Mr. Speaker, I wish to amend my motion in respect of the Railway and Harbour Fund, in the case of which there is no longer a deficit, but a surplus. I therefore move the motion as printed on the Order Paper, but with the amendment in the last item, which will now read “and to provide for the disposal of surplus revenue of the Railway and Harbour Fund”.

Agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

Last night I had a few words to say about section 12A (2), which provides—

I cannot quite follow this provision dealing with penalties. I do not know who is going to be charged. Last night the hon. the Minister did say that he thought it would be the captain of the ship who brought a ship into port, but surely the penalty will be imposed upon those who do not provide sufficient security. I do not know how the Minister intends suing the United States’ Government if one of their submarines comes into port. I do not want to prolong the discussion but I should be grateful if the hon. the Minister would clarify this provision relating to penalties.

As the hon. members aware I referred in my Second Reading speech to certain other clauses in this particular Bill where very wide powers are given to the Minister. We are at the moment in contact with different countries to see what they are doing in this matter, and between the Minister of Finance and myself we will be able to draw up more detailed regulations in this regard. As I pointed out yesterday, the captain of a ship is always in charge of the ship, and under this particular clause, as in the case of all other clauses in which a penalty is provided for, the Attorney-General will decide who is to be prosecuted. It is not foreseen that in practice there will ever be a prosecution. It will be a matter of arrangement between two countries, and that is why we have this very wide proviso. If there is any question of prosecuting then, of course, the prosecution will be instituted by the Attorney-General in the ordinary course of events.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title of the Bill put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The existing Atomic Energy Act, 1948 (Act No. 35 of 1948), was placed on the Statute Book approximately 20 years ago and since that time the Act has been amended no less than eight times. As it has once more become necessary to effect amendments—mainly as a result of the progressive shift in emphasis from the purely military to the wider, industrial utilization of nuclear energy—it has been decided to redraft the entire Act, incorporating the many amendments which have already been effected, and to substitute a new Act for the present one.

Therefore the Bill now before this House is not merely a consolidating but also an amending measure, and in the course of my speech I shall briefly indicate and elucidate the most important proposed amendments or changes.

I should like to say a few words in regard to the background. Two decades ago world interest in uranium derived almost exclusively from the fact that it could be used as a source for an explosive in the manufacture of atomic bombs. Fear of the destructive potential of nuclear weapons was predominant and therefore we, as well as all the other principal uranium producing countries of the world, found it necessary to pass drastic legislation for the strict control of the source material. For understandable reasons, the Atomic Energy Act, which saw the light in that era and under those circumstances, is therefore of an extremely restrictive nature—so much so that even the ownership in all uranium (or prescribed material) which has been mined vests in the Atomic Energy Board on behalf of the State in order to place the firmness of control beyond any doubt.

In addition it is provided that the sole right to prospect or mine for any prescribed material, or to deal with it in virtually any other respect, vests in the State and, except with special authority, private persons are prohibited to prospect or mine for or otherwise deal with any prescribed material.

Although military interest in nuclear energy naturally endures and nuclear weapons have unfortunately not been banned as yet, it is nevertheless true that since the conclusion of peace after World War II, the civilized world has begun applying itself industriously to the utilization of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and so much progress has been made in that direction that we at present find ourselves on the eve of the utilization of nuclear energy on a larger scale. In other words, at the moment a distinct shift from military to industrial development is taking place in the field of nuclear energy.

With the increasing development and utilization of nuclear energy, particularly for the generation of electricity, the demand for uranium is definitely increasing once more and according to recent estimates the world consumption of uranium—for peaceful purposes only—will amount to approximately 70,000 tons per annum by 1980. As a matter of fact, various persons in authority have already issued warnings that unless new deposits of this very important raw material are discovered and developed, there will be a world shortage of uranium before the end of this century. Some experts even speak of existing reserves being completely exhausted by the early eighties.

In its sources of uranium the Republic of South Africa has one of its most important national assets, one which has earned it more than R900 million in foreign exchange over the past 15 years, but our own known reserves are not inexhaustible either. It is in our interest to locate additional sources and to extend and develop our uranium industry in other respects as well, particularly with a view to the further processing in South Africa of the product we have been marketing up to now mainly in the form of uranium oxide. At present, however, progress in this direction is being hampered to a certain extent by the existing Act, and one of the principal objects of this Bill is therefore to delete or amend certain of the hampering provisions but without prejudice to South Africa’s obligations or commitments in this connection with countries abroad and also with the retention of local control in so far as that is necessitated by the national interest and by the security of the country.

Then I should also like to say a few words in regard to the proposed changes. In the course of a Second Reading Speech it is from the nature of the case not possible for me to indicate and explain all the provisions of this Bill which differ from the provisions of the existing Act. Many of them are of an insignificant and minor nature and are, in any event, elucidated in a memorandum which I have caused the Department of Mines to draw up and which are available in both official languages to hon. members who are interested. I shall therefore confine myself to some of the more important proposed changes only.

As regards prospecting and mining (clause 5), I have already pointed out that it is necessary for us to prospect for additional sources of uranium. At present, however, there is no freedom to prospect for uranium or for “source material”, to use the terminology of the Bill. It appears that the expression “source material” is in use throughout the world and therefore we are also using it in this Bill. Furthermore, it is not possible to negotiate options to prospect for source material with the holders of rights to base minerals in the usual way, because under the present dispensation such holders do not have the necessary authority either. This state of affairs, as well as the provision to which I have already referred, namely that the ownership of all mined source material vests in the State, not only discourages prospecting but also hampers the acquisition by the mining industry of the large amount of capital required for the further development of our uranium industry—particularly for the further local processing of the product we want to market.

Therefore the ownership in mined source material is now being transferred by the State, as has been done in Canada and the United States of America, and in this respect the legislation links up with the principles of our modern Mining Rights Act, which was passed at the beginning of this session, so that the ownership in the mined material may henceforth vest in the person who or the mining company which has mined such material.

In actual fact the present dispensation merely creates a fictitious ownership for the State —it is important that hon. members take note of this—without much merit or use, because in actual practice the mining companies themselves bear all the costs involved in the mining of source material and such material has always been mined by them without the State ever having taken physical possession of it. Over the past few years and at great expense the producers have therefore built up their own strong team, with the necessary skill and acumen, for promoting sales overseas.

The prospecting for and the mining of source material will henceforth, as in the case of any other base mineral, also take place in the Republic in accordance with the provisions of the Mining Rights Act, and in South West Africa, in accordance with the provisions of the Mining Ordinance in force in that territory, but with the proviso that in the case of source material additional written permission has to be obtained from the Minister of Mines. In practice, however, the latter requirement will not hamper prospecting as the Bill provides that such permission may be withheld only if the Minister is satisfied that the security of the State would be endangered by the issue of such permission to the applicant, and therefore the required permission will have to be issued freely in all but such cases.

I want to emphasize that the essential control is being retained. As source material, and what may result from it, is of such great strategic importance that it is necessary, both in the national and international spheres, to guard against its irresponsible utilization, it has, however, remained a necessity to include certain measures of control in the Bill. In this way the production of nuclear or atomic energy, except under special authority, remains prohibited (clause 3).

The prospecting for and the mining of source material requires the additional written Ministerial permission to which I have already referred (clause 5). Written authority by the Minister, which he may grant only after consultation with the Atomic Energy Board, is required for the possession, disposal, enrichment, re-processing and export of source material and special nuclear material, etc. (clause 7). Control is being retained over the use of radio-active nuclides (isotopes) for both industrial and medical purposes, as well as over the discarding of radio-active waste (clause 8).

Then I come to clause 4, which deals with the generation of electricity. This clause contains a new provision, namely that if the Atomic Energy Board receives an application from a person for permission to produce nuclear energy for the exclusive purpose of generating electricity in an area in which the Electricity Supply Commission Escom has the right to undertake the supply of electricity, the application first has to be referred to Escom so that Escom may decide—and it has to take the decision within six months—whether it itself wants to undertake the supply of electricity by means of nuclear energy in the area concerned. If so, the authority to use nuclear energy as a means of generating electricity is granted to Escom and not to the applicant. If Escom is not interested and the authority is granted to the applicant, the generation of electricity by means of nuclear energy and its distribution by such a person will be subject to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 1958. In terms of other Acts, the aforementioned Electricity Act and the Water Act, as amended, Escom has the power to expropriate and take over conventional power stations—naturally upon the payment of compensation—and as far as nuclear energy stations are concerned it is also being granted powers of expropriation in this clause.

Then I come to clause 6, which deals with the acquisition of source material by the State. As has already been said, the State is now waiving the ownership in source material which has been mined. Clause 6, however, makes provision that the State may still, when the national interests so requires, acquire by purchase, release or expropriation any source material which has been mined. The Canadian legislation contains a similar provision and this is an important provision as it is essental that the State must be in a position to acquire this strategic material for purposes of its own safe-guarding in times of emergency, and even to take possession of all supplies which have already been mined if circumstances so require.

Now, as far as the Atomic Energy Board is concerned (clause 12), the constitution of the Atomic Energy Board is being changed to some degree. Under the existing Act the Minister of Mines is the Chairman of the Board and the Secretary for Mines and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs are members ex officio. In addition there are nine other members. Therefore the total membership of the Board, including the Minister, is 12, one or more of whom will represent the mining industry, commerce, industry, the C.S.I.R. and Escom, respectively. Henceforth the Board will also consist of not more than 12 members and all the aforesaid concerns will again be represented on the Board. The Minister of Mines, however, will no longer be a member or Chairman, but will appoint a Chairman for the term of office which he, the Minister, determines. In other words, I am now relieving myself of that obligation.

When the Atomic Energy Board was first established in 1948, there certainly were sound reasons for the Minister of Mines to be Chairman. Some definite direction had to be adopted and a way had to be cleared, and these had to be constantly checked against Government policy, and consequently initial negotiations with other powers in regard to the production, the disposal and the control of source material were conducted on the highest level possible.

At present we are sailing in more familiar waters and for many years it has not really been necessary for succeeding Ministers of Mines to preside at Board meetings. Therefore it is being proposed that the Minister shall no longer be Chairman of the Board but that he be authorized to appoint a Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of the Board.

Then we come to the post of Director-General which is dealt with in clause 16 (1) (a). The post which the chief executive officer of the Atomic Energy Board occupies, has had the designation “Director-General” for a considerable period, and that is how we all know him. but now statutory provision is being made for the post. The Director-General has to perform such duties as the Board may from time to time determine and he is responsible to the Board, or to the Chairman of the Board, if the Board is not in session.

Provision is being made in clauses 32 and 33 for the protection or compensation of the staff of the Board. In terms of section 5 (1) of the Nuclear Installations Act, No. 43 of 1963, the staff of the Atomic Energy Board is covered against nuclear damage, and in clause 32 of the Bill provision is being made against special risks such as injuries or diseases suffered or contracted by a person engaged by the Board and which are attributable to ionizing radiation of any radio-active material, or to the inflammable, explosive, poisonous or special properties of such material. In addition the members of the staff of the Board who are classified as workmen under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1941, are covered by that Act, and for the rest the Board is responsible under the common law for its staff in respect of the ordinary, conventional industrial risks. In spite of this wide coverage there will probably still be certain risks in the relatively unfamiliar sphere of the nuclear industry which will still be uninsured and consequently provision is being made in clause 33 for such possible cases by means of general compensation provisions in terms of which it will be possible to award compensation in such cases on the recommendation of a committee of experts under the chairmanship of a Judge.

In general I may just say that the other aspects which are covered by the Bill are the training of scientists and engineers who are needed to continue research and to harness nuclear energy advantageously, whereas exhaustive provisions have again been included in the Bill in regard to dealing with patents relating to nuclear or atomic energy and associated matters. In the latter connection I may perhaps just refer to clauses 13 (1) (j) and 18 (1) (f) from which you will notice that it will lie possible for the Board to pay to contributors to the Board’s research funds a portion of the moneys received by the Board from the licensing or sale of certain patents. It is hoped that this concession will encourage contributions to the research fund.

I trust that I have clarified the most important changes contemplated by the Bill to a sufficient extent and that hon. members who desire further information will find the more detailed summary of the Department useful.

We on this side of the House will support this Bill and I want to take the opportunity now of thanking the hon. the Minister for the memorandum he has prepared for us, which has made the interpretation of this Bill much easier. I also want to take the opportunity at this time of expressing my thanks and the thanks of this side of the House to the officials of his Department, who have always been very helpful to us and have always given our requests a courteous hearing and have done everything in their power to meet our representations.

The question we are dealing with to-day is one which depends on the production and the disposal of uranium, in the main. This is one of our minerals which we have been blessed with, but in contrast to the large amount of gold we have, where we produce approximately 70 per cent of the world’s output, in regard to uranium our output is much less. It is said by the Agency for International Atomic Energy, which is based in Vienna, that 17 per cent of the world’s uranium comes from Africa, and the three main countries in Africa supplying uranium are South Africa, Madagascar and Gabon. To give a picture of what is happening in the world of nuclear energy, countries such as Egypt and Tunisia have already begun nuclear energy projects and they are already using nuclear energy instead of electricity, and they are desalinating water through nuclear energy projects. We here are faced with the prospect of being able to mine a greater amount of uranium than we are doing at the moment. Some of our mines have taken it upon themselves already to develop for the future, like Harmony, Buffelsfontein, Vaal Reefs. They are taking the necessary steps to meet the demand. Virginia has entered into sales and option commitments to cover 90 per cent of their production, but against that picture we have to note that the existing demand for uranium is not anywhere near the production capacity, so that for the time being there can be no question of a stabilized world market price. In addition, it is known that the U.S.A. is prepared to sell partially enriched uranium at about eight dollars a lb. I do not think this figure is anything like the real cost of production, which I would say is much higher. The amounts of money that America is putting into development of uranium projects can be pictured if I tell the House that one enrichment plant for uranium has cost 1,000 million dollars, and I would say that that plant is part of their defence programme and they have probably already written off the cost. It is important to note that America has been stockpiling tremendous quantities of uranium, and particularly, I would say, this stockpiling of uranium and its by-products has been used for nuclear weapons. If they find that the demands by industry are such that they cannot meet them from their production, they will go to their stockpile, and this stockpile will probably carry them along for another ten years. So that for ten years at least we will have to be prepared here to compete with the outside world. I am particularly pleased to see that in this Bill there is a fair amount of relaxation of control in regard to the production and sale of uranium. We have to enter a competitive market and we have to allow private enterprise, under the guidance of the Minister, to see that the best possible use is made of our supplies of uranium and that it is diverted into the correct channels, and even if higher prices are offered by some countries which do not agree with us as far as our democratic way of life is concerned, we should withhold sales to those countries. That is a matter which I think this Government will give attention to. I want to say quite clearly that we should withhold the sale of uranium or any of its products from any of the communist countries. We may lose on the sales, but I think it would be better for our country in the long run. Because of our supply of uranium and because of the competitive market, I would say to the Minister that he should encourage by every means possible the introduction of industry in South Africa which can make use of our uranium deposits. It is a new type of industry. We have not many trained people to undertake the work. It is worthwhile now to start encouraging people to become familiar with the new techniques and the new materials used in producing nuclear energy.

How can we do this? We can do it by, firstly—and the Bill makes provision for it— stimulating research. The Board should at all times encourage research work in its own laboratories and it should encourage research at the Universities. We have kept pace with the developments in regard to nuclear energy. Stellenbosch University particularly has been doing very good work in this direction and the Minister knows that they recently acquired a germanium cryostat, one of the few available in the world to-day, and they are making good use of it. But we are still scratching on the surface as far as our own original research is concerned. We are taking what is given out by other countries, but our own research is not up to international standards yet. I would say that that is probably due to the fact that we are not spending enough money on research on uranium in view of the fact that we have these deposits, and we should divert some of the profits derived from uranium sales to research. The Government can help in that direction. I would say that if it means a relaxation of taxation, so that the tax money can go towards research, it will be well worth our while and it will do the country much more good than taking that money and using it for other purposes. I want to say that in regard to Escom taking over the electricity produced from nuclear energy, that might be a good thing, but if it is going to come about that Escom is going to have this right, I would say to the Minister that in clause 12 he should include a representative of Escom on the Board. I think that is the obvious thing to do, but as the Board is constituted at the moment it does not give an opening for one of the Escom representatives to be included in this Board of Management. I would again impress upon the Minister that he must do one of two things. He must either have a new commission for the development and the distribution of nuclear energy, or if Escom is going to undertake to do this he should have a representative of Escom on the Board.

It is quite obvious that we on this side are pleased that the Minister has taken the security measures that he has, and that in time of emergency or of apparent emergency he should take full control over the production and distribution of uranium and its products. We are pleased that this is in his hands.

I have already mentioned research, and again I would say that as far as this Bill is concerned I would like more emphasis placed on research. At the moment the emphasis is placed on production and trading. The Minister knows that for the past ten or 12 years we we have had a tremendous amount of brain drain from this country. Many of our best scientists have left the country, not because they do not like this country but because they do not have the facilities to stay and work here. The Minister knows how many South Africans are at present in England and at Oxford particularly, where they are doing research. He must encourage the research to take place here and he can only do that if he is prepared to stimulate the Cabinet to give more money for research. Let us keep our best brains here as far as possible. We can only do that if we give these people the tools with which to work, and let us have the privilege of saying that at least in one field of science we can take the lead. We have the opportunity here.

I am pleased that the Minister has introduced security measures as far as health is concerned, but in this field again he will have to be very careful. I do not think that enough medical men in our country to-day know sufficient about the use of isotopes or about disabilities that may come about through the maluse of isotopes. I do not think enough of our doctors know about the injuries which are sustained in atomic explosions and through fallout. The general practitioner in our country to-day is quite ignorant, on an average, about atomic energy release. I would suggest to the Minister—he is probably thinking along these lines himself—that our universities which have medical schools should have a course in this regard. It need not be a long course; this can be done in a matter of three or four weeks, but there should be such a course to emphasize the importance of nuclear damage to the human being. It is very important, and now is the time to start teaching these people.

There is one other matter I want to deal with. It concerns the question of patents and compensation for work done. The Minister will know that in all probability the Board will control and regulate the experimentation of those branches of science which include the use of uranium, but if he wants to encourage it, the bonuses which are provided for in the Bill should be very liberal. Those people who invent processes and make new discoveries should be adequately compensated. They are important to the welfare of our country, and I would say that when these bonuses are given and compensation is paid it should always be on the highest possible level and never niggardly. The Minister also has a sub board here to deal with injuries caused by atomic reaction, and in this regard he has specified that a Judge shall sit as chairman of this committee. I would say to the Minister that he should also include as one of the members a medical man who is well acquainted with the conditions which may arise in the course of injury.

I do not want to prolong the discussion. We wish this Bill well and again I want to tell the Minister that we on this side support it. There may be one or two small matters that we will deal with later in the Committee Stage.

This Bill is a necessary Bill, and as my colleague has said, we on this side of the House will accept it, but I cannot commend it as a forward-looking Bill. We are a young nation and we should be a forward-looking nation, but this Bill in many respects looks backwards. It is now many years since the world realized that the splitting of the atom produced an immense force. But this is not the first time that a great force has been let loose in the world. It is only the first time that the devastation resulting therefrom happened during a war, and the first introduction the world had to the release of atomic energy was a violent, destructive and annihilating happening. It has left its mark on the thoughts of the world, that atomic energy must be associated with the atomic bomb. But that is not so, and we as a nation, particularly one rich in raw material which is at present used to produce atomic energy, should not have brought forward a Bill with the restrictions that this Bill contains. I am not disputing what the hon. the Minister has done in controlling source material or to control the prospecting for and the mining of source material, but I do believe that in trying to control it with a lay board—because with one exception, it is a lay board which controls these matters—he is looking backwards and has not faced up, as I think we should, to the future outlook on nuclear material and its use. I refer particularly to the clauses which restrict the use of the human brain working in this country. I regret to see that the Board is empowered—this may have existed in previous Acts, but even if it did it should have been left out of this Act— to take a pattern which an inventor in this country has discovered or invented and to seal it up and to lock it away. This is archaic. Imagine the other forces we have had in this world. Somebody discovered fire and they burnt coal. We have great resources of coal. That is a great force, and we saw what happened in Brussels a few days ago, but we did not have to have a special law to stop people from burning coal. Take the discovery of dynamite. It is true that it is controlled up to a point, but nobody stops a man discovering a new way of using dynamite, and nobody locks away such inventions. The use of crude petroleum is also dangerous. It is the source material of high octane spirit, but it does not need laws to deal with the position if somebody discovers a better spirit, nor does a lay board have the power to lock away such discoveries. The decision as to whether it should be locked away or not rests with a lay board, in the interests of the country. What about fusion? At present atomic energy is derived from fission, the splitting of the atom, and it needs uranium. But what about fusion, the raw material of which is water? There is plenty of it and you cannot control that. If some man discovers how to make the hydrogen bomb through fusion, is the Board going to lock that secret away? How long can you keep it secret? America tried to stop Russia having the atomic bomb. America, England and Russia tried to stop France having the bomb. America, England, France, Russia tried to stop China having the bomb, but I hear today that Tunisia has the bomb. All these were secrets that were locked up. America thought she had the only secret of how to develop the bomb, but how long did it last? But here we have it in the Bill that a board of laymen can lock away such a secret and try to prevent the world knowing about it. But the board goes even further and here, to my mind, we have a terrible thing. It says that if a South African discovers something and tries to take it away into another country they can stop him and punish him. What is going to be the effect of such a clause? The effect is going to be that the inventor will not tell South Africa and will leave the country in order to let somebody else develop his invention and the fruits of his brains. As I see it, we will not detain the brains—we are going to drive the best ones out.

Sir Basil Schonland was in command of Harwell.

Yes, and he is a product of South Africa.

One of the greatest scientists.

We must not drain the brains of the country away. The clauses in this Bill relating to patents should, I think, be carefully reconsidered. That he should have control over source materials, that he should have control over special nuclear material— of that I cannot approve more. But that he should control the brains and the actions of the scientific people of this country, and perhaps lock up a genius or a secret that would bring the Sahara into flower, is something which should be carefully reconsidered.

I know the hon. member for Durban (Central) is particularly interested in and concerned about matters of health in general and in this case particularly about the horrible effects which may flow from the use of atomic energy. In this connection he specifically referred to the horrible event in 1945 when the first atomic bomb was dropped in Hiroshima. However, he made the point that this was not a forward looking Bill. In this connection I should like to point out to the hon. member that where he has given us his views on the control of the prospecting, mining and stockpiling of uranium and has expressed the view that it is not correct for the board to be empowered to take away a patent and to be able to punish an individual taking such a patent to another country—these aspects he interpreted as being backward looking. But may I tell him, with respect, that to my mind these particular aspects of the Bill are in fact the forward looking aspects. This is an attempt, an endeavour, to try and prevent an individual using the potentialities of his perhaps extraordinary brainpower to create devastation in the world. The hon. member referred to the fact that certain countries did their utmost to prevent certain other countries from obtaining atomic secrets. It is true that in this they were not successful. Here, however, we are dealing with South African citizens and not with a country or a citizen over whom we have no control. The hon. member also said that the board was a lay board. But may I point out to him, with respect again, that the director-general of the board and the other staff members are very highly qualified people—in fact of world repute. Therefore, I do not think that what is being done by the board could be labelled as the work of a lay board because, as I said, these people are very highly qualified people. These scientists have undergone intensive specialized training which in a number of cases lasted a couple of years. I can assure the hon. member, therefore, that we have the very best qualified persons available. Furthermore, we are constantly doing what we can to make further training possible. May I also point out in connection with this matter that the Government is internationally bound, as are all other civilized states, to ensure as far as possible the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In this Bill we are going very far to allow freedom but I say we should not relax up to a point where we shall be taking risks or where we shall lose the confidence of the western world, or shake the confidence of the western world in us—which we might do if we relax these controls to such an extent that should the need arise we have only ineffective measures to control the effects of this material or inventions which could put that material to uses which are detrimental to mankind. As the hon. member knows, nuclear material is a commodity with qualities which call for exceptional safeguards, however reluctant we may be to interfere with its production and application. So, I should like to crave the hon. member’s indulgence by requesting him to look at this matter again in order to convince himself that this is in fact a forward looking Bill as far as these aspects are concerned.

The hon. member for Rosettenville also spoke on this measure. May I thank these two hon. members for supporting this Bill. I too should like to express my thanks to the officials, of the Department as well as of the board, for their help and advice. As hon. members will realize, this is a very complicated subject and I do not profess to know very much about it. However, I have had the privilege of being advised by the officials of my Department and of the Atomic Energy Board. I should like to give hon. members, especially the hon. member for Rosettenville, the assurance that as far as research is concerned, we are certainly trying to keep pace with developments all over the world. In addition, we are doing a certain amount of research ourselves. For obvious reasons I cannot, of course, go into details of this. But we are doing research in this country which might—and here I want to be very careful—put South Africa on the map as never before. We are certainly giving a lead in the atomic energy field. I have personal knowledge of this based on the part played by the Director-General and other officials at international conferences. The hon. member will agree with me if I say that these officials are held in the highest esteem all over the world where people foregather from time to time to discuss matters relating to atomic energy.

The hon. member expressed the opinion that the demand may outstrip the supply. But what we are doing in this Bill is as much as we can do from the point of view of us as legislators to stimulate prospecting and mining of this material. The hon. member also referred to the question of stockpiling. Unfortunately I cannot give any figures in regard to stockpiling although I can give him some idea of the known uranium reserves, reserves which could be mined in the years to come. It is of course necessary to keep in mind the question, at what price uranium can be mined.

*Based on the present gold price of approximately R25 per ounce, and calculated on a recovery of 75 per cent at the various price levels, the uranium reserves of the Republic were—i.e. at a price of R5.6 or 8 dollars— 180,000 tons as at 1st January, 1965. An authoritative estimate puts the world supplies of uranium at 8 dollars per pound at between 550,000 and 700,000 short tons which will be reduced by stopping to between 425,000 and 475,000 tons by the end of 1970. Subsequent to that the supplies will decrease more and more rapidly, until they will be completely exhausted by the end of 1980. I also said that in my Second Reading Speech. According to estimates, however, the Republic still ought to have approximately one-half of the 180,000 tons in reserve by 1980, because the recovery thereof is linked to gold production. I have here a table of the estimated world reserves of uranium. I mention this in pursuance of the reference by the hon. member to other African states. According to this table the world reserves of uranium—once again at a price of between 5 and 10 dollars—are with a reasonable degree of certainty: Canada, 210,000 tons, the U.S.A. 155,000; South Africa, 190,000; France, 37,000; the rest of Europe 22,000; African states. 17,000; Argentine, 5,000: Australia 15,000. These are the particulars I have at my disposal. I think this will give the hon. member a very wide picture of what the position is.

†The hon. member also referred to the Electricity Supply Commission. In this connection I think I can put his mind at rest by telling him that the chairman of the E.S.C. is also a member of the Atomic Energy Board. The hon. member also said that we should keep our best brains in South Africa. As regards the making available of more funds, as I pointed out the other day when my Vote was discussed. I shall do my share as far as the Cabinet is concerned. In the final analysis, however, it is the Minister of Finance who has the say. The hon. member also suggested that a part of the taxes should be diverted to the training of scientists. But let me point out to the hon. member that in effect it is only 2½c. per lb. according to the figures I have here.

Isn’t that royalties?

Yes, royalties. This is only 2½c. per lb. of uranium oxide. He also suggested that a course could perhaps be instituted at medical schools for doctors in the form of a post-graduate course or a seminar for two or three weeks. I shall look into this. There is at the moment very close co-operation between the Atomic Energy Board and the medical schools. However, I undertake to look into this particular suggestion.

Finally, the hon. member strongly put forward his point of view that uranium should not be sold to communist countries or to other countries not friendly towards South Africa. In the context of the world to-day I do not think we should use the term “not friendly towards South Africa”. I cannot give the hon. member details of what we sell and to whom we sell. But I can give him the assurance that as far as the sale of uranium is concerned this country is a part of the free world and as such we intend playing our full part. This goes also for the supply of uranium.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Not counting the short title, three of the four clauses which go to make up this Bill, introduce concessions while only one clause is aimed at raising additional revenue for the State. I refer to clause 1, which gives effect to one of the taxation proposals adopted by this House. In terms of this clause the minimum amount of the company licence will be increased with effect from 1st January. 1968, from R2 to R10. This is an annual licence imposed by section 228 of the Companies Act, 1926, and the amount thereof is fixed at the rate of 50 cents for every R2,000 or part of R2,000 of a company’s subscribed capital, subject, however, to a minimum licence duty of R2.

This minimum has remained unchanged for more than 40 years and it was felt that the time had arrived for it to be increased. The minimum amount of R10, which, as I have said, will become operative on 1st January, 1968, is regarded as reasonable.

Clause 2 amends the Estate Duty Act in relation to the estates of persons dying on or after the 23rd March of this year and gives effect to the decision to increase the maximum exemption in respect of the proceeds from insurance policies and investments held by such persons in certain local registered stock, in certain local bonds and in debentures issued by the Land Bank from R15,000 to R25,000. This tax-free amount of R25,000 will be sufficient to cover the duty payable in every case where the net value of the estate, including the said insurance policy proceeds and investments, amount to R193,000 or less and the deceased is survived by his wife and two children.

Clauses 3 and 4 introduce amendments to the Stamp Duties Act with the object of extending the scope of exemptions which at present apply in respect of stocks or other securities issued by the Government, local authorities and certain other corporate bodies. The effect of the amendments introduced by these clauses will be to extend the exemptions to securities issued by any water board established in terms of section 108 of the Water Act, 1956. The exemption under clause 3 relates to the stamp duty on broker’s notes in respect of the purchase and sale of any marketable security while that under clause 4 applies to the stamp duty payable in respect of the original issue or the registration of the transfer of marketable securities.

Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this Bill was discussed during the Committee of Ways and Means. We on this side do not object to this Bill. As the Minister rightly says, this measure largely provides for concessions, and as far as the increase in the amount of company licences is concerned, that is probably necessary having regard to the extent to which the purchasing power of the rand has been eroded, particularly during the last 20 years whilst this Government has been in office.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the House. I merely wish to ask a question. I am referring to clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. The first deals with issues and the other with sales. As we know, these issues and these sales are always exempted from stamp duty because Government and public authorities issue and sell these securities, etc. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question but I do not expect a reply from him in this debate. I should like him to discuss it with the Minister of Finance. This Stamp Duties Act does not bring in a great deal of money. Therefore the exemptions are not really very important. But what does bring in money is the marketable securities tax, the M.S.T., and I should like him to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has considered that aspect of it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

For the convenience of hon. members I intend dealing with this Bill in two sections. I think this will also serve to make the objectives of this legislation clearer. Furthermore, I also believe that this will serve to make the discussion which may ensue—if there is a discussion—considerably easier.

Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 9 (1) contain new provisions and deal mainly with the future zoning of land for industrial purposes, the subdivision of existing industrial land, as well as the establishment of new factories and the extension of existing factories, provided that such factories have in fact been drawn in by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. The remainder of this measure, which comprises a total of 15 clauses, relates to the activities of the old Natural Resources Development Council, the old N.R.D.C., as it has been generally known for the past 20 years.

Hon. members will recall that after the discovery of gold in the forties an urgent need arose for co-ordinated planning of the anticipated development. The Government of the time saw fit to place the Development of Natural Resources Act, No. 51 of 1947, on the Statute Book. In 1955 this Act was amended by Act No. 30 of 1955. Both the old Act and the amendment provided, amongst other things, for the establishment of the Natural Resources Development Council and for the proclamation of controlled areas, by which a change in respect of the utilization of land, as well as the subdivision and the alienation of undivided shares in land, were placed under permit control. In this Bill it is now proposed to repeal both the old Act and the amending Act in their entirety, and replacing them by provisions adjusted to the changed circumstances.

Through the establishment of the Department of Planning in 1964 and the establishment of the Resources and Planning Advisory Council during December, 1965, the machinery for the co-ordinated physical planning which may be necessary was created within Government Departments. We now have the situation that the administrative work which at that time was done by the statutory council and its staff is now done by the Department. This new Resources and Planning Advisory Council advises the Minister on policy matters. In addition, the aid committees which came under the erstwhile N.R.D.C. are still used to perform continuation work.

In respect of this Resources and Planning Advisory Council, which is not a statutory body, the then Minister made certain observations on 9th December, 1965, with regard to the establishment and constitution of the council. At the first meeting of that council, on 10th March, 1966, he also set out the objectives, the status, the relative position and functions of the council. As this council will have to perform certain functions of the N.R.D.C., which will fall away upon the commencement of this Act, I deem it necessary to deal with certain aspects in connection with the advisory council on this occasion. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am now actually dealing with the section of the Bill which does not contain many new provisions and powers.

The object of the establishment of this council is to advise me on the most effective utilization of our country’s resources and on the formulation of the best physical development pattern for the Republic. The council is constituted as follows: Dr. P. S. Rautenbach, the Chief Director of Physical Planning in the Department of Planning, has been appointed Chairman of the council, and there are also the following members: Firstly, there are the heads of the following Government Departments: Bantu Administration and Development; Planning; Forestry; Finance; Community Development; Commerce and Industries; Agricultural Economics and Marketing; Agricultural Technical Services; Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure; Mines; Posts and Telegraphs; The South African Railways; Defence; Transport, and Water Affairs. The council is also served by the Economic Advisor to the Prime Minister; the Chairman of Escom; the Managing Director of the I.D.C., and representatives of the four provincial administrations and South West Africa, as nominated by the administrators. Members from the private sector are Mr. W. B. Boshoff; Professor D. C. Krogh; Professor E. W. M. Mellows; Professor J. H. Moolman; Mr. P. J. G. E. Pretorius; Professor F. P. du Toit Viljoen; Mr. Leon Rood!; Dr. John Phillips; Mr. L. C. M. Redgate; Professor S. P. Cilliers; Mr. A. Delport; Professor W. J. Pretorius and Professor R. Truter.

The Department of Planning stands on three legs, namely an economic, a scientific and a physical leg. As far as policy on a wider basis is concerned, the first-mentioned two divisions are served by two councils which were established under the Prime Minister before the Ministry of Planning came into being. While these two councils are advisory to the Prime Minister, there is in practice the closest liaison with my Ministry, and they also act in an advisory function to the Ministry of Planning. The Resources and Planning Advisory Council was therefore established on the same basis and with the same objectives as the two other advisory councils.

Our experience with the pattern of activities of the Economic Advisory Council, the Scientific Advisory Council and the Orange River Advisory Council has shown that these councils, which normally convene twice a year and then confine themselves mainly to discussions on policy, supply a great need. These councils make their recommendations, but they were not established to take decisions on the implementation of the tasks and plans of other concerns. They are advisory, and not executive councils, but they do enable executive bodies, in the knowledge of what other concerns are doing or contemplating, to integrate and link their own plans with that, with a view to the maximum benefit of the country at the minimum expense and energy.

From the foregoing, and having regard to the constitution of the Resources and Planning Advisory Council, it is therefore clear and should be clear to hon. members that the council’s task is to co-ordinate action and certainly not to take over functions which are performed or which could be performed by other concerns.

I think I have said enough in connection with the repeal of the Natural Resources Development Act and the inclusion of certain clauses in this Bill. I should now like to discuss just briefly the control measures which are contained in Act No. 51 of 1947, as amended, and which are now included in this Bill. For the sake of convenience I shall refer to the 1947 Act and to the 1955 Amending Act as the old Act.

Clause 5 of this Bill provides for the establishment and disestablishment of controlled areas. This is section 14 of the old Act. Clauses 6 and 8—I take them together—deal with restrictions and certain exceptions in controlled areas, and also provide for exemption by way of permits. In this measure a new element is added, and this is an extension of the exemptions in order that the areas proclaimed in terms of the Group Areas Act may now also be included. The principle involved herein and the relevant provisions are contained in section 15 of the old Act.

Clause 7 substitutes section 17 of the old Act and is aimed at giving exemptions in particular cases over and above those which are provided for in clause 6 (2).

These are the clauses which were taken over from the old N.R.D.C. Act. Clauses 10 and 12 contain no new principles either, but are merely improvements which ensue from the experience of the past and are aimed exclusively at preventing delay by eliminating cumbersome procedures.

Clause 11 contains penal provisions which are exactly the same as those contained in section 24 of the old Act. Clause 13 specifically excludes Bantu homelands from any provisions of this Bill. Finally, just to complete the picture in respect of the “old” provisions—if I may call them that—in this Bill, there is clause 14, which repeals Act No. 51 of 1947 and Act No. 55 of 1950. It also ensures, however, that anything done in terms of those measures shall be deemed to have been done under the corresponding provisions of this Bill. This means that the control in existing proclaimed areas may be maintained. In other words, it is merely a continuation of what has been done under the old Act. So much for the old section. I now come to the new.

Here we have to do with clauses 2, 3, 4 and 9 (1). Clause 4 now authorizes the Minister to cause an investigation to be made into the manner in which the resources of the Republic may best be utilized. It also contains a further provision to the effect that after such an investigation an area cannot only be reserved and proclaimed a controlled area, but that it can also be reserved for a specific purpose. The clause therefore relates to the investigation which may be made and the best utilization of certain of our resources, and it also provides that such an area may be reserved for a specific purpose.

After the investigation?

Yes, after the investigation. Now that the hon. member mentions the investigation, I want to give the assurance that in terms of this provision the investigation will be very thorough. At the Committee Stage it is also my intention to take this clause into review and possibly to add the words “consultation with an administrator or administrators, according to the circumstances”. I think it will be an improvement to the clause.

Hon. members may perhaps be interested to hear in what cases this clause may possibly be invoked. For example, there are very valuable deposits of glass-sand here on the Cape Flats, and it is quite probably necessary to preserve these for posterity. After a very thorough investigation it will then be possible to have these deposits proclaimed and reserved for a specific purpose. Furthermore, there is also very valuable agricultural land which is of great value. I am now thinking, for example, of a place close to Cape Town where there is certain agricultural land which at certain times of the year supply up to 70 per cent of Cape Town’s fresh vegetable requirements. It will be possible, after thorough investigation to reserve such land for a specific purpose. I also have in mind the investigations which have already been made in connection with a recreation resort for the Rand on the Suikerbosrand. I am not saying that this is going to be done—I want hon. members to understand this very well, because I have not even looked at the report yet—but in terms of clause 4 it will be possible to reserve such an area, or a part thereof, for the specific purpose of recreation. I think this is a necessary power which the Minister should have.

I want to repeat that it will be used very sparingly. I should like to emphasize that after such a stretch of land has been reserved, it will nevertheless be possible in terms of this clause, by way of permit, to have it used temporarily for some other purpose. If such a stretch of land is reserved by proclamation for the specific purpose of recreation, it cannot be developed immediately, of course. It will be possible to grant temporary permission by way of permit to the effect that it may be used temporarily for agricultural or any other purposes.

Then there are clauses 2 and 3. I should like hon. members to read these two clauses in conjunction with clause 9 (1). In terms of clause 9 (1) the Minister may delegate his powers, and in co-operation with the representatives of other Government Departments —seven in number—these clauses, namely 2 and 3, may be given effect to.

Let me first deal with clause 2. This clause relates to the zoning and subdivision of land for industrial purposes. Under this clause the Minister has to grant written approval if additional land is zoned for industrial purposes. I have placed an amendment on the Order Paper. Clause 2 (1) will then read as follows—

1. (a) no town-planning scheme or any amendment thereof which provides for the zoning for industrial purposes of land not zoned for such purposes may be approved;
2. (b) no land zoned for industrial purposes may be subdivided; and
3. (c) no industrial township may be established.

An industrial township is added here because the establishment of an industrial township is also only the subdivision of land; it is another method of subdividing land.

In other words, the Minister is here taking the power of having to give his written consent for the zoning of new, additional land for industrial purposes. Furthermore, the Minister may also lay down certain conditions, and such conditions shall be included in the title or conditions of establishment of such industrial township or land. I want to make it very clear, however, that the provision which is made here will be put into effect only— and I shall later come to that—by the committee provided for in clause 9 (1).

Let us just consider clause 3 for a moment. I shall afterwards come back to the related clauses 2, 3 and 9 (1). Clause 3 deals with the establishment and extension of factories. In terms of this clause it will be necessary to obtain the written consent of the Minister for the establishment of any new factory or the extension of an existing factory. Subsection (2) of clause 3 is a fairly complex provision— in any event, I find it complex—and it contains a very wide definition. But the definition is so wide for the very purpose of making it possible to exclude as many factories as possible, if so desired, and to facilitate the smooth functioning of this clause. That is actually the object of this wide definition. It also draws in the establishment of factories; this will now also be subject to the written approval of the Minister. As in the previous case, the Minister may here impose certain conditions in granting permission for the establishment of a new factory or the extension of an existing factory. I also want hon. members to note that this will not apply to all factories in South Africa. It will not apply to the establishment of new factories throughout the Republic, nor to existing factories throughout the Republic. Clause 3 (2) reads as follows—

and then refers to certain areas, certain factories or certain classes of factories. I repeat, this wide, complex definition is in fact intended to facilitate the administration as far as possible.

The clause does not refer to a “certain class”.

Yes, it does, in clause 3 (2) (a)—a factory or a class of factory.

In respect of both clauses 2 and 3 I have amendments on to-day’s Order Paper. These relate to clauses 2 (2) and 3 (3). They are intended merely to make the relevant provisions easier to read and easier to understand. The clauses will then read as follows. Clause 2 (2) will read—

Essentially the amendment corresponds to the clause in the Bill, but it merely sets out the position somewhat more clearly. The same applies to clause 3 (3).

Clause 9 (1) provides—and I said we should read this subsection and clauses 2 and 3 in conjunction—for the delegation of powers by the Minister, and it is contemplated, and is in fact stated here, that the Minister may delegate his powers to a person with a rank not lower than that of under-secretary, and that such an officer shall form a committee in consultation with six other Government Departments, namely Labour, Bantu Administration and Development, Economic Affairs, Coloured Affairs, Indian Affairs and Water Affairs. I foresee that this will be a standing inter-departmental committee which will be in very close liaison with the standing committee which comes under the Minister of Economic Affairs. Hon. members will note, furthermore, that provision is made here for an appeal to the Minister if a person is not satisfied with the decision of the committee. I envisage that this committee will be a positive, active committee, because no delays and unnecessary red tape will be allowed in this case. Secondly, I also envisage that this committee will function very quickly and will be able to lend guidance and respond to inquiries. It will not be necessary to make application immediately in all cases where zoning of land or subdivision of land for industrial purposes takes place, but if necessary it will be possible to get a reply by telephone from this committee if inquiries are made regarding the relevant circumstances. In other words, I want this committee to be a guiding committee; secondly, that it should be freely possible to make inquiries. Moreover, I want to say that this committee will quite probably have to lay down certain norms and certain formulae in respect of certain factories or certain classes of factories. I do not want to go into the details now, and I am not going to be side-tracked into talking about norms or formulae or various types of factories at this stage.

But the norms have already been laid down by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education.

The committee has not yet been appointed; you are talking nonsense.

If only the hon. member for Durban (Point) would have some patience, he would see which provisions are going to apply in this regard. The hon. member’s problem is that he does not read the Bill. He should just give me a chance, because he is interrupting me now; I do not have all this on paper, I am trying to formulate it. Before this measure is put into operation, this committee will have to consult all interested parties, and I foresee that the Federated Chamber of Industries, the Provincial Administrations and also individual industrialists and other interested parties will have to be consulted, and I want it to be so, because we want to cooperate in this regard; we do not want to force things on to industrialists, and I also believe that we shall receive very effective and highly appreciated assistance in this connection. Secondly, I foresee that after the commencement of this measure the committee will maintain periodic liaison with concerns which have a strong interest in this, and I now want to invite all concerns to co-operate with us in this regard. This committee will therefore consist of seven members who will be persons with a rank not lower than that of undersecretary of a Department. All the administrative work will naturally be done by the Department of Planning. There is also this further advantage that there will now be only one channel through which interested parties will be able to sound the opinion and the attitude and the policy of the central Government in respect of the zoning of additional industrial land, in respect of the subdivision of land, in any way whatsoever, and in respect of the establishment of new factories and the extension of existing factories in certain reserved areas. I may tell hon. members that the fact that in the past provincial administrations had to consult various Government Departments presented them with major problems. I am grateful for the co-operation which existed in the past between the Central Government and the provincial administrations in connection with the zoning of land, for example, but in the nature of matters, as I have already said, it was necessary for them to consult different Government Departments. Each of these different Government Departments gave a reply on its own—it was a cumbersome process— and it was left to the individual concerned— the Provincial authority, the local authority or the individual—to decide for himself what the collective attitude of the Central Government was. Here we now have one channel, one committee, which acts by authority of the Minister. The committee can take decisions only if the members are ad idem on a matter, otherwise it becomes a matter for the Cabinet. In other words, the matter is then referred to the highest authority. I believe this will be conducive to smooth functioning and satisfaction, and it is certainly a matter which is welcomed by the provincial administrations and the Administrators, by name. I shall later come to the views of the Administrators and the provincial administrations.

To summarize, I just want to give hon. members a table of the powers conferred here. Altogether 21 powers are here conferred on the Minister. Of these the first ten are new powers and the remaining 11 are existing or slightly amended powers. Central control is now assumed over (1) further zoining of land for industrial purposes; (2) further subdivision of land for industrial purposes, whether by way of pure subdivision or through the establishment of industrial townships; (3) the imposition of conditions upon approval of zoning or subdivision of land for industrial purposes; (4) the registration of such conditions as have been imposed. Then the power is also taken to exercise control where it may become necessary over the establishment of new factories; this is No. 5. Sixthly, the increase in the number of Bantu employees at existing factories. Hon. members will note, if they look at to-day’s Order Paper, that in clause 3 (4) paragraph (a) is now omitted. Clause 3 (4) will now read as follows—

That is significant.

The seventh new power is the imposition of conditions in respect of the establishment or extension of controlled factories. The eighth power which is taken is to cause investigations to be made into the manner in which resources may best be exploited. developed and utilized; the ninth is the reservation of the use of land for a specific purpose, and the tenth is the suspension of title restrictions where these come into conflict with reservation for a specific purpose. These are the ten new powers which are taken in this Bill.

I then come to the old powers: (11) the establishment of controlled areas where control may be exercised over the subdivision of land, granting the right to an undivided share in land and a change in the use of land, except land included in a town-planning scheme or land which is used for agricultural, forestry, road or railway purposes; (12) the disestablishment of controlled areas where control is no longer necessary; (13) exemption from certain restrictions in controlled areas; (14) issuing permits; (15) the delegation of powers (clause 9); (16) the withdrawal and amendment of proclamation and notices; (17) penalties to ensure enforcement of conditions and compliance with restrictions; (18) proof of certain facts; (19) the exclusion of Bantu areas; (20) the repeal of the Natural Resources Development Act, Act No. 51 of 1947, and Act No. 50 of 1965, and (21) the retention of the controlled areas established in terms of the above-mentioned Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a factual summary and exposition of the provisions of this Bill. Hon. members may rightly ask me how these new provisions will function. In connection with clause 4 I have already indicated that such an investigation will be made very thoroughly; secondly, that there will be very wide consultation, and in the nature of matters that we are here concerned mainly with land and with what is on it—deposits or whatever it may be—with a view to its preservation for posterity. I do not think I need say anything more about this. Hon. members may also rightly ask me how clauses 2 and 3 will be administered in practice and to what extent these things will be implemented by the inter-departmental committee to which I have referred and which is to be established in terms of clause 9 (1). During all discussions in the Department and outside I emphasized that there should be no delay as regards the performance of the functions of the committee; that the smooth functioning of the administration should be ensured. I asked this assurance from my Department and it was given to me, because I am fully aware of the fact that when one deals with industrialists and the establishment of a new factory and in particular with the extension of an existing factory, delays could only have a hampering effect, and in this case this must not happen.

I also foresee that there will be no great difficulties, because the constitution of this inter-departmental committee is such that they will be able to fulfil these functions. Once they have deliberated and come to certain policy decisions, which will have to be ratified by the Minister and the Cabinet, they will indeed be able to function and will be a great boon to the industrialists of this country. The doors of this committee will be open at all times to any industrialist, whether he wants to pay a personal visit to the office of the committee or whether he wants to contact them by telephone. I believe that in the vast majority of cases it will not be necessary to apply for advice, but that it will be possible to obtain the advice courteously and properly long before the application is made. Hon. members will now ask me what the practical position will be in respect of the subdivision of land or the zoning of industrial land. To some extent I have already outlined the practical position and this is, namely, that the provinces, which exercise control over the zoning of industrial land or the subdivision of existing industrial land, or town-layout schemes, or town planning schemes, to use the terms which are used in the various provinces, did in fact consult the different Government Departments in the past. All the work undertaken by the provinces in this regard will continue just as previously, with this exception, that the “yes” or “no” channels in respect of the zoning of additional industrial land or the “yes” or “no” in respect of subdivision of industrial land or an industrial township will now rest with the Minister and no longer with the provinces.

In respect of clause 3: When we deal with new factories, and particularly with the extension of existing factories—the clause now provides that any increase in the number of Bantu employees shall constitute an extension to an existing factory—I want to tell hon. members that it is our intention, wherever possible, at least to freeze the number of Bantu employees in industries, and in due course to reduce it. I appreciate, however, that industry has certain features which one has to take into consideration. We shall have to consider them very carefully. I want to give hon. members the assurance that we shall not deal with these special circumstances in an off-hand fashion if they exist. I fully appreciate that for the small man, and also for larger industries, there are certain seasonal fluctuations in the number of workers, and then he has to go and ask for a permit. Practically I think it is quite possible to give an indication and to grant permission for that fluctuation, in order that he need not apply every time. Secondly, I also appreciate fully that this problem may also arise where an existing factory is under engaged at a given moment. It is particularly true of the small industrialists, of whom there are thousands in the country and who are mostly on the Witwatersrand, that in such a case one finds the situation that the factory is just at a stage where its turnover enables it to meet its expenditure, and that the extension of that factory and the full engagement of its existing operational space will now make it possible for that factory to become profitable.

We know that there is a certain turnover notch on which a factory is not profitable, and a certain notch on which it does become profitable. I am fully aware of this, the question of the small man and of the under-engaged factory and the question of the seasonal fluctuation. In this connection hon. members on this side of the House have consulted me and have pointed out these problems. I may assure hon. members that I am not unsympathetic in this regard, and I shall therefore be prepared to consider possible amendments in respect of clause 3 (4) at the Committee Stage, not to dismantle what we want to achieve in this respect, but in order not to hamper the administration of the Act. If we can effect an improvement in this respect, I shall be prepared to consider such an amendment from hon. members on my side of the House who have already discussed it with me. For example, I have in mind something to the effect that for the purposes of subsection (1) an extension to a factory shall mean an extension to the building complex on the premises of that factory which will also bring about an increase in the number of Bantu employees of that factory, or something of this nature. But I repeat, we may not dismantle or water down the objectives.

Then there is just a further point in connection with the practical administration. Hon. members should not raise imaginary objections here and say that these things cannot be done. They can be done quite easily. But I want to say that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development will be represented on this inter-departmental committee. The Labour Bureaux of that Department have a card for every factory. They know exactly who is working in that factory; they have the names. Furthermore, I may also say that if building complexes or sites are involved it will not create problems either, because there will also be a high official of the Department of Labour on this Committee, and the Department of Labour have plans of all factories at their disposal every day, because amongst other things they have to implement the provision that there must be at least 25 square feet of open space per worker. Therefore, also with reference to this control which is already in existence, I am prepared to consider an improvement to clause 3 (4) if it is necessary.

I think I have now given hon. members a reasonable exposition of what the provisions are and of how we envisage their functioning in practice. But now I also owe hon. members an explanation of and the motivation for the introduction of this Bill. I see this specific legislation as the most positive legislation in the entire industrial history of South Africa. I expect, as we have read, that in this case, as with other legislation, we shall also meet with a considerable deal of opposition, but I also anticipate that as in the case of other legislations through the years, it will be accepted by even the most violent opponents once it functions and brings about prosperity and progress. I say it is the most positive legislation in our industrial history, because there is not only one way of making the best use of the resources of the Republic. There is not only one group of people who can lay claim to all knowledge as far as doing so is concerned. The time has come that we should have coordinated planning from a central point, and by this I mean the Central Government. We may not see the Republic as anything but an entity, and in speaking of an entity I am not referring to the white Republic only, but then we should also see Southern Africa as an entity of different nations and different countries, just as we see North Africa and West Africa and East Africa. In the context of Southern Africa I regard the Bantu homelands as a natural resource just as much as the others available to us, and it is a resource particularly in respect of a home for the Bantu nation that belongs there. For that reason we may not allow certain areas, certain individuals or certain concerns to develop independently of each other. Therefore, in my entire motivation for this Bill, our thinking is national and our action and planning should take place from a national point of view. By coincidence it has always been the case in the past that it has also been seen as such from a National Party point of view.

When one deals with industries the economic considerations are of course of the utmost importance, and the record of this Government shows that it has always had very thorough regard to the economic considerations. What we see in South Africa to-day is the fruit of planning carried out on these benches in the past 19 years. But inherent in that recognition of the utmost importance of economic considerations, the short-term economic growth has never been allowed and never will be allowed to play a decisive role in the South African national economy. Nor do I lose sight of the economic factors in my thinking and in my motivation. In fact, as I have said, we have always lent very high priority to those, but in addition full regard should be had to the social considerations, as in other countries, and I think it is even more true in South Africa that the social considerations become of cardinal importance if we consider the different nations and the different countries here at the southern tip of Africa. Throughout my reasoning I am therefore going to place the emphasis on the socioeconomic considerations, and not only on the economic and not only on the social ones. This will be the theme of my entire plea and of the motivation I shall furnish you in the following minutes.

Just like water provision, housing, transport, labour and the establishment of the various population groups, the provision of industrial land and the establishment of industrial concerns are also of national importance. The development and establishment of industries influence the implementation of social policy. The decision on the location of a factory in a private-enterprise system such as ours in South Africa frequently has indirect social and financial results which are not taken into account in the costs or motives of the entrepreneur, but which are of great importance to the general public and Government concerns. Such a decision by a single undertaking, or by a few of them, which is taken purely on economic grounds, may either cause the regression of an area or may increase the population and activities in another area to such an extent that large and sometimes phenominal expenditure has to be incurred on housing and other public services. It may also result in unemployment in one place or among one population group while a labour shortage prevails somewhere else. It may also upset and disrupt the relationship between town and rural areas with no consideration on the part of the entrepreneur for the profit or loss of the country as a whole or the problems which may arise from such an action. The Government holds the view that if an industry can be established in alternative places, always having regard to the economic consideration, the Central Government should have the power, taking into consideration the wider socioeconomic factors, to decide where such an undertaking will fit in best. Provinces and local authorities may act competitively, and for that reason the final say in the provision of industrial land cannot be left exclusively in their hands. The economic policy of the Government is attuned to promoting the welfare of the nation in general. If the industrial sector needs a basis for broadening the structure in a specific field, the Government itself acts as an entrepreneur in isolated cases, if necessary. We have the examples of Sasol, Iscor, etc. For social, economic, physical and other reasons some regions develop more rapidly than others, and the pattern which comes into being is not always in the interests of the country. The development of certain development concentrations has a snowball effect and the tempo is faster than in certain other parts of the country. This pattern does not change automatically. Government action is necessary to guide development in a certain direction and to direct the development of the country in such a way that it develops harmoniously within the socio-economic framework and for the benefit of all population groups. In order to bring this about, the Government must not only encourage the private sector in particular areas, but must also of its own accord undertake national projects such as the Orange River project. Because the establishment of industries plays such an important part in the development of the country, it goes without saying that it is absolutely essential to successful and effective planning that the Government should also have a say in that regard. In overseas countries experience has taught that in order to achieve success in decentralization, it is essential to supplement the incentives in the underdeveloped areas by means of restrictive measures against development in the overdeveloped regions. Thus, for example, both the establishment of industries and the erection of office buildings in the Paris area in France are controlled by permits which are strictly enforced. In Paris permission is granted only in the case of essential services, and even as regards moving premises within the area, a quid, pro quo has to be provided by opening a branch of the undertaking concerned in a depressed area. In England permission to build must be obtained throughout the country. The freedom with which permits are granted, however, depends on the area and the extent to which the Government wishes to develop that area; while permits for the erection of factories and buildings are granted readily in the under-developed areas, it is only by exception, for example when there is greater automation and fewer workers are employed, that they are issued in London and Birmingham. The same approach and procedure are adopted in Athens, in Greece. In the case of countries where over-concentration in the large cities gives rise to concern, there is the warning that this danger should be guarded against timeously to try to prevent it rather than to try to solve the problem once it has got out of hand. I think that as ours is a young country and prevention is still possible in certain areas, this is a very strong obligation which rests on us and which we may not evade. In the above-mentioned countries there are therefore definite legal measures against new undertakings and also against the extension of existing undertakings in certain urban complexes. Nor is this principle of legislation against the establishment of industries in certain areas new to South Africa. There has never been absolute freedom as regards the siting of industries in the Republic. In terms of the Water Act of 1956 a permit is required for a daily consumption of more than 50,000 gallons, and the Minister of Water Affairs must consult the Minister of Economic Affairs with a view to decentralization before granting such a permit. This is why I say that there has never been absolute freedom. In addition there is control by the provincial administrations, local authorities, the Department of Labour and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

Basically the reasons for decentralization, or rather curbing centralized development, are the same everywhere and may be summarized as follows: Firstly, there are social considerations. Here one has to consider the disruption of labour in rural areas and the concomitant cultural problems. Secondly, there is the high incidence of crime and social aberrations in large cities. Here I want to draw the attention of hon. members to a report which appeared last week on the crime position in a city like New York. Thirdly, there is the labour increase and the labour exhaustion as a result of the over-taxing or over-exertion of manpower. By this I mean, amongst other things, the long distances from work, the longer hours, slum conditions, and so forth. Fourthly, social considerations include the health hazards and also the possibility of epidemics.

As regards the economic considerations, considerations which apply throughout the world, there are the following aspects: Firstly, The high per capita cost of labour which accompanies over-concentration is a vital problem here in South Africa, too. This is a source of great concern to the Government and the taxpayers, but one which is not shared by the industrialist. A survey in Italy revealed that if one compares the cost per capita for essential services in a population concentration of 30,000 souls with the cost per capita in a population concentration of 200,000, the cost in the former case is three times as high as in the latter. This is a survey which was very thoroughly carried out. A similar survey in Belgium, in Ghent, produced corresponding results. This goes without saying, if one merely considers the high cost of express-ways in large cities, bringing water over long distances and providing housing on highly expensive land. I understand that the express-ways in Johannesburg, that is, only the roads which are built on concrete pillars, are estimated to cost approximately R500 million. By now it is something like R660 million. I do not have the exact figure. [Interjections.] I am not certain of my figures. I shall get them for you. But the point I want to illustrate is this: The estimates framed for these expenditures are always inadequate. The expenditure is always much higher than estimated.

The next economic consideration is the high wage-structure which results largely from the high cost-structure, due, amongst other things, to high transportation and accommodation costs. Thirdly, there is the risk to service undertakings, for example power failures and transport strikes, of which we see many examples in other parts of the world. Fortunately we do not experience them in South Africa. Fourthly, there is the more effective utilization of a country’s resources. That is, seen from an economic point of view. Fifthly, there is the over-engagement of communications, for example the road systems, which result in delay in the transportation of people and goods, as well as the over-engagement of telephone services, and so forth.

The benefits of decentralized development lie in the obverse of the above-mentioned aspects plus the advantages contained in the more even distribution of incomes and opportunities for all citizens of the country, that is, for those in the depressed areas as well. This approach, to cause all communities to share in the national prosperity to a larger extent, is at present the accepted policy in virtually all countries. I shall later make some further observations on our rural areas.

In South Africa all these considerations obtain, plus the following: Firstly, the heterogeneous population composition of our country, with the concomitant cultural differences and other needs; secondly, the largest potential labour sources are found in our Bantu homelands; thirdly, the prevalence of important resources at the Bantu homelands, for example water, agriculture, forestry and minerals; fourthly, factors such as the relative scarcity of water sources near the large urban areas (this is the obverse of the third aspect which I mentioned a moment ago); and, fifthly, the need of a more balanced utilization of our communication system in an extensive country with only a few developed spots. I am always surprised, looking at South Africa, to think that we have such an extensive and effective communication system although we have such a small population. In other densely populated small countries the communication system is still very poorly developed.

Control over Bantu labour is already in existence in various sectors of the South African way of life. In terms of section 29 of the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936, as substituted by section 25 of Act No. 42 of 1964, the number of Bantu workers on farms may be controlled and even reduced. In the cities there is not such a direct measure, but the availability of Bantu labour is controlled by indirect measures such as influx control and restrictions on residence. Hon. members know that the number of domestic servants who are allowed to live on the premises is controlled —also in respect of hotels, hospitals, etc. The ultimate effect of this is that there are fewer Bantu in the white residential areas. There is therefore this kind of control, which we are now also introducing in respect of industries. It is not as though we are simply singling out industry as a scapegoat, because this is the very last thing we have in mind in this connection. If it is taken into consideration that at present there are 166,000 Bantu in residential areas in Pretoria, one million on the Witwatersrand and 160,000 in the Vaal triangle (this gives a total of 1,300,000 Bantu in the P.W.V. area), it will be appreciated how essential it is to supplement these measures with direct measures through which the number of Bantu employees at factories, particularly in the metropolitan areas, can be controlled and restricted. According to an interim report by the City Engineer and the director of non-White Affairs in Johannesburg on the forward planning for the Bantu population in the existing residential area of Soweto—this is in Soweto alone—the population, which at present totals 360,000, will increase to more than 500,000 in 1980, through the natural increase alone. The officials state to accommodate this number another residential area of at least six square miles will have to be added to the existing 21 square miles. This is in respect of Soweto alone. However, the area will still be too restricted, and flat buildings at fairly high building costs will have to be erected for the Bantu and subsidized by the State to keep the rentals within the means of the Bantu labourers. The officials calculate that to transport this labour force to and from their places of employment new railway, overhead railway and express bus services will have to be established on a large scale; again, of course, with the assistance of State subsidies. As regards educational facilities, there will have to be considerable extensions in order to keep the rapidly growing number of Bantu children at school. This is merely—and I want hon. members to take note of this—an estimate for Soweto alone, where at present there are 360,000 Bantu. If one now considers the 1,300,000 Bantu in the P.W.V. area on the basis of Soweto, and hon. members are still not convinced of the gravity of the situation, then I do not know what further proof I must advance.

The efforts made by the Government in the past number of years to develop border industrial areas and the Bantu homelands, are known to all hon. members. All these efforts to decentralize industries and thus take the employment to the areas where our greatest labour resources are available, are negated by the fact that the Government, apart from the restriction on the use of water, has no power by which an industrialist may be prohibited from settling on any farmland or land zoned for industrial purposes. There are thousands of morgen of land in the Republic which have already been zoned for industrial purposes but have not yet been developed. I mention only a few examples. On the Witwatersrand there are approximately 2,000 morgen. In the Cape Peninsula there are more than 1,000 morgen. In the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex there are approximately 500 morgen. If this industrial land is allowed to be developed arbitrarily on the present pattern, it may have the result that in these three metropolitan areas alone more than 12,000 morgen will have to be found for the accommodation of the Bantu employees alone. The Government cannot and will not allow these conditions to continue unchecked any longer, and deems it essential in the interests of the country that with a view to effective long-term planning and the development of our country it should also have the say in the provision of industrial land and the establishment of industries. I could hardly state or summarize this more succinctly than it was stated in an editorial in Die Burger this morning. Die Burger said the following, and I would make only one small change to this (translation)—

As I have said, I would insert only one word here, namely “socio-economic”, and the last part of the paragraph would then read: “… with the socio-economic demands of separate development.” I have now given you an exposition of the motives for taking these measures. But I do want to mention some more examples which we may not ignore. It is estimated that if the available industrial land on the Witwatersrand is developed in accordance with the labour pattern in the past ten years, at least another 750,000 Bantu would be added. This estimate does not allow for the ordinary natural increase and for influx. I say that this has been the pattern over the past ten years. We know that one morgen of industrial land requires at least three morgen for dwelling purposes. In other words, if this were allowed, an additional 6,000 morgen of land would be needed for Bantu residential areas on the Witwatersrand alone. This is additional. And you must also bear in mind that at the moment there is not adequate land available for the proper resettlement of the Bantu who are already employed in industry and who have not yet been resettled. There is a second point I want to mention, and I know that in this I will enjoy the support of my hon. colleague the Minister of Water Affairs, and this is the question of water. It so happens that at the moment there are certain control measures. As I mentioned previously, any factory which wants to use 50,000 gallons of water or more must obtain permission. But have you ever considered what would happen on the Witwaters rand if the water in the Vaal Dam sank to the bottom? What happens to a complex such as the Witwatersrand if for one hour— I am not speaking of 24 hours—it is waterless? I do not want to dramatize the position, but in London I felt distressed every time I read what was happening to our water in South Africa. Can you conceive what will happen to a city and a complex such as the P.W.V. area if it is left waterless for one hour? Now you should also remember that the water does not peter out gradually. If the supply of water runs out, the stoppage is immediate. And has the time not come that over and above the existing control measures we should take further measures, as we are now taking, and that everyone should become spiritually attuned to them? Let us move away from this overconcentration, particularly of Bantu employees, in the large metropolitan areas. I want to mention a second point, namely the question of transport. As you know it is the responsibility of the State to defray all costs in respect of transport from and to resettlement areas over and above R22 per month per capita. I have gone into this to some extent, and there are good reasons for it. It was only a step along the road to separate development. It was done in order that the Bantu may now be settled in the one or two large areas where they are at present. I have no fault to find with that. But I cannot see it as anything but merely a step along the road to the ultimate realization of the full implications of separate development. But the fact of the matter is, and this affects the taxpayer, that since 1957—this system has now been in operation for ten years —an amount of R46,690,539, say R47 million, has been paid over to the Railways Administration from the Treasury. And in respect of this year, according to figures furnished to me by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport, the figure is estimated at R10,800,000, and quite probably R12 million. We shall have to take a very serious look at these things. One of the methods of dealing with it is by way of the powers incorporated in this legislation. And anyone who opposes this legislation should first come and tell me what alternative powers we should take or where we are to find the money to meet the expenses which are increasing apace every year. In the second place I want to mention the question of housing. And here I want to say that our farmers provide housing for their Bantu. It is fairly good housing, and I would not claim that it is as desired everywhere. I spoke to a farmer the other day, and I think that this may be regarded as a fairly good general example. He has a stretch of land of approximately 1,000 morgen somewhere in South Africa, a fairly intensive farm. He has approximately 50 Bantu employees on his farm. And do you know that during the past 15 or 20 years— he showed me the statements—he has spent, in addition to what there was originally, R17,000 on housing for his employees. I say this to demonstrate that in certain sectors in South Africa there are persons who pay from their own pockets for the housing of their Bantu employees or other non-Whites.

And he docks it off his income tax. [Interjections.]

As if no industrialist can deduct anything in regard to income tax. [Interjections.]

Order!

Secondly, there are certain Government concerns, for example the Railways, and certain semi-Government concerns, Iscor and others, which also provide from their own funds for their Bantu employees. The mines do so on a very large scale, in a somewhat different form. But the fact of the matter is that they do in fact do so. There are also certain large industries, for example the Union Steel Corporation at Vereeniging, and others. I am also fully aware of the fact that industrialists and dealers in certain towns pay a services levy, but this is in respect of electricity, water, sewage and roads, and not for houses as such. In other words, the industrialist in South Africa has no financial obligation in respect of the hundreds and thousands and millions of Bantu who have to be housed. [Interjections.]

Order! We do not want another debate in addition to this one.

I have mentioned these few additional points in respect of the motivation for this legislation. Now I just want to say a word in respect of the rural areas. I think that as far as overall or national planning is concerned we may not forget the rural areas. Nor may we forget the areas where former activities have come to an end, for example in mining. In other words, in this entire approach, the socio-economic approach to the whole problem, we have in mind not only border industries and homeland industries. We also have in mind the interests of the rural areas, of the less developed areas and those areas where activities come to an end for some reason or other. In other words, decentralization in general. Or to put it more correctly, the objective of curbing centralized development. And that is why in this legislation we are now taking powers with a view to one objective, namely the development of border industries and homeland industries and the rural areas, in so far as this is possible, but also for the other objective, namely to make the draw-card for the Bantu in the large metropolitan areas as small as possible, and ever smaller. I want to place the emphasis on this. I want to emphasize the advantages inherent in a more even distribution of incomes and opportunities for all citizens of the country, that is, also in rural and depressed areas. And, in fact, we may never lose sight of this. This, then, as regards some of the reasons why this legislation has become essential. I say some of the reasons, because I know that there are several others which could be added. I think I have now said enough in respect of motivation. However, I now want to address a word or two to several concerns. Firstly, to those persons or organizations who are attempting or who attempted to raise n storm of protest over this legislation. In the second place I want to address a word to the provincial administrations. In the third place I want to address a word to the Bantu, because they are very important in this legislation. This includes all Bantu in South Africa. In the fourth place I want to address myself to those persons who have been placed here as legislators, and finally I have a word for the Opposition.

We are becoming very impatient.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says he is becoming very impatient. If he wants to support the Bill, I shall sit down at once. Because it is my experience with the hon. the Leader and the Opposition that they are so slow in learning. And I know that we shall not manage that to-day. One has to lay the foundation well, however, because one thing is certain, and that is that ultimately they do learn. Just consider what the members used to say and what they are now saying about border industry development. But I leave it at that. [Interjections.] I must say, the House is now making me feel more at home. It is once again becoming as I used to know it. [Interjections.] I want to say the following to those people who made attempts to raise a storm of protest over this legislation. The Opposition inside and outside Parliament against the proposed legislation, the statutory planning and utilization of the country’s resources, must be ascribed to general negation and ignorance, amongst other things, the following five considerations. And I am now saying these things with reference to the document we received. I must say, I do not hold it against the Federated Chamber of Industries. They treated me courteously. I received the document last Tuesday. It took me only five minutes to read through it. That is why I say that there is negation and ignorance of the following five considerations.

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

Mr.Speaker, when the House adjourned for lunch I was just beginning to address a few words to the concerns who attempted to raise a storm of protest over this Bill. In my view the opposition to this Bill inside and outside Parliament should be attributed to general negation and ignorance of, amongst other things, the following five considerations. Firstly, the structural change in the industrial development throughout the world, to which the industrial structure in the Republic will have to adjust itself. Secondly, the changed economic conditions in the Republic as a result of the gradual exhaustion of the gold-mines. Thirdly, the fact that South Africa has Bantu homelands and Bantu labour which can be utilized to the greatest advantage, both in the interests of the Bantu and of the country, provided that the homeland is used as the place of residence of the worker. Fourthly, the enormously increased expenditure in respect of the worker for basic services, which is defrayed by the State and other concerns, and not by the factory owner, once a certain population concentration has been reached, as has in fact happened in our metropolitan areas. Fifthly, the fact that basically the proposed legislation is no more and no less than an extension of the planning of the country’s industrial structure which has taken place in the course of the past half-century, and in particular after the commencement of the industrial policy as formulated in 1925 through the establishment of the Board of Trade and Industries. What I want to emphasize most pertinently is that the Government desires just as strongly, if not more strongly, to have the metropolitan areas in general and the Witwatersrand complex in particular develop to their highest potential. We disagree with the Opposition and organized commerce and industry in that we do not accept that the utilization of the various available resources, and particularly the skilled manpower, is to the greatest advantage of the country in the kind of industries in which they are at present utilized. The majority of the labour-intensive industries which are established in the metropolitan areas and particularly on the Witwatersrand at present, and which are directed mainly towards the inland markets, can at present be established much more advantageously elsewhere where the cost of establishment and labour is not so high. [Interjections.] I am not saying necessarily in the border areas, but also in the rural areas where a considerable deal of white labour is available, and particularly female labour, which is pre-eminently suited to industries of this nature. The phenominal development of the country’s factory industries in the course of the past 40 years is attributable to the strict but sympathetic guidance of the various Government concerns, such as the Board of Trade and Industries, the Department of Customs and Excise and the Department of Labour, assisted by the Wage Board and by the Industrial Tribunal. It is a feature of this policy, as implemented by the various concerns mentioned above, that the interests of the country’s industrial development have always been put first. Nor is there any reason whatsoever to assume that the essentials of the above-mentioned policy will be deviated from in planning in terms of this new legislation, which contemplates nothing but a further rationalization in the application and utilization of our resources to the greatest advantage of our country as a whole. As a result of increasing international competition, which will now be further intensified by the large-scale reduction of tariffs as a result of the Kennedy talks, it is essential that there should be the closest planned co-operation between the State and our industrialists. This is what my Department and I as the Minister will seek at all times.

Now I should like to say something specifically in connection with the industrialists and to the industrialists and also to the Federated Chamber of Industries and the Kamer van Koophandel. The history of the matter is as follows. Last year it was brought to the notice of organized industry that legislation of this nature would follow and that powers of this nature were to be taken. The matter was also discussed in the Economic Advisory Council. The Government and I are aware of the fact that in the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister there was opposition to the principle of this Bill. I myself did not consult organized commerce and industry very much. I did have an interview with them the day this Bill was introduced, and also several days ago. I told the Federated Chamber of Industries, and I want to say this in the House to-day, and I accept full responsibility for it, that I deliberately and with open eyes did not consult them, because we were aware of the fact that they were opposed to the principle of the Bill. I also said that the Government did not discuss the principle with them because we knew that they were opposed to it, but that the Government would accept full responsibility for the principles contained in the Bill. Furthermore, in an interview last Tuesday, I again discussed the matter fairly fully with a representative number of members of the Chamber of Industries. There we discussed the matter in a good spirit on both sides and with mutual understanding, and in summary their leader also said that they were still opposed to the principle. This bears out what I said at the beginning, namely that in view of the fact that they are opposed to the principle, the Government is fully responsible and a discussion on the principle would serve absolutely no purpose. Let me also say, furthermore, that the industrialist should understand very clearly that this is not the licensing of factories in South Africa. I am not going to elaborate on this, because the licensing of factories has a different meaning altogether and functions in a different way. I also want to tell the industrialists that the Government is absolutely serious as far as this matter is concerned. Let there be no misunderstanding in South Africa on this point. It is a matter of absolutely serious concern to us that there should be the best utilization of our resources and specifically also the resource of Bantu labour. South Africa cannot service industry; industry can serve South Africa. Furthermore, we should approach this matter in its full socio-economic context. This is not an endeavour to bring about compulsory movement of Bantu labour. It is not in the least intended to implement this legislation in such a way that industries will be compelled by force to go to the border areas or to other decentralized places. But when I say this, industry should also understand the following: This legislation and what I have said in respect of a higher concentration of labour-intensive industries in the large metropolitan complexes is the confession of faith of the Government and of me as Minister, and we are going to carry it through. I want to say that it is construed as the strongest guidance that can emanate from the Central Government, namely that there must be progress in and that a success should be made of the reduced utilization of Bantu workers in white South Africa. [Interjection.] If I have my way, it will happen long before 1978. It was made clear from the outset that 1978 would be the very latest date by which to bring this about. Let the hon. member have no misconception about this. That is why I am being frank. The Opposition and industry, the white man, the black man, the brown man and the yellow man in South Africa will not escape this course of policy. This will be the pattern in South Africa. If we fail to do this, we do not appreciate our responsibility to posterity. In all seriousness I want to ask every industrialist in South Africa to do two things. They can do this. The first is that organized industry should meet and see what they can do of their own accord to make it succeed, for their own sake. Secondly, every manager of a factory, small or large, and every director, should sit down at the board table from to-morrow and see what they can do for their part to make it succeed. There has as yet been too little thinking. There has as yet been too little deliberation in the board rooms of our industries. In saying this I am not suggesting that nothing has been done, but as yet too little has been done to make these things take place.

What is your job? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Transkei is very sensitive. This “job”—it was the word used by him—is not the task of one man. It is the obligation and the task of the entire Government, and that is why the Committee consists of at least seven members.

What about the 5 per cent?

Sir, I am not going to be drawn into norms. I am not going to be drawn into fixing certain formula. I undertook to negotiate with industry and the individual industrialist before a final decision is taken on it. Let me also tell the highly capitalized industries and the highly mechanized industries that this is the green light for that kind of industry. Provided that the water and power supplies are there, their way is clear to establish themselves and build the great industrial future of South Africa anywhere in the Republic. This is not hampering legislation. It is positive legislation. Let me also mention to the industrialists another point which coincides with this, because this matter does not relate to border industries only. Let me tell the industrialists what large numbers of people are needed in the engineering industry. People who come from the marginal mines and the mines which must inevitably be worked out, are excellently suited to the various engineering industries. They could help us absorb those people, in view of the fact that their former livelihood is no longer available. Then there is a final point I want to mention to the industrialists. I say this in the utmost sincerity. I hope it will be spread far and wide in South Africa. The industrialists in South Africa have opposed many things done by the National Party Government, but they were not always correct. Having regard to this, I want to extend the invitation to the industrialists to build South Africa in such a way that there may be a secure and happy future for all its people of all colours.

Then I want to say a word in connection with the provinces. I have also had consultations with the provinces. It is to-day exactly a year ago that detailed consultations were held with all four provinces. Certain objections were then raised. We have met some of the objections. I have already dealt with these, but one thing the provinces told me unequivocally, also at a consultation which was held as recently as the day before yesterday, and that was that in principle the provinces supported the Central Government in that it should have this control.

Is that the provinces or the administrators?

It was the administrators in their full responsibility as the representatives of the provinces. [Interjections.] I wonder whether the hon. member for South Coast now wants to ask me to exclude the province of Natal? Is that so? Is it the hon. member for South Coast’s request that the Province of Natal must be excluded from this legislation?

You have taken two hours to make your speech. How long am I allowed to reply to you? [Interjections.]

The hon. member is mistaken. I am going to speak at least another hour and a half, because I have a great deal to say about the Province of Natal. [Interjections.] Through the administrators I was given the assurance that they agreed with the principle, and had already done so on 26th May, 1966 …

Speak for your administrator, not the Province of Natal.

That Province of Natal is in a much better state to-day, under the present administrator, than formerly. But I do not want to quarrel with that hon. member, because at heart he and I think almost alike. The trouble is just that he is still sitting there. The hon. member for South Coast, who is now interrupting me, is the greatest enforcer of apartheid on the entire Natal South Coast. He is the apartheid king of the Natal South Coast. He does not say it to the Bantu in English or in Afrikaans either. He says it to them in Zulu, and they understand it. I understand him, too. I am making the point that apart from the consultations which were held, I wrote the provinces a letter on 11th May. Amongst other things I told them (translation)—

I would be misleading you if I said that no objections were raised to clauses 2 and 3 on Wednesday, but the objection which was in fact raised is the one we always hear from the provinces, namely that their powers are being curtailed. Now I say this candidly: In this legislation the powers of the provinces in respect of the zoning of additional industrial land and the subdivision of existing industrial land are curtailed. We do so with open eyes. We do so deliberately, because it is a national responsibility which belongs with the Central Government. But in respect of their practical problems we have gone a long way, and I have also met them through certain amendments which are contained in this Bill and which are still to be effected. Furthermore, I want to give the provinces the assurance that their functions, as far as clause 2 is concerned, in respect of the zoning of industrial land and the subdivision of industrial land will continue just as in the past, save that the final decision will now rest with this Government. Furthermore, we have no interest in town planning schemes. This is no more than right, for if the provinces are to perform their functions properly, they must fight for their own province. They must then place the interests of their own province first. That is how we would like to see it. It is their task, but then they must also accept that the Central Government, after hearing all this, decides what is in the interests of the whole South Africa, and not only of that one province. I say that I have given the provinces a full hearing, and we have gone a long way. There was also a request that the provinces should be able to take the initiative in respect of drawing up plans for development. But unfortunately that ties up with the Financial Relations Bill, and not with this one. In clause 4 I shall in fact provide for consultation with the provinces. The provinces are not excluded from these things. They serve specifically on the Resources and Planning Advisory Council, and the argument that it is now no longer a statutory body but an advisory council to the Department does not actually hold water, because even the statutory body was subject to the decision of the Minister. In actual fact there is therefore a different designation, but the work continues uninterrupted, and all four provinces are drawn into this. For this reason I also want to ask for the co-operation of the provinces, just as I asked for the cooperation of industry. We want to effect liaison with the provinces; we want to consult them. In fact, we neither wish to, nor could we easily undertake the planning of South Africa without full consultation with the administrators in most of these matters.

I should now like to address a word to the Bantu of South Africa, because they are involved in this.

Does this mean the end of the Town and Regional Planning Commission in Natal?

No, this has nothing whatever to do with this particular commission. I know how it is functioning and perhaps it would be better for that commission not to discuss its functions.

Why?

Because it is doing excellent work for South Africa, but I believe that there is not the necessary legislation to make this possible in the other provinces.

Why not introduce it then?

I give full credit to this particular planning commission; they have done excellent work but the reason I do not want to discuss it in isolation is that perhaps we should look into the question as to whether we cannot do the same thing for the other provinces. This legislation does not mean the end of that commission at all. As a matter of fact, my Department has made ample and good use of what that commission has been doing in the past as the hon. member knows.

*Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak to Natal now, I want to speak to the Bantu. The Bantu employee has been thoroughly recognized in this Bill. His position is affected by the Bill, not to his detriment—I want to emphasize this—but to his advantage.

To the detriment of the white man?

The Bantu who works in the large metropolitan areas at present does not have the privilege and the opportunity of realizing his family life and his own pride in his own national milieu.

Who is to blame for that?

The old United Party Government is to blame for that. They did not do their work, and we are only now seeing whether we cannot use those Bantu homelands for the historic purpose for which they exist. Mr. Speaker, I say that the Bantu in the metropolitan areas has, in respect of his own family life, in respect of his own happiness and pride, in respect of his own national aspirations, the widest scope when he lives in his own country. He must be offered an opportunity to work there.

But he is not working there.

Furthermore, I want to say this to the Bantu in the metropolitan area who is financially strong or who has a reasonable amount of capital. I happened to think of this the other day when I went for a walk in the Gardens and passed Rhodes’s statue, on which the well-known words “Your hinterland is there” are inscribed. The hinterland of the financially strong Bantu is his homeland. Let him take his money—R10, R10,000 or R1,000, and let him initiate the development of home industries in his homeland. Let him take with him some Bantu who have already been trained to a certain extent here in the metropolitan area, and go there and build not merely a home industry but a home nation which can bring about its national self-determination in its own milieu. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking specifically to the Bantu who is fairly strong in capital, because there are more of them in South Africa to-day then we realize.

You are talking nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, I am saying to the Bantu what that hon. member wanted to do ten, 15 years ago. Then he was not very happy to be here; then he wanted to go “home”. Now he has been cured of that, and now I say to the Bantu: “Go to your home; that is where you belong”.

Where is your “home”?

Let us understand each other very well. This Southern Africa is not one country; this Southern Africa is one white country and a number of black countries.

Who divided them?

That hon. member’s ancestors and my ancestors did not divide the country; we simply settled in certain parts and the Bantu in other parts. What history has given us in South Africa should be fully utilized, and the Bantu who can possibly do so should live in their own homeland, and if they do not have an industry in which to work there, they can work in the border area industries.

But where is his homeland?

Let me also say to every Xhosa in South Africa who does not know this—and there are few of them—and let me also say this to the hon. member for Transkei, because apparently he does not know this either: The homeland of the Xhosa in South Africa is the Transkei.

And what about the Ciskei?

The homeland of the Basuto is Lesotho; the homeland of the Bechuana is Bechuanaland, and the homeland of the Zulu is Zululand.

Which part of it?

I shall take the hon. the Leader of the Opposition there in a helicopter and show him exactly where the borders are. There is not one Bantu homeland of which one cannot point out the borders exactly nowadays. One could go there on foot or on horseback and point out the borders to anybody who wanted to know. The borders need not be defined. Let me also say this to the Bantu: The fact of the matter is that in his own homeland a better job will be available to him; there will be greater opportunities for him. The Bantu in South Africa must realize that his greatest benefit lies within his own national context, and for that reason, just as I asked the industries to help us to implement this legislation, I also say to the Bantu of South Africa that this measure is in his and in our interests. Here in South Africa, under the policy of separate development, there will be a place, as there is at present, for every man, irrespective of his colour, but it will not be in a society of integration such as that sought by the United Party; it will be a society of separate development and peace.

You are not talking in London now; you are talking here where we know what is happening.

Why not go back to your homeland?

Mr. Speaker, let me also give the Bantu this assurance, because they are misled, also by hon. members on the opposite side: They will not be removed from the white areas on a large scale and sent back arbitrarily to their own homelands.

The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education said they were in fact going to be removed.

It has always been one of the highest priorities of this Government that every white man and every black man in South Africa should have an opportunity to make a reasonable existence. Strangely enough, I also said the same thing on every occasion in London, and there the people believed me, but that hon. member cannot understand it. Every black man and every white man in South Africa must be able to make a reasonable existence, otherwise one would have the chaos here which prevails elsewhere in Africa, and for that reason there will not be compulsory removal. A man will have to return to his homeland only if there is work for him, if he can make a reasonable existence there.

What work is there for him in his homeland?

Mr. Speaker, we shall carry through this policy, even if we have to drag the United Party along, and it is becoming easier to drag them along. When I left for London there were 53 of them; to-day there are only 39, and after the next election there will be even fewer of them, because the policy of separate development is a success and because it is accepted more and more. Now that I have addressed a word to the industrialists and also to the Bantu, I also want to address a word to the people who have been placed to act as legislators. We see the road very clearly. We are not under-estimating the problem of the establishment of border industries and home industries, but we are not getting cold feet. It can be done and it will be done. And do you know what will happen? Some days ago those hon. members boasted that the Good Hope factory, which is not a border industry, was theirs, and in exactly the same way they will boast of this policy of ours in future. We shall pursue this policy of separate development to its full consequences, white man’s country and black man’s countries, here in Southern Africa, and let me just tell hon. members this: Perhaps they do not realize it, but by coincidence to-day is the 26th of May, and 19 years ago this National Party came into power. I just want to place this legislation in its correct perspective. On 26th May, 1948, the hon. member for Umlazi was still a “royalist”, but to-day I am grateful to say that he accepts the Republic as we all accept it.

What clause are you discussing now?

As the National Party accepts it, it is also accepted by the United Party, and we are grateful that they are doing so. But 19 years ago this Government came into power. [Interjection.] Under the leadership of Dr. Malan apartheid was then made an actuality, but that was not enough. There was apartheid on our stations and in our trains, things which are now called petty apartheid by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and to-day we have no points of friction in that respect. Afterwards, under the leadership of the late Advocate Strijdom, political apartheid came into being, and then the hon. member said that we had driven the Bantu representatives from this House.

I now want to ask him whether he wants those representatives back. That was the road we followed, and then Dr. Verwoerd came and brought separate development to reality. Separate development is not an experiment, and this legislation before the House is not an experiment. It is an accomplished fact in South Africa and it must be expanded. Dr. Verwoerd made separate development an accomplished fact and to-day the present Prime Minister has given the green light to this legislation. Whether we want to know it or not, we young ones, with the influence of the older ones, will go much further along this road of separate development than ever before. Let there be no doubt about that. Whether it is industry which is involved or politics, and whether it is farm labour or anything else, there is only one end and that is the full consequences of separate development. We shall not shirk that, and because we do not shirk it the numbers on this side of the House will become larger and the hon. members on the opposite side will become fewer and fewer. The writing is on the wall. Your numbers may perhaps not shrink as much as they did in the past, because something which is tiny cannot become much smaller. But because we have to go further along this road, I want to add that even more will be asked. Other concerns will be asked to make their contributions. I want to say this to-day. If we find that the Bantu labour of not only industry but also other concerns in the metropolitan areas must be reduced, it will be done for the sake of the implementation of our policy of separate development. Furthermore, if it is necessary, and I foresee that it is going to become necessary, that we should do more in respect of the encouragement of border industries, then it will have to be done in the interests of the entire South Africa. The fact of the matter is that we must necessarily meet the demands of the times here in South Africa, and those demands are to find a home here in Southern Africa for the many nations here, on the principle of separate development. We shall do that.

Finally I just want to address one word to the Opposition. I think it is the duty of the Opposition to help us build and not to obstruct us.

But why do you not move in the right direction?

We are not moving away from our people. If I move away from my people, the hon. member will say that I am on the right course. But my course is this, that there must be a secure future for every white child in this country, but that there must also be a right of existence for every black child in the country, and we shall not get that on the basis of integration. What that hon. member actually wants is that the brown child should play among the ruins of the Union Building.

You have more integration than we have.

There is no point in beating about the bush. Then the words of the late General Smuts would come true, that the brown children would play among the ruins of the Union Building and of De Grendel, the farm of that hon. member. But he need not be concerned; we shall save him from his integration. It will not become true. Perhaps I may be of assistance to the hon. members on the opposite side. If you are in doubt about this matter, why not go back to the historic places, there where history was enacted? Why do you not go and drink at the source of the history of the Republic, there where white man and black man met each other for the first time, there where in the remote past the borderline was drawn between white man’s country and black man’s country? Why do you not go back to the border? Here I have the Daily Dispatch in my hand. This newspaper has not always supported us. It was bitterly opposed to border industry development and to other things done by this Government. But it is also true that the editor of the Daily Dispatch and the people who work there must inevitably, as a result of their physical presence, drink at the fountain of history. They live in that border area, that area which in the past was used for negotiations to preserve peace between Black and White, and that area which we are now going to use not only for negotiations but for the establishment of industries, in order that white man and black man may live side by side in peace. In an editorial this newspaper says the following—

Sir, I move the Second Reading, and I ask for the support of the United Party for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we started off by considering the terms of this Bill but ever since lunch we have been listening to a speech while not being quite sure whether it came from the Minister of Planning, or the Minister of Bantu Administration or the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] It is common knowledge, Sir, that where a man does not have a good case to present he ranges as widely as possible so as to obscure the real weakness of the case he is putting up. As far as this is concerned, I do not think anybody could have covered as wide a field with as much eloquence as the hon. the Minister did this morning and this afternoon. The Minister in this House a day or two ago said that somebody told him in London that I did not smile very often. Well, that may be so, but I certainly cannot find anything to smile about either in this Bill or in the case which the Minister has put up in connection with it. The hon. the Minister has used some extraordinary phrases to-day. He repeatedly said that he was proud of this particular piece of legislation and that he considered it to be the most positive piece of industrial legislation ever brought into this House. Well, if one considers that this Government has been in power for nearly 20 years, it seems to me to be rather a reflection on his Government when he says that this is the first piece of positive industrial legislation they have brought forward. I suppose what he really meant was that he wondered why he was not put into the Cabinet 20 years ago. The main theme of the speech of the hon. the Minister, if you divest it from its divergencies, was the necessity for proper economic planning for the country. All the arguments he used flow from that. But about that there is no difference of opinion at all—neither is there any difference of opinion, having regard to the very rapid development that has taken place since the war, that this particular problem is more difficult than it would have been had that development taken place under normal conditions. What we have got to consider this afternoon is this Bill and the question whether this Bill is going to assist and improve that planning. This Bill is called the Physical and Utilization of Resources Bill. By the way, I have always found myself rather puzzled by the titles given by this Government to its Bills. Very often I find them to be extremely misleading. Well, the title of this particular Bill is one of the most misleading titles. I think a better title would have been “a Bill for the coercion of industry”. The Minister made no bones about it that industry was going to do in future what it was told to do—for the good of the country of course, or of what the Minister thinks is the good of the country.

In the light of the Minister’s enthusiasm for this Bill and in the light of the good intentions he expressed towards industry—because he said that industry was a necessary part of the economy and appealed for its co-operation, which in actual fact means “to do what they are told”—I wonder why he did not call this Bill a “Bill to free the economy of the country from the shackles of free enterprise”. [Interjections.] We have listened to the Minister putting up his case but we have listened in vain for any indication that the policies he adumbrated were really leading this country towards the goal which he so ardently desired. The only conclusion we can come to in regard to this Bill is that after all the speeches that have been made it really boils down to an attempt to bolster up the Government’s racial policy, a policy with which we, of course, do not agree. Having read the Bill very carefully and having studied it and after having listened to the hon. the Minister I still think this is a bad Bill. Furthermore, I think it is still not going to achieve its object even with the incredibly able assistance of the administration of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. [Interjections.] In attempting to make this succeed, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration may very well wreck the entire economy of the country. Mr. Speaker, I want to move the following amendment—

1. (1) seeks to place in the hands of the Minister complete and unfettered control of the use of land, labour and industrial development in the country;
2. (2) destroys the established machinery in Act 51 of 1947 as amended by Act 30 of 1955, which provides for full consultation with the various authorities and the concurrence of the Administrators concerned in the establishment of controlled areas; and
3. (3) places further unnecessary restrictionson the normal economic development of the country”.

Sir, the Minister was quite frank in his speech in saying that this Bill was the only way, in his opinion, to deal with this particular problem and that this Bill gave him a number of new powers—as a matter of fact, I think he said ten new powers and 11 old ones, most of them under the Natural Resources Development Act, under which the Minister, whilst having residuary power, was by no means unrestricted. As far as the tendency is concerned let us just have a look at the powers which the hon. the Minister is seeking. The key word in this Bill is compulsion, although the word compulsion is never actually used. Right throughout the Bill the Minister may act within his discretion, he may act as he thinks fit and he has unfettered powers. That is the position despite repeated assurances which were given by that side of the House, by the late Prime Minister, by other Ministers, prior to the arrival on the scene of the present one, namely that industry would not be subject to compulsion by this Government. I am not sure, and I am speaking subject to correction, whether the hon. the Deputy Minister had not also given some assurance to that effect too in his time. It is important to bear that in mind because the Minister on several occasions this morning and this afternoon has given more assurances. And in view of those repeated assurances which we had on this particular subject and the fact that we are now faced with this Bill, surely the hon. the Minister will agree that the wealth of assurances coming from that side of the House means precisely nothing.

I will still keep them.

The hon. the Minister has been a member of this House long enough to know that I am not being personal. Now let us look at these clauses to which the hon. the Minister referred very gently. Let us take clause 2, which deals with the question of town planning. In future no town plan may be approved without the written approval of the Minister if it has an industrial area. And that, for practical purposes, means all town planning. These days all town planning of any size has a corner for industrial development. No subdivision may any longer be made and no industrial townships may be established. When we go to clause 3 we see that no person may establish a factory, either in a proclaimed area or outside of it without the written permission of the Minister. And if such permission is given it can be given by way of a permit as the hon. the Minister has said. I want to give him his due that he has not tried to conceal anything. The permit probably will be a conditional permit saying how big the factory could be, what it can make and how many people it could employ. It can also lay down the class of factory.

And there will be no extension.

Yes, certainly, because you might want to sell the factory and then somebody else may want to make something else. He will then have to get another permit. And that will be refused. Clause 4 prescribes the specific purpose for which land can be used. That means land anywhere. In other words, the hon. the Minister will have power to lay down the use of land which then may not be used for any purpose other than what he says. Clause 5 deals with the controlled areas. Here the Minister has conceded that he will consult with the Administrator of the province concerned. But once the area is controlled there can be no subdivision and no use can be made of any land within that area other than the use empowered by the proclamation, unless the Minister approved of it. Then of course there are exemptions as mentioned by the Minister. The Minister has all these unfettered powers, except in the one case where he has to consult with the Administrator. And we know what consultation means.

In the next clause we have the power of exemption, so that the hon. the Minister, whoever he happens to be, having laid down all these conditions, and having placed all these restrictions, could exempt anybody he pleases at any time for any reason. What is even worse, he could delegate those powers to officials of his Department all over the country, and they can then act on his behalf. This seems to me to be a most dangerous thing to do because one may get a variety of decisions all over the country. In any case, these enormous powers may be delegated by the Minister to various officials throughout the country. In other words, this Bill, which the hon. the Minister says is quite essential for the future safeguarding of white civilization in South Africa, is really proclaiming something very much like martial law in the economic life of the country with the hon. the Minister as field-marshal-in-chief or the general dictator. Is it any wonder that industry and commerce and other interests concerned such as local authorities were alarmed? What became of this talk of free enterprise? The hon. the Minister who used to be Minister of Planning and who now sits in front of the present Minister, spoke about free enterprise, that we had a free economy and that this Government believes in a system of free enterprise. Nobody used to say it, but that is what he says now. And what is left of free enterprise when a Minister is going to have the powers which are going to be handed over to this Minister in this Bill? Now we come to the repeal of Act No. 51 of 1947 in clause 14, to which the hon. the Minister referred. I was surprised that the hon. the Minister made no reference at all to any work which has been done during the last 20 years under that Act. Because, as a matter of fact, apart from the officials concerned under the terms of that Act, there has been an enormous amount of voluntary work done by people all over the country helping to implement that Act. I think that the Act has done extremely useful work—not that I would like to suggest that it is a perfect piece of legislation.

My predecessor did so.

The hon. the Minster’s predecessor did not repeal the Act. I will come in a minute to what has been done since. That Act aimed at the decentralization of industry by developing various areas in the country as economic units, whether it be industrial areas or agricultural areas. As far as possible it aimed at the development of economic units and included primary, secondary and tertiary industries as well, after full examination of the area. There was a council of nine, one appointed by each Administrator and five by the Government on account of their business ability and their knowledge of regional planning. Their function was to advise the Minister after full consultation with all the many authorities concerned, and to consider the development of the scheme. There have been schemes under that system which I think have worked extremely well. In addition to that, subsidiary committees could be appointed. There were also regional committees for each controlled area, one to be appointed by the Administrator concerned and four by the Minister. The whole approach of the 1947 Act to this question of decentralizing, and developing undeveloped areas on an economic scale, was by consultation, co-operation, and agreement with all concerned. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that in those negotiations co-operation was obtained. The machinery existed for it. Now in this Bill all that is swept away. What is left of the Act is administered by the Department. What will remain of consultation will be at the discretion of the hon. the Minister. Everything will be vested in the Minister himself. It will depend entirely on him what consultation and what measure of co-operation there will be and in how far the whole matter will be undertaken in unison by all those concerned. I do not think that anything can highlight more clearly the difference in approach between us and the Government than this Bill. On the one hand we have the democratic method of consultation, co-operation and agreement, which might be a little slower than dictatorship, but we believe that it would be a much healthier foundation on which to build a sound economy.

What are you insinuating?

I am not insinuating anything. I am making a statement. On the other hand with the method of the side on which that hon. member sits, far from the democratic method, we simply have regimentation by the State and direction and dictation from Pretoria. I do not think that anything highlights that difference of approach more clearly than the repealing of this Act and the introduction of the system which the hon. the Minister now wishes to start in regard to this matter. The hon. the Minister put up a case which I did not find at all convincing in regard to the consultation which had taken place on this Bill. I am not satisfied, from what the hon. the Minister said, that organized industry or organized commerce or the Social and Economic Planning Council, which is the senior body in the country advising the Government on these matters, or the Administrators, for that matter, had a full opportunity of examining this Bill or its implications and putting forward their views, and discussing it with their own people. They may have been shown the Bill. I am sure that they have been shown the Bill now, but I think most of them probably only saw the Bill recently, or they may have heard rumblings about it. They certainly had more than rumblings. They had blarings from the hon. the Deputy Minister that legislation was coming, and so on and so forth. As far as the actual terms of the Bill were concerned, and the actual intentions of the Government, I do not believe that full consultation really took place with the people most concerned and most affected by it. The question arises: Are these restrictions really necessary or desirable? I am not prepared to say now that some restrictions are not necessary, but if they are, is this the right way to go about it? It is quite clear, and it became more and more clear the longer the hon. the Minister spoke, that the object of this Bill is primarily not physical planning, but the furtherance of the Government’s race policy and the pursuit of the development of the border areas and the border industries. Why it should be necessary is not quite clear, because in the reports of the Permanent Committee on the Location of Industries, the reports of the Industrial Development Corporation and the speeches which have been made by the junior Ministers on that side of the House connected with the Department of Bantu Administration, we are told that the development of the border areas is going ahead apace. It is a great success and is one of the most successful things that this Government has done. If that is the case, it is not very clear why it is necessary to bring in this devastating Bill, giving these powers to the Minister.

It is to make it more of a success.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is not satisfied with his own success. On that I agree with him. I fully agree with the Government and the hon. Minister, that the hon. the Minister was fully entitled, although I do not know whether it was the right occasion to do it, to have the strongest views on the race policies to be followed. The Government is fully entitled to further that policy. They have a mandate from the country to pursue that policy. Let us concede that. But that does not mean that this Bill is necessarily right. Let us consider what we are doing here. The hon. the Minister talked about decentralization, not only as far as the Bantu are concerned, but as far as the platteland is concerned. It is needed to repopulate the depopulated areas, and to open up new areas. But decentralization is taking place. The hon. the Minister talks as if decentralization is a new idea. The 1947 Act started decentralization and it has been going on ever since. It may not have been going as fast as we would have liked, but it is going on. The machinery exists. The physical planning and development exist. We are opening up new industrial areas. The Government has very wide powers. Goodness knows the concessions which are being made to attract the industries to the border areas are wide enough. The Industrial Development Corporation, which has invested many millions of rands in border industries, and the Act which we are at present being asked to repeal, have very wide powers indeed. If they are not sufficient, let us improve them by all means, and let us supplement them. Let us make them as perfect as we can. I do not think that the hon. the Minister in his enthusiasm for his race policies really conceives of the importance of the factors with which he is dealing. He is dealing here with secondary industry.

Sir, there have been speeches made on that side of the House during this Session, repeatedly, emphasizing that secondary industry must be geared up, that it must be helped and encouraged to take the place eventually of the gold-mining industry which will eventually dwindle and no longer hold the place in our economy that it did before, in order to be the mainstay of the country’s economy and to develop a large export trade. That has been said in speeches made on that and this side of the House from time to time. To-day secondary industry is the second most important pillar of our economic life. The time will come when it will be the most important pillar. When we remember the statements which have been made in this House and which were very nearly repeated by the hon. the Minister to-day to the effect that if economic laws clash with ideology then they must be bent and even broken, is it any wonder that secondary industry is alarmed?

I did not say it.

I said that the hon. the Minister came very near to saying it.

Does he repudiate the Minister of Finance?

That statement was made by the hon. the Minister sitting in front of him, the Minister of Finance. Sir, considering the importance and the future importance of secondary industry to this country, surely before action of this sort is taken, action which affects them so closely—the fact that it does affect them closely is reflected in the explanation which the hon. the Minister quite rightly felt obliged to give—they were entitled to be consulted and to be asked to discuss the question. The hon. the Minister this afternoon made an appeal to industry to help. To my mind that appeal should have been made before, instead of which industry in this Bill is being presented with a big stick. I think it is being treated with scant consideration and almost with contempt. Sir, that is not the way to get co-operation as the hon. the Minister will find not only in this instance but generally as he goes on. Industry and the local authorities have always co-operated with the Government of the day. They have raised objections from time to time but on broad lines they have always been prepared to co-operate with the Government of the day in the national interest and there is no reason to suppose that they will not be prepared to co-operate now. I believe that this Bill is fundamentally the wrong approach to get that co-operation and assistance which the Minister must have if his ideas are going to succeed. As it is, Sir, this Bill has been introduced at very short notice. It is being pushed through the House without proper consultation or consideration of its possible effects. In my opinion it has been drafted by officials who quite rightly and quite naturally were interested in implementing the Government’s race policies, without considering the wider issue that it is going to disturb industry very seriously and that it is going to shake the confidence of overseas investors in our economy, especially as this Bill contains such draconian new principles.

You said the same thing when we became a Republic; you always said that overseas investors would lose confidence in the country.

I think that when this Bill is studied by people who are thinking of investing money in industry in this country it will make them think very seriously as to whether they can safely do so. In my opinion this Bill is hasty; I think it is wrong and unsound in principle, and considering the importance of the subject, I think it has been drafted without having any regard to the much wider issues involved, and I believe that the hon. the Minister, if he were wise, would withdraw this Bill for much further consideration and much more intensive and complete examination, calling in all the people who are interested on the basis that this is what the Government wants to do, invoking their assistance and working out a thorough plan for the whole country, a plan which will fall into line with the basic ideas of the Government. I think that is much more likely to achieve the Minister’s objectives than this Bill, which I foresee will fail in its objectives, will cause great trouble in industry and will end up by failing to achieve the hon. the Minister’s objectives, and the end will be worse than the beginning.

You are putting up very weak opposition.

Mr.

Speaker, before I deal with the Bill, would you permit me to express my thanks and appreciation this afternoon to those industries in South Africa which have for the last few decades had so much confidence in the country and in the policy of the Government that, without asking questions, they continued to manufacture in this country articles for which there was a great need in South Africa. Those industries have undoubtedly been a major asset to the entire economy of our country, and not only do they deserve the gratitude of the Government, but also that of the nation as a whole, because up to the time South Africa started developing industrially, it was a very poor country. If we take into account what is being manufactured in South Africa, at present, not only for local use but also for export, then we can only pay homage to those particular industrialists. I wish we could say that about all manufacturers and all bodies in South Africa which have been concerned with the economy of our country. However, unfortunately we cannot say that about all of them, and that is one of the major reasons for our having to introduce a Bill of this nature to-day.

Mr. Speaker, I take as much pride in this Bill as does the hon. the Minister. I think that in the course of time the whole country will realize fully that this Bill was one of the most important measures the Government was called upon to place on the Statute Book. On a few occasions in our country there has been a tremendous rush in the economic sphere, and at present we are once again experiencing a terrible rush. If we take into consideration what is being said abroad and what is being planned in this country, we must prepare ourselves for a tremendous new rush, particularly in the sphere of industry. It is because we are aware of that major rush that we consider a measure such as this one to be imperative. When we develop industrially and employ labour from our neighbouring states, we must also accept this fact once and for all, namely that South Africa should display a form of proportionality to the various Bantu neighbouring states which are still being governed under our trusteeship to-day. We must cause justice and fairness to be done to them. If we do not apply this measure, it may happen that some of the Bantu homelands are given more preference by certain industrialists, with the result that thousands are employed in certain industries, but that other Bantu who are just as dependent upon work, are neglected. That is one of the things we must face.

When I talk about this rush, I want to point out two major rushes we have had in this country in the economic field. In passing I am thinking of the rush in connection with the diggings at Lichtenburg in 1926. There was no control and within a short while the whole place was swamped. There were no fewer than 105,000 diggers, with the result that the greatest chaos prevailed and major disruption took place. We had another rush in the days when diamonds were discovered at Kimberley, and since there was no planning you should have seen the way Kimberley looked when the mining magnates had finished with it. At present it is once again being rebuilt as a model city, but the burden of rebuilding that city has been placed on the shoulders of the taxpayers and the Government. At present there are indications of another tremendous rush. We see that abroad. We heard what Mr. Johnson said in England the other day, and that man is not a supporter of the Government, but as a result of what he said, we shall now have the greatest rush of industrialists and capitalists in South Africa, greater than the greatest optimist in the world could ever have imagined. But that is not all. When one observes the industrial development in South Africa over the past few decades, and when one listens to what is being said by certain people abroad, not as Government agents but as people who have gained experience of South African conditions concerning industries, then we must prepare ourselves for a rush that will surpass everything we have experienced in the past. That is why I think that we need hardly confine ourselves to the clauses of the Bill to prove the necessity thereof. We can only confine ourselves, as the Minister did, to the motivation thereof, and when one talks about the motivation one can, in spite of the excellent speech the hon. the Minister has made, continue talking until to-morrow in pointing out how essential this measure is. But before I go any further, Sir, I shall, with your permission, deal with some of the arguments that are being used by people who are trying to tell the Opposition how they should act, who are calling the tune and telling the Opposition how to dance to it. I must say that the Opposition is very faithfully trying to dance to the tune that is being called. I have here the document which came into the possession of the Chambers of Commerce and Industry yesterday, and I should like to make the acquaintance of the schoolboy who drafted it, because if one were to examine the arguments that are to be found in it, one finds that it is nothing but purely the work of a schoolboy conducting an ordinary debate. Look at paragraph 3. There they refer to what the hon. the Prime Minister is supposed to have said, and I am just quoting what they quoted—

Here they are quoting these words to substantiate their own arguments, but if one takes these quoted words, one must in fact warn against the danger that any factory cannot merely be established in any part of the country, because it will not be desirable. They conclude by saying that no coercive measures will be applied so as to force industrialists to establish themselves in the border areas. But of course not, and the Minister said so very clearly, and the Government, too, has repeatedly said that they will not be forced, just as little as one can force a horse to drink when one takes him to the water. But when the opportunities offered there are made favourable for border industries, there will be no need for coercive measures to be taken so as to get industrialists to establish themselves there. They will be lured by the favourable conditions that will be created there. Therefore we are simply emphasizing once again that no coercive measures will be taken, because it will be absolutely unnecessary to do so. Do you think that an industrialist will allow his money to go to waste if he sees that there are favourable opportunities for him, as well as the labour about which they are always so concerned? Do you think that he will then refuse to do so? If a person is hungry, he will eat, and that is simply the policy; there will be no need for us to force them. Then, in paragraph (a) of their White Paper, their plea continues—

But that is refuted by clause 4 of the Bill. As the hon. the Minister said very explicitly today, this is not only the object of clause 4, but it is also the object that there will be the closest co-operation, that there will be the greatest measure of guidance and that there will be the greatest measure of advice and reciprocal consultation, but here the hon. gentlemen come along and claim that no provision is being made for detailed investigations. These hon. gentlemen are talking about detailed investigations, but the things they want to know are things that are already known. The Government has every possible aspect at its finger tips and can furnish them with all the necessary information. But the hon. gentlemen proceeded so amateurishly that one wonders whether one should take any notice of this document. Sometimes it appears to me that this is nothing but leg-pulling. In paragraph (c) of their White Paper they refer to what they want to learn from other national economies, from other countries. The document says—“Experience in other national economies shows that high rates of growth go hand in hand with maximum economic freedom.” I repeat: … go hand in hand with maximum economic freedom”. Here they are taught a lesson by other economies, but they forget about it later, because in section 6 we find them saying, “No, the Government is making a mistake, the Minister is making a mistake, because ‘sometimes justification for the proposed Bill is sought in other countries where it has been found necessary to apply a system of licensing’.” There they forget what they wrote earlier on. First they say that one learns this and that and the following in countries abroad, but later on, as I am pointing out, they blame the Government by saying that it should not put into practice what it has learned from countries abroad, because that is supposed to be wrong. Can it be taken amiss of me if I say that the hon. gentlemen who drafted this little document, were probably not very serious? Years ago the then Leader of the Opposition said that the late Minister Havenga was under the influence of new wine when he made certain statements during the Budget debate. But it seems to me as though in this respect somebody is under the influence of new wine—the Chamber of Commerce is impressed by this [Interjections.] That was the Leader of the Opposition, and I am merely repeating the words he used in respect of a previous Minister of Finance. Not one point was made here, nor was there any attempt at making such a point, to which the hon. the Minister has not replied in anticipation to-day. I want to quote another point from this document. It reads as follows—

Who causes the dispute? If the Minister and the Government have up to now acted with the greatest measure of consultation and leniency towards them at all times, who then is looking for a dispute? Who is looking for a dispute if they are already making a public protest in anticipation? Who is looking for a dispute if the Leader of the Opposition is conditioned into making certain remarks about this measure, such as he made in the newspaper the other day when, of course, he made his usual hash of things instead of confining himself to the significance of this Bill? Who is looking for a dispute? Let me address a few words to the industrialists. I emphasize and endorse every word the hon. the Minister said in this regard, when he said that this practice among industrialists of looking for disputes with the Government was absolutely unnecessary. Industrialists should not regard themselves as agents for certain political parties in this country, because the Government has consistently acted as impartially towards industrialists as one could only wish for. Now the industrialists allow themselves to be used by certain political bodies to object to a measure such as this one. I am very sorry to have to say this, but I have never encountered such a measure of organized political opposition that resulted in a fiasco, as the opposition we have been experiencing in connection with this so-called protest. I think that if the friendly words of the Minister were to fall on the ears of favourably disposed industrialists, then they would realize that this measure ought to be the greatest blessing for them. I agree with the hon. the Minister that this is the first absolutely positive step taken in South Africa to set a definite course for our future industrial development. What does the hon. member for Constantia propose? What do the industrialists propose? When one drives a car at a reasonable speed, one would be very eager to maintain that speed. That is the object of this Bill. The Bill seeks to maintain a consistent rate of industrial development. We should not—as the Opposition and the said industrialists are advocating—let go of the steering wheel and simply accelerate, because how long will one last then? How long will South Africa be able to maintain its prosperity? How long will we be able to maintain this sound industrial prosperity if, for example, we simply let go of the wheel and accelerate? That will inevitably lead to an uncontrollable situation. I say that if we do not intervene, conditions in our metropolitan areas will become absolutely uncontrollable, not only for the Central Government, but also for the local authorities, because industrialists are driving city councils mad in those areas. Let me give an example. Last year, in one of the rapidly developing areas on the Witwatersrand, a certain industrialist told the town clerk in question that he wanted to establish a factory in that area. The town clerk then expressed his pleasure. Subsequent to that the industrialist told him that he would require 400 Bantu labourers and 100 white workers. Consequently the town clerk asked him where the 400 Bantu, whom he wanted next morning, were to come from. And what was his reply? “Oh, I thought you had them here!” Then the town clerk asked, “Who is supposed to supply them to you? Where are they supposed to live?” Only then did the industrialist start giving thought to the matter. Then he realized that he was making his calculations quite one-sidedly: In making his calculations, he did not take into account what would happen to other bodies, how they would fit in with his plans; no, he thinks in terms of himself only.

If the Government did perhaps make a mistake in the past, then it is that the Government made the situation too favourable because it left industrialists under the impression that everything, yes, the entire nation, the taxpayers, everybody, had to be laid on the altar just for them. Those people only thought in terms of the factory itself. That is why I say that in the past the Government was perhaps somewhat at fault in this respect—I am saying this openly and nobody can take it amiss of me. The Government provided large numbers of houses instead of telling them at that stage already that they had to provide their own accommodation for the labourers. They should have been told to provide their own houses, and then—as the hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out here the other day—they would have said “No, I do not need as much Bantu labour as I thought!” Because then they wake up for the first time. When there is talk of expansion, the town councils in question should be consulted in respect of Bantu labour, white labour, housing, water, transport and all those things. If there is no planning in respect of all these aspects, it must lead to chaos. It is one of the wonders of our time that it has not already led to more extensive disruption. That is why I think that within a few years, after this measure has been enacted, when it will be viewed in its right perspective, when the town councils and the Government Departments will be able to give guidance as to where what industries may develop, we shall have a pattern in South Africa which will enable us to keep the rate of our industrial development even and consistent. This development should not be allowed to take place at such a rate that it will inevitably lead to a frenzy or the total ruin of our industries and a collapse of the civilized conditions we are enjoying in South Africa at present. If we do not accept this measure, and we are already making provision for Bantu from foreign states to work in our mining industry, and if we allow this tremendous industrial potential to develop without our controlling these matters, then, when we want to control them eventually, it may be too late. For instance, I am thinking back to the time, years ago, when Dr. Verwoerd intervened when the industrialists acted irresponsibly. I think that that is the greatest argument we can bring in against them. At that time they established factories and more factories, and they did not care two hoots about where those people had to live. Then we found those shanty towns. Were they concerned about it then? Did they tell the Government, “We shall solve those problems ourselves,” as they are trying to suggest now? No, they aggravated them so that they were almost insurmountable. If we were to continue in future as we are at present, it would simply mean that, in spite of anti-inflationary measures, we should merely have to continue with that terrible rush and sacrifice everything and simply continue to build houses to allow the industrialists to increase that rate further. Can one tolerate such a thing without being exposed to a serious accusation from the country? I think the hon. the Minister also emphasized this matter of how, in spite of any possible criticism and any contradiction, we are intent on controlling our economy in South Africa in such a way that it may serve the purposes of the welfare of the nation. This was said here one day by no less a person than the late Mr. Strijdom in his capacity as Prime Minister. We shall always emphasize and reply to that with a positive “yes”. All measures relating to industrial development must function within the framework of national prosperity. We should not create the slightest opportunity for national prosperity to be laid upon the altar and to be sacrificed for the sake of one group, namely the industrialists. There was a time when it was said that industries could not develop in South Africa. There was a time in the past when it was said that South Africa would not develop into an industrial country. To-day we have to hear, as I read out to you a moment ago from what Mr. Johnson said, that the development which is taking place here is unparalleled in our times and that it is still the most attractive to-day. When one deals with this absolute gem and this unique position of South Africa, it will be a sin which will even affect generations to come if the Government did not concentrate on making sure that matters developed and were controlled correctly from the very start. That is why I think that at this stage the Opposition should not lend itself, as it did in the past, to objecting to a measure which they know only too well to be one that cannot be anything but a major blessing for South Africa. They are trying to break it and to have it withdrawn, as they say in their amendment, because it grants too much control. If one keeps on asking the Opposition, they will tell one that they are in favour of control over this and that, but they are always in favour of control over certain things only, which is not adequate. They are always in favour of such control over matters as suits them. But when we want to apply control measures in such a way that it will enable the Government to achieve the objects of its policy, they are opposed to them. That is why I think that in his speech this afternoon and in the way he set it out, the hon. the Minister led us once again to new horizons in regard to the application of the policy of separate development. Let industrialists learn once and for all, and let the Opposition learn once and for all, that the attitude we adopt is that the dividing line will gradually be drawn deeper and broader. We shall gradually promote the separation. As we are able to carry this out systematically, the Bantu will gradually be removed to their homelands, when those homelands will afford them a means of livelihood, when those homelands will be in a position to carry them, and once South Africa has developed industrially to such an extent that it can provide the major part of its white labourers with employment. Only on that basis shall we succeed in designing here a pattern for the future, and in allowing a pattern to develop here, a pattern which will be of such a nature …

May I ask the hon. member a question? If the hon. member believes in the year 1978, why is this legislation necessary to take the Bantu back?

Sir, I can easily answer that question. If one is driving and one knows that one still has to cover 20 miles, one knows at what speed one should drive. For instance, if one wants to reach Johannesburg at a certain time, one knows how far one still has to travel, and then one knows how fast one should drive. If one is behind schedule, one knows that one has to drive a little faster, and then one increases one’s speed a little. But, Sir, I do not want the hon. member to allow himself to be influenced by a part of a part of the whole matter. What he is referring to now, is merely a part of a part.

It is not done with that purpose only. That is merely one of its objects. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need take the hon. member for Krugersdorp very seriously. In 1947 the hon. member for Constantia, in his capacity as Minister of Economic Affairs, introduced the Natural Resources Development Bill. The hon. member for Krugersdorp was one of those who spoke against it. This is what he said (Hansard, volume 61, column 5315):

The hon. member said this on the 22nd May, 1947, just over 20 years ago. This Bill is a confession of failure on the part of the Government. In 1948 this Government was returned to rule in this country. They said they were going to turn back the tide of Blacks in the cities and send them back to the farms and the reserves. Later they introduced inducements to border industries. These inducements failed. Now they are applying compulsory measures to place industry in a strait jacket. This measure will fail too. The hon. member for Constantia has called this Bill the coercion of industry. But I think he could as well have called it the Bill for the Regimentation of Bantu Labour Units. That is its objective. It is negative in its approach and this is the great weakness of the Bill. When it is negative in its approach, one cannot calculate the cost. When it is positive in approach, it is possible to calculate it. Had it offered inducements to industries staying in certain areas, one could have measured the cost. But this is negative in its approach. The whole object of this Bill, despite the talk about planning, is to ensure that the Bantu go back to the reserves. The Minister in his opening remarks dealt with the 1947 legislation. The Natural Resources Development Bill which was introduced by the member for Constantia had as its objective the planning ideal. In principle, we agree with planning on a basis of consultation as set out in the Bill of 1947. But times have changed since then. In March of this year the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration addressed the Federated Chamber of Industries, as follows:

He did not particularly want to talk politics, but the fact remained that this was a political question. Industry could not divorce itself from the political setup in South Africa and carry on in a vacuum of its own. This would be very dangerous. The political fact to-day was that the white population were the political bosses in the Republic today, and they would not allow the overconcentration of Bantu in urban areas. Was it thought possible to keep the Bantu in these areas forever without giving them political rights?

This is the minutes of the meeting when he addressed the Chamber of Industries:

It was essential to look at wider issues than just the interests of industry. The present Government did not look upon the Republic as a multi-racial nation, but as a multi-national nation. Eventually the Bantu would have to have political rights, and it was therefore desirable to undertake long-term planning for 50-100 years hence, so as to lay down a foundation where the Bantu could have their own political rights. That was the direction in which the Government was working. The Deputy Minister said that decentralization could not be done only on a voluntary basis. It had not been possible to do it on a voluntary basis in England, France and Italy.

I shall come to that later on. But he went on:

Industrialists should not fear that any intending legislation would work like a “bull in a china shop”. Although his department had pressed for such legislation, in fact it was being handled by the Department of Planning.

Obviously he was regarded as “the bull in the china shop” and it was handed over to the Minister of Planning to handle it instead. The minutes continued:

He had been unable to give the meeting details of this legislation, as at this stage he was not in possession of all the details. The Deputy Minister said he wanted to assure the meeting that such legislation would be implemented in consultation with organized industry.

That is exactly what I said, over and over again.

As far as this Bill is concerned, there has been no consultation with organized industry.

Read the last sentence again.

“Such legislation would be implemented in consultation with organized industry.”

Yes, implemented.

But there has been no consultation as regards the Bill. The Prime Minister promised consultation. The Prime Minister’s statement, arising from the meeting of the Economic Advisory Council in July, 1960, said that the objects of the Government were to—

He went on to say this on page 5 of his statement:

No compulsory measures will be applied to force intending industrialists to establish themselves in border areas.

What compulsion is in this Bill? [Interjections.]

He went on:

Finally it should be emphasized that the Government’s endeavours are directed towards a reconciliation of what is politicosocially desirable with what is economically feasible.

The Prime Minister promised that there would be no prohibition. Instead of prohibition, this Bill is introducing the permit system. The Minister has the right to decide where a factory is going to be situated. The Minister has the right of issuing permits and the factory is defined in the Factory, Machinery and Building Works Act, and that definition is very wide, indeed. Any little industry in any village cannot increase its Bantu staff by one beyond the permit number without a permit from the Minister. Any company coming into South Africa, whatever district they may choose for their factory, whatever negotiations they may have with the local authorities, will not be able to establish that factory until such time as they get Ministerial approval. The permit system is compulsory for every single factory operating. Now look how wide the factory definition is. [Interjections.] Yes, every single factory. Let us examine what factory operations include—

If a little laundry or a garage is established, a permit has to be obtained from Pretoria. A permit from Pretoria is needed for every single activity. Whereas to-day the industrialist chooses his site, purchases his land, makes the arrangements with the local authorities, now there is added the permit system from Pretoria, with all the delays and all the expenses. It means additional costs for establishing industry. If hon. members have any doubt about it, they could make the inquiries and ascertain what the position is to-day, even with building control. If one wants a permit for a building, just see how long it takes to get a building permit. We are going to have the same delays and bureaucratic red tape when applying for a permit, whereas the position to-day is that the industrialists can apply to the local authorities. To-day, in addition, the further application to Pretoria is required. It would have been much easier, of course, if one could get a Nationalist Party member to accompany the industrialist to Pretoria to sort out his difficulties. [Interjections.]

Order!

This is where the Minister has been ill advised in not consulting the industry. The definition of “factory” is so wide that virtually every factory, every industrial occupation with more than three persons is covered under the ambit of this Bill. Any occupation which involves the change in form or processing of any article in all parts of South Africa is covered. It is going to stifle industrial development and has the tendency towards increasing industrial costs. There is no opportunity for an industry to present its case. I will come in a moment to the various factors which industry has brought to the notice of the Minister in the memorandum. Surely the Minister must realize that when organized industry and commerce arranged to have a special meeting in Cape Town to discuss this matter, they must have been seriously perturbed. This Bill has been introduced at the last moment at short notice without consultation, and as a result industry fears that it will be placed in a straitjacket. As I say, this is an entirely negative approach and it is going to place industry in a straitjacket. If industry is to grow it must have stability. It must feel that it can develop and change direction without too many obstacles being placed in its way. A permit given to a factory can be withdrawn as easily as it can be given. The opportunity of disposing of a factory and moving elsewhere in order to take advantage of better communications and better markets is also a factor which is going to inhibit the development of industry under this legislation. Sir, the basic fault in the Government’s reasoning is that they regard the question of Bantu labour as the dominating factor in the establishment of industry; the other factors are not taken into account. The hon. the Minister read out to us an impressive list of people who will serve on this committee of his, but however impressive that list may be, surely the people who are best qualified to decide where an industry is to be placed, are the industrialists themselves, who have the expert knowledge plus the profit-motive. An industrialist is not going to establish his industry in a place where he is going to lose money. He is going to establish it in a place where it can produce goods at the cheapest cost to ensure that he gets his fair share of the market. That has been the history of the development of industry ever since industries were first established in South Africa. Can you imagine what would have happened if 50 or 60 years ago the permit system had been applied for the establishment of all industries in this country? The fact that we have had such great industrial development hitherto, is due mainly to the initiative of the private industrialist, to his capacity to site his factory in the right place, to his capacity to train his labour and to his capacity to ensure that he gets a market not only in this country but a market overseas. Sir, the Government claims the credit for all the industrial development that we have seen right up to the present day; it boasts of the progress that industry has made over the last 20 years. Whenever we find figures of improved industrial development the Government claims the credit for it. Surely if the Government claims the credit for this industrial development, it is adequate proof that this development has been possible without this legislation. What the Government now wants to do is to turn the tide back again. The Government will decide what is good labour; the Government will decide which employees are most suitable.

Where do you get that from that the Government will decide which employees are best?

Have you read the Bill?

You are always being silly.

If the hon. member has read the Bill he will know that the Minister has the power to give the industrialist a permit. If an industrialist makes an application requesting that he be allowed to start an industry in a particular area and the Government says “no”, then surely the Government is determined that that industry shall not be established there.

Quite so.

I do not see the point of the hon. member’s stupid question. Hon. members opposite have claimed that this control of industry applies in other parts of the world. I do not think the hon. the Minister was being entirely fair to the House in claiming that there was similar industrial control overseas. He gave the impression—and I am afraid it was the wrong impression—that the control overseas was the same as that provided for in this Bill. Let us examine what has taken place overseas. I have with me a report from the Ministry of Information Services upon industry in Britain, and this is what it says—

There is consultation at all levels. There is consultation provided for in the Act. There is no consultation provided for in this Bill, none whatsoever. We have the Ministers’ assurances but what are they worth? We had an assurance from the hon. the Prime Minister that no compulsion was going to be brought to bear on industries to go to the reserves. These assurances have been given in the past, Sir. We like assurances to be written into the Bill. Assurances were provided for very clearly in the 1947 Act. The New Towns Act of 1947 of Great Britain gave the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland power “to make an order designating any area of land (which may include any existing town or other centre of population) as the site of a proposed new town, and in 1965 the same power was given to the Secretary of State for Wales”. It then goes on to say—

And what are these designated areas?

They are designated in consultation with the local authorities. Consultation is provided for in the Statutes. That is an entirely different position from the provisions in this Bill. In the case of this Bill we only have the assurance of the hon. the Minister of Planning that there is going to be consultation. In Britain the Act provides for consultation. The Minister there is obliged to consult the local authorities. The same principle applied in our Statutes in 1947. It provided for the principle of consultation. Provision was made for consultation between the Minister, the board that was established and the various local authorities. If the Minister will refer to the 1947 Act which dealt with natural industrial resources he will find that it made adequate provision for consultation, but apart from that it went further; the concurrence of the Administrators had to be obtained. The hon. the Minister, in reply to an interjection by the hon. member for South Coast to-day, referred to the regional planning commission in Natal. Provision was made there for consultation, not only at national level, but for consultation at local level. This Bill denies any consultation at all. It is true that the hon. the Minister stated in the course of his speech that there would be consultation.

What about 5 (2)?

In the 1947 Statute provision was made for consultation and concurrence.

Concurrence is out.

The Minister in this Bill is going to introduce the compulsory permit system which, despite all the fine talk about planning, is mainly and basically concerned with the drafting of Bantu labour units back to the reserves. The Minister talked somewhat dramatically about the position on the Reef. He talked about the position in the Transvaal and how the position in ten years’ time could be very embarrassing indeed. He referred to the question of housing in the Transvaal and gave the illustration of labour on farms. I do not know what the relevance of it was, but he referred to the housing provided by farmers and how much it cost them. But does the Minister realize that although the farmer paid for that, he got it off as a full allowance for income-tax purposes? Let me put this question to the Minister. Supposing that instead of having this compulsive attitude he had a permissive attitude and said to the industrialist: “You provide the housing to approved Government standards,” I wonder how far that would have taken them over the past 19 years? I wonder how many industrialists would have been prepared to provide adequate housing inside the Native townships on the same terms as farmers, so that it would be allowed as a rebate for income-tax purposes. He used the farmers as an example, but he did not put it on a proper basis. Supposing industrialists had had the opportunity over the past 20 years to have all the housing they provided deducted from income-tax, I do not think there would have been any housing troubles to-day. There would have been no shortage of housing. The industrialists would have seen to that. There were many industrialists in 1948 who came to the then United Party Government and asked to be allowed to provide a housing scheme. There was one particular company, which I do not want to name, but it was a company which had many thousands of pounds invested in this country and which said that they were prepared to invest in one of the municipal townships; that they would build the houses and take the houses on lease for 25 or 30 years, but they did not stipulate that there should be reduction for income-tax purposes. But had allowances been made on that basis, the problem would have been vastly different.

Why did your Government turn it down?

This Government believes after 19 years of office, apparently, that the only way to get anything done is to do it by compulsion. It has tried inducements in regard to border industries and, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp said, that did not bring results fast enough. The Government is impatient. It realizes that its plans and its promises are failing and therefore it is determined to have compulsory development by means of the permit system, at all costs, irrespective of what it may cost industry and irrespective of what it may cost the economy, and irrespective of the possible damage it may do to South Africa’s image overseas in regard to encouraging capital to the country. It is not concerned so long as the Government ideal of development of the black areas and the removal of Bantu from the towns to the Reserves can be expedited. They see the black man as a danger to the future of the white man and that is the whole basis of Nationalist Party policy. It is based upon fear, no matter in what language they may dress it up. They fear that unless they can force the black man to go back to the Reserves and deplete the white areas of as many Bantu as possible, they are not fulfilling their function. Of course that message has to be put in other words when one speaks in London. We had an object lesson to-day of the way in which the message is put across in London as contrasted with the way it is put across in South Africa. The earlier portion of the Minister’s speech was the London approach, but he got carried away by his enthusiasm and then we had the old South African approach again. [Interjections.]

What does the hon. member prefer, an increase or a decrease in the number of Bantu in the metropolitan areas?

That is a very childish question.

If it is so childish, reply to it. [Interjections.]

I did the Minister the courtesy of allowing him to ask me a question, but before I could reply the Minister went on talking. Does he want his question to be answered or not? There has been a running commentary from the hon. member for Heilbron. We are concerned with the development of the South African economy as a whole, recognizing every man, whether he is White, Black or Coloured, as a person capable of contributing to the wealth of South Africa and realizing that while we may have social separation, we have to build up society on the basis that both Black and White can enjoy the fruit of our industrial output. If a black man can do a job as well as a white man, he should have the opportunity to advance.

Anywhere?

Any job. If he has the capacity to do the job. But I am surprised at the Minister asking that question, because the Minister knows that in his own profession a black man can become a qualified doctor. The rate-for-the-job principle is one which we recognize on this side of the House. We accept that there should be opportunities for all in this country to develop to the best of their capacity. For the Minister to believe that by this legislation he can turn the tide back and send all the black men back to the Reserves, is denying the further hypothesis of the late Dr. Verwoerd, who said that the South African economy must be developed as a common market. How can he develop South Africa as a common market if he is going to have black and white states, unless of course there are no tariff barriers; and if there are no tariff barriers, what is going to happen if they have a wage rate lower than in the white area? Will not the ultimate result be that the black economy will undercut the white economy, and that the white economy is going to collapse? [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Pinetown started using the old tactics of the United Party once again, namely that of trying to wreck any matter by always seeing a bogeyman or a spectre, and this afternoon they thought up the “bogeyman compulsion” so as to cast suspicion on this matter and to arouse fears. They started in the year 1948 by saying that the banks would go bankrupt. Subsequent to that we heard the story that the flow of capital into South Africa would cease, but then capital flowed in despite the suspicions they had cast. This was followed by the phenomenal growth of our industries, which was not to their liking either and which was constantly disparaged by them. They did the same in connection with the border industries. They cast suspicion in that regard all the time, and this afternoon they are once again engaged in a process of casting suspicion in order to discourage people by saying that we want to give industry in general a slap in the face by applying force. They come with all these stories of red tape and delays in connection with permits, and with this mean accusation and insinuation the hon. member has made …

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

I withdraw it and I say that the hon. member made a reprehensible insinuation, namely that permits would only be issued if a National Party M.P. accompanied such a person. I think that it was really reprehensible to have made such a statement in this House, and I think the hon. member owes this side of the House an apology. I do not want to waste my time on the hon. member for Pinetown, who carried on in this way. I think that this matter merits a much more serious and illuminating argument than the one the hon. member raised here.

What is the object of this legislation? It has been set out very explicitly in the long title of this measure, namely “to promote coordinated physical planning and the utilization of the Republic’s resources …” The hon. member for Constantia said that there was no difference of opinion in that regard. There cannot be any difference of opinion either, because in 1947 this was also the object of the old Natural Resources Act. Let me read out to you what the long title of that Act was: “Act to promote the better and more effectively coordinated exploitation, development and use of the natural resources of the Union”—almost word for word the same idea. It is the same object that was pursued by the old United Party Government in 1947, in Act No. 51 of 1947. Let us see what the evil was the United Party wanted to combat at that time, what the problem was it wanted to solve. You will recall that that 1947 Act was preceded by an inquiry, two inquiries in fact, undertaken by that Government’s Social and Economic Planning Council, to which its fifth and ninth reports refer. At the time it was called the Social-Economic Planning Council—the Social and Economic Planning Council. The problem was set out very clearly in those reports on which the 1947 legislation was based.

What was the problem, what was the evil they wanted to combat? In paragraph 105 of the fifth report I find a summary of this, and it reads as follows: “… undesirable features in the pattern of the economy and the way in which the population is distributed over the country.” That is a summary of it. This problem is set out very clearly in paragraph 85 of the fifth report of the then Social-Economic Planning Council. Paragraph 85 says the following—

That is the problem, that is the evil to which the then Social-Economic Planning Council referred. I shall read further—

I want to emphasize that this is what that Planning Council found—

That was the evil they wanted to combat.

I want to go further than that. I do not only stand by the fifth report of that council of the United Party of that time, but I also want to refer to report No. 9 which deals with “The Native Reserves and their Place in the Economy of the Union of South Africa”. What is said in paragraph 256 of that report? That paragraph is printed in bold, black type because it is in actual fact the conclusion at which that council of the United Party arrived and on which the latter based its 1947 legislation. Paragraph 256 reads as follows—

It is not the responsibility of the private sector—

All of this is emphasized in bold type. I shall repeat the last few words: “… near the Native areas with the object of promoting the development of these areas.” The report does not only refer to “near the Native areas”; it goes as far as to say what places are “near the Native Areas”. Just listen to what they said. That side will presently say that we have stolen our border industries policy from them! Paragraph 256 reads further—

I wonder what the “Botterhui” has to say to this?—

What does the hon. member for South Coast have to say to this?—

Those are the places where we have now placed the border industries. Therefore, what was said in these reports at the time—and what was said in them still holds good—is that in this respect we are pre-eminently concerned with a problem of population pressure being exerted by the Bantu, in the first place, in our metropolitan areas. This is the evil the 1947 legislation wanted to combat—no more and no less. It sought to combat the population pressure on the metropolitan areas. What was that council’s objects concerning the solution to this problem? In this respect I want to quote paragraph 93 of report No. 5, and I want to say that I agree with this—

That is what they said. Their attitude is crystal-clear. I cannot help saying that this entire premise is elaborated even further, and that is done in paragraph 85 of that report, where we find the following—

That was the object of that legislation; that is what the 1947 legislation sought to achieve, namely “bringing the place of work nearer to the place of residence”. In the ninth report of the Planning Council the matter is explained more fully. It is for that reason that decentralization took place. Surely, the fact that this problem is still the same to-day—even more extensive than at that time—is decisive proof to the fact that the measures taken by the United Party in that respect in Act No. 51 of 1947, namely the Natural Resources Development Act, were inadequate. Those measures did not relieve the population pressure, although it was the object of that legislation. Therefore I say that the measures they took, were not adequate. Why not? I studied this matter carefully and found the answer to be that the remedy the 1947 legislation had taken up, was only the control of land—no more, only the control of land. At that stage the slogan in the country was “Regional planning”. Therefore they sought to remedy this matter by way of regional plannning. But it has been proved clearly that the population pressure could not be relieved by way of regional planning only. That is why we must now take up other remedies as well.

This Bill actually applies two remedies. It will still apply the old remedy, that is the control over land. But a second remedy is added to that, namely control over the establishment and extension of factories. The hon. member for Pinetown tried to make out that this legislation was aimed against existing industries. That is not true, because it is aimed at the establishment of new industries and the extension of existing industries. No coercion if brought to bear on existing industries—it only concerns the establishment of new industries and the extension of existing industries. But the objections that were raised against regional planning at that time, are the same as those the Opposition raised here this afternoon. As a matter of fact, the arguments they raised this afternoon had already been refuted entirely by their report of 1947. As far back as in its report of 1944 the Social and Economic Planning Council furnished a reply to the arguments hon. members of the Opposition advanced here this afternoon. I shall read it to the House. But just before I do so, I also want to refer to an editorial which appeared in The Argus and which was also quoted by the hon. member for Constantia. I am merely doing so to show what the United Party’s objection is. The paragraph in this editorial which I shall now quote, was also used, word for word, by the hon. member for Pinetown. It reads as follows—

This is the yardstick the hon. member for Pinetown used this afternoon to assess this legislation. Let us see what the Social and Economic Planning Council said in this regard in its report of 1944 (U.G. 34-1944). Paragraph 106 reads as follows—

This is the argument they raised this afternoon. But this very same report replies to that argument. Paragraph 107 reads as follows—

In this respect I just want to say that in his speech the hon. the Minister also referred to the historic basis—

Paragraph 110 reads as follows—

Then again the following is said in paragraph 111—

Therefore in 1944 there was already a degree of urgency, and I maintain that this urgency is much greater at present. And we must bear in mind that the urgency of 1944 existed before extensive industrial development took place, development which has taken place under this Government over the past decade. If there was a degree of urgency in 1944 already, how much more would there not be to-day? And how much more is it not essential for the State to take an active part in this to-day? The steps the United Party Government had taken, showed that they were either not suitable or not adequate. That is why we are justified in taking up further remedies so as to cope with this problem of population pressure. As far as South Africa is concerned, it is purely a problem of population pressure in our metropolitan areas. Therefore I adopt the attitude that the United Party is morally obliged to support this legislation we have before us to-day. After all, it is their commission that found the position to be such as I outlined in my quotations. If the United Party does not support this legislation, they are unfaithful to themselves because it was their commission which stated that they had to introduce legislation to control it. They introduced legislation, but apparently that legislation was inadequate. That is why we are introducing further legislation at this stage. If the United Party still supports that object wholeheartedly, they must vote for this legislation. But I want to make the statement that they are not concerned about this problem— their only concern is that of making political capital in this debate. All they are concerned with, is to make political capital out of this. They want to pull the wool over our eyes. They see now that we are going to solve the problem of population pressure and that we are going to do so by means of our policy of separate development. Because they realize that, if we solve this problem, we shall do so by way of separate development, and that we shall succeed with that policy, they do not want us to continue with this legislation. If we had called it “regional planning” as they did in 1947, then it would have been fine.

What we must not say is that it is separate development. As a matter of fact, that report of theirs indicated the points for border development, points where development should take place, development in which we are in fact engaged at the moment. As “regional planning” it would have been acceptable to them. It is not acceptable now, because it also gives effect to separate development at the same time. Let us look at this remedy which we are taking up now, namely the control of factories. Why do we choose factories? Let me refer to that report of theirs once again. In paragraph 104 of that report we read why factories should be selected. It reads as follows—

That is why we are taking up this remedy. It is because the secondary industries are mobile. That is said in that report of the United Party’s own commission. Because they are mobile they can be moved within the framework of the economy. Why those hon. members now want to pretend that we want to disrupt the secondary industries in South Africa completely, is beyond my comprehension. Apparently there are a great many objections to clause 3 (4), because it mentions the sort of labour against which we are directing ourselves, namely Bantu labour. As this report of the United Party’s own Planning Council indicates, the Bantu is the problem. That is why mention is made of Bantu employees. As I am saying, we are killing two birds with one stone. We are implementing the policy of separate development, but at the same time we are arranging it in such a way that we may decentralize our industries in South Africa.

In conclusion I also want to make the observation that this legislation should not be regarded as replacing measures we have taken previously. It does not replace measures we have taken, for instance, in order to encourage industries to go to the border areas. That legislation and those processes will remain in force. This measure is in fact supplementary. It is not a coercive measure. It is, in the first place, a measure to advise people so that they may avoid past mistakes. A certain measure of prohibition attaches itself to this, but prohibition is still not coercion. If I tell a person that he may not enter the Debating Chamber, then it is not necessarily coercion. However, if I take him by the neck and force him into the Debating Chamber, only then does it amount to coercion. No industries are being taken by the neck and forced to go to a certain place. What they are being told here is where it will be desirable for them to establish their industries in the general interest of the country. If we view the matter in that light, instead of arousing suspicions, as the hon. member for Pinetown did this afternoon, then we shall make much more progress with the development of South Africa in the future. I want to emphasize again that this side of the House is very much in earnest about achieving balanced development in South Africa as far as our industries are concerned. Amongst other things I want to mention that my town, the town of Heilbron, which is situated far from the Bantu areas, has also been classified as being entitled to border industries benefits, because we want development at Heilbron for the Coloureds who are living there. In that way we can mention several examples where the development of areas bordering on Bantu homelands is not our only aim, but where it is also our concern to develop other parts of our country. In this way it will probably be recommended in other parts of our country —where there is no Coloured labour, but Indian labour, which will also have to be taken into account—that factories should go to those places so that we may bring about that balanced development in South Africa. I think it would be foolish of us not to continue with this measure and to place it on our Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Heilbron has alleged that the legislation before the House contains no coercive elements. He states that an industrialist will not be seized by his neck and sent packing in a specific direction. All that will happen is that he will be recommended to go to a specific area. Now I want to know from the hon. member for Heilbron whether it is not coercion if one were, for example, to say to an industrialist in Port Elizabeth: “Your factory has developed to such and such an extent. After this legislation has been passed we are afraid that you cannot have any further expansion here. We want you to go to Queenstown or East London.” Now I want to ask the hon. member whether that is not a form of coercion, i.e. when an industrialist is told: “so far and no further.” It is merely coercion under any other name which the hon. member chooses to give it. The hon. member for Heilbron also said that what the Government wants is a balanced industrial development in South Africa. That is an entirely acceptable point of view. It is a point of view with which, to my mind, no hon. members in this House can quarrel, but the hon. member wants the industries to go to the borders of the reserves, he wants expansion in our present metropolitan areas to be restricted to a large extent, he wants it to remain more or less as it is at present and he does not want any additional labour to be brought in.

And subsequently less.

And subsequently less, yes. I am glad the hon. member made that point. In other words, the industrialist of South Africa must realize that he will not always be able to expand on the basis of Bantu labour. In other words, a stage can be reached when, according to this Government’s policy, it will be possible for stagnation to set in in the present metropolitan areas, it must come.

I want to return to the hon. member for Heilbron. He said that they wanted a balanced development. In order to have development along the borders of the reserves, expansion must be restrained and come to a halt in specific white areas. I want to ask the hon. member the following question: Will he only have non-Whites in his employ in those industries? Of course not. The industries will again go through precisely the same process of development which they went through in Port Elizabeth, Uitenhage, on the Witwatersrand, or in Durban-Pinetown. Precisely the same development will take place 150 or 200 miles further away. In other words, he is dissatisfied at the creation of one metropolitan area, but he is also prepared to see precisely the same area being created elsewhere. If the hon. member for Heilbron wants balanced development in South Africa, must the balanced development be in the so-called white area only? He knows that the development of border industries is taking place in the white areas only. If he wants a balanced development in South Africa then he must have the development in the Bantu areas themselves, and this Bill does not make provision for that.

Therefore the hon. the Minister cannot adopt the attitude that this Bill will further his policy of separate development. This Bill will merely result in further development of another white area which will be situated a little closer to a Bantu area. If he wants balanced development then this development must take place in the Bantu areas themselves, and that will not happen under this Bill. Nor will this Bill in any way further his policy of separate development. We must have clarity on this point. It is of course the attitude which the hon. the Minister will adopt: He will come forward here with propaganda to the effect that this Bill is being introduced in order to further the Government’s policy of separate development. That is by no means the position. Mr. Speaker, about 130 years ago we had a migration on the part of the white man into the interior. He approached closer to the black man. In the past 30 years we have had a migration on the part of the black man towards the area of the white man, and as a result of this measure we are going to have a third migration. We are going to find that the white man is once more approaching closer to the black man. That is what is being envisaged in this Bill.

It is being stated so glibly that the manufacturing industry is the industry which is responsible for the tremendous increase in the number of Bantu in our white areas, but what are the facts? The facts of the matter are that according to the 1960 census there were approximately 3,900,000 economically active Bantu in South Africa, of whom almost 1,400,000 were employed in agriculture. Slightly more than half a million Bantu were employed on the mines. But in the manufacturing industry there were only approximately 308,000 Bantu. The argument is now being put forward that it is industrial development which is brining this tremendous concentration of Bantu to our white cities. If hon. members were to glance at the figures in respect of the Witwatersrand and the industrial development taking place there they would find that the ratio between white and black there is one of the most favourable in the country seen from the point of view of the white man. The ratio is approximately one to one. Let us glance at what the position is in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex which has to draw a large percentage of its labour from the Bantu areas. The following statement is so readily made: “You have New Brighton and Kwasi Kila; there are thousands and thousands of black people there.” But what is the position in the factories of the industrialists, the so-called bogeymen, who according to hon. members on that side are hammering nails into the coffin of the white man in South Africa? In 1961 we had 1,279 registered factories in that area which employed approximately 60,000 people, of whom 19,000 or 32 per cent were white, 15,000 or 26.3 per cent were Coloured and 24,000 or 41 per cent were black. Let us glance now at what the position was in September 1966. The number of Bantu had by then increased from 24,000 in 1960 to 32,000 an increase of 8,000. But the percentage of Bantu who were active in the manufacturing industry in that major complex had decreased from 41 per cent to 38.5 per cent. We learn from members on that side that these people are supposed to constitute such a grave danger to South Africa. We cannot have a complex such as the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex, because the more we expand the greater the danger becomes.

What does the E.P. Herald have to say about all the blacks coming to Port Elizabeth?

That is the position in a place such as Port Elizabeth. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he really believes, since there has been a percentage decrease in the position of the Bantu in the industries, that they can be a danger to the white man in that area?

May I ask the hon. member what he would prefer— a decrease to, say, 25 per cent, or an increase to 50 per cent?

The hon. the Minister knows that I am a farmer. I have today scores more black people on the farm than I had 15 years ago, and I do not mind, for the simple reason that my business is expanding. As long as business is expanding I believe that we will make more and more use of the black people. I do not know where the hon. the Minister gets the idea from that people in the cities are afraid of the black people.

Who said we are afraid of them? We are not afraid of them.

Of course you are afraid.

I want to remind the hon. member for Brakpan that the former Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said before a congress of young Nationalists in 1959 that the black people were a danger in our white cities. If they are not a danger to us, why does the hon. member want them removed? If they are not a danger, then surely he can keep them in the white areas. I accept that they are not a danger. If the philosophy of hon. members on that side is correct then I must immediately get rid of all the black people I have in my employ, and my fellow farmers must also get rid of all the black people they have in their employ. That is simply impossible. I say that they cannot be a danger in the cities either.

This “danger” story is the most irresponsible thing which has been said up to now in this debate.

I shall bring evidence to prove to the hon. the Minister that the former Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, Mr. De Wet Nel, said this as far back as 1959. Then it was not irresponsible, but now that I am saying it, it suddenly becomes an irresponsible thing to say. Hon. members on that side of the House say that they do not want to compel industries to go to the borders of the reserves. The hon. member for Heilbron quoted from one report after the other to indicate that we should support this Bill. He pointed out that the 1947 legislation had been placed on the Statute Book by the United Party Government. Quite correct. That legislation was placed on the Statute Book by the then United Party Government. We saw in it a means of bringing about the decentralization of industries in South Africa. The hon. member omitted to mention to us what the good points of that legislation were. For example he omitted to tell us what is provided in section 4 of the 1947 legislation, i.e. that on each occasion there should be consultation with the leading bodies in the country which are concerned in the development of our natural resources. Why is that section, in which the objectives of the Natural Resources Development Council were defined, not included in this Bill? No, it was not included in this Bill because the hon. the Minister knows that economic development has up to now taken place contrary to the race policy which the Government has been following up to now.

I was absolutely amazed to read in this morning’s Die Burger that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education said last night at Stellenbosch that this Government’s policy of border industries had been so successful that the Government had in the past six years prevented more than 450,000 black people from coming to the white areas. That was how they had succeeded in their policy of keeping the Bantu in the homelands. So they really do not need legislation. Those are the propaganda stories of the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Minister knows that the Government’s policy has not been a success and now he wants the power in his hands to be able to say to the industrialists of Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth, Durban, Cape Town and Pinetown: “Thus far and no further. If you want to develop further then you will have to go and establish your factories on the borders of the reserves.” But I want to go so far as to say that I do not think the Minister is very interested in economic development. That is not his primary objective. His primary objective is to give the voting public and particularly his own Nationalist supporters the impression that they are putting apartheid into practice. They are being criticized at every congress. Their own people are telling them that they have been in power for 20 years and that an increasing number of black people are continually entering the white areas. This is the only thing they will be able to tell those people: “Here we have passed legislation now. Just watch us from here on in and you will see that scores of factories on the borders of the homelands will be supplying work for the Bantu.” But at the same time they know that it can only be on the borders of the reserves because they are too afraid to enter the reserves. They want, at the same time, to be able to show the white voters that this development is not only for the sake of the black man.

The Whites are also deriving great benefit from it. That is the gist of that party’s attitude. Now the hon. the Minister stands up here and tells us that the choice is either apartheid or integration; it is either separate development, or the brown and black children will be playing in the ruins of the Union Buildings. By (he way, the hon. the Minister made a very interesting speech. He put me in mind of a man and his wife who went to bioscope thinking that they would see a wonderful film. The film turned out to be a very brief one but the supporting programme was quite good. [Laughter.]The hon. Minister explained his legislation very briefly and then he gave a long summary of separate development. [Interjections,] The hon. member for Heilbron quoted from many reports, but I want to refer him to only one report. That is the report of the Commission on the Protective Policy for Industries, of which Mr. Du Toit Viljoen was the chairman. In paragraph 4 he states the following (translation)—

This paragraph in question is quite a mouthful, but what it amounts to is this, that nobody will be compelled to go to a specific area. Draw them in other ways. But why must the industrialists of my area be told that they can develop so far and no further? Why does the hon. the Minister want that power? Why must my area be restricted because he wants to develop another area? Why cannot he leave that area alone, so that it can be developed by private initiative as far as it can possibly go, and at the same time give any other areas along the borders of the homelands all the attractions? That is what he can do and if the hon. the Minister wants to do that then nobody will have any objection to the steps he wants to take. It would be unfair because if one were against those steps one would in reality be against private initiative and against the decentralization of industries, and then one is in reality opposed to a balanced economic development taking place in one’s country. That is why nobody is against that. But I want to tell the Minister the following. This legislation which we are going to pass here to-day … [Interjections.] I am certain a few hon. members opposite will still come to their senses and help us. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. the Minister that as far as all the industrialists of Port Elizabeth are concerned, there is not one of them who will like this legislation, for the simple reason that most industrialists are being so inundated nowadays by increasing quantities of administrative regulations that this legislation will only mean that for the slightest expansion which they want to make, whenever they want to employ more Bantu, they will have to go to the Minister or to his Committee to obtain permission to be able to do so. All that it will mean is that they will be burdened with more and more administrative duties, and furthermore it will only mean that the production costs of many of those industries will be pushed up even further. I want to make a plea to-day on behalf of those people. An orderly community which has thousands of thousands of white people, has built up that industrial area through white iniative. We made use of the Coloured and of the black man. Any one of those pillars which you want to remove to-day will simply mean that you will confine the development of that region. I want to entreat the hon. the Minister to leave our existing industrial areas as they are to-day and afford those people every opportunity of developing, and to refrain from taking steps which will reduce their labour strength. If they want to make any expansions the Minister must afford them the opportunity of doing so. If he does not want to do so he will be dealing a heavy blow against healthy industrial development in the Eastern Cape, of which Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage are the best examples. I am entreating the hon. the Minister to look after the interests of those people and ensure that industrial development takes its normal course as it has done for the past 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened at length, attentively and with much patience to what three Opposition speakers have had to say in regard to this very important piece of legislation which we have before us to-day. However, if one has to listen for an half hour to the kind of speeches which we have heard here then one begins to wonder where the hon. Opposition is going to. The hon. member for Newton Park alleged here that the Government was creating conditions which would result in a third Great Trek in South Africa. The first had been the migration of the farmers out of the Eastern Cape to the north, and then there had been the migration of the black man to the white areas. According to the hon. member the Government wanted to create conditions to draw the white man to the borders of the black man’s territory. The hon. member then went on to say that what the Government now wanted to do was to transfer the conditions which were at present prevailing in the metropolitan areas of South Africa to the borders of the reserves.

The mistake which the Opposition is making, is this: They regard every Bill as a separate item because they themselves do not have a great plan for South Africa, because they themselves do not have that universal view. That is why they deal with each Bill which comes before this House in its context only. On the other hand we on this side of the House have a great vision, a great plan for the prosperity and the safety of all the nations of South Africa. Cannot the hon. member for Newton Park realize that we are affording each one of these nations every opportunity of realizing themselves to the full in their own areas. That is why we are creating the conditions adjoining the reserves so that that black labour can reside and live in its own area and can have its sphere of activity just outside its own area. That is the major difference between the creation of conditions in the metropolitan areas and the creation of those conditions on the borders of the reserves.

It is because the Opposition does not have that broad view, because they do not have a great plan for the welfare, the prosperity and the safety of all the nations of South Africa, that they see nothing but problems in every Bill which is dealt with here without discerning the underlying objectives. All that they see are the problems. After having listened very patiently to the hon. members of the Opposition this afternoon, I can only say that history undoubtedly repeats itself, and quite often too. During the past week I have done a little research in order to discover what the attitude of the Opposition had been in respect of every Bill which this Government brought before Parliament during the past 19 years, legislation to ensure the safety and the prosperity of all the nations of South Africa. What has the attitude of the Opposition been? While I was paging through old editions of Hansard I read about precisely the same things which I saw again here this afternoon.

Let us begin with the Group Areas Act of 1950. Do you know what I read about that in Hansard? On 29th May, 1950, the then Acting Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Strauss, stated very clearly—

In Column 7472 of the same date we find the following words spoken by Mr. Strauss—

During the Third Reading Mr. Strauss said something which is very interesting because it corresponds exactly to what hon. members on that side said here this afternoon. Mr. Strauss quoted from a letter which he had received from the Chamber of Industries (Hansard, Column 8775)—

Does that not remind you of the last portion of the amendment moved here this afternoon by the hon. member for Constantia? It implies precisely the same attitude. The attitude on that side is always that, “this new step of the Government is going to cause disruption, a disruption the extent of which it is difficult to foresee”, etc.

On each occasion the Opposition have seen bogeymen, and they are also seeing them now, bogeymen which have assumed exaggerated proportions in their eyes. Why do they see these bogeymen? Because—as I have said before—they do not have a plan for South Africa, because they do not have a great purpose. That is why all that they are constantly doing is seeing spectres. That is why they never recognized planned development, they are always seeing spectres, and in this case as well it is the old story all over again. How has the lie not been given to those pessimistic predictions of the then Opposition under the Acting Leader, Mr. Strauss! I read in the documents submitted to us by the Federated Chamber of Industries and the Chamber of Commerce that they are making equally gloomy predictions if this measure were to be placed on the Statute Book.

Let us state this very clearly now for the umpteenth time: This Government recognizes a free enterprise economy, and if the hon. gentlemen of the Chamber of Industries and the Chambers of Commerce want to intimidate us by stating that we should not interfere in the economy and in free enterprise in South Africa, then we want to give them the assurance once more that this Government adheres strictly to the principle of free enterprise. None of them need teach us a lesson in the economics of free enterprise. They certainly do not have a monopoly of economic knowledge. They do not have a monopoly of wisdom as far as free economy is concerned. I want to state very clearly and unequivocally that this Government adheres to the tenets of free economy, of free enterprise. But it must very definitely be established within the framework of the Government’s intentions concerning the safety and survival of all the nations in South Africa. That is the only condition we impose. There is no question now of our wanting to restrict the liberty of economy, or of our wanting to regiment everything. Surely the hon. the Minister made it very clear that it will still be possible for industries to develop in the metropolitan areas provided that development takes place within the framework of the Government’s plans for the safety of all the nations in the Republic.

We on this side of the House are beginning to get sick and tired of the condescending attitude of the Opposition and the economically pious gentlemen of the Chambers of Industry and the Chambers of Commerce, people who are always trying to prescribe to the Government not to interfere in free economy, not to regiment in any way, because, so they say, only free enterprise—as they see it and as they interpret the matter—can bring prosperity to all in South Africa. We have the greatest respect for what the industrialist has established in South Africa. We are grateful for what those gentlemen of the Chamber of Industries have established. But everything in their garden has not always been moonshine and roses. May I ask them where they were when there was an urgent need here in South Africa for a steel industry to be established here? Did they on that occasion come forward with their so-called free enterprise to establish that essential industry for South Africa? Where were they when we had to establish a basic industry such as the steel industry in South Africa? In their memorandum the Chamber of Industries have stated that it is essential that the basic considerations should be investigated thoroughly before drastic steps for the sake of decentralization are taken. That is their attitude again in respect of this Bill. But that was also their attitude at that time when South Africa had a pressing need for a basic steel industry. At that time they were so concerned, together with the then United Party, with basic considerations, that they were never able to proceed to do something tangible. Their concern with basic considerations was merely in order to waste time, and that for a specific purpose. While they were still busy wasting time, the then National Party Government under General Hertzog proceeded to erect a steel factory. To-day they are once again asking us not to proceed with this legislation, at least not before certain basic considerations have been investigated. Did not the same thing happen in the case of Sasol? There much-vaunted free enterprisers would not and could not establish a Sasol, and yet it is to-day the nucleus, the focal point of a large number of industries which grew up around that primary industry. Where were these much-vaunted free enterprisers then? Even to-day hon. members on the opposite side are still being disparaging in regard to the establishment of that industry which is to-day the basis of a large chemical industry in South Africa. Is it necessary for me to remind them of Foskor as well, a basic industry which is today the focal point of a growing industrial complex at Phalaborwa? Where were they when we experienced great difficulties after Sharpeville? Did they then display confidence in South Africa and expand their factories? Where were these much-vaunted free enterprisers then? Was the then Minister of Finance not then literally forced to toady to them by means of taxation concessions to get them to expand their factories and get our economy going again? The hon. the Minister of Finance literally had to toady to them. But even that did not help. The then Minister of Justice, who is to-day Prime Minister, first had to introduce drastic measures to create a safe climate before these much-vaunted gentlemen were willing to expand their industries further and in that way get the economy of South Africa going again. This side of the House and the public outside are sick and tired of this economically sanctimonious prattle of the hon. gentlemen of the Chamber of Industries and of Assocom and of their champions here in this House.

Let us remind ourselves again of certain basic economic facts. Let us consider what these hon. gentlemen who are pleading here to such an extent for free enterprise and a free economy and who want to pretend that they have a monopoly of knowledge are saying (translation)—

What do they want to imply with those words, Mr. Speaker? That only they have that knowledge? That this side of the House has no knowledge of our economy? Let me present them with a few basic facts. Most of our industries, the property of these economically sacrosanct gentlemen, owe their existence and survival to the protective policy of successive national governments. Where would they have been if it had not been for the protective policy of the National Party Government, a policy which has often been violently opposed by hon. members of the Opposition? Where would they have been if successive National Party Governments had not protected them? And who paid for that protection? I am speaking here of basic economic facts, which these hon. gentlemen discuss so derogatively, implying that this side of the House is entirely ignorant of the matter. Who must pay for that protection now? The man in the street must do so, because he has to pay more for his shirt, his socks, his trousers and his jacket. All because industries are being protected. I have no fault to find with industries being protected. It is necessary. But I am asking, where would these hon. gentlemen have been if this National Party Government and former National Party Governments had not applied a policy of protecting industries? As I have said, the man in the street must pay for it. Does this man in the street, for whom hon. members opposite plead both in season and out, not also have the right to lay claim to protection for himself? All these years he has been paying for the establishment and continued existence of these factories with a smile.

Does he not also have the right to claim that his survival, his safety, should be guaranteed? Does he not have the right to ask this Government, a Government which he has kept in office for 19 years now, to take steps to guarantee and perpetuate his safety and survival in this fine country of ours? The man in the street, the man who brought this Government into office will contribute his share. The Government will consider it its duty to guard against the development of conditions in and around our major cities, conditions affecting the safety of John Citizen and his wife and we shall not allow ourselves to be dictated to by the sacrosanct gentlemen of the Chamber of Industries and of Assocom, nor by the hon. Opposition. That is to say, if we want to guarantee and perpetuate the survival of all population groups in South Africa. I want to warn hon. members of the Opposition and the hon. gentlemen of the Chamber of Industries and of Assocom to see to it that John Citizen does not reproach them with being concerned only with their own prosperity and not caring what becomes of the safety of John Citizen and his children. Do not let John Citizen reproach you with having been concerned only with your own profits. That is the ugliest, the worst and the most reprehensible aspect of our capitalistic system. Let us root it out. Let us become altruistic and not only look after our own profits. Let us rather ensure prosperity within the framework of safety for all. Of what avail is all the wealth and all the riches if we lose that safety? That is why this Government will continue working for the prosperity and the safety of all the nations of South Africa. It will see to that.

I have spoken harshly to the Opposition and with F.C.I. and Assocom. You will agree with me that it is very necessary, after what we heard this afternoon from hon. members of the Opposition. I want to place it very clearly on record that we on this side of the House are very grateful that the opinions set out in this pamphlet are not the opinions of all industrialists. We want to state very clearly that there are many other businessmen in South Africa—industrialists as well as merchants— who do not need these warnings and these reprimands, because they are altruistic enough not to place prosperity above safety for all in their planning. We realize only too well that this legislation will create problems, formidable problems, particularly in the initial stages. But were formidable problems in the past not in fact an incentive to progress? Was the solution of these formidable problems in the past not a challenge and an incentive to us all to find new ways and means of solving those problems? The hon. member for Newton Park was very concerned about the fact that the Bantu have to be removed from his industries in Port Elizabeth. He wanted to know why they are being penalized now, and how they are expected to manage. He asked that even after the hon. the Minister had stated so emphatically that it was not our purpose to chase away and transfer.

Then you must vote against the legislation, because it is not necessary.

Has that hon. member never heard of plans to get along with fewer labourers? Let me mention one specific example to him. In the Cape Town docks a problem arose during the past deciduous fruit season as a result of the tremendous harvest which had to be handled. It became very clear that we would have to import more labourers to load all the cases of export fruit on to the trucks, etc. Did the Railways then go to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, or to the Deputy Minister and say: We want more and more Bantu to off-load those cases from the trucks? No, Sir. As befits a responsible body, they made plans to get along with less labour. I understand that they succeeded in evolving a system which amounts to this: Where formerly it had taken six to eight labourers two hours to off-load such a truck, they would now, with one white operator, be able to off-load that same truck in 11 minutes. In 11 minutes one white operator would now do the work which six to eight Bantu labourers had formerly done in two hours. I am mentioning this one example to show the hon. member for Newton Park that where there is a will, there is a way. Since we have set ourselves the task of ensuring the safety and survival of all the nations of South Africa, we will make plans and we will find a way out for ourselves, because where there is a will there is a way.

Then there is the example which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration used last night at Stellenbosch of an industrial concern at Bellville which increased its production by more than 300 per cent after it had reduced its number of Bantu labourers from 440 to 48. This Bill before the House is just another step in the implementation of this great plan for South Africa. The enemies of our nation want to destroy our safety. They do not hesitate to dangle before us the bait of prosperity and riches all the time. But this side of the House will not be deceived into taking the bait. This side of the House has always stood firm in its struggle against the enemies of our people. But where was the Opposition during this struggle against the enemies of our nation? Did they come and thrust their heads into the scrum to help us shove when the enemies of our nation want to push us away? No, they stood on the sidelines. Besides that, do you know what they were shouting? They were shouting: “The National Party is playing a dirty game; give them a good hiding”. That was their share in this struggle for the establishment of our safety. That was their share. But the people of South Africa who were sitting there in the pavilion saw all this. The people of South Africa are not blind. They saw that while we on this side of the House were fighting for the safety of South Africa the Opposition were adding their voices to those of the enemies of South Africa. That is why the voting public has kept this Government in power now for 19 years. If this Opposition does not come to its senses, then I easily predict that a further 19 years lie ahead for this Government. That is why I want to make an appeal to the hon. Opposition and ask them to come to their senses because just as in 1950 they issued a warning to the effect that the economy of this country would go under, just as the hon. member for Pinetown issued the warning this very afternoon that if we had to compete with the cheap labour of the border industries and the Bantu areas, then the White economy would collapse, so the future will once again prove that this is mere scaremongering and we will not allow ourselves to be intimidated by scaremongering.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that it has been agreed that we will adjourn at six o’clock; for that reason I move—

Agreed to.