Sir, yesterday the hon. the Minister was almost overwhelmed with felicitations on his appointment as Minister of Mines. This is my opportunity to welcome him as Minister of Planning and to say that we hope he will take the earliest opportunity to give us as full an account as he can of what he conceives to be the duties of this Department. Up to now there has been a certain amount of uncertainty as to its scope and about how far its duties are going to extend. It is said that man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward. I think I can say, speaking politically, that the hon. the Minister is a young spark who has flown upwards. No doubt troubles lie ahead of him and I dare say some of those troubles may flow from the Vote which we are now discussing. But as far as the hon. the Minister himself is concerned, one can only hope that his troubles may only be little ones. That, by the way, will please his colleague to the left, i.e. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, very much! Yesterday the hon. the Minister struck a little bit of bother from the hon. member for Rosettenville who complained that the report of the Department of Mines had come into his possession only during the week-end. Well, as far as the Department of Planning is concerned the position is even worse—we have no report at all. When we made inquiries last week whether we could have a copy we were told that it would be made available some time during the recess only. Consequently, is the report for the period up to December, 1965, which deals with the activities of the Department from August, 1964. We, therefore, have to depend upon the hon. the Minister to bring us up to date in view of the fact that we have no recent report to refer to. The hon. the Minister has inherited a new Department—as a matter of fact, the report which I have just referred to was, I think, the first report from this Department. As I have said, it was never clearly defined what the functions of this Department would be. In the report for the period up to December, 1965,. there is a paragraph in which the Department sets out the functions allotted to it. May I say that these functions include much more than mere planning. I notice the Department already has five divisions—the division of scientific planning, of physical planning, an executive division, an administrative division and a financial division. In paragraph 5 of the report it is, furthermore, stated—

Well, that is all right. However, I should have thought that one of the most important functions of the Department of Planning would have been to co-ordinate and to insist on coordination of the planning undertaken by the various Departments. I say this because we have had instances from time to time of Departments working in watertight compartments which resulted in a great waste of public money and fruitless expenditure.

A recent outstanding instance was that the Minister of Transport built a very expensive railway bridge and he had scarcely finished it when the Department of Water Affairs proceeded to start building a dam which would have submerged the bridge. The result was that the Railways had to build a deviation and another bridge, and the cost ran into millions of rands. I do not know who is going to pay for it except the public. That is an instance of a lack of co-ordination between Government Departments. It does indicate where the new Department of Planning could perform a useful function if it were clearly understood that any major planning should be co-ordinated by some central authority to make sure that there is no clash of interest.

As far as the physical planning is concerned, the Department has been charged, apart from actual planning, with administering the provisions of the Group Areas Act relating to various buildings, etc., and also the Natural Resources Development Act. The Department has taken over the professional staff of the Natural Resources Development Council and presumably the administrative staff, too, because one notices that in the Estimates there is no reference whatever to the Development Council beyond an amount of R200 as entertainment allowance for the Chairman of the Council. I am sure we do not begrudge him that, but there is no other reference to it, so presumably the whole of the machinery of the Council has been absorbed in the Minister’s Department. Since we have no report, I hope the Minister will be able to bring us up to date on this not unimportant matter, because the control of land use which was provided for in that Act of 1947 has been proceeded with by the Council from that time, and in its report it refers to a number of these areas which have been declared controlled areas, but they are all 18 months or two years old, and I hope that the Minister will be able to bring us up to date. There is Area No. 1, the Free State, which was the first area to be declared, and that, according to the report, has been revised and the revision was to be available in 1966. Area No. 2, the West Rand, from Klerksdorp eastwards, was also to be revised and the revision was to be ready soon. Then there is Area No. 3, in the Eastern Transvaal, the gold mining area around Kinross. That was declared in 1955 and it has been reappraised. One would like to know whether that reappraisal has been completed. Area No. 8 is the Milnerton-Rietvlei area, which was to be ready by the end of 1966. Now, that is a very important one, because as the report points out, that plan will have an important effect on the planning for the new harbour, and if it is not finished yet it may hold up the planning of the new harbour. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us something about that. Then there is the Port St. Johns area. [Time expired.]

Before putting the

Vote, I want to inform members that I am putting Revenue Vote 52, Statistics, R1,154,000. as well.

In contrast with the hon. member for Constantia, who has just sat down, I am highly appreciative of the work being done by this very young Department. The Department of Planning was founded only in August, 1964, and we have received only this one report on the activities of the Department, but even from this report it is clear that very good work was done under the dynamic guidance of the present Minister of Economic Affairs, who had to bring this Department to finality, and that a good deal of progress has been made in the expansion of this Department. Now that we have a new, young, energetic and dynamic Minister to handle this Department, I look forward to great progress by this Department in the years ahead. I therefore wish to take this opportunity to convey my hearty congratulations to the new Minister of this Department and to welcome him to this Department. It is my wish that he may receive all the necessary strength, vision and drive for the work of this Department, and I am convinced that with all his talents he is going to make a very great success of this young Department of Planning.

Of course the activities of this Department had to take shape gradually, because the ground it had to break was completely new. I do not intend covering the whole wide field this afternoon. There are particularly three important branches of the Department, i.e. economic planning, scientific planning and physical planning, but as other hon. members on this side will deal with other aspects, I should like, in the limited time available to me, to make a few observations on economic planning.

Here I want to refer in particular to the third part of the economic development programme, which we received only a few months ago, and as the opinion has been expressed that this economic development programme will not appear so regularly in future, I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see to it that this programme will in fact appear regularly every year in future. It is said that it will now no longer be necessary to publish this programme so regularly and that one should rather leave it to the Stellenbosch Bureau for Economic Research. But if one considers what is in fact said by the Director of the Stellenbosch Bureau for Economic Research, one sees how rapidly conditions on the economic front change, with the result that such an economic programme cannot be formulated only every two years or more. I read to you from Reappraisal for 1967, by this Bureau for Economic Research, which states—

Within six months, therefore, the economic conditions changed to such an extent that the director had to state that his findings had changed radically. I would therefore suggest in all courtesy that we shall not be able to manage with fewer of these economic development programmes than once a year. I would therefore respectfully plead that the hon. the Minister should in future continue having this programme appear once a year. It may perhaps be in an abbreviated form, because the great basic work in connection with this programming has now been done and it can now be adjusted annually to the economic conditions, but it can certainly not appear only once every two years, for as I have said, economic conditions change so rapidly and so radically that we should have a survey of this programme at least once a year. I just want to give you one example of how unforeseen circumstances can make economic conditions change radically within a short period. Last year we had a maize crop of 55 million bags; this year we suddenly have a crop which is expected to come to more than 90 million bags. This is going to cause a very great change in the country’s economic climate. And then I am not even mentioning all the other agricultural products which are being produced in abundance after the good rains we received. I therefore want to plead that the economic development programme should continue to appear annually as in the past, even if in an abbreviated form.

I also want to refer to what appears in the latest issue of the economic development programme, on page 138, where we find the following—

Now it so happens that any export industry has to be based on a considerable inland demand. We are now confronted with the problem that the largest demand is far in the interior, that our greatest industrial complex is far in the interior. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to have a very thorough inquiry carried out on how we can reconcile a flourishing export trade with the tremendous distance between our inland industrial complex and our main harbours.

Without being provincialistic, I do want to break a lance for the Western Cape, an area which is separated from the Witwatersrand complex by the tremendous plains of the Karoo. I want to ask that an inquiry should be carried out to determine how our export potential here in the Western Cape can be increased, because this will determine whether we will be able to export profitably. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that in the light of this economic development programme he should devise plans to enable private initiative to stimulate industry in the Western Cape, in order that we may build up a flourishing export trade through the Cape Town harbour.

Mr. Chairman, I was asking the hon. the Minister to bring us up to date in regard to some of these controlled areas which were being re-appraised and examined, because they are all aspects of long-term planning and they are all very important areas in which future economic development will take place. I think that the way in which the Northern Free State has developed under this system is a very good testimonial to the value of the system which has been adopted. I believe that the increase in the European population of the Northern Free State is the highest in the Republic over recent years. It is not by any means due entirely to employment directly in the mining industry, but is due also to the balanced economy which has been built up and which is based on the mining industry. It has been planned in a scientific way.

I was asking the Minister how far they had progressed with the Port St. John area, which is a difficult one. Then there is another one, namely the St. Helena-Saldanha Bay area. The report says that the investigation and planning there should “very soon be completed”. This was written in 1965.

Finally, the report talks about the development atlas which is a very interesting document, and it says that that should have been available during 1966. I want to ask the Minister whether that is available yet and, if not, when can we expect it? I think that will give a very good picture to the country of how the areas are being surveyed, examined and planned on a scientific basis. I think that I have said enough to indicate to the Minister that most of this information should have been in the hands of hon. members by now. I imagine that most of this information as far as the planned areas are concerned, or a great deal of it, will be contained in the report if and when we get it. So it will be in the Minister’s own interests to see that we do have this information before his Vote comes up. Because, Sir, then we can discuss the facts and not only ask for them without being able to discuss them.

Before I sit down, I wish to say that when the Minister makes his statement, which I hope he will make, as to how he views the scope of his future activities as Minister of Planning, I hope that he will try and give us an idea of how far his Department is going to remain purely a department of planning, investigating and co-ordinating other people’s plans, helping them through the various sub-sections, for instance the scientific division, and so on, and collecting the data on which sound planning has to be done; and in how far it is going to become just an ordinary Government Department administering the laws of the country. There are indications already in the report that it is beginning to administer certain laws and there are also indications, as we know, that it may go further. I think that it would be a pity if the two were to be confused. If we are going to have a Department of Planning, co-ordinating all the scientific research under the Research Institute and so on; if it is going to co-ordinate the planning of the various departments; if it is going to assist local authorities in their planning and carry on with the encouragement of development in the controlled areas, then I think that it is a full-time job and it should not be burdened with the day-to-day responsibility of administering laws and carrying on the day-to-day administration of legislation. I should like to have the Minister’s views on that subject.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to convey my appreciation to the hon. members for Constantia and Paarl for their felicitations; or rather, the hon. member for Paarl congratulated me while the hon. member for Constantia welcomed me. I thank them for doing so. I just want to add to that my personal appreciation to my predecessor for the period after my appointment during which he acted in my stead. I just want to tell the House that it may perhaps not be generally appreciated that Minister Haak had to work particularly hard during this period because he himself was also taking over a new Department. In addition he had a tremendous deal to do with the preparation of new legislation. I am very grateful to him for that. Furthermore I just want to add that the bit I have seen of the Department induces me to say that we are also particularly grateful to him for the fact that in the short period of this Departments’ existence he has built it up to what it is at present. It is a Department which is active, which is functioning on a sound basis, and I think my predecessor, who was the first Minister of Planning, deserves all due credit for that. Now I want to tell hon. members that I have listened attentively to what they had to say. I shall reply as far as possible. In addition I shall also see to it that replies are sent by letter in respect of certain matters which were raised here and to which I am unable to give a reply off-hand. Hon. members will concede that in the short period I have been holding this office it is not possible to form a complete concept of the activities of the Department.

†May I say to the hon. member for Constantia that the functions of the Department as such have been fully stated in the first report of the Department. One can therefore find a full statement on the functions of the Department in the report, which I noticed he had on his desk. Secondly, in welcoming me to this House, the hon. member made one or two observations. May I say that I occupied the same post in London as the hon. member, after many years had elapsed since he had been High Commissioner there. I can say without fear of contradiction that I found many people in the United Kingdom who still remembered the hon. member as High Commissioner. It was quite clear to me that he made very many friends for South Africa whilst he was over there. Of course the hon. member also left an impression there, as he has on this particular institution. I once spoke to a friend of mine and also a friend of his, and while having a word with him about the hon. member for Constantia, he made this observation: “We got on well together. He was a very good High Commissioner for your country, but he did not smile too often.” The hon. member expressed the hope that my troubles would be little ones. Of course, coming from a serious person like the hon. member for Constantia, I am going to take this very seriously indeed. With the incentive emanating from my friend, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, I hope that I will be able to report to this House at this time next year. The hon. member quite rightly pointed out that this Department is a Department which co-ordinates. May I say in general that as I see it—I shall give further details in a minute—in regard to economic planning, one could perhaps say that its function is the striking of a balance between the available natural resources and the needs of our people. In regard to physical planning, it is the coordination of the demands on the available land for different purposes. Scientific planning, to my mind, involves making the best use of the scientific achievements of this age and at the same time the utilization to the maximum of the available scientists. Scientific planning also requires one to make every endeavour to increase the number of scientists available in this country. I am just making these general observations in regard to the Department of Planning. I do not intend to give a resumé of how I see planning in South Africa in the year to come and in years to come.

*The hon. member for Paarl referred to the economic development plan. He said quite rightly that the economic development plan should be available annually. I fully agree with him. I may tell him that we shall convey this to the Economic Advisory Council, namely that it is sound to make it available annually. I also want to say that if my memory serves me correctly, it has already been decided that this economic development plan will be available annually in an abbreviated form.

In respect of the Department as a whole, I noticed from conversations with various concerns and also with hon. members and other persons that there is some uncertainty as to what the Department of Planning should actually do and with regard to everything that pertains to the Department of Planning. For the sake of clarity I just want to give a brief resumé of everything that comes under this Department. In the first place the secretariat has three legs. Firstly, there is the economic leg, under which the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister comes. The Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister is an official in the Department of the Prime Minister, but he is also an adviser to the Minister of Planning. All other officials and the administrative work come under the Department of Planning. Secondly, there is the scientific leg. The Scientific Advisers and the Scientific Council of the Prime Minister form part of the Department of the Prime Minister, but are also advisers to the Minister of Planning. All other officials and administrative work come under the Department of Planning. Then there is the physical leg. The physical leg comes completely under the Department of Planning. This also includes the Resources and Planning Advisory Council, which at the beginning of 1966 replaced the old Natural Resources Development Council. That was a statutory council. This council is an advisory council under the Department of Planning. I just want to point out that the permanent committee does not form part of the Department of Planning. It comes under the Department of Economic Affairs. Also under the Department of Planning are the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the Bureau for Statistics and the administration of the Group Areas Act, with its amendments and the concomitant activities. Hon. members will therefore appreciate that it would be unwise of me to make a major policy statement on the Department of Planning this afternoon.

I shall, however, give a report on the activities of the past year. As far as the activities of the past year are concerned, I shall deal with them under the following heads: Economic planning, scientific planning and physical planning, and then group areas. I shall do so very briefly. In respect of economic planning there is, in the first place, the economic development progamme. In the course of this year the third programme was prepared, covering the six-year period 1965-1971. From both the previous two programmes it appeared that the 5.5 per cent growth-rate in the real gross domestic product is the indicated target growth-rate. It was consequently decided that in the third programme it would be adequate merely to analyse the implications of the target growth-rate. In other words, this programme will not be as comprehensive as the previous ones. Then, in respect of research projects, a consolidated inset-outset table for 1960-’61, which is used for drafting the economic development programme, was completed in 1966. At present this table is being revised. As regards scientific planning, apart from making recommendations on the planning of development and the co-ordination of scientific matters, the following matters have also received attention: Firstly, there is an institute for coastal engineering. An inquiry was carried out into the establishment of an institute of the C.S.I.R. at Stellenbosch and in the Eastern Cape. The removal of the existing facilities from Pretoria to these centres has already been approved in principle. Secondly, in respect of the acquisition of land by the scientific division for the tracking station at Hartebeeshoek, an inquiry was carried out and certain recommendations made in respect of the possibility of interference waves. Furthermore, a joint committee was appointed which inquired into the problems experienced in preconstructed building techniques and materials, and which is intended to ensure the protection of the community against possible malpractices. South-West Africa was also visited in order to get up to date on research undertaken by the C.S.I.R. in this territory. Fourthly, the scientific division devoted attention to the loss of physicists to overseas countries, the so-called “brain drain” to overseas counties. A scheme for the collection of statistics on the migration of South African scientists and immigrants with university qualifications is being investigated in consultation with the Bureau for Statistics. In this regard I may just say that it is a matter of very serious concern to South Africa and also to other countries that so many of our scientists and in particular our research workers are lost. From my own experience I may say that these people are so engrossed in the research work undertaken by them overseas or wherever they may be that they are not aware of the possibilities South Africa offers them. They are simply not the kind of people who check to see what posts are available. I think it is absolutely essential that in this connection, possibly by way of personal contact, we should trace these persons and present them with the possibility of appointments here in South Africa, where their powers, skill, experience and learning may once again be utilized for the benefit of South Africa. I think the Scientific Advisory Council is certainly giving attention to this matter, and will successfully undertake certain tasks in this regard.

In respect of physical planning, apart from the continuation tasks in connection with control within the nine controlled areas established in terms of the provisions of the Natural Resources Development Act, the following matters also received attention: The Northern Cape and the water requirements in the Vaal River Basin. A report in connection with the future water requirements in the area was passed on to the Water Planning Commission. The compilation of a development plan for the Northern Cape, with its important mineral resources, will now be proceeded with. A transport study was undertaken in the Western Cape and has been completed by the University of Stellenbosch. In respect of the establishment of a harbour on the Namaqualand coast, an inquiry is being carried out into a suitable site for a possible fishing harbour and the provision of commercial facilities on the Namaqualand coast. As regards the Durban-Pietermaritzburg complex on the Natal South Coast, there are surveys and analyses of data for the compilation of development plans for this area, which is being undertaken by the Natal City and Regional Planning Commission in co-operation with the Department. In this matter the desired progress is being made. In respect of the development atlas to which the hon. member for Constantia referred, I may say that I already have the first part in my office and that it has been released and is available. It comprises the following aspects: physical background, social aspects, water, minerals and mines. This atlas is unique in its class; its compilation is a remarkable achievement and it will be of inestimable value in future planning, not only to the Department but to all concerns interested in any aspect whatsoever of planning. I may also inform you that an atlas in respect of the following sections will later appear: agriculture, communications, industry, commerce, financing, economic aspects and possible regions for development.

Furthermore, the valuable glass-sand deposits on the Cape Flats have been investigated. This inquiry is proceeding according to expectations and a report will possibly be made in the course of 1967. In respect of the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex a survey of this area was commenced with in the course of the year with the object of drawing up a development plan. In connection with research and the training of planners I want to say the following. As a result of the acute shortage of town and regional planners close liaison will be maintained with universities offering courses in planning and with other interested concerns. If universities are more fully informed on the activities of the various planning bodies a more valuable contribution could be made to the solution of problems. Moreover, universities can undertake certain planning projects independently, thereby stimulating basic research where it is most necessary.

The Department also devoted attention to the question of noise and safety at airports. Particularly as a result of the problems experienced overseas in densely built-up areas, a committee was appointed to give timeous attention to this problem in South Africa.

Finally I want to say the following. During the year the demarcation of the country into development regions received attention. For statistical purposes the economic regions were taken as a basis. This is a very concise tabulation of the activities during 1966.

The last matter I want to refer to is group areas. Here I just want to give hon. members the following figures. Up to 31st December, 1966, 1,022 group areas, border strips and business areas were proclaimed in the Republic. Classified according to race groups, these represent the following:

To this should be added 47 border s ps and two business areas. In respect of the business areas hon. members may perhaps be interested to know that one was proclaimed in Port Elizabeth and the other in Pretoria. As far as beach areas are concerned, the allocation of beach amenities for the various race groups in the Cape Province has been commenced with, save for four areas, i.e. East London, Knysna, Port St. Johns and Komga. In other words, the entire Cape Province has been covered.

With this very concise tabulation of the activities of last year and with the few observations I have made in respect of the functioning of the policy of the Department in future I just want to emphasize once again that it would be unwise of me to make a major policy statement at this stage. But I want to tell hon. members that I intend visiting all provinces in South Africa during the recess. I think it is quite impossible and would be unwise to take decisions in respect of planning unless one has made a personal inspection and has at least seen as much as possible of the Republic with a view to future development. In order to carry out these inspections, I have already instructed my Department to arrange for me 14 visits of two days each during the recess. I exclude Cape Town and Pretoria from these, of course, because we spend one half of the year here in Cape Town and the other half in Pretoria. In any event, I intend paying two visits to the O.F.S., three to Natal, three to the Transvaal rural areas, two to the Witwatersrand-Vaal-Triangle, three to the Cape and one to South-West Africa—altogether 14 visits of two days each. The officials of my Department who are concerned with the matter will of course accompany me. I hope to announce a full programme before the end of June, so that local bodies and other interested concerns may take note of it timeously, in order that my visit may be as fruitful as possible and that we may see everything which is necessary.

After these introductory remarks I want to say that I shall listen seriously and attentively to anything else hon. members have to say.

It is a great privilege to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his maiden speech as Minister of Planning. I think this House can be proud of this young Minister who is now taking charge of this young Department. We are grateful for the survey he has just given us and for the promise it holds, that we can expect much of him in the days ahead. At the beginning of his speech the hon. the Minister made an important statement, a statement I want to underline. This is that we are dealing with a Department which stands on three legs—i.e. the Economic Advisory Council, the Scientific Advisory Council and the Resources and Planning Advisory Council. These three important bodies must bring the future development in our country to finality. Jointly and severally they must ensure, in the first place, that there is sustained and systematic economic growth in South Africa as a whole. We are particularly grateful that the Minister himself, as he indicated with regard to his visits, is also seeing South Africa as a whole. A second task of these advisory councils is to see to it that the natural resources of our country will be developed to their optimum. Finally they have to see to it—and to me this is very important —that sustained technological development is maintained in all sectors of our economy. I am therefore particularly pleased to hear from the Minister that the whole of South Africa will be taken care of.

But, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me to refer here to a particular part of our country. In doing so I am not suggesting that it is a part which is deliberately neglected. My approach is completely different. But I want to plead with the hon. the Minister and is planners to see to it that everything in their power will be done in order that the rural areas may also get their due share of the development taking place in our country. The contribution the rural areas have made and will yet make in future to the development of our country is vast and important. Professor Boulding of the University of Chicago wrote on one occasion—

What happened at that time has also happened in our fatherland. And this is true. Because it is the rural areas, both the rural regions and the people in our towns, who when the development took place provided the people who left their own neighbourhoods and in that way brought about industrial development on a tremendous scale, though in regions other than those in which they live and dwell. It is the sons and daughters of the rural areas who made this possible. Here I am thinking, inter alia, of Vanderbijlpark, Sasolburg, the Free State gold-fields—in short, development throughout our country. This development was founded on the manpower drawn from the rural areas. Then it is also these areas which are seeing to it that the necessary food and raw materials are provided to make the development possible.

It is on these grounds that I want to plead for these areas to-day. Of all the important resources the human resources are in my view still the most important. The rural areas are sometimes referred to as left behind in the economic field, but they are the factory where the people are produced who enable a country and a nation to forge ahead. But no rural areas can afford producing people of the highest quality simply to lose them and to surrender them to other regions. If it is not going to bleed to death, it cannot afford this. This is the reason why I want to plead to-day with the planners of this Department to see to it that the planning of the rural areas will not be neglected, not with regard to any services. Here I want to refer in particular to teaching and education.

Order! That is a matter that comes under another Department.

Then I leave it at that. But the rural areas have another great function to fulfil, and that is that they have to serve as a place of rest and relaxation for our urbanized people. Our planners should bear this in mind and provide the necessary facilities in order that there may always be an opportunity for our city-dwellers to come and relax if they become tired of the concrete urban environment in which they have to work and live. We are convinced that if the rural areas are taken care of in future, just as in the past years, they will also contribute their share in providing people for the labour market, in providing leaders of industry, in providing cultural leaders and national leaders.

In the ten minutes available to me I also want to say something about the matter raised by the hon. member for Smithfield. But in the first place I must say that we on this side of the House welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister was wise enough to say that he was not going to be so unwise as to make a broad policy statement in connection with his Department at this stage. This is understandable, of course, because the hon. Minister took over this Department only a few months ago. We welcome the fact that he said that he was going to visit every province, and in particular that he wanted to make 14 visits of two days each to bring himself up to date on each area. Personally I welcome the fact that the Minister said that they were compiling a development plan for the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area and that we would hear more about that in future.

The matter I want to raise is the following. In 1964 a report appeared on a regional survey in the Western Cape, and many important people served on this committee of inquiry, people who certainly have a good knowledge of their subject. In speaking of the Western Cape, and also from the inquiry carried out by this committee, one notices that they drew a line from Humansdorp more or less to Colesberg and then all along the Orange River, and that they regarded everything to the west of that line as the Western Cape, and of course they made surveys in the various regions. As far as the Peninsula and the South-Western districts are concerned, I think this committee did excellent work, but I am somewhat disappointed, not in the work they did but in the slight attention they devoted to the area which falls inside that horse-shoe, here in the Cape. I am speaking on the same aspect which the hon. member for Smithfield raised, the rural areas. Here we find the major portion of the Cape rural areas. Within this horse-shoe, down the west coast, all along the South-Western districts and then to the Eastern Province and upwards along the native areas, we find these rural areas. That large portion on the inside is the rural areas of the Cape, and all this committee could report to have found of interest was that there were certain mineral resources in the North-Western Cape; there were limestone and gypsum and certain other things which could be exploited, but apart from those the entire development of the interior of the Cape depended on a few things like irrigation farming and the further expansion of our sheep-farming and stock-breeding in that region. This was just about all they could tell us about this area. I think anybody’s heart would ache if he travelled through this large part of the Cape and asked himself whether nothing could be done to develop such a large area of South Africa. I want to repeat that it is not only the major part of the rural areas of the Cape, but I would almost venture to say that it is the major part of the rural areas of South Africa. If one considers what the commission on the population of the rural areas said some years ago, one comes to the conclusion that from 1904 until 1958 the white percentage in the rural areas decreased from 47 per cent to 18 per cent. At present the percentage is likely to be much smaller, and here in the Cape one has this tremendous area which is lying fallow. The question I now want to ask the hon. the Minister is whether he should not ask his Department to inquire into the possibilities of this large Karoo area, over and above the Northern Cape and the Western Cape. Surveys are being carried out in connection with oil, and this is appreciated. The Minister told us yesterday that important facts were being discovered. This is most certainly so in respect of the search for oil. But I am almost convinced, and when one speaks to people who know those regions then they are also convinced of this, that there are still great mineral resources lying undiscovered in the large inland areas of the Cape. It cannot only be gypsum and limestone and asbestos. It is therefore our request that this area, which is still lying fallow, should be investigated, because over and above the fact that we may perhaps still have large mineral resources, there may still be great possibilities for white settlement in those areas. Over and above the fact that the Orange River scheme will bring water down to the northern part of the Karoo, I think other steps could also be taken to develop that region. I repeat that it strikes one to see how many of these small towns are becoming ghost towns. Where once one found high schools, there is at present such a dearth of young people that they have only secondary schools in some towns. In some cases there are not even secondary schools, but only primary schools. If there is one task the Minister could take upon himself, it is to see whether something cannot be done regarding these rural parts of the Cape. Here in the Cape he has fallow ground to explore.

You should at least give us a plan as well.

Now the Minister wants me to give him a plan, but surely his Department is the Department of Planning? They are the people who should carry out the inquiry. I listened closely to the hon. the Minister when he told us what the functions of his Department would be. I regard surveys as one of the most important functions of his Department, because one can never draw up a plan unless one has first made a survey. One must first carry out an inquiry, and then one draws up one’s plan. I see one hitch as far as this Department of Planning is concerned, of course. Who sees to it that the plans submitted by it are carried out? Just in passing, in this specific survey which was made in the Western Cape there were interesting recommendations, particularly in connection with transport. Who sees to it that those recommendations are put into effect? If we ask the Minister to carry out an investigation and surveys, his Department should do so, because I do not regard these surveys which were made by this committee in respect of the inland areas of the Cape as adequate. [Time expired.]

I just want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park that the hon. the Minister and his Department of Planning will plan systematically in the Republic. The hon. member for Durban (Point) would also do well to remember that even Durban (Point) will be properly planned by this Government and by this Department. [Interjection.] I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) that I have only 10 minutes, and I am not going to give him half of that in which to interrupt me. I want to take this opportunity to make a few requests to the hon. the Minister.

First I just want to tabulate them. In the first place I want to ask him to appoint a committee—and I would say preferably the committee which demarcated the coastline of the Cape—to demarcate the coastline of Natal for the various population groups in consultation with the Administrator of Natal.

Look at the mess made by the Torlage Committee.

The hon. member is welcome to say that what was done by the Torlage Committee was a mess. I could not care less. But I know that the best was done for South Africa, for the Cape, for all the population groups of the Republic as regards the demarcation of the Cape coastline. That being so, we come from Natal and we ask for the same. We ask that justice should also be done by all the population groups of Natal on that Natal coastline. That is the first request I want to make to the Minister. [Interjections.] I am coming to the anglers.

In the second place I want to ask the Minister whether he will see to it, in consultation with the Administrators of Natal and the Cape, that all the natural forest along our coastline are not destroyed as a result of the establishment and expansion of towns. I feel that to the people who want to get away from the cities, the people who travel along our coastal roads at present, those areas are very important because in that way they can enjoy a part of nature which is at present unfortunately being wiped out through the establishment and expansion of towns along our coastline.

In the third place I want to ask the Minister to see to it, as Minister of Planning, in cooperation with the relevant departments, that inland pleasure and recreational resorts are demarcated for the various population groups. I am just mentioning this; I shall try to come back to it. In conjunction with this I want to ask that public gardens, public parks, for example here I am going to mention names— Cape Town’s botanical gardens inside the municipal area of Cape Town, should also enjoy attention. When we come up against city councils which are obstinate; city councils which sabotage the Government’s policy; which fail to implement the national policy, which do not give the people of Cape Town, for example, what is due to them …

Order! What have those matters got to do with this Department?

Mr. Chairman, with due respect, I am asking the co-operation of the hon. the Minister, in co-operation with the city councils or the provincial councils, to make it possible for the country’s policy, for the policy of the Government in power, to be implemented by recalcitrant local governments.

It is not the task of the hon. the Minister to implement the policy of 18 other Government Departments—only that of his own Department.

My request to the Minister is that where city councils are recalcitrant, he should take action to have the policy of the country implemented.

It is not the function of the Minister. The hon. member must please confine himself to the Vote under discussion.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. Allow me to motivate my first point. The committee which demarcated the Cape coastline gained sound experience of that task. I therefore want to ask the Minister that because the committee has already gained experience, it should also demarcate the Natal coastline. In that way we shall get uniformity on the coastlines of these two provinces, i.e. the Cape and Natal. We shall have a committee which produces work of the same standard in respect of demarcation.

What committee is that?

I am speaking of the standing committee appointed to demarcate the Cape coastline. [Interjections.]

Order!

Furthermore, I want to ask that this committee should be a standing committee. [Interjections.] It is cheering to hear the United Party shout like that, because if they shout like that I know that I am dealing with the best cause and with the good cause. Then I know that I am right and that they are wrong. A coastline can only be demarcated by a committee which takes a broader view than—with all due respect— local persons could take. In Natal the coast line cannot only be demarcated for a local authority; it cannot only be demarcated for the province of Natal. It is demarcated in the interests of all the people in the Republic of South Africa, with its different population groups, and with due regard for the needs of each of those population groups. I want to say that this can be done by a committee which has already done something similar in the Cape and has thus gained the necessary experience to be able to do so successfully in Natal as well.

Who will be the chairman of that committee?

There is a chairman at the moment. The hon. member for Durban (Point) thinks that I am after the chairmanship … [Interjections.] A moment ago he insinuated that I wanted to be chairman of that committee. For that reason I am now telling him unequivocally that I am not pleading for myself—I am pleading for the people of the Republic of South Africa and I am also pleading for his people in Durban (Point).

Why has it become necessary that this coastline should be demarcated. I quote from The Daily News of 2nd May, 1967, to give an example of why it is necessary—

That shows you, Sir, that there is a need for the finalization of this matter in Natal and also in Durban. I therefore want to request the Minister, in consultation with the hon. the Administrator-in-Executive-Council of Natal, to let this committee go to Natal as well.

I now want to make a few observations in connection with our natural forests. The man who wants to get away from the cities for angling and recreational purposes, or for any reason whatsoever, perhaps even just to go and look at nature, nowadays travels along our coastal roads, and if the establishment of towns along our coasts continued along the present lines, he would in future have to drive through towns and cities all the way. I therefore want to plead that some of these natural forests along our coastline should be preserved and protected. I want to mention specifically a place such as Blombos in the Cape. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here at the moment, but he will know the place I am speaking of. There are also parts of the Natal coastline where there are beautiful forests, and they must be preserved for the future. I feel that this matter should be tackled in cooperation with the Minister, who has control over the entire Republic of South Africa, and not only by one province. Thus we will be able to have this systematic planning throughout the country.

I now come to my next point. These inland recreation resorts, these public leisure and pleasure resorts, should enjoy more attention in future.

Order! The matter the hon. member now wants to raise comes under provincial councils. In any event, his time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Klip River will pardon me if I do not try to follow him down the Natal coastline. If I did so, I might well come to the reason why he put on the shoe and said that he did not want to be chairman of the commission, although nobody said so. With reference to what the hon. the Minister said in connection with the C.S.I.R. and research, I should like to devote some minutes to this. Then I want to come to one of the areas which has not been proclaimed as such. As for the C. S.I.R. and its activities, it is a body of which we in this country are just as proud as we are of the research institution at Onderstepoort. With the powers available to them they are certainly doing all they can. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister, however, that we do not have nearly enough purely scientific research workers. I know the Minister is aware of that; he mentioned that. He mentioned the powers we were losing. He said that perhaps those people were not aware of the posts available in our country and that as a result we did not get them back. I do want to bring it to the hon. the Minister’s notice, however, that so many of the pure research workers come to a stage where they do administrative work. They do not remain in scientific research work as such, and in that way we lose many people. We know of many of them who are wonderful search workers. But it does not take long before such a person becomes the head of a department. Then he is put to work on administrative duties and we lose his powers. A research worker is a person who is almost born to that; he is not a man who is simply trained for that. He has the knack for that pure kind of research. I could mention names from the distant past and from the war years, of people in our country who refused to be employed administratively. They finally left their country and went to other countries where they could continue with the research they were so eager to do. I want to point out to the Minister, without drawing unfavourable comparisons, that apart form the funds which are available to the C.S.I.R. the position does no': compare well with that of the Scientific Research Council in Australia, and this applies particularly to the funds made available to them for specific projects. I have neither the opportunity nor the time to go into these specific projects on this occasion. However, I want to mention one with which I am conversant and with which I had a great deal to do. I just want to mention what that Government in Australia makes available to the Scientific Research Council for research on fibres, and particularly in respect of wool, because it is such an important product of that country. That research is so far ahead of the effort made in this country to undertake scientific research in connection with the wool fibre that the two do not even bear comparison. According to the latest figures I have seen, that Government makes 11 million dollars available to the Scientific Research Council in Australia, just for wool research as such. In addition they make tremendous amounts available for fibre research, that is, for fibres other than wool fibres. I am just mentioning this to the hon. the Minister. I started off by saying that we lacked researchers to do the research work we wanted to do, and which I know is even planned by the C.S.I.R. They do not have adequate powers to do so. In the second place they need more funds. In my view it is one of the most important matters in the country. There must be research in many fields, and also in respect of agriculture.

I should like to leave this matter and deal with the controlled areas and the development areas referred to by the hon. the Minister. He mentioned some of them in particular, and also the development area Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage. I want to make a plea with the hon. the Minister in respect of the East London-King William’s Town area. This area must receive attention, and must receive it soon. It must receive serious attention as a large development area. I mention this for a variety of reasons. The first is that that area is the natural flow-off area on the southern side of the Drakensberg. It has water resources equalled by few areas in the Republic. The Kei River, the Tzitzikamma River, the Buffels River and many other rivers form the flow-off from the Drakensberg. The area has a constant rainfall. It is in the eastern region, where there is a fairly high rainfall. Strangely enough the water resources available in that part of the country have never received attention. There has never been a proper inquiry in that connection, nor into the utilization of land and basic materials in that area.

I do not want to dwell at length on the additional resources in that area, for example labour. I discussed that in another debate, and I shall discuss it again. In that area certain labour sources are available to us. But other resources are also available there. There are mineral resources and ore resources. We know that there are coal deposits which have not been properly exploited. We know that there are ore deposits. We know that they are found in Aliwal North. We know that they are found in Indwe. We know that they are found in Elliot. We know that they are found in various regions, such as Molteno. For some reason or other that area has not received the attention enjoyed by the other proclaimed areas. I wonder why we devote such a remarkable deal of attention to the west coast. Oceanographic research has been undertaken along the west coast, and much more intensively than in any other area, while that particular part of the east coast has never received the share of the research due to it. Apart from that, that area has a harbour which is not even fully utilized. It is one of our good harbours, which may be further expanded. I am not speaking of this because it is the constituency I represent in this House. It is because that is the area which in my view considering its natural resources and labour, has a great potential. It appears to me as though it is one of the areas which should enjoy the highest priority when it comes to development regions. I want to go further. The utilization of land in that part of the Eastern Cape has fallen far behind. In respect of the banks of the rivers and the land available to us, the research institutions we have there are minimal. They are manned by the minimum staff. Thus, for example, you may go and look at the research institution in East London and also at the institution at Dohne. I think this matter should enjoy the serious attention of the Minister. The Minister should give attention to how the planning board should plan for the entire Republic. I want to ask that in this connection this area should enjoy the highest priority. I think that if the Minister were to give serious consideration to this and discuss the matter with his board, they would be convinced that it is an area which has been left behind and which has potential equalled by few other areas.

If I can spend the time I still have available on this, I should like to refer to the proclamation of beach areas and beach amenities in the Peninsula and in the Port Elizabeth area, which have already been proclaimed. We do not know why there is such a delay in respect of the other Cape areas. The inquiry has been completed. It was completed quite some while ago. I want to ask that the proclamation of those areas should now be finalized. We know about the planning that has to be done in respect of the entire coastal region in the area where I come from. We should like to know where the beach areas have been proclaimed or where they will be proclaimed. We want to know what section of the population they will serve. Only then could one undertake proper planning.

Mr. Chairman. with reference to what the hon. member for East London (City) said about the west coast, and to the question he asked with regard to why so much oceanographic research was being done there, I just want to tell him that the west coast and the large areas of Namaqualand as well as my constituency form the country of the future. Along the west coast there are the fish potential and the mineral potential. Nor is there much doubt as to " horn that large region belongs to.

I am glad that the activities of the Department of Planning are clearly set out in the annual report. It is just a pity that there still ? appear to be hon. members who have not taken the trouble to read through this report. If they had done so, they would have been informed.

There are a few matters I want to raise to-day. To some of them the hon. the Minister has fortunately already replied. The first relates to the question of our loss of manpower. We know that a manpower centre has been established and is acting in co-operation with the National Bureau for Educational and Social Research. We have information on the physicists who are abroad, in which regard surveys have been made. Because we are concerned about this loss in brain-power, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister how much progress has been made in this comprehensive plan for tracing and recruiting scientists who go abroad. An exchange of scientists with the outside world could be a good thing, but then we should nevertheless like to have these people back if they belonged to us in the first place.

Then it is indeed a pleasure to me to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department on this development atlas to which he referred. The atlas appeared last year, and as he said, the first part comprises the physical background, social aspects and also minerals and water. I want to say that it is indeed a prestige publication. It contains a mass of information and I think it may serve, in accordance with its declared purpose, to provide prospective investors with an over-all survey of the country’s resources and potential on a continuous basis. It can serve as a guide for physical planning purposes and the utilization of the country’s resources.

In view of the fact that I now want to speak on resources, I want to go further and make some observations on economic development on a regional basis. This is a school of thought and a trend which has established itself in all countries of the world in recent years. Since 1955. 22 planning regions with planning machinery in respect of every region and with co-ordination on a central level have been instituted in France. In respect of England there is also already an administrative structure for the implementation of regional planning. In respect of South Africa I just want to quote the following from a paper by Mr. G. S. I. Kuschke, the managing director of the T.D.C. At the symposium on regional development during October last year he said the following—

Broadly speaking such views on the development of the country’s economy have been encouraged through the years by the Natural Resources Development Council and also by the present Resources and Planning Advisory Council. As regards the classification of regions according to stages of economic development, we have in recent times heard about four kinds of regions, based on an original classification by a certain Mr. Friedman of the United States of America. He mentions the four kinds of economic regions. Firstly the metropolitan regions, such as Cape Town, the Rand and Durban-Pinetown. Then he mentions the development axles. These are regions along the main transport routes between the large cities. He mentions the settlement regions or “frontier regions”. That is how the Free State gold-fields came into being. Then he mentions the left-behind areas, the “depressed areas”. To me this is of particular importance because many parts of the rural areas fall in this group, as also my region.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot devote even a second to the hon. member. Now, during the past 25 years approximately 50 development associations have come into being on a loose basis throughout the country. There is a great deal of duplication in the activities of these associations, on which people serve who are interested in the development of their regions. The Resources and Planning Advisory Council divided the country into development regions. I just want to mention that this division was actually for the purpose of collecting statistics, and not specifically for the purpose of regional development. Although it is essential for statistical purposes, I nevertheless want to plead that as regards the classification of regions in future, for the explicit object of compiling blueprints for development, a decision should now be taken. As a first step in that direction I want to recommend that a country-wide conference of development associations should be held under the Resources and Planning Council to eliminate duplication and to define these boundaries tentatively at this stage, in order that the boundaries may include regions with more or less homogenous interests. Then other sub-regions may be classified for development under the four main classes of regions of which we have already heard. I feel that development associations, particularly in the depressed regions, would then benefit. They could then continue with their economic surveys and with the compilation of blue-prints for development. I feel hat it will then be easier for the Government and the Resources and Planning Advisory Council to establish planning machinery to implement this policy of regional development.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Coloured representatives I should like to convey to the Minister our congratulations on his appointment and I hope that he will have a successful term of office. I hope that we will have his co-operation in the matters affecting the Coloured people and that we will be able to talk to him man to man on matters which we feel should come to his knowledge. I am sorry that the hon. member for Klip River is not here but I do not intend to say much about the commission appointed in regard to the sea coasts. All I want to say to the hon. the Minister is that if ever again he appoints a commission, he must see to it that one thing does not happen again, as happened when I attended one particular meeting, and only one, because I was so disgusted as to what happened there that I would not attend any more. I want to tell the hon. the Minister what happened. The mayor of Hermanus gave evidence for the municipality of Hermanus and asked that the Commission should accept the findings of the municipality in regard to the removal of the Coloured people from the coastline. What happened next was something that I had never seen in my life before as a lawyer. The Mayor of Hermanus left the witness stand and went to take his seat as a member of the commission. That I understand from my colleague, the hon. member for Outeniqua, happened throughout the other deliberations. When the mayor of the town finishes his evidence, he then became a judge by being a member of the commission. How we, as Coloured representatives, could convince a member of the commission that the evidence which he gave as a witness was wrong, I think even the hon. the Minister will agree is beyond understanding. I did not attend another meeting. I only hope that will not happen again.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he has inherited a lot of trouble. I feel sorry for him in one respect, namely in regard to group areas. It is an unpopular subject of discussion. It is unpopular but it is the law of the land. The Department must know that if ever an Act is regarded by the Coloureds as a vicious Act, it is the Group Areas Act. They regard it as such and they hope that it will be implemented in such a way as to cause the minimum of hardship. It is no use us going into the past. That is the law of the land and it is going to be carried out because it is necessary, as we have been told, and we accept it, for the implementation of the Government’s policy of separate development. It is the law of the land and we accept it. But when this Act has to be implemented in some form or other, surely we are entitled to point out to the hon. the Minister and the Government that some of the proclamations are most unjust, and unnecessary and that there is no cally sufficient reason for such a proclamation. One of the cases I now want if deal with is the case of Sir Lowry’s Pass. If ever there was a case where there was no need for the proclamation first of the hamlet …

Has it already been proclaimed?

Yes, but it can be de-proclaimed.

Order! Then it falls under the Department of Community Development.

But it can be deproclaimed by the Department of Planning.

No. Only by the Department of Community Development.

With respect, Sir, I think you are wrong.

No, I am not. Hon. members should read the statement of the Prime Minister when this Department was originally created. He said very clearly that the application of the Group Areas Act only fell under the Department of Planning up to the date of proclamation of a group area.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote to you paragraph 2 (c) of the report of the Department of Planning for the period up to December 1965—the most recent report we have. In paragraph 2 (c) one of the functions of the Department is stated to be—

It says “group areas, regional and physical planning …”. As soon as a group area has been proclaimed it falls under the Department of Community Development.

Before a group area can be proclaimed by this Department, the Department carries out an inquiry. Then the group area is proclaimed. I want to submit that if it is felt that there may have been incorrect planning, it should be discussed with the Department of Planning and not with the Department of Community Development. The latter Department is concerned with implementation after planning.

May I just say this, Sir, that I agree with you that once an area has been proclaimed it is handed over to the Department of Community Development. But, surely, I can appeal to the hon. the Minister of Planning to de-proclaim that area? Surely I can make such an appeal to him? Otherwise whom must I talk to? Must we then accept it as a fait accompli?

Once an area has been proclaimed as a group area it falls under the Department of Community Development. It should then be discussed with that Department.

But then the Minister of Community Development can tell me that all he has to do is to carry out the proclamation. My difficulty now is, to whom must I talk to get an area de-proclaimed? Surely, that is a matter for the hon. the Minister of Planning? I do not want to challenge your ruling, Sir, but I hope you also see my point of view.

If the hon. member will not go into too much detail I shall allow him to make his point and give a definite ruling on this question later on.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Therefore I want to appeal to this hon. Minister to de-proclaim this particular group area. I should like to give him some of the history attached to this. The municipality of Somerset West has a Coloured housing scheme right outside the town. A few years ago they wanted to extend it, passed the necessary plans and submitted them to the then Department of Housing. They were actually promised a loan for the extension. So they wanted to proceed with the work. But then the Strand municipality said “stop”. That gave rise to a reconsideration of the whole question of the Coloured boundary. Well, I am satisfied that eventually the Coloureds will go from Somerset West and also from the Strand. But here we have a little hamlet, called Sir Lowry’s Pass —right away from the white people; all on its own and hundreds of years old. There is no reason at all for declaring this little hamlet a white area. My advice to the hon. the Minister is to leave it as it is. The hon. member for Peninsula raised this specific matter during the No-Confidence Debate. The reply of the hon. the Minister of Community Development can be found in column 284 of the first weekly edition of the Hansard for this Session. [Time expired.]

I want to associate myself with previous hon. members as far as the welcome they extended to the Minister and as far as the congratulations they conveyed to him on his appointment to this portfolio are concerned. We of the Witwatersrand in particular are grateful that we now have a person in charge of this portfolio who is acquainted with the problems and circumstances of the Witwatersrand and in particular with those of the Witwatersrand-Pretoria-Vereeniging complex. I am convinced that we shall be able to co-operate very cordially in the future and that we have in the hon. the Minister a person with a sympathetic understanding of the problems of that area. If one looks at this Witwatersrand-Pretoria-Vereeniging area one involuntary comes to the conclusion that that is the area where one finds the heaviest concentration of the population in the Republic at present. If one tries to make an analysis of the future one involuntarily comes to the conclusion that that is the area with the biggest growth potential. Therefore we are glad that the hon. the Minister is acquainted with circumstances there. Of course, we have also had the most cordial co-operation from the predecessor of the hon. The Minister. Therefore I do not want what I have just said in regard to the present hon. Minister to be regarded as any reflection on his predecessor. We are naturally grateful for what he has been able to accomplish.

I do not want to dwell on the economic and the scientific aspects of planning. As regards the physical aspect of planning, however, I want to express the hope that he will develop to perfection the pattern which this aspect of planning has already taken. The pattern we have at present is the so-called three-level pattern—first the wider central umbrella under the Department of Planning, then the provincial level and then the local authority level. We should like to see this particular pattern being developed to perfection. If one makes a study of planning throughout the world, one finds that this is one of the forms of planning, particularly physical planning, which comes as close to the ideal as possible. But at present we find that something is still not functioning properly in the implementation of this plan and that is the existing lack of legislation to give real authority to the provinces to play their part. The provinces have been trying for a considerable time to get legislation, an amendment of the Financial Relations Act, to invest them with those powers. I now seriously want to bring it to the attention of the Minister—he is most probably not aware of this— that we must try to rectify this matter as soon as possible. I want to say to-day that the other provinces are somewhat envious when they look at the planning which is at present being done in Natal because Natal does have a body which can do this kind of physical planning in that province. Whether or not we agree with what that body is doing—I do not want to go into that—the machinery which Natal has to do this kind of work is the machinery which the other provinces would also like to have to enable them to do that work. But as the Financial Relations Act stands at present, the provinces are not able to create that machinery and they have to find various roundabout ways of getting past the Public Service Commission to get the establishment for doing that work. As a person who has had a great deal to do with the practical implementation of this kind of thing, I say that this is an awkward state of affairs and we should like to see an end being made to this state of affairs and the necessary amendments being effected to that Act.

As far as the other matter is concerned, the planning of this entire P.W.V. area, we hope to receive further reports in regard to this planning before long. I may say that at the present moment a very complete survey has been made in this area with reference to recreation resorts. It is likely—I do not know whether the Minister wants to tell us that now—that an announcement will be made before long in connection with the report which has been in the hands of his Department for a considerable period. I anticipate that we will receive further reports in the foreseeable future, as a matter of fact, the Minister also said this afternoon that separate reports would be presented on the various facets of the planning of this area. This is a very important survey. I must say that one regrets the fact that the survey could not have been completed at an earlier stage, but as a result of the tremendous shortage of manpower one has to work as fast as the human material at one’s disposal allows one to do.

This, in brief, is all I have to say, but in conclusion I want to add that I do not think that we can speak with sufficient appreciation of the work being done by and the assistance we are receiving from our universities, particularly in connection with physical planning. I want to make special mention of the Northern Cape project, a project which involves the catchment area of the entire Vaal River. We want to speak very highly of the work being done by the Potchefstroom University in particular in conducting that survey for us. I think that is an outstanding job of work which will definitely be of great assistance to the Department in the planning of that entire area.

I want to talk this afternoon about the planning of the Tugela basin. This area is one with tremendous resources and is therefore one with tremendous potential. The development of this potential would naturally be of great benefit to that area generally, but it would do far more than that. As I pointed out in a previous speech, in this House, it would have a chain reaction throughout Natal which would give the entire province of Natal an enormous boost industrially, economically and agriculturally.

To give some idea of the extent of the resources available in the Tugela basin, I would draw attention to the survey prepared by the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission, to which the hon. member for Benoni has just referred in the very highest terms. This body has come to the conclusion that the Tugela basin resources are sufficient to support six Johannesburgs, six Cape Towns, four Pretorias, four Durbans and a metropolis the size of Greater London. This, Sir, is huge potential indeed. Some of its advantages are that it has almost unlimited water resources; 3,000 million gallons a day flow down the Tugela River to its mouth. It has large deposits of coal and abundant labour resources. It is centrally situated between the large markets of the Southern Transvaal and the Free State and the Durban-Pietermaritzburg complex. The main Durban-Johannesburg electric railway and Escom power lines traverse the basin, and so on.

I believe that the time has come when the Government must say clearly and unequivocally what plans, if any, it has to stimulate the development of the Tugela basin resources. With this arises the vital question of what part should the Department of Planning play. I want to make the suggestion this afternoon that the Department of Planning should merely ensure that the necessary stimulus for this enormous development is provided and that thereafter it should not involve itself with the detailed planning. This aspect, I believe, should properly be left to the body that the hon. member for Benoni has spoken so highly of, namely the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission, because it has already conducted such extensive surveys that it is in the position to develop this potential to its fullest.

What do you mean by “stimulus”?

I am coming to that right now. I come immediately to what is required to stimulate or spark off the full and proper development of the potential of this basin. These investigations I have referred to have gone into this aspect of the matter and they have come to the conclusion quite clearly that what is required is an industry which will give rise to what they refer to as “the process of cumulative causation” which would enable the area to develop its own market in the sense that it could launch itself into a state of sustained growth similar to that of the Witwatersrand or Durban or any other major industrial area. I point out that this survey has come to the conclusion that a highly labour-intensive industry, such as a textile industry or several textile industries, would not be sufficient to provide this spark which would enable the full development of this area to go ahead. Quite clearly the type of industry which is most suited to this is a steel industry, an Iscor. One knows that there is already a great deal of speculation as to whether the Government will or will not establish the third Iscor in the Tugela basin, and we in Natal naturally hope that it will be either in the Tugela basin or somewhere in the Richard’s Bay area which is the other alternative which has been suggested. But if the Government decides that the third Iscor should be placed elsewhere, then I think—and I urge the Minister of Planning to see to it and to ensure that it happens—that some other industry of that nature which could have the effect of providing the spark necessary for this development should be encouraged to establish itself in that area.

The Government has said a great deal about the development of under-developed areas and there is no doubt that to raise the living standards of South Africa’s population it is essential to develop the economies of the rural and semi-rural, as well as the more highly industrialized areas. The Government has tended up to now to concentrate this type of development in the border areas, and as a result it is tending to stimulate the Bantustans. It is time that the Government develops the white rural areas which also require this stimulus, and in this way we will ensure the raising of the living standards of our entire country.

Are those border areas not white?

The hon. member for Queenstown asks me whether the border areas are not white. But the whole purpose of the border industry policy is to stimulate the Bantustans, not to stimulate the white areas.

To stimulate both.

I have yet to hear that the purpose of border industry is to stimulate the white areas.

What I am advocating for the Tugela basin will have such far-reaching advantages for the whole of Natal that I believe that it is time that the Government stated quite clearly what its intentions are in regard to the Tugela basin.

But there is another aspect of this matter. We have here in this basin these tremendous resources, these tremendous advantages, natural and otherwise, which are not being used properly and to their fullest. For that to happen in a country such as South Africa which is a comparatively small one is, I think, tragic. This is a basin which can so easily be developed and the advantages to the whole of Natal are so great that it is time that the Government gave its proper attention to this area and told the House and the country what its intentions are. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave started off by speaking about planning and during the first part of his speech one could at least get some idea that he wanted to speak about planning. And as a Natalian he quite rightly had to speak about the Tugela Basin. Other Natalians may as rightly speak about the development of Vryheid and the development of the Richard’s Bay complex. I do not want to follow that trend. In any case, the hon. member for Musgrave subsequently wandered a little from his subject and, like other colleagues of his, he was not sure what things fell under the Vote of the Department of Planning. He consequently proceeded to a discussion of matters which, in point of fact, belonged under the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, in that he said a few things in regard to the development of the homelands. I do not want to follow him in what he said in that regard. He also referred to the possibility of a third Iscor in his area. If that area does in fact get the third Iscor then it will be so much the better for him. He will then be able to say that he has pleaded for that.

I want to address a few words to the hon. the Minister in connection with a matter which arises from this question of a third Iscor.

Where one has sudden developments in the field of industry or mining or anything else and in this regard I also have in mind the discovery of oil in South Africa—such developments completely upset the planning complex. The hon. member for Benoni clearly outlined the development plan for the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging area. In that connection we have seen sound reasons in the report. We understand that there are problems and that it has not been possible to process all data relating thereto. However, I want to state a proven fact and that is that the sudden development of a new complex in an area where there is gradual, normal progress, makes a tremendous impact—I dare say for the good —on such an area. I refer specifically to the development of the Atlas Factory in my own constituency. This factory is situated in the centre of five or six local authorities. The immediate reaction is for each individual local authority to regard such a factory as something for which to strive, as something from which it may strengthen its kingdom. I have found that they develop their towns in that direction. The one is, of course, quite rightly envious of the other and constructs an open road from its business area to the concentric complex whereas the other also does so. The situation may even develop where the first citizens of the various towns drive past one another, each on his own road and possibly put their tongues out and boast, “My road is shorter than yours!” This is a problem to which I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister. Where a sudden change comes about in the complex of a developing area, if an Iscor, for example, is established in an area where there already is gradual development, that upsets the entire administration and all the planning, and that is where we require assistance. Assistance is definitely required because the poor people living in the vicinity of such a place do not know exactly where they stand. Surely, Sir, you know the story of the old buyer of farms who arrives at a farm and is told by the owner, “A railway-line will run here, a tarmac road will be constructed there, a dam will be constructed over there and electric power will be laid on.” But the poor buyer always fails to ask, “But why are you selling then?” In the same way we find that people are deceived and led astray in areas where development is sudden. They think their small plot—in my constituency there are 3,000—is going to be the very spot for a shop. Another thinks that the main road will run there and that that plot of his is going to come very valuable because factories are going to be erected there—he can erect a small sub-industry on that site. They do not know where they are heading and they are deceived and led astray. There is speculation with their properties. At a later stage it becomes a matter of necessity that there should be planning and then they see that they have been cherishing false hopes all along. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister that where such a sudden development of a complex does take place, there should be coordination between the local authorities concerned, so that they may afterwards jointly develop that undeveloped area on which they border.

Another matter I should like to raise, and which is closely related to what I have said, concerns the standing committee on noise at airports. The hon. the Minister mentioned that.

I should like to know what progress that committee has made and whether there are any findings or complaints in regard to the noise of aircraft at Ian Smuts Airport. We find that people in England and France complain that their cows do not give milk and that their chickens do not lay. I do not want to go into that. We must, however, think of the future when larger aircraft will have to land at Ian Smuts Airport. They will make more noise. We must also think of the possible danger of the sound barrier being broken, if that happens in the near future. I should like to know whether the Minister is also taking those aspects into account.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to add my little share of congratulations to the Minister on his appointment, and to wish him well, especially in the portfolio which is under discussion at the moment. I hope that when I am found on his threshold very often, he will not take it in the spirit that I just intend pestering him, but in the spirit that when we are actually dealing with planning, we intend it to be for the benefit of all sections of the community. I wish to confine myself briefly to the planning of separate beaches, about which we heard earlier this afternoon. Apart from the hon. member for Klip River I think I am the one in this House who has had the most experience of the investigations of this committee which was appointed. I attended all sessions of the provincial committee in my constituency and also all sessions of the present committee. The Act was on the Statute Book and it had to be implemented. It was being implemented in this way, namely by the appointment of a committee to investigate the planning of the beaches for the various racial groups. I wish to add that in my humble opinion and with the expedience I have had of the activities of this committee, the way in which the former chairman of this committee, the hon. member for Klip River, conducted his work, was most commendable indeed. I am not concerned now with what was proclaimed in the end and whether it was to the satisfaction of all. I am merely concerned with the thorough manner in which these investigations were conducted. I was present in my constituency, from Betty’s Bay to 17 miles north of East London, and I must say that it was most thoroughly done. The chairman of the committee certainly did not leave a stone unturned to do the job properly and to submit his considerations to the Minister with the best possible information he I could gather.

He does not say that he has satisfied anybody.

I do not think it is fair to ask the hon. member for Klip River whom he has satisfied. In my experience before this committee, it would have been a person with Solomon’s wisdom who would have endeavoured even to satisfy all. If there is dissatisfaction in regard to the proclamation of the beaches, the culprits from place to place in my humble opinion and with my experience are the white people who in their selfishness suddenly want everything and leave very little for the Coloureds. There was dissatisfaction as a result of certain aspects of the proclamation of the separate beaches. But, taking everything into account, this committee was appointed just in time and started its work just in time, if not too late in certain respects. I say this, because apart from the difficulties experienced in the more densely populated areas like Cape Town, and the towns up the coast like Port Elizabeth and East London, it was perfectly clear to me that, if there had been no action at this stage and if this matter was not thoroughly investigated then, the white people, because of their stronger economic position, would have taken possession of the beaches along our coastline. By the time the Coloured people developed to that stage economically, they would have been unable to get access to very large tracts of the coastline of the Cape Province. If it were to be planned in 10 or 15 years’ time, it would have cost much more and it would have led to a great deal more dissatisfaction. Two factors made a very great impression on me. In the first place there was the amazing phenomenon that when these investigations took place and when the beaches were eventually proclaimed, the people who had the most to say about it in the newspapers, etc., were people who more or less frequented beaches where the Coloured people did not trouble them at all. In other words, these were the people who could buy their own apartheid and merely deliver comment on matters of which they had no experience. In the second place, in considering this coastline virtually from Cape Town to the north of East London, I was amazed to find that while there was never any legislation on the Statute Book empowering the Government or the Department concerned to plan beaches for the various racial groups, it was astounding to find, while the Coloured people had so-called free access to the beaches, to what extent these beaches had been neglected. These were beaches which were looked upon as beaches frequented by the Coloured people. I wish to mention one example. The Port Elizabeth Municipality in 1929 took a decision by which they demarcated beaches for the various racial groups. When the commission sat there and investigated the beaches in Port Elizabeth, they found that an enormous sum of money had been spent over the years on the white beaches. On the Coloured beach Cape Recife not even the most elementary facilities one would require at a camping site or a public beach, had been provided. Another aspect that amazed me was that whenever an area was being investigated or considered, even if Coloured people had been going there for hundreds of years, all of a sudden it was exceptional to find a white person pleading for the Coloureds to have a place in the sun on the beach. All of a sudden the Coloureds were a menace. It was said that properties would devaluate. The worst thoughts of what might happen in a camping site or on a beach, taking into account the various standards of education and economic development of the people, were emphasized in order to preserve beaches for the Whites only.

I am therefore grateful that in the planning of the beaches, the Coloured people were given their share. But I wish to point out to the Minister that when the proclamation was published, I was very dissatisfied with it, because it gave a wrong impression altogether. It merely showed the coastline and little strips of land which were demarcated for the Coloureds. Only these small areas were shown. The impression was created that the rest of the coastline was reserved for Whites. Actually what was proclaimed were only areas where one had access to a beach where people could swim or relax. The rocky coastline, where anglers go in fear of their lives to catch their fish, was not included. I should say “to lose their fish”, because one always hears about the long ones that got away. I do feel that with the planning of the beaches one factor was lost sight of. I should like to make an appeal to the Minister in regard to this matter. The same difficulties arose from place to place. The representatives of local authorities or of organizations from place to place made representations to the committee. At the end of the representations they would say: “This is how we see it. This would be the best way of doing it. But that beach over there which we suggest for the Coloureds, or for the Whites, is at the moment inaccessible. There are no roads to it. On the other hand, where must we find the money to develop the beach?” In the Cape Province we have the system of divisional councils, apart from village management boards or municipalities on the coast. Everywhere we find the same difficulties. The representatives of those bodies will certainly not be a party to a decision by that body to spend thousands of rands for the development of a beach for the Coloured people from the rest of the hinterland, because they do not only come from that specific area bordering the coast. They will certainly not be a party to such a decision, because they are scared that at the next election it will be said that they have spent the ratepayers’ money on Coloured people from elsewhere. They are scared that they will not be elected again.

I had it in my mind to appeal to the Minister to consider whether a fund could not be created from which properly approved camping sites, caravan parks or picnic sites along the coast, demarcated for the Coloured people for instance, can be developed without the local authority being in the position of having to raise the money or that they cannot raise the money. I will give an example of what happened. Certain beaches were proclaimed before the end of last year. It will take years before the local authority could develop those beaches and the accesses to those beaches. I was a party to a request to the predecessor of the Minister of Planning to give those local authorities permission to waive the planning for the meantime because the people would have had nowhere else to go. They could not be accommodated on the newly proclaimed sites and they had to use the old sites again. In spite of this reprieve in view of the fact that the season was on hand, it is perfectly clear to me that by the next season most of these places have in the meantime done very little. They are unable to do so because they do not have the money. I want to ask that the Minister consider this issue seriously and investigate the possibility of whether the money cannot be made available in some form or other by the Central Government in order to assist the local authorities to plan and develop these beaches as soon as possible. I can assure the House that if that could be done, it would lead to a great deal of satisfaction and it will avoid a great deal of dissatisfaction because the situation is now that while people appreciate a beach and it is perfectly suitable, they cannot get to it, and if they can get to it, it is with great cost and difficulty. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind because it is no use setting aside a beach if there are no amenities, water and toilet facilities and if it is not properly planned and controlled.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a matter which is not only of importance for this generation but also for future generations and which is not only of national importance but also of international importance. That is the planning of the capital of South Africa, namely Pretoria. As we all know. Pretoria is our administrative capital. At the beginning of this year the hon. the Minister of Planning set up an advisory committee for the planning of the capital under the chairmanship of Justice Kobie Marais. We know that that committee is engaged in certain planning. We also know that there are several bodies and persons, apart from the City Council of Pretoria and many bodies, who are occupying themselves at present with this matter and we want to ask the hon. the Minister to effect a higher degree of co-ordination in this regard and to take certain steps. We know that Pretoria is the largest geographical municipality in the world, namely 220 square miles.

There are 12 constituencies in the City of Pretoria. That shows one what a large area that is and how large the population of the capital, Pretoria, is. As you know. Sir, Pretoria is the jacaranda city and if we plant all its jacaranda trees in one row it will measure approximately 400 miles and its other trees will measure approximately 800 miles if they are planted in a row. I plead with the Minister to see to it that our capital will be properly planned as a capital. If one speaks of Paris, one thinks of France; if one speaks of London, one thinks of the entire England. That is also the case in other countries, but when one speaks of Pretoria, the world does not think of South Africa. Johannesburg reminds them much more of South Africa. When we think of our capital, Pretoria, we must also think that its planning must be such that it will attract tourists from all over the world. Revenue from tourism is one of the largest sources which still has to be developed in South Africa. Therefore I want to say that if we can plan Pretoria, with all its places of interest, and I shall mention a few of them in a short while, as a tourist attraction, we may be able to earn foreign exchange for South Africa as we may perhaps not be able to do with anything else. Pretoria is also very centrally situated for our national congresses and other big meetings and proper provision must be made for gatherings because we know that many problems in regard to accommodation, traffic, etc., usually crop up every year as a result of all the various congresses and gatherings.

One of the biggest problems which I foresee for the future, is the health of the inhabitants of Pretoria, something we also encounter in Johannesburg. We find an enormous concentration of people. We now want that capital of ours to be planned properly so that we will not have a congestion of enormous blocks of flats without breathing space. We must also see to it that such proper central planning is carried through and that Pretoria is made an example which may be followed by cities such as Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg and other large cities. We must give consideration to air pollution in the future where we have a congregation of these masses of people and in particular we have to give consideration to the gases discharged by thousands of vehicles. We know what a tremendous increase there has been in the number of vehicles. Then there are also all the breaths of those people who are in that one spot night and day. We must think of the health of our nation in generations to come. I also want to say that if our planning were better, even if Pretoria had to be extended over a wider area, and if plans could be drawn up now to construct express ways to carry people who might have to be conveyed to the capital from places as far away as 20 or 30 miles, it would be possible to do it properly now already for the day when it will have to be done. If we think of the future and since we are now living in a time of inflation, we also feel that we have to plan now to get a higher degree of effectiveness in our cities. It is virtually an impossibility in Pretoria to reach one’s home early in the morning and at 5 o’clock in the afternoon. It easily takes one half an hour to cover a distance of two miles. The City Council does its planning, but there must be co-ordination of the various bodies. If this city is properly planned it may also serve as an example for the rest of the world. For the information of the hon. members who may not perhaps have given these matters any thought, it may be a good idea if I mention what things of national importance there are in Pretoria. Pretoria is the home of our State President. It is also the home of the Administrator of the Transvaal. It is the headquarters of our diplomatic corps and all Government Departments, excluding the South African Railways and Coloured Affairs. It is also the home of the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal. We know that that is housed in the restored “Volksraad” building of the Government of the old Transvaal Republic, a building which dates back to 1889.

It is a good thing if we preserve these historic monuments, if we protect them, do not wall them in with buildings and keep them as tourist attractions. The Peri-Urban Health Board is there as well as the world-famous C.S.I.R. The head office of the South African Bureau of Standards is there. We think of Onderstepoort, the Atomic Energy Board and Iscor, which at present produces two million tons of steel annually. We think of the Mint and of the training centres, such as that of the Police, for example. We think of the training school for dogs and the training camps of the Army, the Air Force, etc., which are in Pretoria. These are things of national importance. These are places which our people constantly visit and that applies particularly in respect of our Members of Parliament, our provincial councillors and our entire population. In addition we also have all the marketing councils in Pretoria. Pretoria is an education centre of renown. It is the city with the largest number of young people in the whole of South Africa. We have the University of Pretoria, the largest university in South Africa, with more than 10,000 students, and the University of South Africa with more than 14,000 students, if I remember correctly. There is also the Pretoria Teachers’ College, the largest teachers’ college in South Africa, with more than 2,400 students. We have a large number of high schools, primary schools and technical colleges in Pretoria. Therefore I want to plead for these matters to be planned properly. Pretoria is also of national interest on account of its historical monuments and museums. We have the Voortrekker Monument which was inaugurated in 1949. That is the symbol of our Great Trek and I think that it is right to bear all these things in mind in connection with our planning. We also have the Paul Kruger House in Church Street West where the State President lived from 1883 to 1900. We think of Melrose House where the peace treaty between the Republican forces and the British Supreme Command was signed on 31st May, 1902. These are all places we have to preserve. We think of our Transvaal museum with its scientific collection of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, fossils and particularly the prehistoric ape-man. We also think of the Cultural History and Open Air Museum. These things are of national importance and we shall have to see to it that there will be further developments in regard to these things to the benefit of South Africa. We also have the Radcliffe Observatory.

Order! The hon. member should really not go into all this detail about Pretoria.

Mr. Chairman, I just mention these matters …

The intention is for broad planning to fall under the Department of Planning and not the details which you are mentioning now.

Mr. Chairman, I have gone into these details merely for the sake of showing our people of what importance these things in fact are. We also want to ask the hon. the Minister, seeing that the J. G. Strijdom monument fund committee is at present working on an ambitious plan, for that to be included in the broad planning. We also think of the Hero’s Acre, for example, in respect of which bodies and persons are considering what can be done in regard to that final memory we have of our great heroes. We trust that justice will be done to the Hero’s Acre and, seen from the point of view of national interest, that it will receive proper attention. With that I want to conclude and I hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to extending this advisory committee even further perhaps so that this matter may also receive attention.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to quarrel unduly with the hon. member for Sunnyside in pleading for proper planning in Pretoria. All South Africans are justly proud of Pretoria as one of our capital cities. But I do want to remind him that it is one of our capital cities and that here in the Cape we also have a capital, namely the legislative capital whereas that is the administrative capital. I felt quite jealous listening to the hon. member when he described all the things which Pretoria already had. And I am sure that he will not begrudge some of the other areas of the country their share in the good things of life when it comes to their turn, areas which the hon. member for Smithfield earlier on described as “agtergeblewe streke”. I also refer to places such as those dealt with by the hon. member for Newton Park and also that area of the Eastern Cape which is situated west of the Ciskei. I only wish to make one point in regard to that, namely to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister the fact that if other institutions such as universities assist his Department with the initial socio-economic surveys—as is being done in the Eastern Cape at the moment by the University of Port Elizabeth and the University of Rhodes—that financial assistance may well be necessary from his Department. That is particularly the case where the areas to be surveyed are areas which are thinly populated and where the local authorities such as municipalities or divisional councils may not be able to make a very big financial contribution. I hope the hon. the Minister will remember that the financial formula under which the universities operate with assistance from the Central Government is a fairly stringent one and that the universities themselves are sometimes short of funds to pursue the surveys. I and several other hon. members hope to have an opportunity of discussing this matter with the Minister at a later stage. I am therefore not asking the Minister to commit himself on this matter at the moment. But I do hope that he is going to give it some attention. I want to deal mainly with a matter which falls under the second of the two Votes we are discussing, namely the Statistics Vote. It is a matter which I raised with the hon. the Minister’s predecessor some two years ago. It is something which affects every farmer in the country and that is the question of the agricultural census. On that occasion I asked the hon. the Minister’s predecessor if he would give consideration to making the return date of the census form the same as the date on which most farmers have to make a provisional payment for income-tax purposes, namely the 28th February. He said at the time that he would go into this matter with the Bureau of Statistics, but so far we have heard nothing further about it. Every September a big thick sheaf descends upon every farmer in this country containing a long questionnaire sent out by the Bureau of Statistics about a farmer’s farming operations. It contains a long list of questions about the crops he grows, the amount of crops that he has reaped, every type of livestock that he has on his property, divided into age groups, the number of livestock he sold, what they have died from, whether from disease, drought, vermin or theft, particulars as to plantations that he may have on his property, motor cars, lorries, stationary engines, cultivators, threshing machines, combines, trailers, windmills, silos, dip tanks, etc. Furthermore, he has to supply details of how much he spent on things like packing material, fuel, buildings, fences, dips and sprays, machinery, balanced feeds and other expenses. He has to show how many labourers and domestic servants he employs and how much he pays them. And what is more, he has to show how many livestock, including the various classes of livestock right down to poultry, which his labourers may have. And, Mr. Chairman, every second year or so a few more questions are added to the form and I think the latest was the question about how much he contributed to workmen’s compensation each year. No one denies the value of these forms and the value of these statistics that are gathered as a result of the filling in of these forms. And I think hon. members in this House who delight in shooting down their opponents with statistics are perhaps more than ethers mindful of the value of those statistics. But I do want to plead with the hon. the Minister to give this matter attention because the compilation of these figures is a matter which involves quite an amount of labour on the part of the farmer concerned. This is particularly so because most of the figures he has in any case to collect and compile when he makes out his income-tax return. And I think it is a very modest request to the hon. the Minister that the Bureau of Statistics arranges things so that the end date of the year for these statistics should be the 28th February, in other words the same date as that of the end of the income-tax year.

By that time they have forgotten what they said on the income-tax form return.

The hon. gentleman is quite right, because we do not admit to making any, shall I say, “wrong” mistakes. [Interjections.] I think that the value of these statistics when they are eventually in the hands of the Bureau of Statistics is negatived to a very great extent by the fact that the reports are coming out so late. It is encouraging to see from the annual report of the Bureau on page 10 that a different type of computer is now going to be used and that in the Estimates there is provision made apparently for the first time, because it appears to be a new item, for a programmer. So one hopes the processing of these statistics is going to be considerably speeded up in future. If one looks on page 22 of this report one sees that the 1962-’63 agricultural census will be published only early in 1967. I feel the Bureau of Statistics should make every effort to get these reports out at an earlier date.

There is one other matter regarding statistics I should like to deal with, namely the index of prices of farming requisites. These appear in the monthly bulletin of statistics as well as in the statistical year book. These are quoted in this House very frequently in order to show that the cost of production of the farmer does not really rise so very much after all. But I feel this index is not indicative of the true position at the moment. The base of this index is 1947-’48 to 1949-’50—almost some 20 years ago. Since that time the whole pattern of agricultural production in the country has changed tremendously. It has swung over to mechanization on a great scale and, consequently, the weighting of the index itself has become out of date. The weighting of the index at the moment is 56 for short-term requisites and 31 for machinery and implements. It is this last-mentioned figure that I want to deal with. This us subdivided into spare parts where the figure is ten and repair charges only two. I think there are few agricultural producers in the country who will believe, having regard to the. tremendous increases there have been in the cost of labour at garages and other engineering firms undertaking repairs of agricultural machinery, that this weighting figure of I two is to-day a realistic one because of the tremendous increase there has been in the cost of repairs. I feel this is distorting the picture given by this index and, therefore, it is something the Bureau of Statistics can well look into, i.e. whether after a period of some 20 years the time has not come to review the basis on which this index is being compiled— in other words, to review the weighting of the index. [Time expired.]

I shall be brief, Mr. Chairman. In the first place I too want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his achievement of having been placed in charge of such an important department, as the Department of Planning, at such an early age.

Order! Hon. members are not allowed to repeat.

Apart from patience and courage he will also need prayers and wisdom, because it is clear from the description of his duties as Minister of Planning that he in actual fact is going to be the umbrella under which other Departments and bodies and persons will carry out their plans. We believe that the hon. the Minister will succeed in this task with the assistance of all these various boards and their experts in every possible field. I want to convey my special congratulations to him for having decided to make personal investigations in order to acquaint himself with the state of affairs in every Province. It is encouraging for us to know that. As regards physical planning, up to now the few hon. members of the United Party who have discussed it have pleaded for the development of certain areas. It seemed to me as if they did so with tongue in cheek. Therefore I want to predict even at this early stage that when the hon. the Minister requests powers for the development of specific areas, hon. members opposite will oppose him with might and main. The hon. member opposite who spoke first, as well as the hon. member for Musgrave, wanted the Minister of Planning to take his planning up to a certain stage and then to transfer the location of industries in areas to another body on which they might possibly be able to exercise influence. We have come to know them, Mr. Chairman. Just listen to what one of their publications has to say in regard to planning—

Consequently they are only interested in the profits. The publication continues—

That is elementary economic law.

Yes, that is elementary economics. I accept that and for that reason I am one of the persons who will object if hon. members opposite want to prescribe to the Minister in any way whatsoever how and where he is to locate specific industries. The hon. member for Musgrave pleaded for the establishment of an Iscor to serve as a spark in the Tugela Valley. I do not want to oppose the hon. member, but I nevertheless want to point out to him that there are steel works at Newcastle. Newcastle is within the Tugela Valley. However, those works could not supply the spark and I do not think that the necessary spark will be supplied by locating a second steelworks there. But, Mr. Chairman, as I see things, hon. members opposite are already engaged in paving the way for the attitude they are going to adopt when the hon. the Minister will come to this House for powers to model the future planning of this country. You see, Sir, they want to oppose it. Even at this stage I predict that. But the Minister must realize that members on this side of the House are squarely behind him to enable him to carry out plans in such a way that that will be in the interests of the country and in the interests of the entire population of the Republic and not merely in the interests of a few complexes. He must take into account all aspects of the infrastructure—something which the hon. member for Durban (Point) said was elementary economics—and he must not pay any attention to the barking on the opposite side of this House.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member in order when he discusses other legislation which is now before the House and which has still to be debated? I refer to the legislation introduced to ensure the physical planning and control of industries.

Order! The hon. member may not discuss that legislation now.

I am not doing so, Mr. Chairman. Therefore we appreciate the little joke of the hon. member for Durban (Point). We know that he is always wide of the mark.

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

No, I do not want to take up the time of this House unnecessarily. Therefore I want to conclude by saying that I am pleased about the appointment of this hon. Minister and that my confidence in him is such that I see indications that although he has these bodies behind him to do the planning, he will also consult the Members of Parliament of the areas concerned when such planning affects their constituencies. In that case we will give him every assistance he may require.

Just allow me, Sir, to convey my sincere thanks to all hon. members who congratulated and welcomed me. Now, it simply is so that we are all human and that it is pleasant to receive good wishes, but unfortunately you, Mr. Chairman, ruled that that was out of order and that there might be no repetition. But in spite of your ruling, Sir, I want to convey to you my sincere thanks for having made things so easy for me during the discussions we have had on the two Votes and I hope that you will not regard this as repetition.

I want to tell the hon. member for Vryheid that although he did not in the least discuss legislation at present before this House, I shall give him a full reply to his speech during my Second Reading speech on Friday. [Laughter.] The hon. member for East London (North) raised a few matters in connection with the availability of a sufficient number of scientists and expressed his concern that we did not have a sufficient number of those people. That links up with what I said earlier on in this debate. He did, however, raise one matter about which I agree with him, but unfortunately I do not know in what way one can get past that. That is the fact that the only possibility for promotion for so many of our scientists as well as engineers and other persons who have been trained in a certain direction and who are doing essential work in that specific direction, is to be appointed to an administrative post. I understand that in certain industries—and this applies particularly to large organizations— there is an alarmingly high percentage of scientists and engineers who do no scientific or engineering work. This is one of the evils which occurs in any large organization. How we shall be able to overcome that, is a problem which will possibly have to be considered by the Scientific Advisory Council. However, it is wrong that the only opportunity for promotion for a man with a highly scientific training is to go and sit in an administrative office and to do work which is really different to that for which he has been trained. I think this debate will bring this matter pointedly to the attention of the Scientific Advisory Council and possibly other bodies and persons who are concerned in the matter.

†The hon. member for Albany also raised this question of scientists and research and financial assistance for them. May I just point out that I do not think South Africa, or any country for that matter, could ever do enough in this direction. But we must also realize that especially under the Vote of the Department of Planning a very large amount is being made available for research. I have a detailed list here specifying research at universities, projects on behalf of State Departments, and also planning and research done by private organizations and individuals. I am not going to read the full list, but the fact is that under the Planning Vote no less than R12,245,000 is being made available for research projects. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Albany also raised the question of the Bureau of Statistics and the long lists that the farmers have to fill in every year. I regret to have to inform the House that the Director of the Bureau would have been here this afternoon, but unfortunately he is in bed with malaria and will be in bed for quite some time. But I will certainly bring this to the notice of the Director as soon as possible, and especially this question of the long list, because the hon. member has pointed out that he has already raised this question on a previous occasion, but I will endeavour to give him a reply by letter as soon as possible.

*The hon. member for East London (North) also said that to his way of thinking the East London area was not receiving the attention it ought to receive. I may just say that East London and King William’s Town are in fact receiving attention, but we should also bear in mind the fact that with the limited resources at our disposal it is impossible to do everything at the same time. But even if one takes that into consideration the hon. member will concede that King William’s Town and East London have in fact received attention in recent times. The hon. member also referred to the question of beach resorts. I may just say that the question of the allocation of beach resorts at East London has nearly been settled. The Department is equally anxious to have this question settled.

The hon. member for Gordonia referred to the development atlas and showed that this atlas was really something special. I cannot urge hon. members strongly enough to study this atlas, not because it is one which has been compiled by my Department, but because I think that the knowledge of this entire House will be considerably enriched if a proper study is made of this atlas as well as the parts which still have to appear. Then the hon. member also spoke of regional planning and specifically of the division into regions. In this connection I just want to say that we welcome the development associations. They are intimately concerned with the development. They fit into the planning of the country as a whole and to that they can most definitely make a contribution. I should like the hon. member and the Committee to know that from the point of view of the Department and from my point of view as Minister we welcome the activities of the development associations. With reference to the speech of the hon. member, I may just add that attention is already being given to holding a conference of all the development associations so as to consider the matters mentioned by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Smithfield made a strong plea for the rural areas and said very clearly that the planning of South Africa must be seen as a whole. As far as the rural areas are concerned, I may just tell the hon. member, as he will also be able to deduce from what I said earlier in repect of visits to different areas, that no less than eight of the 14 visits will precisely be ones that will be paid to rural areas all over the Republic. I shall be foolish to try and predict now what will flow from those visits, but the fact of the matter is that the importance of the rural areas is fully appreciated in the attention it is receiving, and it also has my full sympathy as a person who comes from the rural areas himself.

The hon. member for Klip River referred to several matters. In respect of several of them I really do not have the powers in my Department to deal with them. In respect of the question of public parks, etc., the provincial administration has the powers to deal with those matters. At this stage those things are not in the hands of the Department of Planning.

In respect of pleasure and recreation resorts, and their demarcation, we do have an interest, when it is on a nation-wide basis. It will most probably be so, after the passing of an Act which we are not allowed to discuss now, that the possibility will exist that the Minister of Planning may define a certain defined area for a certain purpose, for a recreation resort, for example. I do think, however, that I should leave it at that otherwise you, Mr. Chairman, would rule me out of order.

In respect of the committee which proclaimed the various beaches for the various population groups on the Cape coast, the hon. member asked for that to be done in Natal too in consultation with the Administrator. I just want to tell the hon. member that my information is that the Department has already made an offer to Natal to have their beaches allotted by this committee because this committee has the experience to effect uniformity. Therefore this matter is in the hands of the Administrator and the Executive Committee of Natal at present. While the hon. member was speaking, the hon. member for Durban (Point) was, of course, making his speech from a sitting position.

Have you ever made a speech here while he was sitting behind you and making a speech?

Now the hon. member is speaking in front of me. I have wondered whether I may not ask the hon. member in passing whether he supports the demarcation of beaches for the separate population groups.

We are doing so already. In my constituency they have already been demarcated.

I just wanted to make sure, because at the moment I am new here. I am not quite sure of what has happened during the past three years. [Interjections.] The hon. member supports it? I must say that that will make things much easier for me. When we are asked by the Administrator and the Natal Executive Committee, and I myself may perhaps have to pay a visit there, I shall make a point of taking the hon. member along because he may be able to help me.

†The hon. member for Boland raised the question of the proclamation of a white group at Sir Lowry’s Pass. The hon. member discussed the matter but, if I may say so, he did not give any cogent reasons for his difficulties. Before I come to that, the hon. member referred to a certain commission of inquiry, at which he attended and gave evidence.

I did not give evidence.

The hon. member attended the meeting of the commission at Hermanus. I do not for one moment doubt that the hon. member’s facts are correct. I have not checked on them, but I take it that they are correct. I do, however, think it is rather unfair to have quoted this one instance, creating the impression that that is the way in which commissions of inquiry operate. I just want to make it quite clear that this is an exception, if it did happen. It is not the rule in South Africa that commissions operate in this particular manner. I want to make it quite clear that it is also not the rule in my Department.

The hon. member raised the question of Sir Lowry’s Pass. I should like to give the hon. member a full reply to that, because I think it is necessary. The facts of the matter are as follows: Due to a lack of proper planning and unsightly slum development which appears all over, the town makes a bad impression. It is situated in a white agricultural complex. Efforts by the Divisional Council of Stellenbosch to establish a Coloured housing scheme in the area were abandoned in 1956. Further extension will therefore only result in racial friction because there is also a fair amount of opposition to retaining the Coloured community in that particular area. Thirdly, of the 359 breadwinners, and this is rather important, in that area, only 40 work in Sir Lowry’s Pass. The rest are employed over a wide area as follows; I am giving these details just to point out to the House and to the public and to the Coloured people that these investigations are being made very fully and extensively. Only 40 of the 359 are employed in Sir Lowry’s Pass. The rest are employed over a wide area as follows: The Strand, 33; Somerset West 141; Gordon’s Bay 16; Blackheath 59; Cape Town 27; Bellville 4; Firgrove 16; Stellenbosch 2 and Grabouw 23. That is 319 out of 359 who are not employed in Sir Lowry’s Pass.

It is mostly within a five-mile radius.

I have given these figures and it is quite evident that a number of these people do not work within five miles of Sir Lowry’s Pass. Furthermore the 11 Coloured owners own property in the area to the value of R.53,740 as against the 17 white properties to the value of R130,860. Furthermore, as far as distances and transport services are concerned, the Firgrove-Macassar complex is equally well-served, and in some respects much better situated than Sir Lowry’s Pass. Only the Coloureds of Gordon’s Bay will suffer hardships to some degree. The Coloureds employed in Grabouw may be settled in the local Coloured group area. Lastly, the situation of the two towns, vis-á-vis the whole Hottentots Holland complex, will only create problems for the future. The popularity of Somerset West and the Strand is causing an accelerated tempo of residential development. It is therefore expected that the proclaimed white town of the Strand will be fully built up within 15 years where after extension can only take place between the white town and the Coloured group area. I do hope that this will settle this question because it has been proclaimed and I have no intention whatsoever of changing the position. I cannot think of more convincing evidence than that which I have before me and which I have given to the hon. member concerning the rest of the investigations done by the officials concerned with this particular case.

*The hon. member for Benoni referred to the part played by the Potchefstroom University. I think he was justified in doing so because the Potchefstroom University most definitely plays a special part in respect of our Department of Planning in general, something for which we are very grateful. The hon. member also mentioned the position of the provinces and referred specifically to possible amendments to the Financial Relations Act. As it happens I had a discussion this morning with the Administrators at which this entire matter came to the fore. It also concerned physical planning by the provinces. Whether or not that belongs with my Department is a matter about which I cannot give a decisive answer now. In the second place, it is a matter about which the Cabinet will have to decide. I am pleased that the hon. member raised the matter here because hon. members will agree with me that it is clear from what the hon. member said that he has a deep interest in these matters. That cannot be otherwise because he has many years of experience of planning and of provincial matters. In my Department we are also very grateful for the contributions he makes on various committees in respect of planning as well as in other spheres. I want to ask the hon. member to have further discussions with me and my Department on this question of physical planning which may be undertaken by the provinces on their own initiative, so that we may go into the details of the matter.

†The hon. member for Musgrave raised the question of the Tugela Basin. In reply to the hon. member, may I point out that the Government is very much aware of the vast natural resources in the Tugela Basin, Secondly, we have this particular area very much in mind in planning, not only as regards my own department, but other departments as well. In this respect I may say that it is of importance that the Tugela Basin be viewed in general, especially because of the water available and the possibilities of industrial development. But it is also correct to point out very clearly, as the hon. member for Vryheid did, that there is already industrial development in the Tugela Basin. It is not as if the Tugela Basin has been left out altogether, because Newcastle, as the hon. member knows, is well within the Tugela Basin. Furthermore, the Tugela Basin has featured and has been looked at very carefully in a number of surveys done by my department and other departments. I may also add to what the hon. member has said to-day, that there is the fact that the hon. member for Klip River, in his constituency at least, is constantly on our doorstep. I know from experience that he is not only on my doorstep, but also on the doorstep of the Minister of Economic Affairs.

What is he doing there?

He is waiting to come in. [Laughter.] The hon. member is there on behalf of his constituency which is also included in the Tugela Basin to a very large extent.

The hon. member also mentioned, and I hope I follow him correctly, that the development of the border areas is to stimulate the homelands and has nothing to do with stimulating the white areas. That of course, is a complete misconception. The development of the border areas is, in the first place, within the white area.

Its object is to stimulate the development of the Bantustans.

No, the object is to bring industries in the white areas, for the benefit of South Africa as a whole and very much also, white South Africa, to the Bantu labour living in their own area. But the development of the border areas is in the interest of the whole of South Africa and specifically of white South Africa. I do think it is a misconception to say that that is to stimulate the homelands as such. It does stimulate the homelands, of course, but not to the extent which factories in the homeland self will stimulate the homeland. I thought I would just clear this up.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for East London (City) says that that one does not want to run, if I have heard him correctly.

I say it will not hold water.

The hon. member for Brentwood raised a matter here in connection with his constituency. It is very clear to me that he is deeply conscious of the problems of his voters. I regret to say, however, that I do not have the powers in respect of this type of planning. To me this seems to be a provincial matter exclusively. The hon. member also raised the question of Jan Smuts.

Perhaps we ought to get that power.

The hon. member says that perhaps we ought to get that power, but we may of course not plead for new legislation. The hon. member also mentioned Jan Smuts Airport and the noise created there by gigantic aircraft, as we know, and the fact that that might possibly become worse in the future. A thorough investigation has been made and has virtually been completed. My information is that it has in fact been completed. At the moment it is just a question of drawing up a report. I do not know what will appear from that report, but I think hon. members will realize that this nevertheless remains an extremely difficult matter in spite of the fact that there has been an investigation and that a report is being awaited. I just want to say in passing that it is interesting that it has been found in certain cities in Europe that people who live close to the large airports, right opposite the runways, eventually become so accustomed to the terrible noise that they do not want to live elsewhere. In London, for instance, a great deal of financial assistance is given—I think by the Corporation—to make these houses as soundproof as possible. However, there is a large percentage of the people who simply do not want to make use of that. They like the noise. This reminds one of people who live near railway lines.

†The hon. member for Outeniqua spoke very realistically—I think his approach is very realistic—about the reserving of beaches for the different racial groups. I am grateful to him for approaching this question in this particular manner. He was quite right in saying that, as a general rule, Whites and other groups do not really mix on the beaches. It is traditionally so that we have our places where we go. Unfortunately, there are those who want to upset this traditional way of life, such as we, for instance, have seen at Muizenberg a year or two ago. It is therefore very necessary to have this reservation of beaches to combat and to be able to handle these particular situations. But let me make this one point. In doing this, the intention is not to cause hardships to any racial group. It is to find a place in the sun of Southern Africa for all of us on a basis of harmonious co-existence.

Also the hon. member raised the question of financing of certain amenities and facilities on these beaches. May I just say in this regard that the demarcation and allocation of beaches never implies the development thereof. It is, however, the responsibility of the local authority in whose area the beach concerned is situated to develop it. Through the co-ordination of my department discussions were held some time ago between the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Provincial Administrations to evolve some means of assisting local authorities financially in this particular matter. It is appreciated that local authorities find it difficult through lack of finances to provide amenities, but I must also point out that it has always been, and always will be, the responsibility of the local authorities to provide whatever amenities ought to be provided for these people. The expense in providing amenities is not brought about by the fact that certain areas have been demarcated for certain racial groups.

*The hon. member for Sunnyside raised the question of the planning of our capital. I am very glad that he did so, because I hope that other cities will also take a closer look at their planning. The hon. member mentioned health and various other aspects, ones which are details, but I just want to mention in general that I should like to see Pretoria develop so that it may become a city like Washington and others and so that one may be able to recognize it as the capital of the Republic. It is my intention to have very searching discussions with this advisory committee during the recess and to have a look at the way in which it is constituted. It may be possible to effect improvements. But I do not want to go into the details now.

You would not consider moving it to Kroonstad instead?

That is the Administrator’s house?

To make it the central capital of the Republic instead of Pretoria?

The hon. member is making it very difficult for me, because I really had the South Coast in mind. I do not think it is possible to discuss this here now. The fact of the matter is that Pretoria is our administrative capital and we would like to see Pretoria an administrative capital in the true sense of the word. That is all I am inclined to say. That also goes for all other cities in South Africa. I think that there is scope in Durban. Cape Town, of course, is our legislative capital. It is perhaps necessary to see whether one could not also give advice to Cape Town in this regard. But I should not like to commit myself on that point now.

I want to conclude by making one further remark. Where I have said that I want to visit various parts of the country. I want to make it very clear that those will be visits by the Minister and by the Department. All types of deputations must then not come forward with their complaints and problems. We are merely going to have a look at the circumstances at the places we visit. I want to say this in advance here and now. We will naturally consult and have talks with the local authorities. This is point No. 1 and I want to put that very clearly.

Point No. 2—and I also want hon. members to know this—is the following: I shall not go to any place without the M.P. of that constituency accompanying me if it is possible for him to do so. This is how it will be arranged by my Department.

Furthermore I just want to say that as far as the Department in general is concerned, we have received fine co-operation from other Government Departments. Seeing that this is such a young department and since you all know in what way Government Departments operate and set about things amongst themselves, I want to have it placed on record that we have received exceptionally valuable cooperation during the two years the Department has been in existence. In this regard I should also like others to take cognizance— and here I have in mind Provincial Administrations, local authorities, the private sector, all bodies and persons concerned with or interested in planning—that we are seeking their cooperation. This is the task of the Department of Planning. As long as I am the Minister in charge, this Department is not going to build an empire. This Department—and I state this specifically—does not want to take over the functions of anyone. We do not even want to create that impression. Thereby I am saying explicitly that the Department is asking for everyone’s co-operation. Thereby I also want to say in conclusion that everyone may have trust in the Department as one that wants to co-ordinate functions and not take them over.

Mr. Chairman. I know that you want to close the debate, but I want to answer the hon. the Minister because he said I did not give any cogent reasons why Sir Lowry’s Pass should be deproclaimed. The Chairman did not give me much time; he ruled me out of order. I just want to say this in conclusion about Sir Lowry’s Pass. The Minister inherited the proclamation, and I did not attack him or cross swords with him.

I looked into it very carefully.

I want to say that the reasons given in that document are such that I can—to use cricket language—hit 90 per cent of those reasons for “sixes”—right out of the ground. I want to say that it is nothing short of a tragedy that a whole community who have been in a hamlet where they are happy for hundreds of years, a place where they have all the conveniences, should be uprooted for the flimsy grounds given in that report. I say on behalf of the people of Sir Lowry’s Pass: It is a tragedy.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 35, — “Immigration,R6,700,000”:

Mr. Chairman, I am just getting up to say that at the request of Minister Trollip, who is still convalescing after his recent illness, I have agreed to take charge of the two Votes concerned, and I want to add that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have been consulted about this arrangement and have signified their approval.

Mr. Chairman, I should be pleased if I could have the privilege of the half-hour. We are sorry that the health of the hon. the Minister of Immigration has troubled him of late. He has a great task to perform, and we on this side hope that he will soon recover and be able to resume his duties. We are particularly sorry that it is not possible for him to be present to-day, because there are few matters that have in recent times caused as much excitement in certain circles as has the immigration policy of the Government. The Government has nobody but only itself to blame for that, because for years its leaders have taught their people that an immigrant is a person who comes to this country to eat one’s food, to take away one’s work, to oust one from one’s house, and that large-scale, planned immigration means nothing but “undermining Afrikanerdom”. This is the type of idea they instilled into their people. The wild oats that were sown, are sprouting now. The excuse that is being made by that side, is that General Smuts supposedly pursued a policy of allowing “good ones as well as bad ones” to enter and that their resistance was actually aimed at that. I myself often listened to General Smuts when he stated his views on immigration, and because this allegation about him is repeated so often in this House. I want to state the facts. I say that I often heard General Smuts stating his views. He made the statement that one could not divide mankind into good ones and bad ones and say that the good ones are always good and the bad ones are always bad. The bad person of to-day is often the good person of yesterday; or, the person who appears to be good to-day is at a later stage often not as good as he appeared to be. The result is that, no matter how strict the immigration selection policy may be, no matter how selectively the policy of only bringing in good ones may be applied, there will nevertheless be nothing to prevent a certain percentage of people, who are not as good as was presumed when they were admitted from entering this country. After all, does this not happen to every businessman? With the best screening in the world the businessman cannot guarantee that every person in his undertaking will be a success. That is the point General Smuts made, namely that with the best screening in the world it cannot be guaranteed that not a single bad person will enter. His conclusion was, quite rightly so, that he could not put a stop to the immigration process because of the risk that a few bad ones might also slip in.

Indeed, this is also happening at present. Here I have an editorial that appeared in the Vaderland dated 28th January, 1967, and, inter alia, it says the following: “No matter how selectively one may set about it, undesirable immigrants still slip in”. That is all General Smuts indicated. As a matter of fact, here we have a statement in Hansard in which the hon. the Minister of Immigration said in this House that the screening system followed by this Government is nothing but the screening system followed by the Government before 1948. It would therefore be a false allegation if anybody were to suggest that General Smuts or the United Party wanted, as a matter of policy, to allow bad ones to enter South Africa. I say this is absolutely untrue, and anybody who makes such an allegation is wrong.

He said “the good ones and the bad ones”.

With the best selection one will find, as the Vaderland says, bad ones slipping in, but any person who says that it was the policy of the United Party Government to bring bad ones into the country, propagates a falsity. And the best proof of its being a false allegation, comes from the hon. the Minister of Immigration himself, who said that there was no difference between the selection process of his Government and the one the United Party Government followed before 1948. The policy of the United Party is to-day, and has always been, immigration with discrimination. I want to make it clear to-day that we are opposed to any policy which simply imports skin and bone because it is white or European. We are most vehemently opposed to South Africa’s being made a market square for tagrag and bobtail at this juncture. Mr. Chairman, after all these years of attacks on the United Party on the question of immigration, we now notice two things. The first is that, after all the talk of the undermining of the Afrikaner which was supposed to follow, the present Government is the one which now holds the record for the greatest immigration gain of our time. The net gain of 32,500 immigrants last year was described by the hon. the Minister as “an all-time record”, a record which puts that of the United Party Government in the shade—not that this is such an exceptional achievement. Under the previous Government immigration was a natural process: the people came here of their own accord. To-day more recruitment is done, more incentive is given and more financial encouragement is offered than ever before in our history, and that is why the gateway to South Africa is indeed wide open today—more so than ever before; that is why there is record immigration under this Government in spite of all the claims that immigration, if it were to take place on a large scale and if it were State-aided would mean the undermining of the Afrikaner. According to what has recently been said by Government speakers, the target as regards immigrants has now indeed been set at 50,000. The second thing that we notice in the policy of the Government, is that the resources on which they draw for immigrants at present, are much more extensive than they were under any previous Government. In the past it was almost taken for granted that immigration meant immigration from our countries of origin, because immigrants from the mother countries can fit in immediately with the two white cultural streams in South Africa. But this position no longer applies. In February the hon. the Minister adopted the attitude in the Other Place—and I am quoting him—“that at present we have such an urgent need for immigrants in South Africa that our countries of origin cannot meet our needs”. According to the Minister they must therefore “be sought elsewhere”. The Government’s policy is therefore to seek immigrants in countries other than our countries of origin, and this policy will be continued. What one notices therefore, is, firstly, that the immigration scheme is more extensive at present than it has ever been before; secondly, that it is State-aided to a greater extent than ever before; there is greater inducement for immigrants than ever before; and at present immigration includes more countries than it did when this side of the House was in power; and that is why we can rightly say that the Government Party’s immigration policy has undergone a radical change.

I think we should now pause a little to see how this change fits in with our own views on immigration. As far as our policy is concerned, I want to make a few points to explain to the Committee where we stand. Firstly, I have already said that we are opposed to skin and bone being imported simply because it is white or European. We believe that the future of the Whites will not depend on a desperate, panicky importation of foreigners simply because of the colour of their skin. We believe that the future of the white man in this country will depend on the moral fibre of which he is made, and nothing else; and we think that the Government should not lose sight of the fact that the white man cannot be saved by an indiscriminate importation of skin and bone simply because it is white. That is why we take the view, as a primary point of policy, that immigration for South Africa should at all times remain selective, and that we should concentrate on quality rather than quantity.

That has not always been your policy.

I have already proved that that was our policy, and I can also quote, if I want to, from speeches which were made by General Smuts and which were reported in the Burger. I do not care what those hon. members believe; I am interested in the facts. The second point of policy as far as this side of the House is concerned, is the following: We believe that natural immigration is at all times preferable to immigration planned or organized by the State. That is why we believe that the Government should not go too far by begging people to come here. We realize only too well that over the years the Government has seriously neglected its duty towards South Africa, and that we have a tremendous manpower shortage to-day owing to that neglect, and that that manpower shortage is becoming more and more critical every day. That is why we and the Government have no option but to set to work and to recruit people on a large scale, and consequently we support this effort. I am saying this openly. We support it because the country needs the trained manpower. But we want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister, and I hope that he will furnish us with clear replies to these questions. Is the policy the Government is pursuing in connection with immigration, a long-term policy? In other words, has State-aided immigration, as far as the Government is concerned, and on the scale it is being done at present, come to stay? Must we view it as a long-term scheme? If so, must we assume that planned immigration has become a set pattern of our lives? If so, can the hon. the Minister tell us what his aim is? When one advocates a policy, one has a target. I should very much like to know from the hon. the Minister what his target is, particularly as far as numbers are concerned. Does he have a target, and what is it? For instance, is he thinking of half a million immigrants, or of a million, or two million? He must have a plan; if one has a policy, one has to know where one is going, why one is doing it and how long it will take one to reach one’s target. I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us what his target is. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to go so far with State-aided immigration as to change the whole character of white South Africa, for instance? We must have a reply to these questions. We must know what the target is in any case, for otherwise we cannot judge whether or not it is successful. We must know what he is aiming at and what the numbers are that the Minister hopes to bring into this country, and over what period.

Our third point of policy is this: Our view is that in any immigration scheme the emphasis should be placed on immigration from the parent countries. That is not a question of good or bad. We do not take the view that one nation is worse than another. We do not believe that one can say that these people are bad and those people are good. That is irrelevant. The people of one country are not better than the people of another. But South Africa’s human relations problems are so difficult and complicated that we think it would be unwise to multiply those problems by creating in South Africa new language blocks that are too big. Our fourth point of policy is this: We believe that the Government has a special duty in regard to immigration, a duty that does not only rest on the citizens, but also on the Government itself. It must prepare the country and the people for its immigration scheme. To-day one cannot launch a major immigration scheme without further ado, as the Government did, without preparing the country and the people for it. If we want such a scheme to succeed and to be accepted by the people of South Africa and by the established citizenry, then they and the country have to be prepared for it both spiritually and physically. What I mean is that not only the immigrants should be spiritually attuned to their new fatherland, but that the established citizens should also be prepared for receiving this concourse of newcomers. In this respect I regret that I have to accuse the Government of falling hopelessly short of the task of preparing the nation spiritually for receiving these immigrants. The first thing the Government ought to do, is to take its own Press to task. Nobody has aroused as much ill-will and suspicion against the present immigration plan than those very newspapers that are being controlled by that side. This time they can definitely not accuse the Opposition newspapers of such a thing. I am not referring to readers’ letters that are published, but look at the exaggerated and irresponsible reporting that appears in the Government newspapers at present. Let me furnish a few practical examples of how the public is being prepared for receiving immigrants. Here I have a report in the Vaderland of 6th April: “Church estrangement amongst Afrikaners accelerates. Immigrants play a big part”. This is a distorted image which is presented in banner headlines. Here is another quotation from the Vaderland dated 17th January, 1967: “Threat to our culture realized; immigration plan unaltered”. It tells the readers that the arrival of immigrants is a threat to our culture. Here is a report in Dagbreek dated 1st January, 1967: “Shocking facts on immigration revealed. Afrikaner preponderence wiped out within 25 years”. Here is another: “Immigrants impede police work. Many of them abuse South Africa, says Keevy”. (Die Vaderland 23rd November. 1966.) It has to be impressed upon the people that immigrants affect police work adversely. [Interjection.] Here is another: “Afrikaans churches very upset about Catholic statement. South Africa Catholic by the end of this century. Immigrants will bring their influence to bear”. (Dagbreek, 31st July, 1966.) Here I have a report about Professor A. D. Pont, the notorious Professor Pont: “Hollanders are no asset to the Afrikaner,” he says. There are stacks of these examples. My point is this. Nobody objects to newspapers publishing reports of what is being said, but in most cases the headings that appear in the newspapers are outrageous generalizations that have no bearing on the importance of the man who said it or even the contents of the report. A false impression is created, particularly by this report about General Keevy.

But it was denied.

That is not my point. My point is that this is the standard of the reporting. [Interjection.] I am not saying that General Keevy said that; I am saying that the Vaderland reports in that way … then the newspapers should have known better than to broadcast nonsense. [Interjection.] No, show me where the Sunday Times incites people against immigration. But if it does so, it is wrong, too. It seems to me that the Vaderland, in particular, takes delight in inciting people against immigration. Look at the harm it has been and is doing, this type of reporting, and the bitter remarks against immigration which followed on these things by way of letters in the Press. There are members of that side who are not to be exonerated either. There we have the hon. member for Primrose. He wrote an article in Dagbreek, in which he was also very critical about aspects of the immigration policy. We hope to hear more about that from him to-day. I want to repeat that, if the Government wants to undertake large-scale immigration, it should in the first place call its Press to account and enlist its services so that the Press may help it, and it should also go further. Instead of using the radio for party political propaganda, it should use the radio for a positive purpose, and that is to make people receptive to the immigration plan. Inform the people about the advantages of immigration and how they may help immigrants to feel at home here and to become South African. This is a good cause and nobody will have any objections to it. Let us remember this as far as immigrants are concerned. Nobody can do better work for South Africa than immigrants, because immigrants who are here, write thousands of letters to friends and relatives abroad. The letters they write can either be an advertisement for South Africa or an accusation. When I see the type of letter against immigrants to which prominence is given in the Government Press, I have very often wondered what our immigrants must think, because in one of the booklets the Government published, they say this fine thing to immigrants, and it is being distributed abroad—

That is fine and good, but what are these people to think when they come to South Africa with this booklet and they have to see the raging campaign in the Government Press which clouds the attitude to immigrants?

But what physical preparation is being done by the Government? And this is an important thing. Most of the objections people have against immigration, result from the terrible housing shortage. The position is critical. The position is that, if one brings immigrants here they have the right to expect to be provided with housing. But the established citizenry has as much right to expect not to be ousted from their homes. That is why I say that the Government is guilty of very serious neglect. There are shocking housing conditions. In my constituency I have a case where 19 people live in one three-roomed house, where sick children have to sleep on the floor and husbands and wives cannot share a room with each other. That is a shocking situation, and it is no exception. Listen to this—

This is Mr. G. H. Millman, of the 1820 Settlers Memorial Association. He says—

The situation is critical. Here we have Mr. J. H. Liebenberg, Chairman of the Railways Staff Association. He says—

I say that the Government has a duty in this respect, because the main feeling against immigration results from the housing shortage. Therefore, if we want to make the public receptive to immigration, the Government should see to it that its rate of providing housing is accelerated so that the established population may not suffer and the immigrant’s right to proper accommodation when he comes here, is also provided for.

The way the United Party supporters did it before 1948.

That argument we have heard a hundred times. At present we build a hundred houses in one day. When the two of us were children, it took nine months to build one house. We are living in other times. That sort of comparison is ridiculous. Our fifth point is this. We believe that immigrants should not be subjected to undue pressure. One finds it upsetting to see with what rudeness immigrants are treated in certain circles. It is not easy to leave one’s country and to settle in another. It is not easy to learn new languages, and that is why it is our duty to be tolerant. Our duty is to show understanding for these new people who come to South Africa. They enrich us intellectually and professionally, but as far as being South Africans is concerned, the greatest asset is not to be found in the immigrant himself, but in his children who are born in this country and in the children who are trained in our schools. There lies our greatest asset in the future. I think it is time for leaders on that side to say something about this matter. They ought to tell the country that we should not make undue and unreasonable demands on immigrants as far as language and customs are concerned. We must remember that those who do come here, have been invited by the Government and are immigrating to this country mostly at the instance of the Government. Our sixth point of policy is this. We believe that education for immigrant children should be designed in such a way that it must enable the immigrant to become a fully bilingual citizen. In other words, we should like to see that in view of the fact that we have a colossal long-term immigration policy, our school system should be designed in such a way that immigrants, also those who are English and Dutch-speaking, will in fact be permitted to choose the language which comes more easily to them, but from the very outset they should be afforded the opportunity of coming into contact with children of both language groups. If that avenue is not opened for them, they cannot be blamed later if they are not fully bilingual citizens. All sorts of wild ideas are cropping up, such as that of Senator Dr. Loock, who advocates that 65 per cent of our immigrants should be forced to go to Afrikaans schools. I am an Afrikaans-speaking person. I am not afraid of saying that it would give me pleasure if as many immigrants as possible associated themselves with the Afrikaans cultural group, but I cannot think of anything that will arouse amongst immigrants such an aversion to the Afrikaans cultural group than our trying to force them. That will be a mistake. I believe that such a thing will cause damage to the entire immigration effort. We should like to hear what the Government has to say about this attitude that was adopted by one of its prominent Senators. It will be a great disservice to the immigrant if we are to have a tug of war between the Afrikaans and English cultural groups about the question of immigration. The Afrikaans cultural group has not achieved its present position through force. It has achieved that position through its inherent attractiveness and through the depths of its roots in the soil of South Africa. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that that will not continue and will not hold good for the future as well, namely that it will grow and flourish. But then we must, amongst other things, put a stop to the practice which has arisen in the case of some Afrikaans newspapers, particularly those supporting the Government, that any Tom, Dick and Harry who makes a statement to the newspaper assumes to himself the right to do so in the name of Afrikanerdom. Lately there have been offensive examples of small-minded persons making insulting remarks about immigrants, and doing so in the name of Afrikanerdom. It is a mistake on the part of Government newspapers to make lesser lights and minor personalities appear to be great minds who have the right to speak on behalf of the Afrikaner. Such people have already caused the idea to take root amongst immigrants that the Afrikaner is a sort of Mother Grundy who is afraid of the world around her. The Government has the power to rectify these matters. We think that the best way of doing so is to follow an educational system which will bring the immigrant child into contact with both language groups, both the Afrikaans and the English cultural group. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have just had an example of a spiteful, obstreperous and in general nonsensical speech by a small man who, in my humble opinion as far as politics is concerned, has mastered everything except how to be a good, successful, respectable politician. We are dealing this afternoon with a very important subject which ultimately concerns the future of the Whites very seriously. A little man—I want to say it again—stands up here and makes this obstreperous and spiteful speech which he made in this House this afternoon. I understand that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout received a letter the other day. The letter was addressed to “Japie Basson, South Africa”. The letter reached him. It was not only due to the skill of the postmaster that the letter reached him. I understand that on the back of the envelope the following words were written: “Please keep your big mouth shut”. This enabled the postmaster to deliver the letter. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the discourtesy with which immigrants were being treated in certain circles. I want to ask him whether he honestly thinks that it was not discourteous to refer in this House to immigrants as “the importing of skin and bones, just because they are White”. That came from the mouth of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to ask him: Was it not discourteous towards immigrants to say that? He referred to immigrants as people who came into this country to eat our people’s food, take our work away and oppress the Afrikaner [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just used these words. [Interjections.] The hon. member must first sweep before his own, and before the United Party’s door before he makes this kind of allegation in the House.

I do not want to digress too far from my point now. In the first instance I would like to express very cordial appreciation and pay tribute to the Minister of Immigration for the particularly excellent way in which he has handled this difficult post of Immigration. His sacrifices and dedication, the exceptional dignity as well as the wisdom with which he is administering this post is not passing unnoticed. We just want to place on record that it is being appreciated very highly, that we are proud of him and that we wish him a speedy and full recovery.

In the second place, Sir, you will allow me also to express our gratitude and appreciation to the officials of the Department of Immigration and in particular to the Immigration Selection Board. They are people who undertake a very difficult task under very difficult circumstances with great dedication in the interests of our country and our nation. It is demanding work for which they often get curses for thanks. That is why we on this side would like to offer them our sincere thanks. We want to tell them that we notice what they are doing. It is being appreciated.

I believe that in regard to immigration the choice before South Africa is in truth a simple one. The choice is the following: Immigration or integration. Consequently we must do everything in our power to strengthen the Whites in South Africa as far as possible. It has been calculated that shortly before the year 2000 we in South Africa will have anything between 35 and 40 million non-Whites, as against approximately 6 or 6.5 million Whites. That is why I was not exactly enamoured of the speech which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made this afternoon. This matter has become such a vital one that it really is a choice between immigration or integration. We must all of us help to further immigration in South Africa, properly and on a good basis, and to make our people aware of the important choice facing our nation at this time. I want to point out that many members of the public have the wrong image of immigration. The public must be informed about this matter. For example, I want to point out that we get four types of foreigners from abroad in South Africa. Of these four only one group is actually an immigrant group. Of the four types we find there are in the first place illegal immigrants who enter the country by slipping across the border at night and who then try to make South Africa their home. But they are no immigrants. The Government is doing everything in its power to stop these people or to apprehend and expel them from the country. They are no immigrants. Many of those people do harm in this country and distort the image our immigration policy presents, while they are in reality no immigrants. But we also find a second group of people. Last year no less than 260,000 tourists visited South Africa. We welcome those tourists. Most of them are first-rate and very good people. But amongst those tourists there are people who do not possess all those excellent qualities. And when they make a blunder in South Africa it is calmly attributed to our immigrants. That is not right at all. In the third place we find a group of people, from the ranks of this tourist group who, after arriving in South Africa have discovered that it is a very beautiful and a fine country and who then try and establish themselves here by acquiring temporary residential permits. But they are not immigrants either. Most of them are also very good people but when any one of them does harm or commits a crime it is also attributed to the immigrants. Again that is not right. The immigrants in South Africa comprise the fourth group. It consists of those people who have been properly selected by the Immigration Selection Board and who have come to make a new home for themselves in South Africa. I believe, and I state it very emphatically here this afternoon, that South Africa, more than any other country in the world, has every reason to be proud of this fourth group, the real immigrant group. And they are not skin and bone just because they are white, as was alleged by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In general they are good, first-rate people who are a real asset to South Africa. I just want to point out to you that the Afrikaner nation is made up of 37.5 per cent Dutch, 35 per cent German, 14 per cent French, 3 per cent Scandinavian and 9.5 per cent of what Dr. Pama and Prof. Con de Villiers describe as indeterminable. In addition I want to point out that the gain in immigrants over the past six years up to December 1966 was 144,000. As against that the natural increase of Afrikaans and English-speaking persons in South Africa over the same six-year period was 290,000. If one does a bit of simple arithmetic it appears that for every immigrant under the Immigration Scheme of the National Government over the period 1960 to 1966 two South Africans arrived in South Africa by the process of natural birth. Two to one therefore and of those 144,000 immigrants who entered the country no less than 6,000 were from Africa countries last year, namely persons who had been born in South Africa but who had returned as immigrants. In my opinion therefore immigration by no means constitutes a threat for any group in the country. That is why we must try and keep this matter outside party politics and allow it to remain outside party politics because it is of such cardinal importance to us. It is understandable that amongst some of us feelings may have been aroused against immigrants. It is a completely natural phenomenon. We do not take it amiss of people for trying to warn the Government to be careful in regard to the handling of this matter. After all, we are a nation which has just come through a difficult struggle in order to establish ourselves as far as our language, etc., is concerned. That is why we understand the sentiments and are very sympathetically disposed towards them. We can rely on the Government—as is indicated by the figures which I have mentioned—to continue to handle this matter with the utmost circumspection. But on the other hand we do just want to point out that it would perhaps be better to refrain from making rash statements in regard to immigration and immigrants if that were in some way or other to place this question in a bad light. That is something which could do us inestimable damage particularly in respect of the recruition of immigrants in our parent countries, which is so very important. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to spend much time on the remarks made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I should just like to make one remark in this regard, arising from what he said. I just want to say something in connection with the list of newspaper headlines he quoted from. I do not want to indemnify the Press for everything it does. But I also think that it has become a habit with the hon. member to quot; only such things as may suit his argument. The Press has on occasion, we may as well say this, in addition to all the errors which it has made, addressed timely warnings and given guidance for which we should rather be grateful. It is probably not wrong that, if there are people in the country who are concerned about our immigrant problem, they should utter warnings in regard to that problem. I agree that sometimes it is quite exaggerated, but the fact of the matter is that out of those exaggerated warnings a nucleus of good can arise and one must at least take notice of it. Since the hon. member quoted from the Afrikaans Press, which he called the Nationalist Press, and since he said in reply to an interjection that not one of the English newspapers had made any remarks about the matter, I would like to ask him whether he has forgotten what happened a week and a half or two weeks ago in this House. At that time the hon. the Prime Minister, arising out of a short debate which had been requested, said that newspapers had written about the outburst which took place at Hillbrow. Has the hon. member forgotten about that outburst? An outburst against German immigrants? Has the hon. member forgotten that the hon. the Prime Minister said that it was the Press which, to a large extent, had to be held responsible for that. It was definitely not the National Party Press which was held responsible for that.

But I do not want to waste my time by saying anything further about that matter. Apart from the Press which is not here to defend itself and has no voice in this House, I should like to ask the hon. member whether there is not something else which is having a detrimental effect on immigration? And then I am addressing myself very cordially to the entire Opposition. Perhaps I should single out some of them and talk in particular to the hon. member for Houghton, but that I would not do cordially. Do you think that the image, which is being created abroad where our immigrants have to be recruited by statements in and sometimes outside this House, is conducive to drawing immigrants to South Africa? And has the Opposition forgotten that they told people in South Africa to vote for the right to vote again? Do they remember that they told the people that capital would flow out of the country? Do you remember that they told South African citizens from one platform after another that they would no longer be able to make a living in this country and that they would have to leave? Those speeches which the Opposition made were so marvellously effective that we even found emigrants who left the shores of South Africa on their insistence, because the Opposition had said: “No hope for this country under a Nationalist Government.” Do you still remember that? Now I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that before he blames the Press, before he blames other people for conditions which create unfavourable climates for immigrants—things which of course sometimes do go hand in hand, I want to add—he should first of all look for the fault amongst irresponsible statements made by people whom I, at any rate, regard as being responsible people.

But I want to come to something more positive. To the thanks which were expressed here by the hon. member for Primrose I would also like to add a few other votes of thanks. In the first instance there is a vote of thanks owing to the voluntary organizations which have not only said but have proved with deeds that they want to help to create that climate of which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke, one which is necessary in order to make our immigrants feel at home in our country. In this connection I want to mention the names of three organizations in particular, namely the 1820 Memorial Settlers Association, the „Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie”, and the South Africa League, which has helped Whites from Kenya and East Africa to immigrate to this country. They are receiving a subsidy from the Government and are making it their task, in a first-rate fashion, to make new inhabitants of our fatherland feel at home here. Possibly it is known to the House that the 1820 Memorial Settlers Association, which carries on the ideals of the 1820 immigrants, is particularly active in regard to the immigrants from the United Kingdom. And let me now, as Afrikaans-speaking person and as a Nationalist and as somebody who loves my own language, say here that I believe that the immigrants which we obtained from the United Kingdom were an asset to our country.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Before business was interrupted I had been afforded an opportunity of conveying thanks to the voluntary organizations which have helped to make immigrants coming to our country feel at home, and in this regard I referred to the 1820 Settlers Association. Mr. Chairman, when discussing this association I want to associate myself for a moment with one positive statement which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made, namely the one in respect of the language of the immigrants coming to our country. I do not think it would be fair of me to ask this of the hon. the Minister, who is officiating in the absence of the Minister of Immigration, but I nevertheless want to ask that we strive to achieve the ideal of making all citizens who come to South Africa bilingual as far as possible. Arising also from what the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs said recently in a debate, I think we are at least on common ground when I say that we should continue to strive to attain that ideal, which has to a large extent already been attained, i.e. the ideal that all South African citizens should be fully bilingual. I would therefore welcome it, as would the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and any other member, particularly the Afrikaans cultural organizations—while Afrikaans cannot compete against English as a world language here—if it were possible to apply every means to make immigrants fully bilingual. I, as an Afrikaans-speaking person, want to associate myself with the writers of the numerous letters which have appeared in the public Press, and with the appeals which have been made by people who love their language, requesting that South African citizens should also have a good grounding in Afrikaans.

There is probably nothing wrong with each one of us having a love for what is our own, and there is probably nothing wrong if I as Protestant also ask that the Protestant balance in our fatherland as it exists at present should not be disturbed by bringing immigrants to this country. I am not ashamed to say this, nor do I believe that anybody will take it amiss of me if I say that this is also the Government’s policy, a policy which I welcome wholeheartedly. I want to quote here what the hon. the Minister said in the Other Place, and what was previously said by the former Minister of Immigration, in respect of the balance and the religious set-up of our country’s population when it comes to immigration. He said (Senate Hansard, Col. 706) (translation)—

Then the hon. the Minister went on to say—

Mr. Chairman, I think that we can at least concede to each member of our population the freedom to fight for those things which are dear to him, and if Afrikaans Protestant churches or English Protestant churches request that immigrants should, as far as possible, be drawn from Protestant countries then I do not know what fault we can find with that, just as I do not know what fault we can find if people of other religious persuasions also request that people subscribing to their points of view should come to this country, and endeavour to bring that about. [Time expired.]

Sir, in dealing with the remarks made here by the hon. member for Primrose let me just start off by saying this to him. He said that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had attacked the Afrikaans Press here for having made certain derogatory statements as far as immigrants were concerned, and he then went on to say that they were not here to defend themselves. I do not think the hon. member need be disturbed about the fact that members of the Press are not in this Chamber to defend themselves, because they are always capable of defending themselves anyhow.

They are always attacked here.

The hon. member for Primrose referred to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as “daardie klein mannetjie”. I think that was a very unfair statement to make; it was a case of stone-throwing by a man who lives in a glass house. If ever the saying “keep your big mouth shut” applied to anybody, it could apply to the hon. member for Primrose. Sir, we know that the followers of this Government ever since 1948 have stifled, stagnated and stopped immigration to such an extent that to-day the white population of this country is only 3* million people. Sir, do you know what has happened in Australia over the same period, in spite of the shortage of housing, the problem of inflation and all the other problems which they have had as far as their economy is concerned? Since 1948 they have more than doubled their population, from 5* million to over 11 million. You know what has happened in Canada. Canada has also more than doubled her European population, and she has done so under the same set of circumstances, in spite of a housing shortage and in spite of economic problems. Do you know what happened in Brazil? Brazil has trebled her European population over the same period under circumstances like ours. There too they have a preponderance of black people and they have the same sort of problems that we have. In spite of these problems Brazil trebled her European population. What does this Government do? This Government has stifled immigration to such an extent that our white population of 2j million in 1948 has now become only 3¼ million. Sir, this is the most staggering sin that has ever been committed against the white race of this country.

Sir, I would like to get back to a statement made earlier on by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that our net gain as far as immigrants are concerned was 32,500. I think the hon. the Minister corrected that figure in the Other Place and said that our net gain was 38,000 and not 32,500. I have figures here showing the net gain in immigration. We got 48,000 immigrants and we lost 10,000 people who emigrated. To me it is a staggering thing that in a young virile country, sparsely populated as we are in this country, we can lose 10,000 people in one year. We did not lose them to the northern territories, as we have been doing during the period from 1948 to 1964; we lost them to other countries. Ten thousand people emigrated from this country in one year and we had a net gain of 38,000. To me this is a most disturbing thing that for some reason or another this country has become so unpopular that 3,200 of our citizens emigrated to the United Kingdom and quite a number to Europe. I should have thought that we would succeed in attracting immigrants to this country if we constantly emphasized to the outside world what a good country this was to live in. Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked the hon. the Minister what the Government’s target was as far as immigration was concerned. In this connection I should like to quote briefly what the hon. the Minister said in the Other Place. He clearly said—

Sir, I also feel sure that there will be general agreement with that statement. The one thing I do not understand is the Minister’s reference to obtaining immigrants “without disturbing our national set-up and our way of life”. Then we find that another authority, in addressing a meeting in Durban, said—

Sir, that statement was made, according to the newspapers, by Dr. Piet Koornhof, National M.P. for Primrose. I presume that he was speaking there on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He said—

Sir, I put a question to the hon. the Minister earlier on with regard to the housing shortage. In this connection the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that it was possible nowadays to erect hundreds of prefabricated houses in a few days. If we are serious in saying that the maintenance of white civilization in this country is dependent on building up the white population, then even the target of 40,000 is too small a target to aim at for this country where the non-Whites outnumber the Whites by 31 or four to one. We must set our sights a bit higher than that. Sir, we hear all this talk about a shortage of housing and about whether immigrants will be able to fit in to our economy and our national way of life. Sir, can we afford at this stage to be concerned about the language or the religion of white immigrants that we can bring to this country?

They must be bilingual.

The hon. member for Witbank has made a plea here that immigrants should become thoroughly bilingual. Can we be concerned at this stage about the religious denomination to which immigrants belong?

The hon. member for Queenstown says “yes”.

Sir, we consistently read in the Afrikaans-language Press about attracting immigrants from “ons stamlande”. Let me ask the hon. member for Queenstown whether the Dutch are not predominantly Roman Catholic. France as such is predominantly Roman Catholic; Belgium is predominantly Roman Catholic; Western Germany, where we are going to such a lot of trouble to find immigrants and only managed to find 260 last year, is also to a large extent Roman Catholic. Where are the people to come from who are predominantly Protestants? Sir, what is the most vital issue in this country as far as the maintenance of white civilization is concerned? I maintain that the most vital issue and almost the only issue at this stage is to bring in people with white skins who can fit into our economy, regardless of whether they will become Afrikaans-speaking. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for East London (City) revealed himself here at the outset of his speech as a very great statistician, but I do not want to follow up on what he had to say in that regard. I shall, during the course of my speech, return to certain matters which he raised. But I would like to refer to something which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. I want to suggest this evening that the United Party has, in its immigration policy, had two clear ulterior motives. The first was that it wanted to throw the doors in South Africa wide open to immigrants without selection.

That is untrue.

I told the hon. member by way of interjection when General Smuts made that speech in which he spoke about the good and the bad who were to be allowed to enter. General Smuts made that speech on 14th August, 1946, and another hon. member on this side will disclose the contents of that speech in a moment. I also want to say that a further objective of the United Party had been to undermine or to plough under the Afrikaans-speaking people; to put it mildly immigrants had to be brought in as voting cattle. A leading Minister on that side, Colonel Reitz, said so in the early 30’s and so did other prominent members of the United Party, inter alia, one who was a front bencher for years, i.e. Dr. Louis Steenkamp. According to the Vryheid Gazette he said something similar. According to this newspaper—

Those are the same words used by General Smuts. Then the report continues—

I leave it at that. The allegation made by the United Party last year to the effect that the National Party had taken over its policy is devoid of all truth. It is an assertion which has been ridden to death already and it has by now become such an obsession with the United Party that that Party itself believes it. The National Party did not take over the policy of any other party. It has its own National Party orientated policy. It is not a policy which was only drawn up after the National Party had come into power in 1948. On 25th February 1947 Dr. Malan, as Leader of the Opposition at that time, set out the immigration policy of the National Party in this House and that speech was based on the principles of the National Party, according to its programme of principles which had been drawn up in 1937. According to that programme of principles of 1937, the immigration policy of the National Party contained four basic requirements. Firstly, the strengthening of the white population with desirable persons who would not lower the moral standards of the white population; secondly, the recruiting of immigrants was to have remained under State control so that no undesirable persons could enter the country; thirdly, immigrants had to be restricted to elements which could be assimilated by the Afrikaner people; fourthly, the presence of immigrants was not to have constituted a threat to our own people on the labour market and in that way to have prejudiced the material standards of our people.

The motives of the Government in regard to immigration, as well as the methods and procedures which are being followed to-day, rest on precisely the same basis as that stated in 1937 and 1947, but the set-up has been broadened because circumstances have now changed. But the Government’s policy remains basically the same and envisages the following: Firstly, to strengthen the white sector of the population with selected, suitable and acceptable immigrants; secondly, to help combat the shortage of workers which is being experienced because of the perennial economic growth; thirdly, to draw immigrants who will fit in with and adapt to the South African way of life. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to warn hon. members now that if they do not keep quiet I shall order them to leave the Chamber. No further interjections will be allowed.

Fourthly, to make good South Africans of the immigrants who will in due course fit in with the South African pattern of life. What is being envisaged here is to make good citizens of the country of the immigrants, good full-blooded Republicans and not merely to use them as voting cattle. Immigrants can themselves subsequently decide to whom they are going to give their political allegiance. Fifthly, to allow only as many as can be absorbed by the economy and to assimilate them only in fields of labour where a shortage exists. Sixthly, to do so in such a way that it will not affect our way of life, and so that the balance of the indigenous population will not be disturbed in respect of its culture, its heritage and its religion. The methods which are being put into practice are to apply a strict selection scheme and recruit immigrants mainly from the parent countries. These parent countries are situated around the North Sea, that area which yielded 90 per cent of the immigrants who have come to this country over the years. I believe that as long as it is possible to draw immigrants from this source, it should be done, and I am entreating the hon. the Minister to make even greater efforts to draw immigrants from these countries which have in the past made the greatest contribution to our population structure. I am aware of the fact that in these countries such as Holland, Germany, and even Belgium, there is economic growth and economic boom at the moment, and I even know that those countries are compelled to draw workers from other countries. But nevertheless we must not, as a result of that, relax our recruiting attempts to draw immigrants from those countries. At the moment it would appear that there has been a slight relaxation in the economic growth of Holland and it may be that in a few years’ time there may be unemployment. We also know that the Dutch population is multiplying rapidly. It is calculated that even the most intensive utilization of its economic resources will not prevent unemployment there. In addition, Holland is a small country of approximately 16,000 square miles, a quarter the size of the Free State, and we know that these people will in due course not be able to make a proper living there. This will mean that quite a few people will in future emigrate from Holland we hope that when that happens the Republic of South Africa will be prepared to draw those immigrants to our country.

I am very glad that the galleries are quite full to-night so that the people there can see how the official Opposition sometimes behave like children in this House. However, I am rising to clear up a misunderstanding which exists in this House. This misunderstanding is that the hon. members of the Opposition, as they did again this afternoon through the mouth of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, are trying to imply that the immigration policy of this side of the House is a policy of the former United Party Government and is one which has been taken over from the hon. members on the opposite side. Let me state very clearly … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must leave the Chamber.

I apologise.

I should just like to avail myself of the opportunity of refuting the idea which exists amongst the hon. members of the Opposition that the Government took over the immigration policy from them. If there was ever a statement which was devoid of all truth then it is that specific statement. This Government did not take over any other party’s immigration policy. This party acted according to sound political judgment, and not always according to what was popular, but it came forward only with what was in the interests of South Africa. This was, as has been mentioned by a colleague of mine who spoke previously, a separate National Party orientated immigration policy which in no way tried to interpret the policy of the United Party of that time, or even of hon. members on the opposite side. During the United Party’s period of office, right up to 1948, they allowed immigrants to enter South Africa indiscriminately—and this is a proven fact—irrespective of whether there was prosperity in South Africa and irrespective of whether it was in the best interests of South Africa. My time is limited, but I just want to refer briefly to the statements made here this afternoon by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout when he tried to refute the speech made by the late General Smuts on 14th August, 1946, in which the late General Smuts said inter alia that the gates of South Africa should be opened wide and that immigrants in their thousands must come to South Africa, irrespective of whether they were good or bad immigrants. I should like to refer to that speech made by the late General Smuts so that there can be no misunderstanding about it. I refer to an article in the Cape Argus of 14th August 1946, with the headline, “Union call for Immigrants. Smuts announces active policy”. The article reads as follows—

If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout now wants to tell me that the Cape Argus, as the United Party Press sometimes does, reported General Smuts incorrectly, then I should like to refer him to what the former Minister of Justice. Mr. Harry Lawrence, said in this House, and I am quoting from Hansard of 9th March, col 2225—

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell you … [Interjection.]

Order! Who made that interjection?

I did, Mr. Chairman.

Order! I want to warn the hon. the Deputy Minister. Because I overlooked the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I shall also overlook the hon. the Deputy Minister. However, I want to warn hon. members that I will not overlook anybody else.

If there was ever a blessing for South Africa then it was the fact that that party with an immigration policy like that lost control of the country in 1948. The immigration policy of the National Party is based on the principle that it must be in the interests of the country and its people. Then only is an immigrant welcome here. Another principle of our policy is that no immigrant must do any white person in South Africa out of his job. That was not the case when the Party on the opposite side of the House was governing this country. When we speak of an immigration policy then what we mean is a well thought out policy, a policy which is net aimed at disturbing the population structure of South Africa or in causing unemployment. That was what happened under the Government of the Party on the opposite side of the House. I think we all agree that the white sector of the population of South Africa must be strengthened more rapidly than natural increase is able to do. We need great numbers, not only to strengthen ourselves as a white nation at the southernmost point of Africa, but also because we need the manpower for our rapidly developing economy. The continual expansion of our industries, particularly in the technical field, makes it impossible for us to supply the necessary skilled manpower from our own resources. The fact that we have a shortage of manpower this afternoon and that we have to resort to immigrants would never have arisen if our own natural increase rate had been high enough. The positive step which we ought to take of course is to increase the birth rate amongst the whites in our country. Perhaps the time has been ripe for some time for a thorough investigation to be instituted on the part of the Government into every possibility which could facilitate the achievement of this ideal. We are aware of the fact that an investigation is at the moment being instituted into the payment of family allowances. We are also aware of the fact that our taxation system makes provision for certain concessions to large families. I am humbly suggesting that in my opinion these are only a few minor aspects of the entire problem. There are numerous other aspects which have to be investigated thoroughly. If we analyse the birth rate in South Africa then one outstanding essential fact emerges—namely the essential need for us to formulate a thorough population policy with South Africa as soon as possible. For us and our survival such a policy, a method of increasing our families and developing as a white nation in South Africa, is as essential as our non-white policy is. [Time expired.]

We have seen here this evening a bunch of political Rip van Winkles who have suddenly woken up to the fact that they have allowed 20 years in the history of our country just to go by while they were fast asleep. Of the last two speakers the one still has a beard while the other one looks as if his beard has fallen off. I believe the people of South Africa are going to hold it for ever against the Nationalist Party that they allowed 20 years to go by like that. When the hon. member for Primrose was in England I am sure he saw, as I did, the queues of people outside Canada House, Australia House and New Zealand House—some of the finest young people in Great Britain queuing up to get out of the country of shortages, of labour government and of restrictions resulting from the war. Out of 20 of my personal friends in London there are only two left today. These young people left Britain looking for a new life and a new challenge. Yet they were not allowed by this Government to come to South Africa. The reason for that was given by the hon. member for Koedoespoort—that he and others feared for the future of Afrikanerdom. Will hon. members opposite tell me that they would have regretted it if the United Party had brought another million white people to this country under its immigration policy? Would they tell me now in all seriousness that another million white people brought in during 1948 would have meant the ploughing under of the Afrikaner? Would they tell me that that could not have led to the strengthening of the Afrikanervolk as part of the white group of this country? Is it not as a result of what this Government has done that we live to-day on a razor’s edge as far as our White existence is concerned? Is that not so because this Government closed the door in the face of some of the finest people in Great Britain and in other countries of Europe, people who were living under similar conditions as most people in Germany when I passed through there during 1948-’49? They would have given anything to live in a garage in a back street of any city of South Africa because here at least they had a fair chance of getting food and to obtain some kind of employment. These people were living in D.P. camps, shut in behind barbed wire and kept there because there was nothing for them to do outside. These are the people who would have come to this country of ours—the sort of people this Government is now chasing all over Europe to recruit, now that Europe is booming and when everything the people want is there at their doors. The Government is even making use of T.V., chasing and begging people in Europe to come here to South Africa to strengthen our white population. I think this is a scandalous thing. It will be visited upon this Government for many years to come. The hon. member for Queenstown a while ago interjected and said that it was a duty of this Government to maintain the balance in the country, the religious balance. Let me ask the hon. the Minister whether that is his policy? Is that the policy of this Department? Does he agree with the hon. member or does he not? What the hon. member said is something he may live to regret. The hon. member for Primrose talked about integration and immigration. I believe this is a ploy on the part of the hon. member for Primrose. Concern in the ranks of the Nationalist Party about immigration is so great to-day that here we have the old classic tactics of the Nationalist Party of tying everything to the “swart gevaar”—you can sell the people everything as long as it is tied to the “swart gevaar”. Therefore immigration is now being tied to the “swart gevaar”—we must have immigration or integration. This is the cry hon. members opposite have been giving out from all corners of our country. They are serving notice on their own people, on their own voters that they must accept immigration, whether they like it or not. This is going to be used to smother all the unrest there is today in the ranks of the supporters of the Nationalist Party.

[Inaudible].

Order!

But I rose this evening to bring a specific matter to the notice of the hon. the Minister. This is a question concerning the immigration of people from Zambia. These people are in a peculiarly difficult position. The Government of Zambia regards itself I believe as being at war with the white countries to its south. For persons in Zambia wishing to leave the country, people of substance, the direct route south is not the shortest route. In fact, for them a detour via other countries is the only way in which they can get to South Africa. The case of one of my constituents was brought to my notice the other day. He came here from Zambia leaving his children and wife behind. He made a special plea to me in a letter in which he said—

That is strong talk, Mr. Chairman. It is very strong talk indeed from a person wishing to immigrate. I believe this listening post we have, this diplomatic mission in Salisbury, is one of the most sensitive on the whole continent of Africa and where people who apply to come here for whatever purpose from Zambia have got to be treated with the utmost sympathy and understanding. In this particular case it was only with a considerable amount of difficulty that a visitor’s permit was issued to come to South Africa so that they could make application for permanent residence. This is something which I believe will have to be done more and more in future because I believe there is a large potential of White people in Zambia who are looking south to us here in South Africa … [Interjection.]

Order! I have warned hon. members that I would order them out of the House if they made interjections. Who made that interjection?

I did, Mr. Chairman.

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister please leave the Chamber. (The Deputy Minister thereupon withdrew.)

On a point of order, Sir, I want to appeal to you. I believe that was an unintended interjection, quite a harmless interjection.

I think that was the second interjection made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I am not prepared to change my decision. The hon. member for Mooi River may continue.

This particular constituent of mine also says in his letter—

That also is my plea, Sir, to the hon. the Minister and to his Department. Special instructions should be issued if necessary—if that is the necessary via media to go through —to the mission in Salisbury to regard all people coming from Zambia with the utmost sympathy and to facilitate their exit from that country and their entry into South Africa with a view to their becoming future permanent citizens of South Africa. But may I go one step further with the hon. the Minister and his Department? When we are looking for immigrants may I make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and his Department to look for the youth? That is the way in which we could attract the attention of potential immigrants in countries overseas—of people prepared to meet the tremendous challenges South Africa offers in leaving their own country and coming to a country such as ours where there are great challenges that have to be faced. Therefore I think we can easily fire the imagination of the youth of Europe with the many advantages we have to offer here in South Africa. If young people want to come here to marry and to raise families here, let them come. So, I should like to make this earnest plea to the Minister and to his Department that they should concentrate on the young people and bring them to South Africa, young people who whilst they will enjoy what we have to offer in South Africa will at the same time be prepared to meet the challenges posed by the problems we have to face here in South Africa.

Before replying to the various matters raised so far b” hon. members, I want to make two general statements by way of introduction. The first relates to the attitude adopted by the United Party in this debate. You know, Mr. Chairman, whenever it suits them to do so, they claim our immigration policy as their own. Those of us who have listened carefully to the debate this afternoon will have noticed that it seems as if the United Party is extremely disappointed because we are having such great success in our efforts as far as immigration is concerned. I shall tell you where I noticed those signs of disappointment—amongst others with the hon. member for East London (North), who referred to the losses which we are alleged to have suffered and which, according to him, are supposed to be so shocking.

In the second place I want to make the statement that one of the main tasks of any country which receives immigrants is to get those immigrants assimilated in its society within a reasonable space of time. This is the task of a large country such as America, which has received many immigrants, and the task of Australia. As a matter of fact, any country that receives immigrants regards this as one of its tasks. Then, too, it is a fact that no country would like to see immigrants permanently standing aloof from the pattern and way of life of its people. Any nation which receives immigrants wants to see that those newcomers should, as in the case of South Africa, become new South Africans or, as they call them in Australia, new Australians. One would like to see the immigrants identifying themselves with and becoming integrated in the country to which they immigrate.

The second aspect that is of importance to one is that one would like to see that the national pattern and character are maintained and that they are not disturbed by the entrance of new-comers or through immigration. In this respect South Africa and the Afrikaners quoted in this debate on the strength of newspaper reports do not differ in any way from the other nations of the world that also receive immigrants. That is our attitude, and basically it does not differ in any way from the attitude of those other countries and nations who receive immigrants.

As far as the Government is concerned, it is therefore our endeavour to maintain our existing religious and cultural pattern in this country and not to allow it to be disturbed as a result of new-comers entering the country. One can in fact say that this endeavour of ours, which is also characteristic of other nations, is basic to the Government’s immigration policy. We do not want our religious and cultural pattern to be disturbed. As a matter of fact, such an attitude is an absolute requirement also as far as the integration of the immigrants with the society is concerned. Surely one cannot expect a nation such as ours to become enthusiastic about the integration of immigrants if they fear that these newcomers are going to affect our whole pattern adversely. One cannot then expect the indigenous, established population to become enthusiastic about the assimilation of the newcomers. For that reason we shall always have to try and the Government will always try to regulate the stream of immigrants to this country in such a way that the immigrants will be acceptable to South Africa and assimilable in South Africa.

Pleas were advanced here in connection with our parent-countries. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a plea here as if we had never thought of those countries before and that we should now concentrate on the parent-countries. This, too, was supposedly the policy of the United Party. Now, while admitting that that is so—the hon. member for Koedoespoort also made a strong plea for that—I do want to say that we need have no fears in this connection. The attitude adopted by the Government is that we should concentrate on the parent-countries for our immigrants. Hence the particular success we have achieved in the past few years in getting immigrants from our parent-countries. As far as the European continent is concerned, we obtained 1,800 immigrants from our European parent-countries in 1961. Last year the figure was increased to 7,000. That is surely proof of the zeal with which the Department of Immigration is concentrating on recruiting immigrants from our parent-countries, and in this case, to be specific, from our European parent-countries. We are expanding our recruiting activities in those parent-countries in spite of the fact that in the majority of these countries we are not allowed to undertake recruiting campaigns openly.

I want to refer to another aspect now, and that is in connection with what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout quoted here from newspaper reports, reports which allegedly criticized our attitude towards immigration and immigrants to this country. One must view this criticism from our own side against the background of this natural desire on the part of the established population that the newcomers should be integrated with our society. It is a natural desire on the part of our people in this country that the newcomers should not stand aloof, that they should identify themselves with our culture in its entirety and that they should therefore really become potential citizens of this country. A good deal of this citicism must be viewed against that background. Pleas were made by some Afrikaner cultural leaders that some form of forced bilingualism should be introduced. These pleas, too, must be viewed against the background of the desire on the part of the Afrikaans-speaking people—who constitute 60 per cent or more of the Republic’s population—that the newcomers should understand the traditions and the way of life of the people of this country. What better way is there of understanding other people’s way of life than by being able to speak their language and by having a feeling for it? One must view this matter against that background. To my mind there is nothing wrong with having such a desire. Whether it should be given effect to in that way is a totally different matter. I also associate myself with the plea made by the hon. member for Witbank, who pleaded that every possible effort should be made to make the immigrants in this country bilingual. When speaking of “making people bilingual” we mean that we should provide the facilities, that we should give them the opportunities and that we should make it attractive for them to become bilingual. We should not use some kind of “sledge-hammer tactics”. It astounds one to see how much has been done during the past few years in this connection in order to give our immigrants the opportunity to become bilingual. I am just going to mention a few particulars in this regard.

Let us take the Transvaal, where we find the largest concentration of immigrants. The Provincial Education Department there specially set aside 62 teachers for the purpose of giving lessons to immigrants. A total number of 3,800 immigrant pupils are being taught the other language in special classes in 52 schools. This is only as far as the Transvaal is concerned.

In which language?

I shall give you the particulars. There are 825 pupils at 13 English-medium high schools, 2,773 pupils at 35 English-medium primary schools, 134 pupils at two Afrikaans-medium high schools and 101 pupils at two Afrikaans-medium primary schools. They therefore receive instruction in both the official languages. I am now going to give the figures for the Cape Province. In 1966 extra classes were given to immigrants at 58 schools. The position in the Free State and Natal is the same. In addition, the technical colleges are doing a very great deal in giving lessons to immigrants by means of the language laboratories. As you know, the language laboratory is one of the modern methods of learning a language quickly. This kind of instruction is being provided at quite a number of technical colleges. I am not going to tabulate all the figures, but altogether 3,500 immigrants took courses in the Afrikaans and the English language at the technical colleges in 1966 alone. I am told that the number will be even higher this year than the 3,500 who took Afrikaans and/or English. A great deal is therefore being done. Consequently I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the radio so sneeringly. He said that insufficient use was being made of the radio. Does the hon. member never listen to the radio? He should ask the hon. member for Orange Grove to tell him of all the things that are being said over the radio. A very great deal is being done by means of the radio for the immigrants in this country. The programmes presented by the radio are commendable. These are programmes which stimulate the immigrants to show an interest in our culture and our history. The radio is one of the means which contribute to immigrants learning the two languages. On this occasion I should like to make an appeal to the immigrants on the one hand to continue to learn the two languages in this country. These newcomers will make contact with South Africa only if, in addition to English, they know Afrikaans as well; otherwise they will be unable to make contact with the heart of South Africa. In the interests of their own happiness in this country I therefore want to urge them to do so. At the same time I want to appeal to our own people to continue with their efforts to integrate immigrants in our society. We must not make reproaches in ten or 20 years’ time because the immigrants—these newcomers who came here during these years—are still keeping themselves aloof from us. I think this is our responsibility. It is the responsibility of our established population to take the necessary steps, by way of encouragement and otherwise, to draw the immigrants into our society and to encourage them so that it can be made easier for them to become South Africans. That is why I want to make this earnest appeal to our people.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked among other things: What is the objective of the Government as far as immigration is concerned? What is the figure we are aiming at? What is our pattern? We have never mentioned a specific figure we have to reach or to which we are restricted. The Government’s immigration policy and the Government’s immigration programme are aimed at attracting as many suitable, acceptable immigrants as our national economy can absorb. It is no use our getting more immigrants than our national economy can absorb, because then we will be looking for serious trouble. If we do that we will have unemployment and we will create a feeling against immigrants among the people of this country. That is the last thing we want. But, Sir, apart from the absorptive capacity in the economic field, we can only allow immigrants to come to this country provided they do not cause the composition of our people to change materially. For that reason I associate myself with those who made pleas in connection with the religious and cultural aspects. The Government regards the maintenance of the existing position as regards the religious and cultural aspects as basic to our whole attitude towards immigration. If we were to upset that proportion we would get an anti-immigration attitude among the established population in this country which will make the Government’s task infinitely more difficult in future as far as immigration is concerned. In order to prevent that we must see to it that the stream of immigrants is regulated in various suitable ways so as to maintain that pattern and to ensure that a spirit of goodwill prevails among the established population as regards the number of immigrants we still have to find. The hon. member wanted to know whether it was a long-term policy and whether we were still going to get immigrants for a long time. I cannot tell you whether it will be for another ten or 20 years. In the light of the economic development which is taking place in this country and the enormous task we have in providing our non-Whites in this country with employment opportunities and guidance, it is very clear to me that we shall have to continue for a very long time to bring suitable and skilled artisans to this country. According to the economists one skilled artisan provides employment for three unskilled workers. On that basis it has been calculated that the economically active immigrants who came into the country during 1963, 1964 and 1965 provided employment opportunities to approximately 190,000 unskilled workers, therefore mainly non-white workers. This will be South Africa’s task for many years to come. If you ask me, therefore, whether it is a long-term policy, I say that I am unable to say whether it will take another decade or two, but, according to the present needs, we will have to keep up this stream of immigrants for a long time. Because we have to continue with it, we have to see to it that the pattern in this country is not disturbed, so that our own people will not revolt against this stream which has to continue of necessity. The hon. member for East London (City) referred to the losses suffered in connection with immigrants and said that we lost 10,000 emigrants in 1966, which, according to him, was a terrible loss. Yes, 10,000 is a considerable number, but one must keep one’s perspective, after all. Allow me to put matters in the right perspective on the basis of what has happened since 1960. In 1961 we obtained 16,309 immigrants, lost 14,903 emigrants. We had a gain of only 1,406 then. In 1966 we received 41,920 immigrants. We had an additional 6,128 from the other countries, giving a total of 48,048. Our loss amounted to 9,888, resulting in a net gain— and this is significant—of 38,160. This is the largest net gain ever recorded in the history of this country. Is this not something we should be proud of and for which we should be grateful? It is nothing strange in immigration countries that people leave again after they have come to the country. That happens in all the countries, for example Australia and New Zealand. One continually reads reports of immigrants who are dissatisfied in Australia and New Zealand, the same as others feel dissatisfied in this country. This is a tendency one finds among immigrants. What counts is the actual net gain. If we consider the fact that our net gain has increased year after year, it is something we may be proud of. It is an achievement on the part of this Government that it is succeeding in integrating the immigrants in this country and making them feel happy to such an extent that we are able to keep them in this country in such large numbers.

Reference was also made to housing. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that housing was one of the main reasons for our people feeling unhappy. I concede that housing is a touchy subject in a developing country such as this one. It is true that we simply cannot keep up as far as providing adequate housing is concerned. But this is something we realize. The Government is fully aware of the position and it appreciates the necessity to provide housing, and it is at present engaged on as large and as energetic a housing programme as one may expect within the framework of our financial resources. The hon. member for Mooi River referred to Zambia. The hon. member need have no fear that we are not treating the Zambian immigrants with the necessary sympathy. From statistics alone he will be able to deduce that we are treating the people from Zambia with the utmost sympathy. Let me just tell you what the latest statistics are in respect of Zambia. In 1966 South Africa’s gain in immigrants from Zambia totalled 4,139. That is the highest from all the African states. The country having the next highest figure is Rhodesia. The largest gain from all the countries in Africa we get from Zambia. I am sympathetically disposed towards this matter and hon. members should not hesitate to submit to me or my Department any specific complaints they have in this regard. You may rest assured that attention will be given to such complaints, because we should like to give those people who want to come to this country—and as you know we do not undertake recruiting there—the opportunity to do so, because people who know Africa are an asset to South Africa. That is how we regard those people.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister started by alleging that the United Party claims that the Nationalist Party has taken over our immigration policy. That is not exactly what we say. What we say, is that we had an immigration policy which not only worked, but which was bringing to South Africa the cream of the white people of Europe and the Western world, that this Government came into power and stopped that scheme, and that after 14 years it was forced to accept that we had been right all along. All that this Government has accepted, is the principle; it has acknowledged that we were right and it is now trying to imitate and apply the policy which we applied so successfully.

But then the hon. the Minister went on to quote two tasks in respect of immigrants. The first is to absorb the immigrant into the community. Of course we agree with him. We agree with him completely. We believe that the way to absorb the immigrant into the community is to make him feel a part of South Africa, proud to be a South African and wanting to be a South African citizen, participating in and accepting his responsibilities in the affairs of South Africa. That was why we had a citizenship procedure which made acceptable immigrants from countries associated with South Africa, automatically citizens of our country, who thereby accepted the responsibilities of citizenship. I believe that one of the fields in which this Government is failing, is in trying to persuade, attract and encourage the immigrant to become a South African in every sense of the word, to accept citizenship and to play his part in every sense as a South African. They are seeking the immigrants and bringing them here. But how do they look after them a few months later? Then they throw them to society and they lose interest. I believe more should be done to encourage the immigrants to South Africa to become South Africans in every sense of the word. I have no patience with people who come to South Africa, live here, enjoy the benefits of our country and are prepared to give nothing back to the country of their adoption. They give something back when they become South Africans. I believe that in this respect there is scope for this Government to improve its policy and its attitude towards immigration.

Then the other aspect is a very delicate one, but it cannot be left where the hon. the Minister left it. He said that we should not change our national character and that we must not upset our own South Africans. But then he went on to indicate that he was not, in fact, thinking of upsetting South Africans, but he was thinking of upsetting individual groups of South Africans. I think that is where we differ fundamentally with the Government and with the Nationalist Party. In the eyes of the United Party, whether he be a South African or an immigrant, we do not judge a man by the language he speaks. We do not judge him by the country from which he comes. We have one test in the United Party. We test a man by his loyalty, his devotion and his service to South Africa. We do not ask “Where do you come from?” and we do not ask “What language do you speak?”. We do not ask him when he gets here: “Which little ‘hokkie’, which little kraal do you want to be shut up in?” We do not see the people of South Africa as isolated groups in their own kraals, shut away from each other. We see ourselves as one nation, one people, speaking different languages, with different habits, different backgrounds, but one people with one loyalty to one country. So, when we hear the hon. the Minister talk in terms of language groupings, of dividing our people into sections and upsetting the balance, then we realize how deep are the differences between the Nationalist Party and the United Party as regards our vision of the South Africa of to-morrow. We see the South Africa of to-morrow as a country populated by a white nation which has outgrown the divisions of the Anglo-Boer War, which has outgrown the bitterness and the hatred of history and which has grown into one solid unit. The hon. member for Primrose said: “We want to have immigrants here who are assimilable”. I think that on the 6th or the 10th of October of last year he stood up and attacked the integration of English and Afrikaans-speaking white people.

Nonsense!

I am not talking nonsense. The hon. member opposed the integration of English and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. He said that that integration would lead to the downfall of the white man. That is the hon. member who has the nerve to gel up in this House and talk about unity. He verified the statement which was published in the Transvaler, but he denied the headlines. When I challenged him in this House, and I quoted sections and said: “Did you say this?”, the hon. member acknowledged that he had said it. What he said was that he did not want to see integration between the Afrikaner and the Englishman in South Africa. I do not care whether the English-speaking section or the Afrikaans-speaking section comprises 5 or 10 per cent more or less. What matters, is that the South African nation should be strong. I hope that we can get away once and for all from this kraaling up of our people as if there were some strange unassimilable groups which can only assimilate if the one is prepared to bow the knee and to be absorbed by the other. We want no unity of absorption. We want the unity of equality.

The hon. member for Witbank made a strange statement. He was not going to attack the Press, because they were not here to defend themselves. I hope that the Nationalist Party will listen to that new philosophy and accept it and that we will in future find that they will abide by that fair attitude of the hon. member for Witbank, but what I disagree with, is the fact that the hon. member for Witbank blamed the statements of the Opposition for keeping immigrants out of South Africa. I think it is necessary to state clearly and unequivocally that it is not what we say in the Opposition that people listen to; it is what this Government does. Every government and every newspaper in the world has its representatives in South Africa who are their ears. They do not report what the Opposition says. They report, if they are newspapers, what their correspondents say. If they are governments, they judge by what their consulates and embassies tell them. It is not what we as Opposition say, it is what this Government does which determines the image of South Africa in the rest of the world. If this Government wants to carry on behaving as it has been behaving for the last 19 years, if it wants to continue to put on the Statute Book legislation which is abhorrent to the thinking of most of the countries of the civilized world, then it is not the fault of the Opposition because we fight that legislation. The Government has itself to blame because it puts that legislation on the Statute Book. We did not make that legislation abhorrent to the world. It was so. All we did was attack it, not because the world did not like it, but because we did not like it, because it was opposed to our beliefs, our way of thinking, our way of seeing the future, our way of believing in the rights and the freedom of the individual. Therefore it is not the United Party or the Opposition but this Government in its own actions which is to blame for any difficulty in bringing immigrants to South Africa. But I hope that those difficulties will be overcome; that the people who will come here will be people who can be assimilated as South Africans, not as Afrikaners, not as “Engelse” but as South Africans, and it is in that spirit that we of the United Party believe that immigration is one of two factors which can help to build up and strengthen the future of this country and this nation; that plus the growth and the strengthening of our own population. That is why we believe in immigration but we want those immigrants to come here as South Africans and not as sections of the South African people.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s choice of words here this afternoon when he referred to immigrants who are being brought here as the bringing out of skin and bones, was a very unfortunate one. But I do not find it strange that he should come forward with that choice of words because surely it is true that the skin and bones from Namib which the National Party threw away was snapped up by the United Party.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat once more made the charge that the National Party Government had for a very long time done nothing about immigration and that it did not actually form part of our policy to bring immigrants to South Africa. But in this regard let me remind the hon. member of a motion introduced in this House by the late Dr. Malan on 25th February, 1947, after he had already, in those years, set out the attitude of the National Party in respect of immigration very clearly. That motion read as follows—

To that he added that he rejected the then Prime Minister’s announced large-scale and State-supported State immigration scheme as being a “rash concept and disastrous in its consequences”. Sir, I think that draws a very clear dividing line between the National and the United Party as far as this matter is concerned. It is of no avail the United Party coming here to-night and trying to don their fine sanctimonious mantle. The fact of the matter remains that, as was quoted earlier this afternoon, it has been the attitude of the United Party from those earliest years, that everybody, good or bad, should be able to enter the country, and here is the proof, which is not taken from Afrikaans newspapers which favour the Government, but from their own newspapers. I want to refer the hon. members of the Opposition to the Cape Argus of 14th August, 1946, in which the entire standpoint of the late General Smuts in this respect was stated very clearly.

But the hon. member for Durban (Point) came forward with another point of view this evening, namely that they have never been much concerned about the language spoken by immigrants. But what are the facts? If we look at the immigrants who came to this country in 1946 then we see that 7,400 came from Great Britain, in other words English-speaking persons; only 200 came from Holland, and from Belgium and Germany together, only 27. In 1947 there were 27,604 immigrants from Great Britain, a meagre 1,066 from Holland, 119 from Belgium and only 28 from Germany. But in 1948 this trend continued and 25,513 came from Great Britain. In other words, the previous year had not been an exception, and from Holland only 2,753 came; 300 from Belgium; and 12 from Germany.

Mr. Chairman, then it is the United Party that informs us that it makes no difference to which language group immigrants belong. But here we have irrefutable proof that they only had one purpose in mind, and that was to bring those immigrants to South Africa who would support their point of view.

Earlier on reference was also made here to the negative role which the Afrikaans newspapers were supposed to have played. In support of this newspaper reports were quoted this evening, but I am also going to quote from newspaper headlines to prove the contrary, to prove that the newspapers which are favourably disposed towards this Government are making a contribution to educate our people outside to accept the immigrants. Here I have for example Die Vaderland of 17th August, 1956: “Religion will not go under”. That appeared in large banner headlines. Here I have Die Burger of 10th March, 1960: “Industry guarantees work for extra immigrants”. Then I quote from Die Burger of 20th February, 1951: “Only the best for South Africa: The immigration policy of the Government”. Here I have Die Transvaler of 3rd October, 1958: “South Africa needs 10,000 immigrants per year: Can absorb 15,000.”. Here I have Die Burger of 31st March, 1955: “Propaganda and immigration”, an article in which they contribute in a very positive way to creating the right climate for immigration. Sir, so I can continue and quote one example after another to indicate how the newspapers have in a very positive way made their contribution to prepare our people to receive immigrants. But the same cannot be said of the English Press. What is the role which is being played by the English Press? Here it is: “Nat. row over settlers. London on immigration”. So the one after the other can be quoted. Here is a large banner headline: “Basic Nationalist principle at stake.”. This is done to sow suspicion. But, Mr. Chairman, the best one, the one which takes the cake, is probably this one: “Through immigration each year a town the size of Kroonstad is being added to South Africa”. Mr. Chairman, what is the purpose of that? It is being done for one purpose only, and that is to create the impression amongst our people that they are going to be deprived of their living if the Government should continue bringing immigrants into the country on the present scale. I want to say again, Mr. Chairman, that the people outside will take note of the attitude of the United Pary in regard to immigration over the years. They have never had good intentions in regard to this matter. If they were in favour of immigration—and we do not deny it—then it was only with one purpose in mind, namely to plough South Africa’s traditional principles under by means of the people they wanted to bring in.

As regards the position of Afrikaans, I just want to say that it is after all true and it cannot be denied that if an immigrant wants to come to South Africa and he is at least mentally prepared beforehand to master Afrikaans, inter alia at a later stage, then his integration into our circumstances and into our people here will be so much easier. But associated with that is another matter which is of equal importance and that is if that prospective immigrant is spiritually prepared to despise Afrikaans, if he is mentally prepared to despise the Afrikaans-speaking person and wants to have nothing to do with him, then he comes here under the impression that he is superior to the Afrikaans-speaking person and in that way it will never be possible to create a co-existence which will be favourable to the immigrant. If such a situation has arisen or is arising the cause must be sought with the United Party and its Press. To ensure that I am not accused of generalizing I want to prove that what I have just said is correct and that this is the actual state of affairs. Here we have the proof of this in the Sunday Times of 11th November, 1962. They say here that people are leaving South Africa on a large scale because they have a “dislike for the Nationalist Government and the Nationalist policy”, and because they fear for their future here. Mr. Chairman, I have never heard any member of the United Party subsequently say that what the newspaper wrote there was nonsense and that the United Party dissociated itself from what had been said. [Time expired.]

I find a few of the remarks made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in this debate very regrettable ones to have been made at this juncture. I find his by now familiar skin-and-bone reference to immigrants and his references to reports in the Afrikaans Press in particular quite deplorable, because what do those references of his to the Afrikaans newspapers in particular amount to?

Government newspapers.

I will accept that that is how the hon. member meant it, but I should like to point out to the hon. member that he spoke about the “Afrikaans newspapers”.

No.

For all practical purposes it would have made no difference even if he had described them as being newspapers which kindly disposed towards the Government because the impression which is created in the outside world, while we are trying to draw good immigrants to South Africa, is that immigrants are unwelcome here.

Mr. Chairman, let us to-night, before we come to the question of how we must deal with the entry of immigrants, obtain clarity once and for all in regard to the question which has been raised in this debate, i.e. whether this Government’s policy in respect of immigration is a slavish imitation of the old United Party policy? Is it, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout put it, a radical change of policy, or is it a policy which is soberly attuned to the requirements of South Africa, taking into consideration the ability of the local population to absorb the immigrants coming here and making them feel at home in this country. Let us just go back to the time before this Government came into power. The hon. member for Mooi River also said here to-night that this Government had been asleep for 20 years and the hon. member for East London (City) said that the Government had deliberately put a stop to immigration.

Yes.

The hon. member says “yes” but that stimulates me to ask that hon. member what he had to say about immigration round about the year 1948. At that time the hon. member for East London (City), in the same way as hon. members on this side of the House felt that the policy of immigration, as announced by the Government of that day and as quoted here to-night by hon. members on this side of the House, was in the first place aimed at bringing immigrants out here who came for the most part from one of our parent countries; this has also been proved here to-night by means of figures. The intention was to bring immigrants mainly from one of our parent countries. In addition immigrants from that parent country could obtain the franchise after only two years in this country. This played a very great part in the objectives of the then United Party Government which realized that there was an emerging nationalistic movement here, specifically Afrikaner Nationalism, which they would have to oppose. Every clear-thinking person could do nothing else than to see in this a calculated attempt, as it was subsequently also expressed in words by members of the then United Party Government, to put a section of this nation out of action at the ballot box, and that is why it was obvious that the nation would reject that policy, as it in fact did.

But now we come to the policy in respect of immigration which the National Party Government has followed since 1948. The hon. member for Mooi River said we had been asleep and the hon. member for East London said that we had closed the door to immigration. That is not the truth. The National Party has always believed that our population must be supplemented by adaptable and assimilable immigrants, the best we could get, but we adopted the attitude that that mass immigration scheme which had been announced by the previous Government to allow immigrants to enter in their thousands and in their millions, subsidized by the State, was not a suitable one at that time. We said that those who wanted to come and who had been approved were welcome and they have been coming for years. If, in the opinion of hon. members on the opposite side, an insufficient number of immigrants entered the country during that time, they must remember how they presented the picture of South Africa under the Nationalist Government overseas. Then one is quite surprised that any people at all came during that period because it is no secret that during that time they succeeded in talking people into leaving the country, they talked them into fleeing to Australia and elsewhere, but those people discovered their error after a considerable time and returned to South Africa because they discovered that they had been misled by hon. members on the opposite side. I say that there was a policy here of “let them come”, and now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is saying that there has been a radical change in the Government policy. But he himself has said that he prefers natural immigration, those who come without special encouragement by the State in terms of a scheme to those who come in terms of such schemes. But were we not reproached, during the years just subsequent to 1948, with having cancelled the subsidized scheme of the United Party and having said that those who wanted to come were welcome but that there should not at that stage be a subsidized scheme? Hon. members have sung songs in praise of those whom we lost during that time and whom other countries gained. The hon. member for East London (City) may as well check his figures. He said that those countries doubled their population in a short period. That puts me in mind of what is sometimes said, that figures do not lie, and then what follows on that? But I want to remind the hon. member of the fact that during the same time, while Australia was obtaining many immigrants who had been subsidized by their Government she also had many problems which were insurmountable, the reason for that being that they did at that time what the United Party tried to do here. They let the good and the bad come in. I say that even if the Government, at this stage, now that we need manpower, is intensifying our immigration policy and does in fact have a subsidized scheme, then we still adhere to the policy which we have always adhered to, by believing that we need the best and that we must open our doors only to the best and that they should come in in the numbers which we need.

As a member on the Government side I should like to say that we do have room for immigrants and that it behoves us and is in fact our duty to welcome them here. I speak as a person who has played an active part here in Cape Town over a number of years in one of these committees which were mentioned here to-night in welcoming immigrants. The hon. member here behind me is doing the same thing in Pretoria and over there sits the hon. member for Primrose, who was referred to sneeringly to-night, who is Chairman of the S.A. Kultuurakademie and who makes it his specific task to welcome immigrants and integrate them into our population. That example is there for everyone to follow. There are also people outside who are sometimes critical of the immigrants and who feel that it is their particular task to say something about immigrants. But here is a field waiting for us to-day, it is our task to draw immigrants and to do all that is necessary to make them feel welcome.

I have referred to those organizations. It is possible for them to do even more, and with the co-operation and support from the population I believe that they will be able to do even more, particularly to let immigrants feel, by means of national festivals, that they are welcome in South Africa. We want them here as citizens, and good use has been made of that over the past years. I should like to refer to the service which is being rendered by the Adult Education Division of the Department of Education, Arts and Science in making our immigrants aware of the need for becoming acquainted with both our languages, but tonight I want to plead, through this hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Education, that even more be done in this regard. Our immigrants are concentrated mostly in the urban complexes and there it is possible for one to bring the immigrants together with less difficulty in order to make these amenities available to them. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Stellenbosch made reference here to remarks I had made in connection with Australia, which has doubled its population since 1948. I want to challenge him to examine those figures. They have been more than doubled. The number in 1948 was less than 5 million. But I really want to deal with something else. It concerns the question of our countries of origin and that in the past we as the United Party were supposed not to have wanted immigrants from those countries. Where else would we have got them if not from our countries of origin? Would we have got them from Britain, or is there another accusation against the United Party, namely that we did perhaps want to get them from Japan? The hon. member for Springs said that we wanted to get immigrants who would undermine South Africa’s traditional principles. I am asking you, Sir, whether we have a different sort of policy in connection with immigration to-day? The hon. the Minister mentioned figures. I should like to mention them, too. Those 48,000 in 1966, where did they come from? Of that number, 17,300 came from Great Britain and 8,700 from Portugal, and these already add up to 26,000 out of the total of 48,000. Are they our countries of origin? Do the 9,000 Portuguese come from our mother country? But it suits us to have immigrants from Portugal, and this side of the House has endorsed that step wholeheartedly —irrespective of whether or not it is our mother country and irrespective of whether or not they are Roman Catholic—because, as we debated earlier this evening, they have white skins. That is the only way to keep the white population in this country going, by immigrants and more immigrants and still more immigrants. I am not to be deterred by the argument concerning housing. The hon. member for Stellenbosch spoke of the problems Australia experienced in connection with their extensive immigration drive, when from 1950 to 1960 they received immigrants from Austria, West Germany, Spain and Italy. In the days when I still wandered about a great deal, I pleaded with the previous Minister of Immigration and said that there were 7 million Italians who wanted to immigrate, and I wanted to know whether we could not do something about it. The reply was always the same, namely that we would undermine Afrikaans traditions by having these people, because they are of a different religious persuasion. But what does the Government say now? Listen to what the Minister of Defence said—

We never even pleaded for semi-schooled labour, but this plea for semi-schooled labour to replace the Bantu here, is now being made by the Government. The Minister does not even mention that selective immigration should be applied. He goes much further than that. What did one of our great industrialists say? He said that what made him sad was that those who were objecting to white immigration, were also objecting to brown clerks or Coloured postmen. That is what Dr. Anton Rupert said at the industrial exhibition in Port Elizabeth, and then he continued by arguing the necessity of also providing those people with employment, these citizens of the country who are here. But the fact remains that it is no use saying that this Government did its best for immigration from 1948 up to the fifties. They smothered this thing, deliberately, and they said that the Afrikaans traditions had to be established firmly first. But this thing has its fruits and in years to come we shall still be reaping its bitter fruits, now that the black man is being incited in this country and we are being threatened by this danger.

We shall never be able to make up that backlog again. It is a backlog that we shall have over the years.

I see no chance of our ever being able to change this ratio, unless we have an immigration programme which states whether the person should be able to speak English or Afrikaans within one year and of what religious persuasion the person has to be, as long as he is a citizen who can adapt himself to this country, as long as he can contribute socially to the Whites, as long as he has a white skin to reinforce the numbers—50,000 a year, and in ten years’ time, 500,000, if we can keep it up. What is the increase in the non-white population in this country over the same period? Is it something with which we can keep pace? I say that the greatest possible rate of immigration that we can have, should be maintained, even if it does have the effect it had in Australia according to the hon. member for Stellenbosch. They had tremendous inflation. They did not have houses for these people. They have to live in wooden houses, but what is the result? A population that has grown so large. They no longer have those problems to-day.

The hon. the Minister referred to “new Australians”. Yes, they do have “new Australians”, and to-day they are going so far as to stipulate that an industry that applies to the State for a licence, may only be licensed —in the case of one industry of which I know —if it obtains 80 per cent of its technical labour by way of immigration. What did they do? In the paint section of that factory, which I visited a short while ago, they have 93 per cent Italians, immigrants, otherwise they could not establish that factory. That was the condition the Government laid down because they had a manpower shortage. They are telling the people that they will only be licensed as an industry if they obtain a certain percentage of their technical staff abroad.

In that way they are building up their country by way of immigration, irrespective of what the person’s religious persuasion is, just as long as he can adapt himself to the country. For heaven’s sake, if a person can go to America and having lived there for two years, he is an American and nobody asks where he came from, and he is proud of being an American, then we should adopt the same attitude to our immigrants, all of us, Afrikaans and English-speaking people, not so? It should not matter what church the immigrants belong to, but having lived here for a year or two, they should be able to be proud of the fact that they are South Africans and they should not say that they come from England or from Germany. The fact remains that we shall still get the major portion of our immigrants from Britain, but we hope that even they will become good South Africans within a short while.

I was still saying that we should be very careful in respect of immigration, especially here in South Africa, and I said that we should not forget that on the international level, as far as immigration is concerned, there is a well-organized council of which most countries are members and of which South Africa is a highly honoured and respected member. We ought to take note of that. The countries that are associated with that body pay very close attention to what is being said about immigration in the homelands, and if such statements are made they may not only embarrass our country with that body, but they may also have very awkward and even bad consequences for us, particularly in respect of the recruitment of immigrants in our mother countries, which is precisely what we should like to promote. Therefore we appeal for caution to be exercised in connection with statements on immigration in South Africa, and for use to be made of existing Government channels.

I want to point out that if one studies immigration closely, it is not at all as simple a matter as hon. members are trying to give out here. On the contrary, immigration can be a very complicated and awkward problem. In the 300 years of its existence America has received no fewer than 42 million immigrants, and with the aid of those immigrants the Americans have built up a nation of roughly 200 million at present. No less a person than the late President Kennedy made a very close study of immigration, and after his death a very interesting book that he had written on that subject. A Nation of Immigrants, was published. If one looks at immigration more closely, it will not be so easy simply to fling accusations to and fro in the way the United Party tried to do here this afternoon—for instance, the accusation that at one stage the National Party allowed immigration to stagnate to such an extent that a multitude of horrors will be visited upon us in the future. Where immigration is concerned, matters such as the economic position of one’s country and the absorptive power of one’s population are topical matters and it will be the height of stupidity simply to ignore these aspects blindly.

I want to plead to-night for a new approach amongst us to immigration in general. This new approach must begin with the realization that immigration is a sphere of which a proper study should be made in the first place, not only by our members of the House of Assembly, but also by people outside this House. We must see this matter for what it is—a matter with which we shall have to contend for many long years in the future. As we acquire more knowledge in this respect, we shall be able to pursue a dynamic immigration policy with more wisdom and insight, perhaps to a greater extent than has been the position in the past. I want to repeat that immigration is most decidedly not as easy as certain hon. members tried to give out here to-night. In Britain for instance, immigration cause far more problems at the moment than it does in this country. And I do not even want to mention America and the immigration problems they have had to cope with over the years.

Another point I want to emphasize is that it is not only the Government that has a duty towards immigrants—it is also the bounden duty of the nation to see to it that the new South Africans we are bringing into this country are assimilated at all levels. Here I want to plead for a more positive approach amongst our people as regards assimilating new South Africans into our national life in general. Reference was made here to the Suid-Afrikaans Kultuurakademie. There we find— and we have been engaged in doing that for a number of years—that there are four simple, common levels into which these new South Africans can easily be assimilated and in which they can feel at home among both Afrikaans and English-speaking people. As a matter of fact, these four levels are so obvious that mentioning them is almost a platitude. These four levels are: folk-singing, folk-music, folk-dancing and folk-lore. There is a fifth, namely sport. But that can, of course, not be practised indoors. In July last year I conducted a course for immigrant leaders at Glenmore Beach. That course was attended by 180 children of whom 130 were immigrant children between the ages of 12 and 16. All of them were selected children. And do you know what we found there? Those children did not ask us to be permitted to twist, for instance, or for those modern forms of amusement. But do you know what they asked for? They asked for permission to do their own traditional folk-dancing, the folk-dancing they did in their countries of origin. That is a perfectly natural thing. I mention this to point out that these common levels are levels on which we can make good progress as regards the assimilation of immigrants into our national life. I am advocating more of this type of thing so that new South Africans may be assimilated into our national life. In America and in Great Britain it has been proved that as one succeeds in creating amongst new South Africans a climate, a spirit and an attitude which will make them desire to be South Africans in the first place and to be properly bilingual in the second place, our nation will become ripe for absorbing greater numbers of them. That is what we have to aspire to.

I want to admit that earlier in this debate I expressed myself sharply, and if I have been too sharp, I apologize. At any rate. I meant to be humorous rather than mean. But I was disappointed. I remember that last year when this Vote was discussed I also succeeded the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, as I am doing now. My words at the time were that it did not happen every day that we on this side of the House could agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Nevertheless, it gave me great pleasure to agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on that occasion. At that stage we found that the Opposition was adopting a very sensible attitude to immigration. That is why I was all the more disappointed at the attitude they adopted this afternoon. Immigration is something which is very near to my heart, because after all is said and done, the future of our country and our people are at stake here. That is why I am pleading that we should not exploit this matter politically. Any child can do that, of course, because i is very simple. But I am telling you that in this respect we are dealing with people—dear, fine people. After all, our nation was built up in that way.

I could be accused of many things, but there is one thing of which I cannot be accused: I view immigration in too serious a light and I hope that I shall not render myself guilty of making political capital out of it. Consider, for instance, the Bantu question in South Africa. It has become a political question, and generations in South Africa are paying for that. That is why I plead that we should not make immigration another political issue. We on this side of the House would not like to do so, and that is why we are courteously asking the Opposition to refrain from any politicking in this regard. We are not so blind that we cannot see how we may slant these things a little and exploit them politically. But we do not want to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I could hardly believe my own ears when I heard what the hon. member for Primrose said at the end of his speech. He said, “hy will die Opposisie mooi vra” not to make a political issue out of immigration. Then he also said, “Dit moet nie ’n politieke saak wees nie”. It amazes me to hear words like that coming from this hon. member. Earlier on he said he might have appeared “bitter” in his earlier speech although he said he meant it in a “grapperige” way.

I said I might have been a bit sharp.

Yes, but the position is that when this hon. member realizes he said the wrong things he explains that he did not mean it that way. But everything he said in his first speech he meant and we realized he meant it. What is more, that is the way in which he has been talking right throughout his political career. Now to come and ask us not to make a political matter out of this … What a shocking thing! [Interjection.] I do not know what remark the hon. Minister of Tourism passed to the hon. member. However, that hon. Minister will remember that in 1948-’49 he sat on this side of the House. Therefore he will remember that the then Minister of the Interior, Dr. Dönges, scrapped General Smuts’ immigration plan. How did the hon. the Minister of Tourism feel then? He felt with us—he damned what the Minister of the Interior did then, didn’t he? Mr. Chairman, now the hon. the Minister sits “tjoepstil”.

Mr. Chairman, am I allowed to be anything but “tjoepstil”?

He sat with us then and agreed with every criticism we levelled against the Nationalist Party. But not only he sat with us then but also the present Minister of Immigration, Mr. Trollip. He also sat with us and agreed with everything we said. If the Minister of Tourism now says he did not agree with us when we attacked the Government’s immigration policy in 1948 then he must have changed his policy because now he agrees with the policy we had in 1948 and in connection with which we criticized the Government for abandoning it. But he changes his mind so often that I doubt whether he knows where he is. At one stage in 1948 he was with us in criticizing the Government for scrapping General Smuts’ immigration policy; then he became a Nationalist and agreed with the Nationalist Party that we should not have immigration, but now that the Government is accepting General Smuts’ plan he goes back again. He is going this way and that way all the time.

Like a yo-yo

I think I have to remind the hon. the Minister what happened in 1948.

What Vote are you talking about?

I am talking about immigration—a word that was hated by the Nationalist Party in 1948; a word they did not want to know. I doubt whether the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who asked me this question, supports the Government’s policy in regard to immigration as it is being applied at the present moment. I very much doubt that, especially when we remember what his attitude was before he came into Parliament and the opinions he then expressed. Then I wonder whether he is in favour of the present Minister’s policy of bringing in more British immigrants than any others. I doubt whether he is so happy about that because I notice he is not smiling now. I am probably reminding him of a distasteful subject. But I want to remind the hon. the Minister of Tourism …

Making your speech for you.

I want to remind him of what happened, of what Dr. Malan’s policy was. The hon. member for Koedoespoort quoted from it.

Order! It seems to me that there are members here who are looking for trouble.

I appeal to you, Sir, to allow a little bit of “moeilikheid”, because without “moeilikheid” there can be no debate. However, when Dr. Malan was still in opposition he moved a motion to the effect that this House welcomed the strengthening of the European population of this country by immigration properly controlled by effective immigration laws of suitable and assimilable elements from overseas. He, however, disapproved of large-scale State-aided immigration announced by the then Prime Minister as being “imprudent in concept and disastrous in consequence”. What, then, was this State-aided immigration policy of General Smuts? You will remember, Sir, that he had come to an arrangement with Union Castle to set aside ships, I think two, to bring immigrants to South Africa. There was such a flow of immigrants to this country that there were no berths available for them on ships. So they could not come. General Smuts then arranged for two ships to be set aside solely for the conveyance of immigrants. He gave Union Castle the assurance that if those ships had to go back empty because there were not enough visitors going overseas the South African Government would pay for the empty berths.

When Dr. Dönges cancelled the Smuts agreement he thanked the Union Castle Company for allowing the agreement to be cancelled, because he said he did not agree with State-aided immigration; he did not agree with the South African government being prepared to pay the Union Castle Company in respect of empty berths. The Government objected to paying for the empty berths, not for the passage of the people coming to this country. General Smuts asked him whether he had had to pay for any, and he replied no, it did not cost the Government a penny. The crux of Dr. Malan’s objection to immigration was that he was against state-aided immigration on a large scale. We read the other day that the Government hoped to get 40,000 immigrants a year—that is what it was aiming at. We got 38,000 last year. I want to ask the Minister whether his Department has worked out how many immigrants we can absorb in a year. What plans have they got? When we asked the present Minister of Immigration—because the Minister now in charge of this Vote is only acting—if this country could absorb the 50,000 per year which was said was required, he replied, “I do not know”. Now, what sort of planning is that? What sort of planning is that when the Minister does not even know whether we can absorb 50,000 immigrants or not? Is the department better equipped now? Does it know how many we can absorb? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has attacked the Department and the Government—not the Department so much, but the Government— for not providing for these people, for not taking extra steps to see that houses are supplied for immigrants. What is this Department doing to cater for the immigrants that we are asking to come to this country? I heard an hon. member saying just now that in getting immigrants, we must keep our national character. How are we keeping our national character? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has made any provision to get our immigrants from certain “stamlande” or not? In Australia they kept their national character, because it is a British territory, by ensuring that over 50 per cent of their immigrants in any one year had to be from Britain. That is how they have kept their national character. I want to know, in view of the remarks made by a certain hon. member on the Government side whether this Government is taking any steps to see that we keep our national character. Are we seeing to it that we obtain the majority of our immigrants from our “stamlande”? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London (City) once again came with the reproach that this Government had deliberately smothered immigration in 1948. Normally I would not embark upon this purely political field, but I see that every single speaker on the United Party side is only too eager to give this matter a political complexion; therefore I think that as far as these allegations of smothering immigration are concerned, you might as well, just for a change, listen properly to our side of the matter.

It is true that after 1948 we did not have the immigration we have to-day. But there were sound reasons for that. There were three very important reasons, which I want to mention to you now. The first reason why this Government could not launch a large-scale immigration drive after 1948, was because of the attitude of our people in this country who were entirely antagonistic to immigration, owing to the United Party’s statements on immigration. During its regime the United Party gave us to understand that if the National Party did not keep silent, it would plough the National Party under by way of immigration. These are the words the United Party used. [Interjections.] They said that time and again, and I have more than enough quotations in that regard to prove that it is so. General I. P. de Villiers, the then Chairman of the Immigrants’ Selection Board, said so; General Smuts said so; Colonel Deneys Reitz said so. I myself, in my capacity as a newspaperman, was present in the Boksburg Town Hall when Colonel Reitz used these words. On that evening the Nationalists became rebellious, and he pointed his finger at them and said: “You Nationalists over there, we shall bring in immigrants to plough y9u under!” That is what Colonel Deneys Reitz said in the Boksburg Town Hall on the evening when I as a newspaperman was there to report that meeting. That is why it is of no avail to come up with denials now. The leaders of the United Party at that time made out of immigration a political whip to be used against the Afrikaner, and when we came to power in 1948, we had to contend with our National-Afrikaner opinion which was anti-immigration. The attitude we adopted was anti-immigration because of the United Party’s incitement in this regard for years. Consequently the Government could not launch an immigration plan overnight, not on the scale we have it at present.

There were also a second and a third reason. We could not bring immigrants to this country unless our economic development was such that it could absorb those immigrants. That links up with the question which the hon. member put a moment ago and to which I shall presently return, namely whether we have a plan in respect of immigrants. The economic absorptive power of the country must be such that we can have immigrants. There is also a third reason: We had to see to it that there was adequate housing in the country. We cannot allow people to come to our country if we do not have housing for them. If that were allowed, one would simply be creating for oneself a source of agitation against the regime and against the immigrants.

Because of these three factors the National Government could not launch a vigorous immigration scheme when it came to power in 1948. It took us years to put the minds of our people at ease, as it were, and to educate them in this regard, after the United Party had poisoned their whole realm of thought against immigration during the years they were in power.

Now we have fortunately overcome that difficulty, and we are glad that there is a different attitude amongst our people at present. I want to associate myself with the pleas the hon. member for Primrose made in this regard, a plea that as regards immigration there should be a more positive attitude in our country. We shall always have to make that plea in this country, year after year. One finds that in all countries. One can take all countries, be it America or Australia, but one will always find that there is amongst people a sort of natural resistance to a mass of newcomers from outside. Not to mention the position when people are incited, as the United Party did when it was in power! There is that natural resistance amongst people to a mass of foreigners, and for that reason we shall always have to bring this matter home to our people by way of guidance, persuasion and propaganda. We must bring that home.

What about the Press?

Yes, the Press on all sides should act with the greatest measure of responsibility in this regard. That is why this question of the national character is of so much importance. The hon. member for Transkei referred to it once again as if it is something sinister, something national-sectional. In my explanation a moment ago I stated that it is the aim of this Government to retain our cultural and religious pattern and character, and that we always want to regulate our flow of immigrants so as to retain that national character. A national character is not something that one can describe in exact terms. The national character is something to which we in this country can testify as people who are living in this country. It is our way of life, our faith, our attitude to basic things. These things determine a national character. These are not matters which one can determine mathematically. That national character must be retained, and if one is going to have an inflow of so many people who, be it by way of numbers, be it by way of a different nature, will affect that character, then one finds that resistance mounts up amongst one’s own people, resistance which may hamper the entire effort launched by a Government. That is why one must regulate this flow with constant understanding so that it may not disrupt the national character.

I should also like to support a further plea that was made by the hon. member for Primrose, namely that we should really make a study of the problems arising in connection with assimilating immigrants and the effects thereof in our country. This is a matter to which we do not have all the answers. The task of the State is to a large extent that of providing these people with employment. We must employ them here. Once they have been employed, the task of the State has actually been concluded. It is not the task of the State to maintain an after-care service for seeing to it that these new-comers are assimilated. That is beyond the power of a state. That is where local communities should do their share. The hon. member for Primrose is one of the people who does a tremendously great deal in this field. In spite of the disparaging remarks the hon. member for Transkei made about him. I can testify, as one who knows the work the hon. member is doing, that in this field he does a tremendously great deal to accustom immigrants and their children to our South African way of life, to acquaint them with that, to have them assimilated. This assimilation work is not a task that can be performed by one single body only. This process of integrating new citizens with our country, should be done by the public by means of the various organizations they have. We cannot only have one organization in Johannesburg or Cape Town to effect this assimilation. We as South Africans must really be immigrant-conscious and assimilation-conscious. But we should not only be conscious; we should also be prepared to do our share through the organizations to which we belong so as to draw and assimilate these people into our cultural life and our society. That is why I am making this appeal once again, because this is the surest method whereby we shall make good South Africans out of these people.

Now the hon. member for Transkei wants to know what our plans are in regard to immigration. Can we absorb 50,000? To me that is indeed a very silly question. We have here the numbers I mentioned to you. Our net gain is 48,000. We shall not allow these people to come here to walk about in the streets, to laze about and to do nothing. The people who come here—and hon. members ought to know that by now—are selected people. They are skilled people. They come here to do work that we have for them. We do not wait until they have arrived here before we start seeking employment for them while they have to sit idle here for months. They come here because there is work for them in this country. That is why we need not ask what will happen to these people. Once we start recruiting unskilled persons in unlimited numbers, we may put that question. The people who come here, do so because we can absorb them, and we bring them here in such numbers as are in keeping with the absorptive power of this country. That is why hon. members need not be afraid that we shall proceed in such an unsystematic way that the numbers we have here will present us with a problem. Those numbers are being determined in accordance with our actual needs. The task that awaits us—and with this I want to conclude—is to make these people feel so at home and so happy in this country of ours that they will never want to go back, and that they and their children will become good South Africans in this country.