I do not propose to move any amendment, but I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to this and the two preceding clauses, which I think he should very carefully review as they prevent the spread of knowledge and are inclined to hinder research and generally to hold back the progress of this science in this country unless they are altered to give greater freedom of thought and action.

The hon. member raised this point during the Second Reading stage, but I may just point out to him that the restrictive provision contained in section 21 of the present Act in regard to the assignment of any patent or the granting of a licence in respect of any patent, if that patent relates to the processing or use of any prescribed material or the production of nuclear energy, is being extended by this clause so as to be applicable also to cases in respect of which the patent relates to special nuclear material or the enrichment or the processing of source or special nuclear material. I shall most certainly convey the point raised by the hon. member to the Atomic Energy Board to be duly taken into account in the application of the Act.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Had the purpose of this Bill been the decentralization of industry, as it is normally understood, then my comment would perhaps have been limited to saying that the hon. the Minister has put the cart before the horse, because if you examine the methods followed for the re-allocation of industry in other countries of the world such as Great Britain, France and Italy, you will find that first growth points are established and thereafter, and only thereafter, restrictions are placed on the free movement of industry in the great metropolitan areas, or the conurbations or megalopolizes, as they are called. This Bill does everything in reverse. First, the Minister takes the right to freeze the establishment of new factories, or if there is additional Bantu labour to be employed, the extension of factories, and then presumably, and only presumably, at some future date, he will establish the growth points which are required and to which industries can go. But, of course, the intention of the Bill is something entirely different. The hon. the Minister has told us that its purpose is not economic, but that it is socio-economic, and the hon. the Minister went to great lengths to explain this. But you see, Sir, “socio-economics” to the hon. the Minister simply means one thing: Get the Bantu out of the white areas at any cost. This kind of thinking does not surprise anybody. After all, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has been beating this drum for some time. This was the crux of his address to the executive of the F.C.I. on the 7th of March last. The hon. member for Pinetown quoted an extract from the hon. the Minister’s speech where he said that decentralization could not be done on a voluntary basis; that it had not been possible to do so in England or France or Italy, so how could we expect it here. The hon. the Minister also said this—

So the purpose has been quite clear, Sir, and the hon. the Minister in his speech on Friday confirmed that his attitude was that industry must bow the knee to Government policy. But this is a comparatively new line of thinking because at the F.C.I. council meeting in March, Mr. Klopper, on behalf of the Transvaal Chamber of Industries, said this—

In June, 1960, the late Prime Minister issued what was called an exposition on the establishment of border industries for consideration by the Economic Advisory Council. At page 7 the exposition contained this statement under the heading “The Co-operation of Private Enterprise”—

It went on to say this at page 10—

Mr. Speaker, what has happened to all this talk of co-operation with private enterprise? We all know that the F.C.I. and Assocom are totally opposed to this Bill. But the hon. the Minister is unconcerned. This is the way he wants it and this is the way it is going to be. And what has happened to the Economic Advisory Council? After all, this council was appointed by the Government to advise it at the highest possible level, to advise the Prime Minister personally on economic affairs. After the publication of the Prime Minister’s exposition in June, 1960, the Economic Advisory Council met in July of that year, and I am going to read to the House the advice which that council gave to the Prime Minister. This is what the council said—

This is the advice given to the hon. the Prime Minister, and on Friday—the hon. the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—I understood him to say that the Economic Advisory Council was still against this measure, that it did not like compulsion and that it did not like the Bill. The Government first of all calls into being a body consisting of the top brains in the country on economic matters and then ignores its advice.

It was only advice.

Sir, we are therefore faced with this question: Why has there been this change from co-operation to coercion? Why is the advice of the Economic Advisory Council being ignored? The answer is not very difficult to find. You see, hon. Ministers, and hon. members opposite, have for a long time now been telling us of the wonderful success they have achieved with border industries; we have heard this ad nauseam. I think it is fair to say that the facts show that they spoke more with emphasis than with conviction. I think it is also fair to say that what they had to say was closer to what their supporters wanted to hear than to the reality of the situation. But, Sir, this is the awkward moment of truth, when reality has to be faced, and the reality of the situation is simply that the whole structure of Government policy has failed. The development of border industries has been too slow and too limited to make any impact on the number of Bantu in the urban areas. The flow of the Bantu has been into the towns and not out of the towns. The refusal of the Government to allow white capital and white skill into the reserves has effectively closed the one door that might have provided mass employment for the Bantu in his homelands. The Minister is a gentleman in a hurry: 1978 is too far ahead for him. He wants the reversal to start, as he said, long before that date. So we get the Bill which the Minister says he must have at all costs. But the question I want to ask is: Has the Minister counted the cost?

To achieve development in the border areas, development must be restricted in the metropolitan areas, for this is the whole purpose of the Bill, and if industrial development is not shifted from the developed areas to the border areas then the Government will have failed to achieve its objective. Industrial development of the border areas must of necessity be much slower than development in the established urban areas; growth-points have to be determined and the infra-structure has to be provided. Established organizations will find it far easier to expand in the present industrial areas than they will find it to expand in the border areas, because after all, all they have to do where they are situated at the moment is to add an additional wing or an additional floor to existing facilities and they have expanded their business. But if they go to the border areas, a whole new process must commence.

The individual with limited means will find it almost impossible to establish himself in a border area; the problems are much too complex. You see, what happens in practice is this. In the cities a person wanting to start a new business hires a few square feet of working space, buys or hires one or two machines, and he is on his way. This Bill controls the smallest factory and spells doom for the small man who, in the past, with little more than courage and hard work, established what today are some of our largest factories. The Minister would do well to remember that the establishment of new, large factories is the exception and not the rule. What happens in a system of free enterprise is that from small beginnings big things grow. Some of our largest organizations started from nothing. I was interested in a company which started in Johannesburg 20 years ago in an old bicycle shed; to-day its turnover runs into millions of rand and it exports to many countries in the world. I am no longer associated with it—I entered politics, unfortunately.

When was the factory started?

About 20 years ago.

Not 19 years ago?

No. Organized commerce and industry have stated quite clearly that if the Minister proceeds with this measure it could lead to, “irreparable harm being done to manufacturing activities, and could result in most serious economic distortions”.

I wonder if the Minister really knows what a gamble he is taking? You see, continued economic expansion is an absolute essential for South Africa. We need continued industrial expansion to maintain our balance of payments position, particularly after 1971 when it is expected our gold production will decline. We need a peak of industrial efficiency and productivity to halt and beat inflation; we need to produce cheap and quality goods. The Government is well aware of this and the relaxation of import control and the statement by the Prime Minister in Port Elizabeth on Tuesday night last that—

are desiged to achieve just this: Maximum efficiency of production. There is another point: We need continued industrial development to achieve exactly what the Minister wants, namely to build up industry in the border areas or in the homelands. The exposition in June, 1960. of the late Prime Minister to which I referred said this quite explicitly, and I quote from page 8—

The Minister needs it, but most important of all, we need industrial development to increase the standard of living of all the peoples of South Africa, and particularly of the non-Europeans. The tranquility of the Republic, often referred to by hon. Ministers opposite, is perhaps primarily due to the higher standards of living that the non-European has been able to achieve in the last few years. Sir Roy Welensky was right when he said that, “poverty, not the vote, is the problem of Africa”. As long as our people are progressing economically, we can at least hope for peaceful evolution. But if we should have a recession with attendant unemployment, we can run into a packet of trouble. Empty stomachs make angry and reckless people.

No, Sir, the hazards of this Bill are far too great. We on this side of the House are not prepared to gamble with the whole future of the Republic. It is industry that has to deliver the goods. They can help the Minister. The burden of industrial expansion falls on individual industrialists, and we must get away from this concept of enormous organizations putting millions of rand into the border areas: It just does not work that way. Industry has warned the Government quite clearly and quite unequivocally of what the results of this Bill might well be. I do not think we are impressed by the answer of the Minister that he and a committee of his departmental heads will in effect make the decisions for industry.

This Bill is dynamite; it is premature, illogical and ill-conceived. But I am not surprised, because it follows the usual pattern of legislation of this Government. This Government when it plans so often forgets to look at the picture as a whole: It stabs a little here and it stabs a little there, trying to make the unworkable workable. It takes no account of essential basic considerations, such as those set out by the F.C.I. and ASSOCOM statements. Also, it takes no account of ultimate effects. This is something about which we on this side have been hammering this Government for years, namely that when they do something they should try and work out the logical effects. It is the old story of cause and effect.

The Minister said that the Bill in effect is merely enabling legislation. It will enable him to do certain things. He has said that he will implement it in close and continuous consultation with industry by himself and his standing committee. But this is not the point. If the Minister wants decentralization in industry, his job is to investigate the problem properly and plan properly, in co-operation with his economic advisory council and with industry. If he were to do that, it might well be that he would get our support. But he will certainly not get our support for this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, over the years hon. members opposite have been reproaching us on this side of the House with not making any progress in regard to the ratio between White and non-White in South Africa. The hon. members have reproached us with there still being an influx of Bantu to our urban areas and they have reproached us with not having been able in recent years to prevent the number of Bantu in the metropolitan areas from still showing an increase. Lately they have been reproaching us in a mocking tone by saying that we were apparently not succeeding in reversing the stream. What we on this side of the House said, was that the programme to effect a change in the situation was one which extended over a long period and was one which had to be planned in advance and that it was indeed the plan and the intention of the Government to effect such a reversal of the stream.

Hon. members did not believe us at that time. What we experienced on Friday and what we are experiencing to-day is actually annoyance on the part of hon. members, annoyance which stems from the fact that with this legislation we are indeed doing what we have always said we would do. That is what we are experiencing. With this legislation we are paying the next installment for effecting this process which forms part of the policy of the National Party. Therefore I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, as his personal statement of policy, that he would like to see the policy of separate development being implemented as soon as possible. We are grateful to him for also having said that he would always make his contribution to that. That in point of fact constitutes a confirmation of the policy of the National Party.

I just want to remind hon. members of what the hon. the Prime Minister said when he addressed the nation for the first time. He said that we in this country would solve our own problems. By “we” he meant the White, the Bantu, the Indian and the Coloured. That is what is happening now.

However, there is a marked difference between the Opposition and us as far as the whole approach to this problem is concerned, as a matter of fact, as far as all the long-term problems with which we are faced are concerned. That difference is to be found in the fact that hon. members of the Opposition are only living for the present. They regard a problem as being a problem for the present generation only. They are not prepared to see any problem in its entirety also as far as the future is concerned. In the past hon. members of the Opposition were not prepared to cooperate with us in evolving a long-term plan for South Africa. That is the trouble with hon. members opposite. That is why they do not have a policy, because if a person merely lives from day to day and regards all problems as problems for the present generation, he cannot draw up a plan for the future of a country. In that case he cannot have any faith in the future either. Consequently the electorate too has no faith in those hon. members as far as a long-term plan for South Africa is concerned.

We on this side of the House adopt a different attitude. We hold the view that we are part of this country and also of the future of this country. If there are economic and social trends which threaten to heighten problems for South Africa in the future, we adopt the attitude that we cannot live for the present only but that we can and must make them take a turn; as a matter of fact, we adopt the attitude that it is the task of the Government to try to give direction to trends so as to determine the future, and not to leave the future to itself to take whatever course it likes. We know that in the past when hon. members of the Opposition were in power they simply allowed economic and social trends in South Africa to take their own course. Consequently it was necessary for this Government to combat the bad results of such trends. I now have one example in mind. I have in mind the policy of let things simply take their own course which was followed in regard to the large black spots which developed in the urban areas because hon. members of the Opposition did not wish to exercise any influence on the trend of that time. As a result of their failure to do so they have saddled the present Government with the task of clearing up the results of those wrong trends. Therefore I say that there is a difference of approach between hon. members opposite and hon. members on this side of the House.

I want to concede to hon. members of the Opposition that the development of our large urban areas followed the same pattern as that which was followed in the rest of the world. The powers of development are always on the side of centralization. We want to concede that to hon. members. Those powers work against decentralization. There are good reasons for that. An important reason is that in any economic development production always seeks a market. Because the markets are concentrated in the large urban areas the trend is to enlarge what is already large. That is the line of least resistance. That is what has happened in South Africa. That is what is happening in the rest of the world too. There is an ever-increasing extent of centralization unless the Government of the day steps in and checks those powers. There is also another reason and that is precisely the one which was mentioned by the hon. member who has just sat down. That reason is that the private sector, which is co-responsible for economic development, does not concern itself about the results of centralization just as hon. members of the Opposition have never concerned themselves about the results of centralization in South Africa. Therefore it is our task to step in and to check these powers of centralization. I want to remind hon. members that this problem is identical to that with which other countries are struggling at present. The only difference between those countries and this country is that they do not have the large numbers of non-White labour we do have. Apart from that circumstances are identical. It is an economic law that something which is already large becomes even larger unless a government of the day steps in. Then I also want to tell hon. members that the reason why we are stepping in in South Africa is not that we want to be so much different to the rest of the world. We are doing so for the same reasons as those for which England, Germany, France and all Western countries have stepped in to prevent the centralization of large industries within a few areas. In other words, what we are doing here, is exactly the same thing as has been done by other countries of the world. That is being done for a specific reason. The economic advantages of greater centralization are outweighed by the social disadvantages which result from such centralization. This is what is at the bottom of this. We cannot simply allow something which is already large to become even larger without taking into account the social disadvantages involved. It is an economic law of the times in which we are living that the powers of development in all countries are on the side of centralization. Therefore the Government has stated that it is its policy to do something about this and to check this trend, and this legislation forms part of that plan.

The underlying principle of the Bill is to create a pattern in all further development in South Africa which will create order and balance in the socio-economic development of South Africa. That is the object of this legislation. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister stressed this point and made it very clear. Production factors and the factors of development, the most important of which are labour and water, have to be diverted in a specific direction in their flow. Just as we have to prevent labour from flowing to one single point, we have to prevent other factors of production being conveyed and taken at great expense to large centres whereby they will be made even larger with all the social implications involved.

Sir, I want to go further and I want to say to hon. members that precisely because industry is involved in this matter and plays the biggest part in this process, this measure is one which must affect industry most strongly. The hon. the Minister of Planning is concerned in this and has the responsibility of introducing this Bill. It is in point of fact the planning of the future. A Government is responsible for planning and for a policy. It is the task of the Government to see to it that a country develops on a basis that will create maximum prosperity in the future. It is the Government’s duty to do so. It is the Government’s duty to accept this responsibility because financial provision must also be made by the State. It is very clear from Firday’s debate that some hon. members adopt the attitude that economic development must be allowed to take its own course and that no steps must be taken against wrong trends as the industrialist has the right to establish his industries wherever he likes. That is not correct. The highest right is the right of a community to ensure order and security for the future. The economic law is not the most important one. The most important law is the social well-being of the entire community as a whole. That is the most important law. That is what hon. members opposite are overlooking.

That is the basis of this Bill but the hon. member who has just sat down said that as far as the Government’s future planning was concerned the Government was not having regard to factors to which regard had to be had. According to them we were not having regard to economic development nor to the interests of the industrialists.

If we go further and make a projection of the present position in South Africa to the year 2000, we shall find the following. At present there is a gross national product of approximately R8,000 million. In the year 2000 the gross national product of South Africa will be in the vicinity of R36,000 million or more, in other words, a five-fold development of the present position. Now the important question is this: If the gross national product of South Africa has to grow to five times its present size in the next 35 years or so, and if that is to be the extent of development, the question arises whether this additional growth of the gross national product has to take place in the Vaal Triangle, in Cape Town and in Durban. Do we have to accept that the influx of people, Black and White, in the next 35 years to develop this gross national product still has to take place in these three areas? If that has to happen and the entire South African nation, White and non-White, has to participate; that in point of fact will mean that the entire population of South Africa will have to congregate at these three points if they want to earn a living and develop and if the gross national product has to be earned at these three points in South Africa. A situation like this is unthinkable. We know that there is a trend which is in favour of the flow of labour to the larger centres. The world population is increasing at a rate of 2 per cent per annum but urbanization is taking place at a rate of 4 per cent per annum. This is a very clear trend towards the depopulation of rural areas and the development of a few urban areas. That is what we have to foresee now. We must foresee that this development either is going to take place at three points which are already large, with the result that they will become even larger and more seriously congested, or will have to be spread over the whole of South Africa whereby the labour and capital factors of production will be spread over the entire country. That is the choice we have, but hon. members opposite are confused about the alternatives. They think the alternatives are that development has to take place either in Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg or not at all. That is wrong. The alternatives are not that it must take place either in Cape Town, Durban or Johannesburg or not at all; the alternatives are in point of fact either that development must take place in the large urban areas we have to-day with their increasing problems and a higher cost per unit and the development of more serious bottlenecks or that even greater development must take place, spread over the whole of South Africa. These are the alternatives we have. If one says that no development is the alternative to development taking place where there already is development at the present time, one is confusing the issue before this House. Therefore I say to hon. members that in regard to this matter they based their entire argument on the supposition that we would not go as far as doing what we had planned to do and that they adopted the attitude that we would hold back when the day arrived when we had to take action. They are confusing the entire issue by putting wrong alternatives to the nation. That is what it all amounts to.

They put up a puppet and then proceed to shoot it down.

That is quite true. However, there is something else which is also concerned in this. The development which has to take place in South Africa will not only mean the extension of existing industries. Many industries are still going to enter the field, industries which have not taken an uncompromising stand as regards their location, because if a visitor from abroad decides to establish a large factory in South Africa he has the entire country to choose from, including the growth points which have already been created plus those that will be created within the next few years. There will be no loss to him provided his factory is located at a place which is economically viable and established so that he may be able to do business on the best economic principles and may continue to do so. Now I just want to remind hon. members that if we are to have a gross national product which will continue growing—and we know that in the future South Africa will not be restricted to local consumption only but will also become an export country to an increasing extent—another, and an important, factor enters the picture and that is the growth of these industries at the growth points which have been created and which will be created closer to our coastal areas and closer to the existing harbours and others to be built.

On the east coast of Natal there is the present harbour of Durban. Richards’ Bay is being planned at present. However, if one looks at a map, one sees that these two harbours have such an important and favourable situation from a strategic point of view for any industrialist who wants to export, that there is no sense, in terms of future development, to foresee the development of industries in Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg only. Therefore I say that our industrial development in years to come will include a large number of new industries. Therefore it is out of the question that an industry will be prejudiced because it will be situated at a certain place. These will be industries which can choose to be strategically situated so that they may make an existence, because all the growth points which have been created and those that will be created, have been and will be created on the basis of proper economic reasons, ones which can be justified from an economic point of view, namely the availability of wafer, labour, transport, as a matter of fact, the presence of the entire infrastructure. Hon. members need not concern themselves about the creation of the infrastructure. The Government has never created a single growth point unless it has also been prepared to create the infrastructure required to ensure a good existence for the industry that wants to establish itself there. In other words, as far as all future development is concerned, it is unthinkable that South Africa will be able to develop on a sound basis if it has to develop on the basis of the few large cities which are already too large at the present moment. It holds greater economic advantages for South Africa to spread its development over a larger area.

I want to make a next point in this connection. There will be more opportunity for rapid and large-scale development in South Africa if there is to be decentralization instead of centralization. In other words, we have to see the future as a development of the entire country, development not only at the few known growth points but all over South Africa, where all the economic production factors are already to be found together and where the Government will supplement them by its spending and by the future creation of the infrastructure. If we undertake further development in the future, we shall be doing so with less social disruption and fewer difficulties when such development is undertaken at 30 or 40 points than when that is undertaken at two or three points.

That is what it will amount to. Hon. members adopted the attitude that there would be compulsion or force to force industries to a certain point but that is out of the question. The legislation contains provision in this regard and the hon. the Minister said very clearly that no established industry would be forced to move from a point where it was already developing. However, we have to take into consideration that if South Africa is to develop to its full potential, it will mean that White and non-White will have to be brought to the highest level of productivity; in other words, that there will hardly be any limit in the economic development of South Africa if 32 million people are going to be integrated with our development by the year 2000. Then there will be no limit to the economic development of the country. However, there is no obligation for an industry to move from where it is. The legislation provides that there will be a choice as regards further development, and we trust that there will be cooperation on the part of industrialists to carry through the plan with which the Government is concerned in this legislation. However, the hon. member for Constantia gave a résumé of the fears and reproaches expressed by the English Press as well as by hon. members opposite. He said this legislation was “hasty and wrong, unsound in principle, and has no regard for the much wider issues involved”. This legislation has not been presented hastily. The policy which is now being implemented is one which was announced in 1948 and throughout the years it has been the policy of the Government to accomplish separate development in South Africa, and there has always been timeous warning from the Government to industry to tell industrialists that development will not continue to take place as they thought in the past it would, namely according to a policy of let things take their own course. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration also gave a clear indication to industry by saying that development in South Africa could no longer proceed as it did and that we intended taking a hand in matters. Therefore the reproach that we are over-hasty with this legislation is an unfair reproach. What is more, if the hon. member maintained that this legislation is “unsound in principle”, I ask myself what principle that is involved in this matter is an unsound principle, because the principle underlying this legislation is that there will be greater planning in the economic and industrial development of South Africa. When the hon. member said that “the law has no regard for much wider issues involved”, he did not define that more closely, because what issues are involved other than that there will be planned organization and that the various groups in the country will be employed in areas and parts where they can develop to the full and where they can share in the economic development of the country.

As regards the implementation of this legislation there is another very important aspect and that is the Bantu himself. In his Second Reading speech the Minister also had a message for the Bantu. The most important trend in recent years has been the breakthrough to the Bantu in regard to their acceptance of Government policy, and if those hon. members think that the Bantu is satisfied and will remain satisfied with merely being drawn into and herded together in the large metropolitan areas where they are subject to restrictions, they are very wide of the mark. In this the Bantu sees the possibility of bringing industry closer to himself to a place where he may participate in the economic development of South Africa without being drawn to a place where his ties with his own tribal system are severed. Years ago hon. members opposite still had the support of the Bantu for the implementation of their policy, but at present the Bantu wholeheartedly support the implementation of this legislation to the extent to which a breakthrough has been made to the Bantu himself, and to the extent to which he has the prospect that he will be able to participate in economic development in the future without his life being disrupted and without having to be herded together with others in a few industrial centres. If there are people who are grateful for the new prospects which are being created, they are the Bantu.

In respect of the attitude of industry itself, the opinion was expressed that industry did not support the Government in the implementation of this legislation. However. I just want to say this. If there are people who ought to be grateful for the protection and the assistance which they received in the past as far as the development of their own industries was concerned, they are the industrialists of South Africa. There is no other sector which has received more protection and encouragement than the industrial sector. If industries are asked to co-operate and to develop at designated points which will be created, then it is that sector that will be compensated for its co-operation. Industry is indeed being compensated for its co-operation. It is so that other countries also compensate their industries which are in the process of decentralizing, but the fact remains that the industrialists of South Africa are being compensated for their co-operation to establish their industries in these growth points in the expectation that these growth points will be strong and large enough to develop their own momentum and that the disadvantages which there still are at present will change into advantages for themselves. Therefore, if there is one sector which ought to co-operate with the Government in its appeal, that sector is the industrialists of South Africa, because they have enjoyed a great deal of protection in the past; they have received encouragement and tax benefits and they have received assistance from the State few industrialists in the world have received. Therefore we think we may expect, and we also hope, that the industrialists of South Africa will give their loyal cooperation in the implementation of this legislation. After all, the successful completion of the policy of separate development in South Africa is not something which will assist the Bantu only, but is indeed something which will have the effect that the industries in South Africa will be protected to an increasing extent.

In conclusion I just want to say that it is not merely labour which is an important factor in this legislation. What is extremely important is water, because water provision can be as much of a difficulty as labour can be. These two things go hand in hand. It is unthinkable that one has to concentrate millions more at a few points and then has to introduce the other production factors, including water, at these points at enormous expense. If Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban have to grow to four times their present size during the next number of years, there will not only be labour problems but also the difficulty of water which will hamper this development. Therefore this is not a measure which we must see as one which is concerned with the distribution of labour alone: it is a measure which has been introduced in good time to combat other difficulties. We have to take warning from other countries. There they are engaged in decentralization at much higher cost than that at which we will decentralize because it used to be a world trend simply to allow large economic concentrations and the next, generation had to undo those things which had been done incorrectly. Therefore I think that we may expect the industrialists of South Africa to co-operate so as to enable us as a young country to decentralize in good time and to prevent our having to try to solve virtually insurmountable problems at very high costs in the future if we have an excessive number of people concentrated at a few points in a small area. [Time expired.]

A great deal of what the hon. member for Soutpansberg has said I shall reply to in the course of my speech but there are one or two things I want to say immediately. He told us about the main areas of centralized industry and he said that it was, of course, unthinkable that industrial development in the future should be concentrated only in those areas. I do not know why the hon. member thinks that anybody believes that industry should be concentrated only in the areas of the Cape, the Natal coastal area and the Witwatersrand-Vereeniging triangle. We have had decentralization of industry in South Africa over all these years. Wherever there have been natural growth points, decentralization has taken place. Industrialists realize perfectly well that there are areas which they pan develop economically and which are not only the main existing industrial areas of South Africa. May I point out to the hon. member that in years gone by when industry moved to Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark, that in itself was considered decentralization, away from the Witwatersrand. We are having decentralization on an economic basis right now in an area like Phalaborwa. [Interjections.] It was not planned by the Government per se.

Did you put the copper there?

Sir, I listened to the hon. member and I hope he will extend me the same courtesy. The Vanderbijlpark-Vereeniging area developed because of the natural resources there, because of proximity to the existing market, to the mining area, because of the proximity to coal, iron ore, water and power, and therefore this was a natural growth point. Phalaborwa too is a natural growth point, not because there happens to be a Native Reserve right next door to it, but because that is where the copper deposit is and that is why this great, vast town is developing around Phalaborwa. The hon. member's argument therefore is nonsensical. What one is against is forced decentralization on an uneconomic basis. The hon. member also talks about what is being done in other countries. He is perfectly right in saying that certain steps are being taken. In Great Britain, for example, steps are being taken in an effort to stop the further development of industry or even the erection of office buildings in areas like London and Birmingham, but I would like to point out that the whole of Britain is a developed country. The infrastructure that is needed for industry exists within easy reach of all the areas where decentralization is taking place. May I also point out that the market is within easy reach. You cannot possibly consider, on the same basis, decentralization in a huge country like South Africa, with its specific growth points, and decentralization in Great Britain where, as I have already said, the infrastructure exists practically everywhere. The two countries are simply not comparable. In America there are depressed areas in the south; there is the old coal mining area which has been worked out and which is a depressed area, and attempts are being made to bring about decentralization, by means of exemptions from tax, by means of loans at low rates of interest, etc.—the sort of inducements which this Government was sensibly giving before it went in for this compulsory move.

Why do they have the restrictive measures in Britain?

Sir, I have just told the hon. the Minister. Britain in any case is concentrated to a far greater degree than Johannesburg or Cape Town or Durban. You cannot compare Greater London with Johannesburg or the Witwatersrand; it is ludicrous. You have a concentration of 10 million people in Greater London and you have a population of just over one million in Johannesburg, and that is why you cannot compare the two. In America there are in fact no compulsory measures whatsoever to bring about the decentralization of industry. In Italy there are attempts being made to induce industrialists to shift from the industrial north to the underdeveloped south. Those attempts have taken the form of laws on the one hand to try to prevent further building the existing industrial areas in the north, and inducements to industrialists on the other hand, but this has by no means been an unqualified success. All that is happening is that certain branches are being opened in the south and those industries which have shifted happen in fact to be capital-intensive industries, not labour-intensive industries at all. The Italian example, therefore, is not a good example. In France efforts have been made since the war to try to persuade industrialists to leave the Paris area and to develop industries in the south. All that has happened there is that northern France has developed in the areas almost immediately outside the perimeter of the centralized areas. That is all that has happened. They have not been able to persuade or to induce or to compel industrialists to move to the southern areas which are, of course, the most depressed areas. Sir, it is not so easy; the hon. member should not think it is and nor should the hon. the Minister think that it is easy, with a wave of the wand, to persuade or induce or compel industrialists to move their factories from where they are or to stop expansion where they are or, if they are to open new factories, to get them to establish those factories exactly where hon. members opposite want them to be established; they will not do so; they go to the natural growth points, and the inducements have to be very great indeed to off-set the natural advantages that go with those economic growth points in any country. Perhaps even more important than what I have been saying is this: The differences between South Africa and other countries where these attempts have been made at decentralization are very important. Other Governments are not taking people already in employment and moving them to other areas as this Government is trying to do. Other Governments attempt to provide for the unemployed sections of the population. We are not only attempting to persuade industry to go to the reserves where there are unemployed people; we are going much further. We know what the policy of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is, and the new Minister of Planning, swept away by enthusiasm, is going to do even better than the Deputy Minister because he is going to put forward the date which was set down originally for the turn of the tide back to the Bantu areas. This Government is going to take out of employment people already employed and move them elsewhere. There is quite a different basis for this sort of plan, if one can describe it in such a grand term, from the basis of the plans for decentralization which have been operating in other countries. I would point out also that the plan in other countries applies to industry as a corporate whole. It does not apply to one racial section of labour employed in industry. Nobody would think of moving industry from Greater London in order to accommodate Pakistani or Jamaicans. The plans apply to industry as a whole; they are not based on racial considerations at all.

They do that in Israel.

The Government’s plan is practically entirely a plan based on the Government’s ideological desire to move Africans out of the existing urban concentrations in South Africa. I say at once, and I think most people who study modern economics will agree with me, that in every country, whether it be a country based on free enterprise or whether it be a social welfare state, there is always a degree of planning involved in the economy of the country; I think that is accepted by everybody. South Africa’s economy happens to be based on a free enterprise system and I presume that there is nobody in this House who wishes to change that. Well, if that is so, then I for one accept that a certain degree of planning is necessary, but it should be planning that is done with the full co-operation of the people concerned. In England, where there were plans for decentralization on the double-pronged basis of inducements as well as compulsion, and in America where there were plans for decentralization only on the voluntary, inducement basis, there was wide and lengthy planning and co-operation between all branches of industry and commerce and the Government. It was not simply a case of the Government or the hon. the Minister granting people interviews, as the hon. the Minister granted the Federated Chamber of Industries a long interview the other day. He said that he knew perfectly well that they were going to object anyway and therefore there was no point really in going into the matter in any great depth. This is very different from what has happened in other countries, because in other countries it is realized that prosperity and the future, with which we are all concerned, are based on maintaining the rate of expansion. The hon. member here, and I think the hon. member for Paarl who spoke on Friday, talked as if industry should be deeply grateful to this Government for all that it has done for industry. Has the Government been handing out little bonsellas to industry?

Yes, it has, and plenty.

Oh, it has. Well, let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that it has been getting back tenfold what it has handed out, because if he bothered to study the tax returns over the last 20 years he will see that the contribution of industry and commerce to the coffers of this Government which is putting this plan into operation is ten, twenty times greater, for instance, than that of agriculture, which apparently is complaining that it does not get the same benefits. The position is nonsensical. We have given protection over a certain period in order to try and build up industries in this country, not in order to put money into the pockets of the industrialists, but in order to benefit the economy of South Africa as a whole; in order to provide employment for our growing population; in order to enable wages and salaries to rise commensurate with a decent standard of living. Those are the reasons why industry has been given certain protection as far as tariffs are concerned, and not because the Government wishes to do industry a good turn. So let us not be silly about this. As I say, anything that the Government has given to industrialists it has had back tenfold. I would say this lack of consultation, this complete lack of any attempt to obtain the co-operation of industry is a poor reward for everything that industry has done to build up South Africa since World War II in particular.

Where do you get that from? How can you say there is no consultation?

The consultation that has taken place, as far as one can understand from the Minister, is that he gave a hearing. But did he accept any of the recommendations that have been made to him? Has he in any way altered or amended his Bill in any respect? Is there any allowance in this Bill for any consultation?

I merely referred to the principle.

The principle unfortunately is the only important guide-line that we have: It is the one and only guide-line that we have, and in fact the Government itself has done no real investigation in depth before it decided on this haphazard idea. There has been no real investigation into the regional planning of industry since, I think, 1958, when the Viljoen Commission reported. There has not been an investigation in depth, so I do not know where the consultation or co-operation has come in. The Government has decided on a principle. I think it is a very bad principle anyway, but at least let it back up its principle with a proper investigation as to where it is going to persuade people to go, what infrastructure exists, what are the socio-economic costs of this plan, what are we going to lose by it, as well as gain by it. We have had nothing like that. We do not even have any criteria to know what is going to motivate the Minister’s under-secretary when the captains of industry, who have built up the industrial structure of this country, come queuing up cap-in-hand, asking whether they may have permission to build on an extra room at their factory or to employ another five African workers. There just is no guide-line, no criterion at all. I think the Minister has been living in an euphoric atmosphere over the last few years and has quite forgotten the meaning of red tape. He rang the bells at South Africa House and everybody jumped it. But it is very different here, let me tell him. He is back home now and the same old system still applies: There are the same long delays, the same ensnaring red tape. Letters go unanswered. [Interjections.] Very pleasant it was indeed, in London, but then the Minister was not full of red tape in those days, but he is going to be from now on. He thinks all that is required is a telephone call. He said so when he made his Second Reading speech. He said all that will be required will be a telephone call from an industrialist to an under-secretary and—there we are, it will be granted immediately. Well, well. The Minister has forgotten how civil servants work in this country. They are frightened to take decisions, for one thing, because they know perfectly well that breathing down the back of their necks is a superior who may not agree with a particular decision taken, and breathing down his neck is the Minister of Planning. He may not like the decision taken. So there are going to be interminable delays and there is going to be the most interminable frustration for anybody who wants to go in for any expansion. As I say, the Minister has forgotten how things are in real life: he has been living in a happy dream world of his own.

I have not forgotten your visits.

That was a dream too; that was part of the dream. So it is not going to be as easy as the Minister thinks. There are going to be frustrations and delays, and in the end, let me tell the Minister, industrialists are going to decide not to invest at all. I know the Government is relying on the fact that this is a closed economy and that industrialists have got no option but to invest their money in South Africa. There is an option, of course: They do not need to invest at all. Then they will put their money into property or into equities of some kind, and there will be inflation as a result because there will not be a productive result to any of this type of investment. So that is going to be one result of his measure. Overseas investors will not look here at all. They, fortunately for themselves, have other fields where they can invest, and they will invest elsewhere. They will not come to a country where they cannot employ one single additional worker, if his skin happens to be black, without the permission of the Minister’s Department.

Why do they invest in Hammarsdale?

Because Hammarsdale also happens to be a growth point. It is between two industrial areas. The Deputy Minister has got Hammarsdale on the brain. Hammarsdale lies between Pietermaritzburg and Durban, thus it is a natural growth point. Moreover, it has infrastructure, although I must say that certain of the amenities are not what I believe even the Deputy Minister would desire them to be. Rosslyn is also a natural growth point because it is near Pretoria. I cannot get it into the Deputy Minister’s mind that there are growth points in South Africa that are natural, good, economic propositions where industrialists will go without any inducements from the Deputy Minister and where they will go without compulsion. But that is not what this Bill is about. This Bill is about compelling people to leave certain areas, or not to expand in existing areas, and this Bill is about ideology. This Bill is not about natural growth points. This is the thing that I have to stress over and over again.

What I want to know—and I hope that the Minister will perhaps be able to tell me—is this: What exactly does the Government hope to achieve in the ultimate by this Bill? What does it hope to achieve? I know that he talks about ideal ratios. Somebody cooked up this idea of an ideal ratio between Black and White. I understand it is practically 1:1. That is considered the ideal ratio. I pointed out earlier in this Session that there is in fact one area, and only one in South Africa, where the ideal ratio is nearest to attainment, and that, funnily enough, is in exactly the area that the Minister is trying to decentralize, namely the Witwatersrand industrial area. It is the triangle between Pretoria, Vereeniging and the Witwatersrand. I will now quote what no less a pundit than the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education said when he gave certain figures at a F.C.I. congress in Cape Town not long ago. He told us on the central Rand the ratio was 1 White to 1.9 Blacks; on the West Rand it was 1:2.4; on the East Rand it was 1:3.9, and in Vanderbijl— naturally, because it is the area to which the hon. the Deputy Minister lives closest—it was 1:1. So the ideal ratio in fact exists in the very area where hon. members on that side consider decentralization should take place. In the whole of the Transvaal the ratio is far less favourable: It is 32 Whites to 100 Blacks. In the whole of the Witwatersrand-Pretoria-Vereeniging triangle it is 62 to 100. In the rural areas of course it is most unfavourable of all: It is 9 Whites to 100 Blacks. That is in the white rural areas of the Transvaal. The Minister gave us the example of a friend of his. I think he said that he had 1,000 morgen of land and he employed 50 Bantu. He said he built them fine houses. Is this the ideal ratio? Is it the ideal to have one farmer to 50 Bantu? Does this satisfy hon. members on that side? But this does not matter. As long as it is in a rural area, it does not matter at all. Then we do not need an ideal, and then apparently in the white rural areas the whole danger that has been worrying members, namely the future and the political demands of Africans, does not seem to exist. Why not? Why when the ratio of White to Black is at its most unfavourable in the white rural area, does this danger not exist? Why does it not worry hon. members if there are 3½ million Africans on white farms? Why does this unfavourable ratio not worry them? Why is there no great political danger in having this huge number of Africans in the white rural areas? Is it because they are scattered about?

But steps are being taken in that connection.

But the hon. the Minister knows very well that this Bill we are now discussing does not apply to farmers.

But steps have already been taken.

Will the hon. the Minister tell me how many farms have been denuded of African labour? The Minister knows that we would not be able to produce one mealie or one grain of wheat in this country if that were to happen. The political argument therefore does not mean a thing. It is absolute nonsense because the ratio is at its worst in the white rural areas.

The water argument was raised by the hon. member for Soutpansberg and referred to also by the hon. the Minister, i.e. water as a limiting factor for expansion in the industrial triangle.

Do you deny it?

Of course, I deny it. I deny it absolutely, and I will tell the hon. member why. I deny it because if we were really worried about it and if this argument we are using was an economic one, and not an ideological or political one, we would simply cut down the water supply to the Vaalharts irrigation scheme in order to solve the water problems of the Witwatersrand triangle overnight. But you see, Sir, hon. members wouldn’t like to see water being taken away from farmers but to take it away from industrialists— that is okay by them. Why? Is it because of the voting situation? It cannot be an economic argument. The Vaalharts irrigation scheme produces between R3 million and R4 million worth of crops per annum and for that they use more water than all the industries, all the commerce, all the mines, the S.A. Railways and all domestic users on the whole of the Witwatersrand. [Interjections.] So, if it is water from an economic point of view we are worried about, the solution is a very easy one.

Do you want to take it away from the farmers?

If you are prepared to take it away from industrialists on the basis of an economic argument, then you must also be prepared to take it away from the Vaalharts irrigation scheme. In fact, there are alternative sources of water which can be brought to the Witwatersrand and with which I believe the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs is very busy just now. He is not going to wait for another drought period, I presume, before he does anything about increasing the water supply. So this argument about water is an argument which, if I may make a very bad pun, holds no water. It is absolute nonsense to use that argument. The Vaalharts irrigation scheme uses more water than everybody else combined in the whole of the Pretoria-Witwatersrand area. So, that is no argument at all.

I now want to point to some of the effects this legislation is going to have. As it is, we already have some vastly inflationary expenditure in our budget. We already have it. We have a vast defence bill which is unproductive and, therefore, inflationary. In addition to that a good deal, though not all, of the Bantustan expenditure is also inflationary because it is non-productive. Some of it—that part devoted to the promotion of agricultural production in the reserves—is productive and therefore non-inflationary. But a great deal of this expenditure on Bantustans—for instance, the huge amount spent on housing the families of migrant labourers in the reserves—is in fact an inflationary item. And now we have another piece of legislation which is going to reduce productivity in South Africa. The minute you start tampering with your labour set-up you are per se introducing a form of inhibition on the proper use of labour. That in itself is inflationary. We are going to enhance the scarcity value of white skilled and semi-skilled I labour by this measure. This is a further important effect which this Bill is going to have —we are going to increase the inflationary spiral in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, as well as the Minister himself when he introduced the Bill, talked about automation, as if that was going to be a solution to our problem. Sir, automation is possible only when you have a vast market for your products. Only when you have a huge market for your product does it become economically feasible—otherwise not. The hon. the Minister talked about capital intensive industries being allowed in the existing areas of concentration. But it is not always easy just to have capital intensive industries. There are labour intensive industries which have also got to be established near your markets, near your sources of raw material, near power and near transport. But apparently the Government thinks that it can, merely by putting a Bill on the Statute Book, steer the whole of the industrial development of this country in any direction it wishes. Well, I should like to say that I think this is a Bill which is going to have very serious economic effects, if it is implemented. We are often told that when job reservation was introduced there was a tremendous outcry. We are repeatedly being told that when job reservation was introduced the Opposition said it was going to ruin the industrial structure in South Africa and that we would all be reduced to poverty. At the same time we are told by hon. members opposite that despite those prophecies there has been tremendous economic growth. But the true position is that the Government does not implement job reservation—that is the real answer. It has become a system of permits and exemptions and, therefore, job reservation has not had the effect which was predicted. Whether or not the Government is serious about implementing this Pill I do not know. I can only say that I hope the Government is not serious about implementing this Bill. If it just wants a political talking point, I cannot care less. But what I care about very much is the actual implementation. Well, if it is implemented I think we are in for very serious economic consequences.

It will be implemented.

Well, then I say we are in for very serious repercussions in this country, at a time when we should be doing our best to build up industry on the most efficient. the most economic and the most competitive basis possible in order to offset the slow decline in our gold-mining industry. Because gold as an earner of foreign exchange is on the decline, or will be in future unless new goldfields are discovered or unless there is a rise in the price of gold. But other things being equal, the gold-mining industry cannot be expected to field the same amount either in revenue for the Government or as an earner of foreign exchange. So, it should be now that we should be doing our very best to nut industry on the most competitive basis possible in order to sustain our future population at an increased standard of living or even at the existing standard of living. It is not only the hon. member for Soutpansberg and his party who are concerned about the future of this country—other people are too. I believe this Bill is going to have a critical effect on our industrial development, if it is implemented. The late Prime Minister used to talk about the choice before South Africa being either rich and mixed or poor and white. He said that if this choice were put before us. South Africa would choose rather to be poor and white. Well, up to now we have not had to make this choice, but if we do have to make it, thinking persons would, I think, prefer to be rich and mixed. But if this Government goes ahead and implements this Bill, the interesting thing is that we won’t end up by being poor and white but by being poor and mixed because nothing, absolutely nothing, is going to be able to change the major pattern of population movements in this country, which are similar to the population movements in all other industrializing countries.

I do not think we can say that we saw the hon. member for Houghton parading in her best clothes here this afternoon. We are appreciative of her as a person, but the political course she has adopted is a blind alley as far as South Africa is concerned. This afternoon we saw the hon. member here in the robes of a prophetess, a prophetess of doom. She spoke about “serious economic consequences which will flow from this Bill”. I differ from her diametrically and I shall indicate why later on in my speech. I think precisely the opposite—this Bill is in fact going to stimulate economic development and will result in outstanding economic results for South Africa, i.e. precisely the opposite to what the hon. member thinks to see in it.

I differ from her completely in regard to another point which she made towards the end of her speech, i.e. that this Bill will have the tendency “to increase the inflationary spiral” in South Africa. I think that if this Bill has any effect on inflation, it will have precisely the opposite effect. It will help to combat inflation in South Africa. Therefore I differ from her completely in that respect as well. She also made the point that one could not compare greater London with Johannesburg or the Witwatersrand. There is, of course, a certain amount of truth in that. But after all, that is not what we are doing. What she has failed to realize is that all world authorities in the field of major urban development have warned that one must begin to combat overconcentration of populations in time. That is what we are doing in South Africa. We do not want to compare ourselves with larger countries. We do not want to compare ourselves with places such as New York. We want to be one step ahead of the rest of the world. We want to set an example in Africa by beginning in time and learning from the errors which other countries have made in regard to this process and against which they have warned us. There I also differ completely from the hon. member. I do not want to spend much time on the hon. member but she also said that the hon. the Minister did not understand what the red tape position in our public service was like and that this legislation would result in the industrialist not being able to manage in that regard. I want to content myself with saying that the hon. the Minister has given the assurance that everything will be done to prevent any delay in regard to industrial development. As far as this Bill has a bearing on that, any other delays will also be prevented. She ought to accept that assurance. I leave it at that.

I also want to raise a point which the hon. member for Parktown brought up here. I do not think it can be allowed to pass unnoticed. The point is that he said: ‘This Bill spells doom for the small man”. He added: “Border area development does not cater for the small man because it is too complicated”, etc. Have I repeated what the hon. member said correctly here? The truth of the matter is in the first instance that it is incorrect to bruit the story abroad that this Bill “spells doom for the small man”. Surely that is not the case. I shall elaborate on that later on. The opposite side of the matter, i.e. to say that the small man is not interested in border industry development or has made a practical living out of it, is equally unfair and incorrect. What is the truth of the matter, Sir? The truth of the matter is that quite a few small men have over the past six years found a very good means of subsistence in border industry development in South Africa. For example, I want to refer to Mrs. Grimm, of Pietersburg, who began her concern with less than 20 Bantu. During recent years she has built up that concern to such an extent that there are already more than 70 Bantu employed in that concern. So I can mention various other examples. The Industrial Development Corporation makes building complexes available at some of these border industry development projects, more or less as one would equip flats, for prospective small border area development industrialists. That building or complex of buildings can be rented from the I.D.C. by one, two or more persons. One who is small makes provision for a so-called small man who is interested in border industry development. So I can go on and show the hon. member that his statement that “this Bill spells doom for the small man”, to which he added that in border industry development there was no room for the small man, is completely false and devoid of all truth. That is why I should like to root it out. I want to say that he is not doing his country a favour by making that allegation. In future, before making such a serious allegation, one should at least get one’s facts straight.

In the first instance I want to say that with this measure the National Party Government is erecting another milestone along the road South Africa is taking. It is erecting this mile stone in full view of the hon. member for Houghton and in full view of the hon. Opposition. In this way we have erected most of the milestones in South Africa in full view of the Opposition. If there was ever a need for a measure in South Africa, then it is for this measure which is at present before the House. The principle which we adhere to is a very simple one and I want to state it very thoroughly and candidly to the Opposition here this afternoon. The principle we adhere to is this. The Government must see to it that the increasing number of Bantu in our white areas and particularly in our white metropolitan complexes is reduced. We are committed to that. We are also committed to that through the statement made by the former Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, who even went so far as to mention a date, i.e. 1978. I want to state this here this afternoon with all the emphasis at my disposal. I am myself a young man and the hon. the Minister is also a young man and I want to associate myself with what he has said by also stating this afternoon that we as the younger generation are determined to carry that policy of the National Party Government into effect. Let the Opposition or anybody else have not the slightest doubt about that. We shall carry it into effect and we are going to carry it into effect. How are we setting about accomplishing this?

The National Party Government has very carefully tried out every method of accomplishing this. Let us admit candidly to one another that the implementation of this policy has been tried out very successfully over the past 20 years. What do we now find in practice? The faster the Government tried to reduce the Bantu in the white areas the faster the creators of Bantu labour, i.e. the industrialists in the industries and particularly in the resultant businesses which have arisen as a result of the industrial development, are bringing Bantu to our white areas. Greater numbers of new Bantu are being brought in because an insatiable demand for Bantu labour in our white areas has apparently developed in South Africa. It has become almost like a bottomless pit. In the meantime the white metropolitan areas are becoming Black. We see this to an ever-increasing extent, particularly in the Witwatersrand complex. Bantu on demand has simply become the fashion in South Africa amongst our industrialists.

What we have also seen with the introduction of this Bill was a very interesting phenomenon, namely that industrialists even want to go further, and I am not being critical of this fact, I only want to state it here in all fairness: They not only want Bantu on demand, they also regard it as their right to obtain Bantu on demand. Where does that come from? Surely that is not correct. Surely we cannot allow that in South Africa under our circumstances. In practice we now have the situation that we have almost begun to get a “two-way traffic” here. On the one hand the Government is keeping out the Bantu and on the other hand the creators of Bantu labour are literally drawing Bantu labour into the large metropolitan areas as if with a vacuum, pump. The result of that is that the Government’s policy cannot under those circumstances be carried out in all fairness and honesty. Now it must be realized that this is not a new discovery which has just been made. The National Party Government has been aware of this since 1948 when the National Party Government came into power. As far back as 1951 the National Party Government was ready to introduce a Bill which was almost the same as this one now before the House. However, it was then decided to settle the matter between the interested parties by way of a “gentleman’s agreement” and to see how things would shape in subsequent years. That measure, which is now being introduced in this House almost 16 years later, was then temporarily abandoned. What happened? In the interim, in spite of the fact that all parties concerned in that agreement did their best to adhere to it and that the trouble therefore does not lie there, South Africa developed so rapidly that although they all tried honestly and sincerely to honour that “gentleman’s agreement”, the position was that as a result of this rapid economic development in South Africa and the pressure arising from the growth in the population in the metropolitan areas, particularly on the Witwatersrand, such a “gentleman’s agreement” was simply no longer practicable. That is all. That is why hon. members are now being forced to face up to this Bill as a positive measure. We must do something about the position, and that is why this measure has, under the present circumstances in South Africa, become an absolute sine qua non.

I want to emphasize very strongly that this measure is not aimed at factory or industrial development at any place in South Africa. It is not even aimed against industrial expansion on the Witwatersrand. The United Party and the hon. member for Houghton tried to drop a few hints along those lines, but that is not correct. The Opposition speakers wanted to create the impression here that this legislation is going to fetter industrial development. Nothing is further from the truth. This legislation is in no way aimed at industrial expansion. But it is in fact aimed at the wrong type of industrial expansion. What is the wrong type of expansion? Bantu labour intensive industrial expansion in a place like the great metropolis, the Witwatersrand, where one is already sitting with more than one million Bantu, is the wrong type of expansion within the white area. The sole aim of this Bill is to take certain steps in respect of that wrong type of expansion. That is why I associate myself fully with the hon. member for Heilbron when he states that the Opposition have come forward here with the “bogey of compulsion.” We maintain that this legislation is not aimed at combating industrial expansion. On the other hand it is also not aimed at forcing any form of “compulsion” upon industry to establish its factories in border areas, or anywhere else for that matter. There is no such thing, and that is why I am emphasizing now that clause 3 (4) makes this point very clear. It states that in the application of subsection (1) the expansion of a factory—and you will note that (a) in the Bill is now being deleted—means an increase in the number of Bantu workers employed by that factory. Thus the consent of the Minister through the Inter-departmental Committee has to be obtained for that type of factory expansion only. This Bill has nothing to do with the extension of buildings, or with expansion through Coloured, or Indian, or white labour, nor with any other forms of expansion. It only deals with an expansion in the number of Bantu workers. That must be stated very clearly. The intention, in the national interest, is to send industrial development in South Africa in the direction where Bantu intensive industries will be most necessary and where they will really be able to serve South Africa to the greatest benefit of our country and all population groups.

Let me state as emphatically as possible that South Africa has more reason to decentralize than any other country in the world which I know of. In addition to all the other reasons for decentralization which apply elsewhere— and the hon. members opposite know as well as we on this side do that decentralization today is one of the most vital economic problems in the entire Western world, something with which the major countries are concerning themselves with every day—in addition to all these reasons for decentralization, which I do not have time to go into at the moment, South Africa also has a very special additional reason, a predominating reason, a compelling reason, which is that we in South Africa are also doing this for the sake of the survival of our white nation, and we are also doing it in order to promote the welfare of the non-White nations in our country. That is why I say: Who can argue against that? The Opposition cannot argue successfully against that. Let me say this. A leopard does not lick his white spots only; he licks his black spots as well. That is what we in South Africa are doing. We are looking after all the sectors of our population and all our peoples in South Africa, and not one section only. In this connection one finds ineptitudes like this one, in the Cape Argus of 25th May. Listen to this argument, upon which a major part of the Opposition’s arguments were based. They said—

What next! They are therefore in favour of decentralization, but because this Bill is actually farthering the implementation of apartheid, they are against it. Can the United Party not yet realize that the possibilities of the fair implementation of the policy of separate development for the Bantu and for the non-Whites in South Africa is not only offering, but has brought stability, happiness, peace and prosperity, and that these things have been brought to them because it is the only honest, moral and humane way in which the mutual inter-relationships in South Africa can be regulated so as to bring happiness and prosperity to all sections?

Do they not see the results of this policy, and do they not hear what the chiefs of the Bantu people themselves are saying? Since they are at present stating that we are dealing here with ideological legislation, and that if it had not been for the ideological aspect of this legislation, they would have supported it, I just want to say that I have never heard of such nonsense. Has the United Party not yet learnt that the so-called “rate for the job” has been a total failure in Africa? Why was it a failure? I know what the Bantu are saying. I sat around the beer pots with them in Zululand for nine months. Do you know who they are jeering at there? I am saying this in all fairness and not in any derogatory sense. They are jeering at the liberalists and the progressives in South Africa because they say that those people are not honest, because the rate for the job means that, seen from the Bantu point of view, the white liberal European sets the rate and the black Bantu gets the job. That is why it is doomed to failure and it will always remain a failure. That is why the Bantu, not only in South Africa, are to an ever increasing extent accepting that separate development offers them real and actual opportunities for development because it is based on the human, moral and honest standpoint that what one demands for oneself what one is prepared to give to the other man without any strings attached to it. That is what we are doing. That is why I say that when the United Party states that if it had not been for the ideological aspect of the Bill they would have supported it, then that is the greatest nonsense I have heard for a very long time.

Now the hon. member for Newton Park, who made a very pleasant speech hem which we all enjoyed, especially when he said, “Watch us now”, came along and stated that the industries were not the greatest offender as far as drawing Bantu to the metropolitan complexes was concerned. But the mistake he made is one many of us make on the golf course. He did not follow through properly on his swing and that is why he sliced the ball. He did not follow up his argument properly. For what are the facts? He completely missed the fact that industries have a catalytic effect. Why does the hon. member for Newton Park want the third Iscor in Port Elizabeth for example? Why does every member of the House of Assembly want the third Iscor in their areas? The reply is quite simple. The reply is that a third Iscor, or any industry, has a catalytic effect and the catalytic effect is due to the fact that it attracts other businesses and industries, and in that way economic development takes place. In that way one finds a concentration of population to begin with and eventually one finds an over-concentration of population. Therefore his argument that the industry is not the greatest offender is, to a certain extent, a fine-sounding argument, is even perhaps half true, but it is not the full truth because it is the catalytic agent—and this is a very important argument because it forms the whole of the essential point of the legislation before us—that is why it is essential that a proper limit be placed on business undertakings which arise as a result of the industrial development, which is the catalytic agent. That is precisely what this measure is doing.

Throughout the world, in science as well as in practice, the over-concentration of what is called “men, mortar and machines” is being viewed as a comprehensive problem, in regard to which timely warnings must be issued and which must also be avoided in time. That is what we on this side of the House are honestly and sincerely doing to the benefit of future generations. All factors, as the hon. member for Soutpansberg correctly stated, range themselves on the side of centralization and therefore, if you do not take balanced measures to stabilize that thing, then you are really letting things take their own course. That is an art which the United Party was fully conversant with, and still are; we on this side of the House do not intend following their bad example in this regard. That is why we as Government are being compelled to take the necessary steps and apply the necessary means to counter an over-concentration of population. I do not have time now to go into this matter, but you yourself know, Sir, that there are negative measures, such as control, etc., and that there are positive measures such as increasing the rate of growth of towns and cities, as we are doing with the border industries. But I want to confine myself to the third means and that is inducement to decentralize economic activities and particularly industrial establishment, and here I would like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Houghton said. She was quite correct when she said that it was not simple to draw industries out of Johannesburg or out of the Witwatersrand, and persuade industrialists to establish their industries elsewhere. I agree with her wholeheartedly; we know that it is not so easy. That is why I want to make a plea here this afternoon and say that we in South Africa should do more to work out a dynamic programme which is based on inducement to decentralize our industries even further, quite apart from this measure.

Since our circumstances in South Africa are so exceptional I should like to see South Africa serve as an example to the rest of the world so that South African Members of Parliament or our information officers or ambassador there, will be able to say: South Africa is doing this, that and the other by means of inducements to encourage the decentralization of industries. I can quote to you this afternoon what happened at the Shannon airport in Ireland, which was for the most part useless land. There they even went so far as to apply the following inducement to encourage industrial development in that area. Firstly, they granted industrialists tax exemptions for 18 years; secondly, they exempted all raw materials used by industries from customs duty; thirdly, they made interest free loans available to industrialists for the erection of industries, loans which in some cases amounted to more than half the capital investment; fourthly, they made factory buildings and industrial units available at nominal rents; and fifthly, they supplied them with all the necessary services such as power, water, roads, and housing. There are other examples from Poland and Italy which one could mention. I want to advocate that we should in future pay more attention to these positive inducements. I do not doubt that this will in fact be the case.

Then in conclusion I want to come to what I think is an important point, a point which is not as yet receiving the recognition, consideration or evaluation it deserves in South Africa. I am referring to a point to which Dr. T. S. Rautenbach referred, in a brilliant paper delivered on 16th September, 1966. I think that he, as far as the theory of science, as well as in practice, is concerned, has made a very valuable contribution in this respect. I am speaking of his reference to the identification of the cultural factor as a production and an establishment factor in the economy. Mr. Speaker, we in this country, and particularly those overseas, should realize this more thoroughly in respect of South Africa, and I think that particularly the Opposition must realize what this cultural factor in our industrial development in South Africa really implies. Let me mention the following example. There was gold on the Highveld 150 years ago, but the fact that the mineral, the resource had been there 150 years prior to that did not induce the Bushmen to begin mining the gold. Their cultural background is such that they were not able to do so, and that is why they did not do so. It was only 150 or more years afterwards that the white South Africans began to mine the gold there. That is what the cultural factor implies.

In this regard I also want to mention the following example. In England a Lapp woman was recently thrown out of an industry. They found that in the British industry she was a complete failure, but in Lapland she was the best milker of reindeer there, which in the culture of Lapland is of primary importance, just as skill in the industry in London is of primary importance. Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to be funny but I am convinced that if some of the sophisticated ladies from certain parts of Johannesburg or some of our other large cities had to build a fire with wet kind ling behind a tiny windbreak in the Transkei then this would probably have taken place to the great amusement of the chiefs and the other people watching it. Why? In the culture of the Xhosa women it is an entirely normal thing to build a fire with wet kindling or to have to go and look for the goats in the veld on a rainy afternoon and then come and milk them yourself. But for a lady from Houghton it would be an unpleasant experience. Mr. Speaker, the cultural factor is a very important factor. I now want to mention another example in which the hon. member for Houghton will be very interested. Rosenthal, as you know, made very fine vases. His great-grandson has now established a vase industry here in Rosslyn and do you know what his experience has been? It is very interesting. He found that after three to four months a Bantu girl became as proficient in that vase decoration work—painting the golden bands on that beautiful Rosenthal vase—as a German lady with three to four years’ experience. It took the Bantu girl only three to four months to develop that skill and craftmanship, whereas it took a German girl three years. Why? Because the Bantu are born for that kind of thing. The Bantu girl imbibed it with her mother’s milk. That is the cultural factor in one’s industrial development and establishments.

Since we in South Africa, particularly in respect of our industrial development, have to deal with this cultural factor, a factor which is of very vital and particular concern to us, the Opposition must realize that a great service is being done to the Bantu in particular by means of this measure which affords practical recognition to the cultural factor of the Bantu in order to enable the Bantu to bring out the best in himself, not there in the dirty and terribly over-populated Johannesburg where it is more difficult for him to adjust himself and open up and beat out a path for himself than it is for the white man. Surely it is much easier for him if he is able to do so near his home than it is for him to do so under conditions which are strange to him. In this way one would be making the best use in one’s industrial development of the cultural factor. Mr. Speaker, I see that I have very little time left. I just want to tell you that Professor Hobart Houghton, a celebrated South African economist, defined “hell” very effectively the other day: “The definition of hell is to spend eternity on a suburban commuter train.” There is a great deal of truth in that statement. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Primrose, who has just sat down, stated earlier in his address that it was fundamental to this legislation that the increase in the number of Bantu in our white urban areas must be checked and that the number of Bantu in those areas must be reduced. Other hon. members have said that it is fundamental to this legislation that it is intended to make the cities whiter.

Now, I want to ask the hon. member for Primrose what is going to be the position in the large industrial areas that are now to be created under this scheme of decentralization, in the border areas. Surely these new areas will have a ratio of Whites to non-Whites even more unfavourable in the light of the test which is applied by hon. members opposite. Where will they exist? These new, large industrial areas will exist in white South Africa, and instead of having an adverse ratio—as hon. members opposite look at it—of white to black at Point “A” in white South Africa, we will after a period of Nationalist Government and the fulfillment of Nationalist policy have the same ratio at point “B” in white South Africa. Every hon. member who is really concerned with the reduction of the number of Bantu in white South Africa should advocate the extension, the building up and the establishment of industry within the Bantu areas so that the Bantu stay there and do not come out, so that they are removed from white South Africa, because it seems to me that immediately independence is acquired by these black areas, those industries will grow within the Bantu areas. They will grow when there is freedom within those areas to invite entrepreneurs to start industries in the Bantu areas, and our decentralized industries sited on the borders at the end of what is much worse than a suburban railway line which the black workers will use to come out of the Bantu areas and to work in our border industries, will be in a less competitive position, because industrial employment will be offered to the Bantu within their own homelands.

The hon. member made a second claim as far as this Bill is concerned and that was that this Bill will stimulate economic development. I do not think there is a single hon. member in this House who is not concerned with and would not like to do all that he can to stimulate economic development. But is the hon. member correct in assuming that that stimulation will be found in this Bill? I want to test that against one or two fundamental truisms. [Interjections.] The hon. member is wagering again. I do not want to take on wagers with the hon. member. I think it is a truism that commercial and industrial development is advanced or is retarded according to the extent which normal recognized economic considerations can be taken into account and permitted to play their part in economic and industrial life. The establishment of industries is motivated in South Africa, which is a capitalist country, by the profit potential of the investment that has to be made by the industrialist. That is the difference between our country’s approach to industrial development and that of the socialist or communist states. In turn that profit potential is assessed on the basis of the demand for the commodity to be manufactured and the existing facilities to meet that demand.

It has been correctly said by the hon. members for Primrose and for Houghton that where the demand exists, then the question of where the industry shall be located is determined firstly, by the existence of the infrastructure— the housing, the services, the light, the water —secondly, by labour resources, and thirdly, by the situation which is conducive to easy handling and easy marketing. Those are factors which are taken into account. If any of those factors is unfavourable then, as the Government has found already, there must be some compensation for the industrialist. The compensation so far has been in the form of inducements which have been offered to industrialists as regards tax concessions and certain railage benefits to establish their industries in the border areas.

That being so, let me hasten to say immediately that there has been no objection by industrialists, and there is no objection by this side of the House to decentralization as a basis of planning for the future of this country. There is no objection whatsoever. In fact, the attitude of the F.C.I. is made clear in a statement which was made at a conference attended I think by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, which reads as follows—

In the Republic, with its surfeit of available labour we are faced with a particular problem, namely that there is an excess of labour for the industrial and commercial demands in our cities. For that reason we of the United Party have always supported a measure of influx control so that we do not have the industrialized areas swamped by Bantu who are unemployable or for whom there is no employment. We have supported that. I come now to the Bill before us. Whilst we on this side agree that decentralization can have merit and value for the development of this country, and whilst we agree that there should be a certain measure of influx control, we disagree on the application by the Departments concerned of these two methods to attain the objects set out in the legislation which is before us now.

Influx control at the present moment should result in demands for employment in Bantu areas, or near Bantu areas. Similarly the Government has in its power the ability to stimulate localities which can develop into growth-points to which industries will be attracted by the availability of land, the availability of services, and of housing for their employees.

The Prime Minister’s advisory committee was certainly correct in its advice which it gave to the Prime Minister and which was attached to his statement when he referred to the encouragement of decentralization of industries to the border areas. This is what the Advisory Committee said:

It cannot be overstressed, however, that the development of these centres can succeed only in a climate of general industrial development in South Africa. A programme which merely involves the large-scale transfer of existing factories from the present industrial centres to centres in the border areas will have none of the stimulating and cumulative effects associated with economic development. What is envisaged is that a larger proportion of the new factories should be located and a larger share of the increased output be produced, not in the already over-populated urban areas, but rather in the border areas.

So far we agree wholeheartedly. Now we come to the departure which this Government and this Bill is making from this advice. This advice continues:

Special inducements will therefore have to be directed at those industries which supplement the present production in a growing market, and which are in a position to utilize fully the Bantu labour and raw materials that are freely available in or near the border areas.

In other words, here is a question of inducement for the establishment of these industries. That policy of inducement, according to the report of the planning committee on border areas, has had a measure of success. I see that after 6½ years, according to page 4 of the report, and with an investment of approximately R220 million, it has been possible to find additional employment for 57,100 persons. That is what has happened under the regime of the present Government. The report reads as follows:

Over the past 6½ years Government assistance in one form or another has led to the establishment of 98 new industries. The corresponding figure for expansions of existing undertakings in border areas is 61.

The permanent committee is aware of a further 90 new undertakings and expansions of existing undertakings which have been launched in border areas since 1960 without assistance. It is clear that having created confidence in the border areas, Government expenditure and other assistance have resulted in considerable investment by the private sector in those areas.

Why is it now necessary, if that report is correct and it is for the year 1966, for this Government to depart entirely from its policy of inducement and not compulsion?

Where is there compulsion in this Bill?

I am very happy to deal with the question of the hon. the Minister; I take it that the purpose of the hon. the Minister is that he will utilize this Bill. Unless it is going to be a showpiece for talking purposes, it must be applied to some area in the Republic. Once it is applied there is a complete freezing of what is then there. An industrialist who comes to South Africa and says that he would like to open a factory in Cape Town for example, will be advised that Cape Town is now a closed area. The Government has laid down that he shall not open a factory there but he may ask the Government for permission to do so. They may give him permission to do so.

Where is the compulsion? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty because of the discussion which is going on across the floor. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that if he can find no evidence of decentralization by compulsion, when he prohibits expansion in one area and permits it in another, then I cannot argue with him about the meaning of the word compulsion. Let me go further. This is where the ill-effects of this measure on the country come into play. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to this view which has been expressed by others and not only by me, namely that if he refuses the establishment of an industry which is proposed for area A, he has no assurance whatever that that industrialist is going to start his industry in area B. He may well leave this country. He may well find that his prospects in Rhodesia, Lesotho or Botswana are far better than here. He may even wait for the independence of the Transkei to open his industry there and get the full benefits of working away from our present centralized areas. I believe that this is important because this Bill has only one reason for its appearance. It is not to stimulate industrial development. It is as the hon. member for Primrose said: “We want to stop the Blacks coming into the cities”, or as Dagbreek said: We want to make the cities whiter.

Are you for it or against it?

Mr. Speaker, I might be a new member to this House but I have too much experience to be taken in by a question such as that of the Minister. He can try it on somebody else. The whole point I have been trying to make up to now, if he has been listening, is that I am against this Bill. I have been trying to give him the reasons.

You do not have the guts to answer my question.

I have said repeatedly that I am against this Bill. This Bill has one purpose and one purpose only. It is to give some air of realism to the Government’s policy of separate development. It is interesting if we look at this measure against the background of the past 19 years. This Government started off with apartheid which is the separation of White from non-White. Having started with apartheid it found that it was not enough. It was not solving anything in this country. It then proceeded to the next stage, which was separate freedom. It then found that separate freedom was achieving nothing and solving no problems. Now we have come to this Bill, which is to compel separate development not by inducement but by the controls which the Minister is now to take for himself in terms of this Bill. I think it is time that the country took account of the cost which it is now going to be asked to bear to implement this course which the Government has set upon, namely separate development—to estimate the cost to our standing as a country in the economic and the industrial world, when industrialists must know that if they come to South Africa they may establish their industries or develop existing industries only by the grace and favour of the Minister who is entrusted with this Bill. Industry sees that it is now in the hands of the Government. There are many industries of which the hon. the Minister will be aware which have established themselves for the purpose of staged development—which is not an unknown plan in industry—and which are now told that their future is in the hands of the Minister in terms of this Bill. When one looks at the cost of the removal of these industries and the attempt to provide the infra-structure of which we hear so much, one finds that to provide for 57,000 employees, an amount of R220 million had to be invested by the industrialists concerned—and we still have to hear the cost to the country—for providing the services and the housing in those new areas. In considering the cost there are two aspects which must be taken into account. The first is whether economic development in South Africa will be stimulated by this Bill. I think that we have had the answer to that. You cannot stimulate development in a country where there is no freedom for the industrialist to take into account normal factors as to when and how and where he shall establish his industries. Secondly, will enough employment be provided by these border industries to make separation a working reality? Surely 57,000 employees over 6½ years is a mere drop in the ocean of Bantu for whom employment must be found in South Africa.

It is not so bad.

The Deputy Minister says it is not so bad, but it is a very small number. At least he was frank enough to say that he was not really satisfied with things.

Of course I am not satisfied.

That is fine. Now we know. The hon. the Deputy Minister is not satisfied. Let us then see whether this Bill will do anything more to bring him into a state of satisfaction.

What is good in this Bill?

The clauses which the hon. the Minister has taken from the 1947 Act are quite good. Let us look at the conditions under which this Bill is being introduced. There are to be inducements. There are supposed to be inducements, which will now lead to the stimulation of our economic growth. What is the hon. the Minister of Transport doing at the present moment? What is he doing with his freight charges on manufactured and raw materials? Is there any correlation between this Minister and the Minister of Transport? The Minister of Transport does not encourage decentralization, even at the place where the raw materials are to be found, because of the rail tariffs which he applies. It is cheaper, as the hon. the Minister will know, to remove raw materials to the Witwatersrand and to work them there, than to transport the manufactured article to the Witwatersrand, because of the rail tariffs which are applied. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Planning, who is new to this position, will be frank enough, as the hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration was, to say to us that he too is not satisfied with the creation of the infra-structure in a place like Rosslyn, for instance. It is no inducement to industrialists, when one finds now that it is only at this stage that power and rail facilities are being brought in for the extensions at Rosslyn. That is a created border area, in close proximity to Johannesburg. When the hon. the Minister quoted the Daily Dispatch, he quoted it as being an approval of his policy. I think he should read that article again, because the problem in the East London area and in the Ciskei is that the Deputy Minister to the right of him is sending the Bantu out of the Cape. The housing at Mdantsane and the other places is not yet complete. The local locations are crowded and filled to the brim. One only has to go to a municipal congress to hear the difficulties of the municipalities. What the Dispatch said is: For heaven’s sake, get on with something. Give these people a job before they become a danger and a source of unrest in our midst. That is what the Daily Dispatch said to this Minister. If he finds comfort in that report in the Daily Dispatch, I am very glad, but it is a problem which is growing, because of what is being done by the Deputy Minister.

I want to come back to the question of compulsion. I want to say that if this Government wishes decentralization to succeed, it must have regard to the Advisory Committee. I want to suggest that the Advisory Committee was quite correct in its views when it dealt with the question of co-operation with private enterprise. The Committee, in paragraph (a) (1) of section 4 of its report, said—

When the Federated Chamber of Industries and the whole of the industrial set-up in South Africa, through its organized body, said to the Minister that this Bill would not get the cooperation of private industrialists …

They never said so.

Am I to take it that the circular which was sent out was a paean of praise for the Minister’s Bill? They have asked for proper facilities …

They are having trouble with their own members.

We have had that story before.

It is a complete untruth. They never said so.

The hon. the Minister is getting a little sore, because he told us they were all being unpatriotic because they criticized him. I am saying that if organized industry has been able to issue the document it has issued by way of circular to all its members, he can hardly say that he is getting their support.

They said the same thing about border areas.

But why does he expect support? What has he said to the representatives of industry? They come to him to discuss this Bill and what does he say? He says: I am not prepared to discuss the Bill. I shall discuss with you how you are going to carry out what I tell you to do.

I said I was not prepared to discuss the principle.

The Minister said that consultation would be limited to methods of implementing official policy. When once you have said that they are all subject to licence and when once you have said that industry must come to you cap in hand when they want to employ another Bantu, and then you will discuss with them how they will come cap in hand to you and ask for permission to employ another Bantu, then, Sir, the Minister must not be upset when industry gets annoyed because he takes up an attitude like that.

They are not annoyed.

Well, he must not be disappointed then if industry takes up an attitude like that. The Minister called the wrath of industry upon himself because of his attitude when they came to discuss matters with him. Industry has some justification, because the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, in speaking to them, said—

That was in regard to the question of cooperation in dealing with this matter. The Minister says to the industrialist: Come to South Africa, invest your money, set up your industries, but we are afraid that whatever success you have will be subservient to what the policy of the Nationalist Party Government is in regard to how you conduct your affairs.

In which other country is it any different? [Interjections.]

Sir, I am almost at the stage of having to ask you for injury time, because of all the interruptions which are going on. In the Republic, together with one colleague, the Minister creates a labour shortage by refusing permits for Bantu to enter the city areas. Having created the labour shortage, he says: The labour is sitting and waiting for you up in the Transkei. Go and put your industries up there on the borders. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Green Point has said something to which I should like to reply. He said: Let us presume this measure is a success; then one would find that where at present there is a certain Bantu White ratio as point A, a new ratio will simply develop at point B. Presuming it so happens that this measure is not a success, then the question occurs to me: What would be the Bantu-White ratio at that point A in the course of years?

Establish the industries inside the homelands.

That argument of his holds no water. What will in fact happen, and the hon. member cannot dispute this, is that the White-Bantu ratio will decrease, because a very large section of the Bantu will go and live in another area in course of time, and in that area the White-Bantu ratio will not be so high, because the Bantu will live in their own homelands; and they will live there with their own families. But now the hon. member says, and he repeated this by way of interjection, that we should take the industries to the Bantu homelands. Apparently the hon. member will then support it. But it will take place in due course on the basis announced by the hon. the Minister earlier in the debate. Now I want to say that industries in the white areas adjoining Bantu homelands will naturally engender industries inside the Bantu areas. It will be the preparatory work in order that industries may arise there as well.

The hon. member for Green Point quoted from the report of the Standing Committee to demonstrate how much success has been achieved through voluntary incentive measures. This is the first time I have heard the Opposition support decentralization in border industries by way of incentive measures. This is the first time I have heard the Opposition support the Government’s border industry policy, founded on going there voluntarily, merely by making concessions. This is the first time I have seen the hon. member praise that and use it as an argument, because in the past they have always merely disparaged it. In fact, somewhat later in his speech that hon. member contradicted himself and again disparaged it, and he asked what we had actually achieved; we had created only 57,000 jobs in the course of 6½ years. But no matter what one undertakes, one cannot have success immediately. The entire undertaking must first get into its stride. But let us take these 57,000 jobs that have been created. It has been established that for every man working in the factory there are two working outside the factory on roads or on construction, etc. [Interjections.] The man operates the machine in the factory but outside there is a lorry that has to be driven, and surely roads have to be built? It has been proved scientifically that at least two persons are employed in addition to the one working in the factory. These 57,000 workers engender jobs for 171,000 people in that complex. If the hon. member will not believe me. he should read the report. It is also stated there that according to the 1962 census 35 per cent of the Bantu population were economically active; that is, 35 people in employment provide food to 100 people. That means that approximately three times 171,000 make 510,000 people who were provided with a living by those 57,000 workers. Can any hon. member dispute that? If this had not happened under the policy of that hon. member, these half million people would have gone to point A to disrupt the White-Bantu ratio incalculably. They would have gone there in terms of the Opposition’s policy to have land registered in their names and build houses and keep their family there. That is my reply to the hon. member.

If one studies this Bill, there are two points on which one should be quite clear. The first point I want to get quite clear is that this National Party Government has through the years always been the friend of the industrialist in South Africa. In 1924 it was a National Party Government which initiated the protection policy for industry in South Africa. It was this Government which through the tariff policy enabled an industry to stand in this country on young legs and to develop to take its full place in our economy. Other people then opposed it, the forerunners of the hon. members on the opposite side. They wanted us to produce only food. The countries of the Commonwealth were to produce only food and basic materials and Britain was to be the manufacturing country. That was their policy. This Government said that South Africa should have its own industries. We went further and said, “Buy South African”, but there were other people in South Africa who raised the cry in the city councils and in the public sector and in the private sector and who said, “Buy British”. It was a choir, and if we forget what the sopranos and the altos and the tenors and the basses in that choir looked like, we need only look at the opposite side, where those hon. members are sitting. This Government introduced import control to protect our currency, and everybody knows that import control was used to protect our industries. We need not argue about this. We need not convince the industrialist that this is the case. The industrialist knows this. The National Party took the lead and performed pioneering work in fields in which other people were not prepared to do it, in the form of an Iscor and a Sasol. Thus we established mighty industrial complexes in this country. The way for the entire chemical industry was cleared by the National Party Government. There is no doubt about this. There can be no argument about this. We may tell the country and industry that in this Government they have had a friend through the years, not in words but in actions, for more than 30 years. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member makes interjections and asks: “What about the private undertaking?” How was this industrial development brought about? The Government encouraged it and handed it over to the private undertaking, that it may make profits from it for its shareholders. The I.D.C. initiated development and as soon as it was possible, it handed it back to the private undertakings. This Government convinced the country through words and actions, and this will be the case in the future as well, that it lends high priority to the principle of private enterprise in our industry. I therefore submit that the Government is introducing this Bill with a clean conscience in respect of industry. Having said these two things, I should like to ask two questions.

The first question I want to ask is: What is the role of industry in our national economy? And the second is: What is the role of the Government in our national economy? The role of industry in our national economy is complex. It is to produce goods and to create wealth and to help to provide jobs for our growing population, and to strengthen commerce in South Africa, locally and abroad. All these comprise the role of industry, but that is not all there is to it. Industry in South Africa is not industry in Japan or industry in the U.S.A. It is industry in South Africa, and in being able to work for itself and to earn profits, and in having all the freedom in the world, it is ultimately, as all sectors of our economy, engaged in rendering a service to the fatherland, and it has to render that service. It may be granted all the freedom in the world, but one freedom it cannot and may not get, and that is to develop in a direction which is not in the interests of the fatherland. Here I come to the second question: What is the role of the Government in the national economy? I think it is obvious that the role of the Government is to take care of the development and the prosperity and the security and the survival of the country and its people, in the short term and in the long term. For that reason it is a decisive role, a predominant role. Because both industry and the Government have these extremely important tasks to fulfil, it goes without saying that they must cooperate, as they co-operated in the past and as I want to say to-day that they will co-operate in future.

But I want to discuss the Government’s task briefly from three viewpoints. The first is from a social viewpoint. I am glad that the hon. member for Newton Park is in the House. In the interests of its country the Government cannot allow 95 per cent of the people to occupy 5 per cent of the land, or 5 per cent of the people to occupy 95 per cent of the land. In this Session, only 14 days ago, the hon. member for Newton Park charged us with the depopulation of the rural areas. He blamed the Government for that. To-day we are introducing a measure which will help to return people to certain parts of the rural areas at least, which will seek to correct the very thing they complained about 14 days ago. But now the Opposition is opposing this Bill. The hon. member for Rosettenville is so to speak brimming over with it. The rural areas look to this Bill for a glimmer of hope. It offers them a modicum of hope, because the entire economic process throughout the world is against them, but here they find a modicum of hope. But in the light of the Opposition’s reaction to this Bill, the rural areas can come to only one conclusion. The embrace of 14 days ago was nothing but the kiss of Judas. It was only so many words. [Interjections.]

But the Government is also playing an economic role in the national economy. I do not want to dwell on this at length. With the best will in the world I cannot see how industry can claim for itself that freedom and say that it is going to expand as much as it likes and that it is not going to care where its power and the water and the transport and the communications come from. Surely it is in the discretion of the Government to say: “So far I can provide it, and beyond this point I will not, cannot, and am not going to provide it.” Have hon. members on the opposite side forgotten last year’s water crisis? If we just consider that, is it not enough justification for a measure such as this?

In the third place I want to say that part of the Government’s task is also a field which the Opposition calls an ideological objective. Have the Opposition not also an ideal? Have they no ideals whatsoever? I want to make it very clear to them that this Government is prepared, that it is committed and that it is its irrevocable intention to safeguard and to guarantee the survival of the white nation in South Africa, and in that process we shall do full justice to the other population groups in our country.

That is exactly what you are not doing.

This Bill is an instrument which we can also use in order to realize this ideal of ours. Sir, I want to tell the Opposition that it will be an evil day for South Africa if South Africa’s present and future should be seen solely from a materialistic point of view; it will be an evil day for South Africa if the freedom, on which hon. members on the opposite side have so much to say, should be exercised in such a way that there will no longer be room for ideals in the policy of South Africa.

Now that I have said these things, Mr. Speaker you will ask me: “What, then, is the solution?” I repeat—and I hold to this—that the solution lies in co-operation, co-operation between the industry of South Africa and the Government as the over-arching factor. I am not going to talk about agriculture now, because agriculture is not affected by this. I say the solution to the problem lies in co-operation between industry and the Government. I just want to add that co-operation must have a basis; that there must be a framework of cooperation, and in this Bill we have the framework before us.

Where do you see that?

On this basis and within this framework co-operation may come into being. The implementation of this Bill will preferably take place on a basis of co-operation. Hon. members on the opposite side may perhaps point out to me that this Bill provides for strong powers or measures. Let us presume that is true; let us presume that for argument’s sake. I do not concede that, but let us place that on one side of the scale. Against that, on the opposite side of the scale, we have this picture which I outlined at the beginning of my speech, a picture of a Government which over a period of more than 30 years has proved its goodwill and its good faith in respect of industry in South Africa. If I do this, the scale balances completely. Are hon. members really thinking that we on this side of the House would seek to hamper the industrial development in the country? That we would seek to impede it, that we would make it impossible? Our problems and their solution in South Africa demand that we should maintain a strong and growing economy; they demand that we should try continually to increase the standard of living of all our people; our position in the world demands that. Would the Government mischievously break down the industry? Of course not. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what a wonderful thing it would be for South Africa if we could have all this development and if we could have it balanced, systematic and evenly distributed, and if in that very process we could also ameliorate our problems?

You will permit me, before I conclude, to tell you why I personally support this Bill. I also support it because I think that it could be an instrument by means of which we are going to get industrial development in Queenstown, in King William’s Town and in East London. Not only will we get industrial development in those places, but in terms of this Bill we could also get industrial development in Upington, De Aar and Graaff-Reinet; under certain circumstances we could get it in any town in the country. By way of special incentive measures we could also get industrial development in a place such as Upington; it has already been designated as a development area. This Bill will help us to get industrial development in areas where we need it very much. It could help us to get industrial development in the border area, from Queenstown down to East London, an area which will carry a very large population in future, where one of the focal points of the population concentration in the Cape will lie. Sir, I welcome this Bill because I see in it an instrument by means of which those areas are in future going to be developed into large industrial complexes. I should like to know whether the hon. member for East London (City) is going to help me; I should like to know whether the hon. member for East London (North) is going to help me; I should like to know whether the hon. member for King William’s Town is going to help me, or whether they are going to have themselves taken in tow. I look forward with great interest but with little hope to their response in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, allow me, in conclusion, to address a humble word to industry. I want to tell industry that I think they are performing a wonderful task in South Africa. I think industry should accept this Bill and should come and tell the hon. the Minister: “Very well, we are going to co-operate with you.” In that way they can again take the initiative within the framework of this Bill. Development in the country will not come to a standstill as from to-morrow; development will still continue, but in this way industry could render the greatest national service it has ever rendered. It could enrich itself, and at the same time it could do a very great service to South Africa and her people. In my humble fashion I make this appeal to industry in South Africa to-night, and I appeal to the Opposition also to help us to develop South Africa more systematically in future, in the way envisaged here and in the interests of all her people, in order that we may hand over a better country to posterity.

The hon. member for Queenstown, to my mind, introduced one new argument. He indicated that this Bill was being introduced to stop the depopulation of the platteland. I do not know whether he was referring to white or to non-white labour. I think it extremely unlikely that white labour will go to the platteland and the rural areas. In any case, where would they go to; where would they get the capital from to invest in farming? It seems even more unlikely that non-white labour will go there, even if they did so they would immediately fall foul of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education who has just indicated that an important purpose is to get them away from the platteland.

They talk with two voices.

The hon. gentleman also made the point that he wanted industry to co-operate in this matter. Sir, I think under many circumstances in the past industry has in fact co-operated, but they view this legislation in a totally different light, and you do not expect people to co-operate willingly towards their own destruction, and that is what is involved here as they see it.

This debate has now been running for about half the time set aside for it. I think that the general pattern has emerged, and I think it is appropriate to try to give a summary now of the main arguments that have been advanced in favour of this particular legislation. I think they are all really contained in the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech. All that has followed since then from the Government side has been variations of the same theme.

Sir, what has been put before this House? It was indicated to us in the first instance that this is important legislation. This we all readily accept. Indeed, we have the firm conviction that perhaps this legislation is so important that there is no clear recognition on the part of the Government of the tremendous and far-reaching repercussions which will follow in the wake of its introduction. We feel also that this is legislation that was hastily introduced. We feel that it is legislation that was introduced without the prior consultation which legislation of this kind warrants, and certainly without the degree of consensus of view which will ensure its effective implementation. Indeed, the hon. the Minister has indicated to us that the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council was divided on this issue. Sir, one could not expect otherwise because we have serving on this council the top economists of this country. The hon. the Minister says that they are merely advisory but why have an advisory council then? Do you only accept their advice when it suits you and when it does not suit you, then you discard it? Quite obviously these gentlemen would be opposed to legislation of this kind. Judging by their utterances in the past they have been most outspoken on this score. I refer to Professor Hobart Houghton, probably one of the best informed economists in this country, who, when he talked recently about Government control and Government pressure to bring about decentralization which might put industry in a position where it will not enjoy maximum locational advantages, had this to say:

Sir, this is as severe an indictment as we conceivably could get.

We also want to know from the hon. the Minister whether the effects of this legislation have been determined on the projected growth figures of our real income? It is known that we have set ourselves a target of a real growth rate of more than 5 per cent a year. This is based on a number of assumptions, not the least of which is that there will be an average annual improvement of about 3 per cent in productivity. We see nothing in this legislation which will increase productivity and we see a lot that could detract from it. Sir, the hon. the Minister himself has reservations; that is why in his introductory speech he said rather airily that we must not be guided by short term economic advantages, but as the hon. member for Parktown pointed out, this is a crucial issue in South Africa’s development at the moment. We must increase our domestic purchasing power. Exports will for a long time be thwarted by boycotts and by severe competition from the outside world, and it is important to remember that we will have to lean heavily on a growing and expanding domestic market. But the hon. member quite rightly also pointed out that what is essential is that the standard of living of all our people, particularly that of the non-Whites, should be advanced as rapidly as possible. Those of us who are concerned with the non-Whites all know that there is a small margin within which you can operate here, that if your unemployment figures get beyond certain limits then you are in for very real trouble, and that what we must not have at this stage in South Africa is unemployment of this kind. But we must also take up the slack which is created by a declining gold mining industry; we must also pay for our defence commitments which at this stage are heavy and might become heavier still. We therefore say that it is of paramount importance that the rate of economic development of South Africa should not be allowed to slacken off and that nothing must be introduced to impede that development, and this legislation, as we see it, will do precisely that.

Now, Sir, let us look at the principles involved here. Let us first of all see whether this is a planning Bill. Sir, nobody opposes planning. But have we really any idea of what is involved in industrial planning? In sitting one particular industry you have sometimes 20 or more variables determining its size, its shape, its type, its location—indeed, it becomes so involved that a modern company often has to computerize the information because they cannot work it out. It becomes unmanageable and, therefore, they have to get a computer to help them. And what is happening here now? The Government is going to do it on a national scale. By one stroke of the pen the hon. the Minister now assumes unto himself the right to decide the optimum location for a range of factories which might differ from turning out toys on the one hand to making locomotives on the other hand. If you do this planning on an individual industrial basis and you make the wrong decision no great harm will be done because the effects will be localized. But if you try to do this on a national level and you make a mistake you will be faced with economic calamity.

Furthermore, this legislation says that there must be planning of our economic resources. This is important and we all accept it. The hon. the Minister in his introduction of this Bill said he saw South Africa as an economic entity, as one. But then having said that, in terms of clause 13 of this Bill he expressly excludes the Bantu areas which he has indicated have important resources in terms of labour, water and all sorts of things. By this token these areas can build up economic systems which will clash directly with our own. If ever there was a contradiction in purpose and objective then that can be found in this particular clause.

The hon. the Minister also said that we must decentralize. Well, nobody is against decentralization as such. However, as we have indicated in the past there must be judicious decentralization and it must not conflict with established economic laws. Let us now look at the various industries which could conceivably be moved from the areas where they are at present. Obviously they will not go voluntarily to these new areas. If they did so there would be no need for this legislation. They must now be diverted, deflected, to these new areas. For the purposes of this discussion I daresay one could say there are three types of industry. First of all there are those that are supply orientated. They are based on a raw material, like a mine, and you cannot move it. It must stay where it is because it can function only in that particular spot. The second type of industry is demand or consumer orientated. Here one thinks for example of a beer brewery. You would not site a beer brewery in the Northern Cape when the demand is in Johannesburg and if you did so nevertheless you would probably be bankrupt within a year.

But who wants to site it there?

I want to follow my argument through. We are left with the third type of industry, that which economists call foot-loose industries where locational factors are not of very great importance and therefore they could be moved within limits. But let me ask the Minister, how many of these foot-loose industries are there and how many people do they employ? How many of them are there, in fact, which could be dispersed in this particular way? We suggest that there are very few.

How many of them are there in Paris and London?

I am going to talk about Paris and London. But the hon. the Minister has introduced another term, a term which sounds more impressive than it is helpful—the term “labour intensive industry”. When he talks about an industry being labour intensive he obviously means Bantu labour intensive. But let me ask the hon. the Minister which are these so-called labour intensive industries? Mention them to us. If you exclude the mines and agriculture as falling within the category of industries that cannot be moved and if you look at the factories and manufacturing industries that are left and look at their salary and wage figures, you will find that in general this works out at roundabout 10 per cent. So, to talk about labour intensive industries is, as I have said, more impressive sounding than useful.

The Minister also referred to the research which was done in Italy and he told us that there they determined that the additional cost, the social cost of housing a worker, rose steeply as the number of people in a particular city increased.

Not only housing.

Well, the social costs of accommodating the worker rise steeply. We accept that. But everybody knows that these advantages are greatly outweighed by the economic advantages which follow from a greater degree of centralization. Let me put the following to the hon. the Minister. He had mentioned Italy as an example. Now, the southern areas of Italy have been depressed for many years. There they have had schemes for many years to industrialize this area but with what success? A minimal degree of success because the conditions in southern Italy are not suited to this type of development.

Tell us more about it. That is not the whole story.

The hon. the Minister has had two hours to introduce the Bill and he could have another two hours to reply to the debate if he wanted to—in all, eight times the time I have got. So let me continue. The hon. the Minister then introduced another argument. He indicated that all that industry wanted to do was to go and plonk itself down, site itself and then the State must provide the infra-structure and all the other services that are needed. But the hon. member for Houghton has quite rightly pointed out that the State does not generate its own capital; it is not the State’s own money that is used— for this purpose it is money it gets from industry and commerce. I do not know precisely what contribution they make in terms of revenue and direct and indirect taxes but as far as the real national product in this country is concerned industry and commerce contribute approximately 70 per cent. So, they pay for it in any case—where else would the money come from?

With a view to justifying this particular legislation the Minister then quoted certain examples. He referred particularly to London, Paris and Athens. This is what the hon. member for Primrose is so anxious to hear about. Let us examine this in a little more detail. To begin with, he was talking about cities and not countries. But let us leave it at that. His example of Greece and Athens one can dismiss right away because we all know that the greatest single source of foreign revenue in Greece happens to be tourism—people go there not because of the present but because of the past; they go there not to look at the factories but to look at the monuments. The Minister then referred to the United Kingdom, especially to London. But here the situation is totally different. Here we are dealing with a mature economic country with a population density probably 40 times our own. But why quote Britain as an example? Everyday hon. members sneer at and decry the socialist state which exists in Britain. But tell me just this one thing: Will the hon. the Minister even though Britain has a socialist state indicate to us one single government agency in the United Kingdom that has the economic power he takes unto himself in this particular Bill? Why in any case quote Britain as an example to us when we all know that its rate of economic development at the moment is only half of what it is in many other continental countries? Most people who are familiar with Britain’s position give as one of the reasons for this the undue controls that exist there.

Then we come to France. But here the situation is different. The hon. the Minister is not informed on what is happening there. The French decry the idea of trying to plan the total economy, because they say it is not possible. All that the State there tries to do, is to withhold and grant, the emphasis being on the granting, certain marginal facilities. Indeed the whole basis of their system is taken up in their concept, which they call économie concertée. It means that it is a voluntary system, where they decide on certain broad plans of development. The system works because everybody must agree with it. To illustrate this, I can only quote from the Frenchman Gruson who is probably the greatest authority on the French system., who writes:

Give that to our industry and they will be very happy. Give them a forecast of patterns of development and there will not be a single one who would not be happy with it. But that is not what they get in this particular Bill.

Then the hon. the Minister turned to some interesting demographic figures. He indicated that if the present, industrial areas were further developed, it would mean more Black people and it would be necessary not only to accommodate them industrially, but also as far as living space is concerned. The total number of Bantu people in the so-called urban areas in 1960 was estimated at 3.7 million. Experts predict that by the end of 1980, there will be 6 million. What is the meaning of this? It means that over this period there will come onto the labour market 600,000 Bantu males who would be seeking employment. It means that every year more than 30,000 of them will come to the market, purely from the urban areas, in other words purely those who are born there. What does the hon. the Minister want to do with them? He surely will not suggest that he is going to send them back to the Bantustans. That would be chasing the end of the rainbow. What would they do if they got to the Bantustans? Tomlinson mentioned that in the Bantustans themselves 50,000 people would be seeking jobs every year. Germishuyzen and others estimated it even higher, at 70,000. It is easy to talk about stopping the tide and turning it back, but is it really meaningful to the people who use these words? Do they really know what is involved?

The hon. the Minister also seems to shy away from urbanization. He painted a picture of an idyllic sort of pastoral scene. People must not come to the cities, because then they have long distances to travel and health figures become worse. It might be so but industrialization is synonymous with urbanization. One does not get the one without the other. Everybody like Rostov who has written on this subject throughout the years, has shown that this is what creates the spur to industrialization. Urbanization is there. We just cannot depart from it. The hon. the Minister says he wants to remove and reduce the “trekpleister” in the urban areas. That is not the way to go about it. If one wants to siphon off people, one must put the “trekpleister” somewhere else. It is the only worth-while argument that was followed by the hon. member for Primrose. He is quite correct the “trekpleister” must be put somewhere else. We see no provision in this Bill for any “trekpleisters” of any kind.

The hon. the Minister says it is the greatest positive measure that has emerged during the last 20 years in the economic field in South Africa. It is a positive measure, but it embodies a negative method. A plus and a minus, we learnt in mathematics many years ago, always give one a negative result. What we want is a system that would be voluntary. This one is mandatory. What we want is a system that would be indicative. This one is imperative. What we want is a system of planning that would be based on natural resources. This Bill, as we see it, is based on a system of planning which centres around racial ratios. What we want is a system which would provide for fiscal inducements for industry to go to certain areas. What do we have in this particular Bill? It is a system of controls. This Bill means industrialization through the permit system. But what is more, it introduces a system of economic bureaucracy, such as probably does not exist in any of the free countries of the world. With this system of economic bureaucracy will also come very many evils, because it might well initiate an era of consent by advantage or favour. These are some of the many problems the Government will have to face.

This particular legislation makes no provision whatsoever for developments in business, for phenomena, such as business cycles, which require keen anticipation, shrewd judgment and dynamic and immediate reaction to developments. This Bill seems to suggest that one could have industry in vacuo, that one could pick up the phone and ask for new labour and then wait a few weeks before it is assigned to you. The hon. the Minister in introducing this legislation said it was a socioeconomic measure. But then he himself went on immediately, and he tied and related it to, the Government’s separate freedoms plan. Every speaker who has spoken on the Government side has reinforced that particular line. That is why we see this Bill not as a socioeconomic measure; we see it as a political measure. We see it as just one further brick in the ideological wall that the Government is trying to build in South Africa. We have it even from somebody who is as well placed, as the Minister of Finance, who said earlier this Session that his was the Government of ideology. He said he was pleased about it, because ideology stems from the word “idea”, and it therefore meant that his Government was one which had an idea.

There is nothing wrong with that.

It is exactly the same as the word discipline which stems from the word disciple. But what the hon. member does not tell us is that in colloquial speech, an ideology does not mean an idea, it means an obsession with an idea. [Interjections.]

What is suggested here by hon. members is that industry could grow in a sort of pepper pot fashion. One could merely scatter it all over the place. Industry, however, is like a plant. It needs very careful conditioning. Under certain conditions it will thrive; under others it will wither and die. Our whole economic system is based on what economists call nodes of development or growth points, certain centralizations, clusters of economic development. These have a vital role in the whole economic growth pattern, because they provide concentration of supply and demand, and hence they reduce unit costs. They also facilitate management. They provide the ancillary services that are needed. But more important than this— they provide certain foci of purchasing power, and this is one of the fundamentals of economic development.

Whenever we raise any of these issues, whenever we draw attention to this, what response do we get from the Government? They tell us that they have majority electoral support. This is the new era of the dogma of the vote. It does not impress anyone to say that the majority of the voters vote for certain things. It does not prove that that particular point of view or measure is right. The majority of Germans voted for Hitler and the majority of Italians voted for Mussolini. Does that prove that they were right? What has happened to those countries to-day? And what has happened to those leaders who thought they were right? Look at the heritage that they have left. Look at the monument they have created through their own pride and conceit. All that has happened in this country is that the voters have been sold a pup. For 18 years they have been promised apartheid. Where is that apartheid? They have not got it now, and they will never get it. This we must remember. You could fool some of the people all the time, you could fool all of them some of the time, but never all of them all the time. One day it will become clear to the voters of South Africa that they have been buying something, that they have been voting for something which they will never get. When that day dawns, and when that realization occurs, the retribution will be swift and severe.

Mr. Speaker, there are three aspects to this important measure. The first is the principle it contains, the second is its details, and the third relates to the implementation of the Bill. I straight away want to concede and agree with other hon. members of this House, including hon. members on the opposite side, who say that the implementation of this measure will play a very important part as regards the measure of success that will be achieved. Now, it is appropriate to say at the beginning of my speech that the M mister has given important assurances to this House, to industry and to the country that should not be lost sight of. The Minister said that he would see to it that no unreasonable delays would occur when he had to take decisions and in the implementation of those decisions. He said that this measure would not disrupt industrial development, and that it would be applied within the framework of normal economic fluctuations—which form part of a system based on private initiative— in such a way that it would not prejudice our position of economic prosperity and progress. He also said that, in spite of what the hon. member for Hillbrow had said, he was giving attention to the question of positive concessions and to what could be done to make the inducements that already exist stronger and more attractive. I think industry can and will to a large extent be satisfied with those assurances given by the hon. the Minister. Mention has been made here of the question of cooperation. The Minister said that he was seeking consultation with industry, and not in connection with the principle involved, but in connection with the implementation of the measure. That is important. I think that is a very important point that the Minister made, because we all accept that we need the cooperation of industry in order to apply this measure successfully in practice. I want to say to-day that I believe, as I know industry, that they accept the laws of the land, and that once this measure has been placed on the Statute Book, they will lend their co-operation in order that it may be successfully implemented. The industrial sector is not disloyal; industry is not unpatriotic.

I want to come back to the principle of this Bill. The Western world is deeply concerned to-day about the widening gap between the rich and the poor nations. That gap is still widening, and it is doing so at a rate of approximately 25 per cent per annum. But the Western world is not only concerned about this widening gap—they are also concerned about the widening gap among the various sections within each country itself. That is a source of deep concern. I have here a report entitled Economic Development Assistance which was issued by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development, and in this report three reasons are given why attention should be given to this question of increasing poverty. The first is for the sake of their national security. On page 10 of the report we find the following—

That is the positive aspect of this measure. A great deal of emphasis has been placed here on the negative aspect of the Bill. Well, the measure does have a negative aspect, and we on this side do not deny that. But it is negative only to be positive. I shall come to that later. The second reason by the report is to increase international trade and to increase the riches of not only the developed countries, but also the undeveloped countries. The third reason that is mentioned is the humanitarian one.

The world is trying to tackle this problem in mainly three ways. One is to check the overdevelopment of certain areas: That is a negative way. Another way is to infuse greater life into the so-called stagnant areas—stagnant as far as their riches and their resources are concerned. The last way is to develop the co-called undeveloped areas. Basically these three measures which are being applied by the world are equally applicable to South Africa. We are primarily concerned with the problem of over-concentration; 81 per cent of our total industrial output is produced by four industrial centres, which, on the basis of the magisterial districts into which they are divided up, comprise only 2.2 per cent of our total area. Now I want to ask you, Sir, whether there is any other country in the world in which a higher concentration ratio than that is found. Can hon. members opposite name any such country? Can the hon. the Opposition name any industrial country worth mentioning that can equal this? It is a high concentration by any standard that one can apply.

Now the question occurs to one: What is the reason for this great industrial concentration? In 1966 a very interesting report entitled Industrial Location was published by the Economic Division of the U.N. It is a report by experts, and they say in it that this high concentration is attributable to what they call “consistent over-estimation of the external economies of an enterprise and consistent underestimation of growing social costs of infrastructure investment in such an area”. A consistent over-estimation of the external economy of a private undertaking and a constant underestimation of the social costs as far as infrastructure is concerned—that, says the report, is the reason for the over-concentration in certain areas. The report goes on to say—

Do hon. members see the difference in the interests of the two concerns? The one has the broad interest and the other has its own interest which has to be taken into account. The report goes further and states the following—

That is of importance.

Mention has also been made here of the high costs that will have to be incurred and the large amounts that the Government will have to pay in order to bring about this decentralization and development in the border areas. Seeing that hon. members on that side do not believe us when we make certain statements from this side. I want to quote to them what is said by experts attached to the University of the Witwatersrand. This is what Dr. Van Waasdyk says, and I hope the Opposition accepts what he says—

and this is important—

We already have those problems to-day, and every year the hon. members object to the increasing expenditure by the Government, and if the Government takes measures to reduce it, they fight those measures tooth and nail.

But I want to say something else. I say that industry is an important factor which has to be taken into account by any Government because it produces wealth and creates opportunities of employment. I want to make the statement to-day that this legislation is as much in the interests of the industrialist as it is in the interests of the State. I want to take examples from other countries of the world. When selecting sites for the location of their factories, industrialists—not all of them, but a large percentage of them—are inclined to pay too much attention to the short term economic advantages and too little attention to the medium and long term advantages. I can mention numerous examples of industrialists who only discovered in later years that they had established themselves in the wrong place, in the cities. Do you know why? Experience has shown that labour plays the most important single role in the location of industries to-day. A study has been made in both England and America, and it has been found that labour is the most important of all the location factors, and not only that, but it is still increasing in importance. Our industrial decentralization is aimed precisely at taking that factor into proper account. Industry frequently makes the mistake of not looking far enough into the future to see where the labour is and what the cost of the labour is. I therefore say that this legislation, properly applied, will play a very important part in helping to guide an industry, not to exert compulsion upon it, in deciding upon the best location for it in the Republic. The word “compulsion” which is being used is a misnomer. If you tell a man where he has to go, it is compulsion, but it is not compulsion if you tell him that he is not allowed to go to a certain place. That is what the hon. members on the opposite side cannot realize, i.e. that there is a difference between the two. We on this side do not believe in telling a man that he must go and establish himself there. The furthest we want to go is to tell him that he may not establish himself here. And that is not compulsion. They must now stop using that word incorrectly, because it is as misleading as can be.

But I want to mention something else which is of interest and which is stated in that U.N. report. It states—

That is what is affirmed by this legislation. The Government does not say that it has all the say in regard to where industries are to be located. That would be unfair and unreasonable and unpracticable and foolish. But in terms of this legislation the Government says that in the interests of the country and of society it should also have a say, particularly in certain parts of the country, and that is what is confirmed by this international report.

Permit me to mention a third reason why I think that this legislation is in the interests of the industrialist as well. I want to quote from an article which appeared in the Sunday Times of 21st May, 1967—

This legislation will have the effect of maintaining that safety which is mentioned here. What has our experience been in Africa where that safety has disappeared? The economy collapsed. Do you not accept either that the policy of separate development has brought about economic stability? That is what is accepted by the world, and this legislation will play an extremely important part in providing confirmation of that important point which industries and investors take into account.

Now hon. members may ask, but why such strong legislation, if I may use the word “strong”? I want to give a few reasons for that. We know from experience that voluntary measures only work up to a point. Inducement only works up to a point, but in the case of the problems with which we are faced in this country, political problems, yes, but also economic problems, the poverty in the border areas and in the reserves, one cannot apply voluntary measures only. One has to use stronger measures. But there is a second factor that we have to take into account. Experience has also shown that when an industrialist moves out of an area, voluntarily, a number of other factories always shoot up like mushrooms to employ those labourers, because skilled labour is available there. While one is going to the border areas as a larger undertaking, a vacuum is being created and it is being used by other factories of the same kind which should never have been there. They establish themselves there and they defeat and neutralize the policy of reducing the number of Bantu in the white areas. We cannot allow that to happen. On the one hand one is taking positive measures and on the other hand you are allowing those measures to be neutralized. That cannot be allowed to happen.

Permit me to mention a third and extremely important point, and in this regard I also want to quote an international authority. A certain Mr. Hoover of the U.S.A. is quoted in that international report, and he says the following—

In terms of this statement by Mr. Hoover, we need strong legislation and strong planning to help solve the problems with which most countries of the world are faced. I say that this quotation confirms the justness and the reasonableness of this legislation.

In conclusion, let me come back to the United Party. I am interested to see what the United Party has said over the years in regard to border areas development. I just want to read a few examples. I first want to read what was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in 1960 that expansion in the white areas would come to a standstill (i.e. as a result of the development of the border areas) and that the white population would have to accept a low standard of living. Sir, what has been the position? Since 1960 the standard of living, the real income per capita, has increased by 28 per cent, which is a fantastic increase in relation to any other criteria that one may apply. There has been no decrease, but a tremendous increase. The then member for Benoni said—

He was referring to the then Prime Minister—

And then he was stiffed.

The United Party described border industries as a pipe-dream and said that they would never develop; they called them Hong Kong industries. They said that our industries would move to the Federation and that towns such as Germiston would die; those are the words that they used. Sir, Germiston is more virile and larger to-day than ever before. On a later occasion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following in the course of a speech in, I think, Klerksdorp—

Sir, just consider what a disfavour the Leader of the Opposition did both industry and South Africa in making that speech, because there are industrialists who take notice of what he says. Is the United Party then not an accessory to the fact that the Government has been obliged to introduce a strong measure such as this? If they had lent their co-operation from the outset, we would have progressed farther along the road. They could then have used their influence and have said to the industrialists, “This is the right policy; this is the policy that will prove to be the right one in the long run; support it,” but instead of doing that, they ran it down and slandered it and said that they would repeal it. I say that they have to accept joint responsibility for this Bill and if the industrialists are dissatisfied at this Bill they must also be dissatisfied at the attitude adopted by the Opposition at that time. The industrialists as such supported industrial decentralization in the border areas in principle.

I also want to refer to two remarks which in my opinion were misleading and particularly one remark which is doing a very great deal of harm, which is doing unnecessary harm and which unnecessarily casts a reflection on this Bill and its effect. I am referring to a statement made by the hon. member for Yeoville; he said—

Mr. Speaker, what is the position? Do hon. members of the Opposition not know that they were the first to circumvent an existing industrial agreement? What happened to Good Hope Textiles? Do they not remember what happened when the Industrial Development Corporation wanted to establish Good Hope Textiles at Zwelitsha? When the blanket manufacturing industry threatened to engulf them, the I.D.C. said, “If the Government allows that industrial agreement to be made applicable to us, then we cannot establish our factory,” and after a long struggle the United Party Government eventually gave its permission for special wages to be paid by Good Hope Textiles. Hon. members on that side must not accuse this Government; if that is wrong, then they themselves did it. The hon. member went further and said that the Government was using border industries “to lower the standards of wages”, and he mentioned a figure of 27½ per cent. Sir, I have three examples here of wage determinations made by the United Party Government. Let me give you the percentages: In the case of the cement industry there was a difference of 25 per cent between the wages determined for workers in the rural areas and the wages determined in the urban areas. In the case of the milling industry there was a difference of 51 per cent as far as screen men were concerned, and in the case of the food canning industry there was a difference of 73 per cent in respect of labourers. Hon. members on that side level accusations of this nature at this side of the House, and I say that they were “guilty” of misleading people in the worst possible degree that one can imagine, because the differences under their régime were much larger than what they are to-day. Why do they mislead the public in this way? Why do they try to mislead this House?

Finally I just want to refer to a speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition is so concerned about the effects of this Bill. Sir, do you know what the Leader of the Opposition said in September last year with reference to a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister? He said—

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that he is right, but I do say that if he is right, then, since this Bill is only intended to apply to certain areas, highly concentrated areas, hon. members of the Opposition should take note of what was said here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and then, surely, they must believe that there is no cause for concern.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is an important measure. I concede that it is a drastic Bill, but I say that we cannot solve this problem of the poverty of those of our areas that have lagged behind and that we cannot solve this problem of the ratio of non-Whites to Whites in our country unless we take strong measures. The people and industry and the business-men will eventually appreciate that; the people already appreciate it, and they will praise this Government for the strong measures it is taking to eradicate the poverty existing in many parts of the country, which relates mainly to the Bantu, and to establish our white civilization in this country for all time.

The hon. member for Florida has made many points here in support of this Bill. I think we are convinced that he does support the Minister on the introduction of this particular measure. Sir, I would like to tell the hon. member that industry in this country has always played its part, and that it has always supported the country as a whole. At the same time industry has always been consulted in the past whenever major changes have been made in our laws affecting them. This time, however, they are being asked to toe the line without their consent. There have been consultations but the Government has not been prepared to alter the principles of this Bill. Sir, this Bill, judging by its title, seems to be a very innocent little Bill. As a matter of fact, it contains many provisions which we have on our Statutes. It repeals the Natural Resources Development Act. We have had these measures with us for a very long time, and they worked very well. The hon. member for Hillbrow said that as the debate proceeds one finds that it is not so much the planning of the natural resources and industry of the country, but that it is aimed at the removal of the Bantu to the border areas. The hon. the Minister went to great lengths in proving that his Bill was sound. It has been said that we on this side have always supported decentralization of industry. We have had it and we do have it. It was pointed out by other speakers on this side how decentralization has taken place. We have the evidence in Witwatersrand and the Vereeniging complex. If you go to any part of this country you will find a measure of decentralization. This particular Bill however is decentralization on a master plan. We have sensed in this House as members of the Opposition over a long time, that the Government was anxious in some way to implement —I will not use the word force—industry to the border areas. It had great difficulty in finding a vehicle by which to carry out the political and economic plan. They have now produced this Bill and they are using the hon. the Minister of Planning to do that job for them. The Government has been blinded by the Utopian idea of one white state and a number of black states with no economic integration. The Government will not accept the fact that this is a multi-racial state and that it will be so for quite a long time, unless they are successful in driving all the blacks into the sea. As I have said, when you cut away the trimmings from the Minister’s speech and the Bill what remains of it is the compulsory location of industry on a colour basis and the power to implement the border industrial concept.

Compulsory?

Now, the hon. the Minister made that interjection once before. I want to read to the Minister clause 2 of the Bill. It reads as follows—

1. (a) No town planning scheme which provides for the zoning of land for industrial purposes, may be approved;
2. (b) no land zoned for industrial purposes may be subdivided; and
3. (c) no industrial townships may be established.

Is that not compulsion? It is in the hands of the Minister. He can compel …

Compel what?

It is like the man who is hungry. He may pass a very grubby shop. But through his hunger he is compelled to go into the grubby shop and have a meal. So the industrialist, like the hungry man, when he applies to establish his industry in this country, he has to apply to the Minister before he can establish that industry. Is that not a form of compulsion? Can the hon. the Minister argue on that?

Can you open a bakery without consent?

Provided I can buy an oven through the Minister concerned.

Is that compulsion?

That is licensing. That is the normal thing if you open a shop. But in regard to this Bill the Minister says there is no compulsion. But there is. What we are creating by this Bill is border industry development—this fringe development—what is known to-day as a number of Ghaza strips. These border industries will not be entirely black. There will be a large measure of Whites and white know-how who will have to travel to these decentralized areas on the border strips. And you will have these Ghaza strips as the black nations become independent which could be a great danger to our country. That is one aspect. Much has been said about this Bill but I think the hon. the Minister knows—but he has not told us—that he has all this power indirectly. The Government has this power indirectly. They could do just what they intend doing under this Bill. We have seen it so often, as for example in the Education Bill, that if the Government is desirous of centralizing control in one spot, it brings a Bill to this House, as is being done with this Bill at the present moment. The Minister knows that in regional planning and town planning all plans are sent by the Administrators to their respective Townships Boards. The Townships Board does not approve of the plan until these plans are confirmed by the Government departments concerned. And that includes the Department of Bantu Administration. We have a case here in the Cape concerning the development of Epping No. 1 and Epping No. 2. These townships were established only with the consent of the Department of Bantu Administration. The Minister therefore has the power. He has the power in the Cape and he has the power elsewhere.

Is that compulsion?

Yes, it is compulsion. They compelled the city council of Cape Town to make it a condition that when these two townships are built up, that industrialists were not allowed to employ Bantu labour. There was no concession made. If they want to sell a strip of land for industrial development in Epping No. 2 they have to give an undertaking that no Bantu labour will be employed. Is that not compulsion? We know of the disabilities of centralized control, the red tape and the difficulties that you have in so far as the lines of communication are concerned, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. the Minister has told us that he is setting up his committee to iron out the troubles that may arise as a result of this control. Now, what is going to be the effect of this Bill? It will probably not all be felt immediately. The Minister will probably find as we have found in so far as the Group Areas Bill and a lot of other Bills were concerned, that he will have to grant exemptions. He will find himself in the embarrassing position of not being able to implement the full results of his Bill. Therefore there will probably have to be exemptions. And, what will happen to places like the East and West Rand where we have the dying mines. What is going to happen there?

Do not worry about that.

I know that the hon. member is not concerned about either the East or the West Rand. I know he can move quite easily. But what is going to happen there about the development that is to take the place of those mines? This is a very large area where there have been huge investments.

Order! Is the hon. member not anticipating his Third Reading Speech?

No. I am not going to make a Third Reading Speech. The effect on the Western Cape we know already. We know what has happened here. The Government must realize that the growth of industry in South Africa has been built up on a basis of white know-how and of the labour, skilled and semi-skilled, which in this country happened to be black. The hon. the Minister has been throwing a lot of questions across the floor of the House. Will he tell us whether he would have introduced a Bill such as this if the labour force in South Africa had been all white? I wonder whether the Government would have been so anxious on this decentralization plan and this particular Bill if our labour force had been white. Can the Government tell us what they intend doing to replace the labour that they are going to remove from these huge metropolitan areas. Are we going to have the importation of semi-skilled and unskilled white labour from overseas to replace the labour that is going to be moved to the border areas or the Bantu areas? One would think that the large concentration of the Bantu population in the large metropolitan areas of for instance the Rand where the gold mines are, was an accident. It was no accident. The concentration of labour we have on the Rand to-day is naturally due to the gold-mines. But the vast concentration of labour is not employed on the mines. The mines use purely migratory labour. A very large concentration of labour there is in respect of the ancillary services that are necessary to keep these big units going. This is why you have this enormous concentration of labour there. What is going to happen to those industries so necessary to the goldmines? What is going to happen to our steel works, for instance? Is it the Minister’s intention to move these industries to the border areas? Because once this Bill becomes law and it is implemented the effect will be that these large industries which employ Bantu labour will not be able to expand, not without the Minister’s permission. What is going to happen to these large industries? Is the Minister going to replace the labour they require by white labour or is he going to tell them that they have expanded as far as they can and that any further extensions have to be in the border areas? Is he going to insist upon that or is he just going to allow these large firms to stagnate? Most of us know that in business you cannot stand still—you either go forward or you go backwards. So, if these large industries find that they cannot go forward on account of restrictive labour requirements then naturally they will go backwards and perhaps out of business. Let us take the motor-car industry as an example. When the hon. member for Parktown talked about the small man the hon. member for Primrose said that was not an argument. But I should like to tell him and the hon. the Minister that this will affect not only the big man but also the small man. We find that some of the biggest industries in the world have started in backyards with perhaps only one man and a boy. Let us now look at the position of the average garage under this legislation. If any garage anywhere in future wants to extend its business it shall, being a factory, have to get the permission of the Minister to do that. So, as regards the extension of its business it will be restricted. [Interjections.] Have you filling stations down at the border areas? Then the hon. member will have to drive down there in order to get petrol. Well, this is how silly this can be. Yet in terms of this Bill that can happen.

That is a very stupid argument.

Well, I am only taking this to its extreme to show what can happen. Under this plan to decentralize, to move the Bantu back to the border areas— because obviously this is what this Bill intends doing—what is to happen to the white worker? What is going to happen to him? Naturally the white worker must go with the Black to provide the know-how. So, one wonders whether the Minister would not apply this Bill to the white worker in the border areas to restrict them there. He might say those areas are for black industries and only so many Whites will be allowed. It can cut both ways. As I see it, if the concept of this Bill is carried out it can cost the country millions of rand and will kill private enterprise, and that for an ideology! This is what this Bill means.

There is one thing we are inclined to forget to-day and this is that this prosperous country of ours has been built up not only by the Whites but also by the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians. We are inclined to forget this. I submit that by devising these means for moving the Bantu to one area, the Whites to another, the Coloureds to another and the Indians to another, we are going to destroy the natural industrial growth in this country. We have been told by industrialists and economists that if we did not make full use of the natural labour resources we have available in this country there can only be one end for us. So, if we are going to grow to being the industrial giant we should be, we have to make use of these resources. On the other hand, we will not get anywhere if we keep on shifting our labour around like draughts on a draught-board. As far as this country is concerned, that is a retograde and backward step.

It was with interest that I listened to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, but I could not follow him—as a matter of fact, I am afraid that the hon. member could not follow himself. At the beginning of his speech he said that he agreed that industries had to be decentralized. At the end of his speech, on the other hand, he said that if border industries developed and white workers flocked to them, the hon. the Minister could get rid of those white workers once again. But, surely, then we did succeed in effecting decentralization; surely, then we did attain our object, and object both we and the United Party are pursuing. But now the hon. member for Salt River advances a very silly and foolish argument, an argument which contradicts his previous arguments. Mr. Speaker, in our home we usually tell our children that if one has nothing to say, one should rather keep quiet. That is also my advice to the hon. member for Salt River—he should rather keep quiet. The hon. member said that this Bill was a “master plan”.

I want to state very explicitly and plainly that if this Government does not proceed within the framework of a master plan for South Africa, it will be making a big mistake and be doomed to failure. It is only within the framework of a master plan that one can plan and organize in a balanced way. If, on the other hand, one views development as a sporadic thing, one is involuntarily heading for ruin. That is what hon. members of the Opposition are doing. What the hon. member for Salt River is reading into clause 2 of the Bill, is the power to enforce coercive measures, as they call it. He should go home and read it up once again. All the Minister can tell an industry in terms of this Bill, is that it may not go here or there. At the same time there will be an inter-departmental committee that will be able to furnish any industrialist in South Africa and abroad with the best advice. That is important. I want to go so far as to say that any industrialist who seeks to start an industry in South Africa, should go to this inter-departmental committee in order that he may be advised as to where he may establish the project he is planning—be it a coffee project, a tea project or any other project. The inter-departmental committee, which will be in close contact with the permanent committee, will be able to furnish the prospective industrialist with the best advice as to where he may establish his industry.

I am afraid that hon. members of the Opposition and the newspapers supporting them in the Republic of South Africa have done the economy and the industrial development of this country the greatest disservice through their propaganda which preceded this measure and the discussion thereof in this hon. House. With this sort of propaganda they cannot get far. This propaganda is directed at the heart of South Africa. This propaganda will be consumed overseas and used against the Republic of South Africa. But as regards the industrialists abroad, I do not think that the Opposition has achieved much. If overseas industrialists find out that the Opposition is opposing this Bill, they must realize that this is in fact the right measure, because that is the way South Africa has come to know the Opposition over the years. The way in which they have come to know the Opposition over the years, is that when the Opposition opposes something, one should know that it is a good measure. In five or ten years’ time this very Opposition will suggest that this Bill is their brain-child and that they are proud of it!

The attitude I adopt this afternoon is that the Opposition knows that this Bill is right. They know that it has come at the right stage as far as the interests of the public of South Africa are concerned. I know that at heart they are convinced that this is the right step to take. But now they think and they adopt the view—and that is where they are making their mistake—that everything this Government does, should be opposed. They believe that they should oppose everything this Government seeks to achieve, because then they perform their function as the official Opposition. Now I want to tell them this. As usual they are once again mistaken, because the industrialists abroad, the people abroad, will know that it is with the best intentions that this Government wants to place this measure on the Statute Book of South Africa. Why does the Opposition emphasize one thing only? The Bantu is the carrot that is being dangled in front of the horse’s nose. In other words, we see in our mind’s eye—that is the way the United Party and its newspapers depict this—an industrialist with his factory on his back, a factory with smoke and steam belching from its chimney, following a Bantu to the border areas. That is the picture hon. members on the other side are giving us.

Now I want to ask them why they did not dangle the whole bunch of carrots in front of the horse’s nose. Why do they not say that the plentiful water of the Tugela River, which is flowing into the sea, is one of those resources? Why do they not mention the other resources in the country and say that they, too, will be a source of attraction? A few days ago, during another debate, the hon. member for Musgrave pleaded in so many words that the third Iscor should go to the Tugela. And then that very same person comes along and opposes this measure. I am asking the hon. members of the United Party in Natal to state explicitly where they stand in respect of this Bill, which will mean a great deal to South Africa and also to Natal. But what I am asking, is where do they stand?

In times of war a nation and all layers of that nation are called up to take concerted action. But not only in times of war, but also in times of emergency and in times of anxiety a nation is called up to act in concert. We know what the present situation in Rhodesia is. Owing to circumstances there, the people in Rhodesia have been called up to stand together in this crisis they are experiencing. This afternoon I want to ask this question, and I want to address it in particular to hon. members of the Opposition. Is it not possible for us in South Africa to stand together, is it not possible for us to make a grand and joint effort to further the welfare and the progress of the Republic of South Africa in times of peace? I want to go further.

I want to tell hon. members that South Africa cannot dissociate itself from the rest of the continent of Africa. Everything we do here, we should do in the interests of all population groups of South Africa. As a youth I once had the privilege of listening to the author Eitemal—Dr. Erlank—at Greytown in Natal. He told a very moving story there. He told us how on a certain occasion, many years ago, he came across an old street-cleaner while he was walking, surrounded by the pomp and splendour of Berlin, Germany. Playfully he tapped the old man on the shoulder and asked him: “Old man, are you not ashamed of doing this simple job of sweeping streets amid this pomp and splendour, amid all these people here in Berlin?” The old man snubbed him by looking over his shoulder and saying: “I am doing this for Germany.” This afternoon I want to associate myself with the words of the hon. the Minister when he referred to the younger generation and the ideals and aspirations they have in this young Republic of South Africa. What I am asking for, is that we in this Republic of South Africa should make a joint effort in developing and building up this country. I am going further than that. Not only the Whites in South Africa, but every population group of South Africa should be afforded the opportunity of developing and building up this young Republic of ours. Nobody should use the Republic of South Africa for his own purposes through motives of selfishness or self-interest. No body. I am referring to the farmer, the postman, our employees and employers, politicians— both those on the Government side and those on the Opposition side. I say that each of them and all population groups, including the industrialists, should also be able to say: “I am doing this in the interests of the Republic of South Africa.”

I say that those opposing this Bill, are living in the past. They are thinking of South Africa as a small country. They are thinking of the small country of 1911, when we were a population of a little more than 6 million people. But to-day, 56 years later, we are dealing with a population of more than 18 million. To the Opposition in particular I want to say that we are concerned here with laying a foundation for the Republic of South Africa, a foundation which will have to support approximately 34 million people by the year 2000. Then the hon. member for Houghton refers to the small number of people in our country. She compares the population of the Witwatersrand with that of a large city such as London. But if one looks ahead at what the position will be in 20 or 25 years’ time, then one sees a much larger concentration of people there. In terms of this legislation it will be possible to move these concentrations to various areas and to new points of growth, to places where new cities and towns may develop.

In the past—and that is the time the United Party remembers—the advent of industries was a sensational thing. It was sporadic. It never caused any anxiety and concern. But the time has passed when the appearance of industries on the South African scene was a rarity. Those times have passed and belong to the past. Now we must have orderly planning for the industrial explosion which is taking place in South Africa. There must be a new dispensation now. That is precisely where hon. members of the Opposition fail: They fail to realize that we are dealing with a new period, a new phase upon which we are embarking.

I feel that I can discuss this matter frankly. In my constituency I have on a previous occasion already stated it to be my conviction that legislation of this nature will have to be introduced. I put it to my voters that it was necessary for the planning of the Republic of South Africa for industries to be established at new points of growth distributed throughout the entire country. I said that this type of legislation would have to come and that it would be launched through this hon. House. That is what I put to my voters, people who include both Nationalists and United Party supporters. I want to state here that not a single person, including United Party supporters, opposed this. As a matter of fact, they agreed with me that it was correct to take such action, that this legislation had to be passed. I went even further than that. Recently I issued a Press statement in connection with the development of the Tugela Basin, particularly with a view to the possibility of a third Iscor in that area, and, inter alia, I used this sentence in that Press statement—

What I envisaged, is precisely what this Bill is seeking to effect. But although this statement was inserted and published virtually fully by the Natal Witness, the Daily News and the Natal Mercury, not one of these three large newspapers of Natal published that particular sentence. I say that this sentence was not published in those newspapers, and the conclusion at which I arrive is that the intelligent editors of those newspapers did not see anything alarming in that sentence—absolutely nothing alarming. Two other newspapers, namely the Ladysmith Gazette and Die Nataller also published my statement, and they included that particular sentence. However, on the part of the Opposition there was no revolt against this sentence. To my knowledge there was no criticism against it. Only when the United Party revolted against this measure, when in my opinion they tried to fulfil a function as the Opposition, when they tried to incite people into opposing this Bill, only then did they level criticism. I would not be surprised if they even called in the Black Sash to help them.

But that is how we have come to know the United Party. That is why I say that it is time they took stock of themselves. We need not do that; they must take stock of themselves. I want to put this question to them. Do hon. members of the Opposition really think that this Government will introduce in this House a measure which is in conflict with the economic interests of South Africa, which clashes with the industrial development of this country? I am asking the Opposition openly whether they really think that this Government, the father of industries, this Government which has up to now stimulated the economy and the industrial development of this country, do they really think that we shall accept any measure which clashes with and will hamper the interests of South Africa?

May I give you a reply now?

My dear chap, your replies are always so wrong-headed; you might as well keep quiet. For what reason would this Government impede or hamper economic progress? Would this Government, the father of industrial development in South Africa, seek to harm it all of a sudden? I am asking again, for what reason?

For ideological objectives.

Hon. members on the other side say that the Government will do so because of its ideological objectives. Let us for a single moment forget about Bantu homelands and border areas in South Africa. I think all of us will agree this afternoon that it is high time South Africa decentralized its new industries. Now I want to know: Are there in South Africa better places than these very border areas where decentralization of industries may take place? Are there better places? Hon. members on the other side will have to agree that the border areas are the best places for industrial decentralization. This Government has already gone a long way towards decentralizing industries. It has already been done with a large measure of success and, in spite of the agitation of the United Party, we shall continue to utilize these natural resources further, wherever they may be situated—be it in urban complexes, be it in the four major industrial complexes of South Africa, be it in the rural areas—in the interests of the future and the future generations of South Africa.

I also want to put the following question: Does the United Party simply want to allow an industrialist who will use a great deal of water to establish a factory at a place where the consumption is already excessive? Over there we have the hon. member for Orange Grove. He is perfectly innocent at this stage. Last year he introduced a private motion here in which it was suggested that this Government had acted short-sightedly as regards water provision in this country, particularly as regards the Vaal Dam. If this Government does not have this master plan, if it does not look ahead further than the United Party wants it to look, then the United Party will, of course, complain one of these days about the overconcentration in certain areas where there are water shortages or where transport facilities are inadequate because of industrial expansion. But their complaint is that the Government is short-sighted. I say that this master planning is necessary. We must think ahead. We must think far into the future. That is why it will be admitted in future that this measure was one of the greatest measures in the interests of laying the foundations for a greater South Africa.

I want to conclude. South Africa has its particular possibilities. South Africa also has its particular problems. We cannot share only the possibilities with the Opposition. The Opposition should also be prepared to do their share as regards solving the particular problems we have to face in South Africa. We cannot allow enemies of the Government’s policy of separate development to attract Bantu labour to White areas on a large scale. That we cannot allow. If other countries haye had to effect controlled, free enterprise, then there is so much more reason why we, with our particular problems, should also do so here in South Africa. This Government has a greater task than that of mere economic profit-seeking. I want the Opposition to support us in this as well. We should not only stand for economic profit-seeking. They must support us by realizing that more important matters than mere profit-seeking are at stake for South Africa and its people. The Opposition should also see to it that the identity of each population group is being preserved and safe-guarded in the Republic of South Africa. I want to conclude by saying that this Government will go a long way to preserve and safeguard the entity of the non-White population groups of South Africa. But it will go much further still to safe-guard the entity of the White man in South Africa. I am asking hon. members of the Opposition to accompany us along that road. It is a duty that does not only rest on the shoulders of hon. members on this side of the House, but also on the shoulders of hon. members on the other side, also on the shoulders of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). That is the sacrifice we must bring, because in this respect we have a task to perform, and we must and will do so.

Mr. Speaker, I should like right at the beginning of my speech to respond to the appeal of the hon. member for Klip River that we should unite in the interests of South Africa. Well, here I come to join him on the path of South Africa. Perhaps we are not always following the same path, but still we all think we are in the right direction.

The hon. member raised again the question of compulsion. Does the Bill contain an element of compulsion? he asked. It has been raised more pertinently by the hon. the Minister himself, and he has dealt with that. I should like to deal with that in the course of my remarks in due course, not only in response to the hon. member for Klip River but, generally, whether the Bill does contain an element of compulsion. The Minister interrupted several speakers to ask, “Where is the compulsion?”

The hon. member asked me whether the departmental committee of seven would give the wrong advice. He asked whether they would not give the best possible advice. I think they would, according to their judgment. But you see, Sir, a great industrialist does not go to a body constituted in this manner in order to get advice. He has his own experts; he has a team of experts; he has an expert in every direction: he has an engineer, a surveyor, a financier. As the hon. member for Hillbrow said to-day, he has to computerize the information because there is so much information. So, I do not suggest for a moment that this departmental committee would do anything but give the best advice it is in their power to give.

The hon. member asked what industrialists would say about the Opposition’s attitude in this matter. We are in touch with industrialists, as I assume hon. members on the other side are. We have several industrialists in our party here, men who have had careers in industry, as the Government side has. We have heard people speak here who have experience in industry. I think we are all in touch with the industrial world.

Then the hon. member really has a grievance about a United Party newspaper. I do not know anything about a United Party newspaper. We have no party newspaper. I know of only one English-language newspaper in South Africa which has committed itself to a party—and that paper has not committed itself to the United Party. We have no paper of that kind. The hon. member also complained that he was not well treated by the Natal newspapers as far as reporting certain things was concerned. Well, that is nothing to what the Transvaal Afrikaans newspapers do to me —they do not report me at all! I think the hon. member for Klip River has been very fortunate so far. At least he is getting something into the English Press in Natal. I think he has been quite fortunate.

Then he raised the question of Natal’s interests in this Bill. Well, reading the report of their regional committee, I would say: Leave Natal to look after itself. I think Natal has made a wonderful survey of their own. I am not going to speak for Natal. My experience has been when it comes to industry or education or any other subject that we discussed, Natal are quite capable of looking after themselves. They certainly do not need me to speak for them. The hon. member said: “Cannot we stand together in the interests of South Africa?” Of course we can. We stood together before in the interests of South Africa. After all, this country has built up great industries. We fought in two world wars. We have built up a great nation in just over 50 years. Of course we can stand together. The hon. member told us the story of the hero who was sweeping the streets for “Deutschland”. I am not prepared to sweep the streets for South Africa, not yet. But I am prepared to cooperate with him. We all are. He asked “What will South Africa be in the year 2000 with a population of 34 million?” I do not know. I shall not be here. I do not know what it is going to be like then, but I do know that the prophecies that have been made about the future of South Africa are generally wrong. If one goes back to the establishment of Union in 1910, I wonder what those fathers who look down upon us in the dining-room would say if they could see what we are debating to-day. Never in their wildest dreams could they have envisaged a development such as we have had and the problems we have to face.

The hon. member asked whether the Government would do anything detrimental against South Africa and whether we accused them. No, we do not. We think they are acting honestly according to their light. Our criticism is that their lights are so dim. They do not see far enough. They are doing their best. I am not prepared to say they are not patriotic South Africans. I think they are doing their best.

Then the hon. member asked whether the border is not the best place to establish industries, and whether we could not concede that. No, the border is not the best place. In the Transkei is the best place, in the Native territories, as the Tomlinson Report recommended. They did not recommend that the industries should be established at the border of the reserves. They said: “Go into the reserves. Use white capital and skill. Give those people something to build on.” But the hon. members on the Government side say “no”. They are not prepared to do that. They will establish the industries on the border. The workers can live over the border. They have done that in other parts of the country. We are quite in favour of this decentralization of industry. Who is not? In every country there is decentralization of industry. The industrialists are in favour of it, if the conditions are favourable. Will the United Party encourage industries where there is no water? Of course we will not. Who would do that? We certainly would not and I cannot imagine any industrialist doing it. The hon. member asked whether we would not do something to establish industry. We have the 1947 Act and we have acted under that up to now. I think we have done very well. A few days ago we discussed the subject of water. The Water Bill has just been passed through this House unanimously. There is no suggestion that we are not prepared to encourage the establishment of industries. The hon. member, when he says we are not cooperating, is far from the mark. We are very anxious to co-operate with the Government in establishing industry, but we feel that the industrialists are the important people to be considered. They know where they want to establish their industries. It is for the Government to create the conditions, to make it attractive for them and, as my hon. friends have said several times this afternoon, to offer the right inducements. When that is done, then I feel quite sure that we can co-operate as we have co-operated in the past.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.