-White nationalism amongst the non-White peoples? Perhaps it is fanned on by what is happening elsewhere in Africa. Perhaps it is a result of changing circumstances throughout the world. But I believe the greatest aggravating cause in South Africa is, once again, the racial policies of this Government. If one examines the reasons why people become nationalists, why a group of people separate themselves from others and band together and try to dominate others, then one sees it flows from the way they have been treated in the past. I believe that if we were given unequal treatment merely because of our language, our race, or our religion; if we were denied opportunities on these grounds, if there was implanted upon us the stigma of inferiority merely because of these things, then we would also react as militant nationalists. The present Government—I believe by design because it is part of their policy—is encouraging the growth in South Africa of two separate hostile nationalisms. Our attitude towards this matter, is not the attitude suggested in this House by the Leader of the Opposition. Two or three days ago the Leader of the Opposition in a criticism of the Progressive Party, said certain things all of which I do not want to go into now in detail, but he said that the Progressive Party failed to realize that an educated Black man was just as good a Black nationalist as an uneducated Black man. That is a wrong and superficial interpretation of our real attitude. We realize that education in itself is not an assurance that a man will either be a nationalist or will not be a nationalist. The important thing which will determine whether an educated Black man will be a Black nationalist is the way you treat him. Treat an educated man on the basis of his colour and not on the basis of his merit, and then you have all the ingredients of a virulent nationalist and a militant agitator. So if we in South Africa want to get away from this ugly concept, if we want to destroy these nationalisms, then I believe we must take out of our national life and out of our policies these things which are aggravating the growth of separate nationalisms.

What is the attitude, as I understand it, of the hon. the Prime Minister—and I wish to do no injustice to him—to these two forces, this tremendous shift of real political power and growth of the two separate nationalisms in South Africa? If words mean anything— and clearly there are times when one must doubt whether they do—then I think the Prime Minister does acknowledge the existence of these two forces. He does acknowledge that there is a challenge to be met in respect of both the two forces that I have mentioned. But either because he does not want to get rid of Black and White nationalisms as two separate forces or because he believes it is impossible to get rid of these two nationalisms, he poses to us the solution in the policy of separate development. He says that because it is impossible to unite these people in one nation but because it is necessary to recognize the growing political force of each of these groups, we must have separate areas in South Africa—some areas in which the Black man can express and develop his nationalism and his political rights and other areas in which the White man develop and express his political rights. Obviously to a man with a logical mind like the hon. the Prime Minister, this is a neat and tidy and easy way out of the dilemma, but it is not based on the harsh and unpalatable facts of the South African situation. Can it be seriously suggested by the hon. the Prime Minister that he is going to satisfy the nationalistic aspirations of either the White or the non-White people or that it can satisfy their developing political power on the basis of the unrealistic partition of the territory and the wealth of South Africa which he envisages? I have often heard him criticize members on this side of the House, perhaps more particularly the hon. members in the party on my right, for suggesting that the Bantu would be satisfied with eight representatives in Parliament; for suggesting that their political aspirations could be satisfied with 7 per cent of the political say in South Africa. Does the hon. the Prime Minister really think that four-fifths of the South African people could be satisfied with 13 per cent of the territory of South Africa? I believe that no matter how well meant the suggestion is that there can be a stable solution based on the kind of apartheid, on the kind of separate development suggested by the Prime Minister it is hopelessly unrealistic. The next point is this: Can he be satisfied after 13 years that the tempo of development in the direction of separate development is keeping pace with the demand of people for political expression? I believe that the tempo of separate development, if it were a policy which had a hope of succeeding, would fail because it is not keeping pace with the times. Sir, when one thinks of what this Government has done in the course of 13 years either in the field of territorial separation or the development of political institutions and in respect of economic expansion to satisfy this natural desire of the non-White races in South Africa, then I say this Government has failed and will fail more surely as a result of the measures which the Minister of Finance is introducing. Is there any hope of a peaceful future for the White man of South Africa or for the White man defending his White nationalism against a hostile Black nationalism in a so-called White state which is so far from being economically viable, where the buying power is dependent on the non-White in South Africa and where the key part of the labour force will be people who are not part of the White political institutions or of White nationalism? No, Sir, I believe that for practical reasons South Africa should cease to argue the merits or otherwise of separate development, because separate development as an ultimate solution has already failed in South Africa.

If we are going to attack separate development, if at the same time we are going to realize the forces which are working in South Africa, then I believe we are still faced with a challenge; we still have to take bold action. We cannot continue to think in the traditional way of arbitrarily pegging political expressions by laws passed in this House. I believe that we have to develop a system of representation which will take into account the growing number of non-Whites who are showing the ability to accept responsibility in South Africa. But if we are not going to divide South Africa into separate territories— and let us accept that that is quite impossible that the Prime Minister’s solution has failed —then I think we must make determined efforts to try to break down this growing White and Black nationalism. That means that we must not follow policies which aggravate the situation; we must not follow policies which merely add fuel to the fire of militant anti-White nationalists in South Africa. No, we must get away from a policy of racial discrimination. Without a change of that kind I believe we will not be able to bring stability in our country. We certainly will not be able to restore for South Africa the confidence of the outside world. There is always the danger of over simplification. Just as the Prime Minister over-simplifies the problem by indicating that it may not be necessary to have this economic integration—call it interdependence or whatever you like—I know there are many people in liberal and other parties who over-simplify the problem by denying the existence in South Africa either of prejudices or of loyalties or of differences in standard of education amongst the various people of South Africa. I believe that the policy for South Africa must not only deal with these two major forces but it must be rooted in the hard facts of the South African situation. I do not believe it is expected of the South African people that they should jettison the civilized standards which they have built up in South Africa. I believe it is vital that they should be maintained in the interests of all the people. I do not believe it is necessary for minority groups, whoever they are, to throw themselves at the mercy of majority groups in South Africa. I believe that a very good case can and must be made for protecting individuals and minority groups from domination and oppression by others. When one looks at the South African situation, I think it is also necessary to protect our provinces and our local authorities from increasing dictatorial encroachment by the Central Government. Sir, these things must be done and I believe that they must be done in a hurry, because unless we can grapple with the problem in time, we will find that we have gone too far along the road towards these separate nationalisms, too far along the road of the authoritarian concept of government in South Africa, which has been followed by this Nationalist Party Government.

*Mr. STANDER:

I do not feel inclined to reply to the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) because as far as his ideology of a multi-racial state is concerned, it can wait, perhaps for centuries, in this country. As far as the economic aspect of the matter is concerned, the hon. the Minister has already to a certain extent replied effectively and for the rest I leave him to the mercy of the hon. the Minister.

I now want to turn to the matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Hill-brow (Dr. Steenkamp). He has taken us back to this question of national unity, and I think it is quite correct that he has done so because I personally am one of those people who believe that if we had national unity in this country, as every self-respecting country wishes, than many of our problems relating to our economy, Native affairs and also our present external position could be improved and solved. But what I cannot understand is why the hon. member has risen to defend his Afrikanerhood. No one has called him a renegade. As a matter of fact, if anyone had done so, the Speaker would in any case have seen to it that such a person was called to order. I could not help thinking of that Welsh educationist and psychologist, Prof. Saer, who described this sort of thing as psychological compensation. He points out that what he calls a deracine—not a renegade —but a deracine (an uprooted person) has two characteristics. The one is that he has an inferiority complex which causes him to give expression to this inferiority in all sorts of strange ways and the other is his hatred of the cultural group which he has left, precisely because he is seeking compensation and because by so doing he is seeking favour with the group he has now joined. I do not know whether the hon. member for Hillbrow is guilty of this, but if that is so, I would agree with the Caesar who told his opponent: “I would rather be a dog and bay the moon than such a Roman”; I tell him: “I would rather be a dog and bay the moon than such an Afrikaner.”

*An HON. MEMBER:

Shame!

*Mr. STANDER:

I said I assumed that the hon. member is not guilty of this. That is his affair. Then he has made this strange accusation that we deny the English-speaking people of this country equal rights, equal cultural rights.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

I never said that.

*Mr. STANDER:

In any case he used the same theme during the referendum in a certain place in the north-west where he pointed out as an argument against the establishment of the republic that we were depriving the English-speaking people of all the things they loved and of all their ties—things such as, for example, the flag, the national anthem, etc. I do not know whether he meant that.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

[Inaudible.]

*Mr. STANDER:

Then I want the hon. member to submit the necessary proof and the hon. member has not done so. I accept his correction that we are ignoring them. But what are we ignoring?

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Their sentiments.

*Mr. STANDER:

Their sentiments in respect of what? The English-speaking section of the population accept the Republic just as we do, and one cannot after all retain the symbols such as their national anthem and their flag. Take the three provinces to-day, the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape, in which the Afrikaans-speaking people are easily in the majority. Is there any proof that we are depriving them of their language and cultural rights? But then I want to point out that we were obliged to force Natal to publish its ordinances in Afrikaans also. The English-speaking people are in the majority in that province. Our Afrikaans-speaking people who had to fight in this province and in other provinces for a century to gain the simplest language rights, still have to fight to-day in Natal for a primary language right such as mother-tongue education for our children.

To turn to the question of national unity, we cannot deny that there are differences between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking peoples in this country. We have our two languages and in any bilingual country one has a language struggle, but this need not result in discord in the field of national unity. We have two histories and two traditions, and in addition there is a large measure of social heterogenity between the two groups. We must admit that. Until recently—I hope it is going to disappear—there was one difficulty, namely that the ties between the English-speaking people and the population of their country of origin were always in actual fact closer than their ties with the Afrikaans-speaking people who lost their corresponding ties centuries ago. But it is also a fact that there is sufficient common ground between the two language groups to be able to establish a united nation. I mention just a few: Ethnic origin—we are both of Germanic origin, whether our friends want to accept it or not; we are not two races, we are merely two language groups of the same race. The mistake which we often make is that we discuss our race relations. We are not separate races; we are merely two language groups. Our religion, although we belong to two different churches—Afrikaans and English-speaking—are in both instances Christian; we have common political institutions; we believe in democracy; we are both products of Western civilization. Well, when we take these factors into account, it is strange that one can achieve national unity in countries like Belgium and Switzerland and we cannot do so in South Africa. In Belgium there are the Flemish and the French, not only two language groups but two different races. There has never been any question of national disunity in Belgium, and here in this country we lack that national unity. We have the example of Switzerland where there are two races—Latins and Germans. There has never been any question of a lack of national unity in that country either. What is more, Mr. Speaker, there is no country in the world which is as bilingual as South Africa, to the extent that bilingualism can help to bring about national unity. Our difficulty is that we do not interpret “national unity ” in the same way. It means different things to the two sides of the House, both as regards the essence and also the means which should be applied to achieve that national unity. To the National Party national unity has always had a political meaning. We maintain and correctly so, that we must develop our independence to that point, to its logical consequence, the Republic. But in the case of the English-speaking section of the population it has always seemed to me that national unity to them is a question of cultural unity.

*An HON. MEMBER:

What nonsense.

*Mr. STANDER:

The hon. member says: “What nonsense.” I think it was the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) who has referred to cultural integration; that is the object. I have already referred to Switzerland and Belgium. These are two cases where there are separate languages and cultures— two separate languages and cultures in Belgium and three in the case of Switzerland, and yet they have national unity. I think it was the hon. member for South Coast—he will be able to correct me—who has discussed cultural integration. What does that mean? One achieves cultural integration through evolution; not by means of legislation. One only achieves that by evolution. It has happened in England, it has happened in France, in Germany and in all the countries of the modern world except America, or colonies which later developed to independence. We could pass as many laws in this House as we liked; we could establish parallel-medium, double-medium or any other kind of school, but we shall not achieve cultural integration by those means. I admit that this is a way to achieve national unity, namely the assimilation of the one group by the other. To a certain extent this has succeeded in the United Kingdom but it has not succeeded in Wales or in Ireland, and the result has been that Ireland to-day is an independent state. In Scotland it has succeeded to a certain extent, but if there are Sctos present here to-day, I want to ask them whether it is not a fact that it has succeeded to such an extent in Scotland that they have even lost their kilts. In South Africa we know that it has been a complete failure, and we do not want to return to this concept of assimilation. As regards this accusation that we do not want to grant the English-speaking language group equal rights, that we do not recognize their equal rights, I just want to give a few figures which will show what we have done in the Free State, the Transvaal and the Cape for the English-speaking section of our population. I take the 1956 Cape figures. Hon. members opposite never stop telling us that all we need to achieve national unity is parallel-medium schools. Very well. I take the figures for 1956, and I find that the province has in total 1,170 schools, of which 1,063 are parallel-medium schools—that is to say about 90 per cent—which means that as far as national unity is concerned, if this can make a contribution, 90 per cent of our problem should have been solved. In the Free State there are adequate English-medium facilities. In the Transvaal, despite the criticisms of the Transvaal because of its ordinances, there are adequate facilities for the English-speaking people. Natal is the exception. I hope the hon. member for Hillbrow will give the hon. member for South Coast a little advice. I want to give him the figures for Natal. These figures were mentioned in this House during the previous session. There are 190 Government schools of which 84 are English-medium, 16 Afrikaans-medium and the remainder parallel-medium. There are 35 State-aided schools which are all English-medium schools. There are 38 private schools which are all English-medium. The Afrikaans-medium schools are for the most part small platteland schools where there are no English-speaking children to make even the establishment of a parallel-medium school possible.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

You are quite wrong.

*Mr. STANDER:

These figures were given in this House by the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter).

*Mr. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

But he is always wrong.

*Mr. STANDER:

The hon. member for Vryheid is not here to tell us whether he was right or wrong. But I now want to point something else out. As far as parallel-medium schools are concerned, if they can have any influence on national unity, we have enough of them. Natal does not believe in parallel-medium schools; Natal believes in the parental choice. Parental choice is the bridge which it is building between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking peoples of Natal. On the one side of the bridge, on the Afrikaans-speaking side of the bridge which leads to the English-speaking side, is written: “ Free entry;” on the English-speaking side of the bridge which leads to the Afrikaans-speaking side, is written “ Entry forbidden ”. This is a one-way bridge which leads from the Afrikaans-speaking group to the English-speaking group …

*Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK:

Nonsense.

*Mr. STANDER:

Seeing that the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has interrupted me, I just want to point out to her that it is not only children who cross that bridge and then live in what we call “the land from which no traveller returns” but there are at least two members of this House who were not children when they crossed that bridge but who cannot find their way back.

Mr. DURRANT:

I think in the dying days of this Session …

Mr. GAY:

There is plenty of life on this side.

Mr. DURRANT:

There is no life on the other side of the House. As I say, in the closing stages of this Session it is necessary perhaps that we should examine some of the undercurrents that we find in the Nationalist Party in regard to this war of nerves in respect to a possible election, a rumour which has been initiated by the Press of the Government party. But before dealing with that I would like to make one observation in regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) about national unity. I am prepared to admit that the hon. member for Prieska does not belong to the same generation to which I belong, but it continually astonishes me how it is possible for an hon. member belonging to the Government party, which has expressed itself in favour of national unity, can come here and talk about the South African people—and in using the word “people” in this instance I refer to the White groups—virtually belonging to two different races and two different nations. That is the kind of idea of national unity that the hon. member has, because it is inconceivable

*Mr. STANDER:

On a point of order, I said specifically that we were not two races, but two language groups belonging to the same race. It seems to me that the hon. member was not listening.

Mr. DURRANT:

A few minutes ago before resuming his seat the hon. member referred specifically to the existence of a bridge between the English-speaking race group and the Afrikaans-speaking race group.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must accept the hon. member’s word.

Mr. DURRANT:

I am not arguing that the hon. member did not use the word “race” in that sense; I am talking about the full implication of his observations. He spoke of a bridge where a notice was erected bearing the words “no admittance under any conditions” or words to that effect. What is the implication of that? What I cannot understand is how the hon. member after his years of experience and having seen the development of the South African nation, can still come along and recognize groups of any sort amongst the White people of the country. Why does the hon. member find it impossible to see the South African people as one people enriched by two languages and two cultures? Why must he always talk in terms of groups?

In the course of the debates over the past six months the hon. the Prime Minister has made an appeal for national unity. He appealed for national unity when he came forward with the proposition that we should change our form of government to a republic. When the hon. Prime Minister, Sir, made that appeal for national unity, he coupled it with another appeal. He did not merely appeal for national unity, but he appealed also to members of his party, and to supporters of his party, that they now, once and for all, should put the bitterness of the past behind them, that they should forget and bury the sores of the past. He reasoned that you could not continue to think in terms of one people and of national unity, while always carrying these sores with you. That was the appeal of the hon. Prime Minister. But what has happened in this debate, Sir? How many members on the Government benches have heeded that appeal from their Prime Minister? Take, for instance, the speech of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk). It was full of bitterness against his English-speaking brethren. No speech made in the language and spirit of the speech of that hon. member could have been made if he had put the sores and the bitterness of the past behind him. This bitterness, is, moreover, in the generation of the hon. member for Boksburg, is more imaginery than real. The classic example, however, was the speech of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling). That hon. member was, Sir, not only satisfied to ignore the appeal of the hon. Prime Minister, but set himself out on the road of building a gulf between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking. He set out on a road of insulting the English-speaking people of South Africa.

Mr. GAY:

He followed the example of the hon. Minister of Transport.

Mr. DURRANT:

Let us leave that hon. Minister aside for the moment and deal with the hon. member for Ventersdorp. He discarded the English-speaking people of South Africa because he said they failed to accept —a large number of them at least because there may be some who do—the policies of this Government and he described them on that account as being politically immature.

Mr. GREYLING:

That is how you are!

Mr. DURRANT:

Let me say, Sir, that if that hon. member considers me to be politically immature, then I hope that my political immaturity reflects a greater appreciation of the South African nation as being one people than is the case with that hon. member. If that hon. member did not see the people of South Africa as two different groups, divided by language, race or something else, he could never have made the type of speech he actually did. If he accepted the South African people as being one people, he could never have come along and drawn the type of distinctions which he did draw in his speech. But let me take the appeal made by the hon. Prime Minister a little bit further. He went further when making a direct appeal to his followers to forget the bitterness of the past. He said that we should all help to build up South Africa, help in a spirit of unity while accepting the thought that we are one people in spite of the political differences that there might exist. He made this appeal on the assumption that, with the Republic becoming an established fact, any feeling of inferiority which might or might not have been held by a large section of the Afrikaans-speaking section of our population towards their English-speaking brethren, was gone forever. That then was the argument of the hon. Prime Minister, namely that because we now had a republic, any possibility of inferiority which might ever have been felt by the Afrikaans-speaking section, was gone forever, because there was no need to perpetuate the bitternesses of the past, and we could now face national issues on common ground. But what is the implication of these views as expressed by the hon. Prime Minister? They mean that a Nationalist Party member on the Government benches, or any supporter of the Nationalist Party, would no longer be considered a traitor to the ideals of the Afrikaans-speaking section, that he would no longer be considered as an outcast from amongst the Afrikaans-speaking community, if he publicly disagreed with any of the policies of the Nationalist Party. This is the full implication of the hon. Prime Minister’s appeal for unity and for the bitterness of the past to be relegated to the past, namely that any member on the Government benches could now rise, inside or outside the House, and differ from his Government in regard to its policies without any longer suffering the danger of becoming—as was intimated on many occasions in the past —an outcast from his community and be thrown on one side. Is it therefore any wonder that in a debate of this nature, an important debate of this nature after my leader has made a most important statement, you have to see from the ministerial benches the Deputy Minister for Social Welfare getting up and making what one can only describe as a most extraordinary speech? The hon. Deputy Minister for Social Welfare spoke for a full 40 minutes in discussing what was happening behind the political scenes in South Africa.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

In the Nationalist Party.

Mr. DURRANT:

No, he said “South Africa”. He was very careful and read at length from a memorandum which could by no means have been considered as favourable to the United Party whoever the authors of that document may be. The Deputy Minister, however, did not tell us that. But why did the hon. Deputy Minister make this type of speech? There is a big contrast between a reasonable-minded man such as the hon. member for Pretoria (District) who certainly expressed no sentiments in his speech to-day having the slightest similarity with those expressed by the hon. member for Ventersdorp or with those expressed by the hon. member for Boksburg. What is this preoccupation with what is going on behind the scenes? What did the hon. Deputy Minister attempt to do? What he attempted to do, Sir, was to couple every type of Afrikaans-speaking intellectual, church leader, or any businessman, or anyone in position of substance and of leadership who disagreed with the Nationalist Party, with leftism and almost with Communism. He attempted to use this House as a platform to intimidate the thinkers of the Afrikaans-speaking community who to-day are becoming more and more aware of the follies of the Government. His words were very clear in this respect—

Hierdie sogenaamde intellektuele Afrikaners is nie Nationaliste nie maar handlangers van die linkse groepe in Suid-Afrika.

The objective of the hon. Deputy Minister by making this type of speech, and classing these people as “handlangers van die linkse groepe” was a definite and deliberate attempt in this House to diminish the influence of these Afrikaans-speaking leaders of our community who are opposed to the follies of this Government. That was the plain object of the Deputy Minister by raising the matter in the way he did. The fact of the matter is that, now that the Prime Minister has appealed to the Afrikaans-speaking community to forget the bitterness of the past, a large number of the members of the Nationalist Party have now, in a sense, become politically emancipated because they can now, in the Republic, review the policies of our country in a most objective manner and without any fear that they will be cast out of their community. The hon. Prime Minister, however, went still further. He said that in this spirit of unity which he appealed for, matters of political difference should hinge around such matters as economic policies, and non-White policies. In this great new era of the Republic, it was his view that the great issue of future politics would be based, not on the old questions of the past, but on what non-White policies would be best to ensure the future of White South Africa—in other words, the Prime Minister threw out the challenge that he would make his interpretation of the policy of apartheid, the only political issue of the future and that the future of the Nationalist Party Government would rest on what support it could obtain from the electorate on the question of developing politically independent Bantu states within the borders of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of securing the security of the remaining extent. White South Africa. I do not want to deal now with the effects of this policy because it has been dealt with at length in this debate, but Mr. Speaker, on various occasions during the present Session of Parliament, the hon. Prime Minister has accused the United Party of following an immoral Native policy; that it was immoral because it was based on the principle of discrimination and, if applied, will have the end result of the non-White attaining political control of the country and consequently the White man losing his identity. That was the kernel of the argument of the hon. Prime Minister. He went even further and argued that the principles of discrimination were existent only in our policy and not in his and that South Africa would, therefore, be no better off when the United Party took over the Government because the world would still reject our policy as well. I believe that no member on the Nationalist Party benches, and least of all let me say, the hon. Minister of Lands and the hon. Minister of Finance, believes this to be true. I do not even believe that the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development believes this argument of the Prime Minister to be true.

Let me say immediately that the policy of my leader, as outlined by him the other day, takes into consideration the great developments which are taking place in Africa. The advancement of our non-White policy in a multi-racial state has as its expressed objective, the security and the leadership of the White people of South Africa. Any non-White policy which does not take this cardinal fact into account, and which does not aim at the preservation of White leadership, and has not the preservation of the White man in South Africa as its first objective, would be unrealistic, harmful to the future interests of South Africa, and unacceptable to the electorate. Any non-White policy has to take into consideration the realities of the situation as we find them to-day. That is what the Progressive Party does not do. There are fundamentals in our multi-racial South African society which are not policies, but our South African way of life. There is the fact of social segregation. That is fundamental. Is it discrimination? The Prime Minister says “yes”, but it is fundamental to our South African way of life. There is the fundamental of residential segregation, which we all accept. That is not policy, but is fundamental to our way of life. There is the fundamental principle of justice for all—that we shall all be equal before the law. There is the fundamental principle of the White man’s guardianship and there is the principle of recognizing the differences which exist between White and non-White. I can say this no better than my hon. leader when he said—

There is no question of equality; there is no question of social integration. I have said before that discrimination or differentiation on the grounds of colour will be continued by this party, but it will be based on reason, upon justice, and on fair play, so that the world can understand that we have a case; that it is done in the interests of Western civilization. We are determined that the position of the White man shall be maintained and shall not be endangered in any way.

There is one other important fundamental to our way of life and that is that, in so far as the interest of our country is concerned, so far as the good of all our people. no matter the colour of their skins is concerned, the political position of the White man must he retained to-day and for the foreseeable future. Now I want to point out to Nationalist members that with these fundamentals of our South African society before us, we have had the ludicrous spectacle of the hon. Prime Minister arguing across the floor of the House that the United Party was immoral in its non-White policy.

Mr. VON MOLTKE:

It is not ludicrous, but a fact.

Mr. DURRANT:

The hon. Prime Minister went further and said that he was the great standard bearer of political morality with his dreams of a state within a state. He argued that in a self-governing Bantustan, there will be no discrimination. Sir, the difference between ourselves and the hon. Prime Minister is that we develop our policies on the facts of historical developments and to keep pace with human developments, whereas the Prime Minister shapes his policies by trying first to alter the historical development of our nation. There is, in the view of the United Party, no other way in which to develop non-White policies than to make provision for the eventual political emancipation of the non-White, and that in a united land in which each race group will enjoy its political rights. We in the United Party are concerned about to-day and to-morrow, whereas the Prime Minister is concerned only with to-morrow’s to-morrows. He is legislating for to-morrow—for the year 2000 or 2061. It is the hon. Prime Minister’s ambition, in my opinion, to erect legislative monuments for himself so that he can go down in history as being the White saviour of South Africa. We on these benches argue that it is impossible to determine the pattern of human relationships for the year 2000 or 2061 A.D. because if we accept the idea of a united land and a united state with a multiracial population, then the only alternative is to reject any policies creating escape areas in order to lull our fears of political domination by the non-White.

The Bill at present before the House and introduced by the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development seeking to establish urban Bantu councils, implies an acceptance of the fact that millions of Bantu outside the reserves are there permanently and that they are already established communities. The policy of the hon. Minister of Bantu Education is creating a new Bantu proletariat, although not an educated proletariat which I would like to see. This creation is based on the fact that there is a permanent non-White Bantu population within the European areas. Millions are being spent on housing, on hospitals, on transportation, on roads, on electrification and this is based on a recognition of the principle that there is a permanent Bantu population in the European areas.

The idea of the creation of a Bantustan has as its main purpose the creation of a political safety valve for the Bantu. It is our opinion and I think also the opinion of many members sitting to-day on the Government benches, that this does not stop the political ambitions of millions of non-Whites outside the reserves. Any such idea would be foolish in the extreme. This was also recognized by the hon. Minister of Lands in his now famous Humansdorp speech; it has been recognized by the hon. Minister of Finance who at no time in the course of this Session, has said one word in support of the policies set out by the hon. Prime Minister. Despite the differences between our policies as to the manner in which the non-White will attain political emancipation, there is one great factor which we all have in common. I, for instance, have it in common with the hon. member for Ventersdorp and I share it also with the hon. member for Brits. It is a factor in regard to our White-non-White relationships which is shared for instance by the hon. Leader of the Progressive Party with the hon. Prime Minister; they are completely at one on this. It is, moreover, a fact which has been proved up to the hilt over and over again in the past years by the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development. It is the fact that the Bantu people have the ability to develop to full political maturity, and having developed to full political maturity, to operate under democratic institutions in a responsible manner. Has the hon. Minister got that faith, because if he says that he has not got that faith, then the policy of creating a Bantustan is a complete political fraud. The hon. Minister believes in it and I will show the House that he does. He believes that the Bantu is capable not only of exercising political powers, but that he has the ability to exercise it in a responsible manner in accordance with our democratic beliefs. The establishment of Bantustans by legislation proves the faith of the hon. Prime Minister in that fact. The fact that the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development presents a Bill for the establishment of councils for the urban Bantu, proves that he believes in the latent ability of the Bantu to operate them in a responsible manner. Every speech, and every statement, made by hon. members on the Government side is a protestation of their belief in this. Every statement made in support of the hon. Prime Minister’s policy is a complete protestation of this fundamental belief. The hon. member for Queenstown believes in it because he is prepared to share equally with the Bantu in the government of the country and if he does not have that faith then there is no substance in his policies. If the hon. Prime Minister does not believe it then there is no substance in his policy either. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development believes that the Bantu can rule himself according to the democratic processes whether in his own areas in a Bantustan, or outside by means of the proposed Bantu councils. If hon. members on the Government side deny this belief, then they must admit that their policy is immoral and that it is completely politically fraudulent. What did the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration say during a special interview he gave to the political correspondent of Bantu. He was interviewed in connection with a resolution put forward in the Transkeian Territorial Authority with regard to self-government for the Transkei. The hon. Minister then said in that regard that it would be premature for him to comment officially at that early stage. Asked whether the people of the Transkei would be permitted to hold elections, the Minister said—

The people of the Transkei would be allowed to elect their leaders at the polls if they ask for this.

If the hon. Minister is prepared to make such a statement, then he must have tremendous faith in the ability of the Bantu of the Transkei to exercise a responsible vote, and he obviously must have a tremendous faith in the leaders which they will elect. But if that is not so, then I repeat that his policies are immoral and politically fraudulent. What I cannot understand, however, is that the hon. Prime Minister says that our policy is immoral whilst we have exactly the same belief as he has in the ability of the Bantu to exercise power in a responsible fashion. We share that same belief. May I ask whether there is a lesser or a greater danger of preserving the White man’s position on the road chosen by the hon. Prime Minister or that chosen by my leader? What guarantee have we got that in terms of the Prime Minister’s policies, once having granted political independence to the Transkei or one of the other territories, this political power will be exercised in a responsible manner? What guarantee have we got that once these Bantu leaders arise, they will not unite amongst themselves, or with Bantu states across the borders of the Republic? What guarantee has the hon. Prime Minister that they will not take such political action? Is there a greater or lesser danger for South Africa in the hon. Prime Minister’s policies or in the policies of this side of the House? What control will there be over these independent Bantu states once they have got their political independence? Once you have granted political freedom you will be unable to take it back.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

What about Basutoland?

Mr. DURRANT:

Our road of slowly building together bonds of friendship between White and non-White and understanding between the White and the Black African, of exercising trusteeship, will lead to an eventual race federation where true security will rest for the future of White South Africa. This is a future which the erstwhile leader of the hon. Minister of Finance once foresaw for South Africa. I refer to the late Dr. Malan. It was on that policy, Sir, that the Nationalist Party originally came to power. I have here a statement made by the late Dr. Malan to a United States clergyman who asked him to outline the future of South Africa as he saw it in regard to race relations. This is what he said—

Though theoretically the object of the policy of apartheid could be fully achieved by dividing the country into two states, with all the Whites in one and all the Blacks in the other, this was simply not practicable politics for the foreseeable future. Whether in time to come we shall reach a stage where some division on a federal basis will be possible, is a matter we must leave to the future.

And then the hon. Prime Minister of the day concluded by saying—

Many aspects of the problem are certainly still far from clear and it would be unwise, even if it were possible, to draw up a blue-print for 50 years ahead.

That is what the present hon. Prime Minister is trying to do, not only to draw up a blueprint for 50 years ahead, but according to previous statements made by him, for future generations a 100 years hence. Dr. Malan continued—

In more than one respect progress will have to be by trial and error.

That is precisely the road chosen by the United Party because we recognize that you cannot for ever fix development and the limits of human development. Mankind advances, Sir, it is no longer only a question of what is best in the interest of the non-Whites in South Africa; it is also a question of what is the best policy to secure the interest of White South Africa. That is the kernel of the future political struggle. That is why we have this war of nerves to-day in regard to an election or not, because it is on that issue as to how best to preserve White South Africa that you have the internal war going on within the ranks of the Nationalist Party to-day and the hon. Minister of Finance knows it. The hon. the Minister of Finance knows what is going on in his own ranks. I would not be surprised if the hon. the Minister of Finance is partly responsible for this election war of nerves, conducted by the Burger, because he has a great influence with that newspaper. Because that war of nerves is being conducted in an attempt to shut the mouths of members on the Government benches.

Mr. GREYLING:

That is a lie.

Mr. STREICHER:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Ventersdorp entitled to say that the hon. member is telling a lie?

*Mr. GREYLING:

I did not say that the hon. member was telling a lie. I said that if that is being said, it is a lie—not what he says. He did not manufacture the lie.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

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

*Mr. GREYLING:

Then I say that it is a fabrication (“ verdigsel ”).

Mr. DURRANT:

The fact that the hon. member for Ventersdorp reacts in the manner he has to what I said, is because he belongs to one particular camp, the camp of the extremists, and the hon. member for Ventersdorp disagrees with the statements made by leading members of the Afrikaans-speaking community. We know that he does not accept the words of wisdom that are uttered by them, because the struggle that is going on within the Nationalist Party is on the question: Is the road followed by the Prime Minister the right road to preserve the position of the White man in South Africa for the foreseeable future? In the light of all the criticism, even in the view of the hon. Minister of Lands, hon. members know it is a fact that within their own ranks there is this internal struggle going on, and the fact that we are fighting this war of nerves in respect of an election, is to create fear in the bosom of those gentlemen who have views contrary and do not share the same views of the hon. the Prime Minister. And let me say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that he apparently forgets about the speech he made in this House. You see, Mr. Speaker, if there is one Minister in the Cabinet who has to come up against the facts of life it is the hon. the Minister of Finance. He has got to carry the baby for the Government to-day, Sir. The hon. Minister of Finance knows what he is up against. He has got the realism of finance to face, he has got to balance South Africa’s books. He can’t indulge anymore in this idly-wafty talk. He has to balance the books of the nation and he knows when it goes in the red, more than any other Minister. That is why the hon. the Minister of Finance …

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I also know what is happening in the Federation.

Mr. DURRANT:

Sure, and that is why the hon. the Minister of Finance is looking for this reasonable approach in regard to South Africa’s problems. That is why the hon. the Minister of Finance is prepared to make concessions. That is why the hon. Minister of Finance is prepared to find common ground and to talk to the other side to solve South Africa’s problems, because more than any other man in this House, the Minister of Finance knows that the task of the Nationalist Party Government is not only to sell their policy to the White electorate of South Africa, but they have the impossible task of trying to sell it as well to the rest of the world.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Do you think you can sell your policy to the rest of the world?

Mr. DURRANT:

And unless he can sell his policy to the rest of the world, the confidence that he wants in South Africa to assist him to solve our economic difficulties will not be forthcoming.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, are hon. members opposite allowed to talk aloud when the hon. member is speaking?

Mr. DURRANT:

If I had any admiration for the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) I would feel hurt about his interjection, but the House knows what the position of the hon. member of Karas is amongst his own members. [Time limit.]

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I move—

That the Question be now put.
Mr. VON MOLTKE:

I second.

The House divided:

Ayes—64: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; du Piessis, P. W.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Riche, R.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. L; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; 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 der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; 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.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and J. von S. von Moltke.

Noes—36: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bronkhorst. H. J.: Butcher, R. R.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V. Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Williams, T. O.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I said last night that the second reading debate had been a record. It seems to me that we have now achieved another record. I understand that the time devoted to this debate on the Appropriation Bill has already exceeded the customary period which is allotted to the motion to go into Committee of Supply. In other words, we have now had a repetition of what we had at the beginning of the Session and of what we have had on many other occasions. I do not have much time to reply, and I only want to say a few words. I had intended dealing with the comparison regarding the United Party’s legacy of 1948 a little more fully and to give a number of pleasant figures —not pleasant for the Opposition—in this regard, but I shall do so in the Other Place.

I would prefer to reply now to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). You know, it is always characteristic that when the United Party are in difficulties, the hon. member for Yeoville is called in as a sort of sick comforter. He has had to try to infuse fresh courage and he has had to try to revive their morale so that they could take a little fresh courage, particularly with a view to the ideas which they have regarding an election. When the hon. member rose, I could see in what position the United Party found itself. But even the medicine of the best of doctors eventually becomes a little impotent, and if I am to judge by the speeches which followed his, then I can only say that the infusion which the hon. member wanted to give, rather diminished their courage, because there was very little enthusiasm, there was very little life in the speeches which followed that of the hon. member for Yeoville. It is also self-evident when one knows a little more about the hon. member for Yeoville that his words do not easily make an impression once he has addressed the same audience more than once. I think that if I tell the House that this is because there is serious doubt as to the reliability of his arguments and his sense of responsibility, the House will understand why he has not succeeded in giving very much encouragement to hon. members on his side of the House. I just want to illustrate this by referring to the speech we have heard to-day. The hon. member has put forward five points to which the Government has supposedly not replied. The first which he has mentioned was a question which the Leader of the Opposition put to me, namely, how am I going to finance the R30,000,000 deficit on my Loan Account? The hon. member for Yeoville has said that I did not answer that question. Well, I have my Hansard report here.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

I have a copy as well.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Very well, then the hon. member must look at page V.8. There I said—

The hon. member has asked where I am going to find the money?

This is the question which the hon. member says I have not answered. I continued—

This is the 64 dollar question.

Then there were interjections, and I said—

If the hon. Leader of the Opposition had only read the statement which I have read here and which he says he heard, the answer would have been apparent from that statement, because this is what I said in this statement—
On Loan Account we started the year with a considerable unexpected credit balance of R26,500,000.

I told him: That is the answer. Even if there is a maximum deficit of R30,000,000, in reality we started with an unexpected surplus of R26,500,000, and that will be more than sufficient. And I now want to give the assurance that it will in fact be more than sufficient to meet any deficit on the subscriptions to the loan. But the hon. member for Yeoville has dared to say in this House, in which this speech had been made a short while before, that no reply has been given! This was a shattering reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because it showed that he had not really studied or had any knowledge of the matter which he was discussing.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I was referring to the next loan which you will have to float.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I dealt with the next loan in the same statement, and I told him that there were two future loans. I can read it to the House, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not stub his toe on the same stone twice—there are many animals which do not even do so. I then said—

Besides this loan there are two further loans totalling R50,000,000.

I said that we would be able to meet those further loans because we would be able to convert a higher proportion than was the position in the case of this loan, and we also considered that as a result of the steps we have now taken, the capital position would be far sounder than at present. This is all contained in my speech. I answered all these questions, but the hon. member with his customary unreliability says that I have not given any reply!

I now come to the second question which he maintains has not been answered. I have supposedly not replied to the “wonderful” speech of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) on agricultural matters. We heard that speech. I went to the crux of the matter. The trend of her speech was that agriculture was now in dire difficulties, and that if our agricultural industry is not actually bankrupt. it is now on the very brink of bankruptcy. What did I then do? I gave the one answer which was conclusive to this whole type of argument. I showed that the contribution of the agricultural industry to the national income during one year, during last year, had risen by R42,000,000 as compared with the contribution made during the preceding year. How could I have answered that question more effectively? But the hon. member says that the Government has not answered this question!

The third question related to the “wonderful” speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) who has discussed the short-term loans, and has said that we have so many short-term loans and that we are now having to accept long-term obligations on the basis of short-term loans. You know, Mr. Speaker, I did say that this was not the first time that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) had put that question. But despite this. I once again gave him the reply which I gave him at the beginning of the year during the Budget debate, and I told him that the percentage of our short-term loans as against our total loans is far lower than the percentage in other countries. It is far less than it was during the régime of the United Party and I told him …

*Dr. JONKER:

He just did not understand it.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

That may be so. In any case I repeated the answer for him once again, and I repeated it in full. But the hon. member has risen once again—and what is more he had a copy of my speech before him—and he has had the temerity to say that these questions have not been answered! The hon. member’s difficulty is, of course, that the answers are not to his liking.

And then he asked two further questions on which this side of the House has supposedly been silent. The one relates to South West Africa and the other to the Common Market. The first three questions which the hon. member claims I have not answered, were examples of the unreliability of the hon. member for Yeoville, because they have been answered fully, and the latter two questions relating to South-West and the Common Market are examples of the hon. member’s lack of a sense of responsibility. If the hon. member will only consider the matter for a moment and if he really has a sense of responsibility, he will realize that if we wish to achieve the position that I assume both he and I would like to achieve, then these are diplomatic matters which should not be discussed in public, and if hon. members on this side of the House have not replied, it is only because this side of the House has a proper realization of its responsibilities.

I now come back to the hon. member’s allegations regarding the wonderful legacy which we supposedly took over in 1948, and he read from the speech made at the time by the late Mr. Havenga in introducing his first Budget in August 1948. Hon. members will remember that I said that the difficulty was that at that time we were faced with a tremendous deficit on our balance of trade current account, but that this was concealed by the fact that so much capital had come in. The public did not know what the true position was. The hon. member for Yeoville has now told us what the Minister of Finance said at that time, but he conceals the crucial point, namely, that although we had these great capital reserves in 1948 when we came into power, although the country had those accumulated funds, the country’s shelves were empty.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

I mentioned that, and you say I concealed it.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Let us now examine what the Minister said at that time. If the hon. member mentioned this, then I do not understand his argument. After all the point is quite clear. I just want to read what Mr. Havenga said at the time—

It was clear during the war that a heavy backlog was mounting up. The scarcity of consumers’ goods caused stocks to be depleted to vanishing point.
*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

He did not read that.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Havenga went on to say—

The inability to secure replacements caused machinery, vehicles, and capital goods generally to be run down, and investment in new capital equipment—buildings, homes, etc.—to be delayed.

Then he went on to say that the Union was in the most fortunate position that it had been able to save the money required for future purchases of such goods in the form of gold. During those war years when we were unable to import, the money which would normally have left the country was kept in this country, and while we had a great deal of money in the country we had nothing on our shelves and there was a great backlog. That was the crux of our difficulties in 1948 because at that time we had these vast sums of money which were chasing goods, and that was an inflationary position. Because what happened at that time? The first thing that happened was that domestic prices rose and as a result our manufacturers were unable to compete on the export markets because they had to pay higher wages and prices in this country. And does the House know, the hon. member speaks of a wonderful legacy, but as a result of the factors I have mentioned, this same Minister Havenga (whom the hon. member for Yeoville now praises) had to devalue 15 months later, after taking over this legacy. Even Mr. Havenga could not prevent this. There is the answer. Even Mr. Havenga could not prevent it. The position was so rotten under the circumstances I have mentioned that it was impossible for him to do so.

I have many comparative figures which I could use, but if one wants to compare two periods while the value of money has changed, a direct comparison is not possible because the value of money has changed. But there are certain tests that one can apply and in respect of which it does not matter whether money has changed in value or not because one can take it as a percentage of one’s national income. I do not want to embarrass the hon. member unduly by doing so. He has referred to the Land Bank and the Land Bank allegedly cannot fulfil its function in respect of the farmers. I think that is his argument. I just want to tell him that at 31 December 1947, the amount outstanding in the case of the Land Bank in the form of loans to farmers and co-operatives was R70.000.000, and at 31 December 1960. it was R289.000.000. In recent years the Land Bank has been able to fulfil the functions expected of a Land Bank to a far greater extent than in the past. It is not the only provider of agricultural credit, but it has been far better able to play its part. In the past. when we still had to make provision for the Land Bank on our Loan Account, we never made more than R10.000.000 per annum available. When it started to stand on its own feet, it had to advance during the first year— because there was a tremendous backlog. and this, of course, cannot be kept up—£30.000,000 or R60.000.000 in respect of the various types of credit which it can provide.

I have discussed what the President of the Reserve Bank has said, namely, that there was a deficit on current account of £120,000,000 or R240.000.000. That was his estimate. At that time the final figures were not yet available. But if hon. members would examine the figures for 1947, they would find that in actual fact the deficit on the balance of payments current account was not R240,000,000, but R368,000,000. If one deducts the £25,000,000 which had to be paid in respect of lend-lease, this still leaves R318,000,000 as the deficit in the final year of the United Party’s regime, and I ask the House: Compare these figures with the figures relating to the current account for this year, and then the House will find that it is R21,000,000 and if one goes back another year, it is still more. The hon. member has referred to the tremendous imports. Let us examine a little what the imports were. In 1947 they only totalled R610,000,000. In 1960 they totalled Rl,131,000,000. Then the hon. member has also discussed capital formation. In 1947 the figure was R512,000,000; in 1960 it was R 1,150,000,000. I do not want to go into that point any further. I just want to warn the hon. member that if he wishes to discuss the finances of the country, he must ensure that his skates are in very good condition. It is a dangerous sphere to enter if one does not have the required skill. The hon. member is in a difficult position and I do not want to underestimate his difficulties. He had to infuse a little courage into his colleagues, and he has probably done his best. But if we are to judge by the result, then, no matter how much I should like to do so, I really cannot congratulate the hon. member for Yeoville.

I just want to say a few words to the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin). He has made an interesting speech, but he has also not given an answer to the crux of the whole debate, namely, whether the economic crisis in which we find ourselves, that is to say as regards our balance of payments as it affects our capital account, is due to the racial policy of the Government. The hon. member has made generalizations and vague statements. Hon. members cannot get away from the fact that, while the Federation is following a racial policy which is very close to that of the hon. member for Pinelands, it is experiencing far more serious difficulties in this field than we are. The hon. member has quoted from an interview which Mr. Hurter of Volkskas has given. But he did not quote this extract which I want to read. It did not relate directly to his point and I do not blame him for not doing so, but this is nevertheless something in which there is so much truth that I want to repeat it here. Mr. Hurter said—

Our country is being sabotaged economically for selfish political purposes. He mentioned that proof of this could be found in English newspapers and financial journals. He often travels abroad and could give the assurance that South Africa had many friends overseas. “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 the reserves down still further, in the hope of eventual devaluation.

I hope the hon. member will also agree that any attempt of this nature is to be deplored. I concluded my reply to the second reading debate with these words: “ We shall succeed if we just have the necessary courage, faith and, specially loyalty ”, and I want to conclude on this occasion by saying: “ When I examine the signs outside I believe that in this new republican era which we have now entered, that loyalty will be found to a far larger extent, even if it is not often to be found in this House. But it is to be found amongst the people outside and nothing which any political party can do, can halt this strong desire which is present amongst all the people who love South Africa, to stand with us and to protect the Republic against those who wish to sabotage it.

Original motion put, and the House divided:

Ayes—63: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; du Piessis, P. W.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C. Grobler, M. S. F.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Riche, R.; Luttig. H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser. P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; 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 der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; 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.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and J. von S. von Moltke.

Noes—39: Basson, J. A. L.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.: Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

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

Original motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

URBAN BANTU COUNCILS

Fifth Order read: House to go into Committee on Urban Bantu Councils Bill.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

Mr. MITCHELL:

During the second reading of the debate I raised the question of the definitions in this Bill. The hon. the Minister replied to me and tried to give an explanation as to why this nomenclature has been imported into this Bill. In those circumstances, of course, I had no right to reply, but this Committee stage presents to me the opportunity to do so. I want to say that I think when we are dealing with legislation of this kind and we are giving the Bantu people the first right to form councils of their own under urban conditions, where they will have the right to be represented by their own representatives, we should at any rate use the right terms to describe the people for whom we are legislating. We know from our own experience how, when a word is taken from our own language, particularly when it is a word which applies to us as a personal name, there is nothing that hurts peoples’ feelings more than to feel they are being referred to in language, which has been corrupted and is being used in the form of which they disapprove.

I want to deal with the definition No. (i) where it says—Bantu has the same meaning as native.

There can be no doubt about that language. We can, of course, enforce that by Statute, but surely that is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to take with us the representatives of millions of Bantu in our urban areas. In that case the word “Bantu” has not got the same meaning as the word “native”— that is, “native” for the purpose of the proceeding Act which is referred to here. The word “native” is the singular, and the word “Bantu” is the plural form. Why should we say, by Statute, that the word in its plural form has the same meaning as the singular? Why not use the singular form? The hon. the Minister gave us a sort of schoolroom lecture the other day, and let me now reply to him.

Mr. KNOBEL:

You are just wasting our time.

Mr. RAW:

Who are you to talk?

Mr. MITCHELL:

If the hon. member talks about wasting time why does he not go and have a cup of coffee and let people who want to work get on with the job? He can come in when the closure is moved.

This word has an Nguni origin, as the hon. the Minister said, and in that language all nouns and names finish in a vowel. But in pronunciation the penultimate vowel is lengthened and the ulitmate vowel has a tendency to be elided. So that whilst you always finish with a vowel, in fact you commence with a vowel, you never commence with a consonant. Where you have a noun or a proper name in any of the Nguni languages, that applies. We spell this, and we pronounce it “Bantu”, and because we spell it wrongly there is a tendency for us to pronounce it wrongly by lengthening the penultimate vowel, and calling it “Baantu”. Because we lengthen the penultimate vowel we also stress the ultimate vowel, the “u”. That is not the proper pronunciation. We should elide the ultimate vowel. It should be “Abantu” The root word, as the hon. the Minister said quite correctly, “ ntu ”—a person, and the singular form “Umuntu” is what should be there to represent a native. And the plural form is “Abantu”. “Abantu” should have the same meaning as “natives” and “Umuntu” should have the same meaning as “native”. I again make this plea, because I say when we are giving the Bantu this right for the first time why should we start off by making a mistake of that kind in regard to the name of the people. Let us mess up their language if we are going to do it, but not their name. People have a curious sensitivity in regard to the names by which they are called.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Call the Minister an African and see how he reacts.

Mr. MITCHELL:

That gives me an idea. That shows how it would run. An African is also referred to as a native, and if a Bantu is to be the same as a native, can we call the Minister an African and, by the same token, call him a Bantu? Of course we cannot. But that is how the misuse of names in language comes about.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to make the necessary amendment here, either by letting this clause stand over and doing it in this House and coming back with a simple amendment, or by doing it elsewhere. But do not let it be said that we are mishandling the native language where the respect due to their own name for themselves is involved. This is not our name for them. If we are going to give them a name of our own and call them natives or Africans, that is our business but when we use their own name for themselves, do not let us mishandle it. I make this appeal to the hon. the Minister.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Of course quite a number of the things said by the hon. member are quite true. I just want to say that this reference is of course really only a legal reference. In all previous Acts the word “Native” is used. Here we changed it to the word “Bantu”. We are inserting this reference to put it beyond all doubt in every court that “Bantu” means “Native”. The hon. member will agree that this is the correct procedure.

I now come to the interesting standpoint adopted by the hon. member and I want to say that if we had only Nguni in South Africa I would have agreed with him 100 per cent. I think he is quite correct there. But now we should not forget that we also have Sotho, and they do not talk of Umuntu or Abantu. They talk of Motho and Batho. We also have the Vendas, who again use other words. Therefore, if we have to refer to every national group it means that we have to include such a word for each of these national groups, which makes the position simply impossible. But I repeat that the International Institute of African Languages and Cultures, after serious consideration by a panel of experts, selected this term as the possible term which would be acceptable to the Bantu peoples. I can give the hon. member this assurance, that 99 per cent of the Bantu-speaking people, and particularly of the national groups in South Africa, are particularly proud of the word “Bantu”. They do not wish to use anything else. There is the unfortunate phenomenon that one finds many of those who have strayed who insist on the use of the term “African”. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said: Call the Minister by that name and see what the reaction is. Now I can only say that I am an African and I am very proud of it. In that sense it is the correct name. I repeat that I have much sympathy with the hon. member’s approach to the matter if there were only Zulus here. But we have a number of national groups in South Africa—at least eight main national groups, and in view of that fact it is best to put it this way.

Mr. RAW:

The hon. the Minister has missed the whole point of the argument. The Government are the people who have chosen this word “Bantu”. It is not the Zulus or the Sotho or the Venda, it is the Government who have chosen to use the word “Bantu”.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

No, the Institute of African Languages and Culture.

Mr. RAW:

The hon. the Minister knows the background to the word “Bantu”. He knows that it developed from the original Ur-Bantu, which was the original language from which all the Bantu languages developed. But he has chosen a word from a living language. We have a law which says “person” in the singular. When that is in the plural it is “persons”. We do not say, because we use the word “person” in English we are going to use the same word singular or plural. We do not say “persons ” we say “person” in the singular. The Government has chosen to use the word “Bantu” which is a word in a living language, a language which this Government is teaching in the schools. If in the schools a person were referred to by a pupil as “Bantu” that would be marked wrong and a mark would be deducted from him. Is the hon. the Minister for Bantu Education teaching in his schools that the word “Bantu” means “person”, or is he teaching that “Umuntu” is “person” and that “Abantu” is “people”? In the schools he is teaching the correct Zulu grammar. He is teaching the language as it is used, as it is written and as it exists. The Minister of Bantu Education would not allow his schools to use a wrong word, so why does he allow his colleague, the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration and Development, to use a word which is incorrect and ungrammatical?

The clause is quite clear on this point. It says—

Bantu has the same meaning as Native.

But it does not. That is not true. That is a false statement.

This hon. Minister is asking this Committee to pass legislation which is palpably and clearly false. He is asking us to make a false statement as the Parliament of South Africa. I cannot use the word which other people would apply to the making of false statements, because it would be unparliamentary, but this Minister wants us to do that. I therefore propose to move as an amendment—

In Clause 1 to delete “Bantu” and to substitute the word “Umuntu”.

That is the correct word. The English word is “Native”, and the translation of that is “Umuntu”.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member may not move to insert a word which is not an English or an Afrikaans word.

Mr. RAW:

In that case, Mr. Chairman, the word “Bantu” does not belong in this Bill, because that is neither an English nor an Afrikaans word. I take that as a point of order before continuing my address.

Mr. CHAIRMAN:

I shall give a reply to the hon. member in a few minutes.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Mr. Chairman, this clause reads—

In this Act unless inconsistent with the context the word “Bantu” has the same meaning as the word “Native”.

It seems to me it is intended that the word “Bantu” in this Act should have the same meaning as the word “Native” in the principal Act.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No, I am trying to assist the Minister.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I do not think it is necessary to reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). I cannot possibly accept that amendment because it is totally out of context. In fact, the Bantu will blame us if we do. It will make him look ridiculous, and I cannot allow the House to make him look ridiculous.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I think the hon the Minister is making a mistake when he refers to the House making them look ridiculous in connection with a matter affecting the national feelings of a large section of the population of South Africa. Let me put it to the hon. the Minister this way. Often when the Afrikaner people are referred to, the name “Afrikaander” is used, with two “a’s” and an “n” and a “d”. In the one case it denotes a breed of cattle and in the other case it is a word which does not exist. It hurts the feelings of the Afrikaner when such a word is used, and is it not possible that the feelings of the Native population will also be hurt if a wrong name is used for them? There is, e.g., the very fundamental difference, which we do not always realize, between the words “Scotch” and “Scottish”. Anyone who comes from Scotland will immediately tell you—I think the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) will support me here—that one cannot talk about “the Scotch language”. One talks about “the Scottish language”. This is another case where we should be very careful in the choice of words. I ask the hon. the Minister please to reconsider his decision.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

I am participating in the debate on this particular point because the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has adopted an attitude which indicates to me that he is approaching this matter in a completely unrealistic way. and also to help you, Mr. Chairman, regarding the question he has asked, namely whether “Bantu” is a Bantu word, a word which belongs to the Bantu language only, and whether for that reason it is not out of place in the Bill. The point here is that we are not dealing with a Bill which has been drawn up in the Zulu language. If only the Zulu language had been involved, he and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) would have been quite correct. We are dealing with more than the Zulu language, as the hon. the Minister has indicated. Here we are dealing with Afrikaans and English, and in Afrikaans and English, just as in all Bantu languages in South Africa, it is regarded as a common word which comes closest to conveying what is really meant. It is for that reason that the International Institute eventually created this word as one which comes closest to complying with the actual language requirements of the various Bantu languages, and for that reason it can be taken into all these languages as defining the Bantu people in general. For that reason it can also be taken into the Afrikaans and English languages as the word which is suitable for use in referring to these groups of people. That is the point. This is not a violation of the Zulu language itself. It is a fact that the Zulu language has perhaps succeeded in producing the word which is suitable for all languages because it is nearer to the word used in the Zulu language than in any other—actually it is the Umguni group which has produced this word. In the case of the Sotho group it is also very much the same thing. From these two together has come this word which comes closest to expressing this concept. The word “Bantu” is for this reason an Afrikaans word, an English word, a Zulu word, and a Sotho word which gives expression to this concept. The concept “Bantu” can be used in the singular and the plural just as the concept “Afrikaner”, One can speak of “Afrikaner” and it indicates the whole group. One can speak of the Afrikaner nation, of Afrikaner people and one can speak of Bantu people. I do not think it is necessary to go into the philological details. It is sufficient that the International Institute for Bantu Languages and Cultures has chosen this word to indicate this concept.

The CHAIRMAN:

In regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) I must point out that the word “Muntu” cannot be accepted. “Bantu” is the word used both in Afrikaans and English.

Mr. RAW:

I would like to put it to the Minister of Bantu Education that he has said that “Bantu” is accepted as the word which covers the group, that you talk of a Bantu council and the Bantu people. In that sense it is an adjective. In this sense he is using it as a noun, as a person. That is a different matter. I put it to him that the same word cannot be used to describe the group, the individual in the singular and the people in the plural.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

But I can say “Jy is ’n onnosel” and I can also say "Jy is ’n onnosel mens ”.

Mr. RAW:

The Minister is always wrong. He should have said “Ek is onnosel”. I want to put this point pertinently, that the word “Bantu” is the word used by the Minister collectively; in this context it is used in the singular to refer to one person, and I challenge him to show me any definition which says that “Bantu” refers to a person in the singular, and which has been accepted internationally. “Bantu”, meaning a group, has been accepted and recognized, but I challenge either of those Ministers to show me where “Bantu” indicates a person in the singular, and until the Minister is able to do that, we cannot accept his argument.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I wish to move the amendment standing in the name of Mrs. Suzman on the Order Paper—

To omit paragraph (b) of sub-section (1).

This provision introduces the principle of ethnic grouping into municipal government. This principle was developed by the Government in the reserves and it was introduced, against the wishes of many of the urban local authorities, into housing in the urban areas, and now the Minister wishes to extend it further into the sphere of municipal government. We believe it is quite out of place here. We are completely opposed to the extension of the principle of ethnic grouping into municipal administration. The great majority of Africans in the towns regard themselves primarily as Africans and not as members of a particular national unit. It may be true, as the Minister claims, that the great majority of them retain their link with their tribe in the reserves, but not to the extent of wanting to be divided into groups on an ethnic basis. There is a great difference between being proud of being a Zulu or a Xhosa and wanting to be separated in the towns along ethnic lines for administrative purposes. We are convinced that the majority of Africans in the towns are much more interested in the things they have in common with other Africans than in their ethnic differences. I think that is proved by the extent to which Africans in the towns are intermarrying. According to the report of the Centlivres Commission, only 66 per cent of Xhosa men in the Johannesburg area married Xhosa women. The rest married women of other ethnic groups. The figure for the North Sothos is even lower; only 53 per cent of the North Sotho men in that area were married to North Sotho women. Just as most English and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans regard themselves primarily as South Africans rather than as members of the English or the Afrikaans group, in the case of the Africans I believe that they regard themselves primarily as Africans and not as members of a particular ethnic group. I believe the Government has introduced this principle into municipal government as an extension of its policy of Bantu self-government on an ethnic basis. If the Government cannot attach the Bantu in the towns to a particular ethnic group based on the reserves, clearly they cannot justify denying the Africans in the towns real rights there. We are opposed to the policy and with the Centlivres Commission we believe that it will perpetuate the divisions between the African people rather than build up their unity.

Quite apart from the principle, the provision gives rise to very serious practical difficulties, because what the Government proposes is not a council based on an area—that is provided for in sub-paragraph (a)—but what is provided for in (b) is a council for the people of a particular national unit wherever they may live, in the local authority area, even though people of other national units may live amongst them. In a town where there are Africans of more than one ethnic group living mixed up together, one would therefore have the jurisdiction of the different ethnic urban councils overlapping. That is the clear result of Clause 2 (1) (b). That causes very obvious difficulties when one considers the powers which these urban councils may be given; e.g. in terms of Section 4 the urban council may be given power to lay out the area. Where the jurisdiction of two ethnic councils overlap, which one will have the power to lay out the area, or to remove the persons resident in that area, to take another power? To take it even further, there is also power provided for in Section 4 (2) for the management and control of an area. Which of the two ethnic councils will have that power? Clearly there is a conflict and I want to ask the Minister whether he will not rise at once and give us some further information as to how he will reconcile the powers given to two different ethnic councils which may have jurisdiction over the same area.

In his second reading speech the Minister said that in certain cases, at least, residential areas are already divided on an ethnic basis, and therefore if one establishes a council for an area it may well be that that council can be established on an ethnic basis. If that is so, in those cases it is not necessary to have ethnic councils. But that is not the position everywhere. There are many urban areas where members of different ethnic groups live together, and in those cases, if the Minister wants to establish councils on an ethnic basis, it is clear that their areas of jurisdiction must overlap. I will be very pleased if the Minister will get up at once to give us an indication of the kind of powers which he envisages may be given to an urban council established on an ethnic basis.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Before the Minister gets up, I would like to put a point to him and when he replies to the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) he might deal with this point. The hon. member used the term “ethnic group”, and that is the term which has been used since the early stages of the Group Areas Act, but I am not aware that it has ever been defined. This Bill speaks of a national unit and they are defined in Section 2 of Act 46 of 1949. It refers to national units. The Bill before us does not define “ethnic groups”. Act 46 of 1949 goes on to give the national units. I would like to hear from the Minister whether he considers that all those sections of the Bantu people, the North Sotho, South Sotho, Tswana, etc., do not comprise an ethnic group. They may be national units, as indeed they are. For one thing, the law says they are, so legally they are, but I do not think he is on such good ground when he divides the Sotho into South and North Sotho. It may be that they claim that they are one Sotho nation.

The CHAIRMAN:

I cannot see how this point is at issue.

Mr. MITCHELL:

It is at issue because it deals with the question of ethnic grouping.

The CHAIRMAN:

But the Bill refers to national units.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Then I will deal with it from the angle of national units. These national units dealt with in the Bill are not tribes. I think the term “ethnic group” is probably out of order in so far as its application to this particular clause and the succeeding clauses is concerned where they are called national units, or different national units. Is the position that we have to leave out of consideration other definitions than the definition of national units in this Act? In other words, should terms like “ethnic groups” be left out of the discussion?

The CHAIRMAN:

I can rule that from the Chair. That is so. Other definitions must be left out of consideration.

Mr. COPE:

I wish to support the hon member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld). In doing so, I wish to refer to reports that have been made by authorities with regard to the division of people into ethnic groups—into national units. So when the term “ethnic grouping” is referred to here, it means exactly the same thing, the division of people into national units. We are opposing this division of people into national units. In dividing the Bantu in the urban areas into national units, the idea is that there will be a great deal of difficulty in administration.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The division into national units is not under discussion.

Mr. COPE:

What is under discussion is the creation of separate Bantu councils on national-unit lines, and that is what I take exception to, because to do that will create difficulties in administration and will lead to antagonism between the different groups in the council. In support of that I wish to quote two authoritative statements. The one is a report by the non-European Affairs Department of the City Council of Johannesburg to the Council itself. In this report, on this very question of division into different groups, it is stated as follows—

In so far as the experience of this Department over the last 25 years is concerned, it has been patently demonstrated that the segregation of the various Native tribes on a racial basis is conducive to racial strife invariably culminating in bloodshed.

The point here is that it is proposed to segregate them into different tribes for the purposes of having different councils. This aspect was clearly demonstrated many years ago at the Wemmer Native Hostel, when a particular employer insisted on engaging only Natives from one particular tribe in order to have all his employees together. The report goes on to detail how that led to emphasis being put on the tribal spirit, which again induced others of different tribes round about also to come together on a tribal basis. This report was dated 1958. As the result of that there were clashes, because antagonism arose between the different groups, and there was serious trouble and rioting.

Now the Centlivres Commission has been referred to and I want to refer to the relevant part of the report of the Commission which considered this very question at page 73 of the report—

There can to our mind be no doubt that the implementation of the policy of ethnic grouping was one of the causes which led to and facilitated the rioting—

They came to the same conclusion as the manager of the non-European Affairs Department to which I have referred. They said—

We are also satisfied that there is a strong probability that in the future inter-tribal fighting on a large scale will follow minor disagreements and brawls in the townships which, but for this division into these units, would not go beyond minor brawls and disagreements. There is a wealth of evidence in support of this view. Apart from this evidence, it seems to us clear that any sectional grouping, whether it be in schools or in sporting clubs or in any other institutions, is likely to produce sectional feelings which in a comparatively primitive or uncivilized people are prone to develop into dangerous antagonisms and concerted displays of violence.

My point is that by projecting this system of division into the urban areas and putting the stamp of approval on it and making the division more sharp. Through creating these councils, I believe it will introduce a dangerous element and that the trend should be in the opposite direction. That is why the hon. member for East London (North) has moved his amendment.

Mr. HUGHES:

There is something I am not quite clear about, and I shall be glad if the Minister will explain it to me. In paragraph (a) the local authority may establish a council for any urban Bantu residential area in its jurisdiction or any portion of such area or for any such area and such portion for two or more such areas or two or more portions of such areas jointly. In terms of that paragraph, I take it the local authority, if in the residential area under its control there are three different national units but separated into different areas in that one area, it could establish a council for each of those national units in terms of (a). In terms of (b), the council could also do that, but it seems to me that the local authority could establish separate councils for different national units, having control over the same area where the members of those national units live amongst each other and are not separated. I want to know from the Minister whether that is his intention, to give two or more councils having jurisdiction over the same area.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Of course not.

Mr. HUGHES:

I will be glad if the hon. member will get up and tell us then, because it seems to me that (b) is quite unnecessary and that the Minister can do all he wants to do under (a). I will be glad if the Minister will explain why he put in (b) unless it is to do what I have suggested, i.e. to have more than one council for the same area.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

In the first place I want to reply to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchel). His difficulty relates to the terminology which we are using, namely “ethnic units”. We know that the term “ethnic units” is one that is generally used in classifying certain national groups. In Europe they refer to an ethnic unit which belongs to the European race. This is more of a scientific term which anthropologists use and which does not really have much significance. But when we come to the idea of a national unit—the hon. member says he regards the Zulus as a national unit. That is quite correct. When one wants to indicate that concept it is anthropologically speaking also quite correct to speak of a “national unit”. That is the common term which is used throughout the world. The hon. member doubts whether we are correct when we refer to the South Sotho, the North Sotho and the Tswana national units and actually these are three groups which belong to the same language group. But there is the belief amongst the Bantu themselves whereby the South Sotho regard themselves as a national unit. They refuse to accept that they are part of the North Sotho. In the same way one finds that the North Sotho national group which consists of a number of tribes regards itself as a national unit, and so do the Tswana. The hon. member knows that there are the Nguni and there we have the same phenomenon. There is the Zulu national unit, but in the same way the Xhosa insist that they are also a national unit and the same applies to the Swazis. Thus as far as this classification is concerned, the word which the Bantu want is also the word which the Whites want, namely “national units that is why we have chosen this expression. It is a term which is based to a very large extent on the desires of the various Bantu population groups themselves.

Hon. members have expressed doubts regarding the establishment of the various national units in the Bantu areas. I just want to tell the hon. member for East London (North) this. He has alleged that these people themselves prefer not to be separated into separate national units; they prefer to live in a mixed community. I want to challenge the hon. member to do a little research in a few locations as I once did. I investigated this matter in all the large locations, at Durban, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and elsewhere, long before I became a Minister. Thereafter I also had sample surveys carried out. They showed that the Bantu were very unhappy when they were grouped together in one residential area.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

That was not the finding of the Centlivres Commission.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I am coming to that Commission. I say that they are very unhappy. To satisfy the hon. member fully, I challenge him to investigate this matter and I shall make my own time available to him, if possible in order to investigate this matter and I am convinced that he will change his mind. The Bantu do not like being grouped together in one location. One finds a percentage of the Bantu who are denationalized, who advocate exactly the reverse, namely the grouping together of all the Bantu, not only in the Bantu residential areas, but also in the rest of South Africa, but not only the rest of South Africa, but also the rest of Africa. These however are those who have strayed away. Now the hon. member says it has been found that 60 per cent of the Xhosas are not married to women who do not belong to the same group. I must honestly say that I have some doubts regarding this conclusion because my experience has been as follows: One does find Xhosas in Durban for example and also in Johannesburg and elsewhere who live with women of other national groups—with Sotho women for example.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! Is the hon. the Minister not going a little too far now? We are now discussing the establishment of urban Bantu councils.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

The hon. member has quoted this as a fact showing that such a council should not be established and I am now just giving him the facts—the opposite facts.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Yes, but the hon. the Minister should not cover too wide a field. Nor shall I allow questions which go outside the scope of the clause.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Mr. Chairman, I would prefer that and I shall abide by your ruling. When the hon. member mentions an incorrect fact, one just wants to prove that it is incorrect. As I have said, there are these cases, but when one examines them, one finds that in nearly 90 per cent of these cases the Xhosas are not married to these women—they live with them. This is actually a problem with which I am faced in nearly all these places. As a matter of fact, they take pleasure in stealing occasionally from a woman who belongs to another national unit if they can do so. This is one of the problems which is once and for all inherent in the behaviour of the Bantu. The hon. member says that he relies on the report of the Centlivres Commission. I just want to repeat what I have said on a previous occasion, namely that the report of which I and every scientist—and I am not a scientist—take the least notice, is the report of the Centlivres Commission which is absolutely unfounded. As far as this matter is concerned, the hon. member must please not quote the Centlivres Commission report to me. I just also want to tell him that he should not quote that report before an ethnologist or an anthropologist.

*The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. the Minister must please come back to the clause. The Centlivres Commission also has nothing to do with this clause.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

The hon. member has also quoted from the report of the Johannesburg non-White Affairs Committee. May I reply to that, Mr. Chairman?

*The CHAIRMAN:

Briefly.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I just want to say that I attach no value to that report either. I say that with all due respect. Here I want to challenge the hon. member once again: Let us go together and examine the clashes which have taken place between the various ethnic groups in Johannesburg before they were separated on an ethnic basis and since they have been separated on that basis. He will find that this ethnic division has reduced the clashes by nearly 75 per cent. Experience has shown that this division is sound. Hon. members have put forward the objection that if we establish such an ethnic council, how will it work in practice as far as the administration is concerned? That is why I am making provision here for two types of council, the one which is established on an ethnic basis and the other which is established on a regional basis. Here especially it is the intention to consult the Bantu themselves to let them decide what type of council they want—one established on an ethnic basis or one established on the ordinary basis. In practice this will be worked out in consultation with them, together with the city council. I have already said that in most cases we already have almost complete ethnic division. Take Cape Town for example. I do not have the exact figures here; I can make them available to hon. members, but the overwhelming majority of Bantu in Cape Town are Xhosas and they want an ethnic council—I am quite convinced of that. Thus we find in East London, for example, that they are nearly all Xhosas and in Port Elizabeth about 90 per cent of them are Xhosas. In Bloemfontein 90 per cent of the Bantu are Basutos. We therefore have no difficulty in this regard. I have already said that in Johannesburg itself nearly 76 per cent of the various Bantu residential areas are already on an ethnic basis; but here we must be practical and work the matter out with the Bantu. The hon. member has asked me how it will work in practice if the Bantu in the same Bantu residential area ask for, say, two ethnic councils. I do not see any difficulty there, because in respect of many matters for which the residential area concerned asks itself, there will of course be direct liaison, and if there are matters of common interest, it will of course mean that the two ethnic councils will have to meet to deal with such matters from time to time. We shall therefore have no difficulty in that regard. I now just want to give hon. members this information. Last year already I appointed a commission consisting of officials of the Department who are actively concerned with these matters, and their experience has been that the overwhelming majority of the Bantu would like to have these ethnic councils. But I want to assure hon. members that it will be worked out on a practical basis together with the Bantu. If they do not want an ethnic council, they will have their regional council. There is no question of us wanting to force something on them. We would prefer the process to develop in co-operation with them and we shall work it out with them.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has asked me with reference to paragraphs (a) and (b) whether one of these paragraphs is not superfluous. He has asked whether one of these paragraphs does not make sufficient provision for the division which we want. I have discussed the matter carefully with my law advisers and we have found that the clause as it stands will best serve the purpose we have in mind so that there cannot be any doubt in cases where doubt could otherwise arise. My law advisers inform me that it is best to word the clause in this way.

Mr. HUGHES:

Will the hon. the Minister explain to me what power paragraph (b) gives which he does not have under paragraph (a) unless it is to establish more than one council for one area? Is that the only purpose which it serves or does it serve another purpose as well?

*The MINISTER FOR BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

The main purpose is actually to lay down that we can establish different councils in terms of (a) for the areas concerned so that we can divide a particular area into different areas.

Mr. HUGHES:

I have listened with interest to the hon. the Minister’s explanation because quite frankly when I read sub-section (b) I could not see why it had been inserted unless it was for this purpose of having several councils or more than one council for the same area. I really did not think that the hon. the Minister could do such a silly thing as to try to establish different councils for different national units to serve the same area. Sir, can you imagine what is going to happen? You are going to have the Zulu national unit and the Sothos and the Xhosas living in the same area and each group asking for its own council, each group having control and jurisdiction over the same area.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

Or portion of the same street.

Mr. HUGHES:

Yes. There is the question of the expenditure and the collection of revenue. One council will want to do one thing, the other council will want to do another thing, and if anything is going to encourage hostility between the different groups it is going to be this method of having different councils for the different groups controlling the same area and enjoying the same powers. I cannot see how it is going to work. I think it would be a blunder of the first order to do anything like that.

Then we come to another clause under which courts are established by the different councils. One council may have its member holding a court, another council may have one of its members holding another court; you are going to have different courts in the same area, different courts with jurisdiction in the same area, with different ideas of justice and with hostility on the part of one court to the members of the other group. Sir, it cannot work and I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) and to omit (b).

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I just want to refer the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) to what seems to me to be a misconception. The hon. member has said that: “The Minister must establish the various councils ”, but the intention is not that the Minister can establish councils on his own. The clause is surely quite clear. The local authority can establish the councils—the one type or the other—and before the local authority established such a council, it must first consult the existing Bantu advisory board, if there is one, and if there is no such board, it must consult the community.

*Mr. HUGHES:

read (3).

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Mr. Chairman, may I please speak now, and then the hon. member can speak again after me. I gave him an opportunity to put his case and he must now give me an opportunity to put mine. I want to make it quite clear that there is no question of the Minister being obliged to do so under Clause 2 (1). And in 2 (2) it is clearly provided that the local Bantu are to be consulted. I should like the hon. member for Transkeian Territories to listen to me because I do not want to discuss the same point twice. Then, to understand the very clear intention as to the Minister’s share in this matter, the hon. member must read Clause 2 (3). It makes it clear that a council must be established at the request of the Minister if the Bantu, through their local advisory board, have asked for such a council or if he has received such a request from the community. And on what basis must this council be established? If the hon. member will just read it, line 51 of Clause 2 (3) (a) makes it quite clear. It is stated that the Minister must ensure that the local authority, that is to say the municipality, establishes the Bantu council in accordance with the request of the Bantu. In other words, the Bantu will be consulted by the local authority. As the Minister has explained, the Bantu will say: “Yes, we want a Bantu council and we want it on a national unit basis or we want it on a geographic basis.” If the municipality concerned does not take steps to establish the council and the Minister is of the opinion that it is desirable and that the local Bantu want it, he will then instruct them to do so and they must then do so in accordance with the request of the Bantu. I think that the intention of the clause is quite clear, particularly when seen in the light of the explanation given by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

In reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister, even if the Native advisory board were to ask for the establishment of an urban Bantu council on an ethnic basis, I still feel that it is very undesirable and that an impossible situation will arise if the hon. the Minister establishes more than one urban Bantu council for the same area. The hon. the Minister said that if there were two ethnic councils established for the same area they would consult on certain matters; other matters would be matters of concern only for the one ethnic council or the other and could be dealt with by the ethnic council concerned. In my view an impossible situation would be created. Who would decide whether the matter was one for the two councils sitting together or whether it was a matter for one ethnic council sitting separately? In any event, there is no provision for two ethnic councils to get together to take a decision. It is not provided for in the Bill, so if a matter of common concern does arise, there is no provision for dealing with it in terms of this Bill. The hon. the Minister says that already in most urban areas the great majority of Africans belong to one national unit. For example, he said that in Cape Town almost 90 per cent of the Africans here belonged to the Xhosa group. What will the position be if those Xhosas ask for a council on an ethnic basis? What is going to happen to the other Africans in Cape Town? If you have an urban Bantu council on an ethnic basis, what is going to be the position of the other Africans in Cape Town? So far as I can see there is absolutely no necessity for paragraph (b) on the basis that the Minister has presented it to us, that is to say, that in most areas the Natives are very largely of one ethnic group or, as in the case of Johannesburg, that there are separate areas that are inhabited by one ethnic group only. If that is the position, then the position is fully catered for in paragraph (a); you can establish a council for an area which will in fact serve one ethnic group only. I ask the hon. Minister to delete (b). We are very strongly opposed to it and I am afraid the Minister will meet very strong opposition from us on this paragraph.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

I first want to deal with the objection which hon. members have raised in respect of paragraph (b). They consider that everything that is necessary can be done under paragraph (a). I can understand this argument which they have put forward, except that if (b) were to be deleted, one would be deleting the whole concept of the establishment of councils on a national unit basis, because it is paragraph (b) which refers to the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act of 1959, in which these national units are defined. It is with a view to the establishment of councils on a national unit basis that it is essential that paragraph (b) should be inserted in this Bill, and that is why the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) cannot be accepted. We cannot do without (b). It is certainly not the intention to establish a Bantu council on a national unit basis for an area in which various national units are living completely intermingled so that we have, for example, four different councils all operating in the same area on a national unit basis. I do not think that is the intention. The intention is certainly to eliminate mixed Bantu residential areas gradually, to concentrate the various units gradually in the same area; to declare a certain portion of the residential area to be an area for the Xhosa national unit and another area the residential area of the Zulu national unit. Consequently a gradual rearrangement will take place so that each Bantu will live with his own national unit. That is how we would like to see the position and that it is how it will be done in practice. This legislation will after all not be implemented on an unpractical basis. But the point I want to emphasize is that paragraph (b) cannot be dropped because it embodies the whole consent of the national unit basis. It is referred to later in the Bill in Clauses 3, 4 and 5. Reference is again made later to the national unit basis. If we delete paragraph (b), as the amendment asks, we shall in effect be taking the heart out of the whole legislation.

Mr. HUGHES:

I cannot say that the hon. the Deputy Minister or the member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) have helped the Minister at all. Let me deal first with the member for Heilbron. He says that paragraph (b) is necessary so that we can have the division into national units. When I asked the Minister just now if (b) was required to bring about several councils representing different units in one area, the member for Heilbron interjected “nonsense”.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

I did not interject that.

HON. MEMBERS:

You did.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

I did not. The words I used were “of course not”.

Mr. HUGHES:

Very well. When I asked the Minister just now if that was the purpose the Minister said that that was the purpose. Sir, the member for Heilbron is a member of the Native Affairs Commission and surely he must have been consulted when this Bill was prepared. If the hon. member as a member of the Native Affairs Commission says that it is not required for this purpose, I want to ask the Minister whether he is certain that it is for the purpose of having several units. Who is right—the Minister or the member of the Native Affairs Commission.

Mr. RAW:

They will have to ask the Prime Minister.

Mr. HUGHES:

The member for Heilbron says that you have to have (b) so that you can divide the area into different national units. I ask him to read (a) again—I am sorry to say he is a lawyer—and tell me why you cannot do it under (a).

Mr. ROSS:

Who said he was a lawyer?

Mr. HUGHES:

What prevents you from doing it under (a)? Paragraph (a) reads—that an urban local authority may establish an urban Bantu council for—

  1. (a) any urban Bantu residential area under its jurisdiction or any portion of such area or for any such area and such portion or two or more such areas or two or more portions of such areas jointly.

Where you have different national units living in the same area, the local authority can establish separate councils for that particular area.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Under (a).

Mr. FRONEMAN:

How can you legally define what a national unit is if you have not got (b)?

Mr. HUGHES:

A national unit is defined in the Act.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

It is not defined in this Act. Surely you are a legal man.

Mr. HUGHES:

The Minister himself admitted that he could establish different councils for different national units under (a) but what you cannot do under (a) is to have several national councils units having control over the same area. We will certainly oppose (b) if that is the sole purpose. In any event, I want to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit)—

To omit sub-section (3).

The Deputy Minister in his reply said that there seemed to be some misunderstanding on the part of the Opposition and he wanted to make it quite clear that 2 (1) (a) was only permissive, that it was not compulsory; that the local authority was not compelled to establish several councils for one area, and therefore the Minister need not do it. But I want to refer him to sub-section (3).

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

You did not follow me.

Mr. HUGHES:

Sub-section (3) says—

An urban local authority shall … at the request of a Native Advisory Board or on the instructions of the Minister, in terms of paragraph (b) establish a council.

Then the council is compelled to do so. Sir, we are opposed to this.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

To what?

Mr. HUGHES:

To both (a) and (b) of subsection (3). Sir, this would compel a local authority, under (a), to establish an urban Bantu council at the request of a subordinate body like a Native advisory board, and it is not in the interests of good administration. There are numbers of important considerations which must be taken into account before the local authority need approve of such a request, particularly in the matter of finance and the functions of the council. It may be required to undertake the setting up and maintaining of complicated machinery. In the circumstances there should be no compulsion on the local authority, and in the second place I do not think that it should be within the power of the Native advisory board to dictate to the council. It should come by way of request from the advisory board and the matter should be left to the discretion of the council.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Would it not serve your purpose if you substituted “may” for “shall” that the urban local authority may do so and so if requested?

Mr. HUGHES:

Then it is not necessary because I think the council could do it in any case.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Under (1) (a).

Mr. HUGHES:

Yes, under (1) (a), so it is not necessary. If the town council refuses any request from the advisory board or the Native community to establish this council, the Minister could, I think, compel the council to do it in terms of Section 41 of the Native Urban Areas Consolidating Act, which says—

If any urban local authority neglects to perform any act which by or under the provisions of this Act, other than the provisions of paragraph (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 or of Section 19, it is empowered or required to perform, or performs any such act in such manner that in the opinion of the Minister effect is not given to the objects and purposes of this Act, the Minister shall after consultation with the Native Affairs Commission established under Section 1 of the Native Affairs Act, 1920 (Act No. 23 of 1920), in addition to any other power specifically conferred upon him in terms of this Act, have power to require such urban local authority, by written notice given through the Administrator to perform such act.

I think the hon. Minister has power under this Act to act and can order the council to comply with the request, but if he has not got that power, then he should take some such power in this Bill rather than make it compulsory for municipalities to act at the request of the advisory boards. Our objection to paragraph (b), which gives the hon. Minister the power to compel local authorities to establish an urban Bantu council after consultation with the Bantu community, is that such consultation can take place without reference to the local authority concerned. This is arbitrary and contrary to sound local administration. This provision is also unnecessary if we refer to Section 41 of the Urban Areas Act. I submit that the hon. Minister should be compelled, before taking powers under sub-paragraph (b), to consult with the Native Affairs Commission and to give notice to the local authority concerned that he is considering the matter so that the local authority can make representations to him. Local authorities should be given an opportunity of being heard on this issue.

Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

Why?

Mr. HUGHES:

That interjection is typical of Government policy! Why should they be heard? Because local authorities are directly affected. This is a democratic Republic and yet that hon. member wants to know why local authorities should be consulted! [Time limit.]

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I think that in moving these two amendments on behalf of the hon. member for East London (City) the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has been unfaithful to one principle to which they attach great importance in their own policy. I shall explain that later. Allow me first to sum up the position as it exists at present and as it will be under the provisions of this Bill. Under the present advisory board system, municipalities are obliged to appoint such boards. If the hon. member will read the Urban Areas Act, he will see that the municipalities must appoint advisory boards. It is not a question of can or may, but they must do so. It is obligatory throughout.

*Mr. HUGHES:

I agree on that point.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

The fundamental reason for that is surely, as it has always been, that the Bantu must in his own interests, be able to carry out certain functions in his area where he lives, subject of course to the authority of the local municipality. In other words, he is given a share in his own control. The Opposition voted for the second reading of this Bill and have therefore approved of the principle embodied in it. The principle is that the Bantu who are living in their own areas must be given increased powers. That is also the intention in establishing these Bantu councils. In sub-section (3) it is stated that if the advisory board of such a Bantu community—which exists at the moment—itself asks to be vested with these increased powers, that is to say, if it asks to become a Bantu council, but the municipality is unwilling to do so and the Bantu make this request through their organ, then the municipality must comply with that request. It is surely right that if the Bantu consider themselves fitted to exercise these additional powers, that they should be helped to obtain them? There is a further provision to the effect that if the Bantu community want such a council, in other words, if their request does not come through the advisory board, then the Minister can instruct the municipality concerned on behalf of that community to appoint such a council because the community wants such a council and because they want to develop further the already existing advisory board. At this stage I come to the point in their policy to which I referred at the outset. The Opposition are always saying that they believe in the principle of “government by consent”. Here the Bantu community and the advisory board ask for a new system for which this Bill provides, but the Opposition have now moved an amendment saying that the desire of the Bantu community to have a council of their own should be suppressed. It should therefore not be obligatory to appoint such a council if the Bantu ask for it themselves, and by adopting this standpoint they are violating their own principle of “government by consent”. I think they have not considered this matter carefully enough, and I therefore make an appeal to them to assist us in adopting this clause as it stands at present for the sake of this principle and for the sake of the principle of “government by consent”.

Mr. RAW:

We have just listened to an amazing statement from the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, namely that “as hulle ’n begeerte daartoe het, dan moet hulle dit kry”. The Bantu must, in other words, get what they want, irrespective of …

HON. MEMBERS:

Nonsense.

*Mr. MARTINS:

You are twisting what he said.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr. MARTINS:

I withdraw, Sir, and I substitute “misrepresenting”.

Mr. RAW:

The hon. Deputy Minister said clearly and unequivocally “As die Bantoe ’n begeerte daarvoor het, …”

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

To get a council.

Mr. RAW:

That is what I am talking about. I am talking about this clause in the Bill. The position is then that if they want it, they must get it—if they want this board then they must get it irrespective of whether they have proved themselves to be responsible. The Deputy Minister made it very clear that it was the policy of the Government that if the Bantu wants these councils then they must have them—come rain, hail or high water. If the advisory board asks for such a council, it must be established and nobody has any say about it. The hon. Minister said that the majority of Bantu—90 per cent here, 75 per cent there. 100 per cent in another place, etc. —are already grouped in national units and that they are already living in national units. Why does he want this sub-section (b) then if they are already grouped in national units? Surely, if a board is now established for an area and the people living in that area comprise one national unit, then that is automatically a national unit board! What it amounts to is that if there is a board for an area and a national unit living in that area clashes with the board in matters such as legal issues or the allocation of housing, that national unit, although they may be a minority in the area, can get together and ask for a national unit board. Now, in terms of this paragraph which the hon. member for the Transkei desires to be deleted, if the Minister is satisfied that such community desires the establishment of such a board he may then direct that it be established. The operative words the “if he is satisfied that the community desires that council”. Now, there may be a board for an area in which the majority of Bantu living there are say Zulu. If the Sotho group also living in that area clashes with the Zulu group and then can satisfy the hon. Minister that it wants its own national unit board, then the Minister will appoint that board, because in the words of the hon. Deputy Minister “if they want something, they must have it”.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I did not say that. Read paragraph (3) (b).

Mr. RAW:

I am dealing with (3) (b). It reads—

… if the Minister, after consultation with the Bantu community in such area, is satisfied that such community desires that council to be established and he directs such authority to establish it.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

“Is satisfied.”

Mr. RAW:

Well, if 100 per cent of the Sothos in an area ask for such a council, then surely the Minister must be satisfied that they want it. What this amounts to is a separate trade union principle.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

“After consultation.”

Mr. RAW:

Yes, with the Zulu or the Xhosa community. It need not be the whole community. Now let us look at the position of two boards covering one area. Every one of the powers given to these boards under Clause 4 deal with a geographical area. How are you now going to allocate sanitary services between a Zulu group and a Sotho group? Are you going to say that this house is a Zulu house and will therefore be dealt with by the Zulu board; that one is a Sotho house and will be dealt with by the Sotho board; that regarding grazing one beast can only eat sweet grass, and another one only sour grass. I want to know how you can have two bodies with exactly the same powers dealing with precisely the same area—a state within a state concept. The Minister said by implication that it was unnecessary to have national unit grouping because that was there already. Yet it is compulsory for the Minister to give a board to any group asking for it even because it clashed with the existing board. It will be impossible to deal with an area where there are two national boards. For these reasons these two amendments are not only necessary, but also an improvement of this measure and the practical application thereof.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

May I point out that the Native Urban Areas Act of 1945 does not contain any provisions referring to a national unit—not one single provision. Now the hon. member for Transkeian Territories is arguing that the Minister already has certain powers under that Act, including the powers to oblige municipalities to do certain things. What he has said is however not correct. The position is actually as follows—

If an urban local authority neglects to perform any act which by or under the previsions of this Act …

Consequently there must first be a provision of the Urban Areas Act which has not been complied with, and which they can be obliged to comply with. As the Urban Areas Act has hitherto not contained any provisions defining a national unit, the Minister cannot compel any municipality to establish a Bantu council on a national unit basis. That is surely quite clear. That is why the provision contained in para. (b) is most necessary in order to insert the concept of “national units” into the Urban Areas Act. The intention is to take this concept from the 1949 Act and to insert it into this Act. The whole object underlying this Bill is to establish the councils on the basis of national units. In those cases where it is still unpractical and impossible to do so, other arrangements will have to be made. In my constituency for example there is a small residential area in which Zulus, Sothos and Xhosas are living. It will then be for the Minister to decide whether it will be best to establish one or three councils. In practice one council would be the obvious step to take when they are living intermingled. However, there are large residential areas which contain many members of each group who are however still intermingled. If the Minister did not have the power given to him under para. (b) he could establish councils on a regional basis but they could never be sorted out on a basis of national units. He could therefore never implement his policy. Hon. members opposite of course want that policy to be a failure. The best would be if the Minister were to say that he will establish a council for the Xhosa on the western side of the residential area so that the Xhosas can in the course of time be moved to that area with the result that the groups will gradually be separated and additional councils can be established. If this paragraph is deleted, however, we shall never be able to do so. We may still be able to do so if there is a residential area the residents of which belong to only one national unit, but in most cases there are mixed residential areas, and it is with them in mind that he must establish such councils on a regional basis for the time being in order to get rid of the advisory boards. The object underlying this Bill is to replace the advisory boards by these Bantu councils in the course of time, but if he does not have the powers provided by para. (a) he will never be able to replace those advisory boards. This is the position in mixed residential areas. When there is not a mixed residential area, we can act at once under para. (b). Hon. members must surely see the practical implications. Without the powers contained in para. (b), this Bill cannot be given substance or meaning, because it introduces the concept of national units into the Urban Areas Act.

Mr. GAY:

I support both the amendments which have been moved on this clause. I want to deal with arguments which have been used by the Government side but which have completely ignored one of the most important aspects of this proposal. The proposal in this clause presupposes that an advisory board is in existence and that, if that is so, there is already an established Native township or village in the area. It is not a question of dealing in that case with a newly established council. Although Clause 4 is the clause which deals with the financial aspects of the matter, I want to touch on one important point in this respect under this clause, a point which must be considered when judging upon the practicability of the proposal contained in this clause. Let us take a big City where there are large Native townships or a small town where there are smaller Native townships. The cost already expended on these townships before this measure comes into operation may run, on the one hand, into several millions of Rands and, on the other hand, perhaps into several thousands, for the establishment of the necessary facilities and services essential for the area already in existence, like water supplies, sewerage, electricity, etc. In all those cases, these services would form an integral portion of similar services for all the local authority area. These services are, as a general rule, not only established for that particular Native area, but are part of the services for the entire area. If the proposal contained in this clause, is carried out, what is going to happen to the very large sums which have already been expended for the provision of those services? You see, Sir, this clause makes provision for consultation with the Bantu community, but not with the general local community which established all the services which are there already and which are now to be transferred to the new authority. No provision is made for their views to be taken into consideration. During the Second Reading debate, the hon. Minister made it clear that he had not established separate local authorities in general—although he referred to one or two specifically with regard to the provisions of this Bill. One of the most important factors which we must consider—and to have this done is the object of the amendments which have been moved— is the financial aspect. It is quite possible to establish the village as a part of the larger area, but it is quite a different proposition when this village has to stand on its own feet and meet its own financial obligations. In the first place, the cost of the village is borne very largely by the whole community, but it is quite clear that the Bantu council which is now going to be set up, will not only have to bear all future expenses, but will also have to provide the security and safeguards necessary to cover the investment which have already been incurred on their behalf.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) asked why there should be any objection, but I was amazed to hear from him—being one of the financial authorities on the Government side —that he failed to realize the financial implications of this Bill. These are, to my mind, most important. It is not a question of providing the facilities, because with that I think we all agree in principle, but it is the question of the practical manner in which they should be carried into effect.

The CHAIRMAN:

The establishment of Urban Bantu Councils has been agreed to at the second reading.

Mr. GAY:

I am not dealing with that now, Sir, but am merely pointing out the flaw which exists in that there is no provision in this clause for consultation with the remainder of the people of the local authority area and with the local authority in connection with the sharing of the costs. This matter is being dealt with under Clause 4 and this may not be the most appropriate clause to deal with it now. This clause is, however, only another symptom of this Government’s habit of producing legislative twins which die in childbirth because their advent has not been properly prepared for and safeguarded.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I am really surprised at the argument the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has put forward. The whole matter has absolutely nothing to do with finances. How can anyone with a sense of responsibility make such an allegation? The control over financial matters rests in the hands of the municipalities, and not one power of a municipality is being taken over. That argument has therefore nothing to do with the clause. That is all I want to say in that regard.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has raised the objection to which the Deputy Minister has already replied adequately. However, I just want to point out once again that the existing Act gives me powers which I do not have under this Bill. Under the existing Act I can compel municipalities without consultation to establish advisory boards, while I cannot do that under this Bill in the case of Bantu councils. In this case there must first be consultation. The body which will establish the Bantu councils is the municipality concerned, and it will only do so at the request of the advisory board in the area concerned. In other words, here we have followed the golden rule of first gaining the co-operation of the Bantu as the community which is directly affected; then the co-operation of the municipality as the body which must exercise the authority; and then the co-operation of the Department. As regards paragraph (a) I cannot agree that it should be deleted. If an advisory board asks to be converted into a Bantu council, it is self-evident that the municipality concerned must accede to that request. In general the municipalities are so sensible that I do not think it will be necessary for me to make use of these powers. I am convinced of that. But we may have the position where a Bantu community would like to have a Bantu council, and the municipality concerned out of obstinacy simply refuses to accede to that request. In such a case I am once again following the golden rule by having the position investigated and the Bantu community will be consulted.

*Mr. HUGHES:

But not the municipality concerned.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

The Bantu will be consulted in the first place—that is obvious. But it is obvious—it is made clearer in a later clause—that the municipality concerned will also be consulted. It is therefore not necessary to embody that in the Bill —it is already being done. There is also no reason why the municipality concerned will not be consulted. The main point is, however, to obtain the co-operation of the Bantu. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) has said that the question of ethnic division is a matter of principle as far as he is concerned. I now ask: Of whom must I take notice—of the Bantu who come to me and ask me for this. I want to say again in this regard that I appointed a committee consisting of officials of my Department and that this committee went very carefully into the matter, particularly in Johannesburg. The overwhelming majority of the Bantu want such a system to be introduced. To whom should I listen, to the hon. member for East London (North) or the Bantu who have made this request? After all our object is to assist and to make the Bantu contented. It is after all the logical thing that we are trying to do, which will make the Bantu feel contented. But the hon. member now says: “Look, you must not listen to the Bantu at all. Listen to Mr. van Ryneveld; he will tell you what is good for you and what is not good for you.” I really cannot accept these amendments.

Mr. BUTCHER:

I want to deal with an entirely different point, although it follows from the remarks made by the hon. Deputy Minister. He stated that if a Bantu community expresses a desire to have the urban Bantu council system of government, it was the Government’s policy to give them that. In other words he said, it was government by consent. Of course we accept that and we would like to see that extended. But does the hon. the Minister accept the converse. If the Bantu community expresses an adverse opinion, if they are against this form of government, will the Minister see to it that the local authority accepts that opinion? Because in subsection (2) of Clause 2, in paragraphs (a) and (b) provision is made for consultation, first of all with an existing advisory board (under paragraph (a)), or with a Bantu community where there is no existing advisory board (paragraph (b)). Now the idea of consultation is an excellent one provided it results in agreement. It can lead to a very co-operative spirit which is in the interest of every one. But supposing it results in disagreement and it results in the local authority overriding or ignoring the views of the Bantu community? Then you can have an antagonistic atmosphere which might have very far-reaching repercussions. So I query whether it is desirable to introduce this element of consultation. Because what happens if after consultation the advisory board, or the Bantu community object? Could the local authority simply go ahead and ignore their views and establish a council? Because objections might be raised by the Bantu community which are not valid objections, and yet ignoring those views might lead to trouble. I instanced the case of Durban. We have the Lamont Location, the S. J. Smith Location and the Umlazi-Glebe Location forming one homogeneous complex, and for that the establishment of one Bantu urban council would be quite obviously an appropriate thing. But supposing the local authority consult with these three areas. What would be the result? At present they have an advisory board system on which they have 16 representative members. They might object to the establishment of a Bantu urban council because under such a council there might be only six representatives and ten of them might lose their jobs. What is the position in a case like that? May I also mention the difficulty of consulting with the Bantu community under (b) of sub-section (2) of Clause 2? How does one consult with a community, unless of course there are elected representatives. Does the hon. Minister propose to provide machinery under which representatives of such community will first be elected so that the local authority can consult with them? Or does he visualize that the local authority would consult with such a community at a public meeting? Surely that would be a very unsatisfactory way of doing things. Therefore I put this to the hon. the Minister that it may be better rather to omit any reference to consultation and rather to provide that where existing advisory. boards are in operation, they should be given an opportunity voluntary of changing to the Urban-Bantu council system, failing which, a date should be fixed after which advisory boards will automatically cease and a council will be appointed. Similarly in the case of a Bantu community where there is no advisory board, the local authority should have the right to establish a council. It does seem to me that this question of consultation, although it sounds very well could lead to a great deal of trouble, and we on these benches are very anxious to see this form of direct representation and direct administration by the Bantu themselves established, and we believe that that would be a better way of going about it.

Mr. GAY:

I wonder if the hon. the Minister would kindly carry his explanation with regard to the financial control a little bit further.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Read Clause 8.

Mr. GAY:

You see, the hon. the Minister has said that the financial control will remain with the local urban authority, but the Bill at a later stage does provide for the overriding of a local authority’s decision if the Minister has decided that he should override it.

The CHAIRMAN:

The financial side is not under discussion.

Mr. GAY:

No, Sir, I am not raising the actual question of finances, but I want clarification on a point which bears so strongly on this particular clause: The practicability of this clause. The hon. the Minister has very kindly explained a portion. Could he explain what happens in such a case, either in the repayment of expenditure already incurred and new expenditure to be incurred.

The CHAIRMAN:

The establishment of councils has already been agreed to.

*Prof. FOURIE:

I should like to understand the Minister correctly because the clause is not very clear in the light of the explanation he has given hitherto. Under (3) (a) there is a Native advisory board which will have the right to submit a request to the authorities for the establishment of a Bantu council under this legislation. Let us assume that we have a city such as Johannesburg where various national units—perhaps, three, four or five of them—have already been divided on a territorial basis. In such a case we shall be able to establish five such councils.

*The CHAIRMAN:

That argument has already been used.

*Prof. FOURIE:

In other words, in those cases where a full division has already been carried out, there are no difficulties. The difficulty arises in an area where the Bantu are intermingled, if I may put it in that way. In such a case (b) becomes of importance. The Minister can now consult that community.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! That argument has also been used.

*Prof. FOURIE:

These are not arguments, Mr. Chairman; I am asking the Minister for an explanation, and my argument will become clear as soon as the Minister says that I am correct in my interpretation of the clause. But we are now beating about the bush, and we shall sit here for ever. Paragraph (b) is intended to provide for those areas where the Bantu are intermingled. According to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), the hon. the Minister can after consultation establish councils for the various national units which are living intermingled in such an area before the population has been sorted out. In contrast with other hon. members I see the necessity for this clause, but is it wise to appoint such councils to serve the various national units while they are still living together, or would it not be better to wait before establishing such councils until such time as the various population groups have also been sorted out in such a mixed area?

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I should like to tell the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) that I agree with him entirely. I think it would be unwise to establish ethnic councils when the Bantu are still intermingled. That is why there must be regional councils. Before they are completely separated, so that the system can work in practice, it will be unwise to establish these ethnic councils. The hon. member can therefore rest assured that we shall not do so in practice.

*Prof. FOURIE:

A regional council and not an ethnic council?

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Yes. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) has discussed the difficulties relating to consultation. I must honestly say that I attach great value to consultation. It is a democratic principle, and a democratic principle which we must systematically inculcate into the Bantu because it is actually something which is characteristic of his own system. The Bantu never adopt a law or establish a council without the community first being called together to take a decision. In the same way we shall consult the advisory boards because we want to make matters easy for the municipalities. The advisory boards will be consulted. But there may be other areas, and this is often done to-day, where a meeting of the community concerned will be called and they will take the decision. Perhaps one meeting, perhaps two meetings. But this is a principle to which I attach great value, and I must say that in this regard we have the co-operation of most of the municipalities because they also attach great value to consultation. I can therefore not accept an amendment in this regard.

Question put: That paragraph (b) of sub-section (1), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—54: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; du Piessis, P. W.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé. S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; 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 der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk. G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J Tellers: J. J. Fouché and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Butcher, R. R.; Cope. J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hopewell, A.; Horak, J. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller. H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: C. W. Eglin and T. O. Williams.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. van Ryneveld negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Hughes put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and a division was called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. Butcher, Cope, Dr. de Beer, Mr. Eglin, Prof. Fourie. Mr. Lawrence, Dr. Steytler, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, Van Ryneveld and Williams) voted against the clause, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

On Clause 3,

Mr. MITCHELL:

I move the amendment standing in my name—

In line 8, to omit “and selected”; to omit the proviso to sub-section (1); and to omit sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (6) of sub-section (3).

The clause as printed provides that an urban Bantu council shall consist of equal numbers of Bantu people elected and selected. I quote from the Bill—

An urban Bantu council shall consist of so many elected and selected Bantu, in all not being less than six, as the urban local authority may determine: Provided that the number so determined in respect of the members to be selected shall not exceed the number so determined in respect of those to be elected.

For the moment I don’t want to deal with the question of the selection of the Bantu people who are mentioned here, nor the methods to be adopted. I want to deal with the principle of the clause which provides that there shall be a number of elected and a number of selected members. The selected are obviously in terms of this clause not elected by anybody. The clause is at pains to show how they shall be selected, and there is a fundamental difference between those who are elected and those who are selected. My amendment, if carried, will provide that when the number of a Bantu urban council has been determined, then the whole number of its members shall be elected. The principle of election by the Bantu people of all the members of their council will be established under my amendment and the Bantu who are qualified (as provided for here) will have the right to elect all the members, and the right of selection which is being conferred upon certain chiefs and other authorities under the procedure laid down here, will fall away. I want to emphasize for a moment the principle upon which we stand here, and that is that if we are going to adopt the principle of election by the Bantu people of their own representatives in their council, then let us stick to that principle and give them the right. I want now to refer for a moment to the speech on the previous clause of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I know now why he gave me that knowing look just now because he realizes now what he let himself in for when he used the argument in respect of the previous clause. Here the Deputy Minister explained how necessary it was that when the Bantu, through their community, through their own representatives, sought this higher status, having been constituted as an advisory board, the higher status of an urban Bantu council, they were entitled to have it. That is what the hon. Deputy Minister says. Sir, let that body that makes such a decision get away from the whole concept of an advisory board and appointed people and selected people. Let us get away from that completely. If people are to have that right now of rising to that higher status, let their representatives be elected by themselves as to the whole of the number. Let the principle be adopted, not a 50 per cent adoption; don’t let us start this haltingly, holding back in regard to some of the members of the council and allowing, what I would now call the Bantu electorate, the right to elect only half the number. Otherwise it has got the seeds for its own destruction. We on this side of the House are supporting the principle of this Bill. Even you, Mr. Chairman, with your judicial attitude to these things might be forgiven if sometimes you were to forget that we are supporting the Bill on this side of the House. We want to make a success of this measure. We want such a system of elected councils to work, and I put it to the hon. the Minister that a system, whether it is for the Bantu people or any other race or group of people, whereby people have a council of which a portion of the members are selected and a portion are elected, always sooner or later leads to difficulties, whether it is in the highest councils and you have a system of government that is based partly on elected representatives and partly on appointed or selected representatives like executive committees they have got in some other countries, where that principle of differentiation between the status of the one group of people and the status of the other group in the same body, is maintained, where their authority springs from a different source, there is always trouble. There must be one common status with authority from the electorate. That is the only way of overcoming the difficulties which otherwise are inherent from the commencement of the work of the council. I ask the hon. Minister to accept the amendment which I now move.

Mr. COPE:

Mr. Chairman, we support in principle the viewpoint which has just been expressed by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), namely, that the councils should consist of entirely elected persons, and that the nominated and selected persons to the council should be eliminated. But we do not think that the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast goes quite far enough, and I therefore want to move as a further amendment the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

In line 8, to omit “elected and selected”: and to omit all the words after “council” in line 21, to the end of the clause and to substitute “shall be elected by Bantu resident in the area for which that council has been established and having the prescribed qualifications.”.

There are slight differences between the two amendments. In the first place, Sir, the amendment I have just moved eliminates sub-clause (3) (b). In other words, it eliminates the references to the ethnic grouping to which we took exception at an earlier stage. Secondly, Sir, you will observe that if my amendment is accepted, which of course also includes the elimination of (3) (b) (ii), which the hon. member for South Coast also wishes to eliminate, then the wording which will remain will be very much tidier and very much better than it would be if we merely accepted the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast. The wording would then be “the members of an urban Bantu Council shall be elected by Bantu residents in the area for which that Council has been established, and having the prescribed qualifications”, This is a simple form, and we feel it would meet the case. I shall not waste the time of the House. I endorse fully what the hon. member for South Coast said in regard to the principle of having wholly elected members. When you introduce the principle of having a number of nominated members, particularly in this case where there will be more or less an equal number of elected members, we feel that we will introduce stresses and strains which are very much better avoided. If a beginning is now to be made in regard to extending this form of elementary democracy to the Bantu, it would be much better to start off on the right foot. We support in principle what the member for South Coast has said and we believe that the amendment which is now being proposed, will have the additional advantage of eliminating the ethnic group aspect which we do not like, and secondly, that the wording will be streamlined and much better.

Mr. BUTCHER:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment to Clause 3 appearing on the Order Paper—

To add the following sub-section at the end of the clause:

(4) In addition to the members of the urban Bantu council elected as aforesaid, a council may co-opt further members to the said council not exceeding in number one-third of the number of elected members of such council.

I must explain that the amendment I have put forward is consequential on the amendments already submitted by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). Sir, my reasons for putting forward the amendment are these: In the principal Act provision is made for the appointment of advisory boards, and at the same time local authorities were given power to make regulations. Under that power in almost every case they provided regulations whereby appointed members were appointed to each advisory board, and in most cases the appointed members were equal in number to the elected members. Now the hon. member for Parktown has provided for the elimination of selected members and for councils to be confined to elected members. The purpose of the nominated members was to enable the local authorities to secure the services of individuals who would not possibly have a chance of being elected to the advisory board, but because of their certain knowledge could be of considerable value to those boards. In providing for the elimination of selected members, I think it is necessary to give the councils the right to co-opt members for the very same reason that in the past nominated members were provided. I do this, Sir, because I believe it is important that the members of the council should bear the full personal responsibility for the administration in their own areas. Now, Sir, if they have selected or nominated members, it is obvious that the responsibility is divided, and I believe in those conditions elected members could shelve their responsibilities by saying they are not responsible for steps that have been taken, and that it was in point of fact selected members who were responsible for any decision. For that reason I think it is important that if anybody is added to an elected council, he should be put there by the elected members themselves. For that reason it is advisable that this amendment of mine should be accepted. You will note, Sir, that it is permissive and not mandatory. In other words, it provides that members of the councils may co-opt further members if they so desire. Members will thus only be co-opted if there are cases where individuals with special qualifications are required by the elected members of the council. I think it is important to ensure that the number of such co-opted members is not excessive and that in no case it can balance or have the effect of negativing the opinion of the genuine elected representatives. In the amendment I have provided that the co-opted members should be limited to one-third of the number of the elected members.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words in connection with the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). I must say I could not quite see the point he was making. In a quite pleasant way he referred to the fact that we must always remember that his party is supporting this Bill. We on this side do remember that, and various members on this side have already expressed their appreciation of it. The hon. Minister did so, and I personally did it during the second reading debate. We expressed our appreciation of the support given to this measure by the Opposition. But the Opposition themselves did not remember that they promised to support the Bill. When we had a division here just now, half of the Opposition members did not know what to do.

Mr. HUGHES:

That is nonsense.

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

That is not under discussion now.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if we should accept this amendment of the hon. member for South Coast and the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope), which is fundamentally the same thing, it would mean that we thereby destroy the link between these councils in the urban residential areas and the Bantu homelands, and the basis of their national unity in the homelands. That would be the direct result if this amendment were to be accepted. That, of course, is of fundamental importance because we on the Government side, and in terms of our policy of separate development—or apartheid, if you would like to call it that—see the Bantu in the urban areas as directly linked up with the Bantu in the homelands, and the national units as they are organized there. But we cannot allow anything which would sever this link with the Bantu homelands or with the national units.

The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Butcher) also moved an amendment which provides for a system of co-opting extra members on these boards. Mr. Chairman the system of co-opting is not found in any of our systems of constituting authorities in South Africa. We have not got such a system in connection with Parliament; we have not got it in connection with the Provincial Councils. We have not got it in the city councils. We have not got it in the present Advisory Councils in the Bantu areas; we have not got it in school boards. We have it in no bodies which are authorities. It would be something totally new, and I really cannot see the point in accepting this amendment. It is just impossible for us to accept it.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? In lines 38 and 39 on page 4 there is reference to the representatives of Bantu chiefs recognized in a manner prescribed by the Minister. What does that refer to? I cannot find another reference to it in this Act. Does it refer to representatives recognized in terms of the Bantu Promotion of Self-government Act?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

It really refers to two matters, chiefs as recognized by the Minister under the other Act; secondly, to people appointed here in a manner to be prescribed by regulations.

Mr. HUGHES:

As the hon. Minister and the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Mitchell) have just said, we are supporting the principle of the Bill but we do not support the details. The principle we support is the establishment of Bantu councils …

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! That has nothing to do with this clause.

Mr. HUGHES:

But I am dealing with the members of the council and I am telling this Committee why I am supporting the amendment.

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order! We are now discussing the constitution of the councils.

Mr. HUGHES:

Yes, how the council will be selected.

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member may continue.

Mr. HUGHES:

The reason why we support it is because it is giving the Bantu some way of electing their own members. We do not support, however, that portion of the council which is nominated—the word used by the Minister is “selected”. We do not support that portion of the council which is nominated by the Minister. We insist that all the members of the council must be elected, and that is why, in the first instance, we gave our support to this Bill. It is fundamental. The Minister is given power in Clause 3 (3) (ii) to approve of the representative of the Bantu chiefs “recognized in the manner prescribed by the Minister” and who are—

(aa) in the case of an urban Bantu council established for Bantu belonging to a particular national unit and members of that unit.

We object to that. In the first place we are told by the Minister that this is in order to keep contact with the tribe, that by having nominated members of the council—or selected members of the council—the tribe will keep contact with its members living in the urban areas. But the chief himself is not allowed to choose his members on this council. The people he selects have to be approved, not only by the Minister but also by the local authority. It will depend on the standing of the chief with the Government as to who will be allowed to represent that tribe on the urban council. If the chief is a difficult chief and selects a man who is non persona grata with the Government because of policy differences, that representative of the tribe will not be able to serve on that council because the Minister can refuse to have him there.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) has moved an amendment in terms of which he wishes to give power to the council to co-opt further members. We cannot support that either, I am afraid, because the support we are prepared to give to this measure is that the members of the council must all be elected. We do not approve of selection of the members by the Minister or by the council or by a chief, neither do we approve of the co-option by the council itself.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

Even if they are elected?

Mr. HUGHES:

Even if they are elected. Of course, we know what is going to happen. This Bill will be passed as it is now.

Dr. STEYTLER:

Do you support that?

Mr. HUGHES:

No we are not going to give them the power to nominate extra members to the council as well.

The amendment of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) is very similar to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Natal (South Coast). In principle it is the same. The first portion will have the effect of laying down that the members of the council will only be elected. The wording is slightly different but, as I say, the principle is the same. However, the hon. member for Parktown has a further amendment which omits sub-section 3 (b) (i). We have not moved an amendment on similar lines and we feel that this provision must now stand because Clause 2 has been accepted by this Committee, and Clause 2 provides for separate ethnic units. Provision is made for them in that clause which has already been accepted by the Committee. We think that sub-section (3) (i) is consequential and will have to remain, otherwise there is no way of selecting these members. For that reason we cannot support that portion of the hon member’s amendment.

Mr. COPE:

I want to say, very briefly, that we are grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for what he said this evening in regard to the specific purpose of including the portion of this Bill which we wish to omit. The Deputy Minister has made it quite clear that the Government sees this Bill as part of the overall Bantu Authorities idea. In other words, this is one of the vital links between the urban council system that is being established in this Bill and the Bantu Authority system established in the rural areas. That is now clearly established. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that that is one of the fundamental reasons why we have opposed this Bill, because we are against the concept of Bantu Authorities. It therefore follows that anybody who supports this Bill is voting for the Bantu Authorities concept, because this is a vital part of it.

Prof. FOURIE:

This is a most interesting clause Mr. Chairman. If one were to look at the possible development in the future, it constitutes, to my way of thinking, something very dangerous …

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to Clause 3.

Prof. FOURIE:

I am confining myself to Clause 3 sub-section (3) (ii) which reads—

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 recognized in the manner prescribed by the Minister.

It says “by and from representatives of the chiefs”. Well, Sir, we must realize what can happen in future under the Bantu Authorities Act of which this is an extension into the White areas.

Mr. COPE:

That is the whole point.

Prof. FOURIE:

It really is the beginning of some authority in Bantu areas and Bantu authorities which, eventually, may become independent states. So that you have independent states having authority in the White urban areas of South Africa. I can see, arising out of this sort of thing in the future …

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! I must call on the hon. member to confine himself to the clause. I think he is now going too far.

Prof. FOURIE:

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking about the implications of this very clause. These elected members will be elected by and from the representatives of the Bantu chiefs. They are not citizens of the White areas merely, they are, in fact, the citizens of your independent Bantu states, now called Territorial Authorities or Bantu Authorities. I say it is the extension of Black power from the emergent Black states on our borders into the White urban areas. It is the beginning of a divided authority. I can visualize a system in the future where we shall have perhaps three or four or five such boards on which each national unit will have representatives, and all the various independent Bantu states will, each one, nominate or select members of those boards and you will have, in fact, a Berlin. We will have virtually dozens of Berlins all over South Africa. I wish to warn the hon. the Minister that this idea of a state within a state, where two-thirds or even more of the citizens of our independent states may live in South Africa …

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! I must point out to the hon. member that that principle was accepted at the second reading.

Prof. FOURIE:

Not this particular thing, Sir. I am referring to the implications of this particular clause and what it really means.

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order! I must call upon the hon. member to observe my ruling.

Prof. FOURIE:

Very well, Sir, I will conclude with this—and this is on all fours with what I have said—that it is the beginning of the authority of chiefs in the future, who may be independent presidents …

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! The hon. member is ignoring my ruling.

Dr. STEYTLER:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could you please give us a ruling: the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) is now discussing the implications of this specific clause. Surely he is entitled to do that despite the fact that this is the principle of the Bill that was approved at the second reading?

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

My ruling is that that was decided at the second reading, namely that certain Bantu councils shall be established in the White urban areas, in a certain manner.

Dr. STEYTLER:

But, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member not entitled, on this clause, to explain the reasons why we will vote against this?

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

That should have been done at the second reading.

Dr. STEYTLER:

But he is dealing with the implications of this clause.

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order! That should have been done at the second reading. I regard it as an attack on the principle of the Bill.

Dr. STEYTLER:

Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that it is impossible to discuss this clause without drawing attention to its implications. That is the principle inherent in this particular clause.

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! I must call on the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) not to take the matter any further. I have given my ruling and I am not going to depart from it.

Mr. HUGHES:

On a point or order, Mr. Chairman, your ruling makes it very difficult indeed. We have moved, with the hon. members of the party on my left, for a deletion of certain words which will ensure that the members of this council will be elected and that there will be no selected members. The selected members come from the reserves; they will be nominated in the first instance by their chiefs in the reserves. Now we have moved for a deletion of the word “selected”, and the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) and the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Mitchell) have both moved similar amendments. If you would look at the clause you will see that they have moved for that deletion. Surely we are able to put forward the case as to why we want this amendment? We cannot just say “I move an amendment” and then keep quiet. The hon. the Minister, if I may say so, in speaking against the amendment said that they insisted on having selected members nominated by the chiefs because it was their policy to do that in order to keep the chiefs in contact with the people in the urban areas. Now we say we want the opposite. Surely, if the hon. the Deputy Minister could use that as an argument we can use the contrary argument in order to refute his?

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

I will permit the hon. member for Germiston (District) to continue on condition that he does not go too far and that he does not depart too much from the contents of Clause 3 as it now stands.

Prof. FOURIE:

Mr. Chairman, I will read to you Rule 173 …

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! That is not necessary. The hon. member may continue.

Prof. FOURIE:

I believe that the principle of this Bill is the establishment of Bantu urban councils. Now the question that I am raising is the kind of council which you are going to establish in these urban areas. It is partly elected and partly selected. Now this side of the House is quite agreeable to having elected members on those councils, but we are against the method by which the selected members will be put on these councils. We would like to see them all elected, by citizens of the urban areas in White South Africa. Our objection against the selected members is that we are extending the Bantu Authorities at the present moment, the authority of the chiefs is being extended into the White areas where they can assist in forming these councils. We are against that because of the implications of this clause. Here, in fact, you have the beginning of authority of the future independent states to appoint Governments, as it were, within the White areas, representing the foreign Bantu states in White South Africa. I say that this is a dangerous principle to start with. It will mean the beginning of literally dozens of Berlins in the White areas of South Africa. Now why does the Minister do this? He does it on the ground that at some future date these national units will be moved back into their own states, and he wants to keep contact between these emergent sovereign, independent Bantu states and the subjects of these states living in the urban areas. [Time limit.]

Mr. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, when I moved my amendment I pointed out that we stood for the principle of the election of the members of the boards. I did not want to deal with the method by which the selected members were to be selected. I left that alone quite deliberately. Now I am in this difficulty, that we have made our position clear. We think that the council should be elected. I cannot understand how the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Butcher) can come now in regard to a council in respect of which some of the members are to be appointed by the chiefs, and give that council the right to co-opt other members to make up the total number of members. I cannot understand that line of thought. We have said from this side of the House that we will vote against the principle of having selected members, people selected by the chiefs initially. The hon. members on our left say that they are against it, but then the hon. member for Berea moved an amendment which allows such a council, if it has selected members, to itself co-opt other members. Surely that is then accepting the principle of some of the members being selected?

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

It was consequential to your amendment.

Mr. BUTCHER:

On a point of explanation …

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member for Berea will have an opportunity to speak later.

Mr. MITCHELL:

If I understood the hon. member correctly, he said this was consequential on the adoption of my amendment, but if my amendment is adopted there can be no representatives of the chiefs on the council and then the issue would be plain, but the amendment of the hon. member wants to give a council which has representatives of the chiefs on it the right to co-opt other members. I wanted to clear up that point.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister a question, but I am not satisfied with his answer. I wonder whether the Minister or the Deputy Minister will go into it a little more fully. In lines 38 and 39 of the English version there is a reference to representatives of the Bantu chiefs recognized in the manner prescribed by the Minister. I can see no reference in the Bill to the power of a Minister to prescribe how they shall be recommended. The Deputy Minister said it would be done by regulation. Is that power given in terms of Section 10? Is the Minister referring to the representatives appointed in terms of Section 4 of the Government Self-Government Act? There the territorial authority in the reserve has the right to appoint a representative in the town. In terms of Section 5, that representative has the right to constitute a board to assist him. So I can understand that the territorial authority in the reserve can appoint a member and also further members to constitute a board to assist him. Are these the people the Minister refers to in lines 38 and 39 from whom people will be chosen to serve on the urban Bantu council? If that is not so, it seems to me that nothing is laid down as to how these representatives of the chiefs will be recognized.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I want to say a few words on the amendments moved by the hon. members for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) and Partkown (Mr. Cope). I want to say at once that here we have a very important principle, in the first place as regards the Bantu themselves. The Bantu themselves desire that their national units should be preserved in the cities. In other words, that there should not be any division between the members of the Bantu national unit living in the cities and those living in the Bantu areas.

*The ACTING CHAIRMAN:

Yes, but the hon. the Minister must confine himself to the clause. For the guidance of the hon. the Minister, I want to say that I allowed the hon. member for Germiston (District) to continue in the vein in which he started, and the Minister is in the same position. He may proceed, but if he wishes to link it up, he must link this matter to the selected and elected members.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Then I do not know how to answer. The objection of hon. members is that here we have representatives of the chiefs in the cities. There are elected and selected members. The Bantu do not want any division. It is the desire of the Bantu that we should preserve the national unit. During the second reading I answered this point and I do not want to discuss it any further, but there is a further principle at issue, namely that ethnologically speaking, this is a sound principle. Hon. members will not find an ethnologist of repute who would urge that one should bring about a division between the national unit in the cities and the national unit in the homeland. The hon. member for South Coast put it so well when he said this was one of the mistakes being made in Africa. But they do not want it. However, the Government regards it as a matter of principle that we cannot allow a policy which is aimed at dividing the national units.

*Dr. STEYTLER:

Is it not the basic principle of this legislation?

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

The cardinal principle is the establishment of Bantu councils. I also want to tell the hon. member that in the second place this is being done because we are realistic. If the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) will investigate the position in the cities, he will be surprised how many representatives of the chiefs of the various national units living in the cities are in practice recognized by the Bantu.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

How do you recognize them? The Bill says that they must be representatives of the chiefs recognized by the Minister in the prescribed way.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I shall come to that. I say that in practice there are these representatives and it is interesting to see to what a great extent the Bantu themselves recognize the representatives of the chiefs. Very many of these people who are serving on and who have been elected to the advisory boards are in fact representatives of the chiefs. They are people who are living and working in the cities, but they are recognized in Durban by the Zulus as the representatives of the chief. Nearly every tribe has its representatives. Consequently, to be realistic we must recognize this position.

Now the question is: How can we recognize them? I have arranged administratively that the representatives of the chiefs have been recognized for some years. In the Bantu Self-Government Act provision has been made for the appointment of a representative to the Bantu authority concerned.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Are these the only people to whom you are referring, those referred to in Section 4 and 5 of the Bantu Self-Government Act?

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I shall give an example. The Northern Sotho have quite a few tribes. Every tribe has a representative in Johannesburg and under the main representative they constitute a sort of council which the Bantu in practice recognize. The position is that we have given administrative recognition to these representatives and this has had a very good effect in recent years as regards the maintenance of law and order and the building up of the moral foundations of the Bantu. The position is that for years already, since about 1928, there have been elected and selected members. This is therefore not a new principle which is being introduced. There are elected and selected members on the advisory boards.

Mr. MILLER:

Who nominated the nominated members of the advisory boards in the past?

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

The municipalities of course. That is why we are laying down this important principle but in these matters the Bantu themselves must be consulted. It has been proved in the past that when an advisory board is elected, the vote has seldom been higher than 20 per cent and in many cases it has been 10 per cent and 5 per cent, and this is an unhealthy state of affairs. In many cases there elected representatives were people who never played an active part in the affairs of the community concerned. By this new system which we are introducing whereby the representatives of the chiefs can nominate the selected members, we are so arranging matters that we shall be giving representation on a very sound basis to a far larger section of the community. In other words, responsible persons who are interested in their affairs will now become members of these councils. We have no doubt as to the success of this system because we are already seeing the results in the case of certain advisory boards to-day. Hon. members are making a very big mistake when they say that half must be elected and half must be nominated. That is not the position. We are laying down that at least half must be elected because that is a democratic principle, but it may be that the representatives of the chiefs will in fact stand for election, and many do so, and that the councils will consist almost exclusively of selected representatives. In some cases I foresee that it will not even be necessary for the chiefs’ representatives to appoint anyone to the council because the chiefs’ representatives will already have been elected by the people. I repeat that, particularly in Johannesburg, I have appointed a committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Bantu Commissioner to enlighten the Bantu in respect of this matter and it is their desire without exception, in all the Bantu residential areas, that the representatives of the chiefs should have the right to nominate these people. The objection of the hon. member for East London (North) is that these people must be approved of by the municipality and the Minister. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has said that they will only be “stooges” of the Government. But that will not be the position. What will happen is this. The representatives of the chiefs will nominate these people, but we must ensure that they do not simply nominate anyone. In other words, it is the duty of the municipality to ensure that only people who are entitled to live in the urban area can be nominated. They cannot simply bring anyone in and nominate him. That is why the municipality must approve of the nomination. But we have our system of recognizing representatives of the chiefs. It is laid down in the legislation and we must ensure that the chiefs’ representatives are really people whom I recognize to ensure that a person cannot come and say that he is Cyprian’s representative when he has never even seen Cyprian. We know that this kind of thing can happen and it is merely to make doubly sure that such a person has the right to live in the residential area and that he is really a representative of the chiefs. That is why this right is being given to the Minister and the municipality, but it is obvious that when the chiefs’ representatives recommend a person there will be very few cases, if any, where the nominations which they make will not be approved of by the Minister or the municipality concerned. This provision is only being made for the sake of proper administration.

Mr. HUGHES:

The Minister has told us that the principle attached to this clause is important to the Bantu as well as to the Government. He says the Bantu desire to keep close contact with their tribe and the Government also wishes the tribe to keep close contact with the urban Bantu. The Minister has said that the members who will be selected by the chiefs will be approved by the local authority and by the Minister, because they have to be persons who are allowed to live in that area, and he said that the members who are selected by the chiefs will be resident in the area. He went on to say that as the position is to-day the members of the advisory boards are usually representatives of the chiefs who are resident in those urban areas. Now the point is this. If they are so popular with the people, why select them? Surely the people will elect them themselves. If the people in the urban area are so attached to the tribe and to these representatives of the chiefs, surely they will elect them if they want them. In fact, the Minister says they do it for the advisory boards. So it is not necessary to select them. There must be something wrong with them if their own people do not elect them. If the member who is selected lives permanently in the urban area, how does he become a representative of the chief, and what is he there for? The Minister said it was part of their policy to keep contact, but as far as I know none of the ambassadors have been appointed yet, and why are they not appointed? I think it is for the reason that the people in the urban areas do not want them. The Minister shakes his head, but that Act was passed some years ago and I do not know of any ambassadors in the Cape who were appointed from the Transkei. If I am wrong, the Minister can correct me. And if in fact they have been appointed, why is it necessary for the chief to have further contact and further liaison with the members of his tribe living in the urban area, because he has his ambassador there to do it? So surely he needs nothing more than that. Provision has already been made for that in another Act. The Minister and the hon. member for Parktown both said that an important principle is affected here. The hon. member for Queenstown, in a question to the Minister, suggested that the principle of this Bill, and particularly of this clause, was really to establish tribal authorities, but the Minister denied that and said the main principle was to establish urban councils. The hon. member for Parktown has said that by accepting this clause we are in fact bringing tribal authorities to the towns, and the Deputy Minister said that is right.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I did not say that. I said it was a link with the national units in the homelands.

Mr. HUGHES:

The system of tribal authorities is really being applied to the urban areas. That is their policy. In terms of this clause, at least half the members of the council must be elected. That has never been this Government’s policy, to allow any council to be elected. It is contrary to their policy. You do not get it in the Bantu Authorities Act. In the Transkei there is a small measure of election, but nowhere else does the Government give the people the right to elect at least half of the members of any council. This is the first time the Government has accepted the principle of giving the urban Bantu civic rights. Far from being an extension of tribal authorities, this clause is now accepting the principle that the Bantu living in the urban areas must have some form of political rights, and that is why we said we would support it. Even if there are selected members we will still vote for the clause because of the principle contained therein of giving the urban Bantu a chance to elect a council for the first time, and we can see from this the extension of further rights.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

It seems to me that the last speaker was a little confused regarding the representatives who are appointed under the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act and the representatives of the chiefs. He has asked why, if the representatives who are appointed under the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act are so popular, they are not elected. I want to point out that under that Act these representatives are representatives of the regional authority or the territorial authority, and a regional authority and a territorial authority serve several tribes with various chiefs which are represented on such authorities. In this Bill we are dealing with representatives of the chiefs. Each individual chief has his own representative whom he appoints in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Minister. It may be a good thing if I just read to hon. members the instructions issued to the district officers in respect of this matter so they can see what system is followed. There is a 1960 circular which says that in each urban area where a certain number of members of a certain tribe are employed— a regional authority covers various tribes— the chief of such a tribe must appoint a tribal representative in consultation with his council. That is the chief’s appointment for that particular tribe, and if he is a paramount chief with more than one sub-chief under him, the sub-chiefs are also encouraged to appoint representatives for their people, and they are clearly made to understand that their representatives will be subordinate to the representative of the paramount chief in that city. As soon as he appoints someone, he must notify the Bantu Affairs Commissioner that he has appointed a representative, and the commissioner of the area concerned notifies the Minister’s head office and also the local authority concerned. There are already various such representatives in our cities. Hon. members now ask what type of recognition there must be. I just want to read an extract from the circular dealing with this matter—

It will be noticed that the urban local authorities are asked to note the appointment and to attach a suitable official stamp to the letter of appointment. By stamping the document in this way the urban local authority will indicate that it accepts the appointment.

Take an area such as Langa. Langa has many Gcalekas. The Gcalekas are one large tribe; and there are many Gcaleka chiefs. There are various representatives of Gcaleka chiefs in Langa. The same applies to the Fingos and the Tembus, but they all fall under the one Transkeian Territorial Authority. There are various chiefs’ representatives here, but that territorial authority may have one representative in Langa. That is the distinction which I should like to draw in reply to the hon. member for East London (North). The representatives of the urban Bantu council will be nominated from and by these chiefs’ representatives to represent them on the council, and by so doing to establish the necessary liaison. That is quite clear. May I just emphasize that the whole object is not to look after local affairs, because the local representatives, the elected members, are there for that purpose; the object of the selected members is to strengthen the tribal connection. Mr. Chairman, you know yourself how attached the Natives are to that tribal connection. The tribal connection is built up from the family as a basis and we must nourish those ties by establishing closer links through the medium of the chiefs’ representatives as against the overall liaison provided by the representative of the territorial authority.

Mr. MITCHELL:

In dealing with this question of the selected members of the Bantu urban council, I think we have to come back to the Bill. When I moved my amendment I said that I did not want to deal with the selected members or the method of their selection because my amendment would have the effect of nullifying that part of this particular clause. The hon. the Minister has not indicated that he will accept my amendment, on the contrary he has shown that he is not prepared to accept it. He has not said so in so many words, but he has indicated that, because he wants certain tribal representatives on the council.

The hon. member who has just sat down has given quite a clear exposition and has dealt with it in a manner which, if I may say so, looked as though he was quoting from regulations dealing with another body. It was on this clause in the second reading, if I remember correctly, that I said that it was quite clear that there was a link-up here. The Minister would require a whole lot of regulations to deal with the functions of this clause because let us look what the Bill says in regard to selected candidates. Clause 3 (3) (b) (ii) says—

Who are to be elected …

That is candidates who have 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 recognized in the manner prescribed by the Minister….

They are to be selected by and from the representatives of Bantu chiefs; they will not be selected from the representatives of Bantu chiefs, but by the representatives of Bantu chiefs from among themselves. Hon. members have seemed to indicate that it is going to be a selection by the chiefs. There is no selection by the chiefs. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) agrees with me there. Now we get the picture: Here are the representatives of the Bantu chiefs in the European urban area. Those chiefs must be recognized by the Minister first. They have their representatives here and the hon. the Minister has said that no representatives must be brought in from outside, they must be resident in that area, they are there as the representatives of the chiefs. Presumably, therefore, the representatives of the chief in that area are all qualified to meet in committee, as it were, without any guidance whatsoever, because they are the representatives, but those who can meet in committee must be the representatives of chiefs approved by the Minister and the representatives must have been approved by the Minister and they must have been approved by the urban local authority. So it is not sufficient really that they are representatives of chiefs, they must be representatives of chiefs approved by the Minister and they themselves as representatives must be approved by the Minister. At that stage they get together and from amongst those representatives of the Bantu chiefs they will be selected by themselves. The difficulty that arises there is that you want a lesser number than the total aggregate members of the people who are gathered together there, and who amongst themselves have to find the people who are to be the selected representatives. It is quite clear that what we are really getting in the selected representatives are people, who, if they are not detribalized, are at any rate dwellers in the Native residential area in a European urban area and that group provide the selected ones. The hon. the Minister said that some of those people were so respected by the Bantu people in that area that they have in the past, for the purpose of the advisory boards, actually been elected. They qualified for election and they were elected. My plea to the Minister is to allow that same amount of confidence to be shown here. He can get that class of candidate if he likes, but do not let it be said that they are to be selected by the representatives of the chiefs from amongst themselves. If the hon. Minister wants the representatives of the chiefs to seek nomination, as it were, let the generality of the people then elect them in the same way as they elect others. There will have to be regulations for the nomination of candidates for election. If the Minister wants to have a group of people to be nominated for election from amongst the residents in that Bantu residential area, who are the representatives of chiefs, then he can do that by regulation. There is no need to make any specific reference to that here. If the hon. the Minister accepts my amendment he can still provide for those people, but they would not from themselves select themselves. They would be elected by the generality of the Bantu qualified to vote in an election of that kind.

Mr. MILLER:

I listened very carefully to what the hon. the Minister said on this clause a few moments ago. Quite frankly I should like to put it to the Minister that he should not be so naive or imagine the House to be so naive as to accept what I would call a very silly explanation as to what is to be done. The hon. the Minister has introduced into this Bill that urban Bantu councils shall be established in the place of the Native advisory boards. He goes to the trouble to tell us that the system is very similar because …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the clause.

Mr. MILLER:

The hon. the Minister states that a Native advisory board is constituted by elected members and members nominated by a council. But the hon. the Minister will admit that the elected members are in the majority; the number nominated is smaller. If the Minister wishes to establish this council on the basis he suggests whereby they will now have the opportunity of playing a part in their local affairs similar to a local authority, why does he insist that the selected members must be at least one-half of the total council? Why does he not rather follow his own principle of a representative from the so-called homelands being nominated to sit on the council instead of insisting, as he does in this clause, that not less than one-half shall be elected? For that reason it is difficult to understand the motive of the hon. the Minister or to understand his explanation, which is not as simple as he puts it. It is not just a simple matter of having representatives; it is a deliberate intent to ensure a certain slate of affairs where at least one-half of the council will be nominated from a body of people all of whom will be approved by the Minister. As the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has pointed out it will be from a group of people recognized in a manner prescribed by the Minister, which in effect means that the Minister could, if he wished, ensure that the selected body would come from a pool of people prescribed by him. I do not think that this House can accept that very simple explanation. We know the mechanism of the thing; there is no necessity for the Minister to give us a White Paper on the subject, but we cannot understand, if he is genuinely sincere about giving that Bantu of whom he speaks in such terms of ectasy the right to govern themselves in the urban area, why he insists on a system which is completely different from the system presently in operation whereby the election plus the selection does not take away the majority of the elected members.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast is to enable the Minister to give evidence of that sincerity because if we delete the word “selection” it means that this whole Bantu council will be established by means of election by the persons resident in that area, persons properly qualified as laid down in the Act. They would be elected representatives and these representatives will then have the opportunity of playing their part in the civic life of that community. As the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has said, we will vote for the clause because it contains the principle of a Bantu council …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! That argument has been used previously.

Mr. MILLER:

I am not even using it as an argument, if I may say so, Sir, I merely want to use it as my premises to show the Minister that he is storing up a considerable amount of trouble in these urban areas. By this method that he now wishes to entrench in this particular clause the Minister is storing up a considerable amount of trouble, because instead of having representatives, as he intends to have, he is imposing the domination of the tribal chiefs system on to the urban dweller, with an equal number of people on both sides and a chairman appointed possibly from those people with a casting vote it places the whole scheme in jeopardy. Although we are voting for this clause because it contains the principle of urban Bantu councils, I want to ask the Minister to give very careful consideration to the acceptance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast so that he will be able to carry out not only what he says is his genuine desire, namely, to give them an opportunity of forming some form of executive government in due course in their own affairs, but he will not destroy that system and bring about a state of affairs where, instead of harmony in the area, there will be conflict. We will support the Minister if he wishes to bring about improvements in their conditions and give them a sense of responsibility but we are very much against the introduction of any mechanism which is going to destroy their sense of civic responsibility which he wishes to establish, through the introduction of a completely foreign element in the urban areas which will dominate the whole of the administration in the urban areas. My appeal to the Minister is to delete the word “selected” and we will support him entirely instead of halfheartedly in something which we know may fail.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I did not expect the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) to make such a speech. [Interjections.] I expect greater courtesy from him …

*Mr. MILLER:

I was not discourteous.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I say that I do not expect it. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has raised a point of some substance. He has asked why, if these people are so popular, I do not allow them all to be elected. I have already pointed out that this is what the Bantu themselves want. Here I am giving effect to a request which I have received from the Bantu themselves. Hon. members must allow me to give effect to this request. It is a request which I have received from Johannesburg, Pretoria and elsewhere. The Bantu themselves have asked that we should arrange matters in this way. In the second place I have also already said that the percentage who vote is usually low. The result is that in many cases the people feel that they are not properly represented while this system will ensure that all groups will be properly represented. The whole motive underlying this provision is to ensure proper representation and to establish links with the national unit. I just want to remove this one misconception, and to say this to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. Every territorial authority appoints its ambassador and the Transkeian Territories have already decided in principle that they are going to appoint their representatives. The decision has already been taken in principle. The object is merely to ensure sound representation.

Mr. MILLER:

The hon. the Minister regards any reasoned argument as discourteous.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

You are too offensive (aanstootlik).

Mr. MILLER:

Mr. Chairman, I must ask the hon. member to withdraw that …

*Mr. STRETCHER:

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) entitled to say that the hon. member is too offensive?

*The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may continue.

Mr. MILLER:

I am sorry, Sir, that one must be subjected to that sort of remark from the hon. member for Heilbron. We know him as a person who makes unpleasant and jeering remarks at others, particularly when he realizes that he has no argument …

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member must come back to the clause.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

Did you not say the Minister was silly?

Mr. MILLER:

I said the Minister’s argument was silly. I never said the Minister was silly. I am entitled to my own opinion of the hon. the Minister’s argument and I think many people will agree with me. That is my opinion. The Minister has failed to explain to this House why he insists on a minimum of one-half of the council being selected members. If the Minister would explain that and show the House the courtesy of giving us full details as to why he insists on that we might be quite prepared to deal with the Minister’s argument on a very different basis.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

The hon. member asks me to explain. I have already explained but he does not listen; he just talks. I gave a complete explanation of the whole matter a few moments ago but he was not here.

Question put: That the word “elected” in line 8, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, which was affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mr. Cope dropped.

The Question put: That the words “and selected” in the same line, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—59: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé. S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins. H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert. D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel. J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht. N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. I. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. I.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, I. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. I.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. E. Potgieter and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Butcher, R. R.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer. Z. J.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus. H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff. de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Horak, J. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw. W. V.; Ross. D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn. S. I. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher. D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mr. Mitchell dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Butcher put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and a division was called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. Butcher, Cope, Dr. de Beer, Mr. Eglin, Prof. Fourie, Mr. Lawrence, Dr. Steytler, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, van Ryneveld and Williams) voted against the clause, as printed, the Acting Deputy-Chairman declared it agreed to.

On Clause 4,

Mr. HUGHES:

I move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit)—

To insert the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (2):
  1. (3)
    1. (a) At least once in every three months a conference shall be arranged between the urban local authority or its appropriate committee and a committee appointed for this purpose by the urban Bantu council concerned.
    2. (b) Departure from the procedure laid down in this sub-section or alternative methods of consultation between the urban local authority and the urban Bantu council or councils within the area of such urban local authority may be prescribed in order to create a more efficient link between the urban local council and such council or councils.;
and in line 49, page 6, after “1959” where it occurs for the second time, to insert “based on an inquiry at which the urban local authority shall be entitled to be heard,”.

The object of the first amendment is to introduce a new sub-section which is contained in the Bill annexed to the Fagan Commission Report. In paragraph 33 of this report it is stated—

The next thing which is required is strong liaison between the Native Village Board and the Town Council, one by means of which the Town Council and the Native Board can keep contact with one another and which, as far as possible, will be so constituted that the proposals and views which the liaison body submits to the municipality on the one hand, and to the Native Board on the other, will receive proper attention and carry weight. We suggest that there should be regular conferences between members of the Town Council, more especially the members of the Native Affairs Committee of the Council, and the Native Committee chosen by the Native Board from its own members.

It is essential, Sir, that when these councils are established there, they should have the closest contact with the local authority in whose area they are established. New councils will be wanting advice because they will be embarking on something new for the Bantu and it is essential, therefore that they be not allowed to drift on their own but that they meet the parent body periodically and that it be an obligation on the part of the municipality to meet them too.

In connection with the second amendment I want to refer the hon. Minister to paragraph (e) of Clause 4 (2), reading as follows—

The urban Bantu council shall—
(e) exercise such other powers and perform such other functions and duties as in the opinion of the Minister ought to be exercised or performed by an urban Bantu council in respect of the area for or in respect of which it has been established and as the Minister may after consultation with the Administrator in question assign to it with the concurrence of the urban local authority in question and subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine.

Sub-section (3), however, lays down—

If the Minister after a report by the Native Affairs Commission established or deemed to have been established under the Native Affairs Act, 1959, is satisfied that the concurrence of an urban local authority referred to in paragraph (e) of sub-section (2) of this section is in regard to any matter being withheld unreasonably, he may in regard to such matter act in terms of that paragraph without such concurrence.

The word which I ask to be inserted, will have the effect of making it obligatory for the Native Affairs Commission to hold an inquiry at which the local authority shall be allowed to appear and state its case. It must be given a chance of appearing before the Commission to state why it cannot concur. Only after that has been done, can the Minister order it to act.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

As far as the first amendment is concerned, I am a little surprised at the logic of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). He has just opposed the principle that the municipalities can be compelled, even if this must be done at the request of the advisory board. Here however he is in favour of the principle that the municipality should be compelled to meet the Bantu councils from time to time. That is what his proposal amounts to. I refer the hon. member to Section 10 of the Urban Areas Act which authorizes municipalities to make regulations laying down that they will meet these advisory boards from time to time. The same applies here. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I am very eager that there should be the closest contact, and this is a field in which we have made good progress during the past few years. There is already such sound co-operation on the part of municipalities that I do not think it will be right to compel them to act in this matter without their consent. However, I am prepared to consult the municipalities in this regard and if they consider that consultation should be made compulsory, I can make the necessary provision when I consolidate the Urban Areas Act next year. At this stage however I do not want to insert a provision which will compel them to consult.

Mr. HUGHES:

I think the hon. Minister misunderstood me. I did not ask for municipalities to be forced to do anything. If the hon. Minister read paragraph (e) of sub-section (2) of Clause 4, he will see that he cannot give the urban Bantu council the powers specified therein without the concurrence of the respective local authorities. In sub-section (3) of Clause 4, however, provision is made for the Minister, after an inquiry had been held by the Native Affairs Commission, to act without such concurrence in respect of matters where such concurrence has been withheld unreasonably.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I still wanted to come to that point because I had only dealt with the first amendment moved by the hon. member, namely that municipalities should be compelled to confer with the Bantu councils at least once every three months. The second amendment relates to the Bantu Affairs Commission. In this regard I want to point out to the hon. member that when this commission institutes an investigation, it is self-evident that it is obliged to hear both sides. As a matter of fact, I cannot imagine the commission instituting an investigation and only hearing one side of the matter. I do not know of any instance where such an investigation has ever been instituted in South Africa. There is the golden rule, namely that of audi alteram partem, and this applies to all inquiries, and will therefore also apply to this type of inquiry to which the hon. member has referred. The only difficulty which accepting the amendment will cause is that it can result in a protracted correspondence with the administrators. They could even be called before the commission again later on—which I do not think would be altogether a good thing. If I were to accept this amendment, it could therefore entail a whole series of implications. But I want to give the hon. member the assurance once again that I cannot imagine the possibility of an inquiry being instituted by the Bantu Affairs Commission without both sides of the matter being heard. It is a principle that both parties must be heard before a report is submitted. The hon. member can therefore rest fully assured on that point.

Mr. HUGHES:

The hon. Minister says that he accepts the principle that the other party should also be heard and that he cannot believe that the Native Affairs Commission would carry out an investigation without hearing the other party as well. If that is so, Sir, why cannot he then add the proposed words so as to make it obligatory for the municipality also to be heard? The hon. Minister says that is what he expects will happen and that he cannot believe that it could be otherwise. If that is so, then surely he can accept the amendment which I have proposed.

In regard to the amendment asking for consultation every three months, the hon. Minister has pointed out that I by that wanted to force the municipality to go in for such consultation whereas in discussions on the previous clause of the Bill, I objected to local authorities being forced to do certain things. All I ask now, is that not only the municipality should be compelled to consult with the Bantu council, but also that the latter should be compelled to consult with the local authority. I want the hon. Minister to compel consultation between the Bantu council on the one hand and the relevant local authority on the other hand. After all, the local authority should be the first who should want to consult.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

But that is the practice at the moment.

Mr. HUGHES:

And if they do not want to consult, then they should be compelled to do so. That is a policy which has been accepted by every body, namely that there should be consultation. It may be true that that is what happens in practice, but why not make it obligatory? No harm can be done thereby.

Mr. COPE:

We want to support the amendment which has been moved, and as evidence of the necessity for the consultation asked for. I want to refer to the Bill which was published in 1952—the Bill which was the forerunner of the present one. Sub-section (4) of Clause 9 of that Bill laid down—

A local authority or a committee thereof shall, not less than once every six months, meet the chairman and such of the members of every urban Bantu authority established within its area of jurisdiction as the urban local authority may indicate for the purpose of consultation on matters falling within the purview of the urban Bantu authority.

In other words. Sir. the principle of the amendment which has now been put forward, was contained in the Bill which was published in 1952 and which was the forerunner of the present measure. The only difference is that on that occasion the period was set at six months whereas this amendment sets the period at three months. Personally I think a period of three months would be better. But the principle was already enshrined in that measure and I cannot, therefore, see for what reason it has been omitted from this Bill. If it was considered necessary in 1952, why not to-day? On the general question of the powers which are being delegated to the proposed Bantu councils, I want to point out that the earlier measure contained far greater powers, and I want to ask the hon. Minister why the councils now proposed to be established, are to have far fewer powers than those proposed in 1952?

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member should not deal with what the position was in 1952 but with the clause now under discussion.

Mr. COPE:

I will do that, Sir. Paragraph (e) of sub-section (2) of the clause under discussion gives the hon. Minister power to confer upon the Bantu councils such additional Dowers as he may deem necessary to confer. It would obviously have been better if those additional powers had been set forth in the paragraph. However. I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether he intends conferring powers in respect of the matters which I am going to mention now. The first of these is finance. In the earlier Bill Bantu Authorities were given considerable powers to regulate finances.

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member should not go beyond the terms of the clause as printed.

Mr. COPE:

I am desirous of finding out. Mr. Chairman, what further powers the hon. Minister has in mind to confer. Has he in mind to confer powers on the Bantu councils to administer financial affairs? I maintain, and many others do also, that it is absolutely essential in the training of people for democracy, to teach them to administer funds. Is it the hon. Minister’s intention to confer such powers here —to set up a treasury, for example, and to levy any rates? I would like to know whether the hon. Minister has thought of this matter and, if so, whether he intends conferring such powers on the councils?

Mr. GAY:

I want to support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories and his request to the Minister for further consideration to be given to the question of consultation. This clause deals with the financial implications likely to arise from the application of the principle of the Bill. This clause enables the proposed Bantu councils to undertake certain types of work. Now, apart from the financial implications thereof, there is also the question of the services to be supplied, like water, electricity, etc. which in many cases overlap with the services already being supplied in the area of the local authority concerned. Where a new area is to be established, ways and means of finance will be settled at the beginning. But there will, however, be cases where Native residential areas are already established and where vast sums have already been spent on the provision of the necessary amenities the control of which will now have to be divided between the local authority concerned and the new Bantu council. What I want to ask the hon. the Minister is what provision he is. making to control the funding of that expenditure already incurred, which has vast financial implications.

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must please return to the clause. There is nothing in this clause referring to the financing of Bantu housing.

Mr. GAY:

I am referring to the fact that the Bantu councils now being formed, under this particular clause, will have powers in regard to the provision of sanitary, health and medical services, and various other things.

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

The provision of such services, yes.

Mr. GAY:

But they cannot be provided without money.

The ACTING DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:

Clause 8 deals with the finances.

Mr. GAY:

I find it somewhat difficult …

Mr. GREYLING:

Sit down!

Mr. GAY:

I am not prepared to take instructions from you or any one like you. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us an explanation as to how that adjustment is going to be made. Our object in discussing the details of this clause, which under the Rules of the House we are able to do, is to endeavour to see that the principle we have already agreed to at the second reading, is a practical proposition and under this clause it can be put into effect. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories’s amendments are aimed at introducing practical consultation between the two portions of the local authority now to exist, the Bantu Urban Council and the urban local authority, who have to work together. Some such form of consultation will be necessary. I accept the sincerity of the hon. the Minister when he states that he believes that this consultation will take place, but this goes far beyond the type of thing that should be just agreed to or disagreed to at the wish of one or the other party. It is just as essential that the local authority should be compelled to meet and consult with the Bantu local authority as it is for the Bantu local authority to have to consult with the urban local authority on matters of this sort. It seems to me a straightforward practical method of removing a weakness in this clause by accepting the amendment. This weakness in the clause can react very unfavourably to the smooth administration of the system that we are aiming at, and it is so much a normal part of the normal set-up of local government that I can see no reason why it cannot be accepted: I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to give this matter further consideration.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) has the same difficulties regarding the compulsory meetings with the Bantu councils. I just want to tell hon. members that in recent years we have built up a very fine spirit of co-operation with the city councils and municipalities throughout the country. We have achieved an unprecedented spirit of co-operation and consultation and in many cases these councils do not meet only once every three months or six months, but every month. Many of them meet every 14 days and some of them every week. The necessary consultation takes place every week. As we have now achieved this admirable state of affairs through co-operation, I ask whether it will be reasonable of me, without consulting the municipalities, simply to tell them that I am now going to oblige them to act in this way? It would not be fair to the municipalities, and I would not be able to face them again if after the co-operation we have achieved, we should now simply dominate them. Hon. members must not expect this of me. I repeat that if later on we find that the municipalities feel that such an obligation should be imposed, this is a matter to which I can give attention and we can consider it next year, but I do not think it is fair to the municipalities to make it obligatory now. The hon. member for Parktown has also raised the objection that a previous law actually gave greater powers than the present Bill. I concede that readily, but in the present Bill I am keeping the door open for the granting of further powers. It is my intention that further powers will gradually be granted to them. There is also the principle that this must serve as a school for the Bantu. They must learn to do things themselves. They must learn to work with money, they must learn to keep an area attractive, and to undertake all sorts of tasks in that area. This I regard as a very important matter of principle. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) put this matter very well and very pertinently during the second reading debate. This is a matter which must be worked out systematically together with the Bantu and the municipalities and we must not simply force them into it. We must work this out systematically and we must systematically grant them more and more of these rights and powers, and the whole process must be developed together with them, the municipalities and the Department of Bantu Administration. That is the sound process. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has doubts regarding the finances. Here I have been very careful not to give any financial powers to the Bantu councils at this stage. All the financial powers are in the hands of the municipalities and the hon. member can therefore rest assured on that point. But what I should like to see is that when Budgets are drawn up, the representatives of the municipalities and the Bantu councils should meet and draw the Budget up together, instead of the municipalities drawing up their Budget for them. It is my desire that the system will be such that after the municipality has approved of the expenditure, a large proportion of the necessary funds will be handed over to the Bantu councils so that they can carry out certain works themselves. But it will remain the responsibility of the municipality concerned, and in this regard the Bantu councils are not being given any additional powers. I have been very careful not to transfer any of the financial powers of the municipalities before they have been consulted in the matter. We must co-operate in this regard and see how this system can be developed further.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

May I just ask whether the Minister will consider including the power to grant trading sites? It was in the 1952 legislation.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I shall have to consult the municipalities in that regard before I can make such a promise.

Mr. MITCHELL:

We were very keenly anticipating the Minister accepting the latter part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), because it has a reference to all the powers that can be exercised under Clause 4(2). In other words, the establishment of a Bantu Urban Council once having been decided upon and once it has complied with the necessary provisions regarding authority to exercise those powers, the whole of those powers are open to it, and I hope the hon. Minister may yet agree to the final portion of the amendment. In that connection I want to raise two points here specifically. The one is sub-section (2)(b) which says—

Such an urban Bantu Council will have the power to control and manage, subject to the provisions of this Act, a community guard established in terms of Section 7 in respect of the area.

That is the first point I want to come to. We had rather thought to deal with this matter under Clause 7, but we have noted that this clause here deals with the power “to control and manage” such a guard, and it is the control and the management that we are concerned with. We are not opposed to the principal of establishing community guards, but we would like the Minister to tell us whether such a guard will come under the control of the police, and whether if so or not, who is going to be responsible for the actions of members of that guard. You see, Mr. Chairman, when you have the power by statute to establish a guard, such as is contemplated here, then you are establishing a body that has authority to act legally, and legally to use force under certain circumstances. When we give that by statute to a body, then we want to know precisely what the limits of the powers are going to be and to whom it is going to be responsible. Here the council will have power to control and manage, and we would like the Minister to tell us to whom it would be responsible. Supposing action were taken that was illegal, and a case was brought against a guard, who would stand the financial racket in the event of damages being awarded? I do not think it can be said that it is sufficient for our purpose to say that it would be the Urban Bantu Council that would be responsible, because their means in the case of a small council might be totally inadequate for the purpose. In the event of a very large council, say in the case of Meadowlands, you may have adequate means for the purpose. But we do want to know who is going to be responsible in the legal sense for action taken by a guard to be established in terms of Clause 7 and whose control and management is authorized under (b).

Then briefly under (f), that provides, as I understand it, for the appointment of really a small executive committee. That is what it looks like. It says that the urban Bantu authority shall have the power to delegate executive powers to a committee of such council. That sounds like an executive committee. But when it also provides for the delegation of executive powers “to any Bantu designated by it”. I want to be a little bit careful here. Who is “it”? Does this mean the delegation of executive powers by the council, or does it mean the delegation of powers to a Bantu designated by an urban Bantu authority? It is not clear at all here. I think it leaves the question of authority for the appointment of a Bantu not clearly defined, and if you read (f), you will see that this embodies the right of delegation, apparently, of all the powers and the performance of functions and duties of the whole of the Urban Bantu Council, and all these powers can be delegated to a committee, which I call an executive committee, but in turn either that committee or the council can delegate those powers to a Bantu, in other words to an individual person. Here we would like a very full explanation from the hon. the Minister, because this is a tremendous power to put in the hands of one man. Who will have the power to appoint such a Bantu? And what safeguards are there going to be in that connection?

Mr. BUTCHER:

Sub-section (c) permits the Chief Native Commissioner or the Native Commissioner to refer matters to the Bantu Council for report, reference or consultation, without reference to, or consultation with a local authority. Surely that seems wrong. Surely it is necessary to get the local authority acting in very close co-operation with the Bantu Commissioners. Unless one can get that co-operation between the local authority and the Bantu Commissioner, one is surely going to have considerable difficulties arising. Surely the urban Bantu Councils are really under the control of the local authorities and if they have dealings direct with the Native commissioners, without consulting with the local authorities or without transmitting their reports through the local authorities, we are going to have conflicts arising between the local authorities and the Bantu Commissioners. That is the last thing we want. The Native Affairs Commissioner should surely refer any matter on which a report is sought through the local authority to the urban Bantu council, and the report should then be transmitted back through the local authority. Very ticklish positions may arise if there is a failure of co-operation between the Native Commissioner and the local authority.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I do not think the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) need have any fears on that score. Consultation has already been established between the Bantu Commissioners and the advisory committees under the present system and the municipalities, and as the wording is here, it may be that the Bantu Commissioner approaches the urban Bantu council directly, but we can take it that, as far as possible, as a matter of procedure they will always do that in consultation with the local authorities. I don’t think that we should change the wording, because it may be that in exceptional cases here and there it will be necessary for a Bantu Commissioner to have access to the Bantu council without going through the municipalities, if, for instance, the municipality may cause some hindrance here or there. I do not think that it will occur, and I don’t hope that it will occur. I also want to point out in connection with the request that there should be compulsory consultation by inserting here a provision to that effect. But I want to refer hon. members to Clause 10 (1) (c) which will be dealt with later. There it is made possible for the local authority (that is the municipality) to make regulations for the meetings of this Bantu council, on which representatives of the state as well as of the local authority can be present. So by means of regulation that compulsion can be brought about.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has asked two questions. The first is who will be responsible for the community guards. I want to say that the Bantu themselves have asked for the establishment of such guards, and I have already given the assurance at the second reading that we shall work out a system in consultation with the Minister of Justice and the police so that there can be the necessary control. But it is self-evident that the request will always come from the Bantu councils, and in consultation with the police we must give close attention to working out a system which will ensure sound control.

The hon. member has a further doubt. He has asked what the position will be as regards the delegation of powers, for example, to a Bantu or a so-called executive committee. The whole object of this provision is that it will enable a Bantu council, for example, to appoint a committee to carry out certain functions in the area, and in such a case it may be necessary to delegate powers to such a committee. This is a procedure which municipalities often adopt. Or it may be that one person is appointed. In that case it must be a Bantu. He may be instructed to carry out a certain task, and powers may be delegated to him. This is merely a procedure which I think is often followed by the White municipalities.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Will the council delegate the powers to the individual?

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

The Bantu council will delegate the powers.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has an amendment on the Order Paper to the effect that this clause should be negatived. I think it is not necessary to move that amendment, because we can vote against the clause. We advanced our reasons fully at the second reading stage and I do not want to repeat them at length. Nevertheless, we do feel very strongly about this clause. At the second reading stage we stated that it may be necessary and desirable to confer judicial powers of this kind upon chiefs in areas far removed from a Native Commissioner’s office, but there is no reason whatsoever to confer this power on a representative of a chief in an urban area. It may well be, for instance, that in the Transkoi at some point which is far from Umtata or any other town in which there is a Native Commissioner, where it is difficult, for instance, for the parties in a civil dispute to travel a long distance to the town, there may be justification for having powers of this kind. But in your urban area, where that position does not obtain, it is far more desirable to leave the judicial power in the hands of the Native Commissioner. Since the hon. the Minister went ahead with his policy of establishing Bantu Authorities he has extended judicial powers in the reserves. He has, for instance, given the people on whom judicial powers had been conferred in terms of Sections 12 and 13 of the Native Administration Act the power to give default judgments, a power which was not formerly held. Previously, if the defendant was not willing to appear in a civil dispute before the person on whom judicial powers had been conferred, then the matter had to go to the Native Commissioner, but when the Minister went ahead with his system of conferring greater powers on Bantu Authorities in the reserves, they were given the right to hear civil disputes and if a defendant did not appear, they were empowered to enter default judgment. It is clear that the hon. Minister is trying to extend this system of judicial powers conferred upon tribal authorities. Now, apart from the argument that it is justifiable in an area which is very far removed from a Native Commissioner’s court, there is the other point that it is perhaps justifiable where you have a very close-knit community such as a tribal unit may be, particularly in a Native area. But where you do not have that close-knit tribal community, there is very much less justification for it. We feel that it is a system that is completely inapposite in the towns. In the towns you have your system of Native Commissioner’s courts, which has been working very well. We explained that in due course we hoped that even the separate courts for Natives would disappear and that one would merely have one system of courts for the administration of justice, but for the time being the Native Commissioner’s courts are functioning well and we are in favour of their retention. But we can see no justification whatsoever for bringing this principle of tribal courts which up to now has only been applied in Native areas into the urban areas. Not alone is it undesirable in respect of civil jurisdiction, but we feel it is particularly undesirable in respect of criminal jurisdiction where the essential authority is in the state and should be exercised by the state’s judicial system. I think one feature of Section 20 shows to what extent this power has always been regarded as essentially suitable for the reserves and not for the urban areas, and that is the jurisdiction in respect of punishment which has been conferred on chiefs or headmen. The section states that a chief, a headman or a chief’s deputy—

… may not inflict any punishment … or impose a fine in excess of £20 …

And these are the words I am coming to—

… or two head of large stock or ten head of small stock as a punishment.

Surely it is clear that this system was never intended to be imposed in an urban area. This is an attempt to bring the system which obtains in the reserves into the towns. It is an extension of the Bantu Authorities system and a retrograde step which is aimed at returning the urban African who has advanced from it back to the tribal system. We are totally opposed to this clause and we hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider it.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

I hope the hon. member and his colleagues will not insist on the deletion of this clause. What is suggested in this clause? This clause provides for civil and criminal jurisdiction in certain matters. Just before we reached this clause we gave the Bantu councils certain powers. The first thing to do to win respect for a particular body is to see that alongside that body there is another body capable of applying disciplinary measures. If you merely confer powers on a body and there is no parallel body to enforce that authority, then the powers which we conferred in the previous clause will be of little avail to increase the prestige of the Bantu councils in those areas in the eyes of the Bantu for whose benefit we are passing this legislation. That is the position. Hon. gentlemen know that the criminal jurisdiction that we are conferring on the Bantu is very limited, whether it be to impose fines or any other penalty. But we must also remember this. The hon. the Minister has already said that he is training the Bantu how to exercise authority, how to govern, how to control and that type of thing. Of what avail would it be if we only trained them in one branch of civilization unless we gave them the opportunity of receiving training in another very essential branch of civilization, in an essential aspect, namely to maintain civilization. What would we achieve if we did not do so?

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

Would they have the background?

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

What background? Does the hon. member want to suggest that there is not a Bantu in South Africa who is capable of applying these elementary disciplinary measures? Does the hon. member really want to suggest that the Bantu is so backward and useless? No, I regard it as a serious reflection on the Bantu to say that he is not even capable of applying these elementary disciplinary measures.

*Mr. RAW:

What is the limit?

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

The hon. member knows that the limit is £20 as far as fines are concerned.

*Mr. WARREN:

And an unmarried man under 30 years of age may be given strokes with a cane.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

I wish hon. gentlemen would give me an opportunity of stating my case. As I was saying, the Minister has pointed out that this administrative machinery that we are introducing for the Bantu will to a great extent serve as a training college where they can receive training and equip themselves so that they can undertake greater responsibilities. I maintain that in dealing with the question of administration, the application of disciplinary measures is just as essential as the administrative aspect. Perhaps it is even more essential because the Bantu who will be appointed, provided they have certain prescribed qualifications, will be people who will have better insight to realize what type of penalty to impose, so as to imbue the people with respect. We should cease thinking that it is only the White man’s measures that are good in every respect. The disciplinary measures, which the White man applies, the fines and corporal punishment, etc. may be very effective in the case of White persons, but I think we must admit that it would pro-ably be much better if in the case of the Bantu, those disciplinary measures were applied by his own people. We are dealing here with something very essential but it is a delicate position. Why should the White man’s form of punishment, according to his concepts and his tradition, always be applied to the Bantu?

Mr. WILLIAMS:

Will you also apply that to the Indians and the Coloureds?

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

That is not at all relevant. We are dealing with the Bantu at the moment and the hon. member should not drag in irrelevant matters. Those hon. members have a sufficiently high regard for the Bantu to admit him to this House, but they refuse to give him this elementary power which is essential. That is illogical. No, Sir, without this clause the whole legislation will be incomplete and ineffective to my mind. Without it the Bantu who are now to have councils and on whom we have conferred the powers laid down in the clauses which we have disposed of, will say to the councils: Who are you: if we do not do those things and if we do not have respect for you, the police of the White man will come along and we will go to the court of the White man. What respect will he have for the councils in that case? No, Sir, I think we will be making a fatal mistake if we did not give them this criminal jurisdiction, seeing that we are conferring powers of control on them. No. the body that has to command their respect must not be situated far away in the White man’s area. The nearer they are to that body that has to command their respect the greater will be their respect for the law, the better will they observe it, and the greater respect will you instil in those people in whose case it is most essential that they have that respect.

Mr. HUGHES:

We have been discussing this particular Bill for some hours now and I wondered when we were going to hear from one of these Native Commissioner …

Mr. RAW:

Is he a Native Commissioner! — Oh no!

Mr. HUGHES:

Yes he is. The hon. member has at last come into the debate, on Clause 5, and a most unfortunate entry into the debate it has been for him, if I may say so, as a Native Commissioner. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has now said that without this clause the whole Bill will be useless, that if we do not give the Bantu in the urban areas civil and criminal jurisdiction we might as well not pass this Bill and give them Bantu councils and allow them to elect their own representatives. He says what will it profit us giving them administrative power and not giving them judicial powers. He also said that unless the council have judicial power it will not have the authority and the respect of the people, and we must build that up by granting them judicial power. Sir, I have never heard an argument of that type before. We might as well say that our municipal councils should be given power to hold court. The traditional chiefs courts which still operate in the Reserves are quite different from the type of courts that we are going to establish under this Bill.

An HON. MEMBER:

Why?

Mr. HUGHES:

Because the chiefs have their traditional authority and they do not try the cases by themselves. The chiefs have all their councillors around them.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

But does not this clause say so too.

Mr. HUGHES:

The chief has his councillors around him. men who are trained in Native customs and who are living in the Reserves and who still practise those customs. But the people who are likely to be elected to this council are permanently urbanized, detribalized Bantu. Even the representatives of the chiefs who will be selected, will be, according to the Minister, people who live in the area. They will no longer be closely associated or attached to the tribe. And the Bantu living in the Reserves live according to their customs. The people living permanently in these areas will be urbanized detribalized Bantu. Those people are forgetting their customs. They do not know those customs any longer.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Why do we have Native Commissioners’ courts in the urban areas?

Mr. HUGHES:

Mr. Chairman, there we have another peculiar question from another Native Commissioner. He asks why we have Native Commissioners’ courts in the urban areas. We have Native Commissioners’ courts in the urban areas …

Mr. FRONEMAN:

To deal with Native customs.

Mr. HUGHES:

Exactly, to deal with Native customs, but we have legally trained officials sitting on the bench, men who have studied law and who know how to apply the Native customs. In the second reading debate I said I differed in this regard from the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope). I said that we must keep the Native Commissioners’ courts because those men are specially trained both legally and to deal with Native customs. They have studied Native customs. I pointed out, too, that even in the Reserves where the chiefs’ courts operate, it is often found that when appeals come to the Native Appeal Court that the chiefs themselves have forgotten their customs. And I explained why that happened. When you refer to statements on customs made in old cases, to evidence given by chiefs and assessors, you often find that the evidence of a chief given in these days as to his customs is completely different.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr. HUGHES:

Excuse me Mr. Chairman, but this is the whole basis of the clause.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is discussing Native customs and Native chiefs. The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

Mr. HUGHES:

But I am, Sir. It is intended in this clause to establish courts with the same powers as the Native chiefs’ courts, under the Native Administration Act, and I am dealing with those Native chiefs’ courts. The hon. member who has just spoken has said that the Natives have their courts in the Reserves and therefore they should have the same courts in the urban areas.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

It is something provided by the Act which applies …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! Will the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) please continue.

Mr. HUGHES:

The official who will officiate—I do not know what he is to be called, he will not be a chief and he is not a magistrate …

Mr. LAWRENCE:

He is a tribal Judge.

Mr. HUGHES:

He is a member of the council. As the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) savs, he will be a tribal Judge —an urbanized tribal Judge. He may be one of the elected members, but equally he may not be an elected member, he may be selected. If he is going to be an elected member it would have this advantage, that the people have shown their confidence in him by electing him to the council. But he may not be an elected councillor, he may be a selected councillor in whom people have no confidence and no faith. He may be the man who is appointed to officiate as a judicial officer. There is a provision, it is true, that he can consult with other members of the council if he so wishes, but he is the man who will try the case.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

He may be a witch-doctor.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! The hon. member for Salt River must not continually interrupt.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

But I am trying to help, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN:

I think the hon. member can carry on without the assistance of the hon. member for Salt River.

Mr. HUGHES:

I indicated in my second reading speech that we are in favour of having Bantu try Bantu, and I said that what the Minister should do is to allow only the Native Commissioners’ courts to operate in these areas and appoint legally trained Bantu as Native Commissioners. Let the Bantu themselves sit on the bench and try their fellow beings. We have no objection to that at all. In fact, I wish to encourage it. It will open another avenue of employment for the educated Bantu. And there are Bantu in the Minister’s own Department who have the legal qualifications but for whom there is no opening anywhere else. This is the Minister’s opportunity to put them on the bench, to make them Native Commissioners in these areas. For what period will these men who are to act as judicial officers, be appointed? Will it be for the term of their office as councillors, or how will they be removed? How will they be paid? Will they be paid something extra or will they have to rely upon gifts from the parties to the case? And in an area where you have various ethnic units and the judicial officer—or tribal Judge as the member for Salt River calls him—is a member of one tribe, is he going to be allowed to try all cases which may come before him. irrespective of which tribes the litigants come from?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

You will have to have an international court.

Mr. HUGHES:

Are you going to have a number of officials appointed from these councils to act as judicial officers? Mr. Chairman, this whole position is fraught with danger. What about attachments? Who is going to execute the judgments of the court?

Mr. FRONEMAN:

You have the rules of Court.

Mr. HUGHES:

If that hon. Native Commissioner knew anything he would know that áccording to the rules of the chiefs’ courts, execution must be carried out according to tribal customs. And what happens when the tribal customs differ because you have a number of national units living in one area? There is no necessity for the hon. the Minister, in giving these Bantu in the urban areas further rights to control themselves, to go to this extent of appointing these special courts. The Bantu themselves prefer our present system of justice. They prefer appearing before a Native Commissioner’s court where they have a man trained in the law and the law of evidence to try the case.

I indicated in my second reading speech that one of our main objections to this Bill— although we support the principle of establishing the Bantu councils—was that we disapproved of this provision to establish the Native courts. We will therefore vote against this clause. Everything I have so far said with regard to civil jurisdiction applies even more strongly to criminal jurisdiction. It is quite wrong to give an untrained man in an urban area the powers which it is proposed to give to a member of this council. They should not be given these powers of civil and criminal jurisdiction. If the hon. the Minister insists on going on with this clause and establishing these courts then I appeal to him that they should be only civil courts. They should not be given criminal jurisdiction. The Transkei chiefs did not have criminal jurisdiction until quite recently, and I submit it is wrong to give criminal jurisdiction to these people in the urban areas. [Time limit.]

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Mr. Chairman, there are really two reasons why I took this step. The first is that the Bantu in every residential area asked for it and said that they wanted it. Now I again find myself in this unfortunate dilemma, that on the one hand the Bantu asked me for something on a large scale, and on the other hand there are members of the Opposition who say: We know better than the Bantu; do not give it to them.

*Mr. RAW:

Did the Advisory Boards ask for it?

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Not the Advisory Boards, but the Bantu en masse. I can take the hon. member along with me and he will not go to a single Bantu residential area where this request will not be put to him. It was put to me by people who are very highly developed. It was a request by the Bantu everywhere that they would like to make a start in the urban residential areas with having their own courts. The best start to make is with their own system of course. I have told hon. members that already two experts, one of whom is an eminent lawyer, are busy evolving a system of courts for the Bantu in the cities and in the Bantu areas. I hope it will be ready in a comparatively short time, and then I will go into it further together with the Bantu, in order to get the best system possible. It is not my intention at all to leave them this primitive system for ever. I repeat that Bantu everywhere made this request. Whose advice am I to follow? It is indeed a difficult task! I think it is better to take the advice of the Bantu, because they are the people concerned. Now I want to give hon. members the assurance, and particularly the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), that there is nothing that will force the Bantu to go to these Bantu courts. They can still always go to the police or to the Bantu Commissioner. They will have a free choice.

*Mr. HUGHES:

No, only the complainant has a choice.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Yes, but he is the aggrieved person. If we were to give the defendant that right also, the hon. member himself knows that we would never get satisfaction on their part. However, there is also another important reason. One of the important things which causes racial friction between Whites and Bantu can be eliminated by this means. Therefore I have no other choice but to give effect to it.

Now a series of questions has been asked: How will this person function there; how will he be paid, etc., etc. Let me just say that of course we will be very careful only to recognize persons who are actually recognized by the Bantu as people who in their own national group have a thorough knowledge of their own law. In other words, they will be recognized persons. I have already said that, without hon. members knowing about it, courts are held every day in the Bantu residential areas. Courts are held every day without being recognized. The Zulus go to their own people. That happens daily in practice. Here it is now simply being officially recognized by the law, at the request of the Bantu themselves. These are matters which we will work out very thoroughly in co-operation with the Bantu. I want to say that the Bantu are very sensitive about their own system of law. I want to give hon. members the assurance that together with the persons now engaged on this work we will give the necessary attention to it so that an injustice will not take place. I know that objections have been raised, particularly by the legal fraternity. But that is not because they are interested in the Bantu. In many cases it is because they are interested in their own pockets.

Mr. HUGHES:

[Inaudible.]

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I do not say that is true in the case of the hon. member, but there are certain members of the legal fraternity of whom it is in fact true. I had the privilege of seeing these Bantu courts in operation in Kenya, Tanganyika and the Belgian Congo, etc., and I was deeply impressed by the dignity of the courts and the satisfaction they give. The British officials there told me that there are few things which eliminate friction between the Whites and the Bantu as much as the establishment of those courts do.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

The hon. the Minister spoke about a choice of courts in connection with civil jurisdiction. But now there is also criminal jurisdiction. If a person commits a crime within the area for which the tribal judge is appointed, will he have the choice of being heard by the tribal judge or before the other court?

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I just want to reply to that question. I have already stated that the procedure is that the complainant decides.

*Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

But I am referring to criminal cases.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

There the complainant decides whether he wants to go to the police or to this court.

*An HON. MEMBER:

To lay a charge?

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

The person who lays the charge.

*Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Not the accused person.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

These are matters which can all be worked out carefully together with the legal men.

Mr. MITCHELL:

There are two points I want to make arising out of what the hon. the Minister has said. The first is that the Minister has dealt with certain Bantu who are trained in the law, who are knowledgeable and who can, with credit to themselves, and benefit to the course of justice, take their place on the bench as what are now called tribal judges. But I must draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that these people must either be members of a council or representatives of a Bantu chief who has been recognized. In other words, the Minister has no choice in this matter. He does not appoint them. He may have the finest Bantu people trained in the law and available, but if they are not members of the council or representatives of the chiefs, then they cannot be appointed. The Minister can only appoint from that group. He cannot appoint from outside the group. I think that is the great difficulty which is facing the Minister. My hon. friend, the member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has made the point that what is wanted is people trained in the law, in other words, trained lawyers, if they are going to serve the purpose of justice with dignity and adequately fill such a position. But the Minister has not that choice. He must make the appointment from within the ranks of the council or from the representatives of the chiefs within that area.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

As a rule the trained members are members of the council. Take Kroonstad and Bloemfontein and Johannesburg for example.

Mr. MITCHELL:

That may be the usual case, but it does not serve in so far as this particular Bill is concerned. The second point I want to make is this: The hon. member for Transkeian Territories asked what the period was to be for which these gentlemen would be appointed, and so forth. I want to say I think it is a very bad principle to have a member of the council—and the Minister has now confirmed that these trained lawyers are often members of the Advisory Boards, and now they will be members of the councils. The point is that the man who is the Bantu judge will be a member of the council. The man who is trying the case, who is trying people who are brought before him for having committed some infringement of the law will himself be a member of the council. He is occupying a duel capacity, and I think that is quite wrong. This looks to me something very like the election of a Western sheriff in the Western States of America in the old days. That is the type of situation that will develop here. Just imagine the position that such a man will find himself in when he comes up for re-election. The people who are going to elect him are the very people who he has had in front of him as malefactors and whom he has been convicting. And his reappointment will rest on the votes of that electorate. I think this is a very bad principle, to have one man occupying these dual positions. I wonder whether the hon the Minister has given full consideration to that particular point?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Some very cogent reasons have been advanced for the proposal that the Minister should drop this clause. On the second reading of this Bill I gave a number of reasons why I felt that it would be very inadvisable to give powers of jurisdiction to a person who may be untrained to try both civil and criminal cases. It may well be that the Minister may find Bantu who are acquainted with the Native customs and who can deal with the civil cases. But there remain the questions of criminal jurisdiction. In any event, on principle I am opposed to this proposal to import tribal courts from the Bantustans to the towns. In other words, I regard this as part of the Minister’s ideological concept of a Bantustan. There is a great deal to be discussed on this matter, and a great deal more that can be discussed. I had intended to-night merely to register my disapproval of this clause and then to leave it to a vote. I draw a distinction between merits which have to be discussed to the bitter end, and those where you make your case and then you vote. I regard this clause as one where you make your case and say that you are against it and then vote. We are new dealing with this matter at a late hour and I feel that, seeing it is already 10.30 on a Saturday night, it is quite improper that we should go on discussing this matter. I believe it would be much better, from the Minister’s point of view, if he were prepared to agree to a proposal to report progress, and then we would deal with this very rapidly on Monday. I do not believe that this needs a long discussion. We are either for this clause or against it. We discussed it in the second reading and I, for my own part, will be quite prepared simply to say I am against the clause and then vote. But if I am kept here longer to-night I will go on talking about it. I want to appeal to the Chief Whip.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

Finish it now.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No, there are also the staff to be considered. I have no intention to hold up this Bill. I am against it and I shall vote against the clause. I was against it in the second reading. I shall make my position clear succinctly and clearly if I have the opportunity, but if I am compelled to talk longer I shall do that also. In order to test the position, and I appeal to the Chief Whip to support me, I move—

That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The CHAIRMAN:

In terms of Standing Order No. 36 (2) I am not prepared to accept the motion.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I move—

That the Question be now put.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—57: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Plessis, P. W.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Rall, J. W.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; 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 der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; 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.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. E. Potgieter and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—38: Basson, J. A. L.; Butcher, R. R.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. C.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—58: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Plessis, P. W.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; 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 der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; 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.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. E. Potgieter and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—38: Basson, J. A. L.; Butcher, R. R.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frieling-haus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

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

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 6,

Mr. LAWRENCE:

This is a remarkable clause. It says there must be consultation with urban Bantu councils in the exercise of criminal and civil jurisdiction in the urban areas by the Bantu. This clause refers to the jurisdiction now being conferred on certain Bantu persons in the urban areas. In terms of Section 5 which has just been passed, those Bantu in the urban areas will now have similar criminal jurisdiction to the tribal chiefs in the reserves. That is the jurisdiction conferred by Section 20 of the Act of 1927. I have nothing to add to what was said by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) about the civil jurisdiction, but I am very concerned about the criminal jurisdiction. However, I cannot traverse once again the arguments raised in regard to the clause, but now that this Committee has decided by a majority that tribal chiefs may be appointed in the urban areas with both criminal and civil jurisdiction, we have this novel and startling provision. It says that no judgment, decision or direction given or order issued by any person in the exercise of any power or jurisdiction conferred on him in terms of Clause 5 shall be invalid merely by reason of the fact that it was given or issued by the person in question—and the person in question is the tribal judge—after consultation with any urban Bantu council or any member of such a council. Well, this is a startling enactment. The Minister, in supporting Clause 5, this tribal jurisdiction which has now been transferred from the reserves to the towns, has said that many Bantu had appealed to him to allow them to have their own Judge to try them. [Interjections.] I could understand it if the Minister said he would appoint Bantu judges to the Supreme Court.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must speak to the clause.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am doing so, because it says that these tribal judges will now be able to have consultation with the local authority. But I find it very difficult to understand how it is possible to administer justice properly if a judicial official is now going to be in the position of consulting with a local authority, a Bantu council, before he gives judgment. If a Judge of the Supreme Court has to try a case of theft by an official of the City Council of Cape Town, he is not entitled to consult with the Mayor of Cape Town before giving judgment. How can a Judge consult a local authority? Have you ever heard of a thing like that, Sir? I thought I had been trained in law. I can understand a Judge sitting with one or two assessors to try a case; but I have never heard of a Judge being able to try a case with assessors consisting of the members of the local authority! This is making a mockery of the law, and that is why I am prepared to stay here till midnight and longer to oppose this Bill. I shall talk as long as I can against such a mockery of our law. Have you ever heard of such nonsense, Sir? Not only the nonsense of bringing tribal judges to the towns, but that these inexperienced persons in the law, who need not have any qualifications in law—they may be witchdoctors —should have full jurisdiction, both civil and criminal; and by heavens, they are allowed to consult a council before giving their verdict! This is a travesty of justice. Is this what the Republic is bringing us to? Is this what we have to sit here to do, to pass this travesty of justice?

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! Will the hon. member confine himself to the clause.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am dealing with something I am going to fight. I am dealing with the question of justice. How do you administer justice? You have impartial Judges who are prepared to observe the rule of law. They hear evidence whether it is in a civil or a criminal case, and they allow the parties before the court to be defended; the accused can be defended if he so wishes. They allow him to cross-examine the complainant. Then, having heard the evidence, the judicial officer considers argument by the State counsel and by counsel for the defence; and then he sums up the case and comes to his conclusion. He is an independent judicial officer. He gives his findings on the evidence. If any legal points arise, he hears argument on them. It may well be that the matter is of some complexity and that he has a number of legal precedents quoted to him. The case may be difficult and he may have to reserve judgment. In many cases Judges of the Supreme Court have taken several days or weeks before giving judgment. That is the ordinary administration of the law. But I have never known in all my experience, and I doubt whether the Minister can point to a precedent in any other country in the world, of a case where the Judge, having heard the evidence, having heard counsel for the State and for the defendant, then reserves judgment and goes into a huddle with the local city council. How does he do it? Does he go to the Mayor’s Parlour? Where does he meet them? In what circumstances can this consultation take place? Must he go to a mayoral party to discuss the verdict? It is astonishing. No, this is an innovation. It may be a Republican innovation.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is being facetious.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No, I am being very factual when I say that this is something I do not like at all. I resent this being contained in the law. I do not regard this as something which is worthy of our system of justice. I am not prepared to allow persons who have to administer justice, and who may be entitled in terms of Section 20 of the Act of 1927 to impose a fine of R40 or several lashes to unmarried Bantu under the age of 30, to have this jurisdiction and to consult a local authority.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

Since 1927 justice has been administered in South Africa by Native Judges, by Native chiefs in consultation with their councillors. This system of administering justice is now being perpetuated because it will also operate in the urban areas according to the Native legal system, according to the same custom where justice is administered by the person administering it consulting with his councillors. That was the law in 1927. I think the hon. member was already a member of this House at that time.

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

No. I came here in 1929.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

Then the hon. member is innocent, but he was Minister of Justice during the years 1942, 1943 and 1944.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

You are wrong again. I was Minister of Justice in 1945. Get your facts right.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

In any case he was a member of the Government in the years 1942-3-4 when this very Native Administration Act was amended in each one of those years. At that time he did not object to it that Native headmen and chiefs should administer justice, within their own areas, according to Native law in co-operation with their fellow-councillors. There was nothing wrong with it at that time.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

In their own areas, yes; but that is not the position here.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

That was not a violation of the law at the time. Now he says with great indignation that we are doing an injustice to the law. He cannot expect us to believe that story, Mr. Chairman. It is high time we saw that hon. member in his true colours. He is an actor and he ought to have a fez on his head.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I agree with the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). It is an astounding provision to include in any legislation which purports to deal with a system of justice. Here we have a situation in which the person who is going to be the Judge requires no legal qualifications and he can at his option consult with people who will possibly have less. He will be entitled to consult with people who never heard the case, who never saw the parties, who never heard argument and who might have an interest. What safeguard is there to ensure that the persons with whom he consults are not persons who have an interest in the case? How does the poor litigant know who is really giving the judgment? He appears before one person and judgment really derives from possibly some other group of people. To me it is a complete travesty of justice. The whole question of the independence of the court goes by the board. Normally we regard the court as a place where justice is not only done but where it is seen to be done. Here that principle is not observed, because judgment might very well be formulated by people who have no knowledge as to what happened in the court itself. So we have the position that not only is justice not seen to be done but it is positively concealed in this case. It is such an astounding provision that I hope the hon. the Minister will see the farce that is being created by including this provision in this Bill and I hope he will withdraw the clause.

*Dr. DE BEER:

Hon. members who have spoken so far on this clause are experts and I am not. As a layman I see another objection to the provisions of this clause, namely, that this is another example of legislation where we omit to keep the various sections of the authoritative power apart. We are dealing here with the establishment of a court, or a kind of a court, of the judicial authority and we are dealing with a clause which apparently provides that that court should consult with the council which is part of the legislative authority. Time and again we confuse the legislative authority with the executive authority, where the powers of the one overlap those of the other, and where the one is included to usurp powers which actually belong to the other. Here we again have an instance where a judicial body has to consult with a legislative body, namely the council. It may happen that that council may have a real interest in the case which is before the court. In that case it would naturally be very dangerous if there were to be contact or consultation between the two bodies. One of the basic principles of constitutional government are being assailed, namely, that the executive, the legislative and the judicial authority should be kept apart. I find it all the more shocking where this is being done in a case where the hon. the Minister has led us to believe—and I accept that that is his intention—that these sub-courts should be established so that a measure of guidance could be given to the Bantu concerned in regard to the law and the administration of justice. That being the case I find it shocking that we should start by departing from that basic principle of the independence of the Judiciary and by providing that the court should consult the council; the Minister will be guiding these people along the wrong road in his effort to train them in the administration of justice. I know I will be told that this is tribal custom, that it is Bantu tradition. But that brings us to the other important question of principle. It is one thing to say that you wish to retain that which was good in the past, but it is a different thing to say that because something was done in the past it should be retained in the future. I think that the hon. the Minister ought to tell us what his attitude is in respect of the administration of justice amongst the urban Bantu. In the long run the urban Bantu lives under Western conditions, at least in the economic sense. He works from Monday to Friday, he receives his wage; he goes to the shop and he spends it. He has to cope with the same problems as the Western civilized citizen has to cope with. I want to know from the Minister whether he thinks that, under these circumstances, the legal system of Western civilization is the best and the right one and whether he now wishes to change that legal system as far as these particular citizens of Western civilized cities are concerned, whereas the other legal system, the Western legal system as we know it. is to be applied to the other inhabitants of that same city. The danger inherent in this clause is no less than this, that, by introducing a provision such as we have in this clause, we are abandoning the whole concept of justice as Western civilization knows it and as it is practised under Western constitutional forms of government.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Had the hon. member studied Bantu law he would not have made the speech he has just made.

*Dr. DE BEER:

Why not?

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Because this whole matter is based on Bantu law, the law which they understand. It is an elementary concept which is recognized throughout the entire world that you should guide a person from the things that he knows to those that are foreign to him. You achieve nothing by thrusting him into a situation which is foreign to him. The Bantu recognizes this system; he practises it in his own areas. Our own legal system admits that there is nothing wrong with it. Now suddenly, however, because we want to introduce it into a Bantu residential area it is wrong. There is nothing wrong with it when applied in the Bantu areas but here it is absolutely wrong! I cannot understand the logic of hon. members. They are the same people and it is practised daily here in Langa. The hon. member does not know anything about that but he wants to teach me. I am as anxious as any hon. member in this House to see to it that right and justice is done. But we must make a start and develop this system. What is more the Bantu have asked for it.

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

I doubt that.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

I am expected to ignore the request of the Bantu and listen to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). I wonder whether he has ever been to a Bantu residential area.

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

Often.

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Then he could never have attended a Bantu court, otherwise he would not have spoken the way he did. I must allow myself to be guided by the Bantu in this case, and therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. HUGHES:

I am surprised to hear the speech of the Minister. The objection to this clause is simply this that you have an official appointed by the Minister, one of the councillors, sitting in judgment himself being allowed to go and consult with any other member of the council on the judgment. The Minister says this is Bantu Custom; that this happens daily in the Bantu territories in the Bantu Courts. The Minister knows very well that what happens is this: The chiefs have their councillors around them and they listen to the case as well; everybody asks questions including the councillors and any of the spectators who may be present. They all take part in the trial and then the chief gives his judgment after consulting with his councillors. The councillors are there to advise the chief and they hear what is happening; they are like a jury. But, Sir, this is going to be quite different.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Why?

Mr. HUGHES:

Because there is no provision here that the council has to sit in the court with the judicial officer.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Didn’t you read the previous clause?

Mr. HUGHES:

Where does the hon. member get it in the previous clause?

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

The previous clause says “ … shall mutatis mutandis apply in connection with any power or jurisdiction conferred on any person in terms of paragraph (a).

Mr. HUGHES:

I will read that clause—

Subject to the provisions of Section 6 the appropriate provisions of the said sections twelve and twenty any regulations made thereunder, shall mutatis mutandis apply in connection with any power or jurisdiction conferred on any person in terms of paragraph (a).

Where does it say in this clause that the person whom he consults must be there to hear the case. [Interjection.] Let me ask the Minister this: Does he mean to tell me that the whole of the council is going to sit in court every day. When, does he think, are they going to work? The members of the council in the reserves where the chief holds his court are people who have lots of time on their hands; they can attend the court, but the people living in the urban areas have to work for a living, or are they going to be paid full-time officials to run the town and to sit in court? [Interjections.]

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) must abstain from interrupting.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am merely trying to get some information.

The CHAIRMAN:

I am not concerned with what the hon. member is trying to get. He must abstain from interrupting continuously otherwise I shall reluctantly be compelled to take steps against him.

Mr. HUGHES:

The Minister basis his defence on this: He says that the Bantu want it. We asked the Minister how he knew that. He says he has had requests from every urban area where the Bantu have asked for their own court. I asked the Minister whether the advisory boards had asked for it and he said ‘no’. The Minister told us during the previous debate that he had consulted with the Bantu. I asked him whom he had consulted and he said ‘individuals’. But that, Sir, is not sufficient. I quite admit that individuals may have told the Minister that they wanted this, individuals representing a chief possibly who may get a position in terms of this Bill. But that is not a request from the Bantu as a whole. I am certain of this that if the Minister held a referendum in Langa on this question he would lose. They would not accept this. Will the Minister tell us whom he consulted. I have heard the Bantu talk about these courts and I know what they think of them. I simply cannot believe that the majority of the Bantu want these courts. The Minister has possibly had people asking him to establish these courts, I accept that. He himself said that he had not been asked for this by the advisory boards. The Minister cannot get away from the fact that these councils will not be able to attend the courts like the chief’s councillors do in the reserves. They won’t have the time to do that, unless they all become full-time officials. The Minister has got his court now let him agree to the omission of this clause. As the member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) has said the parties to the case will not know who is giving judgment or who has decided the case; they appear before one man and he goes off and consults other people, people who may have an interest in the case, as the hon. member correctly pointed out. It is quite wrong that he should be allowed to consult people who have not heard what has taken place in court.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I too am strongly opposed to this clause. We have a similar provision in the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951. Section 4 (3) of that Act reads—

No judgment, decision or direction given or order made by a chief or headman, or the deputy of a chief, in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred upon him by or under any law, shall be deemed to be invalid by reason of its having been given on the advice or with the consent or at the instance of a tribal authority.

That is in respect of the reserves. We are now introducing that principle into the urban areas. Sir, that is not the only link with the reserves. I notice that Clause 6 refers not only to the exercise of jurisdiction by people appointed in terms of Clause 5; it also refers to people who are appointed in terms of Section 5 (2) of the Promotion of Bantu Self Government Act. That Act too provides for the appointment of tribal Judges in the urban areas. Section 5 of that Act refers to the representatives of regional or territorial authorities or boards who have been recognized in terms of the Promotion of Bantu Self Government Act. Sub-section (2) says—

Any such representative shall for the purposes of Section 12 and 20 of the Native Administration Act be deemed to be a headman duly appointed as such under sub-section 8 of Section 2 of that Act.

I had hoped under the previous clause to ask the Minister further about the people whom he may appoint to exercise the criminal and civil jurisdiction but it is equally applicable to this clause: Does the hon. Minister intend to appoint persons as Judges in terms of the Promotion of Bantu Self Government Act— he has a choice in terms of Clause 6—or does he intend to proceed in terms of Section 5. Has he appointed any Judges so far in terms of Section 5 of the Promotion of Bantu Self Government? If he does, there is no reason why they should even be persons resident in the urban area. In fact even if he operates in terms of Section 5 there is no necessity for him to appoint a person who is resident in the urban area. He may recognize someone from the reserves. All in all. Sir, it is clear that there is a very close link between the Bantu Authorities Act and this Bill in relation to the conferring of civil and criminal jurisdiction and the type of procedure that is to be followed. This is a very good example of the kind of procedure to which we object in the exercise of jurisdiction by tribal Judges. It is a fundamental to legal practice that a case should be decided by the Judge who hears the evidence. He is not entitled to consult people who have not heard the evidence. For instance, when one appoints a jury to hear a case the Judge’s direction to them is that they shall not consult with any other person until they have arrived at a verdict. That happens in every criminal case in which there is a jury. Similarly in the case of the Judge; he may not consult with a person on a case before him who has not heard the evidence. There has been a dispute between the hon. member for Heilbron and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories in this respect. The hon. member for Heilbron says the procedure is exactly the same as in the reserves. Where this tribal jurisdiction is exercised in the reserves, and other people are consulted by the person who gives the verdict, they have heard the case, as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has pointed out, but there is no such requirement here.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Why do you say that?

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I am prepared to challenge the hon. member for Heilbron to show that the regulations require the attendance of the other members of the urban Bantu Council. If the hon. member for Heilbron can produce that from the regulations I am prepared to bow to him, but I am certain the regulations will not provide that the other members, with whom the chiefs in the reserves consult, have to be present, and so too where the same regulations are applicable in the urban areas there is no requirement that the other members must be present. If they must be present, the system is laughable. Is the hon. the Minister really going to suggest that all the urban councillors should be present or that all people who are to be consulted must be present? If so. why not make them the Judges?

There are other aspects of the procedure similar to this to which we object very strongly. For instance there is no necessity for the evidence to be taken down and recorded. Further, according to tribal custom the accused is not represented by an attorney of the court. That is the procedure in the reserves and as the procedure of the reserves is to be observed here, it seems that attorneys will not be able to appear before these courts in the urban areas. They have been prevented from appearing before the courts in the reserve areas and I assume, as the regulations are to be exactly the same here, that they will not have the opportunity of appearing before these courts. The procedure, therefore, appears to be suitable for the kind of court which is held in the reserves. It is not the best procedure but is followed because of a lack of alternative. The tribal communities may be a very great distance from the nearest Native Commissioner, and because of that it may be desirable to have these tribal courts but nothing could be less suitable for the urban areas.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

The hon. member has challenged me to prove on what grounds I say that these courts will administer justice in the same way as the courts in the Bantu reserves. The previous clause says—

Subject to the provisions of Section 6 the appropriate provisions of the said Sections 12 and 20 and any regulations made thereunder, shall mutatis mutandis apply in connection with any power or jurisdiction conferred on any person in terms of paragraph (a).

The very first section of the regulations that have been promulgated says that the procedure followed should be in conformity with recognized customs and legal practice. What are the recognized customs and legal practice? The very first section says that the courts should follow the procedure which is in conformity with recognized custom and legal practice. And what is that? It is that he should gather his councillors around him.

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

That is common law.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

No, it is not; it is Native law. It says clearly in this section that the existing customs of the Natives should be taken into consideration. And it is the custom in terms of Nati