I am not going to bore the Committee by dealing with matters pertaining to my constituency. I have already discussed these with the hon. the Deputy Minister and shall discuss them further. In these few minutes I should like to submit a few thoughts in regard to our country’s water position, water requirements, and suggestions in that regard, to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

As point of departure I want to use the fitting slogan of the Festival of the Soil, i.e. “Soil is Life”. I just want to elaborate slightly on this and state that soil with water is life, soil without water is dead, dry, useless and lifeless. “Next to air, man needs water more than anything else”, are the words in which Charles Schroth, science correspondent to the 80 nations conference on water in America, strikingly defined this truth. On one occasion Professor Midgley of the University of the Witwatersrand said that 600 gallons of water was needed to produce enough food for one person for one day. He also calculated that by the year 2000. when the population of South Africa would have reached a total of approximately 40 million, 6,000 million gallons of water per day would be necessary for their daily requirements. It is clear therefore that available water supplies will have to be developed in such a way that these will be able to keep pace with the population growth and the general economic and industrial demands which will in future be made on our water supplies. It is also calculated that South Africa’s water consumption increases twofold every 30 years. The following questions occur to one. Firstly, what are the water sources of our country; secondly, does South Africa have adequate water sources; and thirdly, what can be done to protect, develop and possibly supplement the existing water supplies?

My lay opinion is that basically we have only two sources. These are rain-water falling from the clouds, and secondly, subterranean water, namely dolomitic and fossil water out of the ground. The average rainfall in South Africa is 18.7 inches per year, of which 8.6 inches reaches our rivers, and by this means an average river flow of 31,000 million gallons of water per day becomes available. Approximately 2 per cent of the rain-water penetrates to our subterranean sources and represents 40,000 million gallons of water. Altogether, this amounts to a total of 35,000 million gallons of water available per day for South Africa, if these figures calculated by Mr. Stander of the C.S.I.R. are correct, and I take it that they are. Of this amount 12,000 million gallons per day is capable of distribution for agricultural, urban and industrial purposes, but up to the present only 50 per cent of that total is being effectively utilized in South Africa. These figures furnish the reply to the second question, i.e. whether we have sufficient water. I think that this will take us a long way, provided the hon. the Deputy Minister and his advisers can succeed in formulating a very realistic water plan and carrying it out in practice. To do so what will be necessary in the first place is that a South African nation which has been made water conscious will have to make millions more rands available to the Department of Water Affairs, and secondly, that the manpower position will have to be evaluated and drastically expanded so that the Minister will, by means of adequate clerical staff, engineers, technicians, hydrologists, etc., have an efficient, dynamic and streamlined organization at his disposal to implement his policy and his plans in regard to water. To expedite this essential staff supplementation, the Minister must spare no expense or trouble. He must, by means of attractive bursaries and realistic salary scales and conditions of service, draw young men to the Department of Water Affairs. I know he is dealing with this matter, and I hope that the Government, in particular by making funds more readily available, and universities will, in regard to the recruitment of students and our young people as well, react favourably to bis attempt. I wish him every success.

But there is still a wide field lying fallow for intensive study and research in regard to our water problems in South Africa. What I have in mind is the division of our country into water development regions, which will require intensive advance study, and additional staff. One thinks of the subterranean mineral salt waters in the North Western Cape, South West Africa, and particularly of the Free State gold fields where 50 million to 60 million gallons of water which can be purified, are daily going to waste. One thinks of the purification and re-use of sewerage and industrial water. One thinks of further research into the restriction of the high evaporation rate of our water which has already been stored. These are only a few of the fields which are lying fallow. Personally I am particularly interested in an intensive study and research into our diminishing water table, with our diminishing supplies of subterranean fossil water, and a way of protecting and possibly of. supplementing this. I am also particularly interested in the character and nature of our wonderful subterranean rivers. The question arises as to whether subterranean rivers really exist in our country, and if they do in fact exist, whether they should be protected, and how they can be utilized to the service of the population. Are the Malamane and the Malopo Rivers in the Western Transvaal and Northern Cape really subterranean rivers?

Lastly, I want to ask the Minister to give attention to the storage of water underground. In this regard I find myself in the good company of Mr. G. J. Stander of the C.S.I.R. He states in “Handhaaf” of April 1967 (translation)—

[Time expired.]

I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of bringing a matter, which is of major importance to my constituency as well as to the constituency of the hon. member for Kuruman, to the attention of the Minister. This matter relates to the circumstances in which a small group of farmers on the Hartz River have found themselves. The Deputy Minister is aware of this; he has already paid a personal visit to that region. I want to tell him straight away that the farmers in that vicinity appreciate it very much that he went there, so soon after he was appointed, in order to acquaint himself personally with the circumstances in which that small group of farmers had found themselves. The farms of these farmers are situated along the Hartz River. Each year at some time or other the Hartz River comes down in flood. There is sufficient water to fill a dam. Since the completion of the Vaal Hartz settlement scheme, there has always been a certain amount of water flowing down from that scheme, on which the farmers during the course of years came to rely, and they pumped up that water and established farming activities below those pumps. But recently, it has happened that the water supply and the flow steadily diminished, and each time these people were faced with the problem of having no water to pump, and consequently they had to watch their crops shrivelling up. From time to time in the past water has been kindly allowed to flow out of the Vaal River via the Vaal Hartz canal into the Hartz River with the result that they could pump again. Years ago a survey was made for the so-called Spitzkop Dam. Everybody felt that when that dam was established then that dam would, each year when the river was in flood, have enough water to meet the requirements of the farmers. There has been a long delay with the construction of that dam and we are overjoyed to see that the construction of that dam has now been placed on the building programme and that the intended dam will now at last become a reality. We would like to convey the sincere thanks and appreciation of that community to the Minister for this step forward. We should like to plead for two things: In the first place, that the construction of that dam should be expedited; that there should be no delay. In the second place, we want to plead that until such time as that dam is being built, if there are times when there is not adequate water in the Hartz River—-in the dry periods—the Minister and his Department should keep a merciful eye on those people and, until such time as the dam has been completed, allow water to be sent down to them out of the Vaal River so that they can carry on with their farming. If this does not happen and there should be a few dry years, then nothing will remain of those people’s farms. We know very well that it is regarded as technically wrong to take water out of one river and lead it into another, but this has been done in the past, and our plea is that only until such time as the dam has been constructed, this procedure should be followed. We believe that the Minister will lend a sympathetic ear to our request.

Sir, when the debate was adjourned on Wednesday night, I was focusing attention on the question of the seriousness of soil erosion along certain of our river systems in the dry areas of the Republic. Sir, I do not wish to follow on the hon. member for Kimberley (South) who dealt with a problem in his own constituency, but I would like to say a word or two about the remarks of the hon. member for Marico, who focused attention on an extremely important matter in respect of the water resources of the Republic. The hon. member drew attention to the depletion which is taking place in our underground water supplies. I know that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s predecessor and he himself have often focused attention on this important feature in our country, and in the course of my speech I propose to try to show how we can approach this matter and plan to augment the supply of our underground water in the Republic. I want to make a special plea to the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs that in considering the over-all water problems in the Republic, the river systems which flow through our country be planned as whole units; that they be tackled at the upper reaches in the mountain ranges and that they be planned along their entire route to the sea. I believe that any other approach will be patchwork planning which will not have the desired effect. I visualize that if this problem is tackled properly we will establish authorities such as the Sundays River Water Conservation and Utilization Plan; we would have the Fish River Water Conservation and Utilization Plan that takes into account the whole of those particular river systems. You see, Sir, many of our rivers on their course to the sea flow not only across farm boundaries but district boundaries and in many cases provincial boundaries, and as the policy of this Government is implemented many of our rivers will also flow through international boundaries. In the course of time this may present problems, and therefore I think it is essential that in considering our rivers we must consider them as whole units from their very start to where they eventually flow out into the sea. Sir, each river obviously is going to have its own peculiar problems. For instance, in Natal where you have permanent flowing streams, the question of afforestation or no afforestation in the upper reaches is a matter that must receive serious consideration. The pollution of the water in those rivers as they flow through industrial areas is another problem. The question of the control of bilharzia in those particular rivers where the water flows more slowly is a very serious problem. Then there is the question of the establishment of health resorts, and in the case of permanent flowing streams there is also the question of the apportionment of water between agricultural needs and industrial needs. Sir, I do not want to speak so much about those river systems because I know very little about it.

I want to focus attention on the river systems in the dry areas which are so often subjected to periodic and devastating floods. Sir, these rivers traverse what are known as vast flood plains. Hon. members who represent rural constituencies in the platteland will know that these rivers traverse what we call in Afrikaans the “vlei” lands of the platteland. These vleis represent some of our most valuable grazing ground. These vleis constitute many thousands of morgen. These vlei lands are the sponges which, before soil erosion set in, absorbed many millions of gallons of water annually, and they were the sources that replenished the underground waters of the interior. But unfortunately these vlei lands have been desecrated; soil erosion has taken place, and these vlei lands are now merely skeletons of their former verdant state. My plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that in looking into this problem he should seriously consider looking at our river systems as one whole unit, so that in the recovery of these vleis, the job can be systematically tackled, starting at the very start of these rivers and their early tributaries and then working down. I believe that in this country at the present time there is far too much patchwork in this respect, and I think a great deal can be done if a unit is planned much in the same way as the hon. the Deputy Minister is now doing in the upper reaches of the Orange River where they have appointed an authority to deal with the problem of soil erosion in the rivers which flow into the Orange River above the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. You see, Sir, there are certain conflicting interests to-day in our Water Act and our Soil Conservation Act. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the fact that my farm is situated perhaps some 150 miles away from Lake Menz, which is a big State work on the Sundays River. Because that dam must be replenished with water, certain restrictions are placed on my property, restrictions which are not in the best interests of soil conservation. There are obviously certain conflicting interests between these two Acts, and it makes me think that we are fast approaching the point where the interests of soil conservation and the interests of water conservation are so closely allied that it is almost impossible to separate the two. It seems to me that a merging of these two Departments. the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of Soil Conservation is something which we might contemplate in the future, if we wish to get our planning on a sound footing. Sir, it is impossible to deal with this subject, which is a very big one, within the sort space of ten minutes. I hope to be able on a later occasion to discuss this proposition which I have put up with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs, but I do make a strong appeal this morning that this matter receive the very serious attention of his Department. I feel very strongly that one of the most serious developments in our country is this denudation of our erstwhile vleis. I believe, as the hon. member for Marico has said, that the best place to conserve our water is not on the surface but underground where you get the best storage. If we are not going to tackle this problem seriously, then in the future we will find that our underground water supplies will be depleted to such an extent that many of our Karoo farms will go out of production for the simple reason that there is not sufficient water available to provide water for the stock during the dry season.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not follow up what the previous speaker said. He mentioned very important and cardinal points. As the representative of a constituency where water plays a very important role, where I have dealings with 18 irrigation boards and where an average of more than one million morgen feet of water runs down to the sea each year, and where, in the past, very little real water conservation has taken place on a large scale, I want in the first place to address a special word of gratitude to the Department of Water Affairs for having been able under such difficult circumstances to do so much in these areas as far as irrigation is concerned, particularly for the irrigation boards. Many problems still remain to be solved, but I hope, and I know that with the co-operation of the Deputy Minister, who has tackled his new task with such dedication, we can look forward to a period in which the Department is going to take even more vital steps than it has in the past.

There are a few reasons why special attention has, during the past few years, been given to water in this country, and why we have had such a lot to say about and have devoted so much thought to water. The first is rhe drought, which fortunately came to an end last year throughout most of the Republic. A second important factor is the industrial development and the general development in the country since we became a Republic. This development, apart from the drought, has made new demands on our water resources, and this has also, in particular, been emphasized by Act 54 of 1956, in terms of which the control of water was placed in the hands of the State. I do not think we all realized what the implications of that legislation were to be and what a tremendous burden would be placed on the Department of Water Affairs as a result. That is why I now want to express a few ideas in regard to this Department. Some hon. members, such as the hon. member for Piketberg, for example, have already expressed the opinion that this Department ought to be strengthened. I want to associate myself with these representations. Let us look at the annual report of this Department, and we shall see how much work they are doing —research, planning, construction, in addition to the major burden of administration of legislation, since the principle has been laid down that the State must control our water. In this regard considerable difficulty is being experienced as a result of the fact that we have done away with the principle of riparian rights, and by placing the general control over water in the hands of the State. It is the duty of the Department to see to it that this control is applied both efficiently and justly. That is why it is gratifying to see that the Department, in spite of all its activities, still finds an opportunity of undertaking research, inter alia, into methods of stimulating rain. This is something which I particularly welcome. I think all of us would agree when I state that the stimulation of rain can be of great value to us. I read recently that Russian scientists had progressed so far that they were able to establish, by means of radar, precisely where in the clouds hail was formed, so that effective steps could be taken against it. This is a matter which offers us great scope. We are spending millions of rands on storing water, and we are still saddled with the problem of periods in which the rainfall is low, and what our future potential is going to be depends to a large measure upon how these periods of low rainfall are going to be bridged. I foresee that methods of stimulating rain are going to be of great value to us in this respect. Here in the vicinity of Cape Town there is even now a dispute about the consumption of water, among the farmers, the industrialists and the urban-dwellers. If we can therefore cause artificial precipitation on a significant scale, we can to a large extent solve the problem.

A few other aspects remain to which attention must be given. One of these is when existing irrigation areas suffer hardships in times of drought, and experience shortages. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, since we are busy with so many new developments, not to neglect these areas. In point of fact they should receive preference in the planning of our water sources. It does not make any sense to me to spend large amounts on the development of new irrigation areas while existing irrigation areas do not yet have a regular supply of waiter. I feel that we must plan on a regional basis. I am aware that this will require large sums of money. We already have this here in the Western Cape, but then we are also confronted with the problem of administration and control, because there will be pipelines through which farmers, factories and urban dwellers will have to be supplied with water. I wonder therefore whether the hon. the Deputy Minister could not perhaps throw a little light on these problems.

As regards irrigation boards and farmers, I would like to suggest that attention should be given to the revision of section 162 of the Act, the section relating to subsidies. I feel that the cheaper schemes have to a large extent been completed, and that we are now facing the task of laying out more expensive schemes. In this way the burden on irrigation will become considerably heavier. But investment in water is the best investment one can make in this country. The costs are high, and that is why it is necessary that we should give our attention to this aspect, namely increased subsidies.

Various hon. members pleaded for the protection of our catchment areas. I want to associate myself with their representations. However, I would like to point out that in accordance with section 58 the Minister can declare areas to be catchment areas, over which control can subsequently be exercised. I want to make an appeal to the hon. Minister to apply section 59 to a greater extent. If there appear to be loopholes, then we can, in due course, eliminate these.

Another matter I should like to refer to briefly, is a matter which was also touched upon by the hon. member for Gordonia when he referred to the lower reaches of the Orange River. What he wanted to know was where and how water should be used. What he wanted to know in particular was where water should be used, whereas what I want to know is how water should be used. We do not have an abundance of water. On the contrary, our supplies are limited. This entails that the State will have to choose the land to which water can be laid on in order to prevent salination. The State will also have to determine according to which method the water will have to be applied. The method of flood irrigation, for example, is obsolete. We cannot allow over-irrigation to take place on land with a high salt content, and that those salts should subsequently make the water lower down to a large extent useless. We have already had the case of the Hartebeespoort Dam where, in times of major drought when there was little water in the dam, the chlorine content was so high that it constituted a threat for the farmers lower down, who were entirely dependent upon that water. When tobacco, for example, is irrigated with this water, the chlorine content of the tobacco leaves becomes so high that it is not acceptable to the manufacturers of cigarettes and tobacco. This is only one of many complications.

It is the task of the Department to pay attention to all these matters. That is why I want to emphasize again what I said at the beginning, that it is very important that the technical staff as well as the administrative staff of the Department of Water Affairs should be expanded in order to carry out the tremendous task which has been entrusted to it in an efficient way.

During Wednesday’s debate I made mention of the overlapping of Departments, something which has been emphasized again to-day by certain hon. members who took part in the debate so far. It is this point which I want to follow up for the moment, and I hope the hon. member for Nelspruit will, therefore, excuse me for not following his line of thought. I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that in view of this overlapping which is taking place the Government should now seriously consider whether or not to estabish an institute for water affairs so as to be able to deal adequately with this kind of thing which is taking place. The hon. member for Walmer pointed out that the interests of water conservation and soil conservation were inextricably interwoven. The other day I pointed out that we had a Department of Agricultural Technical Services, a Department for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, and a Department of Water Affairs. All these Departments are dealing with kindred matters, matters which should as a matter of right be dealt with as one portfolio. But that is not all. Other Ministers are interested as well.

Take, for instance, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He has an enormous interest in Water Affairs. Then there is the Minister of Forestry, who also has an enormous interest in Water Affairs. As a matter of fact, his activities impinge and sometimes completely overlap with those of the Department of Water Affairs. Wherever in our mountains they lay on plantations or keep the veld in its natural condition, they do so with the avowed intention of preserving our water resources. That is the reason why the Forestry Department does it. In the Forestry Act provision is made specifically for that purpose. But it is the function of the Department of Water Affairs to care for our water resources. Similarly, we have to-day another Minister, namely the Minister of Planning. So, the Minister of Water Affairs and of Agriculture, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs, the Minister of Forestry, the Minister of Planning and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development are all vitally interested in this one matter. How do we now deal with the question of Water Affairs in South Africa?

I submit again, and I suggest, the Government should consider the establishment of an Institute of Water Affairs for South Africa. Even the Minister of Planning cannot handle these matters adequately. Unfortunately, he is not here to-day. I am not suggesting that there is a good reason why he should be here. He is probably engaged on some official business. I am not reproaching him, but I simply say that I have discussed with him certain aspects of planning, and it is quite clear that there are aspects of this matter which fall entirely outside of his influence and ability to condition events. We know what is taking place with regard to desalination, the movement of underground waters, pollution, which involves the retreatment of effluent from our major cities, with the view not only to the re-use of the water, but to the use of the solids which originate as a result of the purification of the effluent, so that we can return organic elements to our fields and our lands; those matters are all part and parcel of the big problem.

I was very interested to listen to the S.A.B.C. broadcast this morning. I am not usually so interested in listening, but I was this morning, to the 8 o’clock news. Because on Wednesday, in speaking in this House on this very Vote, I referred to the position in regard to the Indus waters between Pakistan and India, and the Nile, with regard to Uganda, Egypt and the Sudan. Over the news this morning a statement by the Government of Uganda was actually broadcast, that apropos their quarrel with the Sudan, they did not intend to pollute the water of the Nile, which leaves them to go down into the Sudan, unless they were compelled to do so.

Here I had a witness out of the blue, within two days of me making the statement here on Wednesday. Because of the danger of international conflict arising from the use of international water, it is one of the most x dangerous facets to-day, because all over the continent of Africa, at any rate, and in India, water is becoming that key resource on which the whole of our future development will depend, and with it our future population. In the case of the Indus, the population to-day in the valley of the river is limited by the amount of water that is available. Something has to be done with the surplus population. It cannot just go on increasing. It reminds me of the time when I first saw the Ganges. I was looking forward, after what I had read in my school books in my early school days, to seeing a wonderful great river. I found a little river that was not as wide as this chamber. But when I went 500 or 600 miles further up towards the mountains, I found the Ganges was nearly half a mile wide. That water is all taken out on its way to the sea. Where it is running into the sea, it is a little stream, as I say, about as wide as this chamber. The water is simply being taken out in such vast quantities that they have nearly reached the end of it.

This is the point I made the other day, namely the question of our rivers that run through the Bantu areas, areas which will be Bantustans. Let us read the lesson of the Nile, going from Uganda through foreign countries, the Sudan and Egypt. When an international row flares up between two countries, one actually has the Government of a country like Uganda to-day publicizing to the world: “We will not pollute the water of this river that is going into that other country, unless they force us to do so.”

Mr. Chairman, just think of the implications of that kind of thing. I say quite frankly that I do not believe it is fair to our Department of Water Affairs to have to handle all the manifold facets of this vital question, and that an Institute of Water Affairs for South Africa should be established which for preference should be very closely under the hand of the Prime Minister—it warrants it because of its importance—so that major developments that are taking place shall be brought continually before his notice. One can easily make a tenminute speech to-day in regard to pollution and the re-use of water. One can easily make a ten-minute speech in regard to the desalination of water. Some of the more recent developments in that regard are really quite revolutionary.

But they are as nothing when compared to the future developments and the technical advances which will be made in regard to desalination and the clarification and purification of effluent, over the next ten, 15 or 20 years. This development will simply leave completely in the shade what has been developed up to now. And what is ten or 20 years in the life of a nation? This is just to-morrow I am talking about. It will be commonplace. But how are we to keep up with it? Are we to put the whole of this burden on the Department of Water Affairs? We have seen the development in regard to the Orange River and the enormous cost that is arising. We are now at the first stage in regard to the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam.

The last estimate that we have heard, was up to R240 million. This Department has to handle the lot. They have to check all the figures and go through the whole matter, to see whether we are getting value for our money, when we start talking in terms of money like that. We discuss from time to time here matters of R20,000 or R30,000. This is not only a question of money. It is not a question of R240 million. R240 million is one small facet of a huge problem that we have. I would ask the Deputy Minister to take this to his Minister, and if necessary, to the Cabinet to get the Prime Minister to establish an Institute of Water Affairs, to have the matter closely under his hand and to bring every facet of water conservation under the direct control of the Head of the State.

Since there are many hon. members on this side of the House who would still like a turn to speak, and our time is almost up, I want to be very brief. In the last part of my speech I would just like to address a request to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs. Quickly, then, I also want to associate myself with all the congratulations and good wishes which have deservedly been conveyed to him. I should like to address a personal word of thanks to him for the concession of additional water at the end of our water year at Vaal Hartz, namely during March of last year. I want to say that this is no exception; we receive it every year. But it is nevertheless necessary to ask for it, and the Minister must append his approval to it. This time the Minister once again saw his way clear to doing this for us. On behalf of my constituency in Vaal Hartz I want to convey to him a special word of thanks for this concession.

But this brings me to the point which was also made by the hon. member for Winburg, namely that our water concessions on these schemes are inadequate. That is why additional water has to be purchased at the end of each water year. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Nelspruit said, i.e. that we must know how to use the water. It amounts to this: When the water is used and the water year is coming to an end, one’s crop is almost 90 per cent fully grown, and then there is no water. If one cannot obtain that additional water, one loses all the benefits of the water which has been used to cultivate the crop to that extent of 90 per cent. That is why I say we must know how to use that water. Now I am not going to ask for increased scheduling, because I know that that will not be granted to us, but I want to tell the Minister that although he concedes this water to us each year after the water year has almost elapsed and the water quota is used up, a “deterrent” is being applied. The water is made so expensive that almost nobody is able to purchase it. With the first purchase of a few inches it is made twice as expensive as the last purchase. The second purchase is three times and the third purchase four times the original price. I think that that discouraging measure, which is being applied at all schemes, is quite adequate. But the question which is hampering us there is that when that water is allotted to us the Minister’s consent has to be obtained before this can be done. It happens that a period of three weeks to a month elapses. During that time the crop shrivels up to such an extent that despite the additional water, it is impossible to save it. All I am now asking from the Minister is that when that concession is made each year he should simply make it easier to acquire the water. Where we have this allocation of ten extra inches at a greatly increased price, we are simply asking the Minister to lay down in his regulation that it can in fact be purchased without consulting him, that an official can do so, except—I want to add this qualification— when there is no water. We are not asking for this to be done when or if there is no water available. We are asking that additional water should in future be sold to us, under normal circumstances. I should like to give the hon. the Minister a little information in regard to this matter. The Van Der Merwe commission investigated the question of purchasing water very thoroughly and found that the people purchasing water were the occupants of the smaller plots. If there is one thing that is beyond my comprehension then it is this. The Government cut up economic units into 30 morgen, and other units into 20 morgen. They are on the same level, in the same area, and within the boundaries of the scheme. It was then stated that these smaller units were also economic. However, they are there and I should like the officials to furnish me with a reply to the following question. The commission decided that the people with 20 morgen plots doubled their cultivation to as much as 150 per cent. Does that mean that that man is also irrigating 30 morgen? A doubling of 150 per cent means that he is also irrigating his 30 morgen, but he is only receiving water for 20 morgen. He purchases additional water for the remaining ten morgen. However, the Minister’s approval has to be obtained for that purpose, and as I have said, it takes so long that in the meantime the man’s crop shrivels up. We are asking that people with fewer than 30 morgen be allowed to purchase the quantity of water which is equivalent to the 30 morgen. In other words, one receives 30 inches per morgen per year, 30 morgen therefore gives you 900 inches, the 20 morgen plot consequently receives only 600 inches of water. And now we are asking that the man with a 20 morgen plot should be granted the right to purchase additional water to as much as 900 inches, so that all irrigators can fall into the same category, and subsequently water restrictions can then be applied. They do not mind paying the increased price; they are prepared to do that, as long as they can obtain the water in order to see their crops through.

I hope I have made this matter clear. To sum up: we are asking that people with 20 morgen plots, or people with plots which are less than 30 morgen in extent be allowed to purchase the full 900 inches, after which they can subsequently be treated on the same basis as the others.

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal I should like to say a few words as the representative of the grass veld regions, that is to say those regions which lie to the south of the Langeberge. On the southern part of those mountains the Department of Water Affairs has, during the last few years, built a few fine irrigation dams, and I can give you the assurance that those dams mean a tremendous amount to those farmers and to the inhabitants of the towns. The dams are stimulating local economy there, and I would not like to imagine what the position would have been if it had not been for those dams. I want to mention a few of these dams. We have the Korente Vet River Dam at Riversdale, the Duivenhoks River Dam at Heidelberg and the Buffeljachts River Dam at Swellendam. We know that other dams are at present being planned. These dams are in the first instance irrigation dams. However, I now want to advocate that the cattle farmers should also be able to benefit from those dams. Those farmers who are far away from the irrigation land, are experiencing difficulties, and I think the only way in which we can accommodate them, is to bring the water to their farms by means of a pipeline. This water will be used in the first instance for watering stock, and in the second instance for household purposes. This is by no means a new idea, and I am also aware of the fact that such a system is being planned. The region I am now talking about has winter rainfall and dry summer, and in the dry summers—and this is actually where the difficulty lies—we have to get along without rain for five to six months. During the past season this period was as long as seven to eight months. That is what makes matters so difficult for the cattle farmer. In such a long dry period he does not have enough drinking-water for his stock. The soil in those regions is, for the most part, not suitable for dams, and even if it were suitable, dams would be of no avail if the rainfall is not adequate or if the rainfall is so mild that the water cannot flow into the dams.

Order! The hon. member is rather far from the subject of water affairs now. He is dealing with agricultural matters.

I shall return to water affairs immediately, Mr. Chairman. The position is that the farmers make provision for their own water requirements as far as possible out of boreholes or wells, or by means of windmills. However, that water is of such a nature that it is not suited to use by animals. If the farmer cannot give his stock enough water during that dry period, he is compelled to convey his water over long distances to fill the dams. Anybody who has had practical experience of farming knows that it is an impossible task to convey water for one’s cattle over a long distance.

I am now dealing with water affairs again, and I want to allege that the reply to that lies with the Department of Water Affairs. We believe that if we can have a pipeline system which brings the water from the dams to the farmers, then that problem will have been solved. The Department has already introduced that system along the West Coast, and it is achieving wonderful things for those farmers, and that region. Once the system is in operation the farmers will be in a much better position because his cattle will then, during the dry periods, and also when there is not much grazing, be able to maintain their condition because there will be good water available to them. When there is no winter grazing. 80 per cent of the sheeps’ nutrients consists of water. For household purposes the people there have only the water which runs off the roofs of the farm houses and the barns. The system which I am advocating will also bring about a great improvement in that respect. I thank you, Sir, for the few moments which you placed at my disposal.

Mr. Chairman, the debate has lasted for almost four hours now, and I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for taking part in it and also for the way in which they presented their cases. Some matters related to certain principles, while others were of a more local nature. In the time at my disposal I shall now try to reply to all the points which have been raised here.

This is the first opportunity which presents itself to address a few words from this side of the House and on behalf of this Department to the State President, who used to be the Minister in charge of this Department. He had hardly been Minister of Water Affairs for two years when he was called to a higher office. It fell to his share to perform an important task in that period. He took over this Department in the midst of the most serious drought crisis which this country has ever experienced. He did not have the good fortune to be Minister during a reasonably prosperous period as far as the country’s water affairs were concerned, and I think we should note with appreciation what inspiration he provided when he made it his task during the drought to keep up the courage of our people.

This Department has to administer the Water Act of 1956. The administration of the Water Act means, in point of fact, that the Department must supervise and control the storage, regulation and conservation of water. It also means that it must make a fair apportionment of the water supply of South Africa to all bodies and persons concerned. This applies not only to surface supplies, but to subterranean supplies as well. This is the task to be performed by the Department of Water Affairs, and this task is becoming ever greater. In the performance of its task, i.e. the conservation, control and apportionment of water in South Africa, the Department is in fact controlling the most important commodity upon which man and plant and animal are dependent in South Africa. But more than that, it is also controlling the main limiting factor as far as the economic growth of the country is concerned. That is why it is so important, when discussing water, that we should be very careful and that we should know that the keynote of all our thinking about water should be “proper planning and proper control”; and when we speak of proper planning, we also have to realize that we will have to plan in such a way that we take into account the importance of the factor of water. Having said this, I will be permitted by the Committee to try to give some idea of what the water situation in South Africa is. That is what is concerned here.

We have to accept that South Africa is a country that is not endowed with a plentiful supply of water, and that we are in fact one of the countries in the world having the ereatest scarcity of water. What are the facts? The facts are that, in contrast with other comparable countries, only 8.6 per cent of the water falling on our soil finds its way into our rivers or is absorbed as ground-water, as we call it, which flows back into the subterranean basins from which we are continually abstracting water. It is also a fact that the rivers of South Africa are so situated, and that the effects which droughts have on our country and that the extent of the areas in which the water falls are such, that only 50 per cent of the water falling on our soil can ever be utilized economically. This is an important factor. This 50 per cent only amounts to 10 million morgen feet of water, which is not much. But the fact remains that if our dams, those which have been built and those which we can still build, can catch up this water, only 55 per cent of this water is in fact available to us as a gross run-off, owing to the uncertainty of our rainfall. However, we must also take into account that 23 per cent of all the water that we catch up is lost through evaporation. So, if this fact is taken into account, it means that only 42.3 per cent of this 10 million morgen feet of water that we can ever dam up economically could be utilized effectively.

What is the present position? We have already dammed up 2.5 million morgen feet of water, and the dams which are at present under construction or being planned, and which will be under construction in the near future, will store up 6.8 million to 7 million morgen feet of water. If we apply the formula I mentioned a moment ago to this quantity of water, it means that for the present generation in South Africa we can already make available for use three million of this 4.2 million morgen feet which we shall ultimately have at our disposal. As far as the present generation is concerned, the position is therefore that we have already dammed up this quantity of water, and if we consider what the future consumption will be, we find the following position: At the present moment we are consuming approximately 3.8 million morgen feet of water, but if we maintain the present rate of growth, we shall already require 6.1 million morgen feet of water by the year 2000. By the year 2000 we shall already have exceeded the total potential of South Africa. This is the hard fact that we are faced with.

The second important fact with which we are concerned and which we must also realize is that we have drawn upon our subterranean reserves so rapidly that in many parts of the country we cannot even reach them with an ordinary jumper drill any more. That is why in some areas the Department has to drill down more than 500 feet to reach our last reserves. It is only the artesian and dolomitic sources which are reasonably stable. These are the hard facts we have to accept and in terms of which we must view the water position in South Africa and in terms of which hon. members must view the representations which they made here.

If we accept these facts, it means that planning in our case means efficient distribution. Efficient distribution means, in point of fact, that in South Africa we must take into account and keep in mind the balance of consumption and of demand between our urban areas and our rural areas, as well as existing development and any future development which is planned. These factors must be taken into account. Planning in respect of water also means that we must pay attention to the useful application, the saving and the more sensible use of water. This applies to agriculture as well and, if I may just make the observation here, I do not know whether we always make judicious use of the available supply of water. We must also pay attention to the pollution of water and the conservation of the sources, so that they remain unpolluted for our use. But this also means that we must give careful consideration to preferential rights. Hon. members have touched upon this matter from various sides and angles. It means the preferential right of people living in a catchment area as against the possible better utilization of the water by people living outside that catchment area. I want to mention examples. I want to mention the example of the determination of a preferential right between, for example, the rural consumption in the Boland as against that of Cape Town; the preferential right, for example, in respect of the consumption on the Rand of water that has to be taken from the Tugela. But, Sir, let me immediately say to you and to this House that our predecessors passed a Water Act which established this very important principle, a principle which springs from South Africa’s particular circumstances, i.e. the circumstances that rain falls mainly in one area, but that South Africa necessarily has to develop in another area as well; that the water falls in our mountainous regions and perhaps runs down to Natal, but that we know that our gold has to be exploited on the Rand and not in Natal, and that our iron deposits are at certain places, and not necessarily where the water is. Hence the fact that the State reserves to itself the right always to decide about the preferential right of a person within a catchment area, but over against that also has the right to take into account the right of developing South Africa in other areas where it must necessarily develop.

Now, Sir, against this background you will permit me just to mention to you, furthermore, what the recent phenomena in this country are, phenomena which are now becoming of more urgent importance to us, because we must bear in mind that South Africa has experienced an economic development over the past 20 years which has virtually increased its gross national product fourfold and will lead to a further increase in the years that lie ahead. As far as water is concerned, these developments have served to stress the fact that we have rapidly become industrialized in recent times and that we have become industrialized in directions which have brought into prominence the importance of preventing pollution. That is why we now have to deal with this problem of pollution, which we have always had, as the whole world has had it, and as America has had it, but which has suddenly become more serious in other countries and in this country as well. It has coincided with the industrialization of our country. The fact that we have experienced such tremendous economic growth in our urban areas in recent times and that the rate of consumption has increased so tremendously, has also brought into prominence the question of the re-use of water. This is a world problem, but it is becoming more serious in this country now. There is also the fact that at present we are virtually experiencing an assault on our mountainous areas and our sponge areas, and a competition for the use of water. These have been caused not only by the broad economic development of South Africa, but also by the demand which has arisen in our country in recent times for timber and timber products. This is also a new situation that has been created in South Africa.

The fact that we are developing, and have to develop, rapidly in the economic field and have to supply water quickly to the development areas entails our having to accept that the easy and nearby sources of supply to our great complexes have already been tapped. It is simply no longer possible to supply more cheap water near any city in South Africa or near any point of development. All water which is taken there must be conveyed over long distances by means of expensive systems —expensive tunnels, expensive pipe-lines or expensive dams. Our predecessors took the easy first steps; the difficult ones are coming now. Mr. Chairman, against this background we must decide what our general attitude is to be in regard to these fundamental matters, and we must also decide what the policy of South Africa is to be in respect thereof.

I should like to return to the question of pollution. In recent years we have given a great deal of attention to the control of pollution. This control is exercised by a division in the Department. We also work in the closest co-operation with various quarters. The C.S.I.R. is paying attention to this problem, and has its own national water research institute. The Bureau of Standards also concerns itself with certain aspects of this matter; the universities are concerned about this matter, and it is also becoming an academic question for the people who train others to handle the situation. On account of what I have seen recently, I am satisfied that South Africa has become sufficiently aware of this problem. I am satisfied that our Department is also fully alert to it. We are also receiving good cooperation from industry an this regard. I must say, however, that in certain cases we are having difficulties with industrialists who are not co-operating with us properly, but I do not want to express myself too strongly about this now. I just want to say that in the circumstances of South Africa’s water position we will have to obtain the co-operation of all bodies and persons in order to be able to meet this problem, because it is not a problem of the Government alone, but a problem of the entire country, and we must view it in that light.

As far as the re-use of water is concerned, I want to say at once that it is my conviction that one of the untapped sources of water in the country is the polluted water at our disposal. If I may express any criticism, I want to say that this is one of the sections of our activities in which the Department finds it difficult to obtain co-operation. With the scarcity of water that there is, we are not satisfied that we are receiving the co-operation of particularly our municipalities in connection with the re-use of water. As a matter of fact, one of the largest municipalities in South Africa has not even installed meters as yet. It is more and more becoming the idea to ask the Government to supply water to industrial development areas, and to make the Government responsible for supplying water to such areas. As yet, too little is being done in connection with the re-use of water. In other countries in which there is a greater scarcity of water than in South Africa, much more is being done in this connection than in our country, and there is better co-operation as well. However, I want to add that great interest has been displayed in the matter of late, and I want to express the hope that we shall have greater interest and co-operation on the part of all bodies and persons in the future. As far as the policy of the Department is concerned, we must make it quite clear that we are making an appeal to all bodies and persons to co-operate with us in taking the necessary re-use measures, and to obtain the necessary guidance from us in this regard. We are geared to being able to provide the necessary technical advice. We also have to warn that we will have to receive co-operation, otherwise the Department will simply have to take drastic action in the future. This matter must be considered as being as important as preventing the water in our rivers from being polluted.

As regards the third point I mentioned, i.e. the phenomenon we have been meeting with of late that water is also being used by forest planters in mountainous areas, I want to say that we find it a pity that many prospective forest planters apparently have the idea that they have the right to enter mountainous areas and to destroy our sponge areas by planting trees. We made provision for such an eventuality in our water legislation. The Act has not yet been applied very strictly in the past, probably because the problem did not come to the fore as strongly as it has done recently. I want to issue a very serious warning that the Act does provide for us to take action. I also want to say that we have recently been compelled to proclaim quite a number of these areas as water catchment areas, neither shall we hesitate to proclaim further areas in the future.

†The hon. member for South Coast was perturbed about this position and he spoke about the intrusion of these people into our catchment areas. I wish to assure the hon. member that I fully agree with him and that we will not hesitate to prevent intrusion into our cachment areas. May this be a warning to all interested parties that we are bent on doing what is necessary for the protection of our catchment areas.

Have you the power to proclaim those areas?

We have the power. We have proclaimed four areas during the past few weeks and next week we will be proclaiming another two areas.

*Mr. Chairman, I just want to make this further observation in regard to the supply of water to remote areas and to our urban areas. I trust that before we start a dispute in South Africa about the necessity of protecting water for any particular area, we shall have regard to the fact that we have an obligation as regards the economic development of South Africa as a whole. I want to take the Tugela as an example. It would be a pity if, in dealing with the large water complexes such as the Tugela, we should quarrel with one another as to what is in the best interests of South Africa. As far as the Tugela is concerned, I just want to tell hon. members that when the dam we intend to build shortly has been completed, it will catch up only 5 per cent of all the water of the Tugela River, and the portion nat will be taken to the Rand will only be approximately 3 per cent of the total quantity. In other words, if I again have to apply the principle of the proper utilization of water with due regard to the interests of any particular catchment area, then, surely, it is also the responsibility of the Government not to do anything which would upset the balance between the interests of the local community and the broader interests of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, you will also permit me to say a few words on this occasion about what was said here in regard to our staff and the importance of developing our Department. Various quarters have recently come to take an interest in the activities of the Department, actually because we have taken trouble to bring these activities to notice. We are confident that in the near future we shall probably find greater interest being displayed by our universities in the training of students, also for service in this Department. But I also want to say to hon. members that it seems to me as though a very great deal of talent is being lost along the way because we perhaps do not give sufficient publicity to South Africa as a future engineers’ paradise. We see this Department, with the task lying in store for it, as a co-builder of the future of South Africa, not only as the builder of large dams and large schemes, but in the future also as the builder of the national economy which has to be developed. I want to say that in this process South Africa is going to become an engineers’ paradise, and to any student who wants to qualify himself, I want to extend an invitation to make his services available to this Department, not only because it will afford him an opportunity of taking part in the great work of creating an engineers’ paradise in South Africa, but also because he will receive the opportunity of helping to make South Africa the economic giant which it should become.

On this occasion I have to express my thanks to the officials of my Department for having undertaken in so loyal a manner what has had to be done in South Africa in recent years. We must not forget that we are experiencing keen competition from the private sector. We have to compete for the services of engineers in order to be able to do what has to be done. In the meantime the activities of the Department are expanding more and more. I recently had t)he opportunity of visiting quite a number of schemes and of seeing how the work was being tackled there. I am therefore in a position to testify to the enthusiasm and loyalty displayed by our people who are engaged in these projects. I am satisfied that the people who build our dams, those who exercise supervision over that and those who have to undertake the planning, do so with devotion and without sparing themselves and without looking to their own advantage. With the few people we have, we have already performed a gigantic task for South Africa; on behalf of the Government I therefore want to express my gratitude to these people.

Hon. members raised quite a number of points here in connection with specific matters, and I should like to reply to these.

†The hon. member for South Coast wanted to know what the long-term planning was for the development of the Tugela. He wanted to know how many dams were going to be built, where and when, and what the intentions were about development of the Tugela within Bantu areas. I dealt with this question in a broader sense. I wish to assure the hon. member for South Coast that the Tugela will be planned within this broader concept. The Tugela, like many of our larger rivers, shall have to be planned thoroughly for the future. Once we have the broad blueprint for the development of the Tugela, we shall be in a position to indicate when and how the various projects will be tackled. We must, however, not see the Tugela as a river which shall have to be harnessed within a year or ten. The Tugela is one of our reserves. Therefore we should have a broad plan and not try to harness the Tugela within a period of 10 or 15 years or even before the end of the century.

The hon. member also spoke about the Makatini Flats and the vleis round about those flats. He pointed out that fish were being bred in these vleis as a source of food for the Bantu there. He pointed out that these vleis were filled by overflows from the Pongola but when this river was under the control of the J. G. Strijdom Dam this overflow would be cut off and the fish would die. As to the planning and design of this area it was recommended in a report, dated 20th March, 1968, that effect should be given to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the St. Lucia Lake System by supplying fresh water to the St. Lucia Lake via the J. G. Strijdom Dam, rather than from a dam in the Mkuze River. I should like to go into this matter thoroughly first before dealing with it in detail. This is an important matter and, as the hon. member will appreciate, I have not had the time yet to study it in detail. It is my intention to visit the area to see for myself what should be done.

With special reference to the question of the authority which shall have to allocate water between the white and the non-white areas from the Tugela and the J. G. Strijdom Dam.

Yes. The hon. member also pointed out that tourist development was being held up because the Natal Parks Board and the Provincial Administration of Natal were unable to supply water. Following representations by the Natal Parks Board earlier this year, preliminary investigations were carried out, in March, 1968, to determine the feasibility and cost of supplying the Natal Parks Board and other consumers with purified water. The design of the basic scheme up to Hluhluwe in accordance with the White Paper Report, has been given priority with due cognizance of the possibility of having to supply purified water and of providing extensions to various consumers, including the Natal Parks Board at the False Bay Arm of the St. Lucia. Should it be decided to extend the scheme to cover these features at a later date, a further White Paper will be required.

The hon. member for South Coast also wanted to know what the immediate, intermediate and long-term plans were for supplying water to Richard’s Bay. This is a matter which has already been investigated by the Department and it has been recommended that for the interim Richard’s Bay should get water locally from the fresh water lakes and that this be augmented later by the dam to be built on the Imhlatuzi. Further augmentation of the supplies to this area is being investigated and both the Umfolozi and Tugela Rivers are being considered. But this question of the need and the supply of water must be considered against the background, as I have said, of regional planning.

*The hon. member for Winburg made quite a few points to which I should like to reply. In the first place he expressed his thanks and appreciation for the services rendered by the Department, and then he asked whether there was any co-operation with foreign agencies and also how we set about obtaining cooperation from agencies within the country itself. There are two international organizations with which the Department is cooperating. One of these organizations is concerned with the planning of large dams and the other with the purification of water. As far as these bodies are concerned, South Africa occupies a high status. The president of the first-mentioned organization wrote the following in a letter to Mr. Kriel, our representative—

This, then, is what they think of South Africa. The hon. member referred to the importance of the re-use of water and said that it was essential that the Department should cooperate with other domestic agencies in this regard. Well, as I have said, we are cooperating with the C.S.I.R. and with our universities, and it is the intention to continue and to expand this co-operation in the future. I want to express the hope that it will be possible for us to bring about better co-ordination among all the parties concerned.

The hon. member also referred to the water supply position of Hertzogville. He asked that something be done to relieve this town of its problems. When I visited the hon. member’s constituency recently, I received representations from representatives of Hertzogville. It is clear to me that Hertzogville is the one small place in South Africa—there may be others as well, but Hertzogville is the only one I know of—where there is no water in the vicinity, nor any subterranean water. There is only one single borehole, and if that gives in, the whole of Hertzogville will be permanently without water. Mr. Chairman, I want to reassure the hon. member and tell him that we have already discussed the matter with the Department. We shall investigate the matter and try to supply water at Government cost by means of a Government water scheme, and the water will then be sold to Hertzogville at the price which they can afford. I hope and trust that we shall soon have very good news for the hon. member in this regard.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany stated that last year the matter of reuse of water by coastal towns had been raised under the Minister’s Vote. He said that water had to be brought over great distances at State expense. It was essential that the Department should pay attention to the re-use of water by coastal cities, and thereby boost the national water resources. I think that I dealt with this in my general statement, and I do not think there is any further comment on this point raised by the hon. member for Albany.

The hon. member also wishes to know what progress had been made in implementing the recommendations of the report of the Institute of Hydrology, including the establishment of chairs of hydrology at different universities. There is no Institute of Hydrology, and the hon. member is probably referring to certain recommendations contained in the Straszacken report. This aspect has ¡been supported by the Scientific Advisory Council, and it is understood that certain universities are following up the recommendations.

*The hon. member for Piketberg asked that we should take special steps to attract more engineers. I think I furnished the hon. member with a reply in this regard a few moments ago. The hon. member also felt that in the Western Cape we should pay more attention to agricultural needs as far as water affairs are concerned. Against the background which I have outlined, i.e. that we should also take into account the needs concerned in the catchment and control area of a dam, it is very clear that the agricultural needs of the Western Cape must also be weighed up very thoroughly against the other needs. I want to say to the hon. member that, if there is any doubt to the effect that, in the development of these rivers in the Boland, this water will be given away and that the agricultural needs will not receive proper attention, I want to give him the assurance that we shall see to it that agriculture is not neglected. I want to say to the hon. member that, over and above what is already in prospect, there is still a tremendous potential remaining. We trust that ample provision will also be made for the maintenance of agriculture in the Western Cape. After all, this is one of the main reasons why we are looking forward to major development in this area as well.

The hon. member for Standerton also spoke about co-ordination and guidance in regard to what we should produce under irrigation. That is quite correct. If the hon. member had been here, he would have known that this in fact confirms what I said earlier in my speech about the careful utilization of water, also by agriculture. The hon. member also asked that we improve the legislation for the protection of our sponges. As yet we do not know whether we have to improve the legislation. We are going to try to make use of existing legislation. If we get into difficulties and we see that we need an improved Act, we shall amend it until it is good enough to cope with this problem.

The hon. member also complained about water which was being used by a certain industry and three cusecs of which was running away all the time without being re-used. I just want to say to the hon. member that, if he would tell me personally what the name of the concern is, we shall have the matter investigated.

The hon. member also asked a question on behalf of the hon. member for Waterberg about the position in regard to the Loskop Dam. I have tried to ascertain what happened in the past in the case of the Loskop Dam. It seems to me as though there is a possibility after all of raising the dam wall at some stage or another. However, this would mean that the present camping site of the province would be submerged. This is an implication we will have to face. I also understand that the dam wall will have to be examined once again, because there is a possibility that it may not be able to withstand further pressure. This would also mean that the dam wall would have to be reinforced. In any case, it is a technical matter. There is no lack of willingness to investigate the matter, and in due course we shall pay the necessary attention to this as well.

†The hon. member for East London (North) stated that he had visited the towns, which were equipped with all facilities, but that at Midshaft and the tunnel exit there were ghost towns. My reply to the point raised by the hon. member is that we have to build the big canal and need to house very many people, black and white. Naturally, before commencing the construction of the canal, one must have facilities to house these people. That is why we are completing the housing scheme first before we start the work; otherwise nobody will be interested in starting work in the veld without there being facilities to live in.

The hon. member for Mooi River stated that a pulp mill is to be situated on the Umzimkulu, a major river, 100 miles from the coast. The river is on the border of Natal and the pollution of the river would constitute a tragedy. I agree. It could constitute a tragedy. There is no pulp mill on the Umzimkulu River at the moment. A large industrial concern wishes to establish a pulp mill near Creighton, but it is uncertain whether the department’s requirements regarding pollution control can be met. No final decision on the siting of the mill has as yet been made. Unless the department can be assured that no pollution will take place, no permit in terms of section 12 of the Water Act allowing the concern to extract water from the Umzimkulu River will be issued.

Is that absolutely definite?

Yes, that is definite. We will not issue a permit unless we are satisfied that our requirements will be met. The hon. member asked a question in connection with the Umvoti-Karkloof and Ixopo catchment areas. As I have said, those areas will be declared within a week or two. The reason why we were held up is that there is much work involved before an area can be declared.

*I should like to make an observation in regard to the tapping of clouds. The hon. member for Nelspruit as well as the hon. member for Mooi River referred to this. This is of course a quite recent development in the scientific world and one does not know how far one should go. I do not want to go any further than saying that the Department is studying this aspect as well, and that it will carry out the necessary experiments in the future and will assist other people who are engaged in the matter to do so. This is a very delicate matter. Personally I do not know much about it, and accordingly I want to be very careful in saying anything about it.

The hon. member for Paarl made certain remarks which we appreciate a great deal, and he also told us why pure water had to be used or ought to be used in the Boland. I agree with the hon. member’s reasons as to why the development of certain areas has to be promoted. I think the hon. member is right and I do not want to repeat them. The hon. member quite rightly asked what would become of the water of such a dam and how it would be conveyed to the irrigators. I want to say to the hon. member that in future we will have to adopt a different approach in regard to the allocation of water from the one we adopted in the past. I said on a previous occasion, and I want to repeat now, that I think it is wrong to build a dam wall and then to take the view that the needs of the area concerned have been taken care of. I believe that we should not build a dam wall unless we are prepared to see to it that the water behind the dam wall is distributed to the consumers in the most efficient and best way. This also applies to Paarl. Although no announcement has been made as yet, I cannot see how we can omit completing canal systems to distribute water to the farmers who need it.

The hon. member for Gordonia said that he was concerned about the position of the Orange River below the confluence of the Vaal and Orange Rivers. I can understand the hon. member’s concern. Anybody would be concerned if he saw that a large quantity was being stored in a few dams and he did not know what portion would come his way. Once again against the background of the profitable and proper use of water and the proper apportionment thereof to all who are entitled to it, as I stated at the outset, I want to tell the hon. member this. A good deal of research still has to be done, particularly as far as the availability of land is concerned, in order to be able to make the final apportionment. I want to tell the hon. member that he may rest assured that, as far as the industrial consumption is concerned, as regards both the present and the potential, the parts below the point will have to get their rightful share of the water, otherwise, surely, it would be unfair. I can give the hon. member the assurance that, as regards the further investigations which are taking place, his area will also receive priority. I cannot reply to him in greater detail in this regard at this stage. I can only reply to him in principle. The investigation of this matter has been entrusted to a special technical committee. I want to assure him that, as regards the protection that will flow from this, his area will be protected as far as possible and that all the rights mentioned by him will be taken into consideration.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) said that water should not be taken from one area to another at the expense of the first-mentioned area. I think the hon. member will be satisfied with the statement which I made earlier to the effect that we must weigh up these matters against each other.

The hon. member for Virginia made two points. The one related to spray irrigation. I want to tell the hon. member that I agree with him. I think the hon. member for Winburg also spoke in this connection. I think we are also on the eve of developments as regards the use of water for agricultural purposes. I think we still know too little about this. To my mind we must do much more research. We must adopt the approach that where it can be done and where the elements and other factors influencing it allow us to do so, we must make as much use as possibls of the spray irrigation system in South Africa. The factors which influence it are the following: Wind direction, soil depth, quality, gradients, and comparative costs as regards the production and the supplying of the water. I hope that in the coming years we shall be able to do a good deal more and learn a good deal more about this problem. The Department, of course, finances spraying systems in the sense that it grants subsidies. The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure also grants loans for this purpose. It is actually a matter which should fall under that Department, because the loan is greater than the subsidy.

The hon. member for Virginia also referred to the fact that there had been an investigation in connection with the 40 million gallons of subterranean water abstracted by the mines every day. They developed a system by means of which they tried to purify the water. This was done by the Anglo American group, and at a certain stage it was discontinued. The cost at which this purified water could be supplied was higher than that at which water could be purchased. I understand that defects also occurred in their plant and that they were unable to purify the water to the required degree. In other words, technical problems were also experienced. The Department did not have a great deal to do with the matter. Naturally we were interested, and we shall most certainly take a further interest in the matter. It is inherent in the principle we apply in respect of the future purification of water that the purification of mine water will also be a very important factor. If the water can be purified cheaply, this must be done rather than to bring in water from outside. However, I am only making this as a general statement.

A few other hon. members also made certain observations this morning. The hon. member for Marico asked for a more extensive study to be made of our subterranean sources. This is of course an important matter. I want to say to the hon. member that our hydrological section is in tact working on this matter, and I am satisfied that they know more about it than we think. However, I agree that the subject should be studied further. The hon. member also asked whether the Maiemane and Malopo Rivers were subterranean ones. I tried to find out on a previous occasion whether it could be established whether there was such a thing as a subterranean river, and it would seem to me as though what we call subterranean rivers are nothing but overflows in dolomitic areas where great pressure forces the stream to the surface, where it then flows along a bed on the surface. It flows along the surface and then again disappears beneath the surface until such a water source disappears altogether. I therefore have to inform the hon. member that I do not know of such a thing as a subterranean river. It is either a river which flows along the surface or not a river at all. But I think what the hon. member has in mind is this. If water is derived from these artesian sources in these dolomotic areas, can you make lavish use of such water? My attitude is: No, of course you must not make lavish use of it. This is the only source of subterranean water in South Africa which is still reasonably safe, and we must make very careful use of it. We must see to it that we do not destroy it in the same way as other subterranean sources have been destroyed.

The hon. member for Kimberley (South) asked whether it was not possible, before the dam at Spitskop in the Harts River was completed and if the farmers in that water area got into difficulties, to supply some water from the Vaal Dam to assist them to some extent. This is prohibited by law. The water used in that area is in actual fact run-off water from the Vaalharts Scheme. Before the farmers on that scheme used their water so carefully, there was a large run-off. The runoff was so consistently large that many farmers began farming along the lower reaches of the run-off. However, as the water came to be used more efficiently higher up, this runoff disappeared in due course. But the communities are still there and now they are asking whether the water cannot be replaced. They never had any water to replace; they were using run-off water. Consequently the hon. member’s request cannot be complied with: it is legally impossible. If water is supplied to these people, it can only be taken from one source, and that is the Vaal Dam. That water cannot be taken out of the dam. They already have a shortage there. Now it is to be given to an area which never had any claim to that water. I think it would only give rise to serious difficulties. In addition it would involve us in serious legal problems. I want to say to the hon. member that we hope the dam will be completed fairly soon. I also want to give him the assurance that the work at the dam will be expedited as much as possible. But in the meantime both he and I must hope for good rains.

†The hon. member for Walmer spoke about the river systems in our dry areas, rivers traversing our vleilands. Of course, it is very important that we maintain our sponge or vlei areas. I also agree that soil conservation and water conservation are closely allied. The two dapartments will continue to closely cooperate in future in connection with the conservation of soil and water. I agree with the hon. gentleman that soil and water conservation should be viewed as allied subjects, and I hope that in future the two departments will continue to co-operate as closely as they have done in the past. I wish to assure the hon. gentleman that the two departments try to cooperate as regards the combating of these great problems. Our activities will further increase and we will co-operate as closely as we can and certainly try to conserve these areas as far as possible.

*The hon. member for Nelspruit also raised a few points. He asked that our existing rivers should receive priority as far as planning was concerned. I think what the hon. member also meant was that we should first complete and round off existing works before starting on new ones. I think the hon. member has a valid point and I want to give him the assurance that this will be our policy in the future. There are a large number of dams in existence. and then there are heavy transmission losses in conveying the water from the dam to the point where it is used. I therefore believe that we should give much more attention to the completion of complexes than to the building of new dams. It is quite correct that we will have to build new dams as well in the future, because we cannot have the whole country standing still, but I think the hon. member made a valid point in this regard.

The hon. member also referred to the protection of our catchment areas and asked that more attention be paid to the conservation of our catchment areas. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the conservation of our catchment areas will become the Department’s number one priority in the future, because it is a known fact, and the latest hydrological figures prove to us, that the flow of some of these streams from our high rainfall areas has diminished by up to 80 per cent of their normal flow, and this is a situation which we simply cannot tolerate any longer. We will have to create the necessary machinery and carry out the necessary planning, and I can give him the assurance that the necessary encouragement to do so will not be lacking either.

†The hon. member for South Coast said that in view of the overlapping of various interests his suggestion was that we have an institute of water affairs. We know that water touches practically every walk of life, and we also know that in future we should view with great concern this intricate overlapping in this regard in South Africa. But whether we should create another institute adjacent to all the other institutes and parties interested, as well as the Government, I do not know. From our part, I should like to assure the hon. member that we will try to co-ordinate our activities as far as possible and perhaps by next year we will be able to give a greater measure of assurance to the hon. member.

I shall be happy to remind you of it.

The hon. member for Kimberley (North) said that the water allocations were too small. He said that a certain quantity of water was allocated each year and that in the past allocations had been made to irrigators particularly in times of emergency. The hon. member asked whether we could not lay it down as a principle that, if the people on the scheme said that their water was finished, the Department could automatically grant permission for them to buy extra water. Unfortunately we cannot do that, because if you say to a man that he can automatically obtain more water once his water is finished, you may just as well increase his quota. The fact of the matter is that in the past it was only by way of great exception that we granted permission for extra water to be made available. For example, when people had used up their quota for the year in order to produce a beautiful crop and that crop was totally destroyed by hail, we considered the matter and if there was water available, we allocated extra water. But we cannot agree to lay it down as a principle, so that a man would know that he could always purchase additional water whenever he felt like it.

There is another point which I just want to touch upon and which has not been mentioned in the debate, but which I want to mention myself. This concerns a matter that was submitted to me in connection with the storage area of the Verwoerd Dam, the area which is not being used as yet because it has not yet been submerged. Some time will elapse before the dam is completed and the first water is caught up. Representations have been made for this area, which provides good grazing in the meantime, to be used by people who need it. It is an area which falls in the constituency of the hon. member for Colesberg, and therefore I should like to mention it here as well. I just want to say that the Department is very sympathetically disposed towards the request that land in the basin of the Verwoerd Dam be made available for this purpose on a short-term basis, but the leasing of this land is a matter which falls under the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. They are responsible for making arrangements in this regard. The wire fences and farm improvements have already been removed, and it would be impossible to control stock which is admitted there. Minister Uys and the Department of Agricultural Credit were very firm in their attitude that the land had to be vacated permanently. I am adopting a careful approach in this matter, because I do not know how Minister Uys decided about it in the past. But we shall take another look at the matter, and if I can be instrumental in discussing it with the Minister and there is no objection on the part of the Department of Water Affairs, I can give the assurance that we shall consider the matter. However, I also want to make it quite clear that I nave not had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Minister beforehand, but if the hon. member is satisfied with the reply I am giving him now, we can regard the matter as settled.

The hon. member for East London (City) raised a very important question here. In view of the difficulty being experienced by the entire area of East London and King William’s Town as far as water is concerned, and in view of the fact that there is only one stream, the Buffalo River, on which a number of dams have already been built, and the fact that great development is taking place in that area, the hon. member asked how we saw the position in the years that lie ahead; how were we going to supply water to that area in order to maintain that activity? I think this is a very fair question. I visited the area some time ago and I had a look at all the dams in order to acquaint myself with the position. The area is a very risky one; it does not have a regular rainfall, and the river can quite easily dry up for a number of years. I may tell the hon. member that I have made inquiries in the meantime and it seems to me that what has to be done is that the next step must be to supply water perhaps from the Kabusi and the Kei and other rivers in that area, but there will be long distances involved and it will be an expensive undertaking. It is one of the cases I mentioned in which we will perhaps have to convey water over long distances. As regards the question of the possibility of bringing water there from the Orange River, the hon. member will pardon me if I tell him that he has caught me on the wrong foot in this regard, in the sense that I have not yet had an opportunity of considering the matter from that angle. But one thing is certain, and that is that it is one of the risky areas of South Africa. It does not have sufficient water and we want to develop the area, and therefore I think that it is an area which must be considered on a broad basis. I believe that after the present provision we will have to make provision for bringing water to that area, and it will be expensive, but it seems to me as though it will be able to take us through to the end of the century. I do not know what will happen after that, but we will have to go into the whole situation.

Then, Sir, you will allow me. before I resume my seat, to say, with reference to all the questions that were raised here and the observations that were made, also the matter mentioned by this hon. member and to which I have now replied, that I should like to announce on this occasion that we are going to lay it down as our policy in the future to divide South Africa into its water complexes, and that we are in fact going to carry out that policy. It will be the policy to instutute a proper investigation into the water complexes of South Africa and then to try to see the water plans, which will be smaller plans that must fit into the greater water plan for South Africa like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle, as the next step pursuant to the present Water Plan Commission which is working on the broad guiding principles. We believe that it has become essential to do this, because we can no longer view the water of South Africa as the water of various rivers, but must view it as the water of complexes which affects the entire area from the time when the first drop falls until the last drop flows into the sea. We must see it as a complex and as a whole in order to try to draw up a blueprint for South Africa. We will have to do this in future, and I think it will also give hon. members the satisfaction that as regards the important rivers and the important water complexes in regard to which there is concern at the moment as to the way in which we envisage the various stages of development, we shall as a result of this be able to give a better reply to this question in future when we ourselves have seen to it that a better overall picture of South Africa’s water position is drawn up. In this process we shall make use not only of the officials of the Department, but also of private initiative and persons that can assist us in this field. I think that with this I have dealt with all the matters raised by hon. members.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 33,—Immigration, R5,860,000:

The time when the Government regarded immigration as an evil is fortunately past, and I must say that it is rather interesting to see how hon. members opposite, and I am thinking particularly of the hon. member for Primrose, are going around enthusiastically to-day to convince their supporters of the necessity of immigration. It has this advantage, that it is now no longer necessary for us to quibble over the floor of the House about the desirability of an active immigration policy, but we can calmly consider the results produced by the hon. the Minister’s labours.

If I am correct, immigration is actually directed at two things. The first is the strengthening of the white population and the second is the strengthening of trained manpower. For the purpose of achieving these objectives the Government spent R6,700,000 last year and is requesting an amount of R5.8 million this year. This is a net decrease of R840 000. However, I notice that there are certain items in respect of which there is an increase. An increase is being requested in respect of publicity, up to an amount of R49,500, and financial assistance to immigrant organizations is being increased by R 16,000. The most interesting item is in fact that the item “Assistance to Immigrants” shows a decrease of R936,000, nearly R1 million. There are two questions which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister in this connection. The first is: What is the nature and the extent of the publicity which is being undertaken abroad and which entails that the term “Publicity” is being increased by about one third? I should particularly like to know from the hon. the Minister how the total amount of R 177,000 is spent on publicity; in other words, how it is divided up between the various publicity media abroad.

The second question which I want to put to the hon. the Minister, is what has brought about the drastic reduction of nearly R1 million in respect of assistance to immigrants. Is it a case of greater thrift on the part of the Government, or is it a case of domestic pressure being exercised on the Government to slow down the pace somewhat as far as immigration is concerned, or is it because it is being more selective in its policy; or is it because it is no longer obtaining the number of immigrants which it would like, and therefore is not achieving sufficient success with its white population programme? I should like the hon. the Minister to inform us fully of the reasons for the decrease in this important item. You see, Sir, we are already faced with the problem that if. for example, an immigrant wants to emigrate from the Netherlands, the journey to Canada or the U.S.A, is much cheaper for him because it is much shorter. For this very reason Australia, which is also keen to attract immigrants, especially from the Netherlands, increased its assistance to such an extent last year that it costs the Dutch immigrant only R20 to-day to make the entire journey from the Netherlands to Australia. This immediately had the result that the number of Dutch immigrants who applied to go to Australia, doubled. As far as the journey here is concerned, we are at present, if I am correct, one of the most expensive immigration countries, especially for persons from our countries of origin, and one wonders what we must expect in the future if it is now necessary for this item to be reduced so drastically. Last year the hon. the Minister of Defence was particularly concerned about the increasing employment of Bantu labour in the Western Province, and on that occasion he suggested that “the Government should make greater efforts to bring semi-skilled white families to South Africa from our countries of origin”. Incidentally. I should like to know how the hon. the Minister reacted to this appeal from his colleague. I should bike to put two questions to him and I would be glad if he could reply to them. If he responded to this appeal, how many white semi-skilled immigrants were brought into South Africa in the past year, and how many of these white semi-skilled immigrants were settled in the Western Cape to assist in replacing Bantu labourers? Sir, it was not only the hon. the Minister of Defence who expressed concern about the “darkening” of “White South Africa”; in the course of a speech which the Administrator of Natal, Mr. Theo Gerdener made a few months ago, he became quite alarmed at what he called “the increasing numerical preponderance” of the non-Whites in South Africa. He pointed out that over a period of five years the Bantu had increased by one million more than the Whites. Mr. Gerdener felt that the Government’s programme of importing immigrants was simply not helping sufficiently, and he went so far as to suggest that the Government should introduce a system of cash amounts for children. I am just mentioning this to indicate the concern existing on the Government side about this matter. Mr. J. M. Hattingh, the chairman of the “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie”, complained as seriously about the declining birth rate of the Whites, despite the fact that there is only one other country in which fewer women work. He pointed out that in South Africa only 16.9 per cent of the women worked, in contrast with, for example, nearly 50 per cent in Russia. In a recent public address in Stellenbosch the Secretary for Immigration also expressed deep concern at the decreasing numerical strength of the Whites in relation to the non-Whites in South Africa. In the light of these statements by persons on the Government side, one finds it strange that the provision for immigration is less this year than last year. The amount being appropriated this year is nearly R1 million less. From the point of view of strengthening the white population, it therefore appears to me as if the Minister has not had as fruitful a year as last year and that he perhaps expects the coming year to be even less fruitful. It goes without saying that if that aspect of the immigration policy is not quite as successful as it can be. it will equally affect the programme for the importation of trained manpower. I think this is a prospect which will certainly not be welcomed by the industrialists and I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s view on this aspect of South Africa’s needs.

Then there are a few other questions which I want to put to the hon. the Minister. I wondered whether the Minister would not consider issuing an annual report for his Department, on more or less the same lines as the report of the Department of Information. If the Department of Information can do it. then I think it would also be a good thing if the Department of Immigration could furnish the necessary particulars to Parliament in that way in order to keep us regularly informed about the Department’s programme.

Mr. Chairman, we have a total of 13 immigration offices in 10 countries abroad. The names appear in the Estimates and I need not read them out. but I do want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can tell us how many immigrants entered South Africa last year from each of those countries in which we have offices. The hon. the Minister once said in a speech that the success of immigration lay not necessarily in numbers, but in the extent to which the newcomers became full-blooded South Africans. [Time expired.]

In the first instance I want to convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister and his Department for their consistent attempt to recruit suitable immigrants overseas. We are aware of the fact that there was a decrease in the immigrant figure last year as compared to the figure for the previous year, but we are grateful for the fact that the figure of immigrants from our countries of origin has remained constant. The greatest decrease was to be seen in the number of immigrants from the countries immediately to the north of South Africa. Of course, it was only to be expected that that source should dry up.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout pleaded here for more white immigrants. I do not think that we will quarrel with him in that regard. It is also our desire that more white immigrants should be brought to South Africa. Mr. Chairman, it amazes me that Whites in South Africa, who call themselves Nationalists, are still complaining about the Government’s immigration policy, and that they are still trying to incite people against immigration. These people must realize—and I think they do in fact realize it—that we are going through a process of industrial development in South Africa, and that we have a very great shortage of white workers, not only men, but women as well. That shortage exists in trade, in industry and in other sectors of our economy. We have a shortage of medical practitioners and nurses. The Public Service, the Provincial Administrations and the Railways are all complaining about a shortage of staff. We cannot supply the deficiency of white manpower by means of the natural increase of our population alone. I am afraid that the position in this respect is not a very happy one either. If we take the past three years we find that the birth rate has declined from 32 to 30 to 28 per 1,000 last year. That means that we cannot rely on the natural increase in the population to supply the needs of trade and industry. If we want to find white employees, we are dependent upon immigrants. I should like those South African citizens, who at this stage are still jibbing at the immigration policy in spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister and other members of the Cabinet, the hon. member for Primrose and others, have stated their case so clearly, to realize that if we are unable to obtain White immigrants to fill the vacant posts, we will have to make use of non-Whites in this country, and will to an increasing extent have to integrate the non-Whites into our economy. Since it is the oolicy of the National Party to remove the Bantu from the white homeland gradually and send them to their own homelands, it should now be accepted by all Whites that it is in our interests to encourage immigration from our mother countries.

Mr. Chairman, there are a few complaints, which one could perhaps go into, which are being used by the opponents of immigration to make immigration unpopular amongst the population. The one is that immigration will plough the Afrikaner under. Yet it has been proved that that danger does not exist. I want to suggest that the Minister should perhaps come to an agreement with the Minister of National Education to establish nursery schools and crèches so that the children of immigrants of pre-school age can be sent there to learn both official languages. I should also like to see the children of immigrants being admitted to schools other than the English schools, in cases where they are unable to speak either Afrikaans or English. The Afrikaans schools are not accepting these children because they cannot speak Afrikaans. I should like to see the Afrikaans schools taking the trouble of admitting the children of immigrants and training them through the medium of Afrikaans. I know of immigrant children here in Cape Town who would like to attend Afrikaans schools. The parents have made application, but their applications have been refused. Those children are in fact being taken up in English schools. This is the pattern which one finds throughout the country, and I feel that this must be terminated. I should like to see more encouragement being given to adult immigrants to attend the classes which have been introduced for their benefit at technical colleges so that they can in this way become bilingual.

Then there is another bugbear with which our people are being intimidated, and that is the allegation that the immigrants will deprive them of work. I am not aware of one South African who has been deprived of his work by an immigrant. In fact, we do not have enough manpower to fill all the vacancies. Thus there is no justification for that fear. Perhaps it would be a good thing if the Government would concentrate to a greater extent on the provision of more vocational schools such as technical high schools and commercial high schools. Then there are also people who are trying to intimidate South Africans with the so-called threat which immigrants supposedly present to our religious pattern. They are trying to create the impression that the Protestant nature of our country will be undermined by Catholic immigrants, but we have the assurance of the Minister and the Department that the balance between Protestants and Catholics in the country will not be upset by immigrants. In any case I feel that we can do nothing else but to give our full support to the immigration policy of the Government. We hope and trust that more immigrants will come to South Africa this year than in the past year, and that the numbers of immigrants will be steadily increased. We will support any steps which the Government takes in this regard gladly.

It is not often that I find myself in a position where I am able to support every word uttered by an hon. member on the Government side, but this time I find that I can support everything that has been said here by the hon. member for Geduld. Indeed, I could enlarge on the arguments that he used so profitably but I will not pursue the matter except to say that I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Geduld. It always amazes me that Whites in this country can be opposed to selected immigration, and yet we find that over and over again. The hon. member has already dealt with this matter most effectively and I leave it at that. Sir, I would like to say that the immigration figures for 1967 are extremely disturbing. In 1966, according to the departmental figures, we had 48,000 immigrants and in 1967 only 38,900. Of the 38,900 immigrants who entered the country in 1967, 10,000 came from the African continent. I think we must accept that this foutainhead of white immigrants from other countries in Africa, mainly Rhodesia and Zambia, is on the point of drying up or has dried up already. When we look at the Rhodesian statistics which were published in the newspapers a couple of days ago, we find that during the first quarter of 1968, Rhodesia had 3.800 immigrants, Which is actually 1,000 more than she had over the same period in 1967. One must presume that these are emigrants from the Republic of South Africa, by and large. I could not imagine too many British going there at the moment.

There are other disturbing features as far as our immigrants for 1967 are concerned. About 10,000 emanated from the African territories, and 26,000 came from Europe, and of the 26,000 12,990 still came from the United Kingdom. I have the figures in front of me. When I think in terms of the representatives we have in foreign countries, and of the success of their compaigns, it appears as if we are spending too much money on our offices in some countries and too little in others. I have already mentioned the figure for the U.K., namely 12,990. The figure for Germany is 3,300, for Holland 1,600, for Italy 1,500 and for Portugal 2,670. I have a feeling that we can do a lot more to attract immigrants from the countries from which our forebears emanated. Apart from subsidization maybe we can put forward a better effort. I am going to suggest ways and means towards the end of my few minutes, whereby this position could be improved.

Before getting there, I would like to deal with the position, and this also relates to the point made by the hon. member for Geduld, of What the census figures for the five-year period 1961-’66 indicate. The white population increased from 3,117,000 to 3,480,000. The Coloured population over the same period increased from 1,540,000 to 1,805,000. The position is that over the five-year period the Whites in this country only increased by 364,000, including the immigrants. One must accept that over the five-year period we had a substantial number of immigrants. I could guess even as low as 100,000, which is their contribution to the increase in the population. This is a shockingly low figure for the white population to increase by. Obviously, we have been losing people over the same period as a result of emigration. It is appalling to think that the white population in this country increased over a five-year period by 364,000 and the Coloured population—a population half the size of the Whites—which in 1961 amounted to 1,548 million, increased by natural means alone to 1,800,000, in other words, an increase of 240,000. If they were to be 3,100,000, the obvious increase would have been 500,000, whereas we could only increase by 360,000, including immigrants.

This is my point, namely that anybody who is concerned about the continued existence of white civilization at the southern point of Africa, must be concerned at the slow tempo at which we are succeeding to get immigrants into this country. To me it is a major problem. Major contributions should be made and major schemes should be undertaken whereby we can get more immigrants. I put this point of view before, and I now want to put it to the Minister again. This applies in quite a number of the countries that have been so successful in attracting immigrants, and then consequently had inflation, as the result of the people who came in. This is the case with Canada as well as Australia. But now that inflation has decreased, they still want immigrants badly because of the same shortage of manpower that we have. If foreign capital wants to establish an industry in Australia—even capital in conjunction with Australian capital, if it is motivated by foreign enterprise—the condition applies that the industry must import a certain percentage of their technical personnel.

When I visited the assembly plant of the Chrysler Company manufacturing Valiant cars in Victoria Australia only last year, I found to my surprise the condition applied that they had to import 75 per cent of their technical personnel. In the case of an assembly plant, I would suggest that the majority of the personnel are technical people. In the painting department of this particular plant they had as many as 92 per cent of Italian immigrants to do the painting. If we had the same sort of conditions applying in this country five years ago and also to-day. I suggest that with the industrialization of this country and the end of anti-inflationary measures—and I hope they cease before long—and if the same sort of regulations were to apply here so that foreign capital, in conjunction with South African capital, had to import a certain percentage of technical people, this would be an enormous boost to immigration. I am aware of the problems that will be brought up by hon. members on the other side of the House, and that people would say, for example: If this is Japanese capital, what do we do? Do we bring all their technical people here? I want to suggest for the consideration of the hon. Minister that this is a very important method, an instrument, a lever, whereby one can force people who want to spend their money here and make money out of the country—or else they would not put up their plants here—to adopt the same sort of attitude. They should also be compelled to import a certain percentage of their technical people. I am saying this, because if you are in the technical sphere, you are obviously dealing with white people only. There can, therefore, then be no argument that we are trying to do away with job reservation, or some other stupid argument that might come from that side of the House. I hope that the hon. the Minister will have time to give some consideration to this aspect.

Mr. Chairman, up to now we have had an interesting debate on this important matter of immigration. One thing is very certain, i.e. that the policy of the hon. the Minister and the Government, as well as the implementation thereof, is so fundamentally sound that the United Party is in reality finding it very difficult to level any criticism at it. We are very grateful for that … [Interjections.]

Order!

We are very grateful that that is the attitude which the United Party is adopting here to-day. You will remember that last year under this Vote that is what I pleaded for, and we are grateful that they have heeded this request.

A political opponent is never more dangerous than when he begins to stalk you on his stockinged feet. Now, that is what is happening here. Although one must be grateful for the support of the United Party, and although this matter is, in their opinion as well, a very important one, there are, however, aspects which one has to face up to squarely. I want to point out that a week ago, on 19th May, 1968, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, according to a statement which he made in the Sunday Times stated that-—

Mr. Chairman, that is not correct. We must first thrash out this matter, and rectify it so that it is cleared up once and for all. The National Party has never taken over the policy of the United Party as far as immigration is concerned. Do you know what the policy was which the United Party followed in those years? It was such a bad policy that even today we are picking the bitter fruits of it. The hon. member for East London (City) advocated, and asked for more immigrants from our countries of origin. Do you know what the United Party did in 1947-’48 when they were still in power? 91 Per cent of the immigrants which came to South Africa during those years, when the United Party was following their policy of letting this take their course, and threw open the gates of South Africa, originated from one country only, namely Great Britain. [Interjections.]

Order!

Less than 10.5 per cent of the immigrants originated from the other Western countries of origin. During the years 1946 to 1948 the United Party brought as many as 55,000 immigrants from one country, Britain. Do you know what number they brought out from the rest of Europe? Only 5,500. This caused the Afrikaners to say to them, “You are bringing out people to plough the Afrikaner under”. And that is where our resistance to immigration was born. That is why I say that the United Party only had itself to blame for this opposition. It is a pity that this opposition was built up amongst our people. However, it is owing to the shortsighted policy which the United Party followed. Just look at how the United Party has changed. The hon. member for East London (City) is asking for more immigrants to be brought out from the countries of origin, but when they were in power, almost no immigrants were brought out from the actual countries of origin.

Let me tell you what the National Party has done in regard to immigration. One must face up squarely to the fact that it has taken almost 10 years to break down the opposition which arose amongst our people as a result of the short-sighted policy of the United Party. Only after that was done could the Government come forward with a properly planned immigration scheme. In contrast to the policy which the United Party followed, which was totally wrong, the National Party came forward in 1961 with its immigration scheme. Now the hon. the Leader is stating, and the same thing was insinuated here during this debate, that we have taken over their policy. Nothing can be further from the truth than this same insinuation. In contrast to the policy of the United Party, the Government came forward with a planned and balanced immigration scheme. That is the difference between our policy and the policy of that side, and it is a very important difference. This balanced immigration scheme stands in shrill contrast to the one the United Party applied. Let me quote a few figures in this regard. In 1947 the United Party brought out 25,513 people from Great Britain, and in 1964 the National Party allowed 12,807 in. In 1946 the United Party brought out only 1,000 people from Holland, whereas in 1967 we brought out almost 2,000. We doubled the figure. In 1946 they brought out one person from Germany whereas in 1965 the National Party Government allowed a total of 3,591 to enter. In this way we have applied a balanced pattern of immigration from our countries of origin. We have introduced such a balance in this situation that where they obtained more than 90 per cent from one country only, something which led to opposition here, we have up to the present obtained 50 per cent from that country— and we regard it as a friendly country—while we have brought 31 per cent of our immigrants out from our other countries of origin. They were not even able to obtain 9 per cent from that source. Even a child could see which one of these two schemes is the more balanced one.

I have now indicated that the United Party cannot say that we have taken over their policy in this respect. I want to add the following. In 1946-’47 the United Party had a nett gain of 49,019 immigrants, but owing to the short-sighted policy which they followed at that time, because there were not enough houses and other facilities here, no fewer than 49,000 and the odd hundred people left South Africa again permanently during the following four years, i.e. 1948 to 1951. That is why I maintain that that side should be careful and should not merely try to make political capital out of this matter because it is not true that the National Party took over the immigration policy of the United Party. Consequently I hope that this will now be the end of that story.

I also want to raise a second matter, a matter which has recently been unfairly exploited by some Opposition members and by some newspapers. I am referring to the particularly remarkable change which has taken place in the immigration pattern of the National Party in respect of certain countries, and I am referring now to the Mediterranean countries. This decrease has been exploited to the utmost by certain Opposition members and certain newspapers. I definitely think that they are doing this to the detriment of our country. I want to tell them that they must put a stop to this as well, and that is why I am now dealing with it here. What are the facts of this matter? This changing tendency is not attributable to any discriminating measures on the part of South Africa or on the part of this Government. I want to state with the greatest emphasis that the stated policy of our Government is that it does not discriminate: It does not discriminate on the basis of nationality or on the basis of religion. For us there are only acceptable or unacceptable persons or families in terms of the Aliens Act, and there is absolutely no reference in this Act to the nationality or to the religion of a person. Let there not be the least doubt about this. Now the United Party and certain newspapers are exploiting these matters in order to play off one faith against another, and that is of course a great pity. The facts of the matter are as follows. Steps taken by the relevant Mediterranean area governments themselves to discourage largescale immigration of skilled workers from their countries because they were themselves in need of skilled workers, have resulted in a diminished exodus of such people to South Africa. Some of these countries, such as Portugal, even went so far as to place a restriction on the number of skilled workers which were allowed to leave the country. That is the first factor. {Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member who has just sat down. He said most of our immigrants had come from the United Kingdom when the United Party was in power, and to-day, so he said, they are getting a larger number of immigrants from the Continent. It would he interesting to hear whether the hon. member finds any fault with the immigrants from the United Kingdom. Can he point a finger at any one of them and say he has not been a good and loyal South African since his arrival in this country? As I said, the hon. member said the United Party government brought a lot of immigrants from the United Kingdom. That may be so. He also said we only brought one immigrant from Germany in 1946 whereas the Government has brought several thousand. But he did not mention the number of immigrants this Government has brought from Portugal. Perhaps we have some affinity with Portugal, as the hon. member claims we have with Britain and the Continent.

I want to deal with something the hon. member said in a previous speech, when he said we must either have immigration or else integration. I find that remark most interesting. It would appear now that the Whites of South Africa cannot be saved by apartheid any longer. However, it can be saved by means of immigration. I thought this a most curious statement to make. I think the hon. member is being most illogical and most stupid if he thinks the white people of this country will be saved by immigration. Have hon. members opposite lost faith in their own policy? Do they now say the Whites here will not be saved by apartheid but by immigration? If the choice is between immigration and integration, what happened during those 12 years when the Nationalist Party stopped immigration? Were they prepared to have integration at that stage? Is it only now that they realize immigration may save their skins? I want to tell that hon. member that, we on this side of the House have never been frightened of the future of the white man in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned for lunch I had a few remarks I wanted to direct to the hon. member for Primrose who has turned out to be the “champion” of immigration. I noticed that he spoke on the radio in the programme “Top Level”. [Interjections.] The question is, as my colleagues say, how “top” can you get? I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is not a little nervous about the verkramptes from that side taking over his job, because I would have thought that the hon. the Minister himself would have dealt with this question if it was to be done at top level. In the talk of the hon. member for Primrose he said that the Government had always welcomed immigrants to this oountry. I want to say that the time is not far distant when I, as an immigrant, was called a third-class citizen in South Africa. I was a person who fought in the South African forces but I was, according to that Government, only a third-class citizen. [Interjections.] I should also like to say to the hon. the Chief Whip, if he believes the hon. member for Primrose, that it was not so long ago that this Government for instance discriminated against religious workers coming to South Africa. A school was established in Port Elizabeth to treat the Bantu deaf and dumb, but after four or five years they had to abandon the scheme because this very Government would not allow them to bring their teachers into this country. This is a Government which says that it has always welcomed immigrants. I would say that that is a downright lie. This is a Government that has always “welcomed” immigrants, but in “welcoming” immigrants we have lost one million white South Africans during the period that they stopped immigration altogether. Now we have a new era in South Africa. Now it is immigration that can save the white man and no longer apartheid.

Why do you not go back to your country?

Because I have as much right as you have and more to be here. We need immigrants in South Africa. We on this side of the House have said so for many years. The only way the white man in South Africa can be saved is by the intelligent use of our labour resources which are already here. To make intelligent use of our labour resources we have to have a far more intelligent Government than that of which we have had evidence over the past 20 years. I believe that we should put the whole question of immigration in its proper perspective.

That is a good idea.

Yes, it is a good idea. I can tell the House for instance that since the Nationalist Party has been in power they have averaged no more than 4,000 immigrants per year. That is the average for the 20 years they have been in power. When the United Party was in power our average was 17,000 immigrants a year. Now let us hear all this talk about the Nationalist Party welcoming immigrants. Before they boast too much about immigration I should like to tell them that in Australia they exceed our figure for immigration by more than 100,000 immigrants each year. I should like to ask hon. members opposite, and particularly the hon. the Minister, how many of the immigrants that have come to South Africa during the past 20 years have become South African citizens? The figure I have here is that no more than 36,000 immigrants out of the 200,000 that came to South Africa have adopted South African citizenship. Perhaps there are many reasons for this. I would suggest that one of the reasons is the contents of a report that appeared in this morning’s newspaper which said that it took no fewer than six European policemen to interfere with a game of soccer played by children. This report appeared in this morning’s Cape Times. If an immigrant comes to this country and sees this kind of thing, what encouragement is there for him to take out South African citizenship?

I should also like to say to the hon. the Minister that in 1963 he stated that immigration to South Africa had saved South Africa R15 million in technical schools, training, etc. I think that that is a very interesting statement, but I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be kind enough to tell me how much it has cost South Africa in respect of the 138,000 people who have left South Africa since this Government came into power. What has the cost to South Africa been since this Government came into power? I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister why it cost three times as much to bring an immigrant from Germany—the favourite hunting ground of the hon. member for Primrose— as it does to bring out an immigrant from the United Kingdom, because that is what the figures reveal.

You are nothing but a renegade.

Order! The hon. member for Tygervallei must withdraw that word.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s notice the subsidies he pays to the various companies in South Africa that assist immigrants once they arrive here. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the nickname given to the hon. member for Port Natal is the “orphan lamb” of this House. Through his veiled reference to the report in this morning’s newspaper on the soccer players he once again showed that the United Party, as we are always telling them, is in reality an integrationistic party, and that they advocate a policy of integration. We are grateful to him for making this so apparent. Secondly, I want to tell him that if he wants to get onto the “Top Level” programme, all he has to do is work very hard and do his level best, and it will not be necessary for him to stand up and make jealous comments in this House in regard to the “Top Level” programme.

Every speech which we have had from that side up to now in this debate, indicates one thing, i.e. that the United Party can be characterized by saying that they have become a “band-wagon party”. There they sit. They are a band-wagon party because they are now trying to climb onto the National Party bandwagon every time. To-day they tried to climb onto the immigration band-wagon. I indicated to them that they did not dare try to do this because their policy in the past was a totally bad policy. We have paid very dearly in this country for that short-sighted, unplanned and bad policy of theirs. In this way they also tried to climb onto the band-wagon of the National Party in regard to Bantu affairs and other matters. Then they still have the temerity to. accuse us of talking over their policy. I think the people outside are slightly amused at the United Party because of this manoeuvre of theirs.

But the hon. member for Port Natal also discussed citizenship. I want to tell him that last year during this same debate I predicted that as soon as the time was ripe, since our immigration scheme only came into operation in 1962, the position would be more favourable. If that hon. member knows anything about immigration, he would know that it takes five years before immigrants can apply for citizenship. It was only possible for them to apply for citizenship for the first time towards the end of 1967. I made the prediction last year that when the time came we would be able to indicate that our citizenship figures were very sound. This I shall now do. In 1961 the nett gain was 7,672 immigrants of foreign nationalises. Five years later 4,505 applied for naturalization, i.e. 38.2 per cent of the nett gain acquired citizenship. The figures for 1962 are the last figures we had in regard to citizenship. Next year I shall come to this House again and inform those hon. members what progress has been made with this matter. We are making progress, because we are getting good immigrants. We have a planned immigration scheme, and not merely a “let things take their course” scheme such as the United Party always had. We are not making a mess of our policy, such as the United Party made. That is why the nett gain in 1962 was 11,797 immigrants, of which 6,958 immigrants acquired citizenship, that is to say 68.9 per cent.

That is an increase of 20 per cent in one year. Now I can predict again what I predicted last year, i.e. that next year under this Vote we will again be able to show how our immigrants are, to an increasing extent, acquiring South African citizenship.

But I want to return to a matter which I raised earlier on and I want to state with the greatest emphasis that we are not opposed to immigrants from the United Kingdom, as the figures of our immigration scheme indicate, namely that 50 per cent of the immigrants to-day originated from thence. I also want to state clearly that I am not personally opposed to that, but the point is—and I am saying this because I do not want to have it exploited again—that under the United Party rule they brought out people almost exclusively from Britain and that it was at that time the stated policy of the United Party Government to try and plough the National vote under in that way. [Interjections.] That is what gave rise to the opposition, that is what caused the lack of confidence, and that is what brought about the rejection of the United Party at that time, so that they now present the aspect that they do. And then they have the temerity to speak about a million white immigrants whom we have lost. As far as that matter is concerned, I want to state that if they had not been so short-sighted, we need not have lost them. But in contrast with that short-sighted policy, it is the stated immigration policy of the National Party, and that of the Government to consolidate the white man here by means of four very explicit assurances which it is giving to the nation, and I am now going to repeat them. The first is that this Government will see to it that immigrants do not deprive our people of their work; secondly, that the Protestant denominational ratio in this country will not be upset by immigration; thirdly, that unassimilable elements will be excluded from this country; and fourthly, that care will be taken to ensure that immigration does not become a threat to the language, culture or religion of any white ethnic group in South Africa, or endanger the future of any population group here. More explicit than that I cannot be. But I have stated that during the past two or three years one particular characteristic of our immigration policy was clearly discernible. This was that we were not obtaining skilled workers to an increasing extent from the Mediterranean areas because those countries themselves had imposed restrictions on that. Now I want to mention very interesting figures in this regard. In 1966 we had 6,162 applications from prospective immigrants in Portugal for permanent residence in South Africa. Do you know how that has diminished? In 1967 only 1,900 persons from Portugal applied for permanent residence here. The number of applications from Greece was 1,200 in 1966, and this diminished to 800 in 1967. From Italy there were 2,600 applications in 1966, and this diminished to 1,900 in 1967. [Interjections.] Yes, it is in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Green Point that I am quoting these figures. You see therefore, Sir, that the facts show that the position was as a result of action taken by those counries, and that here was no discriminaion on our part against specific nationalities or on the basis of religion. I hope that with this I have nullified any arguments with which the hon. member for Green Point or any other member wanted to come forward here this afternoon.

Lastly, I would just like to read the following report published in The Star of 17 November, 1967—

What does that prove?

It simply proves that you must not exploit the situation by saying that we are discriminating against nationalities, which is what you do, and this also proves that newspapers should refrain from doing the same thing. [Interjection.] I never said that: I denied it.

But in contrast to this immigration pattern which I have just mentioned, it is interesting to note, as a result of the brilliant work of the officials or our Immigration Department—and I want to pay the greatest tribute to them this afternoon—and the brilliant work of our hon. the Minister, Mr. Trollip, who is an excellent Minister of Immigration and for whom I also have the greatest praise, what progress we have made with immigration from our countries of origin. In 1966 we received 1,300 applications from the Netherlands for permanent residence in South Africa, and that increased to almost 2,000 in 1967. From Germany this figure was 3,000 in 1966, and it increased to 4,500 in 1967. From Austria this figure was 600 in 1966, and this has increased to more than 1,000 in 1967. From France this figure was 400 in 1966, and it increased to almost 600 in 1967, and so I can continue. But the following figures, particularly for the year 1968, indicate that the tendency is still to obtain more immigrants from our mother countries, and by so doing to establish a balanced, planned pattern of immigration in this country. What I want to mention is that in the first two months of this year, in contrast to the first two months of last year, our percentage of immigrants from the following countries increased as follows. This presents a fine picture, and is a wonderful compliment to our Minister of Immigration. From Austria there was an increase if 88 per cent, from Belgium an increase of 90 per cent, from Germany an increase of 46 per cent, from the Netherlands an increase of 73.7 per cent, and from the United Kingdom an increase of 20.9 per cent. Now I maintain that thanks to this National Party Government of ours we have, in contrast to the mess made by the United Party, a brilliant, balanced immigration pattern to-day, with a steadily increasing predominance of immigrants from our mother countries, on which the whole of South Africa can rightly be proud, particularly if one takes into consideration the major problem which had to be overcome. [Time expired.]

It surprises me that a man who is preparing to become Minister of Immigration, can stand here so open-eyed and contradict himself. In the same ten minute speech he says in one breath that there is no discrimination as far as religious convictions are concerned; in other words, no notice is taken of what a man’s religious conviction is when he applies to become an immigrant. But just a little later he says that it is the policy, and these are his words, not to upset the religious balance in South Africa. How does he reconcile those two points? How can one avoid upsetting the religious balance if one takes no notice of and therefore does not discriminate upon the grounds of religion as far as the admission of immigrants is concerned? Let him now reconcile those two points for us. But I shall return to this shortly.

What astounds me—and I had hoped that to-day we could avoid this type of debate which we have had so often in the past—is this. It cannot be denied, and the hon. member for Primrose can dance around as much as he likes, that the Government has undergone a change of policy as far as the principle of immigration is concerned. I can quote ad nauseum from the propaganda which was made in 1948. I can read out articles written against immigration by its previous leader, in which its leader said that immigrants only came to South Africa to eat one’s food, to displace one from one’s home and to deprive one of one’s work. He wrote this in the Transvaler, and I can quote numerous similar articles and speeches. This was the attitude of the Government, and we did1 not get up to-day to attack the Government on that again. Those are old stories, and who wants to rake up old stories over and over again? But now that hon. member comes along and denies it, and all that we say is that we are not interested in whether they have taken over the policy of the United Party, but we are interested in the fact that the Government has undergone a drastic change in its attitude to immigration, and this is to the good. It has suddenly changed front, and it will still do so in connection with many other things as well. The fact of the matter is that the Government has changed its view, and the difficulty which the hon. member for Geduld sketched and which the party is to-day faced with in regard to certain of its own people, is because it created its own Frankenstein. It propagated the idea that immigrants come here to eat our food and deprive us of our homes and jobs; that idea was implanted by the propagandists of that party, and now they sit with the results. Now they are having difficulties with their own people. Just as in the case of many other matters of policy, they incited people in a certain direction and that is why the verkramptes are there to-day. What is the whole struggle between the verligtes and the verkramptes about? It is because they incited people in one direction, and now that they have to follow another direction, they are left holding the baby.

But where the hon. member is totally wrong is in his interpretation of the immigration policy of the United Party. Not a word of what he said is correct. Let me now say this to the hon. member. He says every time that under the United Party 91 per cent of the immigrants were “brought in” from England. Let me just put the facts to him. There was no policy of State-aided immigration after the war. The hon. member can look up the Constitution of the United Party, as drawn up by Generals Hertzog and Smuts, and he will find that it contained a section which prohibited State-aided immigration. The pre-war policy of the party, and also of the Nationalist Party at the time, was against State-aided immigration. But after the war, when England and also large parts of Europe had been devastated, there was an influx of the best type of immigrant, a natural immigration. We undertook no recruitment in Britain. It is quite wrong to say that the immigrants were “brought in”. There was an influx of immigrants to South Africa, and I shall explain why it happened that so many came from Britain. Apart from the connection which South Africa had with England, we had—and this was the major factor—a contract with the Union-Castle Line. Most ships had been destroyed and many immigrants from Europe could not get out because there was no transport. But as a result of a contract which we had with Union-Castle, free shipping was at that time made available for immigrants with the assistance of the Government. It is therefore quite wrong for any member to say that immigrants were “brought in”, because it was not necessary to do so. This Government governed so well at that time, and South Africa’s standing was so high in the world, that it was not necessary for us to send beggars to Europe to obtain immigrants. They came of their own accord. The Government now has to go begging. The hon. member now says that only one came from Germany, but at that time we had just been at war with Germany, rightly or wrongly, and surely it goes without saying that immediately after a war, when one country has fought against another, you are not going to have an influx of immigrants from that country. But even to-day they are obtaining fewer than 3,000 from Germany. Surely this is chicken-feed. But now I want to say this. Here is a man sitting next to me who was a Minister in a former Cabinet. He was Minister of Economic Affairs. With the object of achieving a balance in immigration, he personally went to the Netherlands and held disoussions with the Dutch Government and negotiated with them for more Dutchmen to come here. The Dutch Government said to him that they themselves were in difficulties because they had to build up the Netherlands again and could not give him artisans; but they were prepared, if South Africa would finance it, to allow a few thousand farmers to come out, and those negotiations were in progress when the change of government came about. There had therefore been a positive endeavour on the part of the then Government to maintain the balance by obtaining as many Dutchmen as possible. The immigration plan was stopped by this Government immediately after the change of government. I want to state very clearly here that that old story of the hon. member for Primrose which we hear in this House from time to time is totally unfounded, and I hope that he will not use the term “brought in” again, because South Africa had a natural influx of immigrants, and there were no immigration recruiting offices. The hon. member made another incorrect statement and that is that it was the declared policy to “plough the Nationalist vote under”. Where is that declared policy stated? I can quote their declared policy in regard to immigration to the hon. member.

What were Deneys Reitz’s words?

Deneys Reitz was not a Cabinet Minister; he was the High Commissioner in London. It was no declaration of Government policy or of United Party policy.

Mr. Chairman, now that I have disposed of this matter, I should like to put a question or two to the hon. the Minister before my time expires. I was asked to make inquiries about a matter of policy, and this concerns the case of a woman who was refused permission for permanent residence by the Immigrants Selection Board on the grounds—I quote from a letter from the Secretary for Immigration in English—

This is an official letter, an official statement by the Government, and I would be glad if the hon. the Minister, in view of the statement that there is no religious discrimination, would explain to us precisely what the background to this standpoint is and what the official policy in this connection is.

I wish to agree with what the hon. member for Geduld said in his speech. It is quite true that our people still have a very wrong attitude towards the whole question of immigration, and I wonder whether he should not take special steps to inform our people at home a little more about the value of immigration for South Africa? [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and a previous speaker on that side said here that it was not the policy of the United Party Government to bring in immigrants to plough Afrikanerdom under. Historically it is a fact that Colonel Deneys Reitz did say: “We will bring immigrants in to plough the Afrikaners under”.

That is untrue.

Whether he was at that time a Minister of the Crown or whether he was High Commissioner is beside the point; the fact remains that he was appointed by the United Party Government and spoke on their behalf. He said: “We will bring immigrants in to plough the Afrikaners under”. Last year the hon. member for Welkom or another hon. member on this side proved with chapter and verse that General Smuts also said: “Bring them in, the good and the bad, in their thousands, in their tens of thousands”. Sir, hon. members of the Opposition cannot get away from this part of history; they are firmly bound to that part of our history. Sir, at the beginning of this debate a fairly calm atmosphere prevailed here, but then the hon. member for Port Natal came along and made a political issue of the question of immigration. Well then, if the Opposition wants to do that, we can do it too. Sir, as far as the National Party is concerned, there has been no change of policy. The hon. member for Primrose explained here what the basis of the National Party’s policy in regard to immigration was. I declare categorically that the National Party Government still adheres fully to the policy which was announced by the National Party in 1936, when it was still in opposition. That policy was again expounded in 1946 by Dr. Malan in a debate about immigration which was conducted here in the House of Assembly while the National Party was still in opposition. Hon. members may look it up in Hansard. The Government’s immigration policy is still based on that to-day. Sir, the hon. member for Port Natal said that we had lost one million immigrants as a result of our policy. He should rather say that the United Party lost a million votes, potential votes, because that is actually what it boils down to, and it is for that reason that the Opposition is dissatisfied.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred, in his first speech, to Dutch immigrants who could emigrate to Australia at little expense to themselves. I want to point out to the hon. member that Australia acceps any immigrant. Australia does not have a selective immigration pattern. South Africa, on the other hand, does have a selective immigration pattern. Australia accepts unskilled immigrants while we only want skilled ones. The hon. member is quite right, but he must remember what line Australia takes with its immigration pattern and what line we take with our immigration pattern.

[Inaudible.]

You are still a stranger in your own country.

Order! Hon. members must stop continually interrupting the speaker.

*Mr. Chairman, to continue in a somewhat calmer atmosphere:pleas are continually being made—and I am glad that the hon. member for East London (City) also did so to-day—for immigrants from our countries of origin, and for the immigration stream from our countries of origin to be intensified, and then special mention is made of the recruitment of immigrants from the Netherlands. We know that the Dutch immigrants are the most easily assimilated group of people here in South Africa, for understandable reasons. The greater part of our own nation consists of descendants of the Dutch. Since requests are now being made in this House of Assembly and outside for immigrants from the Netherlands, our immigration offices in the Netherlands and our immigration offices here—the Department of Immigration—are assiduously engaged in recruiting larger numbers for us from the Netherlands. I just want to make the statement here that as a result of the intensive effors being made we are succeeding in diverting an ever greater stream of Dutch immigrants to South Africa. I should like to illustrate this to you by means of the following informative statistics: In 1963 the Republic drew only 9.3 per cent of the total number of Dutch immigrants who emigrated to all parts of the world. In 1964 it drew 11.08 per cent; in 1965 it drew 12.85 per cent; in 1966 it drew 12.29 per cent and in 1967, last year, it drew 15.25 per cent. The number of immigrants which the Republic drew from the Netherlands was as follows: In 1963, 705; in 1964, 998; in 1965, 1,322; in 1966, 1,286; a small decrease as compared with the previous year, and in 1967 there was a large increase, and the number was 1,695. In January and February of this year we drew 316 immigrants, which indicates that 1968 will be a successful year as far as the drawing of immigrants from the Netherlands is concerned. To sum up, in 1967 2½ times as many immigrants were drawn from the Netherlands as in 1963. In 1967 five times as many immigrants were drawn from the Netherlands as in 1961. I should like the hon. member for East London (City) to take note of these statistics. This success, this increase in numbers, is attributable to improved recruiting methods, to successful advertisements and also to the good relationships being built up as a result of immigration. Sir, we know that material considerations are the decisive factor for all immigrants, and we may accept that it is also the decisive factor in the case of Dutch immigrants; this is perfectly normal, but we are glad to know that a large number of the immigrants that come from the Netherlands are Deople who believe in the future of South Africa; that they are immigrants emigrating here specifically because they know in advance what the race policy of this Government, of the Republic of South Africa, is, and because they endorse it. Those people enter the country despite the advice of some of their countrymen who advise them against moving to South Africa. They come here despite what certain newspapers in the Netherlands have to say about our policy, despite the slandering of our policy and despite the slandering of the Republic on television. I just want to say in passing that we in South Africa have no room for immigrants who come here for material gain alone. For those who are disinterested in the future of South Africa, we have no room, because we know that in times of crisis those persons will not co-operate with us, that they will be the first to leave, but we have room for those immigrants who believe in the future of white civilization and the future of South Africa. We want them and their children in South Africa to strengthen our numbers and to ensure our future, and it is to these persons that the Government is directing its efforts, persons who do not only come here for economic gain, but who can also strengthen us spiritually as a nation. I do not have the slightest doubt that within the framework of our policy we shall draw still more of this type of immigrant. [Time expired.]

I do not want to enter at any length into the dispute about immigrants from Holland, but I think the hon. member who has just sat down and the previous speaker on the other side of the House should look back into history and realize what really happened to Holland in 1948 when this Government came into power. They will find that that time coincided with the loss by Holland of her Indonesian colonies and the return to Holland of large numbers of Hollanders accustomed to what one might call a colonial type of life. Holland was extremely anxious to get these emigrants to emigrate almost anywhere but certainly to this country with whose people they had so much in common. I know this because I am concerned with the Medical Council and I know what difficulties we had at that time to get reciprocity through the Foreign Office of this country in order to get Holland doctors who were breaking stones on the roads in Holland into the country so that they could come to practise here.

Sir. I have nothing more to say on that aspect. I want to speak to the hon. the Minister on the question of the treatment which foreign doctors are receiving at the hands of his Department or, at any rate, at the hands of the Government. I am not sure whether his Department is responsible. Sir, the Medical Council has made great efforts to open our door to foreign doctors. The Medical Council went so far as to send a deputation consisting of the President, the Registrar, the Vice-President and a senior dentist to tour Europe at the expense of the Council to see what arrangements they could make with the countries of Europe for reciprocity. They had some limited success. The truth of the matter is that all the countries of Europe are short of doctors. Their populations are increasing, and unless more medical schools are established in those countries they cannot cope with the demand for medical services for their own people. The hon. the Minister has not had great success in recruiting doctors for this country, and it is not the fault of the Medical Council. There are immigrants who have come into this country under a special regulation which the Government agreed to promulgate some time back, in terms of which approved doctors could obtain restricted registration. The Department of Immigration is refusing to admit these gentlemen and women as immigrants so that they have no assured right to permanent residence. The Department’s argument is that because the registration is limited these people are restricted to the point that they are not suitable people to become citizens. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the policy adopted by the veterinary department under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. They admit approved veterinary surgeons only on the condition that they obtain citizenship within five years. That shows how keen they are to get them. They tell those people they must become citizens otherwise they will withdraw their recognition.

In this country the Medical Council has been able to give restricted registration to a large number of doctors. Each doctor must be approved by the council because the council has a duty to the public to supervise the quality of the doctors working among them, and to control the drugs, etc., which are under the control entirely in their use of doctors or veterinary surgeons. The limitation does not affect the practice of the doctor. These people have the same rights as far as the practice of medicine is concerned. They practise in exactly the same way as any other medical man can practise.

Where?

Within certain posts. The Minister knows if the universities or the research institutions want them they get them on restricted registration. There are several of them in the universities and in the Institute of Research. To my knowledge medical missionaries have been coming here for about 25 years now under this restriction. If the Minister were to obtain unrestricted registration for these medical missionaries they would immediately register and leave the Native areas, and in that respect we would be faced with a worse crisis than we have to-day in the Bantu areas. The restricted registration allows free practice in any Government post and it also allows unrestricted practice in any provincial post. Therefore there is a wide range of posts available to these people without any restriction, and many of them are occupied.

My point is this. The people who are already here in many instances wish to become citizens. I wish to quote from a letter which was sent out by the Department. Let me read a sentence: “On receipt of proof that you have obtained unrestricted registration as a medical practitioner you will be given citizenship”. That is the Department’s policy. Let me continue: “Government policy is to consider as immigrants only those persons who will be allowed to practise in South Africa without any restrictions.” The restrictions only apply to posts, not to quality of practice. These people all have the same rights that any other doctor has, except that they are confined to certain posts, to certain types of posts where for certain reasons the Medical Council feels it is right they should be. It has given a wide opening. What is the effect now of the Minister’s policy? Those who are here are trying to get out. They write to their colleagues abroad advising them not to come here. If these people go to America, for instance, and if they pass a certain examination and comply with certain other requirements they can practise in the normal way and they are welcomed as citizens. I say we are turning away potential citizens.

The Minister states, and it is true, that registration is restricted to five years. Except on one occasion, where a man was found guilty of unethical conduct, the Medical Council has never refused to renew the registration when asked for it. In other words, these people will be here for five, ten, 15, 20, 25 years and longer if they wish to remain on this same registration. There are people among them who do not want to do anything else than work for the Government; they like doing it. I have a letter here from a white immigrant from Tanzania. He would have been a citizen in one year if the Minister’s Department had allowed that. Now he is practically a stateless person because he says in Italy where he comes from he is regarded as a tourist, he cannot give up his Italian passport and he cannot obtain a South A rican passport. I am sure the Minister is not doing it intentionally but at the moment he is turning away doctors who are allowed to practise in this country and encouraging them to tell their friends not to come here. I hope the policy will be changed now so that these people who have the right to practise and who will go on having the right to practise shall be allowed to become citizens of the Republic. As I say. some of these people are stateless and they must be given the right to become citizens.

Mr. Chairman, now that the debate has moved into calmer water, I do not want to stir things up again. I nevertheless want to indicate that the debate has thus far indicated the following things. The first is that the United Party, through the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, has actually conceded that their immigration policy is one without any direction.

That is not correct.

I know it hurts.

No, it does not hurt, hut you are now talking a lot of nonsense again, and that is unnecessary.

In the second place the United Party requests the reference upon which we hase our accusation. As a result of a speech of that side, the accusation was made by this side. I shall tell the hon. member where it comes from. Col. Deneys Reitz said at the time that under the circumstances which then prevailed it would be quite in order for “the good, the bad and the indifferent” to come from Great Britain to South Africa to act as a counterbalance because the census of 1941 had indicated how a certain population group, the Afrikaner, had increased in numbers here. But I do not want to elaborate on that point now. I want to proceed to something more positive.

I believe that the white man in South Africa, specially in view of the increasing numbers of non-Whites, will have to strengthen his numbers in the next 30 years if he wants to maintain his position here. I think that this fact is so obvious that it does in fact require no arguments. There are only two ways in which any nation, and therefore also our nation, can increase its numbers, namely by an increase in the birth rate and by immigration. There is no other method. I now want to make it very clear that in the National Party’s population policy national growth via the cradle occupies a much more important place than any other aspect of the Government’s population policy. We therefore place the greater emphasis and the highest premium on the population increase of the Whites via the cradle. We lay greater emphasis on that than on the other leg of our population policy, namely that of immigration. Thus it happened that Minister M. C. Botha has on occasion asked for more white babies. If I had any locus standi in this matter, I would have repeated that request here this afternoon; I would again ask for more white babies in South Africa because this is such a vital and such an extremely important matter. Because if we look at what the birth rate of our Whites in South Africa is, we find a very interesting picture. In 1960 it was 24.8 per thousand Whites. But 40 years ago the increase of Whites in South Africa was 32.8. It had decreased to 24.8 in 1960. But in 1965 the birth rate figure had decreased to 22.8 per thousand. According to estimates it will decrease to approximately 18 by the year 2000, that is within 32 years. Therefore in the year 2000 there will be 17 Whites for every 100 non-Whites, while there were 26.3 per 100 non-Whites in 1951, and 24 per 100 in 1960. If we take a serious look at this matter, and I think that it is the duty of every South African to do just that, it becomes very dear that immigration has become of vital importance to each white person in South Africa. That is why this Government is giving so much attention, and rightfully so, to this vitally important matter, and the Government would be failing in its duty if it was not giving that measure of attention to immigration.

Then I want to come to another point. The Government can follow a wise, balanced, planned immigration policy, as it is doing, and as I think has been proved in this debate. But there is one thing that a government cannot do. That the nation must do. And that is to absorb into the nation those immigrants who are in fact here and to have them properly integrated with the existing, established population in South Africa as soon as possible. I want to ask the question very seriously here this afternoon: Is the nation doing enough in connection with the assimilation of the immigrants whom we get in South Africa? And then I want to make a statement. I want to make the statement that, as a result of the competent work of the officials and the competent selection by the Immigrants’ Selection Board, I personally do not have any doubt whatsoever that the quality and type of immigrant which we are getting under this National Government in South Africa, is generally of the highest and best skilled quality, in general persons of character who can in fact make a contribution in South Africa. Since this is so, and since the Government is very scrupulous to allow only good, selected immigrants into the country, I want to draw attention to the following. And while I am dealing with this point, I do not want to expose myself to any misunderstanding. Let me point out that a considerable degree of misunderstanding about immigration exists in the ranks of our nation because of a very obvious fact. Many strangers enter the Republic each year, something in the region of 300,000 per year. That number is continually increasing. They are people who merely visit South Africa with an ordinary passport as tourists, students and businessmen. But they are not immigrants, only visitors. Among them there are people who sometimes do things which are not permissible. Such a person’s name and surname then appear in the newspapers, and in no time it is simply accepted that such a person is an immigrant.

There is a second group of strangers who enter South Africa. Each year a certain percentage of persons enter the country illegally because South Africa is such an attractive country economically. They are not immigrants. The Government is doing everything in its power to keep those illegal immigrants out of the country and to deport those who have already entered the country illegally. But there are no immigrants among them. Among these persons entering the country illegally, there are many persons—one hesitates to say this, but it is the truth; it is a fact which one can state—who do South Africa no credit. Most of the illegal immigrants, if they had to go through the Immigrants’ Selection Board, or even obtain entry on a passport, would never be allowed into the country. This is, however, one of the problems with which we are faced. About 300,000 strangers enter South Africa annually, not one of whom is an immigrant. All those to whom I have referred up to now, were strangers. There is also a third group. They are strangers who apply for a permit for temporary residence in South Africa and they are not persons who have been selected by the Immigrants’ Selection Board. There are quite a number of people who are in South Africa with a temporary residence permit. As we know the Government began to apply strict measures in this connection at the beginning of 1967 in that persons can no longer obtain temporary residence permits unnecessarily. Not one of the three groups I have mentioned, includes a single immigrant. Why I am going into and dwelling on this matter, is simply to indicate that we should not labour under any misunderstanding; that the legitimately selected immigrants in South Africa are good people generally. They are selected with great care. The number of people who do not go through the Immigrants’ Selection Board and who are not the responsibility of the Department of Immigration at all, is a very large number, and the numbers are increasing each year to a figure considerably in excess of 300,000. On the other hand, the annual number of legitimately selected immigrants comes to approximately 35,000 only. It is in respect of these legitimately selected immigrants that I am asking whether our nation is doing enough to absorb these people so that they may become good, well-bred South African citizens as soon as possible. To simplify this matter, the Government has certain organizations in South Africa which it subsidizes. The “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie”, for example, is doing brilliant work. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Primrose has got me into trouble already, because during the recess I looked at speeches which he made and I found myself in the middle as to what standard I should apply and I applied the wrong standard as far as the officials and the Department is concerned. I am referring to the approach he made again this afternoon. He said that there would be no religious discrimination and that the religion of a would-be immigrant would not be taken into account. At the same time he hastens to add that the religious balance in South Africa will be maintained. In other words, immigrants will not be allowed to upset the religious balance. Those two things do not go together. Either there is religious discrimination and the religion of an applicant is taken into account, or there is not. The hon. member went further and quoted a number of figures. I want to remind him of an expression I once heard from an accountant, namely that figures never lie, but that liars can figure. In other words, one can prove anything if one goes on quoting enough figures fast enough to an audience in front of one. He suggested that the Government had been able, by judicious handling, to shift the emphasis of immigrants from what might be known as Roman Catholic countries to our “stamlande”. He showed how there had been a reduction in immigrants from European countries which are not really countries of origin and that there was more emphasis on immigrants from countries of origin. The hon. member should know that that was not brought about by any action on the part of the Department of Immigration, but by a new approach in those countries towards whether they would allow emigrants to leave those countries. The change of emphasis is, therefore, shifted to those countries where people are allowed to leave and to emigrate to South Africa. This is no proof of an application of a policy of discrimination between people who come from different countries. The hon. member went further and made his case even worse by trying to prove that this was managed or controlled by Government agencies. He was quoting the figure of applications and not of acceptances. If he had quoted figures for approved immigrants and has shown how those had been reduced percentagewise against applicants, then we would say that the Government was controlling the position.

But I have actually risen this afternoon to clear up a matter with the hon. the Minister. As a result of a pamphlet by the hon. member for Primrose and also as a result of statements by him which were publicized in the Press that drastic steps had been taken to curb the inflow of Roman Catholics into this country purely on religious grounds, I made a public statement in Cape Town on a certain occasion in which I criticized the hon. the Minister very severely in the light of these statements. I criticized him because of the fact that through a Government Department discrimination on religious grounds was being practised and that that was foreign to the attitude which has been adopted by South Africans throughout the history of our country. The hon. the Minister indicated that my comments were not justified. I then entered into some correspondence with him. I want to say this afternoon that as a result of what he wrote to me—and I use this correspondence with his permission this afternoon—I am prepared to accept, and I hope it will be accepted and understood throughout the country, that we will have an end to this argument. The hon. the Minister said to me that it is abundantly clear that the Government does not discriminate on the grounds of nationality or religion. I hope that in those circles where for the pleasure of their listeners one has to hear people talk about making sure that we will not have too many of this or too many of that type of immigrant, there will now be an end to that talk as a result of this official statement, namely that as far as immigration is concerned the religious beliefs of an applicant are not taken into consideration in determining his suitability as a candidate to become a citizen of South Africa. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I regret having made this criticism which I have found to be unfounded in regard to the policy he applies to this aspect of immigration.

Mr. Chairman, the atmosphere is so quiet now that I think that this is the opportunity I should take to reply to the debate so far. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not here at the moment. I shall therefore deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Durban (Central) immediately, until the hon. member for Bezuidenhout returns, because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised a range of subjects which I think covers most matters raised by other hon. members as well. I have a comprehensive reply for the hon. member. The hon. member for Durban (Central) knows that my department has had a difference of opinion with the Medical Council of which he is a member for the past six years. I think that we have made our position abundantly clear, namely, that if a doctor wants to immigrate to South Africa and he has all the necessary qualifications, he should be registered here as a doctor. But the Medical Council does not take that view. As a result of this attitude the Medical Council under the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act promulgated an amendment to the existing regulations in terms of which doctors from overseas could get restrictive registration. What does restrictive registration mean? It means that that doctor is restricted in the practice of his profession. Although such doctors comply with all the qualifications laid down by the Medical Council, they still only get restrictive registration which means that they can only be employed in certain restrictive categories on a contract basis. That contract usually lasts for a period of five years. We take up the attitude that at the end of five years that doctor is out of work and that he has therefore no permanent employment in South Africa. Therefore initially he is not an immigrant. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Central) a question. Before I do so, let me just for a moment refer to the statement he made, namely that as far as veterinary surgeons are concerned, an amendment was passed two or three years ago giving them the right to come to South Africa and to get registration. They can go on to the register but they give un undertaking that at the end of five years they will apply for citizenship.

No, they do not give an undertaking.

The fact is that they can apply for citizenship after five years and their registration is confirmed. I want to ask the hon. member whether his Medical Council will be satisfied if the Government adopts the same procedure in the case of doctors, as we do in the case of veterinary surgeons. This is a simple question. We look upon veterinary surgeons from overseas who have the right to come here and get registration and practise their profession as immigrants. We do not regard doctors from overseas who come here on a restrictive registration and who are restricted in the practice of their profession as immigrants. As a matter of fact they can only work for provincial councils and mission hospitals. That is the only work they can do.

Will you allow the hon. member for Durban (Central) to answer you now?

I first want to get this matter absolutely clear. In putting his case the hon. member said: Why can you not do the same with doctors as was done a few years ago in the case of veterinary surgeons. I say that if the Medical Council is prepared to treat this matter on the same basis as the registration of veterinary surgeons we will allow medical doctors to come in as immigrants. That is the question. If the hon. member’s Council is prepared to tell us that they are prepared to extend the same facilities to overseas doctors as are extended to veterinary surgeons, I will treat them as immigrants.

I now want to deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In the first place the hon. member asks why there has been a decrease of over R800,000 on the Vote this year as compared with the Vote for 1967. I admit that the provision this year is considerably less than that for 1966-’67 but it compares very well with the actual expenditure during 1966-’67 when, of course, we had a record intake of immigrants. As hon. members know, 1966 was an extraordinary year; it was a record year. The actual expenditure for 1966-’67 was R5,862,237 whereas our estimate for this year stands at R5,860,000 which is approximately R62,000 less. I want to tell hon. members that, with this estimate now before the Committee, we could still accommodate even more immigrants than we accommodated in 1966-’67 because we have effected certain economies. I should like shortly to tell hon. members what those economies are. They were introduced towards the end of last year. In future persons who come to South Africa on holiday or as tourists and who then obtain permanent residence while they are still in South Africa will no longer be entitled to a contribution towards their passage costs. The hon. member for Primrose dealt with certain figures in regard to people who have come to South Africa as tourists and who liked the country so much that they decided to stay here. They then applied for permanent residence.

Do you not send them all back before they can apply?

This is a difficult matter to deal with in a general way as I am only dealing with the financial aspect now. We do not now give them the State aid that we give to the ordinary immigrant.

Secondly, there were certain South Africans who left South Africa after December, 1961. Hon. members will remember that after Sharpeville a number of South Africans left South Africa for permanent residence abroad. They will now no longer qualify for financial assistance under the immigration scheme if they decide to return to South Africa. We did help them up to October last year, by means of financial assistance. But we think that those who left after December, 1961, and had not returned to South Africa and had not lodged their applications by the 1st October of last year should no longer be assisted. But we think that those who left after December 1961 and had not returned to South Africa and had not lodged their applications by the 1st October of last year should no longer be assisted. They have had plenty of time to make up their minds as to whether they want to return to South Africa or not. Thirdly, immigrants have been allowed to apply for financial benefits under our scheme without any time limit. They came to South Africa and did not avail themselves of the benefits of the scheme. They have acquired permanent residence here and thereafter they apply for financial aid under our scheme. We say now that unless they apply within 12 months, after they have arrived here, we are no longer prepared to assist them. All these particular alterations have had quite a good effect financially. That is why there has been this drop in the figure compared to last year’s figure. First of all the 1966 figure was unusually high, but nevertheless the expenditure for that period was practically the same as the provision for this year, so that we do not anticipate that there will be any fewer immigrants this year than there were in 1967. On the contrary, we think that our figures are going to be higher this year than they were last year.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. Does he not expect ever to do better than he did in 1966-’67?

We are of course always optimistic. I need not stress the fact that conditions in Europe are difficult. As far as we can see at this stage the figures for the first four months of this year are considerably higher than those for the corresponding period last year. So that our efforts are good. But, as I say, on the Estimates there is quite enough money to make provision for a greater number than there was last year.

Then the hon. member asked me what steps we had taken as regards publicity. He referred to this item in the Estimates of R174,000. Now publicity of course plays an extremely important part in the recruitment of immigrants overseas and our expenses are connected with certain publicity activities overseas. We send our immigration attaches to various places to address meetings. There are film shows and we have a distribution of propaganda material, and there is the placing of advertisements. Those are all reflected under this item. I can give the hon. member a breakdown of the expenses reflected under this item. Provision is made for an expenditure of R30,000 in the United Kingdom. Now in the U.K. there is no restriction on advertising. We can advertise as much as we like and in any form we like. In Holland the amount is R25,000. There there is a restriction on advertisement. We have to get the permission of the Dutch Government before we can advertise. In Germany the amount is R 10,000. There advertisement is also restricted. In Belgium it is R 11,000. In Austria it is R6,000, and in France it is also R6,000. In other countries no advertisement at all is permitted. But the aforementioned are the countries where we spend money on advertisements. Then, in addition in order effectively to maintain a publicity campaign with a view to attracting immigrants, the Department also makes use of suitable pamphlets. There are actually nine pamphlets dealing with matters which will interest intending immigrants. We have found that we have to reprint these pamphlets every year, because they become out of date very quickly.

Then the hon. member referred to a speech which was made by my colleague, the Minister of Defence, where he referred to the question of the removal of Bantu from the Western Province, and he said that he hoped that we would be able to do something by way of attracting semi-skilled immigrants to South Africa. Well, it is perhaps a scheme which one might think of in the future, but at the moment I do not think it is practicable for various reasons, one of the chief being that there is not such a tremendous gap in Europe between the wages of skilled and semi-skilled men or unskilled men as there is in South Africa. If we had to bring semi-skilled immigrants to South Africa, we would find it very difficult to accommodate them in suitable employment, because their wages are very high. It may be a longterm project but we have not as yet given any attention to that proposition.

Then the hon. member and several other hon. members dealt with the question of the decrease in the birth-rate figures. The hon. member for Geduld, I think, also raised the matter. I think I should say that the purpose of our immigration policy and programme is not only to strengthen the Whites in South Africa. That is not our only object. By means of immigration we are supplementing and maintaining a labour force of skilled and trained workers which, of course is so essential for our economic upsurge and our industrial development. It is our white economically active population who to-day contribute the bulk of the supply of skilled manpower, and they create employment opportunities for our non-Whites. I think hon. members will agree with me that every skilled and trained worker who comes to South Africa as an immigrant creates employment opportunities for our unskilled workers. I think, therefore, that the immigration of skilled workers is as important, to us as it is to our non-Whites, because they create these opportunities. In other words, just to put it quite briefly, the object of our immigration scheme is twofold, firstly to ensure an adequate work corps of skilled and trained persons in order to maintain our economic progress and our industrial development, and secondly to create conditions which will ensure that all the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa, irrespective of race or colour, will enjoy a decent standard of living. And of course, thirdly, and just as important it is to strengthen our white population. But I am trying to point out that there are other factors involved in this policy apart from strengthening our white population.

Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also asked me about the numbers of immigrants who came to South Africa last year and the various categories. I have the figures here. I am simply going to group them together because I do not want to bore the Committee. From Africa we got 10,452. from Europe 26,105. and from Asia 449. Those are white persons from Asian countries who came to South Africa. Persons from America numbered 987. That is from both South America and the U.S.A, and Canada. From Australasia, that is, Australia and New Zealand, we got 942, making a total of 38,937. That was the 1967 figure.

Then the hon. member asked me whether it was not possible to have an annual report of the Department. Well, as hon. members know, each year I have given a comprehensive policy statement in the Other Place, in which I have covered the activities of the Department for the preceding year, but I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I think the time has come when we should have an annual report of the Department, and I will see to it that one is issued in future.

Then the hon. member or Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for East London (City) expressed their concern that there had been this decrease in the intake of immigrants in 1967. As I have pointed out, in 1966 we had an exceptionally high intake from countries other than our “stamlande”, our countries of origin, and there were reasons for that. Firstly, there was an unprecedented demand for skilled workers in heavy industry, particularly the building industry. Hon. members will recall that in 1966. if it had not been for the immigrants absorbed in the building industry whom we were able to bring in, our building industry would have been in a parlous state. There is one particular firm in the Transvaal, one of the big building firms, which employs at least 800 to 900 immigrants. Secondly, the boom conditions in the country in 1966 attracted many visitors and workers to South Africa from all over the world, who on arrival here immediately obtained employment and thus qualified for permanent residence, provided of course they could comply with the other requirements of the Act.

Thirdly, skilled workers from the European countries to which I referred were actually available. That was in 1966, but in 1967 those same countries from whom we had received so many immigrants in 1966 began discouraging large-scale emigration of their skilled workers because they required them themselves, whilst it also became obvious that such skilled workers were no longer available as immigrants in large numbers, with the result that we had to step up our immigration recruitment. I think this fact is fully borne out by the figures I supplied to the hon. member for Green Point only a few weeks ago in reply to a question he put to me. I gave him all the figures, four or five pages of them and they can be found in Hansard, Col. 4783. On the other hand, 1966 was also marked by the unexpected increase of more than 4,000 immigrants from territories north of the Limpopo. If the trend revealed by the statistics for 1963, 1964 and 1965 had run true to form, we should have received 6,000 less immigrants from the north in 1966, than the 14,473 who actually came to South Africa. In other words, in 1966 we received 6,000 more immigrants from countries north of the Limpopo than we had anticipated. But I think it is of some significance to note that in 1967 the intake from our so-called countries of origin shows the following increases on the 1966 figures. In 1967 we had an increase of immigrants from our “stamlande” (countries of origin). From Austria we had an increase of 22 per cent; from Belgium 30 per cent; from Denmark 19 per cent; from France 47 per cent; from Germany 2 per cent; from Holland 29 per cent. It is to these countries that we are looking for an increase of immigrants.

You will get some from France soon.

I would not be surprised.

What about the United Kingdom?

I am not dealing with the United Kingdom at the moment. I will give a few figures in respect of the United Kingdom in a moment. The United Kingdom, obviously, is one of our countries of origin.

The hon. member for Primrose was not so sure about it.

Let me give hon. members the figures for the United Kingdom where there was a decrease of 5 per cent on 1967 figures.

Lack of television here!

As I have said, in 1967 there was a decrease of 5 per cent in the number of immigrants from the United Kingdom, but the figures that we have available so far for this year show an increasing trend, and it seems that that increase is going to be stepped up. I think during the first three months of this year we had an increase of over 25 per cent in immigrants from the United Kingdom to South Africa, on the 1967 figures.

The hon. member for East London (City) was also disturbed because of the fact that there seemed to be a decrease in the number of immigrants, particularly from the “stamlande”, but let me quote a few figures to show that he need not have that fear at all. I will only give the figures from the various countries for two years: Netherlands: 1964, 998 immigrants; 1967, 1,695 (quite a big increase): Germany: 1964, 2,936; 1967, 3,362; United Kingdom: 1964, 12,800; 1967, 12,900; France: 1964, 151; 1967, 483; Switzerland: 1964, 365; 1967, 685; (Belgium: 1964, 293; 1967, 525; …

We are still down by 9,000.

… Austria: 1964, 271; 1967, 657.

The hon. member for East London (City) touched on the question of our industrial development and the desirability of industrialists bringing out their own industrial workers. Well, of course, we have encouraged that policy. We did that in the case of Cyril Lord’s factory in East London. He brought out all his trained workers. We have done it in the case of the Atlas Aircraft Corporation.

Half of them returned home.

I think there are 14 countries represented in the Atlas Aircraft Corporation. All their skilled men are immigrants. If any industrial undertaking is short of skilled workers and are prepared to take immigrants we assist them to send recruiting teams over to Europe and the United Kingdom. We do the necessary publicity for them and we assist them to get immigrants from those countries. That is one phase of our policy. Then the hon. member made the point that in the case of an immigrant going from the United Kingdom to Australia it only cost him about R20. Let me tell him that more or less the same position applies to immigrants who come to South Africa. Our scheme is State-aided. The financial assistance we give amounts to R120 per person. A husband and wife would therefore get a grant of R240. A passage by plane costs them R150 each; so they are down R60, but if they have one child, that child also gets R120. The grant is also R120 for each child. If a family with any children come to South Africa, the grant that we give them covers the whole of their passage costs; it does not cost them anything. That is my answer to that particular point made by the hon. member. I think those are the only points made by the hon. member for East London (City).

May I ask a question? The point I made was that it is determined by legislation that applications …

Order! The hon. member cannot make a speech now.

No, Sir, I am not making a speech. My question is whether there is any prospect of our Government following the same policy as Australia in the case of voluntary immigrants?

I do not want to compare our immigration scheme with that of Australia because their scheme is entirely different. They take unskilled as well as skilled immigrants. They take unskilled immigrants in large numbers and that is why they have this large figure of 100,000 a year which the hon. member for Port Natal mentioned.

100,000 more than hours.

Yes, 100,000 more. The fact is that they take skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled, and that is why their figure is so high.

The hon. member for Port Natal also spoke about naturalization. That does not fall under my Department, but the hon. member for Primrose has given him certain figures.

The Deputy Minister.

Not yet, as far as I know, but let me tell the hon. member that I wish he were my Deputy; I would welcome it. Sir, the hon. member made a most astonishing statement. He said that it cost us three times as much to bring an immigrant from Germany as it cost us to bring an immigrant from Britain. I would like to know where he gets that figure, because that is completely untrue.

Look at the number of officers there.

No, it is not a question of officers. The hon. member gave me the impression that our transport costs …

No, I did not say “transport costs”. I was referring to the administrative officers in Europe.

It depends on the staff, of course, and on various other factors, but every immigrant is treated on exaotly the same basis, no matter where he comes from. He receives the same aid.

The canvassing costs are much higher in Europe.

The hon. member spoke about an average of 4,000 immigrants a year since 1947-’48.

Since the Government came into power.

I do not know where he gets that figure. It seems to me that he has not been doing his homework properly.

I did more homework than members on your side.

Let me give him the official immigration figures from 1933 to 1948. The total number of immigrants was 132,838 and the annual average was 8,302. What was the average number from 1949 to 1967? It is alleged that we stopped immigration in 1949.

Did you not stop it?

No, we did not.

They just came in?

Yes, they came in, and the figures are here if the hon. member wants them. From 1949 to 1967 the total immigration figure was 418,093, an average of 22,000 a year.

I was referring to the net gain.

Then I want to deal with the further point made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in regard to religious workers. The position is that up to October, 1966, applications for permanent residence by clergy, and other religious workers, were granted by the Government in many cases. Unfortunately, as hon. members know, quite a number of these clergy did not confine themselves to the duties for which they were admitted to South Africa. On the contrary.

How many?

It is well known that they engaged in certain political activity and it became imperative for the Government to review its policy.

One in a thousand.

The Government reviewed its policy in October, 1966, when it was decided that no religious workers would be granted permits for permanent residence, but that they would be admitted on temporary permits only. I think I should point out that this decision does not really create any hardship, nor need it limit such workers’ sojourn in the Republic provided they adhere to the conditions of their admission. When the permit expires it is renewed almost automatically. This policy as regards religious workers is strictly adhered to. It is applied without any exception to religious workers, irrespective of their denomination. It does not matter what their denomination is. In practice they are coming into South Africa on temporary permits for a period of three or five years, and at the end of that period, the permit is renewed. As I say, the renewal of the permit is almost automatic, but I can tell the Committee and the hon. member that the question of reviewing this policy will only be reviewed in the light of the manner in which these people conduct themselves in the Republic. It therefore depends entirely on them whether their activities and their behaviour justify a return to the previous policy.

You are condemning hundreds because of the conduct of one or two.

Sir, I think I have dealt with most of the points which have been raised here to-day.

I want to deal with the point made by the hon. member for Geduld regarding the language of immigrant children. It is an important matter and one which causes considerable concern to many people. As hon. members know, reeulations regarding the language medium in which children are to receive their schooling are made by the various provincial administrations, and as we all know they vary from province to province. However, the National Education Policy Act of 1967 which was passed by this House last year gives the Minister of National Education the power to determine policy regarding mother tongue instruction, be it English or Afrikaans. It, therefore, excludes such determination in resoect of immigrant school children whose mother tongue is not one of the two official languages. This is a question now for consideration by the National Advisory Education Council which, as we all know, is comprised of experts in the field of education. I think it can be safely accepted that in their deliberations and their recommendations they will not allow themselves to be influenced by political considerations or by expediency. As a matter of fact, my colleague, the Minister of National Education, when speaking in the Other Place about ten days ago, stated that he had called on the National Advisory Education Council for a recommendation in this respect, regarding the education of immigrant children. He then emphasized that such recommendation would be based on strictly educational considerations. It is a difficult matter, I admit, and it is something which requires the closest investigation.

I know of English-speaking immigrants who want to send their children to Afrikaansmedium schools: They learn English in their own homes and they want to learn the other official language as well in school. Of course, it is Government policy that children must be educated in their mother tongue, but there are all sorts of difficulties in regard to this question as it affects immigrant children. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the committee of this council will find a via media whereby the children can receive their education in one or the other official language and become fully bilingual. Our aim is to make immigrant children fully bilingual which is basic if they are to become good South Africans.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has attempted to reply to my request that he should reconsider the question of the treatment of immigrant doctors, and in doing so he has to some extent issued a challenge to me which I fear I cannot accept. I am quite sure the Minister does not really expect the Medical Council to relax its qualifications as to which doctors may practise in South Africa and to leave the discretion as to who shall and who shall not be a doctor in South Africa to the discretion of some distant official overseas or in some other continent. The Medical Council is charged with the duty of seeing that the people of South Africa have a well-trained and well-behaved medical profession, and that is a duty which they cannot delegate, least of all to some minor official in the Department of Immigration. Indeed, I am surprised that the Minister should have issued such a challenge, and in so doing he misquoted the position which obtains in the veterinary department. I voted against the veterinary department’s recommendation in this House, and I went to great trouble to find out exactly what it was. That department said they would take anybody who is qualified, but if they did not become South African citizens within five years, they would take away their right to practise. They do not relate the right to practise to qualification as does the Medical Council; they relate the right to practise to citizenship. The Medical Council is unconcerned about citizenship. It is merely carrying out its duty and, as I say, it cannot delegate that duty.

Mr. Chairman, I want to detain the Committee just for a few moments longer. I want to tell the Committee and the member for Durban (Central) that I personally cannot understand the attitude of the Medical Council as regards medical qualifications. Let me give an example. A South African goes overseas to Germany, Austria, France, Holland or Belgium and he goes to university there. If he takes a medical course it takes him seven years to qualify as a doctor. Sitting next to him in university is a German, an Austrian or a Frenchman who takes exactly the same course and the same degrees, and it also takes him seven years.

That South African can come back to South Africa, have his name put on the register, and he can practise, but as regards the Frenchman, the Austrian and the German, who have the identical qualifications, the Medical Council refuses to place them on the register, but gives them what they call restrictive registration.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 34, — Indian Affairs, R 19,430,000:

Mr. Chairman, I have two or three questions which I want to put briefly to the Minister because I want to make certain representations which will take quite a while, and I only have a short time at my disposal. I should first like to ask the hon. the Minister when he replies to the debate whether he will give us the latest information concerning the formation of the Indian Council.

The second question is this. Will the Minister take into review the group areas which are being made available for Indians in terms of legislation administered by other departments. I am talking about those areas where they have a legal right to remain. From what I can see of it the group areas being established for the Indians are rapidly becoming crowded out. I put this point as one leading on to the next question. With the pressures building up in the group areas which have been established for the Indians, does the Minister foresee the possibility of Indian development taking place in what I would call a broad spectrum of industrial and commercial activity such as we might anticipate in a viable community? There are difficulties as far as the Indians are concerned, not only in regard to residence but in respect of other matters as well. I think for instance of the right to travel, and so forth. That being so, it seems to me that if there is to be any moral justification at all for the establishment of these group areas in the form and to the extent they are being established, some kind of viable community should be established there. I should like to have the Minister’s reply on that in due course.

May I just ask you whether you are tying this up with the question of representation on the Indian Council.

No. The present position of the Indian Council, how far it has developed, is one question which is quite independent of anything else. When the new council is established it will be able to make representations itself to the Minister in regard to matters it may feel to be of importance, in the commercial or industrial sphere or what have you. The next question is that of the establishment of group areas where the Indians will live. I think here of Lenasia. That will be dealt with by a colleague of mine. In Natal we have for instance a place called Chatsworth where an enormous Indian population is building up. Not only are the Indians moving to that area but there is the question of the natural increase as well. Does the Minister see that ultimately as a viable community? Will there be room and adequate opportunity for commercial and industrial development to take place? If that is not the case, we will have vast groups of Indians in these areas which cannot become viable communities. Their opportunities are going to be limited, especially as their own population increases.

Now I come to the point I want to put to the hon. the Minister here. Because of the position the Minister formerly held in Natal, and I filled the same position some time before him, he will remember what the position is regarding the entry of Indians into Zululand. When he was Administrator there the hon. the Minister gave permits under certain conditions. I have no doubt that practice was followed previously as well. People who were commercial travellers, seeking orders from trading stations in Zululand, were given permits to be in that territory for a limited period of time. The powers conferred upon the Administrator of Natal, and still exercised by him, are powers which originated in the days of the Lieutenant-Governors in the old colonial days. They devolved upon the Administrator of Natal and not upon a department of state as such. The point I want to make is this. If one goes about Zululand today it is clear that an Asiatic population is growing up in Zululand which looks as if it is becoming established there. Some of them are associated with big industrial undertakings and factories, and to my mind that type of development in Zululand is on the brink of tremendous expansion. Probably we will see enormous industrial development in Zululand. Now it is argued, and with a great deal of truth, that often the Indians are much more adept with their hands and they are much more proficient as regards certain trades and certain types of work connected with big industrial undertakings than some of the Bantu. I want to ask the Minister what his policy is going to be in this regard. I say this trend should not be permitted to develop. The industrial undertakings in Zululand should be reserved for the Coloured people and the Bantu. I feel we are crossing the threshold and we are going to be in peril. I am not throwing bricks at the Minister in this regard. I assume the pressures are very considerable indeed. We have to meet these pressures to permit Indians to find employment in those factories. The Minister and his department will no doubt be told the Indians are there on a temporary basis only and will remain there only for so long as they are employed there; the moment they terminate their employment they will cross the border and go back to Natal. I hope the Minister is not going to accept that. I say, do not let them in. That is the best method to adopt.

I have no control over them.

You are the Minister of Indian Affairs.

I know, but I do not control them.

Well, Mr. Chairman, can the Minister tell us who does control them?

Not us. Zululand is a controlled area; it falls under the Department of Community Development.

It is the Minister of Planning.

My colleague says it is the Minister of Planning. Mr. Chairman, now look at the kind of mess we are going to get into. Now this does pose a problem.

I know, but I do not deal with it.

Well, one can see what is going to happen. The Indians will go into Zululand, because no Minister is going to make it his business to deal with them.

We quite agree. We support it, too.

The Indian does not want to fall between two stools. He is going to climb up on two stools. Naturally I accept what the hon. the Minister as Minister of Indian Affairs has to say. In the past he issued permits. So did I. We limited the period for which those permits were issued That man had to be out when they expired, or otherwise he was charged with a criminal offence. But that is not happening at the present time. I am now getting frightened because when the Minister says it is not his business, and he is the Minister of Indian Affairs, then I can see exactly that it is possible that we can have the trouble that has developed in the past, where everybody’s business is nobody’s business. I would ask the hon. the Minister, as Minister of Indian Affairs, whether he would not make it his business with his colleagues to investigate this question, have a look at it, and find out in fact who is the authority that should be dealing with this matter. Let us at any rate find out. Let us know for certain where the authority lies. If it still lies with the Administrator of Natal, let us deal with it from that angle. But I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would look into that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast put a number of pointed questions to the hon. the Minister, questions to which he will probably give him a reply. In regard to the Indians in Natal he also made a few statements about which the Minister knows more than I do.

We all know that the Department of Indian Affairs was established in 1961, its objective being to undertake the economic, social and political development of the Indians in accordance with the pattern of the Government, namely the pattern of separate development. That was done because it was accepted that the Indians did not want to be repatriated, in spite of the many generously subsidized schemes that always existed. It was the National Apartheid Government which admitted that the Indians were inhabitants of this country and that their presence was the permanent responsibility of the Government. For more than 20 years now the Governments of Pakistan and India have continually been raising in U.N. the question of the Asiatics here in South Africa. This has always been the spearhead of their uninterrupted feud against the Republic. To this day India is the country which is launching hysterical attacks against South Africa in respect of this matter. India usually has the support of the Afro-Asian bloc, of which one country, i.e. Kenya, is in actual fact engaged in chasing out its Asiatics at the moment, and at present a panic-stricken exodus of Indians from Kenya is taking place. But India and Pakistan are not really willing to take those people back either. We can form an idea of what the consequences would have been if that had happened in South Africa, and the fuss that would have been kicked up and the emotions that would have been rampant in U.N. if South Africa had dared to do that to the Indians here. It is an indisputable fact that of the approximately I million Asiatics living along the East Coast of Africa, from Natal to Kenya, the approximately half a million living here are enjoying the highest measure of stability and security and are also being afforded the greatest opportunities for advancement, and that is so because the policy of separate development has made these things possible for them.

Do you believe that?

The hon. member ought to know that what I am saying here is correct. The fact that he criticizes it, is to my mind the greatest proof that it is correct. Sir, the Indians make a living and develop here without there being any friction between them and the other non-White groups or the Whites. It is in fact because they are developing according to their own pattern, and because they can develop according to their own identity, on the basis of their traditional way of life—i.e. by maintaining their own language, religion and background—that it is possible for them to make steady progress and to become an autonomous population group within the framework of the Government’s policy. We all know, and I said so a moment ago. that the Indians do not want to return to their native country, nor did they want to do so in the past, because it is possible for them to make a decent living here in South Africa, whereas in their countries of origin they would be living from hand to mouth. But we know —and I should like to emphasize this matter this afternoon—that any Indian who feels frustrated and unhappy has always been free to return to his country of origin. Such a person is even free to emigrate elsewhere. In terms of the Indians Relief Act of 1914, which was amended in 1927, Indians have always been afforded every opportunity to emigrate elsewhere if they so desire. In addition there appears on page 204 of the Estimates an item entitled “Assisted Emigration”. There may perhaps be other countries in the world, apart from India and Pakistan, which would like to take these Indians who are dissatisfied. I believe that they can emigrate on the same conditions as those offered to Indians who wanted to be repatriated. But one knows beforehand that they would not do so, because of the fact that under this Government’s policy of separate development even more doors will be opened to them here.

We are all aware of the suspicion that existed originally when this Department was established, especially on the part of wealthy Indian traders and people who did not want to support the Government at all, and this was once again particularly evident when the Indian Council was established in 1964. There were Indians who did not want to offer their assistance. On the contrary, they were the people who incited others and stirred up suspicion in regard to the conduct of other Indians who did in fact come forward to offer their assistance. We know that in many cases this agitation was artificial, because it originated with members of the Indian Congress, particularly in the Transvaal and Natal. But in spite of that there were those amongst the Indians who did come forward and who began to co-operate, people who were willing to co-operate in spite of their being villified by members of their own race. It was through this Department that progress was made. This afternoon I feel obliged to mention the names of the two Ministers in this regard, namely the previous Minister of Indian Affairs, Minister Maree, and the present Minister, Minister Trollip. who had a good understanding of this situation. I must also mention the officials of the Department who have been carrying out their taask so judiciously. In addition I also want to mention the Indians who showed their goodwill, who noticed the good intentions of the Government and who displayed a favourable attitude and sound judgment in respect of the whole matter. These are the reoole who established the channel of contact: and that channel of contact is still in existence to-day and is functioning well.

We know that the Indian policy of the Government is succeeding. To my mind there are, in particular, three points of proof in this regard. The first is that the Indian Council has now become a status symbol amongst the Indians. There is such a long waiting list of Indians who would like to serve on this Indian Council that there is simply no room for all of them on the Council. Many of these people are the wealthy Indian traders and especially the businessmen who, as I have already said, were actually those who practised obstruction in the past.

In the second place we find that the agitation practised by Indians of the type who used to be the agitators in former days—and who were in fact successful in their agitation at that time—is no longer finding favour. Recently a pamphlet was published, apparently in England, under the name of Dr. A. M. Dadoo, This Dr. Dadoo is one of the persons who was formerly a listed communist here and emigrated to England, from where he is now trying to bombard the Indians here with pamphlets and attempting to make them dissatisfied with the situation in which they find themselves to-day. In that pamphlet entitled “Freedom Fighters March—a message from Dr. A. M. Dadoo”, a venomous attack is made against the South African Government as well as the Whites in Rhodesia and all Whites in Southern Africa. In that pamphlet he encourages the Indians to suppprt the terrorists and to commit violence. I maintain that the proof that we have succeeded in our Indian policy lies in the fact that this agitation will not make any impression on the Indians.

In the third place, I want to measure the undoubted success of our Indian policy by the fact that visitors from other countries, prominent Indians as well, adopt a completely different attitude after they have visited South Africa. I am referring here to Sir Zafrulla Kahn, who visited the Republic last year. As we know, he is a Judge of the World Court, and he is the person who was the former leader of the Pakistani Delegation at U.N., a person who was at that time the most outspoken critic of the Government’s policy in the General Assembly. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. while listening to the hon. member who has just sat down and to the short lesson he gave us in regard to the history of Pakistan and India, I waited with great interest to see if he would tell us where in fact the Indian homeland is going to be. We have sat here now all through the session, and we are still waiting for the star in the East which says where the Indian homeland is going to be sited.

Your star has waned.

But I want to deal with something entirely different. In all sincerity I want to put a few questions before the hon. the Minister; not individual cases, but a few problems of the Indians, because as long as I sit here, I know that hon. members on that side of the House will not put the case of the Indians, because the Indians have no vote, so they are not worth anything to them. So I find that if it is not done by us on this side of the House, it will not be done at all. I would be very interested in hearing what the hon. the Minister has to say when he replies to my friend, the hon. member for South Coast, in regard to the Indian Council.

But I would like to ask him one or two questions in this regard. If the new Indian Council was to ask the Minister to consider doing away with the provincial permit system the Indians at present have to comply with if they want to move from province to province, what would his attitude be? This Government after many years has accepted that the Indians of South Africa are in fact South Africans. Having accepted them as South Africans, I am very curious to know what the Government’s attitude is in regard to the fact that the Indians now still require permits to travel from one province to another in the country in which they are accepted. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether he is going to insist on the continuation of this system, which I believe, does us absolutely no credit whatsoever.

Do you want to give them a homeland?

I do not want to give them a homeland; you want to do that.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what his attitude would be if the Indian Council were to say to him at their very first meeting that they feel that they should have a member appointed to the Group Areas Board. I asked that because the Group Areas Board very often deals with members of the Indian community. This board moves the Indians hither and yon. I want to know that if the Group Areas Board deals with the members of a particular community such as this, why a member of that particular race group cannot then be a member of the board?

You are talking nonsense. Do not ask such stupid questions.

What do you mean it is nonsense? Have you ever been thrown out of your home? I am asking the Minister in all sincerity what his attitude would be if a member of the Indian group, or Indian Council, should ask that a member of their group should be put on the Group Areas Board when they are dealing with matters concerning the Indians.

They have not asked for it yet.

If these hon. members are not so nervous they will find that the seats they are occupying are becoming more uncomfortable year by year. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, when group areas are considered for particular race groups, and particularly for the Indian community which we are considering now, and following on what was said by the hon. member for South Coast, consideration is given to the health aspect, the medical aspects and the housing aspects. When one goes through an area like Chatsworth in Durban one feels that this is not so. Has the hon. the Minister and his Department, for instance, ever considered the social difficulties involved when members of one group are moved from one area to another? During the war about I million schoolchildren were moved from London for their own safety. It was not done before the position was studied very carefully to see what the different aspects would be and how these children would be affected. To my knowledge this Government has never even thought of this matter. We therefore get the position that an Indian family which usually consists of about 7.7 people per dwelling, as against the Whites of about 4.7 per dwelling, is uprooted and moved to another area and that no consideration is given to the difficulties involved with the children, housing, medical facilities, and so on. That is why I say it is so important that then when these moves take place a member of the Indian Council is consulted and, in fact, sits on the board that propagates these moves.

What did you do about it during your régime?

I have done a lot more than you have done.

No, I meant your party.

We did not move them. You started moving them. I do not have the time to deal with rubbish. I would like to put a problem to the hon. the Minister and ask him what his answer would be in regard to this. There are 12 young Indians who qualified for a particular vocation —I do not want to give their names—and of these 12 who qualified a year ago, only two could find an occupation in the direction for which they qualified. What is the Department doing about this?

What qualification did they have?

It was for a health inspector, a State Health Department qualification. You may have the newspaper cutting if you want it. I want to return to the difficulties involved in moving population groups from one area to another.

The old story.

It might be an old story but it is about time that this Government did something about solving it. Indians have been moved from certain areas in Natal, and particularly in Durban …

Do you object to it?

One finds that this sort of interjection is not only stupid, but is getting us nowhere. Indians in Durban occupy homes where whole families have moved in, namely sons in law, daughters in law, children and so on. These people are moved into new areas where prices are far too high for them to afford. I know that this is a matter for the Department of Community Development, but I am saying to the hon. the Minister as Minister of Indian Affairs that it is a matter with which he should concern himself. It so often happens in this House, since I have been here anyway, that not one member on the Government side cares twopence about what is happening to the Indian community. I ask the hon. the Minister in all sincerity whether the Indian Council will be able to use its influence to do away with things like these permits between provinces for people which we have accepted as South Africans.

Will he do something about the social difficulties involved when one group of people are moved to another area? What will the hon. the Minister’s view be when he finds that Chatsworth is too small to house the Indians which are there already? Where will he make the next group area? How long will we go on making group areas? Does the hon. the Minister believe that group areas will always be big enough to contain the number of people placed in it? I know that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana will probably follow me in my argument. I would be very pleased if he could tell me whether in fact the policy of making the group areas for different race groups watertight compartments will ever be able to contain the number of people that are put into them.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member for Port Natal gets up in this House to take part in debates, he should rather have a private pow-wow with his leader in Natal, the hon. member for South Coast, first. If, after that little pow-wow, he comes out unscathed, he can take part in debates in this House. It is quite obvious that the views expressed by the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Port Natal are diagonally opposed to one another.

Does it worry you?

It does not worry me. It should worry him. The hon. member for South Coast, on the one hand, pleads that the Government should not allow the unrestricted movement of Indians into Zululand; in fact, he pleads that they should not be allowed to go there at all, whereas the hon. member for Port Natal, on the other hand, pleads that restrictions on the movement of Indians should be lifted altogether, because, he says, they are all now South Africans. There is absolutely no similarity between the speeches of the hon. member for South Coast and that of the hon. member for Port Natal.

I would like to reply to certain aspects raised by them. The hon. member for South Coast asked the hon. the Minister whether the Indian group areas, which are now being created, would in fact be able to support viable communities and provide for Indian expansion. The present development in Chatsworth is concentrated primarily on the development of housing, because that is where the greatest need exists. In the past, the vast majority of economically active Indians were traders. The situation is changing fast and many Indians are now turning towards industries, and, in fact, in the last year something like 53 new industries were started by Indians in the Durban area alone.

When was the majority of Indians traders and not workers?

I said the economically active ones. The nothern part of Durban also provides for a large future expansion potential for the Indians, and especially in the Verulam area. Many industrialists will be able to establish their industries in those areas, thus allowing for a vast expansion of Indian industrial development. Even in the Chatsworth Shallson area there is ample room for industrial expansion even though there are no industries in that area at the moment. As far as his plea is concerned that the Indian movement into Zululand should be restricted, I think that that plea should he directed at the United Party controlled Natal Executive Committee, because they are the people who have been granting these permits. I can assure the hon. member that members on this side feel equally strong on that issue, namely that there should be no movement of Indians to the Zululand area north of the Tugela.

The hon. member for Port Natal, however, pleads that there should be a lifting of all restrictions on travel permits. I cannot agree with that, because if there should be a total suspension of travel restrictions on Indians it would mean that there would be no control whatsoever as to where they should settle in future and where they should obtain employment. The Orange Free State will have to be opened to the Indian.

I am not talking about employment and settlement. They cannot even travel down here on holiday with out a permit.

Permits are not withheld unduly and it merely means that there is some control on travel. I now want to deal with the question of housing. The hon. member for Port Natal objects to the movement of Indians again and says that no consideration is given to the social upheavals brought about by these movements. He, of all people, should know that a large number of especially the poorer Indians live under almost slum conditions and that where they were moved to better houses there was a far greater possibility that their social standards would improve through that movement than the other way round. He should also know that the houses which are being provided at the moment in the Chatsworth area—two-bedroomed houses on a sub-economic basis—are provided at a monthly rental of R6. Surely that is not beyond the income of most families? His plea that the hon. the Minister should provide for the inclusion of Indians on the Group Areas Board prompts me to ask him, in view of the fact that he claims to represent the Indians interest in this House, whether he included Indians in his election committee to advise him on the interests of the Indians? If he maintains that he wants to represent the interests of the Indians here, then surely he should also include Indians on his election committee.

I was talking about the Group Areas Board and you know it.

I am now applying the same principle to the personal opportunities you had of including Indians on some board such as your election committees. Last year, and also this year, the hon. member for Port Natal had a lot to say about the school feeding system which was stopped in Indian schools. I have in front of me a report from a newspaper in London where a lot is being said against the system of school feeding. They say that the school meal subsidy was an absolute waste; that it was the most foolish and wasteful subsidy ever conceived. This was reported in the Evening News of the 30th March, 1967. It was stated that the money should rather be spent on the real education of children’s minds instead of filling their stomachs and swill bins, referring to the wastage.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Vote under discussion. He is not discussing the Vote at all.

Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the school feeding scheme for Indians which was abolished.

Order! That matter is not under discussion at this stage. The hon. member must return to the Vote.

I should then like to refer to the change in the trend in employment amongst Indians in the past few years. Now that Indians have become a more settled community and a certain state of stability has come about in their residential areas and their employment opportunities, a tremendous amount of development has taken place. Mr. A. M. Moola, a leading Indian trader and industrialist, estimates that in the last two years Indian entrepreneurs have invested approximately R20 million in industrial development. In 1965 more than 1,400 Indians were employed in new industrial enterprises. Generally a large number of new industries have arisen in and around Durban. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to enter upon the terrain of Natal’s problems. I rather want to come round to the Indians of Johannesburg, in respect of whom I think I know what I am talking about. The hon. the Minister occupies a very responsible position in South Africa today, because he has half a million people in his charge. It is not an easy task and we appreciate the problem which the hon. the Minister has, but he will realize that it is a matter of importance to every White person that this large population group be treated as fairly as possible. I also view the matter from the point of view of our own safety and security, and I feel that even within the policy which the Government is following, one can be reasonable or unreasonable. But within the framework of the Government’s policy, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister personally to take another look at the problems of the Indian population in Johannesburg. There is not the least doubt that there is a tremendously strong feeling of bitterness and dissatisfaction among the Indian community in Johannesburg. The Minister will know that the main reason for this is that all the Indians, who are to-day spread over about 20 residential areas, some of them places where they have lived for generations, are now being forced to go and live in one residential area, namely Lenasia, which is situated 18 miles from the centre of Johanesburg. Although in principle the Indians of Johannesburg are against apartheid—and one can understand that—they are prepared to accept a separate residential area. That is not what they are objecting to. But they seriously object to all of them being compelled to live in one residential area. We as Whites, like any other population group, have our class differences and our differences of taste. The Whites in Johannesburg have 250 different residential areas to choose from, but here all the various religious groups and classes are being lumped together in one residential area. Whether a man is poor, whether he can afford it or not, whether it is to his liking, whether he is a man who has to work late at night or start work early in the morning, he must nevertheless move and go to live 18 miles outside Johannesburg. There are Whites who also live far from Johannesburg, but then it is by their own choice. They chose to do so because it suited them to live in a certain place. Those for whom this is not suitable have a right to live near their places of employment. The feeling against this position is flaring up seriously. I think that it is in the interest of good relationships between the White man and the Indian that the Government should reconsider this question. I think the Johannesburg City Council suggested five alternative sites to the Government. The Indians themselves are now prepared to develop another community centre for the Indians at their own expense. Repeated representations have been made, not only by individual Indians and Indian organizations, but also by the Indian Council which the Minister appointed. I think the Minister knows what is going on. I think he knows that among the members of his own Indian Council there is tremendous frustration about the fact that, despite the continual representations to the Minister and even to the Prime Minister, the position still remains the same. They have already approached the Prime Minister and said to him, “ Please, listen to our problems as the man who stands at the head of the Government.” But time and again the representations made to the Prime Minister are handed over to the Ministers concerned. I want to repeat that the hon. the Minister will know that the Indians are prepared to establish their own private township at their own expense. They will undertake the lay-out of the entire township if the Government will only agree that an area be granted to them which is reasonably near the centre of Johannesburg or which is within the Johannesburg complex. I do not know if the hon. the Minister is aware of it, but the feeling is so strong that it struck me that one of the members of the South African Indian Council, Mr. A. Habib, recently said in an interview with The Star—

I know that he is a moderate man. It might cost him his position in the new Indian Council. but it is out of sheer frustration that he said so. He feels: Here is a body which the Government itself appointed to give expression to the feelings of the Indians, and what is the use if the Government does not listen to it. No one expects the Government to accede to all the Council’s requests, but surely this is a reasonable request, i.e. that regard should be had to the differences which exist among these people, and to the desire to have more than one residential area to choose from.

The Indians of course also feel very bitter about the fact that tremendous pressure is being exerted upon them day after day. There is one court case after another. Pressure is being exerted upon them before an absolutely final decision has been given about the possibility of a private residential area for Indians. I am once again making this request in the interests of good relationships between the two race groups. We should be very glad if the Minister would once again give his attention to this matter and to the representations which have been made to him from time to time.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister will reply to the questions put by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and I shall not go into the matters he raised. I can just tell him in general that if there is a government that looks after the interests of the Indians and that wants to ensure that it is possible for them to live calmly, peacefully and prosperously in South Africa, then it is the National Party Government.

They do not think so.

The hon. member says that the Indians do not think so. If one were at present to make a thorough study of the overall living pattern distribution of the Indians and of what is being done for them in every sphere of their living pattern, then the hon. member is free to take a look at the circumstances of the Indians to-day in comparison with their circumstances under the old United Party Government. This debate up to now actually links up with the short time the hon. Opposition requested for it, as well as with the questions they have addressed to the hon. the Minister during the course of the year. One actually gains the impression that the Opposition does not really feel like participating in this debate. Their criticism is very vague and far-fetched. This is merely another way of thanking the Minister and his Department for the calm way in which they are handling Indian affairs. During the past five years there has been phenomenal growth in the policy of the National Party in respect of the Indians. Its officials have within a short period of time sorted out and cleared up the conglomerat the United Party had left behind. On the basis of the sound principles of the National Party it was possible for them to introduce departmental activities which are meaningful and attractive to everybody who is concerned with Indian Affairs. If one wants to look back at the policy of a governing United Party, then one has to look back to-day to a period 20 years ago, and when I listen to the hon. member for Port Natal it puts me in mind of a man who was slightly under the influence and who fell from the twentieth storey. When he struck the ground, he was immediately surrounded by a group of people. A huge police constable pushed the people out of the way and asked the chap who had fallen. “What is going on here?” Then the inebriate replied, “No, constable, I do not know because I have only just arrived here myself.” The hon. member for Port Natal puts me in mind of that. He simply falls into politics here and he does not really know what is going on—that is the case with the entire United Party.

Then I want to come to the hon. member for Berea. A few weeks ago he put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs, and it read as follows—

He received an uncommon reply. So far there has not been anybody on the Opposition side who has tried to use that information, which they obtained from the hon. the Minister in respect of education in particular, in a meaningful way this afternoon. It seems to me as though the information the hon. the Minister furnished has put the hon. member for Berea completely off his stroke, for it is astonishing to look at this reply. In the first place, we find that in 1968 1,149 students enrolled for degree courses and 308 for diploma courses. Then we must refer back to 1961 when this College for Indians was established. At that stage the number of students merely totalled 114. We therefore see here, owing to the increase in the number of students enrolled over the past five years, into what a splendid institution the University College for Indians has developed. When we come to the courses offered there, we see that 95 courses were offered in 1961. Last year as many as 145 courses were offered there. I want to read out to you, Sir, an excerpt from the magazine “Fiat Lux” dated February, 1967, in which continual announcements are made as to the increases and developments that have taken place in respect of courses. This is what the rector, Professor S. P. Olivier, has to say—

Then he goes on and refers to other new courses offered there—

The development that was evident last year was continued this year. Two new courses were introduced this year: an honours course in speech and drama and an honours course in political science. This points to the steady growth experienced at this College for Indians, but the future possibilities are just as bright. Within the foreseeable future the old University College will be moved to a new site at Chiltem Hills, in the Indian group area. In addition an advisory board, composed of Indians only, was established for the University. This proves that the Indian community, too, will now have full participation in tertiary education. Furthermore, the hon. the Prime Minister has also announced that these universities will be granted full academic autonomy.

Another point I want to touch upon is the fact that we find to-day that there is unrest amongst student communities throughout the world, and I think it is a feather in the cap not only of the Department, but also of the staff and everybody who is concerned with the University College for Indians that, in spite of the unrest that one finds amongst students all over the world, they are experiencing no difficulties there. In spite of this, those students —whose college was established amid major issues, while newspapers and the Opposition disparaged that college and many people staged agitations so that it might miscarry—as well as the teaching staff are conducting themselves in a very responsible way and setting an example to many university communities in the rest of the world. The hon. member asked questions, and I think that it is a very good thing for the Opposition to ask questions, because the more questions the United Party asks, the more the National Party can reply, and from that it is apparent how great the National Party is in contrast with the smallness of the United Party. But I want to return to this question. What does the hon. member for Berea’s question prove? In the first place, it proves that all is well as regards the university training of the Indians, and when one looks at the activities of a university and finds that all is well, it proves to one that all is well as regards primary and secondary education. I do not have the time to give attention to that matter this afternoon, but I want to make the statement and next year it can be taken further …

May I ask a question?

I fear the hon. member will ask an unintelligent question, and I do not have the time to reply to it now. I say that the university community is successful, because primary and secondary education are being handled well. Secondly, it proves that the National Party has an understanding of the fundamentals, the nature and the peculiarities of the South African social structure; and further it proves that the National Party was honest towards the Indians when it formulated its policy in respect of the Indians and presented it to the Indians and the entire world, and that it is embroidering on that policy in all sincerity; thirdly, that the academic training offered at this college for Indians is by no manner of means inferior to any academic standards one might find anywhere in the world; and fourthly, that this Government is placing more and more responsibilities on the Indian community itself. [Time expired.]

The Indian, about whom I wish to speak, is the Indian in the Cape Province. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come for him to intercede with his colleagues to see that these Indians, particularly in Kimberley, Vryburg and Mafeking, get a better deal than they have been getting. I also want to plead with him for consideration to be given to increased pensions, old-age pensions, disability grants and war veterans’ pensions, for Indians. The Indian community, as I know it, is a respectable and respected community with competent people in its midst, people who confine themselves to their business and who are honourable people in every respect. I believe that the Government has made a dead set at the Indian for reasons they know better than I do. During the debate on the Community Development Vote I raised the question with the Minister of Community Development, which I now wish to ventilate with this Minister, because I think this Minister must realize what is happening to the people whose welfare it is his duty to protect.

The Indians at Kimberley, for example, have more or less been directed to concentrate their efforts in regard to business in two areas. One area is already established, namely a shopping area, and the other is about to be established. Although the first shopping area was set aside with a great fanfare of trumpets and was opened by the Secretary for Cummunity Development, the Indians who were there, the general dealers, fruiterers and greengrocers, etc., are unable to make a living. The Minister of Community Development told me, in answer to points I raised in the debate, that they had built that particular shopping area in close proximity to the market. This market, for the information of the Minister, is a wholesale market and therefore there are no customers. I think it is tragic that the Indians who have lived in that community for many years should now be deprived of their business, which has been predominantly with white customers, and moved to places where they cannot make a living, and where they must go out of business. We have never had a straightforward enunciation of policy from the Government through the Minister of Indian Affairs as to what these people are expected to do. After all is said and done, when one spends one’s life in a particular trade or calling it is not easy in one’s declining years to start something else. I have one case on my desk, and although I concede that one swallow does not make a summer, it is a tragic story. It is the case of one woman in a small isolated town in the Karoo, the only Indian in the community, who was there for donkey’s years, and who was directed by the local authority, although she was getting on for 70, to move. She was brought to Kimberley, where she was unknown and had no connections whatever, and no prospect of running the business which was conducted by her husband. Well, she just folded up. I believe that the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Minister of Coloured Affairs have duties to the people whose portfolio they handle, and that they should speak for them, when matters concerning them come before their colleagues. In the case in point, when I referred to these shopping centres, I drew the attention of the Minister of Coloured Affairs to it myself, when he was up there, and I pointed out the unfairness of this congregation of competition in that type of business, with the coloured community on the boundaries of the township, where the coloured people were housed. I then pointed out the impossibility of 16 Indians in one complex, not very much bigger than this Chamber, trying to eke out a living, competing each with the other, in the same line of business, and with the same group of people, who pass the door. I think the Government is extremely cruel. I am not impressed by arguments advanced that there is no difficulty in connection with this, that and the other thing, and that the Government is extremely generous. Those of us who come into contact with these people, face to face, hear the most heartrending cases of hardship, and I expect the Minister of Indian Affairs to raise his voice and say that although this is the policy of the Government, it should be a longterm thing; surely the existing owners should be allowed, at least, to die out, instead of being removed. Pressure is put upon them. Of course the Government denies that. The way it is done is quite simple. Officials turn up and suggest that it is in the Indian’s interest to move, it will be made difficult for them. We have several people in the town itself, who own the property, in which they have traded for years. They are expected to uproot themselves and to rent a property from the Government, and do whatever they can, with the properties they have vacated. We have such a situation at Vryburg where there is a large Indian community in the middle of the town. Disputes have been going on as to where these people could be put. My latest information—and I should like to hear from the Minister, what the correct story is—is that the status quo will now apply for some considerable time. What I would like to know is, why could not the status quo have been applied long ago, instead of having a lot of argument and friction between the local authority, the Indian people concerned, and the Departments responsible, These are the things, which I believe cause more trouble than they are worth, and I think these are details of the Government’s policy which could be avoided, thus making for a far happier and contented community. I believe these are the things which give us the tremendously bad image, which we have in the outside world, because we cannot suppress facts. These things are known. People talk about them, and persons correspond, letters pass between them and the people outside know, that this is the way we proceed in our affairs. I am not going to criticize the Government’s policy, but I think the time has come, particularly in the case of the Indians, where some compassionate grounds must be introduced to slow down this increasing hardship on a community which has done nothing to earn the dislike of the party in power. It may be somewhat late, but I still think there is time in our affairs for us to plead, as I now do, on humanitarian grounds, because we are dealing with people. These are people with responsibilities, with loves, fears, hopes, anxieties and disappointments. They also have ambitions, and they also have children, who have to make their way in this country, hedged in with all the regulations and complications which enfold their daily lives. I would say that the Minister of Indian Affairs is the one man who should set a new pattern and try to resolve these problems in our relationships with the other races in this country. It is a good place to start, with the Indian community, and when one pleads for the Indian community, one realises that this is not the most popular community to plead for. I do so on humanitarian grounds. I have them in my constituency. I know them and I live among them and I have always found them to be decent, law-abiding citizens who do their job. Without exception, in my experience, they are people who deserve better treatment from the authorities than they have been getting from this Government. [Time expired.]

I should like to react to what was said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout this afternoon. I must say that the hon. member adopted a very different attitude this afternoon to that which he usually adopted in the past when this subject was under discussion. The hon. member made a very gentle plea to the hon. the Minister that he should once again attend to the position of and the problems experienced by the Indians of Johannesburg in particular. I think the hon. member should undoubtedly address his pleas to other quarters. The reason for the problems which exist in Johannesburg, for the degree of frustration which may exist amongst the Indians, is to be sought nowhere else than with the United Party City Council which administers the affairs of Johannesburg. The hon. member referred to the resettlement of the Indians. There is general agreement that the mixing of the races which one finds in Johannesburg, where Indians live in White areas right next door to White people, cannot be tolerated; that state of affairs is unhealthy and a solution must be found. I do not think there is on United Party member in this House who represents a Johannesburg constituency who would disagree about this being an unhealthy state of affairs to which a solution should be found. But unfortunately, what do we find? Since 1948, on every occasion when this Government has initiated steps to clear up those conditions, we have been meeting with nothing but stubborn opposition from the United Party and the City Council of Johannesburg. They have never been prepared to give us their co-operation as far as this matter is concerned. In order to illustrate this I can give you the example of the conditions which prevailed in Sophiatown town for a period of many years. When we started clearing up those conditions, we received no co-operation from the City Council or from the Indian community there. This is a story we know and we know its background. We know what factors played a role in that matter. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout will recall the protracted struggle which is being waged in Johannesburg in order to find a solution to the conditions prevailing in Pageview. The hon. member will know that throughout all these years we have been unable to obtain the co-operation of the United Party City Council in clearing up these conditions. Instead of co-operating, what have they been doing? Every time that matter is raised in the City Council of Johannesburg and in other councils, the United Party prompts the Indians and tells them, “Oppose that move; organize protest meetings. Oppose that move because if we should get into power one day, we will maintain the status quo in Johannesburg”. The hon. member cannot deny that. When we established Lenasia for the Indians, who were the people who opposed that tooth and nail? Who are the people who even to-day are still opposed to Lenasia as a group area and a resettlement area for Indians? The United Party, that is who.

That does prove that we are right.

So much so that the Provincial Council had to pass legislation to force the City Council of Johannesburg to incorporate Lenasia with the municipality of Johannesburg.

They have been practising obstruction all along.

The hon. member says that five areas have been designated by the City Council of Johannesburg as alternative areas in which the Indians may settle themselves. I should like to ask the hon. member where those areas are, and if he does not know where they are, I shall tell him where. One of those areas is Fordsburg. If Fordsburg is to be designated a residential area for the Indians, the opportunity will be created for the financially strong Indian group to exploit the poorer Indian group. The hon. member knows as well as I do that land in Fordsburg is of the most expensive land one can find in that area. If accommodation for Indians is to be provided in Fordsburg, it will be of the most expensive accommodation, and you can imagine, Sir, what rents those people will have to pay. I ask myself whether they are able to pay those rents? The other area which they want to make available to the Indians is situated between Baragwanath and Crown Gardens. They wanted to push the Indians into that area, but, Mr. Chairman, that is the direction in which the residential areas of the White population in those southern areas will naturally develop. To-day we can already see what development is taking place in that triangle, in the area to the northeast of Uncle Charlie. Fine White residential areas have already been established in that area. I want to ask the hon. member whether the United Party is in favour of our establishing another Indian area right next door to that White area. Sir, this is an old issue.

But where must they go?

The Group Areas Board has rejected that suggestion on more than one occasion. Apart from these, there is no other area within the Johannesburg area, as far as I know—and I have had a great deal to do with these matters—where an alternative residential area can be established for the Indians. The only area which is suitable for the Indians is the Lenasia area.

It is unsuitable.

It is only unsuitable because the United Party puts ideas into the heads of the Indians and tell them that it is unsuitable. For the Bantu it is not too far to travel exactly the same distance every day by train from the furthermost south-westernly comer of Soweto to the central part of the city where they are employed. For the Bantu that is not too far; for the Bantu it is not unsuitable, but the Indians who have to travel the same distance and who have exactly the same transport facilities are told by the United Party that is too far to travel and that they have to oppose that.

Why do you not go and live there?

As regards the settlement of Indians in Lenasia, the position is not, like the hon. member tried to make out here to-day, that all of them will simply be thrown together in Lenasia. That is not so, and there is something wrong with the hon. member’s education if he says that is so. Lenasia is a large area. Lenasia is approximately 3,000 acres in extent, and throughout, from the outset, the settlement of the Indians in Lenasia has been undertaken according to their religious beliefs and according to their castes. I have been concerned in this matter right from the start. We have co-operated with the various religious groups and the various castes in settling them in Lenasia. I think the hon. member should improve his education somewhat and should ascertain what the real facts are. The hon. member should not state here that those people feel frustrated. Only a small group of the Indians feel frustrated, and I want to go as far as to say that feeling of frustration is prevailing amongst the wealthy class who lived on and exploited the poorer Indians. They used to be the slum landlords of Johannesburg and those areas; they are the people who feel frustrated. There are many thousands of Indians who are grateful to the Government and who are praising the Government for what it has done for them there. We request the United Party to use its influence with the Johannesburg City Council to get the City Council to co-operate with us in order to develop this area into a model area for these people.

I want to deal with a small point which effects my own constituency. Benoni is becoming the resettlement area of all the Indians on the East Rand. I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for what he is already doing for certain Indian population groups as far as their technical training is concerned. It has been decided by the Department and the Minister to establish a technical training school at Lenasia, and for that we are grateful. I think this is a step in the right direction. Indians should realize that there are other occupations apart from being dealers. They should start to qualify themselves technically so that they may be absorbed into the field of employment; and in view of the fact that we are now going to have a very large Indian population on the East Rand, in Benoni, I also want to make a plea that we should consider at some later stage the establishment of technical training facilities for that large community, so that they may be absorbed into the entire industrial complex of Benoni. A large field of employment is awaiting those people. At present we have the position that those people are infiltrating into the White commercial spheres, and that is happening as a result of the fact that we are not creating employment opportunities for them in the industrial areas, but also as a result of the fact that the people do not have the necessary training facilities, and I am pleading for the establishment of those training facilities.

The hon. member for South Coast raised the question of certain group areas being viable. I am sorry, that is not my Department, and however sympathetic I may be to the question of areas being proclaimed as group areas, I am sorry I cannot interfere in the affairs of two of my colleagues, the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Planning. The hon. member will have an opportunity of putting those questions to the Minister of Planning whose vote still has to come up. Then the hon. member asked a question with regard to the Indian Council. In that regard I can tell him that the present Indian Council is being dissolved next month, and immediately thereafter I will give consideration to the appointment of members to the new Council. I think it will be quite a job sorting it out.

Then the hon. member raised the question of the Indian penetration into Zululand. I can tell the hon. member that Zululand is not a proclaimed area for any particular race. It is a controlled area. Some time ago—I think last year—the Government appointed an interdepartmental committee to investigate the question of Asiatic traffic north of the Tugela. That report was submitted to the Minister of Planning. I have not seen it, but the report has been submitted and we will see whether any action can be taken. We are in agreement with the hon. member that there should be some definite control of the situation. Then the hon. member, in dealing with the question of the movement of Indians into Zululand, stated that the issuing of permits remained with the Provincial Administration. That may be so, but Zululand, of course, is not a province, and therefore as far as I am concerned as Minister of Indian Affairs, I do not deal with the question of the issue of permits for any movement to Zululand; I only deal with inter-provincial movements. Sir, the hon. member for Port Natal wanted to know when we were going to abolish this policy of interprovincial permits. I want to know from the hon. member for South Coast, who is the leader of the party in Natal, whether it is the policy of the United Party that we should abolish these inter-provincial permits, as advocated by the hon. member for Port Natal. I put the question to the United Party leader in Natal, whether he is in favour of the abolition of these inter-provincial permits?

Yes or no?

Will you sit down and let me answer you?

The hon. member will have a chance to speak again. I want to deal with the hon. member for Port Natal. I do not know whether the hon. member was here when the hon. member for Port Natal spoke.

I was not here, but I would like to answer you, but I can only do it with the leave of the Committee.

I have put a question to the hon. member and I am prepared to sit down if he wants to answer it.

Sir, our policy is quite clear. Zululand has nothing whatever to do with the generality of the provinces, and our policy is this, that insofar as the law allows the Indian population to be settled in group areas, which are established for the purpose, they should be permitted free movement from group area to group area, irrespective of the province in which it is.

I understand that, but that is not the point which was raised by the hon. member for Port Natal. Zululand is not a province. The hon. member for Port Natal asked the Minister whether he was in favour of abolishing the inter-provincial permit system. In other words, by that he indicated that he was in favour of its abolition, because he went on to refer to the great hardships Indians had to suffer in order to get permits to go from one province to another.

For travelling purposes, I said.

But for that too they have to get a permit. I understood the hon. member to ask the Minister whether he was in favour of abolishing the permit system…

I gave you the answer.

Well, I leave that to the committee to judge upon. But as far as the Government is concerned, we are not in favour of abolishing this system of travel permits. These permits are very easily issued— almost as a matter of routine—for Indians wanting to travel from one province to the other.

Then why have a system of permits at all?

Let me repeat my question: Is the United Party in favour of abolishing this permit system, or not?

But I have answered you. You may not like the answer, but I have given you the answer.

I think I should bring to the notice of the hon. member for Port Natal that the issuing of these permits has been the policy of all governments since 1913—therefore also the policy of United Party governments. As I have said, as far as we are concerned, no changes are contemplated in this system. The hon. member for Port Natal went on to put certain hypothetical questions to me, questions which I am not prepared to answer because, as I have said, they are hypothetical. He asked me, for instance, whether I would agree to a member of the Indian community being appointed to the Group Areas Board. But that has got nothing to do with me.

But you are the Minister of Indian Affairs, are you not?

I do not make appointments to the Group Areas Board. Consequently, the hon. member’s question is purely hypothetical. What is more, it has never been raised. The S.A. Indian Council has never intimated that they would like representation on that board. But if they do want such representation, the Indian community can ask that through their council; they need not ask the hon. member for Port Natal. The hon. member asked other questions about what I shall do if this or that happens. Well, I do not propose to do anything—these questions are purely hypothetical ones.

The hon. member also asked me about two Indian students who, with 10 others, obtained a diploma in public health at the Sultan College and who could not get jobs. Apparently the local authorities in Natal have refused to employ them. The Department of Indian Affairs has made representations to get these two students employment, but so far without success. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised the question of Lenasia, which I think has been answered very fully by the hon. member for Benoni.

It was no reply at all.

No, one of the troubles lies with the Johannesburg City Council. Now let me take the case of Laudium, just outside Pretoria. Laudium is a fully developed Indian township, and there are houses, roads and public amenities, and that has been achieved through the co-operation of the Pretoria City Council. The difficulty with Lenasia was, as the hon. member for Benoni explained, that Lenasia is not within the area of the Johannesburg Municipality.

Why did you start it there?

After it had been started, negotiations took place with the Johannesburg City Council and after years, the Johannesburg City Council has agreed in principle that it would incorporate Lenasia. Many of the troubles and difficulties that we experienced will be solved once the City Council takes over Lenasia. They have agreed in principle but they have done nothing so far. Now it is a problem. The three Ministers concerned went into this problem: The Minister of Community Development who is sitting here, the Minister of Planning and I. We spent the whole day in Lenasia, and there are all sorts of problems in regard to a second area in the Johannesburg Municipality. There is, for instance, the fact that there are certain vested rights which have been established in Lenasia. There is the local Consultative Indian Committee which functions in Lenasia. They are opposed to another area being set aside. They point to the fact that the Government has invested millions of rands in Lenasia, and that there are industrialists who invested money in Lenasia. It is not an easy problem. But I can tell the hon. member that representations have been made from time to time. They have been made again. It does not concern me directly, but I am always ready to intercede and to help which I have always done in the past. I regard it as my duty. If further representations are made, I am sure that my colleagues will consider them and, if they think it necessary, they will consult me. But it is a problem which primarily rests with the Minister of Planning and then with the Minister of Community Development. I must leave it at that. There is nothing more we can do at the moment. But I understand that the representations will be made, or are being made, and my colleagues will decide whether they will again consider the matter. I do not know. It is a matter for them to decide. I do not want to create any false impression or hopes but as far as I can see, this matter having been fully investigated we, the Government, is not prepared at this stage to investigate or to authorize the establishment of another Indian area within the Johannesburg Municipality.

I want to thank the hon. member for Rissik for the speech he made on Indian education. I am glad that the speech is on record, because it sets out clearly what we have done in regard to the Indian education, and the results of the examinations which, I think, is a very good picture.

As far as the hon. member for Karoo is concerned, I tell him the same as I have told the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. My services are available to the Indian community if they wish to make representations on certain aspects. They know that. I have taken deputations from the Indians to my collegaues and I have put their case as they saw it. I regard this as my duty and I will continue to do so. As regards the case the hon. member refers to, namely about a woman, I will make representations to the Minister concerned, if he can give me the particulars. I am just as concerned as he is and also wish to view these matters from a humanitarian point of view. I, in fact, do this.

As I have said, the hon. member for Benoni gave the hon. member for Bezuidenhout a complete reply. He speaks from first-hand knowledge.

I do not accept that reply at all.

Then you will have to try next year again. The hon. member for Benoni has first-hand knowledge of this problem and I accept his opinion. I now want to go on to the question asked by the hon. member for Benoni, namely that of a technical college for Indians in the Benoni district. He knows that we have made certain investigations, but there are all sorts of difficulties in regard to the site, buildings, and so on. The matter is, however, being considered. In the meantime we are now planning a technical college in Lenasia, which will take quite a number of pupils for technical training.

I think that I have now covered all the points that were raised. As I have said to the hon. member for Karoo, if he will give me the particulars about the woman, we will go into the matter. The other matters that he raised are, as he knows, matters concerning the Departments of Community Development and Planning, but certain petitions which have been sent to my colleagues have also been sent to me. They will be considered in due course and I am now speaking particularly about the petitions received from the Indians in Vryburg. I think that matter is still under consideration by the Department of Planning.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes 35,—Defence, R252,700,000, and 36,—Civil Defence, R1,100,000:

Mr. Chairman, I intend to deal with a number of general matters this evening, and then to return when the debate is resumed on Monday to certain aspects of administration. I think it is at this hour best to try to divide the issues which I intend to raise.

During the Part Appropriation and Budget debates we had a number of discussions, and subsequently also on the two Armaments Bills in regard to broad defence policy. We dealt in some detail with the Simonstown Agreement and the vacuum in the Indian ocean, and with the general strategic situation of South Africa in regard to Southern Africa, and the question of the procurement of arms. We also warned of the danger of having all one’s eggs in what may turn out to be a brittle or unstable basket. We dealt, in fact, with the broad picture of defence. We supported both the Armaments Board and the Armaments Corporation Bills. By now, therefore, it is absolutely clear where we as the Official Opposition stand in regard to defence and in regard to our support of measures deemed necessary in the defence of South Africa. There are one or two matters that have arisen since those debates which I think is necessary to refer to briefly in passing at this stage. The first matter is the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister recently when he stated that South Africa had to face the fact that we would defend our sea routes and our coastline alone. He referred, specifically, not just to the coastline, but to the sea routes around South Africa. He stated that South Africa would do this alone.

He said “if necessary”.

No, he said that we would have to do it alone and he added “en ons sal so maak”. I do not want to argue about the wording, however. The implication of this is a very far-reaching one. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to deal in further detail with that situation and to give us an explanation of the implications that flow from it. It is not even a matter for debate that with the facilities at our command, namely frigates, three submarines, and squadron of Buccaneers, we cannot hope to patrol some 3,000 miles of sea lanes in addition to defending our own coast against a major force. I therefore think that we are entitled to ask the hon. the Minister whether this means that we are now going to expand into bigger craft and even consider capital ships and what the intentions are in regard to providing, staffing and maintaining the force that would be needed to go it alone in regard to coastal defence. This is a very wide field and we believe that it is not yet to late to reach agreement with those who should be, and we hope will be—when they come to their senses—the allies of South Africa. I do not intend to take it further than to ask the hon. the Minister to elaborate on that aspect.

There was one other aspect which was raised, but on which there was no reply from the hon. the Minister in previous debates. This matter will be referred to by other hon. members and, therefore, I only want to deal with it as a heading. This matter is the appreciation of the military significance of Government policy in regard to the Bantu homelands and their movement towards independence. We believe that this has a military significance to South Africa. We asked the hon. the Minister to indicate the degree to which an appreciation had been made of the consequences and the implications to defence of the creation of Bantu areas with less and less white control over them which will lead to ultimate total independence. These are the only two matters of broader policy which I wish to raise at this stage.

I would now like to turn to certain aspects of the departmental vote as such. I am dividing the subjects and will leave over for later discussion the question of the national service programme and the Permanent Force aspects of defence. I want to say at this stage that we regard it as our duty to raise in this debate certain criticisms. We have before us a vote of R252 million of which some R43.78 million was surrendered unspent last year. This is a high percentage which seems to indicate a degree of lack of planning of expenditure which we realize concerns the hon. the Minister, but which also concerns us. We realize that steps are being taken to evolve a new system of budgeting but we are concerned by the fact that R43 million out of the R256 million last year was not spent. We are concerned too about certain aspects of the control of the stores and equipment which are being purchased with this money.

I should like to take this opportunity of expressing formally the appreciation of the Opposition Defence Group and the Opposition as a whole for the opportunity we had to visit various defence installations towards the end of last year. I believe that type of tour is an extremely valuable one from the Parliamentary point of view. When I raise matters which might appear to have originated from that tour I do so because they are matters which in any case concern us, matters which are generally known. One that concerns me very much is the millions of rands worth of equipment lying out in the open unprotected from the weather, rain, sun and wind. In many cases it is valuable equipment and in other cases highly specialized equipment. I want to mention the example of radio installed jeeps, which are delicate technical machines, but which stand in the sun weathering. In store after store one finds millions of rands worth of equipment and the layman finds it difficult to appreciate how it could be necessary not only to buy that equipment but also to utilize available cover while other valuable equipment stands outside unprotected. I refer for instance to a simple example—that of pick handles. Shelves and shelves of pick handles lay under cover in store. These are things which are available every day and manufactured locally in South Africa, something which is available at short notice at any time. These are bought in large quantities which cannot possibly be used in the normal course of operations. Yet other equipment stands outside unprotected. We believe that this question of the deterioration of stores is not receiving by any manner of means the attention it should be receiving. It is of vital concern that we should have essential equipment but when we think of what we are spending, I would like to be sure and have the Minister’s assurance that a very careful study is being made of exactly what is being bought and just how necessary it is. [Time expired].

Mr. Chairman, this is the first discussion on the Defence Vote since the system of general conscription for the medically fit age group concerned has come into operation. I have always felt very strongly about this matter and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his staff on the fact that they have succeeded, after many years of discussions on this aspect, in devising a system in terms of which everyone is called up for military training. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that this happened during his term of office and that the honour befell him to give this to the youth of South Africa.

I want to confine myself to an aspect which has become of special interest to me during the past few years, and particularly since last year. I am referring to the system of training of our young men who have attained the training age. I had the experience to see my eldest son off at Cape Town station on 9th January last year. On 27th September I went to meet him again when he returned as a young officer in charge of the train. This reminds me of a few years ago, of 1960, when an amendment to the Defence Act was discussed in this House. At that time I expressed my concern in this House as to what would happen in future under the Act, as amended, and as to what the prospects would be of our young men who were called up. I quoted the example of an officer whom I had seen at the opening of Parliament that year. At that time this officer was in charge of the Ysterplaat Air Force Station and 16 years prior to that, in 1944, he was serving in Italy with the same rank, namely the rank of colonel in charge of the 34th Liberator Squadron. I do not want to delve into the past, because it serves no purpose; let bygones be bygones. But the predecessor of the present Minister went to great pains to bring about a different spirit, a spirit of enthusiasm, of confidence and co-operation in our Defence Force. The particular officer whom I am speaking holds the rank of major-general to-day, and I am sorry to hear that he is not enjoying such good health at present because he is a soldier with a brilliant carer, apart from the fact that he himself was a crack pilot.

But I want to come back to the present. Last year our son underwent his training. I want to put it on record here that during the nine months for which he was away he never expressed one word of complaint in a telephone conversation—because he discussed very quickly, of course, that he could reverse the charges for his telephone calls—or in the letters we received from him or when I visited him in person. He enjoyed his training and he took it seriously and he never had anything but praise for the officers and the approach of the men who had ben put in command of them. I questioned him in order to find out what such training involved since he was one of the members of my own family. I asked him about the language question. He is in the fortunate position that he took both Afrikaans and English higher at school. He assured me that the two languages enjoyed full equality and that there was not the slightest sign of discrimination because one would speak, for example, English on one occasion and Afrikaans on another. I am glad about this. He also told me that while he was serving in a regiment at first and while attending a signals school later on, the trainees freely discussed political matters but that this did not play any role in the prospects a man had and that he was satisfied that promotion was granted purely on merit. He assured me that history was dealt with objectively when it cropped up in the lectures they attended in the course of their training. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister, his Department and the officers concerned on the fact that parents have no reason to worry when their children leave home to undergo military training. When a child leaves home, the parents always ask themselves: “Where is my child going to, what is his training going to be and to what dangers is he going to expose himself?”. I am satisfied, also from what I learned from other trainees who spent the year with my son during their training, that particular attention is given to and that nothing is overlooked in making things convenient for these boys, with the stern discipline that is essential, and that they are judged by their merits and aptitude and the training which suits them best I cannot but express my personal appreciation in respect of the officers I met last year. I am thinking particularly of Commandant Boshoff, now Colonel Boshoff, of the Signalling School, the officer in charge of the Eastern Province Commland, now Brigadier Van Deventer, and Commandant Patterson of the Sixth South African Infantry at Grahamstown. These men deserve our praise and appreciation. If this is the position as I found it to be in the Signalling Corps and later in the Sixth South African Infantry, I am confident that, with few exceptions, this will be the position throughout the force. I hope that this spirit of co-operation and this feeling of confidence which developed in our armed forces and which I found were inspired in these young boys who are called up, will prevail under the present Minister and that he will build on the foundations laid by his predecessor. It is a major issue for parents when their children leave home, particularly when they join large organizations in which accidents may occur. They should be confident that accidents will not occur as a result of negligence.

There is one question I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister. I know of a young boy who returned after he had completed his training. In the Army he was taught to drive certain vehicles and it was endorsed on his licence that he could drive 30 different types of vehicles. On returning home with his licence, he had to go through a complicated process to obtain his civil licence. He first had to go to the local traffic depot, where he had to pay 50 cents to pass a test. Thereafter he went to the Revenue offices where he had to pay more money after he had furnished two photos of himself. He returned for a road test to the traffic department, where he had to pay more money and thereafter he had to go back to the Revenue offices where he had to pay R3 for his driver’s licence. He had to comply with all these things after he had learned to drive all kinds of heavy vehicles in the Army.

Order! This matter falls under the hon. the Minister of Transport.

I want to advance a plea to the Minister.

The matter does not belong here.

I want to confine myself to the military licence. The boys do not pass a road test to obtain that licence. They write an examination which is much more comprehensive than the road test. I shall be glad if the Minister will do something about this anomaly because I feel it is unjust towards the boys to have to take all those steps to obtain a licence after they have been trained so well to drive vehicles in the Army. I feel something may be done about this matter, but I shall not suggest anything because I know, Mr. Chairman, you will rule me out or order.

I now want to refer to something which has been discussed on previous occasions, something which is not approved of in the Army, and that is the titles of the ranks of junior officers. The young man who receives his commission does not feel happy about the fact that he will be called an “asvel”, an assistant field-cornet. The next rank is that of field-cornet. This was the title given to a civil post which existed in the olden days. The justice of peace of the district was usually known as the field-cornet. He was the person who performed the work at present being performed by a justice of the peace, and even the commissioner of oaths was referred to as a field-cornet in those days. This rank never really met with approval in the Army.

You are talking nonsense now.

The hon. member says I am talking nonsense now, but I can assure him that since this post was used as a rank during the past number of years, it was never popular among the men in the Army. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one is quite baffled to find that during the discussion on this Vote the main speaker on the Opposition only gets up to complain because pick handles are being stored in stores, while there is allegedly no room for more valuable equipment. If this is the only complaint he can raise in regard to this Vote, South Africa’s defence matters are in very good order. The hon. member wants the pick handles to be left outside and the jeeps to be placed inside, but he must remember that one can most probably store a couple of thousand pick handles in the space taken up by one jeep. What is more, I do not believe there is one store in the Army to-day which is empty as a result of a shortage of equipment. Not only were the stores empty in the days of the United Party Government, but in addition the equipment of the Defence Force was negelected and mishandled recklessly. But to-day all the stores are filled with useful and strategic equipment and we are ready to defend our country effectively. As a result of that, and not as a result of maladministration or anything of that nature, our stores are filled to overflowing. It is as a result of our country’s preparedness in the military field that the stores are so full and that we do not have room to store everything. When the National Party took over in 1948, the Defence Force was in the process of disintegrating, because the United Party thought it was no longer necessary to be prepared.

In the short time at my disposal I just want to touch on one or two matters. In the times in which we are living, we are becoming aware of how necessary it is for us to be ready to defend South Africa at all times and at all costs. The people look up to the Government, to the Minister and to the Supreme Command to ensure their safety. It is, however, not only the responsibility of the Government, the Minister and the Supreme Command. Defence is the duty of all of us and it is in the interests of all of us that our country should be defended. It is in the interests of the individual, it is in the interests of the family, it is in the interests of the industrialist, of the farmer, of the town council and of the city council, that South Africa’s Defence Force should be one of the best. While the State has the duty and the responsibility to see to the basic training, the necessary equipment, the soldiers’ pay, etc., I, nevertheless want to say that it is the responsibility of the public at large to contribute to South Africa’s being ready for action and ready to defend itself.

I therefore want to say something about the attitude of our non-active citizens in regard to defence. I want to say something about the attitude of our population towards those liable for military service. In recent times many pleas have been made and a good deal has been said in regard to the way in which our hearts and homes should be open to our Defence Force men, and I want to associate myself with that. Firstly, I want to repeat with emphasis that our young men are in need of some contact with the outside civilian world during their training. Often the young men are far from their homes, far from their family. All of a sudden their home ties have been drastically cut off. Often they find themselves in strange surroundings. Do the members of the public, who in winter sit safely round the fireplace and enjoy its pleasant warmth, and who in summer walk around outside and enjoy our green scenery, know how those men long to do a bit of sight-seeing, to enter a home on occasion, to sit at a table and enjoy a plate of food and the company of a family?

But they are not on holiday.

The hon. member says they are not on holiday. I am not pleading for them to be treated as holiday-makers. But surely it will boost their morale if they can enjoy these things. It is interesting that the hon. member for Green Point says they are not on holiday. But this is not the attitude of the Capetonians as I see it reflected in their actions when warships visit South Africa. When the troop ships and warships of other countries visit us, the hearts and homes of the Capetonians are open to the troops and sailors from Britain, America and elsewhere. Therefore the hon. member’s interjection is an unappropriate one in the light of what I said. I want to tell him that I believe that if the Capetonians think a bit further and think of the sons of South Africa, they will also open their hearts and homes to the men at Yster-plaat, Wingfield and elsewhere in the vicinity.

Just as the men of other countries go to sea for a year or longer, our men also go away from their homes for a year and also long for a little homely hospitality. Therefore I want to plead to-day that we in South Africa should make a point of receiving our young men in our homes. We have been talking about this matter for quite a few years already, but so many people have not yet suited their actions to their words.

I want to discuss another matter now. Our Active Citizen Force units and especially our commandos are stationed mainly in areas which are identifiable with a district, a town or a city. I myself was attached to an Active Citizen Force unit and I know from personal experience that the Citizen Force, and the commandos much more so, have very great problems as far as proper accommodation is concerned. I am referring to the obtaining of a suitable building to serve as headquarters of the unit from which the unit’s administrative work can be done and which can serve as a meeting-point. Sometimes somebody’s private home has to be used for this purpose. In his study an extra cupboard has to be fitted in which the commando’s administrative documents are kept. It is a great sacrifice to that person and his family and sometimes heavy demands are made as regards, inter alia, the use of his private telephone. Sometimes he must make many calls in connection with the administration of his unit. Sometimes the unit’s meeting-place is a football field or a shooting-range where there are no facilities in the form of buildings.

I know that there has recently been a favourable reaction on the part of local authorities. However, I want to appeal to the local authorities to-night to give serious consideration to providing proper headquarters for units stationed in their towns or areas. It is impossible for the State to meet all these needs, because there are other priorities for which the money is required. Our local authorities and other local bodies must bear in mind that these units, and especially the commandos, are there for the very purpose of providing local defence. But not only local authorities must consider doing something in this regard. Other bodies can help as well. For example, what I have in mind is that a local authority can make the land available for the headquarters of a unit, while other bodies can provide the building material and the furniture. Women’s organizations and others can also be of assistance. Our industrialists can help too. As I say, what is involved here is the protection, the safety, the defence of all of us, and all of us are concerned in this matter. Not only the Minister, the Supreme Command, the Government, and the members of the commando are responsible for this.

I just want to touch on a last point. I am grateful that many local authorities are already making provision for their employees to be granted special paid leave to attend training camps or courses. But unfortunately all employers are not as co-operative as this. Many members of the Citizen Force and the commandos have to make use of their ordinary holiday leave to attend camps and courses in order to equip themselves better in the interests of the safety of all of us. I therefore want to express the hope and desire that all employers will make it possible for their employees to attend courses. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister the position of the Coloured community in relation to the country’s defence force. Before I do so, however, I wish to say to the hon. member who has just sat down that it is all very well to ask that trainees should be entertained during all the free time which they have when they are at these camps. I would prefer to see their social free time reduced so that they can get on with their training and then be sent back home where they belong. I do not think we should make too much fuss about their social life or lack of it.

What about the weekends and the evenings?

These are my views and I think the hon. member is off course.

The hon. member also referred in somewhat sarcastic terms to the speech of the hon. member for Point. Let me say quite frankly it is never the intention of this side of the House to have an acrimonious debate over defence matters. This is a subject which I think everybody treats with circumspection, because most people realize the necessity for an efficient defence force. But when one says that, one must remember there are also other people, who are anxious to participate in training schemes and the defence of the country. I refer now to the Cape Coloured Corps. I should like the Minister to know that the Coloured community will be disappointed to hear, what the Minister wrote to me, namely that no further Coloured camps will be established other than the one which exists at Eersterivier. I think this decision is a mistake. The Minister should apply his mind to the need and necessity to make the maximum use of the Coloured community in defence matters. It has always been the policy in this country, that the Coloured people should fill non-combatant positions. There is no need to change that at this stage. I think the Minister should begin to integrate these people in to the country’s defence system. I know the word “integrate” is not popular, on that side of the House, but it is the correct word to use in this connection. They should be integrated into the duties and occupations, which they could fill and would fill, if this country were unfortunately to become involved in an armed conflict. I remember how during the last war Coloured community, provided first-class soldiers, who did transport work in a capable and loyal manner, and who were first-class soldiers when they got up north. I want to ask the Minister whether he would not consider introducing a scheme whereby the Coloured men could take over these particular jobs.

I was one of those who toured the defence installations at Pretoria. I must say the treatment we received was very good indeed, for which I am very appreciative. We were able to see quite a number of things, and what that struck me most, was the many duties performed by young white man in the defence force, which could quite easily and successfully be done by Coloured youths and Coloured trainees. I believe the Minister could get a suitable type of Coloured recruit for this purpose, so that the white lads and men, could be released for duties which they consider they could do better than Coloured personnel. Naturally the Minister must make it attractive for these people to enter the forces. In this connection I wish to say I was very disappointed to hear in answer to a question that the Coloured P.F. members were not given any increases in 1966 and 1967, although all European men were given better salary grades and, scales and also pay increases. I do not know why the Government persists in discriminating between these scales, just because a man has a brown skin. Goods and commodities are just as expensive for the brown man as for the white one. He pays the same for a loaf of bread as his white fellow-countryman. It so often happens that white workers are given pay increases whilst the Coloured man is left entirely out of the picture. This applies to all fields of employment in this country. I want to ask the Minister whether he would not consider setting a good example by making the Coloured men’s pay scales more reasonable than they are at the moment.

I also wish to ask the Minister whether any decision has been arrived at regarding the requests, which came from the Coloured Legion of the B.E.S.L. They asked whether the White instructors at the Coloured depot here in the Cape would gradually be replaced by Coloured men, if and when available. Will he consider giving these people the same rank? The police were faced with the same problem. They courageously decided to create ranks for Coloured policemen and I think they will get good results. I therefore put it to this hon. the Minister that the time has come for him to do the same thing in regard to Coloured personnel in the P.F.

I also wish to ask the Minister whether it is correct that he is to establish a camp or a training centre for Indians on the same basis as that for the Coloureds. My information is that the Minister of Indian Affiairs, and I speak subject to correction, has indicated his intention of doing that. Apparently the Minister of Defence has not yet committed himself to this undertaking. I believe the Indian community will do just as good a job as the Coloured community has done, and will do, in future. We know that during the war the Indian and Malay Corps was a most useful unit and able to shoulder responsibility and share in the activities in which they were engaged.

The attitude of the Coloured people is that they see very little future for themselves in the country’s defence force. I have been told they are reluctant to join the armed forces as a career. Whether that be true or false, my information is that the salaries and wages paid to them, militate against them making the forces their career. I believe the nucleus of the Coloured Corps is so sound and solid that it could be extended to the advantage of the Coloured community in particular and of this country in general.

My final point is this. I wish to express my appreciation on behalf of the Coloured community for the change, which took place in the uniforms of the Cape Corps band. The change was a good thing and the community are very happy about it. The old uniform was a drab affair whilst the new one is much more attractive. I should like the Minister to know that, although we often criticize him, when improvements are effected for which the Minister should be given credit we are the first to admit he has done a good job.

Mr. Chairman, I have only a few minutes at my disposal, and I shall put my case as briefly as possible seeing that I shall not be here on Monday. Seventy years ago Voortrekkerhoogte was established, and in this time which is more or less equal to a person’s lifespan, it has developed and reached out over the whole of the Republic of South Africa. It has gained a position of respect, strength and love in the hearts of the whites of South Africa. Over this period of 70 years an excellent tradition has been built up, and if posterity were one day to erect a hall of fame or of victory, many of the faces which would be seen there would be those of people who had been at Vortrekkerhoogte, people who had been there during the 70 years of its growth during which time Voortrekkerhoogte had been training people for our nation.

As back-bencher I should have liked to touch upon a few other matters, for example our relationship with the rest of Africa, new forces which have developed and which may give us enormous, new military possibilities and arms, but seeing that the time is so short, I shall not go into those things any further.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order 23.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half hour? On Friday when my time expired, I was dealing with our concern about the millions of rands’ worth of equipment which was lying unprotected, open to wind and weather and resultant deterioration. I was pleading that urgent attention be given to the care, maintenance and protection of this equipment. I had also sought an assurance that the purchases which we were making in large quantities were all in fact essential and that we were not purchasing items which were easily available locally at short notice. I had used, purely as an example, one item, and the hon. member for Waterkloof reacted to it. I thought it would have been an item which he would have understood from the military history of groups in South Africa, namely the item of pick handles, but I will use other examples, if he wishes me to do so. Take the example of “draadknippers” which are there in large numbers. The hon. member might find that more in line with his appreciation of military armaments. Sir, I was dealing with things which are easily available in South Africa. But I do not want to take it further.

We have sought opportunities and machinery to deal with these things in forums other than this House; they have been denied us and therefore we have no choice but to raise these matters here across the floor. It is our duty to do so now, and I intend to raise certain matters regarding administration, many of which I believe could better be discussed in other forums, but as the circumstances are, we must deal with them here.

The first matter is that of the national service scheme which was introduced last year and has started operating for the first time this year. I accept that it is too early to judge the effect of the changes we made last year, but there are some issues which must be raised immediately. The first I wish to refer to is the “Guide to the Call-up” which has been issued by the Department and on which I would like to congratulate them. This is an excellent publication which, I believe, gives the basic information which is necessary. It is only right that I should draw attention to it and commend it to those who are about to become liable for military duty. A study of this publication gives them a clear picture of their rights, their choices, the fields in which they can apply to be taken up into the service and the machinery for selection. I hope that the selection boards this year will be able to function as is envisaged in this document. Last year, the hon. the Minister will be the first to admit, the selection boards did not function as they should have done. The Minister himself in the debate last year said that it was his objective to have on those boards members of the services and civilians aware of local conditions. I hope he can tell us that this year that will be done and that allocation will be made by aptitude and according to planned careers. Despite the intentions and the assurances, people are still being allocated to units quite unsuitable to their aptitudes and to their studies. I have come across a number of student doctors recently who have been called up for infantry training, in direct conflict with the policy of the Department. I think steps must be taken to prevent this fitting of square pegs into round holes. I hope, too, that consideration will be given to those who are apprentices and who in the Army can do apprenticeship training, which will be recognized as being part of their apprenticeship training in civilian life. It seems silly for a man who is being trained as a fitter to do nine months’ training as a fitter and then to go out into civilian life without receiving any credit for that training. I hope that we can have some sort of consultation which will allow at least some of the military training to be placed to the credit of these trainees. I hope, too, that the Minister will give consideration to our suggestion from this side last year that university units be established to cover such subjects as engineering, signalling, the specialist sciences, so that people at a university taking specialist courses can in fact make use of their training in fields of value to the Army.

Now I want to refer to the call-up. The hon. the Minister in reply to questions stated that he had called up 22,460 servicemen for the Citizen Force and 10,062 for the commandos. I suggest that the Defence Force has not got the facilities to deal with those numbers, and that the facilities are being strained beyond what is available in the way of resources, buildings, equipment and instructors. I call as my witness no less a person than the hon. the Minister himself, who a year ago said that it was his intention to call up no more than 17,000 for the Citizen Force and 7,000 for the commandos. I have the reference from Hansard here, but I do not want to bore the House with details. These, however, are the figures the Minister himself gave. In point of fact, he has called up 22,500, some 5,500 more for the Citizen Force than he himself last year said was the figure for which facilities were available. He has called up 3,000 more for the commandos than he himself said the forces were able to handle. The numbers are there, but the fact is that the facilities are not there to handle them, and in many of the camps the facilities are being stretched to breaking point. I believe we cannot afford today to waste our young men’s time and efforts unless we are able to use that time effectively. I hope the hon. the Minister can tell the House to-day that he has taken steps to ensure that the shortfall in facilities, weapons and training instructors will not continue and that those steps are proving successful. We cannot afford to have men called up to spend their time in idleness. I accept immediately there have been improvements, but they have not been able to cope with the task which has been placed upon the department. We should like to see that all men called up can be handled properly, effectively and in the interests of the defence of South Africa.

Against this background of already having too many trainees I want to raise a matter which we raised last year. At the time we received what we understood was an assurance from the Minister. I am referring to the pre-August, 1967, ballotees. I raised the matter here myself and I think all of us gathered, that those men who had completed their full-time training for which they were liable, that is the men who did nine months continuous training and then two camps thereafter, would not have the new Act applied to them. But the Act technically lays down that those on the strength of units as at August last year would fall under the new Act. We have a surplus of men, and although technically in terms of the Act those who were still on unit strength are liable to do an extra 26-days camp, the spirit in which we discussed this matter last year here, and I believe in the Select Committee too, was that those who had completed their full-time requirements would be regarded as having completed their liability. I ask the Minister, where he has got a surplus of men, not to apply retrospectively an additional six years’ liability and an additional camp to those who have done all they were asked to do in the way of full-time training at the time they were called up. Those young men, having completed their full-time training as they thought, have planned their lives. They have planned to travel, they have planned to study, they have planned their lives ahead. They have done what they were asked to do by the legislature of South Africa. I ask the Minister to reconsider this and to call up new national servicemen, but not to apply the new provisions retrospectively to those who were still on unit strength but had no further liability for full-time training.

Then there is the question of payment. Last year the Minister gave a clear undertaking to the House. He promised that the question of the 26-day and the 12-day camps would be considered very sympathetically and, although he could make no commitments, he hoped to be able to announce an improvement. Since then we have had an improvement in regard to dependants’ allowances. That we welcomed; that had been long overdue. In fact, I had been writing to the Minister and his predecessor since 1963 about it. But now I ask that the 26-day and 12-day camps be placed on the permanent force pay scales and that the Minister institute an inquiry into the hardships caused to those whose civilian pay is not made up. By the time these lads get to their third camp they are 24, 25, and even 28 years of age. They have families and responsibilities. They have hire purchase payments to make as well as rent, electricity and water accounts. They had responsibilities to meet. I feel that an urgent inquiry is called for to try to level out the hardship which is being demanded of our youth. Some are receiving full pay from their employers and in some Government departments the difference is made up. I hope that the hon. the Minister can tell us that he is prepared to go into this matter and that he will give us some assurance that a very careful inquiry will be conducted into this situation.

As regards the training itself, it is again a little early to judge. I should, however, like to refer to one or two matters which I believe require immediate attention. On Friday the hon. member for Outeniqua referred to bilingualism in the armed forces. I regret to say that my information is that whilst in the Air Force and the Navy strict and scrupulous attention is paid to bilingualism, in certain Army camps this is not the case. Trainees go through their training virtually in a unilingual camp. I believe that this is something which is not the intention of the department. It is not in the normal spirit of the department. I have, however, heard this from a number of trainees and I believe that this is something which requires attention.

Then there is the question of motivation lectures. I think it is important that I should quote an extract from a letter I received in regard to quite another matter from a serviceman. He said the following—

This, therefore, is not a liberal or a crank, nor a person who is writing to complain, but a person saying how proud he is. I think it is a pity that this sort of thing should be possible in our forces. I want to make an appeal that the supervision by officers or these lectures and of training be intensified. I believe that too much is left in the hands of the N.C.O.s.

Having spoken on Friday I have to restrict my time now, but I should like to refer to one or two other matters in the Permanent Force. I want to say immediately that I believe that South Africa is fortunate in having so many outstanding leaders in our Defence Force. The morale of our leadership corps has been rebuilt and I believe it stands at a very high level. It is therefore more the pity, and I am sorry to have to raise this matter, that two recent appointments have shaken that spirit. They have been regarded—and whether it is right or wrong is not the question—as political appointments. [Interjections.] Hon. members can complain but it is my duty to raise these matters. Two appointments were made. In one case 18 officers were superseded. There was meteoric promotion of someone who had spent only a year or 15 months in some particular post. These are facts and I say as a fact that these two promotions have created resentment throughout the force— right through to the lower ranks. People have said that if that can happen at the top it can happen to us here lower down.

Nonsense!

Hon. members can say that I am talking nonsense but this is a fact. I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to shake the spirit which has been built up amongst our leadership corps by making appointments which lead to criticism of this nature and to a suspicion which I believe has been absent in the Defence Force in the past three or four years. I think that it is only our duty that we should raise this matter here.

The Permanent Force is suffering, as it has done for years, from a critical shortage of manpower. I believe that one of the things the Minister should do, is to reconsider the question of a Discharge Board, to try to get to the root of the reasons for people leaving the service. Last year eight graduates in one particular arm of the service, who had graduated at the end of 1966, started their careers in the forces. Within 15 months every one of those university graduates had left. In the Air Force we do not have the pilots to take all our planes up. We have not sufficient for our minimum needs, as we see it in the case of an emergency. This is due to people resigning from the forces. I asked questions. I do not have time to deal with the detail here. They are trained at tremendous cost. The estimate in one case is R500,000. And then they leave the forces to take up civilian occupations. I believe that apart from mere pay, the conditions of service must be considered. Housing will be dealt with by another member. That must be reconsidered. The whole question of recruitment must be considered. I believe that there are many grounds for improvement. Again I do not have time to quote them, but I know of one lad who actually went to sign up with the Navy. He went along with the intention of signing up. But through inability to get information, he left and he has now joined the Police Force, a man who wanted to join a specialist branch of the Navy. I believe the whole psychological approach to recruitment needs a radical consideration and review. I believe too that even those who have left— the Minister knows of a case I took up with him of a technical officer—often suffer from personality clashes. But I want to raise one case which I think is ridiculous enough to deserve attention. That is that an officer on the Reserve, who wanted to go back to the Permanent Force but who was refused, and who is now lecturing at a technical high school. He was needed for the cadet detachment of that high school. He applied in March of last year. In October the regulations were changed, and he re-applied. In April this year he was turned down as a cadet officer, because he was on the reserve of officers. Why on earth, when we are shouting for people to help us build up the force, does that sort of thing happen? There are other cases of people who are not being used when they could be used. There is lack of planning. I hope our intelligence forces are more subtle than our security section. The man wanting to join up is asked the following questions: “Have you ever belonged to a Communist party?” now what man who is joining the army is going to say “yes”? Other questions are: “If yes, give details. What are your views regarding Communism? Have you at any time belonged to any other organization?” There seems to be a paper phobia. What is the point in filling in a form with this sort of ridiculous question. What Communist is going to give that sort of information by filling in a form and signing his name? “Have you ever undergone psychiatric treatment? What is your religion?” Whose business is it what a person’s religion is when he is being screened for security?

And so it carries on. There are many administrative issues which also require attention. There are many details of administration which I believe could be streamlined. If this were done, then I believe that some of the top-heaviness in administration could be diverted to the training of our nationa servicemen. That could provide some of the facilities which are necessary in order to handle the number which must be handled. I can give other details, but I will only give one detail of lack of planning. I do this again, because I do not have an option. A beautiful, highly technical installation was established at a cost of millions of rands. Now that it is completed a hole is being dug to bury it underground. This lack of planning costs thousands of rands. There is no reason for spending money in this manner. If a secret installation is planned, surely it is known whether it should be built above the ground or underground? This is the sort of thing that cannot be thrown across the floor of the House in detail. It is, however, our duty to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister and of this Parliament, which is responsible for voting the R252 million which is asked of us this year. Finally, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to answer a question I have asked year after year. When is the Salisbury Island naval base going to be established in Durban and when is the Natal Command going to be moved? The whaling people have moved out of Salisbury Island and I feel that part of the overall plan requires the implementation of these two moves which have been on the board for so long.

Mr. Chairman, I regret to say it, but when defence matters are discussed the hon. member for Durban (Point) apparently cannot resist speaking in the vein in which he spoke during the latter part of his speech. Older members of this House will remember the days when the United Party distinguished itself in defence debates through a previous hon. member for Simonstown. At that time the most terrible stories were told in this House about the Defence Force. That hon. member regarded this House as the place to say such things to the detriment of our Defence Force and our country. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) this afternoon that he is well on the way to equalling and upholding that very same tradition.

What do you require of us? Do you want us to shut up and thank the hon. the Minister?

The hon. member has been a member of this House for many years now. Before that he was also a member of the Other Place and he therefore knows what Parliament is there for. I refuse to believe that Parliament is there for the purpose of holding such discussions on this level. The people expect us to hold discussions of a high standard, particularly when a matter such as Defence is being discussed. The hon. member should not refer in this House to two officers and suggest that they undermined the morale of the Defence Force as a result of their promotion. Why did the hon. member not mention their names? One of the officers to whom he referred this afternoon is present here now. The hon. member alleged that this officer was promoted over the heads of 17 or 18 other officers. Is it not a fact that officer was promoted on merit and not for political reasons as the hon. member alleged? I want to tell him that he may ask any responsible person in the Defence Force whether there is any doubt in his mind as to the merits and capabilities of those two officers. The hon. member will not find one single person. What the hon. member said here this afternoon is a disgrace. The same applies to the suggestion he made that justice was not being done to bilingualism in the Defence Force under this Government. Is the memory of the hon. member so short? Should we tell him what happened in the days, 20 years ago, when his Party was in power? At that time the Defence Force was an extension of the British Defence Force and its information service was an extension of the propaganda machine of the United Party. If the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants to discuss defence matters in this vein, he will be paid back in his own coin. I want to warn the hon. member that he should not follow the course which was followed by a previous hon. member for Simonstown, because then his Party will deteriorate even further.

In contrast with what was said by the hon. member, I want to say that our country to-day feels proud of our Defence Force, of the people who are in charge of it and of what it means to our country. Something that particularly strikes me as far as our Defence Force is concerned, especially under the present circumstances, is the exceptional adaptability which it has displayed. This adaptability enables our Defence Force to cope with the threat with which we are faced and which confronts us in various forms. The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to the system of compulsory military service and expressed doubts about the operation of this system. I feel myself quite at liberty to say to-day that though the system of compulsory military service has been in operation or only a few months now, so that the real test will only be applied in a year’s time, this system has not only eliminated a large number of anomalies, but has also helped to bring about a new approach towards the Defence Force among our population as a whole. I want to say a few words about this aspect this afternoon. The Defence Force should not be divorced from our people, but should form part of the people, because we are in fact building up a national defence force. I therefore want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Waterkloof and that is that local communities and authorities must do their share in providing facilities for our various Defence Force units. Our local communities must do their share in looking after our young men who sacrifice the best years of their lives for the defence of our country. Aslo in communities where local headquarters are situated, one sees an opportunity for the local authority and the community concerned to contribute financially in order to support such local headquarters, which are very often the joint headquarters of more than one unit. I can foresee that it will become necessary to provide headquarters for four different units, together with the commando, in my own constituency. I want to plead that the local communities should realize their duty in this respect and should make a contribution towards the provision of such facilities.

I have already said that our Defence Force is adaptable. The best proof of its adaptabilityI myself saw last year when various Citizen Force regiments arranged their training camps and carried out their manoeuvres in this area instead of going to their usual training bases. These manoeuvres proved that it was necessary for Defence units to get to know their own areas, and that it was possible for them to do so. It is a sound practice for units always to go to the same training camps which have the necessary facilities, but it is equally necessary for Defence Force units to be properly acquainted with their own areas. In this connection it is, of course, particularly our comandos which distinguish themselves as regards knowing their own areas. I know of a regiment which carried out manoeuvres in the immediate vicinity of the Western Cape, with one of the local commandos playing the part of the enemy. This regiment could not succeed in tracking down the commando, which acted as terrorists, by reason of the fact that the latter knew the terrain so well. We are dealing here once again with the adaptability of the Defence Force. The Defence Force did what the police are already doing, i.e. to make use of dogs. The so-called enemy was tracked down very quickly iby means of these dogs. This is proof of the fact that there is a great element of adaptability in our Defence Force and that it will not always train its members by means of conventional methods alone, but that it will train its members to enable them to act in such a manner that they can cope with the threats which exist to-day. For that reason one is glad to learn that our Defence Force is considering the possibility of developing this adaptability even further, and to re-introduce mounted units in some of our rural commandos and to give the horse its rightful place again in the Defence Force. I believe it is being contemplated to establish a cavalry school at the Military Academy. Mr. Chairman, this tradition is not only a fine one in our Defence Force, but I believe that the horse, particularly in our commandos, can play an important part in certain rural areas in order to enable those commandos to carry out their tasks properly. But I want to go further and I want to say that it will be useful for any member of the Defence Force, even if he is a Mirage pilot, to know the fundamental principles as far as handling a horse is concerned. It is the idea that some of our urban commandos may perhaps be equipped with motor cycles, that they will be motorized, and one also welcomes this idea, because it takes into account the requirements of the commandos in the particular task they have to fulfil in the urban areas. In the Other Place the hon. the Minister referred to the future division of commandos into rural and urban and also industrial commandos. The main task of the latter will be to protect large industrial areas. In this connection I should like to point out that under our new system of compulsory military service, there is another category of commandos to which particular attention will have to be given, namely the commandos which will act in the immediate vicinity of university centres. It so happens that a large number of prospective students who want to go to university immediately after they have left school receive their training in these commandos and are then assigned to the local commandos. It requires no imagination to see that the commandos in the immediate vicinity of university centres will have to carry a very large number of student members in future, students who will not remain members of those commandos for many years either [Time expired.]

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Stellenbosch became so upset because my colleague had expressed some criticism. Does he expect all of us to sit here and do nothing but talk about the achievements of the Defence Force? We have candidly admitted that there has been a very great improvement, but this does not mean that all of us have to talk only about that all the time. I just want to remind the hon. member of the days when his party sat on this side of the House. Just consider how the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. the Minister of Defence carried on in this House in those days, during the war years. They expressed criticism in season and cut of season; sometimes they were right and sometimes they were wrong. But it was their right to criticize. The hon. member should therefore not become so annoyed when we express criticism.

Sir, there are a few matters I should like to discuss with the Minister in the few minutes at my disposal. The first concerns a point which has already been touched upon by the hon. member for Durban (Point) and that is the serious shortage of staff in the Permanent Force. Since I have been a member of this House we have drawn attention to this enormous staff shortage year after year. It seems to us as if the position is not really improving at all. The figures I received from the hon. the Minister at the beginning of this year indicated that at that time there was a shortage of plus-minus 20 per cent as regards officers in the Permanent Force and more than 33 per cent in the case of non-commissioned officers and other ranks. This shortage is continuing, in spite of the thorough and intensive training provided throughout the year. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us whether he can foresee any improvement in the future. Are there any new plans his Department is contemplating in order to improve this position? We cannot get away from the fact that the Permanent Force is the cornerstone of the whole of the Defence Force.

This brings me to the following point, which was mentioned by my colleague, namely the safe-keeping and the maintenance of the large number of vehicles and other equipment we have bought in the past. I am convinced that the serious staff shortage in the Permanent Force is one of the reasons why this equipment cannot be maintained properly. In many cases these vehicles and specialized equipment stand out in the open. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think the time has come for the greater part of that equipment to be brought under cover and not be concentrated in one place.

While discussing this matter, I am thinking at the same time of the large fuel depots which have been erected at various places in the country. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister’s Department is responsible for them, but these depots are most definitely of great strategic importance, and I think this is a matter which does concern his Department to a large extent. I am thinking, for example, of the oil depot at the Milnerton complex not far from here. It forms an ideal target for a bomber, because it is there for all to see. It can be reached not only from the air, but also from the sea. Was the Minister’s Department consulted when these depots were built? Can they not be dispersed over a larger area? It seems to me to be quite wrong to put so many eggs in one basket. I am only mentioning this one case near by; there are other places in our country where you have the same position.

There is another minor matter I should like to raise, a matter which the hon. member for Durban (Point) also touched upon, and that is the question of the payment of the members of our Citizen Force when they are sent away to the training camps for 26 days and 12 days. We find that in many cases these people are in fact paid by their employers for the period during which they undergo military training, but there are other cases where they are not paid anything by their employers. This question does not necessarily affect the men this year or next year, but it will definitely affect them as they become older and as their obligations increase. I want to make a very strong plea that the hon. the Minister should go into this matter to see whether some method cannot be found to meet these men.

Another point I feel very strongly about is the designations given to certain ranks in our Defence Force. I am thinking here of the rank of field-cornet, the rank of commandant and the rank of combat-general. I think we all agree that these designations are not very popular in the Defence Force. These designations of rank are simply not gaining acceptance. We introduced the rank of field-cornet a number of years ago: this rank dates back to the old Republican days, but it is not and has never been a military rank.

Of course it was.

Before the Boer War a field-comet was somebody who was in charge of a ward. A field-cornet was a sort of justice of the peace; he was a sort of liaison officer between the public and the government. It was only when the war broke out that these people assumed a military rank. I feel that we should rather abolish this rank and revert to the rank of lieutenant, which is a more suitable one. The rank of “commandant” is quite wrong. “Commandant” is not a rank and has never been one. A commandant is the officer in command of any place or institution, and any person with any rank can be a commandant. You could get a commandant of a college, a commandant of a camp and a commandant of a base. It can be a person of any rank. I want to ask the Minister to go into this matter to see whether we cannot revert to the old rank of lieutenant-colonel. If we change those two ranks, we shall bring the position into line with that of the other Western nations with.whom we shall have to join forces in time of war.

The third rank is that of combat-general. I do not think this is a suitable designation. The rank of combat-general is also one which originated in the Anglo-Boer War when the commandant-general appointed men to lead the burghers in the field. These combat-generals actually took part in the combat. But very few of our combat-generals will still take part in actual combat to-day. All of them fall outside those spheres, and we would do well to abolish this rank and to revert to the rank of major-general. We have the ridiculous position to-day that a combat-general is in charge of Civil Defence. Surely his duties do not include actual combat. There are very few combat-generals in the Air Force who will be called upon to do combat duty. I hope the Minister will consider this question of reverting to the old designations of these ranks.

In the few moments left to me I want to say a few words about the Department of Civil Defence. We are here concerned with a matter which affects all of us, and it is no good the people in charge and their staff doing their utmost if the public as such is not interested and does not do its share, because then Civil Defence cannot be a success. The success of Civil Defence depends entirely on the public. [Time expired.]

I have heard that the introduction of awards of honour and decorations is being investigated in South Africa. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that when a suitable occasion arises, he should have the hon. member for Durban (Point) decorated, and I want to suggest that he should choose as an emblem for that hon. member crossed pick handles and a bicycle chain, because I think that will be most apt. I have said this on a previous occasion and I have not yet had any reason to change my opinion. I do not want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for North Rand. Other hon. members on my side of the House will reply to that. But I want to deal with a few points raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point), inter alia, the question of bilingualism in the Naw and the Air Force and the lack thereof in the Army. Sir, it is just the other way round, and only now are things coming right gradually. We are still stuck with a unilingual Navy and Air Force because of their traditional background. We have a number of people in those arms of the Defence Force who can even now hardly speak any Afrikaans, and he talks to them and I talk to them and he knows to whom I am referring. There are people in positions of command who are not sufficiently bilingual to be able to speak proper Afrikaans, but now he is complaining about bilingualism in the Army.

And others cannot speak proper English.

The Army is the one unit of our forces which has achieved the degree of bilingualism which we should like to have, and in the other two arms of the Defence Force our problems are considerably bigger; we are still engaged in introducing bilingualism into those two arms. The hon. member referred to the political appointment of senior officers in the Defence Force.

Why was he not more specific? About what appointment was he complaining? Why does he, without being more specific, repeat malicious gossip here? Does he perhaps have any objection to the appointment of the chief of the Joint Combat Forces, which is a very high rank, that of lieutenant-general? This is an appointment which was made recently. Does he have any objection to that? Another very important appointment was made in the Defence Force, an extremely important appointment. We had the appointment of the Chief of Defence Staff, a very senior post, which a lieutenant-general occupies at the moment. Does he have any objection to or misgivings about this appointment? Against whom are his accusations? And the public outside who read this malicious gossip, about whom are they to have their misgivings after the hon. member has fired his blank cartridge here? It is worthless. If he wants to make objections about some officer, he should discuss the merits of that officer here and should say on what grounds he is objecting, but it is worthless to make these farcical accusations. He is only wasting the time of the Committee with those accusations.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also referred to the lack of training facilities. He himself served in a Select Committe on which evidence of a confidential nature was led and lull particulars were given to that Select Committee. He himself had all those facts when we passed legislation here last year and the hon. member supported that legislation in this House. He had all the evidence of the officers concerned. What is his objection now? Why does he raise objections now after the hon. the Minister has announced the intake of ballotees? No, he should not think that he will get away with that. There are other people who also have some knowledge about what is happening in the Defence Force.

I want to come to three other matters which are of importance to us in South Africa. There have been three recent occurrences in the world which are of the utmost importance to the Republic of South Africa. Firstly, the flame of anarchy has flashed over Europe, and this is going to have implications for us in South Africa. I hope that our Defence Force will at the earliest possible opportunity make a full evaluation of the implications which that is going to. have for South Africa. Secondly, the world has come to a new realization of the value of South Africa, and to an increasing extent South Africa is being looked to as a bastion of white civilization in the world. The other day I met an American who is still corresponding with me, and he says that there are thousands of Americans who want to come here as immigrants. It is the task of our Defence Force to maintain South Africa in that position and as the attraction which it is to those people at the present time in order that state of affairs will not change. However, peace negotiations on Vietnam are in progress. The outcome of those negotiations seems to be that the U.S.A, is going to try for a peace settlement whereby they will emerge from that war retaining the highest degree of self-respect. That will mean that the entire South Eastern Asia is going to come under Chinese influence, and that makes us a first line of defence here on the edge of the Indian Ocean. This will mean that South Africa will have to obtain arms immediately if it wants to act as that line of first defence.

And now I think it should be stated very clearly here so that the West may realize this once and for all, that we simply cannot continue to be a first line of defence for them if they do not want to place the means at our disposal: and secondly, they should not simply count on us if their attitude towards us does not change. Then we will be committed merely to our own defence, and then we no longer are a wheel in the defence of the West. Because this is so, I should like to advocate that we should start cultivating the idea of a South Atlantic Treaty Organization, that we look for allies who have common strategic problems, and that we also look for those allies in the Indian Ocean where Australia and New Zealand are going to find themselves in the front line against the communists and the East, and let us cover those strategic areas for ourselves.

In the few minutes which I still have at my disposal I should like to discuss a few other matters which are more directly concerned with the organisation of our Defence Force. The most important of these is an independent service commission for our forces. I have advocated this matter before and you will find that in the 1964 Hansard, Col. 7231, and the arguments which I advanced at that time are equally valid to-day. We are comparing things to each other which cannot be compared. We are equating posts in the Defence Force to civil posts, by means of the determinations of the Public Service Commission, and this is a state of affairs which simply cannot continue. If we continue that process, we will be undermining the organisation of the Defence Force. I want to make a strong plea to the hon. the Minister to emphasize this matter very strongly once again on the committee of the Cabinet which is concerned in this matter. I just want to mention a few examples. Let us take a commander in the Navy who is at times absent from his home for a month or five weeks because he is serving on the ships. When he is back his hours of service are such that he spends very little time at home. We cannot compare him to someone who occupies a comparable post in the Public Service, for example a public servant in Pretoria who works a five-day week and who is at home with his family fairly early every day. I say this in all fairness to those people who are also rendering services.

There are numerous other posts, and I want to mention only one. Let us take the case of the pilot of a Buccaneer aircraft to-day. He is solely responsible, with his own skill, experience and efficiency, for equipment worth millions of rand while he is in the air. While the man may perhaps have the rank of a lieutenant, surely he cannot be placed on the same level as someone occupying a comparable post according to the present norms in the Public Service. This is the most unfair thing we can do.

I want to touch on a final point and that is the operational use of our commandos. In the first place I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the success which he has achieved with his military school for commandos. Here we have an organization which is going to build up a tradition of its own for us in the commandos. The temptation is very great in view of the large intake of ballotees to try to make a second citizen force of our commando units. Their task and their object must be very sharply defined. In the first place the emphasis in the commandos should fall on the training of the individual. We must make the commando a unit which can be mobilized immediately at the shortest possible notice, because in the event of trouble they have to occupy the first line of defence until such time as our regular forces can take over. Then their function changes to that of covering certain territories, and they are made responsible for communications, the defence of strategic points, etc. Now I am not thinking only of guards for bridges such as we had in the past.

Also on the part of the commandos there must be the closest liaison with civil defence. The commando actually is the unit which has to take upon itself the full implications of civil defence. Specific recommendations in regard to these matters will probably come from this side of the House. In the commandos we have a powerful weapon in South Africa and if we use them correctly and ensure that they will be used correctly operationally, then we have one of the best means of defence at our disposal. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this year a very large amount is being voted for Defence, i.e. R252,700,000, and this is the largest single Vote which this Committee has considered or will consider. In addition to this there is Vote No. 36—Civil Defence—of R1,100,000. In consequence of this we may therefore say with the highest degree of confidence that this Government is in earnest about placing the defence of this country on a very sound basis. I want to address a special word of thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister who is not only trying to make the Defence Force as streamlined as possible by co-ordinating it in such a way that the different arms and units of the Defence Force will be as effective as possible in the protection of our country, but who is also taking the initiative in awakening interest amongst the public in the defence of our country. Various things are being done in this connection. The commandos have been placed on a more effective basis and there is closer liaison between civil defence and defence as such because civil defence has now been placed under the supreme command of the Defence Force.

I want to make a special appeal to the employers of members of commandos who have to make use of their leave to undergo their training, to be accommodating towards such members as regards the matter of giving them leave I want to address a special word of appreciation to the wives of these men. We often speak of the sacrifices which men have to make for the sake of such matters, but we overlook the wives of those men. Many wives can never go anywhere on a short holiday as their husbands time and again have to use their leave for Defence Force purposes.

I should like to say a few words in regard to civil defence. This is one of the most important subdivisions of our defence. I want to address a word of thanks and tribute to the retired director, Mr. Van der Walt, for the excellent work and the spade-work which he did. At the same time I want to congratulate Combat-General Pierre Retief on his appointment as Chief of Civil Defence. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for this appointment. In spite of the stories the United Party has been spreading lately, we can rest assured that this appointment has been made purely on merit. We shall still reap the fruits of this appointment. We shall see to what extent civil defence is going to be developed.

There is a problem as regards civil defence, and that is the reluctance of the public to co-operate. In the target areas there are many people who do not present themselves for the free training offered in fire-fighting, first aid and civil defence in general. Over-confidence is the natural enemy of vigilance. This training should be extended so as to include other emergency services as well, but when the public is reluctant to undergo this training, it is very difficult to make any progress. I am afraid that many people adopt the attitude that it is the task of the other man to protect them too and to provide this service for them. This service has a voluntary basis and I should like to see it remain so. I want to make an appeal to the Minister, however, that if it should become necessary for him to act in terms of section 9 of Act 39 of 1966, the Civil Defence Act, which provides that this training and service may be made compulsory, he should not hesitate to do so. Before this legislation was introduced in this House, I asked the present Prime Minister whether he intended making the training compulsory. His reply was, “Optionally compulsory”. These words have a much deeper meaning than that which becomes evident at first glance. In other words, it is for the public to realize that they have certain responsibilities in connectiin with civil defence. The State, the Minister and the three arms of the Defence Force are not the only ones who are responsible for civil defence. Every citizen of this country should do his or her share. If it should appear that the public does not show sufficient interest in these training schemes, the Minister would have to give consideration to making this training compulsory.

Now I also want to say a few words about the women’s corps who applied to do military service. I am pleased to learn that such a large number of women are interested in this kind of training. It would be a very good thing if this women’s corps can also receive training in first aid and other facets of civil defence. Thereafter they will be able to train members of the public who join the units concerned.

In conclusion I want to address a word of appreciation to the Oosmoot High School in Pretoria for the establishment of a cadet platoon for girls. Even their uniform is something to be proud of. I hope that more schools will see their way clear to establish cadet platoons for girls.

Mr. Chairman, before I make the brief remarks I wish to make, I want to touch on one matter to which each of the previous speakers have referred. Firstly, as far as the hon. member for Hercules is concerned, the criticism that the hon. member for Durban (Point) made concerned two officers about whom a question was asked in this House during this Session. As far as the hon. member for Middelburg is concerned, he returned to the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Point) on bilingualism. The hon. member for Durban (Point) had criticized certain aspects of bilingualism in the Army. I personally have not really obtained sufficient evidence by any means to make a full statement on this topic. I have only had contact with quite a large number of trainees and such persons and the impression I get is that certainly in the Army there is a tendency— I will not state it any more definitely at this stage—for the languages not to be treated completely equally in the instruction of trainees. I do not wish to take the matter any further. As the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said, we believe that it is the intention of the department to avoid that. I believe that there is no need to take the matter any further at this stage.

This is the first opportunity I have had since we were the guests of the department last November, to express my appreciation for having been invited to visit the various defence installations and the Air Force units. I should like also to express appreciation for the very fine reception we had. Not only of course did we enjoy hospitality, but we often enjoyed it at the inconvenience of the units concerned. I know that I speak for every one on this side when I say how much we valued that. A very pleasant aspect—and doubtless all these things were in the minds of our hosts, the hon. the Minister and the department—was that we should come into contact with the men of the Force. I am very happy to say that I was uniformly impressed by their dedication to duty and by the quality of the men and their command of their subjects. One was very glad also to inform oneself about the various installations, the living conditions of the trainees. I should like to stress that the whole impression one got was one of considerable efficiency. It is very good indeed to be able to inform oneself in this way of the state of affairs in a department. I do not doubt that this was the basic reason for our invitation, and it is certainly a very good one. It is right that we should know what is the state of the Forces and so on. This undoubtedly helps us very greatly in discharging our duty.

I do, however, feel that there is another aspect necessary to enable us as members of Parliament to discharge our duty in regard to defence matters. And that is that we should know as much as possible of the assessment made of the defence position by the hon. the Minister and his department. I want to go further and say that we should know as far as possible the policy which is being applied to meet this situation. I fully realize that there are secret matters. I also fully realize that the view can be taken that the less the civilians know about these things the less damage they will do. But I also believe that unless we are informed about those matters as well, we can very easily give vent to ill-informed criticism and thereby harm the Force. When I speak of ill-informed criticism I am certainly not thinking only of comments we could make in this House, because the amount of speaking that can be done in this House on defence matters at the present time can be compressed into four hours. Speeches are also made outside and will be made more frequently outside on defence matters. I do not doubt that Members of Parliament will be expected to help in preparing the civilian population to have the right appreciation of what is at stake in these matters. Mr. Chairman, you will know only too well what an honoured part Members of Parliament have played in the past in helping their country to prepare in the right direction in regard to defence matters. One need only think of the sustained attitude of the late Sir Winston Churchill in regard to these matters in his own country.

I want to give just one illustration of the need to know something of the assessment of our defence chiefs of the defence position so that one’s criticism will not be ill-informed. We have read in the Press that South Africa is getting a system of air raid warning sirens and that these will be introduced in the different centres. This was reported in our Press in October last year. In the absence of assessments one looks at what the department is doing and one tries to get at what its views are about certain matters. One would therefore conclude that the department is expecting to need these systems probably for the real thing. If furthermore one has seen those civil defence films which we were recently privileged to see, one has that impression strengthened. Those films showed scenes of considerable devastation following bombing and so forth. One is therefore further led to believe that this is very much in the minds of the defence authorities. That impression is again strengthened by the fact that it is common knowledge that we have certain radar screen defences. So on the strength of these factors one is inclined to conclude that we are preparing for air attacks on our cities. This could obviously be something that is in the minds of our defence authorities. But unless one knows the assessment they have made, one might be inclined if one finds imperfections in any of these matters, for instance any imperfections there may be in our radar defences, to be critical of our authorities on that basis whereas if a different assessment is made of the position one would be less critical. Again we know that while this air raid warning system is to be obtained, there is no suggestion of any air raid shelters at this stage.

When one adds that piece of evidence to the others, one can either take up the attitude that it is inefficiency not to have air raid shelters when apparently you are preparing for air raid attacks, or, if one knows that the assessment is that other threats are so much greater, one would not make that criticism. So in regard to the films one may see those civil defence films in the light that they are designed to shock people into waking up and doing something about the position while not being intended to show pictorially what really is an imminent threat to them. I therefore hope that this illustration will serve to make the point that if a way can be found by which Members of Parliament and perhaps other people who are concerned with these matters, can be given that defence assessment and be told as much as possible of the policy, such ill-informed criticisms will be obviated.

We are all aware—and this is all part of the position—that there is a growing threat to South Africa, and that this will continue to grow in the future. One has first of all only to listen to the utterances of certain people in regard to the states of Southern Africa, but above all one has only to see the developing guerilla war and terrorist infiltration in the states of Southern Africa to appreciate the position. Here again one is starved of information as to how that fight is going and one can easily get a wrong picture as a result. I am thinking for example of Angola. [Time expired.]

During the Budget debate the hon. member for Durban (Point) acted very sanctimoniously in regard to the question of politics in the Defence Force. On that occasion the hon. member criticized the fact that the hon. the Minister had addressed a political meeting at Voortrekkerhoogte, and to-day the hon. member again acted sanctimoniously about the appointment of two officers. The hon. member should not think that we on this side of the House hold that against him or against any of his colleagues who may want to follow him in that regard. But then we may expect of them that they will not, on the one hand, criticize others for allegedly introducing politics into the Defence Force, and, on the other hand, kick up a fuss as they did here this afternoon. As regards this side of the House, and if this does not apply to the opposite side of this House, that is their own affair, we have the fullest confidence in all the officers who have lately been appointed to the supreme command of our Defence Force, and we give the supreme command the assurance that they have the support of this side of the House as regards the major problems with which they are faced in the defence of our country.

The hon. member also dragged the question of bilingualism into this debate. I do not know for what reason he did so. If he wants to make a political affair of bilingualism, he should remember that when the United Party was in power, Afrikaans did not occupy the position which English occupies to-day under the National Party. The hon. member for Pinelands has just sat down. We have become accustomed to the fact that he usually makes responsible and well-considered speeches in this House. I just want to tell him that I do not think that we should be too sensitive about the fact that English and Afrikaans may perhaps not be used to an equal degree as a medium of instruction. Our Prime Minister and our other responsible leaders have given the assurance time and again that English and Afrikaans occupy an equal position in this country, and we stand by that. But if Afrikaans is being used more than English as a medium of instruction in the Defence Force, we should not be too sensitive about that, because we should have regard to the fact that the ratio between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking persons in the Defence Force already is approximately 60:40 at present. Therefore this does not mean the promotion of one language at the expense of the other. I think we have really passed the stage of having to insist on English and Afrikaans being used to an equal extent for every instruction issued in the Defence Force. We should have regard to the fact that there has been a change in the numerical ratio between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking persons. That is all I want to say in passing.

There is another matter which is a cause of concern to me, and that is the skill of our people in the art of shooting. To-day we have to prepare ourselves more for unconventional warfare, for a guerrilla-type of warfare, and we have to concentrate more on the development of the individuality of each person than we do when he acts in the masses of conventional forces. From the nature of the case the citizen of to-day therefore has to be more skilled in the handling of arms as he will have to act more individually than he does in groups and will have to handle a weapon by himself instead of handling it as a member of a group as he does in the case of handling a canon. In what position do we find ourselves to-day? We shall have to act in very difficult terrain and against an enemy who is mobile, cunning, very well trained, and skilled in the handling of automatic arms. What do we have to counterbalance that? This brings me to something about which I am concerned. At present we bring approximately 30,000 young men for training to our camps annually. In that period they are given proper training in the handling of the fire-arm which they will have to use. For ten years subsequent to their training they are subject to compulsory military service, and during this period they are called back for further training on not more than three occasions. On the present basis they devote only one day of the three weeks for which they again have to attend camps, to shooting practice. In other words, over a period of nine years our young men receive training in the handling of the fire-arm which they will be expected to handle, on three occasions only. In addition there are no facilities for a member of the Citizen Force, for example, who is compelled to undergo training in fire-arms. The position of the members of commandos is somewhat different. If I am not mistaken, these people are obliged at present to attend approximately four compulsory practices per annum. But then they have a limited number of cartridges, i.e. 20 or so, which are made available at every practice, except at other shooting practices, such as disappearing targets, etc., which fall under the commandos. Each year every member is issued with a limited number of cartridges only. In addition we are also experiencing the problem that certain of the commando units have to make do with outmoded arms. With all due respect, I think that we should simply accept that the .303 rifle to-day no longer is the most desirable fire-arm for a rural commando to take action against other well-trained people with automatic fire-arms, especially when they have to do so in broken and woody terrain. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister to-day whether he will not give consideration to certain changes in the situation. Firstly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not agree that the time has arrived for a sharp-shooters’ corps, consisting of the most outstanding and best marksmen, to be established from the large numbers of marksmen in South Africa, those trained by the Defence Force, those serving in the Citizen Force and the commandos, and even those who subsequently belong to private shooting clubs. I just want to mention in passing that with the exception of bowls-players, there is not a larger number of people in South Africa who participate in any organized sport than in target-shooting. A sharp-shooter, in my opinion, is not a person who can be taught to handle a fire-arm with that high degree of skill. He must have certain inborn qualities. If he does not have good eyesight, very fast reflexes and a sound co-ordination between eye, hand and brain, he cannot be a good sharp-shooter. I want to ask that these people be selected and formed into a very strong sharp-shooters’ corps, and that they be equipped with available sharp-shooting fire-arms and everything which goes with that. Then these people have to receive special training in the handling of those arms and under the circumstances in which it is necessary for them to handle those arms.

But I also want to ask the Minister to give consideration to a complete change in the attitude we adopt to the commandos in South Africa, as well as to the ordinary marksmen in all branches of the Defence Force, and those outside the Defence Force, who participate in .303 shooting practices in particular. It is well that we have regard to the fact that the members of the Defence Force who practise this art, do not practise it purely as a sport. They are also engaged in improving their skills as an able-bodied man of this country. I also think that it is our duty to enable these people, who sacrifice a great deal of time and money, to improve their skills in this respect and to provide them with all the necessary facilities while they are still doing their service. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the issue of cartridges free of charge to all members of the Defence Force, consisting of the Citizen Force and commandos, including the Permanent Force, in which this is already being done, for all shooting practices, for compulsory shooting practices, for Bisleys, for provincial Bisleys and for the South African Bisley at Bloemfontein. Here I should like to address a word of thanks to the Defence Force, the Minister and the Commander-in-Chief, as well as to the Chief of the Army, who provided the cartridges which members of the Citizen Force and the commandos required at the last national Bisley at Bloemfontein free of charge. Then I also want to ask that all members of the Citizen Force be enabled to participate in shooting practices in their home towns, in the vicinity where they live, at the ranges which are available at these places. Over a period of ten years these people return to camps on three occasions to receive training in the art of shooting for one day, and they can participate in shooting practicesin their home towns if they have the opportunity to do so, but at present the facilities to do so do not exist because certain rules and regulations oblige those people to do so only at this club or at that quarters of the Defence Force. I want to ask that these facilities be made available more freely so that a member of the Citizen Force may participate in these practices along with the members of the commandos. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, hon. members will understand that if I do not reply at this juncture to some of the points raised, my reply will be so long that hon. members will not have the opportunity of raising further points. I want to begin by telling the hon. member for Potchefstroom that I agree with him that we should enable people to participate in shooting practices to the greatest extent possible. What is more, he is aware that this is in fact our approach today. I also want to tell him that there will be a free distribution of ammunition to members of the Citizen Force and commandos who are also members of provincial shooting associations for participation in provincial and national Bisleys. Free accommodation will be made available to such members in Defence Force gymnasiums and tents.

I shall perhaps refer to the other points raised by the hon. member later on. I shall begin by referring to what was said here on Friday by the hon. member for Durban (Point). I want to congratulate the hon. member on the high level which he maintained on Friday. It is a pity he did not remain on that level. The hon. member stated that the Opposition had warned against the danger of having all one’s eggs in one basket. I agree wholeheartedly that it is a dangerous policy. That policy was followed for many years and South Africa had to undergo a rude awakening when it discovered, when boycotts were being applied against it, by Britain for example, that no more eggs were being put into that basket. This Government then began to take steps to purchase its military supplies from other sources as well. I think that in recent years, in the time of my predecessor as well as in my time, we have succeeded in strengthening the position of the Defence Force to a tremendous extent as a result of the fact that we are not putting all our eggs into that one basket which we found so disappointing. The hon. member will recall that this Government, even in the time of my predecessor, took steps to establish a munitions board which did very good work and which constituted the first step along the road to independence in this field as regards the provision of munitions. In that respect therefore the Government did its duty. We have just piloted legislation through this House for the establishment of an undertaking such as the Armaments Corporation and for the re-organization of the Munitions Board, precisely with a view to our not having to be dependent to the same extent upon that one basket upon which we were dependent for such a long time. I am therefore in full agreement with the statement which the hon. member made here on Friday. In addition the hon. member asked: “Will the Minister inform us how he sees the implications that will flow from a policy to defend the sea routes alone—to go it alone, as the Prime Minister said? What type of equipment will we need under such circumstances?”

Sir, nobody ever asserted “that we want to go it alone”. The hon. member knows that. He knows that nobody on this side, or anybody else for that matter, has ever adopted the attitude that we want to go it alone. The hon. the Prime Minister was referring to a situation which might arise, and the hon. member will agree with me that if other people do not want to agree and co-operate with us, we cannot simply capitulate. In the first place I want to refer him in this regard to my statement of 20th February in this House, when I tried to explain to the House and the country the strategic importance of the sea route around the Cape. It is not only since 20th February that we have been emphasizing this. We have, on military and on a diplomatic level, and in every possible way, tried by means of public statements to convince certain leading Western countries of the fact that they are following a disastrous policy in regard to South Africa. More than that one could not do. We did not drag in the Simonstown Agreement; we did not terminate it. We did not neglect to meet our obligations in regard to the Simonstown Treaty. In fact, I indicated in this House that South Africa was spending millions in order to meet its obligations. We complied with the agreement in the letter and the spirit. But in the second place I want to say that the entire question of the sea route around the Cape is a double-edged sword. A double-edged sword in this sense that we must expect that in any East-West conflict—and one must also include here an East-West conflict even though it is not at the moment a direct conflict of military force—the control of the sea-route around the Cape and around southern Africa will be a top priority military and strategic target, and that will not only apply to those who have controlled it up to now, it will also apply to those who have not controlled it up to now.

The hon. member asked: “Do we want to go it alone?”, and he asked how I interpreted that question. The prime responsibility of the Government is to take into consideration the security and the protection of the Republic, and if certain interested Western nations do not want to lend a hand in the protection of the Cape sea route, then the Republic will have to go it alone, firstly, for the sake of its own national interests and secondly, for the sake of what we believe to be the interests of the free world, because we have interests in common with the free world. Firstly, we have to do this to protect our own interests and secondly, on account of the role we want to play in the free world. This afternoon I should just like to refer emphatically but briefly to the value of the Republic and Southern Africa and the sea route around the Cape. I want to call this briefly to mind again because I think that in the world in which we are living to-day this cannot be emphasized enough. Firstly, we have the only developed naval base in Southern Africa, and here I want to emphasize that the Government has taken active steps to effect considerable improvements in the naval base at Simonstown, after it had been taken over from the United Kingdom. It is also appropriate to mention here that the Simonstown naval base is still, as a result of the Simonstown Agreement, providing facilities to visiting British warships.

It is also ironic to note that the closing of the Suez Canal, which was used as a political football, had the result that more British and other warships have been obliged to use the Simonstown naval base during the past year than during the more than 20 years since World War II. But secondly the Republic has other large, modern harbours where war-time cargoes can be loaded and where merchant vessels can enjoy protection and shelter, and be refuelled and repaired. The contribution of the Republic on an industrial and commercial level need not even be emphasized, but what must in fact be emphasized is the fact that if we afford protection to Western merchant vessels, we will be dragged into the conflict, whether we want to or not. Nevertheless we are, according to the spirit of the Simonstown Agreement, continuing with our plans for harbour defence in order to make it possible for us to afford protection to the fugitive ships of the Western nations in particular. But thirdly the Republic has modern airfields—and I referred to that when I made a statement on Simonstown here—from which the sea routes can be patrolled, and from which air raids against approaching forces can be launched. The hon. member asked me whether we envisaged purchasing aircraft carriers. My reply is “No”: owing to our strategic value South Africa is in itself an aircraft carrier from which that protection can be afforded.

Fourthly, we have the necessary command and communication systems which is indispensable to the control of operations of merchant shipping in the southern oceans. To this must also be added that we are already engaged in modernizing our maritime communication systems, at considerable expense. In the last instance, the Republic has the only real maritime defence forces in Southern Africa, which, coupled with the Republic’s territorial and air defence forces, comprise a vitally important bastion for the defence of the free world in the Southern Hemisphere. Sir, when we talk about the defence of the sea routes, we must have a clear idea of what such a defence role embraces, and I should also like to refer to that briefly. I think that there is a great deal of misunderstanding in this regard. It does not mean an aimless patrolling of endless stretches of sea, but the active protection of terminal points, i.e. the harbours, the passive protection of convoys, namely by rerouting them, and of ships at sea by means of the application of security measures, and the active protection of convoys and ships at sea when a real threat to such convoys and ships arises.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) asked, on the basis of the Prime Minister’s statement on the defence of our sea routes, whether the Government envisaged a considerable expansion of the maritime forces of the Republic. The purchase of aircraft carriers and other naval warships is not being envisaged, as I have already told the hon. member. In fact, for the purposes of our defence it is not necessary to acquire that type of ship. What is in fact being envisaged is to develop the maritime defence forces of the Republic into a more balanced defence force—we are engaged in doing so—in order by so doing to enable us to protect our national interests as well as to make a real contribution to Western defence requirements. The hon. member is aware of certain steps which have already been taken in this regard, and I do not want to refer to them unnecessarily now, but I am giving the assurance that the composition of the Defence Force is constantly being taken into consideration—and this is also my reply to the hon. member for Pinelands—in order to ensure that we will be able to acquit ourselves thoroughly of our maritime defence tasks.

In addition the Government is also aware of the vacuum which has arisen as a result of the British withdrawal east of Suez. If this situation is taken into account, along with the importance of the southern sea routes and the apparent pre-occupation of certain Western nations with their own political objectives, with which they are saddled, we must ask ourselves whether the time has not come to encourage greater co-operation among friendly nations in the southern ocean area. Our current maritime defence obligations towards foreign shipping are set out in the Simonstown Agreement and include the control of a South African maritime region which comprises part of a larger, British-controlled strategic zone. According to this treaty the South African maritime defence forces would have played a specific, though restricted, role in the joint defence of the Cape sea routes. We are now prepared to play a greater role in this connection. Recently this policy was discussed again at an international conference at service level, and it was decided to make very important recommendations to the various Governments in this regard. It will be interesting to learn whether the Governments in question will be prepared to accept the sensible recommendations which were made at this conference. I do not want to say more about this matter to-day.

I now want to return to this single idea. South Africa is seeking the co-operation of others for the sake of world peace, and we are preparing ourselves for the protection of these sea routes for our own sake. But if others want to throw us to the wolves, they must themselves accept responsibility for the disaster which they will also be bringing upon themselves.

In addition the hon. member referred to his speech on Friday to the Bantu homelands and the implications for defence connected with them. Now I want to tell the hon. member that there have, after all, always been homelands for the black people in South Africa, and since the matter became such an important point of discussion, surely nothing has changed in the defence situation which existed in respect of them. After all, defence has always been in the hands of this Parliament.

Can you control them?

But I am saying that there has been no change in the position as it was up to the present. Why raise the point here?

Is it not going to come?

What about future planning?

The fact that self-government is being granted, has not affected the defence aspect in any way, and the hon. member knows that because, after all, he is a Member of this Parliament.

But it can.

Why drag this matter in here? The hon. member wants to achieve only one thing by doing that, and that is to burden our defence policies with questions in regard to which we have up to now been agreed that all sections of the white population must present a united front. Why drag it in here? There has been no change in the factual situation.

But in the third place the hon. member ought to know that in the combating of terrorism and the waging of guerrilla warfare, and in the combating of revolutionary warfare, one of the principle requirements to-day is that you must have the goodwill of the Native population of a specific area. And the hon. member knows that this Government is going out of its way to win the goodwill of the Native population groups in those homelands, and that it has to a large measure succeeded in doing so, so that they are to-day helping to resist the terrorists. But in the last instance I want to put a question to the member. Is the hon. member looking for other relations than those of goodwill between Lesotho and ourselves, and between Botswana and ourselves? After all, we have two independent States in our midst. What else could the hon. member be seeking but the good relations with them which the Government is trying to achieve?

Then the hon. member also referred to the question of the surrender of large amounts at the end of the financial year, but this is a matter in regard to which I have already furnished this Parliament with adequate information. In fact, it was one of the motives which I suggested here as to why I introduced certain legislation last year, when I said that each year we found ourselves in the position of having to surrender large amounts and that we now wanted to establish an Armaments Board and an Armaments Development Corporation so that we could deal with these situations. Why is this happening? It is happening simply because one is dependent for the implementation of one’s contracts upon other people, often in overseas countries. That is why one does not know, when one begins to draw up estimates, when one will have to pay for that particular equipment. There are many influences affecting the delivery of equipment, and the very reason we passed this legislation here a few weeks ago was to overcome that difficulty. I have explained this at length, and when I did so the hon. member agreed with me.

The hon. member also referred to pick handles.

As an example.

But I also want to refer to these pick handles as an example. Those pick handles which the hon. member used as an example, are exceptional pick handles. They are pick handles which are used in conjunction with a pick we use with the Panhard armoured car. The hon. member then went further and stated: “Millions of rands of equipment lies outside in the rain.” Well, it has lain outside all through the drought as well, and not only in the rain. But now I want to tell the hon. member that there was a time when South Africa had to purchase military equipment on a large scale when it was able to acquire it. I maintain that it is better to have military equipment available with no roof over it, than it is to have the roof without the equipment.

But it would be even better to have the equipment as well as the roof.

I agree with the hon. member on that, and if he looks at the Estimates, he will see that during the past three financial years an amount of R5.7 million has been voted for accommodation for vehicles and supplies alone, and that on this year’s Estimates, if the hon. member were to look at the Loan Estimates, he would see that there is more than R2.5 million for that purpose. And let me also tell the hon. member that we have negotiated an agreement, which has been approved by the Cabinet, whereby we are now establishing a special Fortification and Building Works Section, which will now exercise control over the Engineering Section and the construction works of the various other sections, which in the different sections of the Defence Force were separate from one another. It has now been consolidated under this section and we have reached an agreement whereby we shall accomplish what we are able to accomplish ourselves. If the hon. member were to look at the Estimates he would see, under several of the subheads, that a footnote has been appended: “Will be accounted for by the Commandant-General.” That means that it is work which we are doing ourselves. So, we are also engaged in this task. But I do want to say this to the hon. member. I also visited military units and airfields in Europe, and there I also saw many military vehicles and other equipment standing outside. This happens everywhere. We shall simply have to accept the fact that in South Africa we do not have a building industry which can supply all our needs. But as long as we have the will, it helps. I myself am dissatisfied about the lack of certain accommodation for equipment. All that we can say is that we are doing our best and: “Do not shoot the man at the piano; he is doing his best.”

As long as he does not play false notes.

But the hon. member came to the House of Assembly to-day in a different mood. I do not want to dwell on that mood for long, because there are other hon. members I should also like to reply to. In regard to the Selection Boards, I can say that 120 Selection Boards have already been appointed by me with a view to the current year. This was not possible last year, and I explained the reason for that here. This year we have already appointed 120 boards. They will also co-operate very closely with school principals. They consist of Citizen Force and commando officers.

Consisting only of officers, no civilians?

No, because one would not find more suitable civilians to serve on these Selection Boards than the people serving in the Citizen Force and the commandos. They are the people who must do this work. I think that is obvious.

In addition the hon. member referred to the number of people who had been called up, and he asked why we were now following the policy of holding certain people who had already undergone their long-term training, and were still liable to two uninterrupted periods, responsible for the remaining ten years as well. All the hon. member must do is look at section 21 of the Act, for which he himself voted, and which he himself helped draft in the Select Committee. Then the hon. member must not pick a quarrel with me, but with himself.

I am talking about the spirit of the discussions.

No, the hon. member laid down the letter of the law.

But there are many things in the law which are not being carried out.

No, I am strictly carrying out the law which the hon. member helped make. In addition the hon. member referred to the question of bilingualism. Really, this old horse is no longer in the running. Consequently I take it amiss of the hon. member for singling out the Army. What was his purpose in doing so?

Because that is where the complaints were coming from.

Let me tell the hon. member that I shall bring him more complaints which are just the reverse, in regard to the two other arms of the Defence Force. But I am not flogging this dead horse in public. I know with what problems the arms of the Defence Force are faced, and I accept that goodwill exists inside the Defence Force, and I am satisfied that everything possible is being done by the Defence Force to promote bilingualism. But I do not think it is right to single out one branch of the Defence Force here, and to create the impression, without proof, that bilingualism is not the policy there.

This brings me to an action on the part of the hon. member which I strongly resent, and that is that he referred to two officers, out of more than two appointments. I want to tell the hon. member that since I became Minister, I have adhered to the policy that the Defence Force represents both language groups in South Africa. In the second place I have adhered to the policy of appointments according to merit, which is sometimes difficult because there is often more than one good candidate. But when a particular officer is a suitable choice for one purpose, he may perhaps not be a suitable choice for another, and consequently he sometimes has to wait for promotion. Besides, there is more than one direction in which an officer can receive promotion. If one is looking for a person with qualities of leadership and drive, and the one man has these while the other one is perhaps a better planner, one uses one’s sound judgment when one has to appoint one of the two to a specific post. But even then we still make an appointment which we can justify on merit. This is in fact what happened in these cases as well. I want to point out to the hon. member that the appointments made last year were favourably received by the whole of South Africa, including the Press. It was said of these appointments that we had allowed the emphasis to fall on efficiency and youth. This was said by all the newspapers in South Africa, and I appreciate this on the part of the Press. But now the hon. member for Durban (Point), one year later, has stated that the morale in the Defence Force has been prejudiced by these appointments. Surely that is not true.

It is true.

It is not true. After all, I keep in touch with my people in the Defence Force, to a greater extent than the hon. member does.

Would they discuss such a matter with you?

Of course. If people in the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force, and the Commandos are not prepared to discuss things with their Minister, they will not be prepared to defend their country either.

Do not be so naïve.

In other words, I must deduce from what the hon. member for Durban (Point) is now saying that all the members of the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force and the Commandos are a lot of toadies; they are supposedly a lot of toadies who, if they are dissatisfied with a matter, are not prepared to discuss it with their Minister. But let me tell the hon. member this: The reflection he made here is also a reflection on the most senior officers in the Defence Force, because what the hon. member does not know, and I want to tell him this now, is that I consulted the most senior officers of the Defence Force before making each one of these appointments. Before recommending these appointments to the Cabinet I consulted all the most senior officers of the Defence Force, who had anything to do with this matter, in my office.

And what did they say?

It is only the hon. member for King William’s Town who is capable of making an interjection such as that.

But what is your reply to it?

Not one of them protested against the proposed appointments. The advantages and disadvantages of each candidate were weighed up and discussed, and everybody was satisfied with the decisions I ultimately took. I challenge the hon. member to prove the reverse; I challenge him the brave hero from King William’s Town. As regards the hon. member for Durban (Point), I want to tell him that I do not take it amiss of him if he wants to express criticism here. In fact, he is welcome to do so. But what I do take amiss of him, is that he quotes here from an anonymous letter…

No, it is not anonymous.

… a letter in which the writer states that lectures were supposedly being given to the young men. The hon. member brought that letter to this House, to come and read it out here, without having previously discussed the contents thereof either with me, or with the Commandant General, or with the commander concerned in order to make sure whether the facts contained in that letter were correct. Oh no! After all, this was a marvellous letter with which the hon. member could make propaganda here.

You said yourself that we should come and express criticism here in this House. I am therefore doing so according to your own request. Well, you asked for it; now you have got it.

Just listen to that! It is true that I asked for criticism in this House, but I did not ask for wild accusations. I asked the hon. member to make certain of the criticisms he wanted to express. He is welcome to raise any point here, but he must not come along and talk nonsense here, because he did not verify that letter. With whom did the hon. member verify it? With what officer, with what commander did he verify it?

With the young man himself.

Did the hon. member go to see the commander about whom the young man complained? Did the hon. member go to the chief of the Defence Force with that letter? Did he verify it there? Did the member submit the young man’s word to the facts? A young man comes to him with malicious gossip, and then he runs to Parliament with this malicious gossip in order to try and make cheap political capital out of it.

You did not deny it.

What did I not deny?

What that young man alleged.

Did I not deny it?

Yes.

How must I deny a story which I know nothing about? I do not walk around collecting all the malicious gossip in South Africa, and then run to Parliament with it. I have more to do than that.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch referred to the commando organization. Arising from what the hon. members for Stellenbosch, Middelburg and Potchefstroom said here, I should just like to say the following. We are living in a period in which we can prepare ourselves not only for conventional warfare but also for unconventional methods of warfare. It is essential that our Defence Force with its Permanent Force, its Citizen Force and Commandos should play the role of an instrument by means of which a national army can in fact be established, and since national compulsory military service was introduced, this has become more and more of a possibility. A well-known writer who is serving in the Citizen Force recently referred in a very interesting article to the question of “Total Defence”. Although we do not perhaps agree with everything which is stated in that little book, there is a great deal in the statements which he makes which is worthwhile thinking about. Now, in the first place, I want to say that we do not want to make a second citizen force of our commandos. The commandos have their own task. They have a potential which has to be utilized. During the discussion of my policy motion in the Other Place I stated that the present A, B and C type commandos would fall away, and would make place for country, urban and industrial commandos. We attach value to the role of the commandos as part of our Defence Force, and proof of this is the fact that we have established our own Commando Military College at Kimberley, where outstanding training work has been done since the beginning of this year. The commando organization will gradually be cast into this new mould. These changes cannot take place overnight; they will have to take place gradually. It will be characterized by its flexibility. The strength will vary from one commando to another. Basically the headquarters of each commando will remain the same, but sub-units may fluctuate from five platoons per commando to five companies of four platoons each. The situation and the needs of an area will influence the commandos. Within the commando provision will be made for offensive and defensive elements. An offensive element will consist of the younger and fitter members, mostly those who are liable to compulsory military service and who, after their basic training at the commando military college will receive intensive training in a commando context. The older and more established members will be utilized for the protection of vulnerable and important points, as far as the protection of home and hearth, in conjunction with organizations for civil defence. The fitter group will form a specialist company or platoon, i.e. of scouts who will concentrate specifically on getting to know their areas both by day and by night so that they will be able to act as guides. Then there will be sharp shooters who will gradually be issued with sniper’s rifles and telescopic sights. There will also be dog handlers, and the right breed of dogs will be kept and trained. There will also be a military engineer’s section. These men will be trained in the disarming and use of unconventional weapons. There will also be a cavalry element. It is the intention to help provide certain commandos with horses to form a cavalry element. We have already held exercises in this regard, and the horse as an alternative means of transport in difficult and impassable terrain is essential. It is my personal desire that a mounted unit should in due course be established at the Academy so that every officer who is receiving his training there will learn how to ride a horse. As far as urban commandos are concerned, the idea is, and we are working on this possibility, to form units which will have mechanized means of transport, such as motor cycles. Our objective, in the last instance, is to provide even the most distant commandos with radio communications. The few hundred commandos in our country will in future be grouped into 27 commando groups with a Chief Commandant in charge. The Chief Commandant will be selected from the ranks from the present commanders of commandos according to ability and station, and will form a link between the commandos and the present Command Headquarters of the Defence Force. The intention is to convene a meeting of commando officers later this year to discuss this new dispensation for the commandos with them in detail. I take it that this new dispensation will not only infuse new life into the commandos, but will result in the kind of thing I have an example of here, which I should like to quote to the hon. member for Durban (Point) as proof of the high standard of morale which exists in the commandos as well. I am talking about a certain commando in Natal, the province from which the hon. member comes, where, according to hon. members opposite, the morale has supposedly declined as a result of the appointment made by this Minister. I met this commander recently and we had a long conversation. Recently this commando proceeded to build their own headquarters. This is a report I received—

I hope the hon. member will listen now—

That is the spirit which is prevailing in the Defence Force. That is the spirit which is prevailing amongst English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking units. At the Commando Military College the numbers of the Permanent Force, about the morale of whom the hon. member had such a lot to say, come together on Saturday afternoons and they paint and repair buildings themselves in order to get them ready as quickly as possible so that they can do their work. That is the spirit which is prevailing in the Defence Force.

The hon. member for North Rand referred to the question of the strength of the Permanent Force and the vacancies. There are a few ways in which one can solve this problem, if the necessary manpower is available. In South Africa we have a shortage of manpower. The hon. member knows that. This is nothing new, but personally I believe that if we can solve the housing problem for the Permanent Force, we are, to a large extent, going to succeed in bringing the Defence Force up to full strength and filling the vacancies. I think the hon. member will agree with me. If the hon. member were to look at the Estimates of last year, he would see to what extent we are trying, under the Department of Community Development, to provide the necessary housing. There are other fringe benefits which one can make available to the Permanent Force, but this is a matter which other people apart from myself are concerned about. We will of course solve certain of our problems by the utilization of those who are liable to military service, as the hon. member knows was explained last year to this House. I think that, once the first intakes of persons liable to military service have been disposed of and these young men are being trained, we will be in a position to solve a great many of our problems. The indications are there. We must see how this is going to work out.

Then the hon. member referred to the question of the oil storage depots. Of course the oil storage depots could all be built underground, but then only one-third would have been completed by this time. I think the hon. member will agree with me that it is better to have all the oil storage depots there, than to have one-third, or perhaps a quarter, under the ground. How does that old rhyme go about our studs which sometimes roll under the bed? “A stud in the hand is worth two under the bed”, not so? I think the oil storage depots, as they exist at present, are quite probably better than having no depots.

Yes, but they are very concentrated.

Yes, but there are other problems connected with that as well, which I do not want to go into too deeply now.

The hon. member referred to the question of military ranks. Recently I have given some attention to this matter, and I can now inform the hon. member that the Government has decided to re-introduce the ranks of Second Lieutenant, Lieutenant and Major-General in the rank structure of the Defence Force, instead of the present ranks of Assistant Field Cornet and Field Cornet in the South African Army, and Combat-General in the Army and Air Force and to introduce a new rank, namely Chief Commandant, between the ranks of Commandant and Colonel, as I said a moment ago. The use of the latter rank will be restricted to the commando organization. Owing to the historical value which the designation Field Cornet and Combat-General has for the Defence Force, it has been decided to retain them in our present military set-up, the designation Field Cornet as official title for the adjutants of commandos, and Combat-General as the official title for commandos of divisions, or similar combat formations, for example Combat-General, South African Division. I think that with this a further step has been taken to create a greater measure of satisfaction in the Defence Force. I think the hon. member would agree with me. But I think the hon. member is going too far if he wants to touch upon the question of Commandants as well. Let us preferably leave these alone. There are good reasons why this should be the case.

The hon. member and the hon. member for Hercules referred to civil defence. Hon. members emphasized that we should stimulate a new approach amongst the public in respect of the principle of civil defence. In this regard let me say that a publication by a well-known military authority recently appeared, in which he described the importance of civil defence as being closely bound up with the offensive forces. That person stated that there were three elements involved in a country’s resistance to the onslaughts of an enemy. The first is its offensive ability, its ability as a result of what it develops in the form of striking power, its military fist. In the second place it is the ability of the country to afford that military fist in the field of economics. But in the third place it is the will of the nation to display resistance by means of its civil defence, to such an extent that the potential enemy will flinch from coming to grips with that resistance which will have been called up, that ability in regard to civil defence to oppose the onslaughts by being able to act in an organized, calm and powerful way in times of emergency. The most important hope we are placing on the Civil Defence Section, which has now been joined to the Defence Force, is to establish it efficiently within a Defence Force context. I have no doubt that under the energetic leadership of the Head of the Civil Defence Section, i.e. General Retief, we will succeed in stimulating the interest of the public to a greater extent in the principles of civil defence.

Hon. members know that personally I am in favour of the training of young women, in this regard as well. I have said that that training should include self-defence, the ability to handle a weapon, the performance of essential services, first-aid and the replacement work they will have to do when an emergency arises and the men are called away. The reaction to that announcement was so overwhelming that the provisional planning we had for training the young women was hopelessly inadequate. We shall have to return to the Government with new proposals because too many young women want to receive training. The result is that this matter will be delayed, but I think that it is better for us to delay it and begin correctly, than to begin incorrectly.

The hon. member for Pinelands referred to the question of sirens. This is not a decision which I took; it was taken when civil defence was being managed by the then Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister. It is a gradual programme which will be introduced in the main urban areas, and possibly in target areas later on. Sirens will not all be installed simultaneously. This must take place over a three to four-year period, so that we do not spend too much on it annually. But sirens are not only intended to be used in regard to air-raid shelters. Sirens have other purposes as well. They are to serve as a signal to the Civil Defence Services that they should perform their given tasks. Now I want to say at once that I do not think that the introduction of a programme of large-scale construction of air-raid shelters in South Africa is a practical one. In the second place, I do not think that we can provide ourselves with airraid shelters against nuclear attack—at least not at this stage, and not in the distant future either. There are existing buildings which have cellars. Gradually new buildings with cellars are also being built, which, under the careful guidance of and through co-operation with the Civil Defence Section, could perhaps be equipped in such a way that it would meet the needs to a large extent. That is the primary task as far as air-raid shelters are concerned, but it does not mean that the installation of sirens goes hand in hand with large-scale capital expenditure in regard to the construction of air-raid shelters which are to serve in the case of a nuclear war as well. It simply means that South Africa is also beginning to prepare itself in that field. But sirens are not only intended for war conditions; they are also intended to help in other emergencies. It is a handy thing to have sirens. We are going to carry out the first experiments in Pretoria. As we learn from these, they will also be installed elsewhere. I think the hon. member would agree that this is the correct approach. I just want to add that we should face the fact that South Africa has, in a conventional conflict, where we will be on the side of the free world, been brought within bombing range. We must recognize the fact that as a result of developments, we have been brought within bombing range. That is why it would be foolish not to make the necessary preparations in this field as well. I think that I have now replied to most of the matters which were raised.

What about the payment of persons liable to compulsory military service?

I shall come to that in a moment. The hon. member for Middelburg referred to the question of an independent service commission. As the hon. member knows, the Groenewoud committee has already recommended that there should be an independent service commission. There are certain difficulties attached to appointing an independent service commission. I have told this House that I am in favour of the services acquiring a representative on the Public Service Commission so as to enable the services to put their case there in respect of the evaluation of posts and the creation of posts. As a first step, I think this is already a step forward. That is what I am concentrating on in the meantime. I shall recommend strongly to the Government that the services get a representative on the Public Service Commission. Whether the Government will accept this, is another matter. I just want to add that I think the solution lies more in a certain frame of mind in this country. I am not saying this because I am Minister of Defence. My time will pass, in the same way as that of any other person, but the Defence Force of South Africa will always have to be there. That is why I say this in the spirit evinced by the hon. member for Waterkloof recently when he spoke and used the following words: “Defence is the duty of each one of us”. I want to state this afternoon that for historic and other reasons the Defence Force and the security forces of South Africa have not up to now occupied the place which similar forces in other countries occupy. The position is gradually improving, and sometimes even rapidly in some cases, but the Defence Force is not simply a Government Department. This is the concept which has to be conveyed to the nation and to all our other Government Departments. Because it is a small Defence Force, the Defence Force is not simply a privileged group of people which wants these things on the basis of their super-human qualities; the Defence Force, as an institution, belongs to the entire country.

The security forces of our country are the final human guarantee of the survival of our State. But they are also far more; it is a force, the very existence of which wards off threats. The stronger and the more efficient the Defence Force, the greater the ability of a nation to maintain its way of life. The same applies here to the appeal which is being made to employers. According to the present Act consent must be granted to exempt their employees from undergoing this compulsory training. Therefore they need not undergo their compulsory training during their own vacations. It is prescribed that time should be made available to enable these people to undergo their compulsory training. But I think that the entire State as an employer, and all private employers, can display a spirit of greater goodwill towards these men who must be prepared to ensure our way of life. Whether we succeed in bringing home this attitude that the Defence Force is something more than an ordinary Government Department will depend upon this Parliament. It is the guarantee of our way of life, and the guarantee that in the final analysis the State will survive. That is why I hope that we will inculcate this attitude, which is already developing, throughout the country, i.e. that although people in the past made attempts to prevent their sons from receiving training, they will now be more willing to allow their sons to undergo this training. People whose sons could not undergo training owing to medical unfitness are now coming forward and insisting that we devise some plan which would ensure that those young men received training.

In conclusion I want to talk about remuneration. The hon. member for Durban (Point) can himself see how much is being spent on operational buildings and on accommodation for our vehicles. The hon. member can himself see what amount is indicated under the Loan Vote for the Department of Community Development in respect of housing. The hon. member has the Estimates in front of him, and he can himself see what we have to pay to obtain armaments. Under the present circumstances, does the hon. member see any chance, in view of the economic difficulties with which South Africa has to struggle in this world, of my going to the Government and asking for R3 or R4 million extra for the purpose of remuneration?

What will it cost to pay for the additional 12 and 26 days?

I told the hon. member last year that it would amount to a total which we could not justifiably ask the Government for at the moment. There are other things which will have to be done first.

That was for the nine months, not the 12.

I told the member that we would move in this direction step by step. The first step we took was to increase the allowances for dependants this year. I think that is a major step forward. By that means we have been able to accommodate those very people who are suffering the most hardship. I did not say last year that I would approach the Government; I said that I would choose the time when, in my opinion, it would be in the interests of the Defence Force to approach the Government. But I approach the Government all the time: I get R250 million from the Government. After all, other Government Departments also have demands. If we come here with increased Estimates, then hon. members of the Opposition are the first people to say: “Look how the Estimates figure has increased this year!” But then the hon. member attacks me because I have not effected all the necessary improvements in one year. My reply to him is that I am sympathetic towards these people, but that I shall choose the time when I think it is possible…

Your own words were “I do not think it will come to an enormous amount”.

Subsequently I had it worked out, and I decided that I could not, at that stage, approach the Government.

Just one other announcement. I thought that there was something more important which should now be done, and consequently the Defence Force has held discussions with the South African Railways. As a result of those discussions, certain resolutions have been adopted to which the Minister of Transport has given his approval. When the Defence Amendment Bill was being piloted through I announced that consideration would be given to granting vacation leave to persons liable to national military service in the Citizen Force during their first period of uninterrupted service, because their service obligation had been increased by the amendment Act and their period of service had been extended. In addition, consideration was to be given to having transportation to and from their homes during the vacation period made available at Government expense. The granting of a period of vacation leave not exceeding seven days, excluding travelling time, to members of the Citizen Force during their first period of uninterrupted service, and for their transportation at Government expense, has now been approved after consultations with my colleague, the Minister of Transport. A draft amendment of the relevant provisions of the Citizen Force regulations to make provision for this has already been drawn up, and is receiving attention. The concession will come into operation during this year. Vacation leave will be granted over the period which does not clash with the basic training in the last three months of the service period of the persons liable to compulsory military service, leave will be granted in such a way that it will have the least possible effect on the activities and obligations of the Defence Force. Leave must be granted in such a way that large scale trainjourneys do not coincide with the peak periods of the S.A. Railways. When leave is granted consideration will also, where possible, be given to the religious holidays of certain groups. Members serving at remote posts, such as Marietskop, will be transported to and from the nearest railway station by means of Departmental transport. The provision of free railway transport to persons liable to compulsory military service for the purpose of vacation leave will entail an estimated additional expenditure of R120,000 per year for the Department, and we hope to be able to recover this amount from savings. I hope that this announcement of mine will prove most gratifying to thousands of parents.

The hon. member spoke about a piece of underground construction work, and I want to rectify that story immediately, because I do not want an incorrect version to be bruited abroad. It is generally known that we are undertaking certain underground construction work at Devon. The hon. member went to look at it; he was quite welcome to have come and asked me, I would have told him about it. The fact of the matter is that it was necessary during that time to build rapidly, and underground construction work would have delayed the process. But in the meantime we knew that provision would also have to be made for new equipment, and the new equipment, together with the fact that we now have the time, has resulted in our now being able to go underground there, but the expenditure on the buildings which have already been erected is not useless expenditure; the buildings will also be used in the system. Consequently the State has lost nothing in the process; all that has been done has been to establish a more efficient system. I hope that the hon. member will be able to sleep more peacefully to-night.

The hon. the Minister is in a privileged position as regards time and I can only react rather briefly to one or two of the matters to which he referred. Sir, I am sure that all of us in this House and in the country appreciate the hon. the Minister’s statement and his attitude towards the defence of the Cape route, particularly as the importance of that route, not only to us, but to other Western countries, is becoming more obvious day by day. I am sure that in taking up the stand which he does that in our own interests we accept the responsibility as far as the Cape route is concerned, he has the support of the whole country. Secondly, we are pleased to hear that he is endeavouring, in our mutual interests, to arrive at an understanding with those other countries which are also concerned with the maintenance of the Cape route. We look forward with interest to an announcement by him as to what he has been able to achieve in regard to the question of mutual responsibility so far as the Cape route is concerned.

Then I want to turn, if I may, to one or two matters relating particularly to the citizen forces of our larger cities. Sir, when the hon. member for Waterkloof was peaking on Friday and was making an appeal for open-house hospitality and for warm fires for trainees on winter nights, I interjected that these men were not on vaction. I think I should elaborate a little so that we can realize, especially in view of the Minister’s announcement to-day that these men are to have seven days’ leave during their period of training, that they are in the Defence Force undergoing continuous training to do a job of work and not to have their period of training interrupted by week-ends off. I think that we can over-emphasize this hospitality aspect and lose the balance which is necessary between work and relaxation. I want to say firstly that these young men are not career militarists. Their civilian life is being interrupted in the national interest to enable them to undergo continuous training. A limited time is available for that purpose and it must be used fully. Secondly, I accept that training is necessary in present-day circumstances. It is technical, physical and mental training that has to be crowded into that period of continuous training. The purpose is to equip our country to the highest degree for the maintenance of law and order and for defence. We must see to it that this training is realistic, and we must remind ourselves that we live in times when it is necessary to train our young men to deal with unconventional warfare. Sir, I have been privileged to witness the training of our citizen forces when they are undergoing continuous training, and I want to emphasize that there is no glamour about the training they are receiving; there was never intended to be any glamour about it. In fact, unconventional warfare demands more individual initiative, more individual courage and more individual dedication than any other type of warfare demands. For that reason I believe that the training must be continuous, and when I say that I mean that it must be continuous when they are in camp. That is why I welcomed the hon. the Minister’s announcement to-day that they will have a seven-day break. I do not want these young men to feel that they are entitled to a five-day week, with the prospect of going off somewhere during the week-end to enjoy hospitality, particularly when one bears in mind the trouble which the Department may have in getting them back into training the following week. I believe that we are training these men so that they will be able to discharge an unpleasant duty if the occasion arises. That day may come. The sons of hon. members here are undergoing continuous training to learn how to kill and to destroy to prevent themselves being killed and destroyed. I believe that this realism must be brought home continuously to the men who are undergoing training and that their period of training in the armed forces is not a recreational period. I have found from my own inquiries that a number of nations which are adopting a similar system of continuous national training as we do are almost entirely obviating the week-end breaks and rather going in for the system of having a definite break of so many days during the course of their training.

Then I want to turn to a problem which I have raised with the hon. the Minister by way of question and which is facing the commanding officers of citizen force regiments at the moment, and that is the increased administrative duty that is imposed upon them. I know that the commanding officers of most units have available a member of the Permanent Force for clerical work for five days of the week, but the position appears to be that a problem is arising in regard to the administration of stores. A citizen force quartermaster is finding it quite impossible to cope with the amount of work involved in handling the quartermaster’s stores of a regiment with the increasing numbers who are being posted to the regiments from year to year. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not cause an investigation to be made to determine whether the time has not come for the quartermasters of the citizen force regiments to be Permanent Force officers instead of civilian officers as they are to-day. I remember that in the last war one of the civilian quartermasters said after he had been involved in his first bombing raid, “Thank goodness, I can now return to the Union; that has squared my books”. We do not want these civilian quartermasters to find themselves in the position that they have to wait for some catastrophe before they are able to resign from their posts or to square their books.

Finally, I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister on behalf of the Scottish Regiments that form part of our citizen force. These Scottish Regiments form an integral part of the Defence Force of the country. They have earned many battle honours and they have made a proud contribution to the military history of this country. Sir, the hon. the Minister has spoken with approval, and correctly so, of the enthusiasm shown by members of the commando units. But I wonder how many people in this country know that the Highland Regiments are able to equip themselves as they do because of the generosity of those people who financially support these regiments, because they have to buy every piece of their distinctive uniform and equipment. I cannot see that it is going to involve the Government in very great cost if, when a Highland Regiment chooses to have balmorals issued to them instead of berets, they were given a free issue of balmorals. Furthermore, I wonder whether, because of the part which they have played in South African history, some grant cannot be made to them, in lieu of the normally available equipment of the type which they do not take up, towards the cost of equipping themselves in their traditional uniforms. I think that hon. members on both sides of the House who perhaps claim a drap of Scottish blood in their veins, will support my appeal to the hon. the Minister to help these regiments, particularly having regard to the increasing numbers who are called upon to perform ceremonial and other duties outside of their normal training functions. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will be able to find ways and means whereby this assistance can be rendered to them. [Time expired.]

It is my sincere desire to thank the hon. the Minister for this very fine and clear exposition of so many different aspects of our South African Defence Force, especially as regards the use of the sea-route round the Cape and how the Defence Force is kept in a state of readiness for its defence. Also of particular interest were the new usages envisaged for the ranks of field-cornet, combat-general, and so on. It sounds very interesting and it seems to me as if it will meet with approval. It would also have been very interesting if the Minister had only referred to the procedure which is followed in recruiting immigrant children for military service and the circumstances under which they are taken into the Defence Force as the general public still does not have a great deal of clarity in this regard.

To-day I should like to discuss the aspect of housing in the Defence Force. We took cognizance of what the hon. the Minister said about housing. We greatly appreciate that and I can assure the Minister that the vast majority of Defence Force personnel greatly appreciates the enormous work which is being done in this direction. But due to the rapid growth of the Defence Force, housing will always remain a topical matter and it will continually become more acute, despite of what is being done by the authorities. We believe that these housing problems are one of the greatest causes for so many trained instructors having to resign from the service of the Defence Force, because financially they are simply compelled to do so. The allocation of Government quarters under the present system is made, we know, according to the old points system which has been in use for many years. This has the effect that when a young officer or non-commissioned officer marries, he cannot, according to this points system, come into consideration for Government quarters, because he cannot build up sufficient points. This has the effect that he has to pay between R60 and R100 per month in the city—I am now speaking specifically about Pretoria and its environs—for a house or a flat, and that his wife is eventually obliged to take a job in order to make ends meet. This mounts up, and eventually the man is compelled to resign for financial reasons in order to seek higher remuneration elsewhere. At the same time there are many senior officers with salaries of R5.000 per year and more who live in Pretoria residential areas such as Waterkloof Ridge and who let their houses for up to R120 per month and move to Government quarters because they fortuitously qualify under the points system, and they live there for as little as R27 per month. That cannot be held against those senior officers. They are surely within their rights and they are not contravening any regulations, but the question is whether it is in the interests of the Defence Force that this stream of resignations of instructors should continue due to the housing problem.

I should like to suggest for the serious consideration of the Minister—and this comes directly from the military personnel in my constituency—the institution of a housing allowance of say, R40 per month for every newly-married non-commissioned officer or a young officer who is unmarried, but who perhaps has to support an aged father or mother who is his dependant, up to the rank of major, in cases where they cannot be housed in Government quarters. Soldiers in my constituency have even gone as far as to make personal representations for a realistic upward adaptation of the current tariffs at which Government quarters are let to soldiers, in order to cover expenses when it is perhaps possible to introduce a housing allowance. They themselves say that they are prepared to pay more in view of the fact that transport, water, electricity, etc. are included in the rental, which is in fact a very low one. At present the rental varies from R15.13 for a corporal to R29.63 for a commandant which, measured against the salary of a commandant, really is very inexpensive accommodation. I am not speaking now of the housing of officers who service as commanders of units far beyond the densely populated urban areas; I am referring specifically to housing in Pretoria and its immediate environs.

I should like to broach a second point, and that is the question of spiritual care. It is with sincere gratitude that we notice that R25,000 is being voted for church buildings at Da Gama Park and R4,000 for church buildings at Langebaan Road this year, and R30,000 next year, and that progress is being made in streamlining the Field Chaplain Corps and its work. As parents we should like to thank the Minister sincerely for this gesture in the right direction, but I have personal objections to the word “kapelaan” which is foreign to Afrikaans. The traditional Afrikaans word is “veldprediker” (field chaplain) and we should very much like to retain the designation “veldprediker” in Afrikaans, while in English it can simply be called “chaplain”. But this is just my personal feeling in the matter.

In the Estimates this year there is once more R5,000 for the purpose of medals and decorations, and this affords us the opportunity to say that we are proud of this unique series of individual medals and decorations which will always serve to honour the memory of the late Mr. Frans Erasmus, who introduced them. Recently, and quite rightly so, the Pro Merito medal was introduced for non-commissioned officers, to be awarded in war or peace for exceptional devotion to duty, and it is equivalent to the Southern Cross medal for officers. It serves a good purpose. A medal on the uniform of any soldier is his pride, but now the position is that it is not possible for a young soldier to obtain a medal early in his career. But for young men it can also be an incentive to remain in the service if they were to be enabled to obtain some medal earlier in their careers. I mention the example of the inauguration of the State President. This is a good opportunity for a special medal to be awarded to each member of the Defence Force who participated in that ceremony. For many of them it would be a reminder of something which does not occur frequently. Similarly a special medal may be awarded to members of commandos, of the citizen force and everyone participating in the quinquennial Republic festival. This is something special for them and it will assist in enabling a young man to pin something on his chest sooner. This also applies as regards the young men now serving in the fine Presidential guard. I think that the young men with their fine uniforms who serve in that guard, would regard it as an incentive if at the termination of their service they were to receive a medal for that service.

In conclusion I once more want to plead for medical benefits for retired Permanent Force personnel who retired on pension before 1964. Those people devoted the best part of their lives to the service of the country in the Permanent Force. While they were in the service, they received the benefit of those medical services, and to-day they are deprived of them. I should like to plead that some provision be made for the medical expenses incurred by those people, because they have made their contribution. [Time expired.]

I am satisfied that the National Party Government has succeeded brilliantly in two extremely important fields in our South African economy, in spite of any allegation which the Opposition may make to try to prove the contrary. The Government has given us two mighty pillars on which our people can build and on which our country’s peace, safety and prosperity are based as on nothing else; that is to say, it has strengthened us economically and militarily as we have never been before, not during the Opposition’s regime either. The economic strength of South Africa is indisputable, and together with the wonderful development of our Defence Force gives greater international status to South Africa. If we could succeed in preparing our people spiritually as well for their responsibility towards the Defence Force, in other words if we can succeed in strengthening our people and making them capable of defending themselves economically, militarily and spiritually, then we shall become an impregnable military bastion here at the southern tip of Africa, which is also such a strategic key position to the Western powers.

I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister for his visit to the training camp at Zeerust last year. [Interjection.] Yes, it is necessary to thank the Minister, and the Opposition has nothing to do with it. I want to assure the Minister that the officers and the trainees as well as the public at Zeerust appreciated it very much. If all the Minister’s visits to various training centres, defence bases and armaments factories, etc., in the country produced the same good results, then his policy of making a positive contribution, by way of personal visits, to create a more favourable image of the Defence Force to the outside has been rewarded. I have no hesitation in saying that to him. The policy of the Supreme Command of the Defence Force to hold as many air force and ground force displays as possible, not only at the larger centres, but also in the rural areas, has brought the people and the Defence Force closer together, and that is very necessary because, as the saying goes, unknown, unloved. Meeting the heads of the Defence Force and the hon. the Minister of Defence at such occasions contributes a great deal in bringing the people and the Defence Force closer. Displays by the Air Force, armoured and infantry units show our people the skill of our trained men. In this way they also get to know the efficiency of our weapons when they are demonstrated, and this gives the public confidence in the Defence Force. Our Defence Force has already succeeded in this connection in establishing a sound relationship between the Defence Force and the people.

As regards Marico I should like to bring a few matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I do not want to dictate to the Minister and the heads of the Defence Force, but I nevertheless want to take the liberty of submitting certain representations in connection with expansion. I am convinced that more use could be made of the facilities at the training camp of the Defence Force at Zeerust. For example, an infantry training division should be added. The terrain is ideal for this purpose. I think that after his visit the Minister will agree with me that is the case. The existing base is a suitable one and is conveniently situated on the slopes of the picturesque Zeerust mountain range. The country atmosphere together with a hospitable civilian population can have a formative and wholesome effect on the trainees. I think that the strategic training ground within the mountainous and woody 200 mile long border belt stretching from the North Cape to the Waterberg between Botswana and the Republic is particularly suitable for the combined training of an armoured squadron and an infantry division from a Defence Force point of view. In my opinion the terrain is particularly suitable, because they can acquaint themselves there right from the beginning with circumstances along the border. We know that this area is a popular corridor for infiltrators from outside our borders, such as terrorists, etc. Getting acquainted with such border circumstances in the initial stages of their training can contribute a great deal to better preparation of the trainees.

I also want to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for his decision to reintroduce cavalry units in our Defence Force. The traditional “burgher and his rifle and his saddle-horse” will therefore come into their own once again and may prove to be a vital factor in many cases of unconventional warfare, especially in the border areas. I have on previous occasions pleaded with the Supreme Command of the Police to station mounted police at the control posts and access points in the wooded areas because it is easier to pursue and catch a suspected infiltrator on horseback than by making use of other vehicles. For this reason I am glad that the Defence Force now recognizes the value of mounted units for all sorts of tasks. Zeerust will welcome such a mounted unit very much. It may be supplementary to and useful for the citizen commandos and the training which is already taking place there.

In the last place I want to bring to the Minister’s attention that the modern and well-equipped hospital at Derdepoort, which belongs to the Cape Dutch Reformed Church, will be vacated shortly. The extensive buildings there extend over some 38,000 sq. ft. There were beds for about 120 patients. The site covers 30 morgen and is situated in the angle formed by the Great Marico River on the one side and the Botswana Border on the other side. The church is going to vacate the hospital and the Transvaal Provincial Administration is not going to support the institution any further. It no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally established. It had been intended for the mission in Botswana. After our becoming a Republic the people of Botswana have hardly been able to make use of the hospital because of the border control measures which are being applied. Therefore the beautiful complex of buildings there is now becoming useless. I think it will be worthwhile for the Defence Force to negotiate with the church or at least to investigate the possibility of incorporating that institution with the training structure of the West Transvaal Command and of Zeerust. I only wanted to bring these few ideas to the Minister’s attention. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, both the hon. members who preceded me, submitted certain administrative matters to the hon. the Minister and I am sure that he will respond according to the merits of their proposals.

During the Budget debate, and even during the discussion of this specific Vote, a few hon. members on this side of the House let the spotlight fall on certain aspects of our defence effort, and the reaction we have had from the hon. the Minister and other hon. members on that side of the House, in no way satisfies us, and therefore I should like to return to one or two of these points.

Let me put it like this. Our defence effort to-day, seen in terms of our manpower position and our economic capacity, is a massive one. The Minister himself indicated on a previous occasion that the munitions, armaments and military supplies which we have, already amounted to R2,000 million. We are certainly spending more on defence to-day than previously and our training effort is a greater and a more permanent one than was previously the case. This is all very well. But we say that our military force is a defence force, and everyone also accepts it as such. The critical problem with which we are then faced, is to determine where, how, when and under what circumstances that defence force will be employed. It is about this that I should like to express a few ideas.

It would appear to me as if there are various alternatives which we will have to consider. The first is a large-scale conventional invasion of South Africa with combined land, air, and naval forces. On a previous occasion I tried to indicate why we think that this is not a very likely occurrence. It is fairly easy to motivate this and I do not want to cover that field again. A second possibility is the employment of these new kinds of shock weapons with which the great nations of the world are intimidating one another. I am thinking here, for example, in terms of this new rocket which contains up to 15 different atomic weapons which can be launched in different directions and at different targets. We think that the employment of this kind of weapon is not very likely either, because with these weapons you cannot be selective: you strike the enemy as well as the potential friend. The irony of the matter is that our greatest protection in South Africa is the very fact that there are millions of non-Whites living in our midst, and if the Government’s policy can ever really be implemented, so that there is total segregation of the non-White groups, the situation will of course change overnight.

The third possibility is that of large-scale guerrilla warfare, and here it would appear as if the broad strategic plan is already unfolding. The communist countries are moving southwards. They will throw open the Suez Canal as soon as it suits them to do so. We often speak of marriage by proxy and it seems to me as though in this case we have to deal with a kind of warfare by proxy: the communists themselves do not fight, they use other people to do it for them. What we are threatened with is therefore the establishment of a guerrilla front which will probably extend from Mozambique on the one side to Angola on the other. Apart from the broader strategic objectives, this plan will of course include certain specific objects. Firstly, the object will be to try to pin the security forces of Southern Africa down in such a way that they cannot assist the Portuguese, or cannot assist them on a large scale. Secondly, the object will be to dramatise this clash with white Southern Africa, and this kind of dramatization is specifically necessary for propaganda purposes at the moment. Thirdly, they will probably try to block and to cut off our own diplomatic movement to the north. It will also be the strategy, of course, to identify this clash more and more with the East-West confrontation.

In this kind of warfare the chances are therefore that they will be reasonably successful. We all know that in guerrilla warfare one pins down at least five other persons for every man one puts into the field. We know that the enemy will have inexhaustible manpower resources. We also know that there will be no lack of funds and technical advice. But what is more, they will also have the knowledge that in almost all the countries of the world in which these guerrilla tactics have been employed, with the probable exception of the Federation of Malaya, they are continually making progress or have already gained the victory. It is, then, against this kind of background that we must consider our own strategy.

It would appear to me as though there are certain conclusions which we must draw. To begin with, the key to the situation in Southern Africa is undoubtedly the Portuguese areas. They are the terminal points of a horse-shoe which is drawn around South Africa. We know, and it is often said here, that the Portuguese already have approximately 100,000 men in the field there. It is estimated that the expenditure in connection with their military action amounts to between 40 and 50 per cent of their national budget. I do not want to say too much about this, and one often has to read between the lines, but let me just say this. If a change of government or of leadership were to occur in Portugal, or if there should be any change in the equilibrium, in the balance of power here in Southern Africa, this situation can change overnight. The great problem with which we are faced, as I see the situation, is to try to determine precisely where our battlefront should be. All military experts know that under certain circumstances one must reduce one’s battlefront in order to shorten one’s lines of communication, and everyone knows that under certain circumstances one must push out one’s battlefront, away from one. This brings me to the third point, and this is the local position in South Africa itself.

I now ask hon. members opposite not to think as politicians for a moment. I ask them to consider the matter purely from the military point of view. According to Government policy these Bantu homelands will be made completely independent. The Minister tries to get round this by saying that this is a completely natural situation; it is traditional; it is as it has always been. But surely this is not so. The Government not only speaks of self-government; the Government says they must become independent, and independence is something absolute. Let us proceed further. If these areas should become independent, they would in certain cases facilitate access to the Republic from the sea. They will also straddle our main lines of communication and our water sources. It is easy to say that the protectorates are there and that they are independent. They were, however, made independent by Britain, which is 5,000 miles from here. The homelands are within the borders of South Africa. By making these areas independent, we will overnight double the borders which we have to defend.

But let us go further. It is easy to speak of individual identities if we view the matter as politicians, but individual identities often give rise to a divided loyalty. It is easy to speak of self-government.

Order! On what Vote is the hon. member speaking now?

I am speaking on Defence, Mr. Chairman.

No, the hon. member is not speaking on Defence now. [Interjections].

The point I am trying to make is this. There is a direct clash between the ideological plans of the Government and the most elementary strategic considerations. I am dealing with strategy now. I therefore ask the Minister: Where is the general in South Africa who recommends this policy of fragmentation? Where is the general who says that under these circumstances it would be easier for us to defend South Africa? We are here dealing with the basic security of South Africa. There is a clash between this aspect and the ideological approach of the Government, and it is on this problem that we should like an answer.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with attention to the hon. member dragging the question of our colour policy into the debate on Defence. I want to point out to the hon. member that America is at present fighting in Vietnam, almost 6,000 miles from her borders, in order to protect her interests, and that he need not be so frightened, so afraid and so rash; he need not conjure up so many apparitions as regards military matters in the Bantu areas. I want to give him the assurance that when the time and the occasion arises it will be equally important both to them and to us to consider the military aspects of the matter both in our own interests and in theirs. The hon. member should rather confine himself to certain concrete aspects of our Defence policy.

While the hon. member was speaking, I was reminded of what Clausewitz had said. He was one of the great military writers and strategists after the First World War. Clausewitz said—

I think that if there is a reply which that hon. member deserves, it is contained in this view held by Clausewitz. Now I want to say that I am perfectly satisfied that our Defence Department, with the Minister at the head, completely meets the requirements set by this strategist and that I have read out here. I just want to repeat this: “The most decisive act… is to understand… the war in which he engages”. Having heard what was said here, and having listened to the reply given by the hon. the Minister, I am perfectly satisfied that he has a good understanding of what we are faced with in this present-day situation. It is strange that as many people as can stand up in this House could give their own individual evaluation of our present military position. There is no doubt about that at all. It is capable of a variety of interpretations and evaluations. But what is important is to emphasize what we are doing. Our evaluation, which is an overall one and covers the broad position, will virtually amount to the same. I say it is important that we should know what we are doing. This is what gives me the greatest satisfaction. The U.N. Charter provides that any country is entitled to defend itself as its interests may require. We should realize that a military build-up is taking place to the north of us at the moment. Although those countries are economically weak, they are sure to be supplied with weapons. This we must take for granted. They will get weapons. They will use those weapons against South Africa, in combination with the terrorist assault which is directed against the Whites in South Africa. I want to refer hon. members to the speech made by Kaunda in Botswana the day before yesterday, which amounts to nothing but an attempt to keep the spirit of resistance and insurgence burning bright. I think we may as well inform Mr. Kaunda that we understand what he means, particularly if we see it in the light of the recent unsuccessful terrorist invasion in Rhodesia. Hence also the accusation by Zambia and other hostile countries to the north of our borders, that South Africa is arming herself and that we are playing the part of an aggressor. I am convinced, as I am standing here, that our refusal to support this agreement in connection with the ban on the distribution of nuclear weapons before we have clarity about its full implications, will also be used against us in their attempt to brand South Africa as an aggressor and not as a defender. Now we should keep in mind, and while the hon. member was speaking. I was thinking about this, that our entire military strategy, our entire effort to streamline our defence system, is of a defensive nature. It is not aimed at the offensive aspect. We simply want to defend ourselves. We are not aggressors. We are people who are very keen to have peace. Just as the nuclear weapon has a peace function, our defence effort also has a peace function. It is only the expression of our desire to maintain peace. The world in which we are living to-day, is a world in which armed peace seems to have become the accepted state of affairs.

But I am satisfied that we are taking the right view of our task. I am satisfied that the Department of Defence and the Minister know what we have to deal with. This is what is of basic importance. Whether the attack will take the form of an invasion by terrorists, as the hon. member put it, or whether it will coincide with the creating of incidents or whether it will take place by way of a combination of forces against us, is beside the point now. The point is that we should prepare ourselves for any attack. I am not saying that we should prepare ourselves for a general nuclear war; in that eventuality we shall have no say in any case, but we should prepare ourselves with the means at our disposal, within the perspective which we command, for whatever we might have to face. The establishment of Armscor a short while ago, as discussed in this House, I consider to be a step in the right direction. Surely we can never allow this tremendous industrial machine and potential of South Africa to leave the hands and sphere of influence of the free Western world, because then this very same industrial power of the Republic of South Africa will be used to bring about the downfall of the free Western world. This is as clear as daylight. This is our primary duty. If we say that we align ourselves with the Western world unconditionally, then our standpoint implies that we must retain this tremendous industrial potential and power, particularly in times of war, within our sphere of influence. This puts us under certain obligations. This is why all of us in South Africa are so shocked at the fact that Western countries will not give us the opportunity to strengthen ourselves to such an extent as to retain within the power and sphere of influence of the Western world this tremendous power we possess, both in the industrial sphere and as far as raw materials are concerned, which will be essential in times of emergency and war. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the end of last year and at the beginning of this year there was considerable turbulence in my constituency of Heidelberg as a result of the fact that the teachers college at Heidelberg was closed down and taken over by the South African Defence Force. That teachers college was an institution which had rendered service to the country and nation for more than five decades, and which supplied more than 3,000 men and women to the Transvaal to serve their fellow men and their nation. Therefore it is understandable that we in Heidelberg were sad to see the closing down of that excellent institution. But in what a fortunate position did we not find ourselves to welcome in our midst in the place of that institution, an equally fine institution, namely a division of the South African Defence Force. Therefore I want to thank the Minister and the supreme command on behalf of my constituency this afternoon for having a high enough regard of Heidelberg to establish that division of the organization in our midst. The arrival of the Defence Force did not mean something completely new to Heidelberg, but merely the continuation of a tradition of long standing, because Heidelberg is a place which at the end of the previous century and at the beginning of this century played its role in the military field. We think of various great strategists produced by Heidelberg. We think of Generals Spruyt, Alberts, Salmon van As and others. Therefore it is fitting that the Defence Force deemed it fit to name the local hostels after various great military experts from our past, names such as De Wet, De la Rey, Hertzog, Pretorius and others.

I also want to express my thanks to the Minister and his Department because they went out of their way to establish proper accommodation for the personnel of the Defence Force, when they went as far as to recommend very strongly, and I believe this did happen as a result of their insistence, that the existing accommodation of the lecturers be taken over. To-day our Defence Force lecturers are happy, satisfied and proud to live in those houses.

Then I also want to address a request to the bon. the Minister, and I do so in view of the fact that we now have these young men as well as a part of our Defence Force at Heidelberg, and in view of the fact that he is about to establish civil defence in our country, that he should go out of his way to consider also Heidelberg as a likely place for the establishment of one of the civil defence centres. I want to say that there is accommodation for 1,200 students in Heidelberg. At present it is being occupied by approximately 600 boys. I think the nature of the buildings is such that one or more of those buildings may be set aside temporarily for the purposes of civil defence until such time as better provision has been made at Heidelberg.

This brings me to the point I really want to make, namely the preparedness of the South African woman and the South African girl. We want to express the hope that the establishment of civil defence will in point of fact only be the beginning of the training of our women and girls in order to prepare them for times of real emergency so that when the time comes, something which not one of us desires, when we perhaps will have to defend the last stronghold here, our women and girls will know how to defend themselves. Perhaps we are underestimating the physical potential of our girls. Every day we read in the papers how an Anne MacKenzie can do the 880 yards in two minutes and how an Annatjie Botha can do the 100 yards in 11 seconds, how a Pauline Craven can do better than 20 ft. in the long jump. Which of us men in this House to-day can come anywhere near those achievements? This shows us what the South African woman and girl are capable of doing when they get the necessary training and practice. Therefore we must realize what potentials they have.

In the minute which I still have at my disposal I want to address myself to the hon. the Opposition as regards their objections to promotions in our Defence Force. I do not want to argue about this on a political level. I just want to remind them for a moment of the British-South African military history. I want to take them back to the beginning of this century when the most fantastic and unheard-of promotion was made at Heidelberg, one which is most probably unequalled in the history of the world. The authenticity of history proves what I am now going to tell you. What I am referring to is the promotion in the Transvaal in 1901, under the supreme command of Lord Milner, of a dead baboon to the rank of captain in the British force. This is how it happened. A British captain for some reason got lost at Heidelberg. After the British had been looking for him for months and could not find him, they gave him up as dead. Now it so happened that in those years a very large rejected male baboon was giving the farmers a great deal of trouble on the farms and in the Suikerbosrante. Then one day he was shot by a farmer and left to the vultures. A few months later a British scouting corps discovered that skeleton. On their return they reported that they had found the missing captain. They received orders to coffin and bury him properly. Covered by the British flag the mortal remains were placed on a gun-carriage and then made its last journey on earth, flanked by various British officers, to the cemetery at Heidelberg. While the last post was being sounded he was lowered slowly, in a stately and dignified manner, into his grave and was buried. As if this was not enough, a grave-stone was erected for him one month later with the inscription, and this is still there: “Here lies captain so and so who died an honourable death for King and country.” Now I just want to tell the Opposition that it is a good thing to know one’s history and to think about one’s history to see how one’s own ancestors made promotions before one criticizes one’s contemporaries who grant promotions on merit alone.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, except to say that I agree with him entirely when he said some very good things about the womenfolk of South Africa. I agree with him in that regard. I should, however, like to take him up on one point he made, a point which has been made by a few hon. members on that side of the House, in which they appear to object to members on this side being critical of the Government in the handling of this Department. I should like to remind hon. members opposite that we have every right to be critical of the Department of Defence and particularly the Government’s handling of the Department of Defence because after all it is the policies of this Government that make the actions of the Department of Defence necessary.

Now you are talking nonsense.

If the hon. member has not read any history he should perhaps be reminded that it is the government of every country in the world which determines the way that nation behaves. It is the government of every country in the world which either puts itself in the position of having friends or not having friends. I would say to the House that if we on this side are critical of the Government’s attitude in particular matters in regard to defence, we do so in the knowledge that we on this side of the House have had great experience of this particular matter.

So you agree with the enemies of South Africa?

Mr. Chairman, some of the interjections that come from the hon. members on my left are so ridiculous that one wonders whether one is in fact standing in the Parliament of South Africa. I should like to deal with a particular aspect of civil defence. Civil defence in South Africa, like defence as a whole, is of vital importance to us. It is of more importance to us when one remembers that this nation is probably the only nation on earth which draws its resources for its defence, both civil and ordinary defence, from only one-sixth of the population. Therefore the burden on that one-sixth of the population is obviously so much greater. The hon. member for Pinelands mentioned for instance the question of air-raid sirens being erected in certain parts of South Africa. I should like to direct a few questions in this connection to the hon. the Minister. When such air-raid sirens are erected, is consideration given to the fact that they should be erected near vital installations, e.g. ports, railway centres, power stations, etc.? Because when erecting air-raid sirens one presupposes attacks from the air and with that goes the necessity of erecting air-raid shelters. I know the Minister has said that there are certain buildings which lend themselves to use as air-raid shelters. However, I should like to suggest that a greater study of this particular aspect be made.

Anybody who has had experience of air-raids overseas will realize that it is not only the situation of these air-raid shelters that is important. There are many other aspects to be considered as well. Have we taken note of what is being done in Rhodesia, in Portuguese East Africa and in Angola, countries which will be in the front line when air-raid attacks are launched in this direction?

But while air-raid sirens may be well and good, I believe the most likely form of civil defence we shall have need for in this country will be that occasioned by riots, disorders, and natural disasters, from whatever cause. In this connection we shall have to look very closely at things like transport services because if the transport services in the cities break down it can cause tremendous catastrophes. I have seen this for myself in Europe, where transport services was rendered completely chaotic with a complete breakdown in ambulance services. This is an aspect of civil defence. I also think that the greatest help in the field of civil defence can be rendered by the creation of home guard units for the protection of property—civilian property and other property. To what extent does the hon. the Minister’s Department link up with the police reserve whose duties include, inter alia, the guarding of civilian property in times of disorder?

Another thing I am concerned about is that we should be very careful not to instil in the public mind a degree of tension in regard to defence, including civil defence. Whilst these things are necessary, and whilst the machinery must be there in case of need, we must remember that we are still living in times of peace and consequently we must be careful that we do not resort to sabre-rattling. In this connection I must say that I have been alarmed by some of the speeches made by the hon. the Minister as well as by certain speeches made in this House to-day. One could, I think, say of these speeches that if read in a particular light they could cause a degree of tension amongst our population which would be completely unnecessary and unwarranted.

What are you talking about?

I know much more about it than that hon. member because I have seen it. I have seen a lot more than he has. I was with the Russian army for one month during the war and I was in Berlin when most of the hon. members opposite were fighting elections. I have seen the disruption of civilian life through circumstances which civilian defence is there to prevent. So, in all sincerity, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether all these various things are being taken into consideration. I am not criticizing the Minister and I am not criticizing the department, despite the fact that there are many things about which they can be criticized. I am simply asking whether things like ambulance services, hospital services, transport services, the supply of food, and other factors, are being taken into consideration in working out a civil defence programme. And, let me say, we can do without speeches such as some of the speeches made by the hon. the Minister himself not long ago, wherein he referred to the time of tension in which we were living in South Africa. I believe that the tensions we create ourselves, will become far more dangerous than those tensions created by enemies (beyond our borders who would like to do us harm. We on this side of the House talk of the Department of Defence with a great deal of pride, because many of us have served in that department. We talk with pride, but we hope that the machinery which we create we will never, in fact, use. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister that, when dealing with matters of this sort, he guards his words and does not in fact create the tensions in the minds of the population of South Africa that we do not wish to be there.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House would probably take much more notice of the constructive ideas which the hon. member for Port Natal expressed if he would only not do it in such an arrogant way. I shall leave the hon. member at that.

I should like to draw attention to a section of the Defence Force which makes a considerable and important contribution, but which does it for the most part unobtrusively. I am now referring to the South African Medical Services. From the Surgeon-General down to the lowest ranks we have here a group of people who execute their task with such love, devotion and dedication towards South Africa and the people they serve, that one can only have the highest admiration and respect for them. I am now not only referring to the medical officers, but also to the lay officers and other ranks. The new training system in particular has set high demands on these people, but they met those demands, and they overcame the challenge with which they were presented and they carried out the task entrusted to them with great success. For this spirit and devotion which they displayed, we want to express our sincere gratitude.

Seen in its proper perspective, the South African Medical Services is one of the most important sections of the Defence Force. Not only is its task to provide for the medical care of Defence Force personnel, but the work which this unit does, also stimulates the morale and fighting ability of the combat units. This can only be achieved if the S.A.M.S. is well organized and functions efficiently. In a scientifically orientated Defence Force such as the South African Defence Force it is imperative that the status, esteem, scientific preparedness and the efficient functioning of the S.A.M.S. should never be prejudiced or questioned. With a view to achieving this ideal, one needs the manpower, apparatus and sufficient equipment. One is therefore concerned to find that in the S.A.M.S. almost 40 per cent of the posts of professional and technical personnel are vacant. In the category of medical officer alone we find that only 57 of the posts are filled. This shortage has admittedly been supplemented to a certain extent by the assimilation of medical officers who are liable to military service, officers who could accept responsibility for much of the clinical work which must be carried out by members of this unit. I also want to express the hope that the spirit which the hon. the Minister mentioned a moment ago, namely the loyalty towards the Defence Force and the particular spirit displayed towards the Defence Force, will now also take root among those acting medical officers who are undergoing their military training. I want to express the hope that some of them will make the Defence Force their career. However, I want to suggest that the great shortage of professional personnel, especially in the S.A.M.S., should he attributed to the unrealistic salaries which are being paid and also to the fact that these people are still tied to the Public Service Commission as far as the determination of their salaries is concerned. Furthermore, these people are also tied to a particular rank. In other words, when a medical officer reaches the highest notch applicable to, for example, the salary scale of a major, he must either wait to be promoted to the rank of commandant or he must wait at the top of that salary scale. I therefore want to plead that salary scales be made continuous and that they should not be tied to ranks. In the medical professions ranks are of less importance. It is skill, knowledge and experience which are the decisive factors there. I do not want to suggest that ranks in the S.A.M.S. should be done away with altogether. The ranks fulfil an important administrative and disciplinary function. However, I want to suggest that when a man is proficient in his work, he should not be tied to a particular rank so that the unhealthy situation develops later on that he must be promoted to a higher rank merely to retain his services. This does not only diminish the status of the ranks of the Defence Force, but it also causes dissatisfaction.

In the expression of these few ideas I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Middelburg pleaded for here. I gained the impression that the hon. the Minister was not unsympathetic towards this idea of a Defence Force Service Commission. I therefore feel that one can safely leave the matter in his hands.

In the S.A.M.S. there exists another important section of the Defence Force, namely the Military Medical Institute where work of a high scientific standard is done. This Institute is, in fact, not only an embellishment for the Defence Force but also for this, country. It is manned by officers who are animated by the highest ideals not only of medicine, but also of the related sciences, and who carry out auxiliary services there. One of the primary functions of this Institute is to lay down spiritual and physical norms for almost every category in which the men of the Defence Force are employed. This classification cannot be made on a clinical basis only, but it is also made in the applied physiological, biochemical, biological and psychological spheres. We also find the same bottleneck here. These highly specialized posts simply cannot be filled due to a shortage of manpower. I want to suggest again that the work done by this division is of such great importance that all possible efforts should be made to bring its salary scales into line with the needs which exist, so that one can obtain the people to fill the posts.

As is also fitting in a Defence Force which is scientifically orientated, this Institute has at its disposal highly technical and scientific apparatus which largely contribute to the efficient execution of its particular function. A human centrifuge is at present being installed together with other equipment, and the personnel are in a position to make scientific investigations of a very high standard. The ideal of this Institute is, and should also be, for every member of the Defence Force to be tested by this Institute at some time or other so that all latent deficiencies, shortcomings and personality defects may be revealed by special tests which are carried out here. People may then be placed into the categories which best suited them. I therefore want to plead that when this Institute asks for equipment and apparatus to enable it to maintain its scientific preparedness at a high standard, such requests should not fall on deaf ears.

Mr. Chairman, permit me the luxury of replying to one point which was mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Point). He suggested that the non-commissioned officers in the Defence Force were not qualified to act as instructors. He said that there should be more training by commissioned officers and less by non-commissioned officers.

I spoke of more supervision by commissioned officers.

I want to say to him that, if his information is based on hearsay, it is wrong. Instruction in the Defence Force has a responsible basis. For those officers and non-commissioned officers charged with instruction duties, there is no such thing as times fixed or office hours. They are busy day and night with the training of our young men. I suggest that instead of saying something like that about them, we should rather salute them.

As far as the hon. member for Green Point is concerned, I believe that he misconstrued the position as regards the pleasant visits to families by our ballotees. This side of the House was referring to the free time of these young men. We were not referring to visits during military service, and I do not think that he will begrudge our ballotees that. I also want to follow up the hon. member for Hillbrow in what he said. I shall not follow him up in all aspects, but shall leave that to the United Party. I agree with him that our solidarity is the greatest deterrent to the outside world. If we display a united front in all respects to the outside world, the chances of our country being invaded are very slight. However, by raising an aspect such as the homelands in this debate, the hon. member indicated that there is in fact no desire for solidarity on that side of the House. The sooner we can prove to the outside world that there is solidarity, on this important aspect as well, the sooner will the talk of a successful attack on our country be stopped.

As far as the hon. member for Port Natal is concerned, I want to assure him that if tension was discussed, he was the first to do so. The approach of this side of the House is that preparedness is based on responsibility. There is no reason for tension, but there is sufficient reason for being prepared. This brings me to the matter that I want to deal with, namely Civil Defence. The hon. the Minister has already dealt with this, but I want to refer briefly to an aspect thereof which is receiving the attention of military philosophers in other parts of the world. Civil Defence also means complete co-operation with the defence forces of that country and also with the civil protection organizations. It would, for example, include something like psychological preparedness. While this is fully recognized in countries such as America and Switzerland, I want to ask whether the time is not ripe in this country as well for research to be undertaken in connection with this aspect in order to determine whether it is necessary to prepare our people psychologically. We must accept that our entire defence system is geared to operation in our own territory. Consequently everyone will be involved in this matter. Everyone must therefore also be prepared psychologically.

Sir, I would like to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Cradock who mentioned the Medical Corps of the Defence Force. I think this is a group of men who are very often overlooked by the public. There service to South Africa is of the very greatest value.

Then I should like to refer to a matter which was mentioned by the hon. the Minister, and that is the shortage of personnel in the Defence Force, a shortage which, as he put it, is due in some respects to inadequate housing facilities. I share his view that we have not been able to attract people to our defence forces because, amongst other reasons, we are not able to provide them with the necessary housing. I believe that our servicemen should receive the highest priority when it comes to housing and other residential facilities. We on this side of the House, and I am sure hon. members opposite, fully support the policy of the Defence Force to provide housing and other accommodation for servicemen at the cheapest possible rental. The point is that there are just not enough houses available for us to accommodate all servicemen in the Defence Force villages and many of them are forced to take houses outside of Defence villages at very much higher rentals than they would pay if they were accommodated in the villages. I believe that the time has come when the Government should subsidize those members of the Defence Force who are forced to live outside Defence villages. The difference between what they would have paid if they had lived in a Defence village and the amount that they have to pay outside should be made good to them.

Then I should like to refer briefly to another matter raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (District), and that is the question of housing loans. From my information it seems that the 100 per cent loan that can be obtained is not a popular loan. It is not a popular loan because it is based on the salaries paid to members of the Defence Force. In my opinion those salaries in many respects are completely inadequate, with the result that, if I may put it that way, “too little house” is provided for the family in the Defence Force, undertaking a 100 per cent loan, particularly as the member of the Defence Force is responsible for capital redemption on his loan and also for interest at a higher rate than is necessary. I would like to make an appeal to the Minister to-day to consider first of all the question of subsidizing the rentals paid by members of the Defence Force who are accommodated outside Defence villages, and, secondly, that a system of homeownership scheme should be thoroughly investigated, so that a member of the Defence Force will be able to pay off the capital of his loan in very reasonable monthly instalments at the lowest possible rates of interest, commensurate with the Department’s ability to pay a subsidy. I should like to confine myself today to naval housing, and particularly the situation at Simonstown. As Simonstown has been proclaimed a white group area, I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that his Department should, as soon as possible, undertake a survey of existing non-white houses available with a view to renovating and repairing those houses and accommodating white Navy personnel in them. Secondly, I believe that an immediate investigation should be held into the possibility of a crash housing programme in the extension of Da Gama Park Village. There is plenty of land available, and I suggest that the hon. the Minister should make houses available there by means of such a crash housing programme. A further aspect that I should like to raise is the question of the maintenance and repair of existing houses in the naval village. We have recently had a most unfortunate experience in that Community Development has taken over from Public Works the maintenance of houses at Da Gama Park, which is the only naval village to serve the Simonstown Naval Base. 129 houses were put out to private tender by the Department concerned and repairs and renovations are taking place at present. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister, from my own observations, quite apart from any other information I might have received, that the specifications for the repairs and renovations to those properties are certainly not being adhered to. The houses are being renovated and repaired in a most inadequate manner. First of all, in terms of the specifications, a plaster sealer had to be applied to all exterior walls before applying P.V.A. That is not being done in all cases. All the chimneys of those houses were to have been swept before the painting commenced and that has certainly not been done. One hundred and fifty chimney cowls and weather vanes were to have been installed in those houses. In many cases that has not been done. The outside door locks on garages and external doors, were to have been removed and cleaned with graphite grease; that has not been done. Vermin-proof air vents were to have been installed in weather walls in place of the terra cotta air vents; that is not being done. The defective woodwork on the exterior of the buildings was to have been replaced and it has just been painted over. This contract expires in October of this year, and as there are various other aspects of the scheme which are being overlooked at the moment, I would suggest that the hon. the Minister who should have the welfare of the servicemen in the Da Gama Park village at heart, take up this matter with the Department of Community Development and see what can be done about it.

Then I want to come back briefly to another most unsatisfactory aspect of the work that is being done in Da Gama Park, and that concerns the tender itself. The lowest tender was R66,000 and the highest was R218,000. The lowest tender was accepted. lt works out, for repairs and renovations, at approximately R513 per house. The specifications were altered after the contract had been awarded. Fresh tenders were not called for and the tenderers themselves were not advised of the amended specifications. Instead of using the most suitable substance for the exterior walls of the houses, namely a substance called Kenitex, the specifications were altered, and instead of using Kenitex, one coat of plastic sealer and two coats of P.V.A. are being used in a sea climate. This is most unsuitable. The Department’s reason for the departure from the specifications is that it has been found in other places in South Africa that the Kenitex material or a similar material as originally specified, has not proved suitable. I would like to point out to the Minister, who is responsible in the ultimate for the condition of these Service houses, that Kenitex has been used on the State President’s residence and on other ministerial residences; that it carries a 10 year guarantee period; and that it has a lifespan of 20 years. The existing guarantee period for the repairs and renovations being carried out on the houses is only until 90 per cent of the work has been completed. I would also like to know, although it would probably have been more appropriate to ask this under another Vote, whether the contract price of R66,000 was amended after the specifications had been altered and whether the lowest tenderer in fact tendered on the basis of using Kenitex as specified or a similar material? Unless the foreman was the case, I do not believe that he could possibly have come out on his tender price. I would earnestly commend to the hon. the Minister of Defence that he should look into this matter and take it up with the Minister of Community Development.

Sir, before I can say to the hon. member for Simonstown that I will take up this matter with the Department concerned, I shall have to investigate it. I will let him have a reply as soon as possible.

The hon. member for Green Point raised the question of the cost of administration in respect of Citizen Force regiments. The difficulty which the hon. member raised also applies to the commandos. We have made a study of this problem already and we are at present considering alleviating the position. I do not want to say more at this stage, because the question of cost must be considered and we must also consider what methods we are going to use.

The hon. member also referred to the Scottish Regiments. The matter raised by him is also under consideration. I have a special love for the Scottish Regiments, as the hon. member knows, and we shall see whether we cannot comply with his request.

for Pretoria (District) referred to immigrants. I can inform him that in terms of the provisions of the Act and the proclamation that was promulgated in regard to the registration of immigrants this year—they had to start registering as from this year—3,914 young immigrants have registered to date in terms of that provision in the Act, and of that number more than 60 per cent have already intimated that they want to become South African citizens and are therefore prepared to accept compulsory military service. I think this is a very fine achievement. One cannot but feel grateful in this regard, and I think these young immigrants should be congratulated on this very fine spirit they are displaying. I think everybody will agree with me on that point.

The hon. member referred to the points system for the allocation of houses. I made a point of inspecting the whole system personally, and we had talks about this matter. So far I have been unable to find a better system. If the hon. member would help us to work out a system which would not amount to discriminating against and doing injustice to people who already have houses, we could consider it once again, but at the moment this seems to me to be the most equitable system. The solution is more houses, and now I want to add at once that so much has been made available to us on the Estimates this year that I can state with a clear conscience that, once these houses for which the money was voted this year have been built, the position will have been alleviated considerably. If we can keep this up, the position will be alleviated.

The hon. member for Marico pleaded for his military camp to be enlarged. I do not like the word “camp”, and I hope that we shall never again hear that word. I do not like the word “camp”. It is a “military basis”. “Camp” is not a word that fits in with a modern defence force. I hope that we shall use the word “basis”, and as we talk about an air force basis so we should also talk about an army basis. But I want to give the hon. member the assurance that as we expand—and we are now going to expand under the system of compulsory military training—we shall bear in mind what can be done at Zeerust. Therefore he has reason to be very hopeful; if he invites me again, we might just do it!

The hon. member for Cradock referred to the S.A.M.S. and I agree with him one hundred per cent on the excellent work done by this branch of the Defence Force. I think the Surgeon-General and his whole staff ought to be congratulated on the work that is being done there. As the hon. member knows, the human centrifuge is now being erected. This forms part of the broader planning of a new hospital that is to be built eventually. The planning is in progress. We have also called in the assistance of experts in this field, which is very valuable to us. As regards the question of the costs, etc., it will shortly be subjected to a very exhaustive enquiry by the Public Service Commission. This has already been arranged. I may just inform the hon. member that the second-year to sixth-year medical students and the few who have already qualified will form a total of 38. Therefore this position, too, will probably be alleviated considerably.

The hon. member for Heidelberg referred to the Army Gymnasium, but I do not think the hon. member should insist on young women receiving their training there as well. He has a very fine institution and Heidelberg is very friendly towards that fine institution, for which we are grateful. But I think that if a training centre for young women is to be established, it has to be situated centrally.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) rightly pleaded for psychological preparation. As he knows, we in the Defence Force are engaged in doing that. As we succeed in this matter, we shall also spread this spirit amongst the population. But in the main I agree with the plea made by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Port Natal referred to sirens and then he read me a fairly long lecture on what I should not do and what I should in fact do. I may just inform the hon. member that all the things he referred to, are being done by Civil Defence. There is liaison with other Government institutions and with private institutions, and there is liaison with bodies such as the Red Cross, St. John’s Ambulance and the Noodhulpliga. It is our intention to make much more use of them than we have before. There is liaison in connection with hospital services and ambulance services. The State has granted assistance to certain municipalities in regard to the acquisition of fire brigade services. A specific programme has been implemented, and these services are in the process of being provided. We are also making a study of civil defence services in overseas countries, which has not been published because everything used in preparation for that has not necessarily been published. The hon. member also referred to what I had allegedly said about “a time of tension in our country”. I did not speak of “a time of tension in our country”. I said that we should have regard to the times in which we were living in this world, and that South Africa had to take note of these things and be prepared to deal with that situation. That is what I said. The hon. member must quote me correctly if he wants to quote me.

I must apologize to the hon. member for Karoo for my having omitted to reply to his pleas. It was purely an oversight. The hon. member referred to the Coloured Corps. My information is that there are still quite a number of vacancies that can be filled, but as the hon. member knows, we are laying down very strict minimum standards with which a person must comply before being admitted to the Coloured Corps. We do not take any person. Recruitment for the Coloured Corps is done by paying visits to certain parts of the country and, as the hon. member knows, the training it offers is of a very high standard. My information is that there are still 70 vacancies in the Army and 63 in the Navy, but that by means of the present training centre we are quite capable of meeting the needs. I do not think that we should once again erect expensive buildings for a new training centre while the present one can meet our needs, if we receive the necessary applicants. That is why I said that for the time being Eerste River should remain the only one. I do not think that we can simply establish a second centre for no particular reason. These things cost money, and if we erect buildings of a poor quality we are criticized. There are so many needs in the Defence Force in other fields, such as housing for our people at Simonstown and at Voortrekkerhoogte and at other places in the country, that I do not see my way clear at present to embarking upon new undertakings of this nature if they are not absolutely necessary. The hon. member also wanted to know whether Coloured instructors were being trained so that they might eventually replace the white instructors. That is the ideal, and as soon as we have brought them up to that level, we shall definitely afford them that opportunity. Then the hon. member referred to a possible Indian Corps. Let me tell the hon. member at once what attitude I adopt in this regard. The Minister of Coloured Affairs has had legislation adopted here, in terms of which cadet camps are being established for Coloureds. And as that training takes place, so it will to my mind be possible for us to draw from the ranks of those trained Coloured youths for the Coloured Corps. In my opinion the same applies to the Department of Indian Affairs. In view of the other obligations we are imposing on the Defence Force, I do not see my way clear to establishing an Indian Corps as well and erecting a training centre. I think the Department of Indian Affairs should provide that training, so that we may use them for the purpose of auxiliary services. That is my attitude. I do not think we should place all these burdens on the Defence Force. The Defence Force has enough other burdens to bear, and that is why I have always been reluctant in respect of this idea. But we cannot use the Defence Force to perform all these services. We have too many other tasks to perform. I think the hon. member will agree with that. I think that I have now replied to all the points that were raised.

What about Salisbury Island?

I have already told the hon. member that we have occupied part of Salisbury Island. As provision is made for the University for Indians, Salisbury Island will be placed at our disposal in its entirety. If the hon. member would look at the Additional Estimates from Loan Funds, he would see that provision is made there for certain transport costs. That is to make it possible for certain things to be moved to Salisbury Island in the course of this year. We are therefore in the process of doing so. But we cannot merely chase out another Government Department which has nowhere to go. We are moving into it gradually; we are in fact moving into it at the moment.

And Natal Command?

No. Those buildings are in too good a condition for us to vacate them at present. I am stating this very clearly. I myself went there to look at the command headquarters. I think they are very fine headquarters. There can be no question of our spending funds for the purpose of leaving those premises. We will have to be compensated if we do leave them. Until a better arrangement can be made, I do not think that we can consider leaving those premises immediately or in the near future. It is a long-term project. My information is that it is a ten-year project, and I do not think that we should now act precipitately as far as that matter is concerned. We have too many other obligations in the future.

What about the hon. member for Hillbrow?

Then I come to the hon. member for Hillbrow. I deliberately left him for last, and now I have almost forgotten about him. The hon. member is a knowledgeable person, and I have respect for that knowledge of his. I do not want to disparage what he has to say in regard to Defence matters, but the hon. member did not do justice to himself to-day. Instead of making a valuable contribution here, which he is capable of doing, the hon. member felt more like making a little political capital. I think the hon. member did an injustice to himself. He can make a better contribution, and I shall tell him why. The hon. member assumed that the Black people who are living in the homelands, and will be living there in the future, would be enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member did act on that assumption. He said that through that policy we were exposing our coast-line to the enemy and thus adding to the task of our Defence Force. In other words, the hon. member acted on the premise that we must assume that those people are our enemies.

No, it may be possible to persuade them.

Acting on the hon. member’s premise itself, i.e. that those people are going to be our enemies, I maintain that they would, after all, be enemies of South Africa under his policy as well. Then, under his policy, he would concentrate around our cities a proletariat of millions of Blacks, and if they were to revolt he would need his entire Citizen Force, all his commandos and his Police to suppress such an uprising. [Interjections.] No, hon. members must not interrupt me now. I listened attentively to the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member said that those people would complicate our defence task and the task of defending our coast-line. They would be a source of danger to us. The hon. member did not take the view that those people, as a state, might be on friendly terms with South Africa. I take the view that for economic, military and other reasons it will be necessary for those emergent states to retain South Africa’s friendship and to reciprocate such friendship.

North and South Korea were also very friendly towards each other until they engaged in hostilities.

That may be so. The hon. member’s whole argument is invalidated by this fact. Because of his fear that somebody may murder him, he commits suicide. I am telling the hon. member that he did not do justice to himself, because the hon. member is not a person who would commit suicide for no particular reason. On the contrary, he is a brave man and he proved that in the war. The hon. member, together with six other people, has defied greater dangers in his life; why is he getting scared now? I maintain that the policy advocated by the hon. member would create a much greater danger around our cities. [Interjections.] Wait a minute, give me a chance; after all, I did not make such a noise while hon. members opposite were speaking! I maintain that under the policy advocated by the hon. member we would create in South Africa a black proletariat of millions, which would be the breeding ground for communist agitation and chaos around our cities and which we would only be able to suppress with the aid of security forces. My accusation against the United Party is that they would make the task of our Defence Force impossible, since the Defence Force would have to preserve internal safety and consequently there would not be men to cope with the enemy from beyond the borders. But under the National Party’s policy the Citizen Force would be able to assist in defending our borders, whilst the commandos could play the role I set out here this afternoon. That is my reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow. I also want to say this to him: When he takes part in Defence debates, he is capable of making a contribution, but then he should not allow himself to fall a prey to cheap politicking.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 37,—Forestry, R2,057,000, and Loan Vote F,—Forestry, R12,345,000:

Mr. Chairman, the matter which I wish to deal with to-night is the position in which the wattle industry finds itself. I should like to commence by saying that the hon. the Minister knows there have been difficulties as far as wattle growers are concerned and as far as the wattle market is concerned. Over the course of the past six months or so an agreement was arrived at between certain milling interest and growers’ interests. I wish to make the position of this side of the House quite clear and say that we do not blame the Minister in any way for what is taking place, to which I shall refer shortly. The Minister deals with the growers’ representatives and the millers’ interests and he waited for an agreement to be arrived at between the two sections. I think it is fair to say that as far as the Minister was concerned an agreement was in fact arrived at. But one section of the growers are extremely dissatisfied. I am one of those people who will abandon wattle growing during the next three or four years. Wattle growing is an essential part of my farming activities which have now been conducted for over 50 years, but, as I say, within the next three or four years I will discontinue wattle growing. I will be leaving that field with a number of other farmers who are meeting this afternoon to discuss the situation. We are abandoning wattle growing because of an agreement which was arrived at with a certain sector of the milling interests in terms of which a fund has been established and for which that sector of the milling interests has actually received thanks from some people because of its generous contribution of funds, so they say, to help those wattle growers who are suffering hardhips as a result of the agreement arrived at. I do not know how that fund is to be administered and I have not been able to get any explanation as to how it is to be administered. I do not know if the Minister has any knowledge as to how it is to be administered and whether he can tell the Committee anything about it. It looks as if it is going to be administerd by a joint committee set up by the millers’ interests and the growers’ interests. If that is so, then apparently the committee has not made any final arrangements as yet. We still do not know which people will be considered to be suffering hardship as a result of the agreement which was concluded. I am informed privately that people like myself who will be completely out of the wattle growing industry within the next three or four years, and some farmers will be out sooner, are not deemed to be suffering any hardship. Those of us who are now going in for a different form of timber growing will have to wait for eight or nine years before we can get another crop of timber. That is the suffering which we will have to bear. I can assure you, Sir, that we feel very sore indeed about this matter. The only criticism I can make of the Minister is this. While he was waiting to see what agreement was arrived at, he might have put in a word for those wattle growers who were going to be completely out of the wattle growing industry hereafter— within, as I say, the course of the next two or three years. I am out of it now and I have no personal interest in this matter whatsoever, but I want to say to the Minister that we on this side of he House feel very strongly about this matter, and we feel the time has come for the Minister to have a look at overseas financial interests and how they control the South African wattle growing industry. Certain big overseas interests are taking our wattle industry to where they want it to go under terms they are dictating, and I think we can ask the Minister to go into the matter. Some years ago the then Minister of Forestry, now the hon. Senator Paul Sauer, visited certain overseas countries to ascertain what was the tie-up between the financial interests in those countries and the major milling interests in South Africa. I wish to make it quite clear that I am not referring to all the milling interests in South Africa, that is, the wattle milling industry or the bark packing industry. I am talking about certain vast interests whom I have good reason to believe to-day hold about 51 per cent of the financial interests in the South African wattle growing industry through the milling side. I say they are an offshoot of an overseas concern, one with big financial interests overseas, and they are taking our wattle industry where they want it to go.

The circumstances under which they are doing it are such I want to predict that within the next few years when the small man is out of wattle growing, the price of bark will go up again. That is what will happen. Of that I have not the slightest doubt. I hope when the Minister rises to reply he will indicate that he is willing, with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, to have a full-scale inquiry into the ramifications of overseas finance as regards the South African tan bark industry. I think it is completely wrong and very bad policy that we should permit overseas financial interests to dictate the future of an industry which has meant so much to South Africa and will continue to mean a great deal to us. I do not believe it is right that the wattle industry should be controlled by overseas interests, any more than it would be right for that sort of thing to apply to other branches of industry where the Government has already taken a strong line. Suggestions have already been made in connection with other matters that the control and even the dominant financial interest shall be vested in people here in South Africa. But in the wattle industry things are going the other way, and one of the huge concerns dealing entirely with vegetable tanning materials, not in one continent but in four continents, is so strong that it can virtually dictate to this country what our prices are going to be. We sit down and have meetings where we discuss the prices of other tanning materials from other countries, and we are discussing merely the other overseas interests of precisely the same financial undertaking. Those are their interests, and they can deal with those other tanning materials in other countries and then tell us our wattle is being priced out of the market, and so forth, out of a market which they control themselves. Therefore I say only a full-scale inquiry with the Minister of Economic Affairs into the whole of the ramifications of that overseas interest can bring the matter properly before the South African wattle growers so that we can be placed in a proper position to compete in the world market with people who should be our normal competitors. There should not be all this financial string-pulling behind the scenes which is depressing our market from time to time when it suits the people concerned so as to get rid of the small man and the small grower. They want him out of the market altogether. I appeal to the Minister of Forestry to please do his best to have such an inquiry. I hope when the Minister gets up to reply to this debate he will inform us that he will give this matter very early consideration.

There is one other matter I should like to deal with during the two or three minutes left to me and that is the question of the drying up of water supplies, which links with the Water Vote we discussed here the other day because the hon. the Minister is responsible for Forestry. This is an extremely delicate matter; it is a matter which in the light of the two reports I saw recently can be described as hardly having been proven. The matter is delicate because of the widespread interests and the number of people who are affected. We cannot afford to take chances in this matter. What worries me about this matter is this. As so often in these scientific matters, to-day’s gospel is to-morrow’s heresy, and the heresy of to-day was the gospel of ten years ago. Therefore we have to tread carefully. I am not asking the Minister to act hastily. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast spoke about the wattle industry a moment ago, and I am glad that he said that they did not blame the hon. the Minister for the predicament in which that industry was finding itself at present. We know it is a very difficult matter and since he asked for the matter to be investigated, I think it may probably serve a useful purpose to have such an investigation carried out. However, I do not want to express an opinion on that.

I should like to draw attention to-night to the considerable progress that has been made in recent years as regards our forestry industry. We hope to have an estimated income of R14 million from our forestry industry this year, while expenditure on current account amounts to R2,057,000 and on the Loan Account to R12,300,000. I mention these figures because they indicate that our forestry industry has almost reached the stage where our capital expenditure can be grouped together with current expenses. This means that forestry is virtually becoming a paying proposition. I think it is a great achievement that all the expenses can be covered by income.

I should like to point out to-night what is being done as regards accommodation for our forest workers. In its annual report the Department stated that it was difficult to find employees, one of the main reasons for it being the shortage of accommodation. The commission of inquiry which had been appointed, found that there was a considerable shortage of houses, particularly in the Western Cape and in the Midlands of the Cape Province. The commission then recommended that R3,300,000 should be spent on the provision of accommodation for forestry workers. Very good progress was made with this scheme and I want to congratulate the Department on what they have already achieved in this respect. During the five-year period 387 houses for Coloureds were completed, while 400 houses have still to be built. 152 houses for Whites have already been completed and 150 are yet to be built. What is also important, is the fact that the normal housing programme has not been negelected by the Department. These houses I mentioned, were additional houses. According to Loan Vote F this Committee will be asked to vote a further amount of R237.000 for accommodation for Whites and R180,000 for accommodation for Bantu workers. Therefore I say it is indeed a major effort on the part of the Department of Forestry in this respect.

During the forestry festival at George we had the privilege of visiting the factory where the houses are manufactured. I am particularly glad about the fact that these houses are all made of timber. The different parts are manufactured there and then put together. It was gratifying to see how well the whole procedure is carried out. I would like to congratulate the Department on the manner in which it tackled this problem of accommodation.

I would like to say a few words about another matter, i.e. the spreading of weeds and obnoxious shrubs. I notice that exactly the same amount is being asked for again for combating of these intruders. I want to refer in particular to hakea. Hakea has already become a very great danger and I hope that we will be able in future to do a great deal more in regard to the eradication of this weed. I really do not think that the amount that is being asked for here is adequate to cope with this dangerous weed. Hakea was brought to this country towards the end of the last century by someone who wanted to grow firewood for his farm labourers. He sowed 12 lbs. of hakea seed in the Stellenbosch mountains and saddled us with a heavy burden. The plant has already been declared a weed. Altogether 100,000 morgen of our mountains along our coasts are infested with this plant and it is now spreading from the mountains to the plains.

Hakea belongs to the protea family and, as we all know, the protea is one of our most beautiful fauna. As a result of this the matter becomes an intricate problem because we cannot simply use any kind of eradication method to combat hakea. If we do that, we run the risk of endangering our beautiful flowers as well. Hakea is a tremendously strong grower. It grows so densely that the area in which it grows becomes virtually impassable, and animals cannot graze on it. That is why hakea is such a great danger.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The provisions of this Bill amend various Railway Acts. The implications of each clause are fully explained in the explanatory memorandum which has been tabled, and my remarks will consequently be brief.

In regard to clause 1 the position is that the Railway Department is from time to time inconvenienced by having to accommodate foreign vessels in respect of which writs of attachment have been served on their masters for moneys due by their owners for services rendered, or goods supplied, by private concerns. In terms of the Harbour Regulations a Port Captain is empowered to remove a vessel to any berth as he may direct. These powers cannot, however, override an order of the court, resulting in a vessel, after having been attached, having to remain where berthed at the time the writ of attachment was served. The Department is, therefore, through no fault of its own and without being a party to the litigation involved, placed in the invidious position of having to accommodate attached vessels without any legal redress. Due to the continuous pressure on the available berthing space, the Department cannot afford to be burdened with idle vessels and it is considered that the time has arrived for steps to be taken to enable the harbour authorities, when complying with an order of the court attaching a ship, to do so in a way which will not reduce maximum exploitation of the harbour facilities.

The purpose of clause 2 is to amend the statutory amounts for which the Railway Administration is liable in respect of stock killed or injured by a train. In terms of section 38 of Act No. 70 of 1957, the Administration is compelled to compensate the owner of any stock killed or injured by a train, provided the killing or injury is not due to the lack of ordinary care or diligence on the part of the owner or his servant. The compensation payable in this connection is limited to the amounts laid down in the Act, but these amounts differ substantially from the current market values of the animals enumerated therein. Section 29 of the Act provides for compensation in respect of the loss, destruction or deterioration of animals in transit and the maximum amounts of compensation payable are stipulated in the Third Schedule to the Act. These amounts were reviewed during 1966 and brought into line with the current market values of the various kinds of animals. Provision is now made for compensation for stock killed or injured by a train to be paid on a similar basis.

Clause 3 concerns the appointment of staff to permanent employment, which is normally effected after the completion of a minimum period of two years’ service. In the majority of cases where servants do not comply with all the requirements prescribed for permanent employment, their services are, however, retained in a temporary capacity beyond the period of two years. Cases of such servants who have completed five years’ service in a temporary capacity at present require to be referred to the Minister for authority to retain their services on a temporary basis. It is now proposed to delegate this authority to the General Manager of Railways. This will reduce work and simplify matters from an administrative point of view.

Clauses 4 to 8 deal with the calculation of annuities payable to servants on reaching the superannuation age limit or to their dependants in the event of their death. At present annuities are based on, inter alia, the annual average of a servant’s pensionable emoluments for the period of seven years immediately preceding his retirement. Following upon a concession recently made to public servants in terms of which their annuities are, with effect from 1st April, 1968, based on their pensionable emoluments for the last four years of service, it is now proposed to make similar provision in the case of Railway servants who retire or whose death occurred or occurs on or after this date.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House accept this Bill. It allows for adjustment for administrative purposes. Other hon. members will talk on particular clauses of the Bill. In regard to clause I of the Bill, which deals with the necessity of moving these boats after they are attached, I should like to prevail upon the hon. the Minister to remember this. The removal of a ship has had unfortunate consequences in Cape Town. He will see one lying on the beach here. When these vessels are attached they are nobody’s baby. They should be properly secured to whichever berth they are moved. I know that the Railways and Harbours are protected against any loss but if you look along our coast you will find a trawler lying on the beach because it was moved from one harbour to the other, not as a result of an attachment, but it is quite evident that it was not properly secured and during a storm it broke loose. I should like the hon. the Minister to take note of this.

We are glad to know that the administrative effect of clause 3 is to expedite the acceptance of permanent employment in the Railways. We are glad to see that the Railways are bringing their regulations into line with those of the Public Service Commission. We support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the (Deputy Minister mentioned that this Bill is an omnibus Bill affecting a large variety of matters, from the removal of ships to stock being killed or injured by trains as well as the appointment of servants to the permanent employment of the Railways. The Bill also amends the method of calculating pensions. I should like very briefly to deal with clause 2 of the Bill, whereby the Administration shall pay compensation to the owner of any stock killed or injured by a train. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister cleared up one point about which I was doubtful, namely stock-on-rail which are involved in accidents. He said that section 29 covered this. The other point about which I am not clear is the question of stock killed by veld fires caused by steam engines. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to us what the position is in this regard.

In regard to the compensation for stock, I see that horses will now be compensated for up to R70 instead of the previous R40 in the case of “any horse”. We know that to-day a large number of thoroughbred race horses are being conveyed by rail from one place to another. I feel that some consideration should be given to thoroughbreds. The hon. the Deputy Minister might feel that an insurance scheme could cover this aspect. I merely mention this as a suggestion. I see that compensation will be paid for “any sheep” up to an amount of RIO, whereas previously the amount concerned was R6. I still feel that this amount is very low. Since “any sheep” could mean a merino ewe in full fleece, which would be worth very much more than RIO, I feel that this amount is very low. It would be even lower in the case of a merino ewe in full fleece and in lamb. I do feel that this is a point which deserves some consideration. On the other hand I think that the R8 in the case of a donkey is a good figure. The amount has been raised from R4 to R8 and this is a good figure.

There is another matter which I should like to mention, namely the fencing of the railways. I noticed in a recent issue of the Farmers’ Weekly that:

What was the principle referred to?

It is the principle of fencing in the railways in areas in which they were never fenced before, in other words, where the farmers to an extent were responsible for the erection of fences. It goes on to say—

This is understandable, but I know of long stretches of farmland, which are as yet not fenced in, areas not very far from Cape Town. I know too that the intention is as follows. I am thinking of one particular farm which has a ten-mile stretch of railway line cutting or running through the property and which has no fence on either side. The Administration is in fact planning to fence in one mile of this railway line, and the remaining stretch of nine miles is to be fenced in at some later date. We all know that this would be ridiculous. We must either fence the whole farm, or none at all. One mile will not solve anything. I do appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to bear in mind, where a railway line running through a farm is to be fenced in, the Administration should fence in the whole farm, or not at all.

I realize that not all the areas can be fenced in simultaneously. It is for this very reason that I do appeal to the Administration to consider this matter very seriously. It is a problem which has been worrying farmers for a long time. I believe we should tackle this particular problem judiciously and methodically. We must start one job and finish it, and then continue with the rest at a later stage, when the Administration has the money available. It would be appreciated, not only by this side of the House, but by all agriculturists in general.

Mr. Speaker, I shall reply during the Committee Stage to the questions raised by the hon. member, so that I can obtain adequate information to supply to him.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

1. (1) That, subject to the provisions of Act No. 58 of 1962 (as amended) and of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament amending that Act and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Acts, there shall, in the case of every person other than a company, in respect of the year of assessment ending the twenty-eighth day of February, 1969, or the thirtieth day of June, 1969, whichever is applicable, and in respect of every year of assessment of every company ending during the period of 12 months ending the thirty-first day of March, 1969, be paid on all incomes received by or accrued to or in favour of or deemed to have been received by or to have accrued to or in favour of all companies and other persons from sources within or deemed to be within the Republic, a tax (to be called the normal tax), the rates of which shall be as follows:
   1. (a) in respect of the taxable income of any person other than a company, as prescribed in the tables below:

TABLES.

1. (b) on each rand of the taxable income of any company (excluding so much as is derived from mining operations and, in the case of any company referred to in sub paragraph (e), so much as the Secretary for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in its gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (j) of the definition of “gross income” in section I of Act No. 58 of 1962), thirty-three and one-third cents: Provided that there shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this sub paragraph a sum equal to 10 per cent of such amount;
2. (c) on each rand of the taxable income derived by any company from mining for gold otherwise than on any post-1966 gold mine (but with the exclusion of so much of the taxable income as the Secretary for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in the gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (j) of the definition of “gross income” in section I of Act No. 58 of 1962), a percentage determined in accordance with the formula: in which formula (and in the formula set out in the first and second provisos hereto) y represents such percentage and x the ratio expressed as a percentage which the taxable income so derived (with the said exclusion) bears to the income so derived (with the said exclusion): Provided that if the taxable income so derived (with the said exclusion) does not exceed forty thousand rand, the rate of tax shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with the formula: and if such taxable income exceeds forty thousand rand, the rate of tax shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with a formula arrived at by increasing the number 20 in the formula by one for each completed amount of two thousand five hundred rand by which the said taxable income exceeds forty thousand rand: Provided further that where a certificate is given by the Government Mining Engineer to the effect that prescribed conditions have been complied with, the rate of tax in respect of taxable income derived from mining for gold on an assisted gold mine shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with the formula Provided further thatthere shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this sub paragraph, excluding the second proviso, a sum equal to five per cent of such amount;
3. (d) on each rand of the taxable income derived by any company from mining for gold on any post-1966 gold mine (but with the exclusion of so much of the taxable income as the Secretary for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in the gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (j) of the definition of “gross income” in section I of Act No. 58 of 1962), a percentage determined in accordance with the formula: in which formula (and in the formula set out in the first proviso hereto) y represents such percentage and x the ratio expressed as a percentage which the taxable income so derived (with the said exclusion) bears to the income so derived (with the said exclusion): Provided that if the taxable income so derived (with the said exclusion) does not exceed forty thousand rand, the rate of tax shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with the formula: and if such taxable income exceeds forty thousand rand, the rate of tax shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with a formula arrived at by increasing the number 20 in the formula: by one for each completed amount of two thousand five hundred rand by which the said taxable income exceeds forty thousand rand: Provided further that there shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this sub paragraph a sum equal to five per cent of such amount;
4. (e) on each rand of the taxable income of any company, the sole or principal business of which in the Republic is or has (been mining for gold and the determination of the taxable income of which for the period assessed does not result in an assessed loss, which the Secretary for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in its gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (j) of the definition of “gross income” in section I of Act No. 58 of 1962, a rate equal to the average rate of normal tax or twenty-eight and one-third cents, whichever is higher: Provided that for the purposes of this sub paragraph, the average rate of normal tax shall be determined by dividing the total normal tax (excluding the tax determined in accordance with this sub paragraph for the period assessed) paid by the company in respect of its aggregate taxable income from gold mining for the period from the first day of July, 1916, to the end of the period assessed, by the number of rand contained in the said aggregate taxable income;
5. (f) on each rand of the taxable income derived by any company from mining for diamonds, forty-five cents: (Provided that there shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this sub paragraph a sum equal to ten per cent of such amount;
6. (g) on each rand of the taxable income derived by any company from mining operations (other than mining for gold, diamonds or natural oil), thirty-three and one-third cents: Provided that there shall be added to the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this sub paragraph a sum equal to ten per cent of such amount;
7. (h) in respeot of the taxable income of any person other than a company, a sum equal to fifteen per cent of the amount of tax determined in accordance with sub paragraph (a) after the deduction of the rebates provided for in section 6 of Act No. 58 of 1962: Provided that any fraction of a rand of the tax calculated under this sub paragraph shall be disregarded: Provided further that the tax calculated in terms of this sub paragraph shall not be payable by any taxpayer whose liability under this sub paragraph would, but for this proviso, be less than fifteen rand;

8. (i) in respect of the taxable income of any company—

   1. (i) a sum equal to ten per cent of the aggregate of the amounts of tax determined under sub paragraphs (b), (if) and (g) before the addition of the sum referred to in the proviso to sub paragraph (b), the sum referred to in the proviso to sub paragraph (f) and the sum referred to in the proviso to sub paragraph (g); and
   2. (ii) a sum equal to five per cent of the aggregate of the amounts of tax determined under sub paragraphs (c) and (d) before the addition of the sum referred to in the third proviso to sub paragraph (c) and the sum referred to in the second proviso to sub paragraph (d):

   Provided that any fraction of a rand of the tax calculated under this sub paragraph shall be disregarded:

   Provided further that the tax calculated in terms of this sub paragraph shall not be payable by any company whose liability under this sub paragraph would, but for this proviso, be less than five rand:

Provided that the tax determined in accordance with any of the sub paragraphs (a) to (i), inclusive, shall be payable in addition to the tax determined in accordance with any other of the said sub paragraphs: Provided further that the taxes calculated under sub paragraphs (h) and (i) shall be repayable to the taxpayer concerned at such times and subject to such conditions as may be provided for in the aforesaid Acts.

1. (2) That the rates fixed by paragraph (1) shall be the rates required to be fixed in accordance with the provisions of sections 5 (2) of Act No. 58 of 1962 (as amended):
   Provided that, subject to the provisions of any law providing for the payment of monies into the Transkeian Revenue Fund, fifteen per cent of any amount of tax determined in accordance with sub paragraph (b) of paragraph (1), before the addition of the sum referred to in the proviso to that sub paragraph, shall accrue for the benefit of the provincial revenue funds of the four provinces in such proportions as may be determined by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette and shall in the said proportions be paid into the said provincial revenue funds in accordance with the laws relating to the collection, banking and custody of provincial revenues as though it were a tax imposed by the provincial councils of the said provinces on the incomes of companies.
2. (3) That there shall from time to time be paid to the credit of the loan account referred to in the General Loans Act, 1961 (Act No. 16 of 1961), sums determined by the Secretary for Inland Revenue to be equal to the amounts of taxes collected in accordance with sub paragraphs (h) and (i) of paragraph (1) which are in terms of the final proviso to that paragraph repayable to the taxpayers concerned.

Mr. Chairman, may I, with your leave, briefly make two announcements at the outset of this discussion. In the first place, I just want to state that the Deputy Minister will take charge of this measure.

In the second place, I want to announce that to-day will be the last occasion on which we shall have Mr. W. J. C. Wessels, the Secretary for Inland Revenue, with us in this capacity, since he is going to retire from this office at the end of this month. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express on behalf of all of us a word of thanks and appreciation to Mr. Wessels for the great work he has done in this Department. It is no easy task to be Secretary for Inland Revenue. I think all hon. members will agree with me that Mr. Wessels has carried out this task with great distinction and ability, and that he has done so because he has undertaken his work with dedication and zeal. I think you will agree with me, Sir, that during this period Mr. Wessels has always reconciled the firmness required for this office with a measure of friendliness and tact, and that by doing so he has gained friends for himself and for the Department. Mr. Wessels has been associated with this Department for almost half a century, i.e. 47 years. In 1921 he joined the Department, and in 1943, after he had served in Cape Town, Bloemfontein and Krugersdorp, he acceded to the head office. From 1949 to 1965 he was the departmental legal draftsman. In 1962 he became Assistant-Commissioner of Inland Revenue, and in that year he was responsible for the consolidation of the Income Tax Act. He also played a major role in the introduction of the P.A.Y.E. system. In 1963 he was promoted to Deputy Secretary and in 1964 to Secretary.

Mr. Wessels is a person who has a great deal of experience and who has gone through an important period in our history. He has not only gone through that period in our history, but has also helped to shape history by helping to formulate our legislation and smarten up the administration and organization of our offices. We have also had the privilege of availing ourselves of this services, not only in South Africa, but also in the overseas service. He participated in numerous discussions between South Africa and other countries, especially as regards negotiating treaties for the purpose of avoiding double taxation. On this occasion I want to express my gratitude to Mr. Wessels for the wonderful work he has done. In thanking him for his work, I want to add that we shall miss him. It is a great pity that people with such long experience in such a specifically technical department should leave the service when they retire on pension. I am very glad to say that we can still retain his services in the sense that he will remain a member of our Commission of Inquiry into Monetary and Fiscal Policy. I know that he will perform great work there. In taking leave of him and extending our thanks to him, we want to express the hope that he will have a pleasant period of rest, but that he will not merely rest but still be active in many spheres and that there will be many more fruitful years ahead for him.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the words of the hon. the Minister of Finance concerning Mr. Wessels. We on this side of the House have been associated with him for many years and know him to be a co-operative, courteous and diligent civil servant. I think that the Department of Finance, and in particular the Department of Inland Revenue, has been fortunate to have this very high standard of civil servant prepared to undertake responsibility fearlessly and without fail. We wish Mr. Wessels a long and happy retirement. As the hon. the Minister has said it is unfortunate that these gentlemen grow old. The years advance and they have to give up, sometimes at the best time of their lives when their services are very useful. The Department of Inland Revenue has had, as the hon. the Minister has said, a very difficult two or three years over the question of P.A.Y.E., which is a revolutionary system. Mr. Wessels has played a large part in the reorganization of his department in order to give effect to the alterations in the laws and in the whole of the administrative machine of the department. We know that he will be missed, but we hope that he will have a very happy retirement. We fully endorse the words of the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I make no apology for raising this question of the scale of taxation again. I referred to it during the Budget Debate, I referred to it last year and I intend to refer to the question of the bulge again this year. I know that the hon. the Minister will reply that this matter has been referred to a special committee. We know that a special committee can meet and it will be some time before the hon. the Minister will introduce an amended Bill. I do not think it is fair to ask the public to wait indefinitely before they get relief. I am supported in my views by several financial articles. I refer in particular to the Financial Gazette. I do not think that anyone can suggest that the Financial Gazette is a paper which supports this party. I refer to an article of 25th August, 1967, which was written by the financial staff of this paper. It reads as follows—

The criticism may come that we are dealing with the higher income brackets. What we are concerned about at the moment is a factor referred to by the hon. the Minister of Finance, namely this question of productivity. It is unfortunate that when we go to our big cities we see in our professional and executive class a tendency not to put their whole weight behind the job. They ease off and ask why they should “work for the Receiver of Revenue”. That is a colloquial saying. The attitude is: Why work so hard when there is no incentive? This is also the case with married women. I am now talking of competent married women in the professional class, particularly teachers, nurses and persons who have university qualifications. They are not doing the jobs they could be doing, because they say there is no incentive and they embarrass their husbands when they go to work. If their income paid at the proper rates is added to their husband’s income, wives say that by the time they have paid their transport, additional Native servants to do the chores around the house and by the time they have paid their tax they might as well stay at home. We are losing people that could be productive, because of the incidence of taxation. I have another article here which appeared in The Cape Argus on 6th May, 1967. Taxation for last year is the same as it is this year. This article in the Financial Mail of 25th August, the top income brackets are among the most highly taxed people in the world”. In another article in the Financial Mail of 25th August, 1967, it is stated that “In fact, for most salaries above R10,000 per annum South African tax is higher than in most European countries.” We find an endorsement of this view in financial papers throughout the country, namely that the tax rate is high. We feel that the hon. the Minister should give this matter some attention, because it is killing incentive. We do want increased productivity. We do want our professional class to work to their fullest capacity and not to take time off. Frequently certain members of a profession, and I do not want to mention a particular profession, find it more profitable, as far as their health and their pocket is concerned, to improve their golf handicap than to improve their monetary income. They feel that the incentive is killed and that they might as well take life a little more easily rather than make a greater effort and eventually hand the additional income to the Inland Revenue authorities.

We find that this is also encouraging another class of person, namely persons above a certain income group who are looking for fringe benefits. He looks for a house from the company at a nominal rate and for a prestige car when a cheaper car would do. He looks for certain travelling allowances, entertainment allowances, and so forth. They do this to keep their income down. The Revenue Office has great difficulty in making a fair assessment as to what these additional amenities are worth. In general, the annual duel between the tax authorities and the tax avoiders—I am not talking about the tax evaders—is growing more and more keen, because the rate is so high in the other brackets that it is killing incentive. For that reason I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to these high income brackets because the rate of taxation is having the effect of discouraging productivity and effort, and we as a young country should be encouraging people to put their best foot forward. This attitude of “I am not going to work any harder because most of it goes to the Receiver of Revenue” is infectious; it starts at the top and goes right through the community.

Once people at the head start taking life easily it permeates right throughout all ranks. Once a Minister, for example, starts taking life easily—and the Minister of Finance cannot take life easily if he is doing his job properly—one finds that the same thing is done by the senior staff and from the senior staff it permeates down to the junior staff. A young country like South Africa cannot afford to have its people take life easily. I do not say that people should work themselves to death, but they should have some incentive to give of their best, and when the tax system is such that it discourages incentive, then I suggest that there is something wrong with the tax system. I hope that these factors will be taken into consideration by the committee which is investigating this matter, and I hope that the Minister will ensure, as far as possible, that the committee submits its report at the earliest possible moment because until we get our tax position right, we will not get the effort to which this country is entitled.

Along with the hon. the Minister and the first speaker on the Opposition side I, too, want to convey my thanks and pay tribute to Mr. Wessels and wish him a very fruitful period of rest, especially in view of the fact that at present he is doing such particularly valuable work for us in regard to the inquiry into the system of taxation. At the same time I want to wish his successor a very fruitful term of office; he will need our good wishes, for under his dispensation we shall have to give effect to the recommendations made by the commission which is conducting the inquiry at present. Consequently he will be the person to give effect to the recommendations.

Sir, the hon. member for Pinetown astonished me again this afternoon. So often in the past few years the accusation has been levelled at us that this Government has now become a rich man’s Government, whereas hon. members of the Opposition have become the champions of the poor man and the lower income groups. And, would you believe it, Sir, this afternoon the hon. member came forward and pleaded for the higher income group. I do not know what to make of the Opposition. Are they the champions of the higher income groups, or do they want to be the champions of the lower income groups?

Of everybody who is deserving.

That observation made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) is typical of the Opposition. They are always negative. They are always pleading for concessions only.

Say what you want to say so that we may know where you stand.

I, in turn, want to ask them where the hon. the Minister is supposed to obtain the money to keep the machinery of State going. If one may not tax the lower income groups and if one may not tax the higher income groups either, where are the Government and the Minister supposed to obtain the money to keep the machinery of State going?

Where do they get the surpluses?

For the umpteenth time the hon. member for Pinetown spoke here of the so-called bulge. After all, it is this Government which has from time to time levelled out that bulge to a certain extent. If one thinks of the bulge that existed before this Government came into power, one will see that it was this Government, and more specifically the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, who started levelling out that bulge. After all, we do have the promise made by the Government that as soon as the opportunity occurs, as soon as finances permit, this bulge will be levelled out further. Since a commission is at present investigating this matter, I believe that we may safely leave it in the hands of that commission. However, I have just one suggestion to make. If we look at the tax rates we have before us, we see that the increases in the percentage taxation is fairly uneven. The amounts on which taxes are being levelled increase as follows: R500, R1,000, R1,200, R2,400, R3,000, R4,600, R5,000, and then there are increases at regular intervals of R1,000 up to the RIO,000 mark, after which it leaps to R12,000, R14,000, R16,000 and R18,000. I would appreciate it if attention could be given to this matter of effecting regular intervals in this scale, and if we could get away from the irregular increases we have at present. It is, of course, a fact that the R4,600 notch is merely the old super tax notch of £2,300. But, whereas we no longer have super-tax, whereas we have a block system at present, we may after all just as well do away with the increase from R3,000 to R4,600 and then again from R4,600 to R5,000. Why can we not have even increases from R2.000 to R3,000, to R4,000, to R5,000, to R6,000, etc.? Mr. Chairman, with these observations I want to leave the matter at that, for ‘I am convinced that this commission will work as quickly as possible, and that it will perhaps be possible for that commission to submit a report before the next session, a report to which it will then be possible to give effect.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Paarl did at least permit himself one or two slight criticisms of the taxation system and that his speech was not one of the conventional I-thank-the-Minister contributions.

Sir, I want to refer primarily to the taxation proposals as set out on page 417, paragraph (1) (a). During the Budget debate my colleague, the hon. member for Pinetown, very effectively and very eloquently dealt with certain principles taken up in these taxation proposals, and I would have been happy to have left it at that, but then the hon. member for Florida rushed in with a vast set of statistics to prove to us in fact how sound these proposals were. I think it is necessary that someone should react to what he put before the House because quite clearly his speech had a considerable impact upon the House. He told us that our taxation was lower than anywhere else; he completely overlooked the question of the bulge; he dealt with indirect taxation and all sorts of other things, and having accused us of having painted a distorted picture, he proceeded to do precisely this. He became guilty of the very thing of which he had accused us. In order to justify the high taxes which are taken up in the proposals before us, he indicated to us that indirect taxation in South Africa was much lower than anywhere else in the world. In fact, he put it at the low rate of 36 per cent and he indicated figures which showed that elsewhere it was appreciably higher. I think this Committee is justified in asking where he got that information from. What are his sources; what does he include when he talks about indirect taxation? In putting indirect taxation in South Africa at 36 per cent does he, for example, include the pipeline from Durban on which the Government has apparently been making a profit of about 600 per cent? That surely is a form of indirect taxation. Does he allow for the fact that telephones must be hired from the Government and that we probably pay more for a less efficient service? All that is part of the indirect tax pattern.

But we can go further than that. There is no sense in comparing our tax rates with those of Britain, as he did, because Britain is a welfare state. They finance exceptional social services.

But you are always comparing things with Britain.

That hon. member did so, and if you look at his Hansard, Vol. 9, Col. 3211, you will see precisely what I am talking about. There is no sense in comparing our rates with those of Britain. They have a national medical scheme. They pay pensions to everybody, there is no means test, and they give exactly the same treatment to people whether they are white or non-white. He mentioned New Zealand and Australia, but what is the sense of making comparisons with those two countries unless you also indicate that they have major subsidies for primary products in order to lower the cost to consumers, and unless you also indicate that they make major cash endowments for dependants.

But I want to return to something else. The hon. member studiously avoided what we have been referring to all along and what we call the marginal rate of increase. Our contention has been that this is higher than it is anywhere else. Now again, if I may quote Britain as an example, you find that this rate remains constant for all incomes from R 1,700 to R 11,000. But what do we have here in South Africa? I made a little calculation. If your taxable income is about R3,000, then the marginal percentage rate is 10 per cent. I am rounding the figures off. If it is R4.000, then it is 12 per cent. If it is R5.000, it becomes 14 per cent, and when it gets to R6.000 it approaches the 30 per cent mark. When it gets to R7,000, it becomes 39 per cent, and when it comes to R8,000, it becomes 42 per cent. So over a narrow range, from R3,000 to R8.000. it increases from 10 per cent to 42 per cent. This is what we are talking about. We say that this might be historically based, but it is indefensible on grounds of logic and equity. It is unfair and it is not a system that we should persevere with in South Africa.

But there is an important other point which hon. members opposite never put before this Committee, and that is the point at which you reach the maximum marginal rate; and here South Africa does not compare at all well with the outside world. Again, if you consider a married man with two children, which might well be the norm that we should follow, you find that in South Africa you reach this maximum marginal point at an income of R 18,000.

In Sweden it is R25,000, in the Netherlands it is R33,000, in the United Kingdom it is R37,000, and in America it is well over R100,000. We believe that this is one of the most powerful disincentives that you could possibly have, because these are precisely the people who are maximally productive. Let me say, too, that these top bracket people, constituting about 3 per cent of our tax-paying population, contribute almost 40 per cent of the taxes collected in this country. We talk about immigrants. The immigrants whom we really want in South Africa would fall into these categories, and we will not get them here if this is the system of taxation.

Then, to get to what I believe was the hon. member for Florida’s coup de grace, he ended up by indicating that our taxation rates now are lower in South Africa, in 1967, than they were in 1947. This is also the sort of comparison which is not really meaningful, because 1947 was immediately after a major war when new services had to be stimulated and introduced. In fact, the Government even today reaps the benefit of what was done then. But surely when making that sort of comparison you cannot discount inflation. We all know that money values erode away at the rate of more than 2 per cent per annum, and I challenge anybody on the other side of the House to deny that the value of the 1947 rand is to-day more than 50 cents. So if you compare our taxation rates to-day with what the position was in 1947, what do you find? I have taken a couple of categories which I believe will illustrate what I have in mind. If you take an artisan who earned R1.000 in 1947, his earning rate to-day would be R2,000. The Government would agree with that. But in 1947, after tax, he was left with 94.6 per cent of his income. To-day he is left with 93.7 per cent. Take a professional man at the middle level earning in 1947 about R3,000. He was then left with 91.5 per cent of what he earned, but to-day he is left with 87.7 per cent. Take the executive who earned about R5.000 in 1947. He was then left with 83.6 per cent, but to-day he is left with 75.2 per cent. And take the senior executive who earned about R8,000 in 1947. He was then left with 75 per cent of what he had earned, but to-day he is left with 56.4 per cent. So in practically every category one can illustrate that these people are worse off to-day than they were in 1947. That sort of argument is meaningless and the House should not be put under a false impression, as we were. But our contention has been that this is a young and expanding country where rates of taxation should be low so that there could be massive capital formation in the private sector. But probably the greatest indictment of the sort of argument the hon. member for Florida put before us is that the hon. the Minister himself has appointed a commission of inquiry. If he thought that the whole system was perfectly in order, and if he was happy about it, would he have taken the trouble to appoint this commission? It is precisely because he knows that the present system is archaic, wrong and unjust that he has appointed this commission, and I hope this commission will, take into account some of these factors which I have tried to put before the Committee.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has really given the speaker who spoke before him, the hon. member for Pinetown, a very hard slap in the face. The hon. member said, “There is no sense in comparing our rates of taxation with those of Great Britain, Australia or New Zealand.” But that is exactly what the hon. member for Pinetown did.

Not if you compare them unfavourably.

But that is what the hon. member for Pinetown did. What is more, having said that, the hon. member made a detour and then he compared “the rates of taxation in South Africa with those of other countries”, after he had said, “There is no sense in comparing them”. Then he asked about the indirect taxation, and he asked what about the corporations in America which had to pay so much, and what about the small percentage in South Africa which had to pay as against the large percentage which had to pay in other countries. He says that one cannot compare these things, but what he and the hon. member who spoke before him took delight in, was in fact in comparing these things. And if the hon. member had compared them in the correct way it would not have been so bad, but what did he say? He said, “The marginal rate of increase in South Africa is higher than anywhere else in the world”. But, surely, the hon. member knows that this is not the case. After all, the hon. member ought to know that the “marginal rate of increase of taxation in South Africa” is practically the lowest in the whole world.

Up to R7,000, but what happens after that?

The hon. member spoke of “the maximum marginal rate”. I can read out to the hon. member from two publications I have here. The first is the monthly newsletter of the First City National Bank of New York for the month of May. Does the hon. member know what the “maximum marginal rate” is in the United Kingdom? It is 91.25 per cent. And this publication which I obtained from the Department also states that it is 91.25 per cent. In Canada it is 80 per cent, but that is merely in respect of the central government, and if one takes the State and the province together, the maximum marginal rate in Canada is 99 per cent. In the U.S.A, the maximum marginal rate is 70 per cent. That is stated both in the publication I have here and in the newsletter of the bank. The figures correspond exactly.

At what income level do they reach that rate?

I shall deal with that in a moment. Since we are talking about the U.S.A, at the moment: the hon. member said that once their income exceeded the R 100,000 mark, they would reach that rate. But, surely, the hon. member knows that they have two systems, and he should have said so to the House. They have the system whereby they assess the incomes of a man and his wife together, and then they have the alternative system whereby the husband alone is being taxed. When they are to furnish separate returns, they reach that rate at the R71,428 mark. It is true that if joint returns are furnished, it exceeds the R100,000 mark. Let us take comparable countries, not old countries, not welfare countries, but let us take developing countries. Let us see what the position is in Australia. In Australia the maximum marginal rate is 68.34 per cent. I want to compare it with ours, since the hon. gentlemen opposite are claiming that ours is 73 per cent. Ours is not 73 per cent. In respect of normal income tax South Africa’s figure is 50 per cent marginal, to which is added the share of the provinces which amounts to between 16 and 17 per cent. South Africa’s is approximately 66y per cent. That is our real maximum marginal rate. It is even lower than that of Australia. In Australia one reaches this rate at the R36,000 mark, whereas we reach ours at the R18,000 mark. It is quite true that the point at which we in South Africa reach the maximum marginal rate is much lower than it is in other countries. I do not want to deny that. The question is not what is the marginal rate alone; the question is what is the effective rate of taxation one pays; what is one left with after one’s tax has been deducted? That is why we should now look at what percentage tax the people in South Africa pay on certain incomes. In that connection I also want to say this: A rand in South Africa, in Britain and in Australia does not buy precisely the same amount of food and clothing. The values of the money also differ. I want to suggest that in comparison with what can be bought with it in other countries, the South African rand can still buy more than the same amount of money can buy in other countries. If that is the case, South Africans are still somewhat better off. If we were to compare it on a rand basis, then we should ask ourselves what percentage of their money people in other countries pay in effective taxes and what they are left with. After all, this is a fact which hon. members opposite will not dispute, namely that the lower income groups in South Africa pay less in taxes than they do in any other comparable country. Surely, hon. members opposite will grant that. I shall not dilate on the figures. Then we come to the bulge.

Mr. Chairman, the bulge has its historical background and on two occasions so far the National Government has tried to level out that bulge, and now it has once again appointed

a commission to see whether it is not possible to level out the bulge further.

Do you agree the “bulge” is unfair?

If possible, I think it would be a good thing if we could level it out. We have, of course, inherited the bulge. I do not want to make a political issue out of this matter. As I am saying, the bulge is an old legacy from the old system we had. Hon. members may look it up in Hansard, and when we have the Income Tax Bill before us, we can investigate this matter further, but I want to tell hon. members that on both occasions on which the hon. the Minister of Finance tried to level out the bulge, hon. members on that side of the House levelled the accusation at us that we wanted benefits to accrue to the rich which we begrudged the poor. I looked up those speeches; I know what I am talking about, and I can quote these things from Hansard. The bulge was wrong, and when we wanted to put it right those hon. members said that we wanted to accommodate people who did not deserve it. In those days money was worth a little more than it is to-day. Today they do not talk about the rich, but about the middle income group.

Let us see what is the actual position here where the bulge occurs. I want to quote from this statement, and any hon. member who wishes to talk about this matter can borrow the statement from me. As regards South Africa, I am taking the figures in respect of the State and the provinces jointly, and I shall also do so in the case of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Now I want to compare these four countries. I shall furnish the figures in respect of South Africa first, and then I shall deal with Canada, Australia and New Zealand in that order. In South Africa a married man with a wife and two children pays 10.8 per cent of his income, if the latter is R6,000. This figure is in respect of both State and provincial tax. In Canada such a person pays 13.5 per cent, in Australia 23.3 per cent, and in New Zealand 20.2 per cent. What other income should I compare? I shall take R8,000. The figures are 18.2 per cent, 16.8 per cent, 29.5 per cent and 27.3 per cent, respectively. On R 10,000 the respective amounts are 24 per cent, 20.1 per cent, 34.6 per cent, and 33.6 per cent. Let us take the top incomes where under our system we reach our maximum marginal rate at such an early stage, namely 50 per cent normal. In South Africa one pays 41 per cent if one’s income is R20,000. That is the effective tax, and 59 per cent of that income the taxpayer puts into his own pocket. I am not taking the savings levy into account, for we do after all get it back later on. The percentage in Canada is 32.1, in Australia 48.2 and in New Zealand 46.7. The highest figures I have here, are in respect of R30,000, and the tax percentages are 49.3 in South Africa, 38.3 in Canada, 54.1 in Australia and 51.1 in New Zealand. I quoted these figures because I do not want the Opposition to create the impression in this country that we are being terribly overtaxed. I concede that in a young country, such as we are, initiative should be fostered. Our system of taxation must not stifle the initiative of the people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very interested to learn that now we are going to have another income tax commission. I have spoken many times on one aspect of income tax, the taxation of gold mining companies. Hon. members know of course that now we have a commission, the question will arise whether the gold mining formula is to be referred to the commission as well, or whether it will be excluded? This formula which we have to-day emanated from the brains of civil servants, from what I would call a drumhead court-martial appointed by the Minister of Finance of those days. That is a very long time ago. We had the Secretary of Finance, the Government Mining Engineer and others, a small committee of five senior civil servants who devised a system of taxation. That system was not found altogether satisfactory and later a commission was appointed by the doyen of our Ministers of Finance, the late Mr. Havenga. Mr. Havenga appointed an income tax commission in his day, namely the Steyn commission, of which the late Mr. Raymond Steyn, a very learned accountant and one of the most able men in South Africa was the chairman. They had just begun their investigation when the Minister of Finance notified them in the second order that they were not to deal with gold mining taxation. The principle underlying gold mining taxation is very simple. It states that the Government is a partner in the enterprise. The Government does not only impose taxation on the profits; it is actually a partner in the enterprise. That partnership is defined by a formula. The formula says that the Government will grant a lease to the gold mining company for the right to mine. The argument used against the gold mining companies is very simple. It is said that in a gold mining company you are taking the patrimony of the country and making it your own. You are taking the wealth of the country. We all agree on that. Of course that is what you are doing. But if the Government says that in order to mine that gold for us and the community through a company, we will come into the partnership, then I think the Government have established their right, a justifiable right, at the beginning of the enterprise. After that the gold mining company should become an ordinary company for taxation purposes. What is the justification for saying that after you establish the lease there will be a special system of taxation for a gold mining company? Mr. Havenga said there should be no revision of the tax but that it should remain as it was. I should like to say it is a most unsatisfactory tax. This is what happens to the shareholder in a gold mining company. Such a company does not live for ever, as we know. Some have a very short life. A new company established three or four years ago will have a very short life of about 15 years. There are companies like that. The first thing that happens is that the Government says that it wants its share of the profits, under the lease. Having done that the Government then says: You will now be taxed not as an ordinary company but according to a special formula, namely

Having done that the Government says to the shareholder: We have taken out two shares already for the Government, and we will now tax you on your dividend as an individual. He therefore has to pay three times. In its report a gold mining company said recently that it paid 72 per cent of its profits to the Government. Then when the shareholder gets the remaining 28 per cent he has to pay tax on his dividends as the income of a private individual. I think this is grossly unfair. I want to make a simple suggestion. The Government should grant a lease and after the Government has taken its share under the lease a gold mining company should be taxed in the same way as any other company. The Government should establish its position when it grants a lease.

I should now like to say a few words about the formula itself. What I should like to say concerns a detail arising from what I have already said. I refer to section (1) (c) of the taxation proposal. The formula here is the formula I referred to. It appears on page 418 of the English copy of the Order Paper. The

We all know that Y

is the share of the profits and X the ratio of profit to recovery expressed as a percentage. This is well-known to people familiar with taxation. That was the system adopted. There have been times when the Minister of Finance, when he is in financial difficulties, has changed the formula slightly. I could mention cases in the time of Mr. Havenga during the depression. I understand such cases. But the interesting thing is that two or three years ago the hon. the Minister’s predecessor introduced a new formula. He did not introduce a new formula for all gold mines, but a new formula for gold mines established after a certain date. That is a fine state of affairs. You will see in paragraph (1) (d) that we have provision for “mining for gold on any post-1966 gold mine”.

The formula in this case is

If you established your company in 1966 you are taxed under one formula, and if you established your company a month later in 1967, you are taxed under another formula. Surely this is the height of absurdity. You do not say to a company: If you were established this year you will be taxed in one way but if you were established the year before you will be taxed in a different way.

It must be established some time.

But it is quite absurd. The situation is absurd. I do not know how we can put it right. In those days the hon. the Minister of Finance was very anxious to get more money invested in gold mining and he found that this was a good way of doing it. But in perpetuity that will be the tax for the mines. There will be a differential system of taxation, differentiating between one mine and another according to its date of birth; whether it was last year or this year. I now want to explain that if you take the mines established in 1967 or 1968, and as the hon. the Minister knows one is being established next month— the lease has gone through and we expect a great deal from this mine—such mines will be taxed under the formula . This means that if the ratio of profit to recovery is 8 per cent, it will pay nothing; divided by eight equals nothing. But if you take the same formula and apply it to another mine, namely and they get 8 per cent, eight into 360 is 45 so that these people will pay 15 per cent. The whole matter is absurd. I therefore want to move the following amendment to paragraph (1) (c)—

In paragraph (1) (c), to omit the formula and to substitute the following new formula:

In other words, I want to tax the 1967 mine in the same way as the 1966 mine. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know for how many years the hon. member for Kensington has been proposing the customary change in the taxation on gold mining companies, but he has done so every year since I have been here. I am afraid that if the hon. member uses the same speech every year as he has done in the past few years he will not again be elected unopposed in Kensington at the next General Election.

What is strange in the hon. member’s reasoning is that he only presents us with one side of the argument every time. He pleads every time that when the capital redemption has been discharged, the gold mine should be treated as an ordinary company. But this is a typically United Party approach and displays a typically United Party mentality in asking for benefits without accepting any risk. What other company—with a few exceptions, exceptions of which the hon. member must be aware —can write off its total capital investment and only become taxable when that original expenditure has been fully redeemed? Year after year they make the statement here that the State is a partner in the gold mining companies. I dispute this statement of course—at any rate, the truth is not correctly reflected in the words used by the hon. member. But if it is so, surely it is justified, in the sense that the State allows that gold mining company to redeem its expenditure in toto before it makes that company liable to taxation. What the hon. member omitted to say, was that while other companies have had to carry a tax increase of from 30 to 36⅔ per cent from before 1966 to date, the tax on gold mines has remained constant since 1956. Thus, while the taxation of other commercial and industrial companies has been increased, that of the gold mines has remained constant. He also omitted to tell us that gold mines with a 6 per cent net income on turnover are not liable to taxation, that is to say, gold mines which were established before 1966, and that gold mines established after 1966 are not liable to taxation unless they have an 8 per cent net income on turnover. In addition the hon. member omitted to say that the burdens imposed upon an undertaking, whether it be a gold mining company or any other company, are to a certain extent calculated—and should be—to oblige these undertakings to increase their efficiency. Let me put the matter in this way: The easiest system of taxation is of course to have no taxation. If the hon. the Opposition is suggesting that we can govern this country without levying taxes, they must tell us so. But if one says that in a well-ordered and well-governed country such as South Africa taxes have to be levied and that for that purpose certain taxpayers have to be found, then I say that taxation compels the entrepreneur or the individual to increase his efficiency and productive capacity. And permit me to say that in this respect the gold mining industry has not disappointed South Africa. As a matter of fact, our gold mines are amongst the most efficient gold mining industries in the world. Only recently our gold mining industry introduced two new techniques, namely the so-called “reef cutter” and the so-called “raise borer”. Although these techniques are still being developed further, the gold mines have thereby succeeded in increasing the efficiency of the industry considerably.

I find it a peculiar state of affairs that when the United Party no longer finds it advisable to disparage and condemn present public servants, as we heard earlier on in this House, it now proceeds, in this case in the person of the hon. member for Kensington, to condemn past officials. This is the nature of the remarks made by the hon. member in connection with the mining engineers and others who are supposed to have designed the formula which he criticized so severely. To my mind this is becoming a strange tendency in the United Party, because we encounter it every time. I now want to ask the hon. member for Kensington whether the Chamber of Mines has ever asked for a tax concession to the gold mines along the lines advocated by the hon. member for Kensington year after year? Has the Chamber of Mines ever asked for that? A further question to the hon. member is: What is the object of his amendment and of his proposal? Surely it cannot be to maintain the status quo. Neither will it be to increase the tax liability of gold mines. This means that the amendment can only have one object, and that is to reduce the tax liability of gold mines. If this should be the case, who does the hon. member want to tax more heavily? Earlier in this debate we heard hon. members venting their spleen about the so-called “bulge” in the taxation curve. They want that “bulge” shifted; either downwards or upwards. One cannot flatten it. Any expenditure by the State must be financed by taxation and/or by loans. But now the hon. member and other hon. members on that side are asking for concessions year after year in respect of pensions, services and, in this case, tax liabilities. If the hon. member wants to suggest that the tax liability of the gold mining industry be reduced, whom does he want to tax additionally? With what does he want to finance the expenditure of the State? I have to conclude that these hon. members, who are continually saying that they are speaking on behalf of John Citizen, the general public, these days and who want to restore politics to a bread-and-butter basis, now want to tax the poor man more heavily, because hon. members on that side, among others the hon. member for Hillbrow, made earnest representations about the decrease in the productivity of the professional man and the man in the higher income group because their marginal rate of assessment was too high. In other words, the taxation of the man in the higher income group must be reduced. The hon. member for Kensington asks that the tax liability of the gold mines be reduced. If this must be so, who is to be taxed? Surely it must be the poor man, the man in the middle and lower income groups. Or would hon. members tell us in what respects we must curtail our expenditure so that we can then grant tax relief? I want to say that this formula, in respect of the gold mining industry is a very reasonable one. I want to say that the Chamber of Mines and those who risk their money in the gold mining industry have reaped rich rewards over the years, and are still doing so, as a result of this formula. I want to content myself with saying that in my opinion there is not the slightest reason for this formula to be changed in so far as it may entail liability to taxation.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for his contribution, because he at least is giving some thought to the matter. But he seems to be living in the old days when they used to sling words across the floor of the House, the days of Hoggenheimer. Hoggenheimers to-day, if they are big companies, are not men who come from overseas to take the wealth of South Africa and then go away. Who owns the gold mines in South Africa to-day? The South African shareholders, directly and indirectly. One can get the lists of shareholdings from these companies. The control of the company is only a small percentage. South Africans invest their money directly or indirectly in gold-mining companies. How do they do it indirectly? They do it indirectly through finance holding companies and through mutual trusts.

Pension funds have moneys invested in these gold-mining companies. The old days of the cry of “Hoggenheimer” are gone; we are living in a different world to-day. Hon. members know that unfortunately to-day we have Afrikaner groups operating separately. We have an Afrikaner company to-day that is one of the Hoggenheimer big gold-mining groups and the I.D.C. is associated with them in other enterprises with Anglo-American, Johannesburg Consolidated Investments and Rand Mines; they are all working together. It is South African to-day, and my plea is for the South African shareholder who has money invested in these mines. It is the shareholder I am thinking of; why should he be overtaxed? The important point about what the hon. member has to say is that if we do not tax this way we shall have to tax another way. Surely you cannot justify taxing a 1966 company on a different basis from a 1967 company? We tried to tell the Minister of Finance of those days that he was on the wrong trail but it had no effect; he had made up his mind. Take the case of farmers. Would you say that the old man on the farm should be taxed differently from the young man commencing farming? It is quite absurd to suggest it. Well, that is the absurdity of these two scales. I am not talking of the small company with a profit of under R40,000; I am just talking about two companies of the same kind being taxed differently because of the period when they were established.

The hon. member for Kensington will pardon me if I do not follow up what he said. I did not intend taking part in this debate, but I do want to reply to a few statements made by the hon. member for Hillbrow. Since I made my speech in this House on 2nd April, the hon. member for Hillbrow has now had two months to go a little more thoroughly into the things that I said. I must say that if this is his effort after two months, he will need a further two months and then he will still not arrive at the truth. Referring to the question of indirect taxation, he asked whether postal rates were not indirect taxation as well. The hon. member would do well to make a study of what indirect taxation is. To-day he has only—he will pardon me if I say so—proved his ignorance in regard to this matter. The main indirect taxation levied in other countries is the sales tax. The hon. member has travelled a great deal in the world and surely ought to have known this. This is one of the methods applied by older countries in order to obtain the revenue with which to cover their expenditure. Most of the older countries have the sales tax, and South Africa does not have it. One cannot compare direct taxation rates unless one also takes into account indirect taxation, because this is one of the main sources of revenue used by older countries to-day to cover their expenditure. How the hon. member can bring the question of postal rates into the matter is beyond me. In fact, if he should draw a comparison between our postal rates, which have nothing to do with indirect taxation, and those of other countries, he would come to the conclusion that our postal rates are of the lowest in the world.

I spoke about telephones; not about postal rates.

The same applies to telephones; there is no difference. Let the hon. member bring us proof that our telephone calls are so expensive. He has no proof; he is simply making the statement without any proof.

Then the hon. member complained because I had mentioned 1947. I had drawn a comparison between the position in 1947 and the position in 1967. The hon. member said that 1947 was just after the war. Sir, this is the only argument which hon. members on that side advance here from time to time: “We were at war.” For every one reason which they mention for the fact that income-tax was high in those years, I can mention ten reasons why it is “high” to-day, although it is still lower than in 1947.

Do you know that our Defence expenditure this year is even higher than it was in 1947? What about social services; what about State expenditure to promote economic development and to bring about decentralization of industries? The hon. member cannot use the excuse that taxation was high in 1947 as a result of the war. That is no argument. For every one example which the hon. member mentions, we can mention many others in regard to why taxation ought actually to have been higher to-day than it was in 1947, and yet is lower. The hon. member says, in connection with the question of a comparison with other countries, that there is no sense in it. Yet it is very strange that hon. members on that side of the House come along here with comparisons morning, noon and night when it suits them, and in fact they drew comparisons here between South Africa and various other countries. The hon. member for Pinetown also did so, and I am not criticizing him for it. A comparison between South Africa and other countries is an important criterion, just as a comparison between the position to-day and the position in earlier years is also an important criterion.

We on this side of the House have never said that there is nothing wrong with the pressure of taxation. Why would the hon. the Minister have appointed a commission of inquiry if he was satisfied that there was nothing wrong? I am one of those who at an early stage pleaded with the hon. the Minister for a commission of inquiry, and the hon. the Minister knows it. We do not say that everything is right, but we do say that if one takes into account the total amount in taxation which the State asks of the population, then it is a very low one; it is a small sacrifice which is asked of the population by comparison with the position in other countries. This is as plain as a pikestaff. But then hon. members on that side of the House come along, as the hon. member for Hillbrow also did here, and tell you morning, noon and night how high our taxation is. We do not deny that in certain instances it is higher than in other countries, but what is the effect on the whole? I again want to remind the hon. member what South Africa pays, as compared with other countries, as a percentage of its gross national revenue: South Africa, 17 per cent; Japan, 22 per cent; Switzerland, 24 per cent; the U.S.A., 29 per cent; Canada, 32 per cent; West Germany, 38 per cent; Sweden, 43 per cent; and France, 43 per cent. This side of the House says that there may be reasons why the pressure of our taxation should be changed here and there, but the accusation that the National Party Government is taxing the nation heavily, is untrue; it is untrue by comparison with other countries and it is untrue in relation to history and by comparison with the actions of the United Party itself.

It is quite obvious that on our main arguments the Government side is supporting us. That has clearly emerged from the discussion here this afternoon. The mere fact that the Minister has appointed a commission of inquiry confirms that according to hon. members on that side all is not well with the taxation scheme as it exists at the present time.

No, you are supporting us.

The Government are not satisfied with the taxation system as we have it at present. We have asked for some years for a commission of inquiry. That is my answer to the hon. member for Sunny-side. We have asked for a commission of infor some years, and we are very glad that the Minister has appointed one. There is no member on the Government side who has said that the appointment of a commission of inquiry is not justified; in fact, they have confirmed that it is justified. Anybody who has had any experience at all of the taxation world, is aware of the consistent efforts in the higher income brackets to evolve tax avoidance schemes. As a result of the fact that the individual tax rate is so much higher than the company rate, you are finding that whole families are turning themselves into companies. Hon. members opposite can get hold of financial magazines and make comparisons between one country and another country until they are blue in the face, but the hard fact of the matter is that the rate of taxation above a certain level of income is killing incentive. It is all very well for hon. members opposite to say: “You are pleading for the rich man and not for the poor man.” Sir, what is a rich man and what is a poor man in this country to-day? What was regarded as poor a few years ago is sheer poverty to-day at the same rate of remuneration as the result of inflation over the years. What we are concerned about is that if we want development in this country we must not kill incentive. We want people who are in the best position to give leadership in this country and to continue to give leadership. Our country develops when we have people with outstanding ability who are concerned with making money, not getting money; there is a difference. There are many people who are just concerned with getting money and giving no service for it, but there are quite a number of people who are capable of making money by reason of their initiative, by reason of their brains and by reason of their drive, and they find that the load of taxation is such that it is killing initiative. That is one of the reasons why the Minister of finance, because of representations made to him, has at last heeded our request that there should be a commission of inquiry to go into the whole of our taxation system. We have asked for a commission for years and we are glad that the Minister has appointed one, but we still want to take this opportunity of reminding the Minister that this problem is an urgent one which concerns both sides of the House and which concerns the country as a whole. Until such time as these anomalies of taxation are ironed out, we will not get the initiative and the drive that is necessary in a young developing country such as ours.

It is almost unnecessary for me to take part in this debate, except of course to make known the attitude I adopt in regard to the amendment introduced here by the hon. member for Kensington. I think we should be careful lest we lower the tenor of an important debate such as this one to the level of a school debating society by saying, “Yes, we did ask for a commission and the Government appointed one, because it agrees with us and because it itself has misgivings; the fact that a commission was appointed, proves that our request was justified and that what we said in the past was correct, etc.” With all due respect, this puts one in mind of the almost insignificant debating points made in a school debating society. Hon. members on that side of the House who participated in this debate this afternoon, attempted to bring to the fore once again those ideas which they had expressed before. Last year we had a thorough discussion here of these very same matters, and on that occasion I, acting on the instructions of the Minister, indicated to the Committee that a committee would be appointed to inquire into the fiscal and monetary policy of the country and to bring out a report in that regard. But I want hon. members to realize that committee was not merely appointed for the purpose of inquiring into income tax. Far from it. That was never the intention. In fact, that is merely one of the many forms of taxation we have in South Africa. Under the terms of reference given to that committee, it can inquire into any form of taxation levied in South Africa. It is for the committee to decide on what it is going to concentrate. I want to point out that in appointing this committee our major object and aim was that it should recommend a monetary and fiscal policy with a view to the stability and growth of South Africa. To a large extent the hon. member for Queenstown has already replied to the assertions made here by the hon. member for Pinetown as well as the hon. member for Hillbrow. I do not consider it to be necessary for me to go into them any further. The hon. member for Pinetown said, in the first instance, that our taxes were higher than those of most of the other countries of the world. Sir, I am not ashamed and afraid of making comparisons with other countries of the world, and, as a matter of fact, the hon. member for Queenstown has already done so. But to a certain extent the hon. member for Hillbrow is correct in saying that one cannot really compare South Africa with other countries. The reason for that is that South Africa’s average productivity is so much lower than that of other countries of the world. The percentage of people who pay income tax in South Africa is so much lower than that of other countries of the world. Only 5 per cent of the population in South Africa pays income tax, whereas the figures in respect of Canada and Australia are 30 per cent and 40 per cent, respectively.

Is that the White population?

It is in respect of the total population, but our infrastructure is, of course, not designed merely for meeing the needs of the white population. It is for that reason that I say that it is difficult to make a comparison with other countries since such a small percentage of our population has to bear the tax burden, whereas in other countries a large percentage of the population shares that burden. But hon. members opposite make no mention of that when they want to pass criticism on conditions in South Africa. Well, I assume that it is the Opposition’s right to pass criticism, but if that is the case, one simply feels that their criticism should be a little more substantial than was the case to-day. On 27th May, 1968, an article appeared in the Cape Argus which has only now been brought to my notice—

I do not want to read any further, but hon. members opposite will nevertheless agree with me that a man in that income group in South Africa is indeed far better off than his counterpart in England is. I do not want to advance these arguments in order to say that our taxes must remain as they are, that they are sound and that they cannot be improved upon. That is not the argument. It is solely intended to rectify the impression those hon. members tried to convey to the outside world this afternoon.

Last year we also discussed the rapid increase in our effective rates of taxation. It is true that when one exceeds the R6,000 mark, there is a rapid increase in one’s marginal rates, but this increase is in fact not such a terrible one as hon. members opposite maintain, except that I agree that every wage-earner in the home should basically be placed in a position which will enable him to subsist. That is why we must have, up to a certain stage, a tax burden which is such that the people will be left with enough to subsist. But hon. members will also agree with me that this is also the case in all the other countries of the world, i.e. that at a certain stage income-tax must start increasing more rapidly; at a certain stage the marginal rates must start increasing more rapidly in order that the person with a high income may be taxed more heavily. One cannot allow that rapid increase to continue, for then one would later on exceed the 100 per cent mark, and that is why the curve has to start running horizontally again at a certain notch so that this marginal tax increase may at least come to a stop at some stage or other. Be that as it may, I do not think it is necessary for me to argue about this matter any further. We have had an interesting discussion about this matter. We are all aware of the fact that a committee has been appointed to inquire into all the various forms of taxation in our country. To-day we merely discussed this matter, but we are all eagerly awaiting the report of this commission, and once we have it we can see how we can elaborate on the basis of that report.

With due respect to the hon. member for Kensington—he and I may still have to argue on the same side this afternoon—I think that to a certain extent he was perhaps joking this afternoon when he put forward this proposal. I do not think the hon. member is serious. After all, the hon. member is aware of the fact that the post-1966 gold mines were accommodated for a specific purpose.

Why?

If the hon. member is not aware of that, I suppose he failed to understand at the time what it was intended for. It is because the risk involved in the development of these developing mines is a greater one. The costs involved in the development are greater at present, and that is why a concession was made to the post-1966 mines; and that is why there is a difference between the pre-1966 mining formula and the post-1966 mining formula. The proposal the hon. member pur forward here will not really come to much. I suspect that most of the pre-1966 mines have already written off their capital, and in the light of all these circumstances I cannot give way to the amendment the hon. member introduced here.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this? Will he explain to me why Kloof and the new mine, East Driefontein, sponsored by the same mining house and the same people, namely West Wits, should be taxed differently?

It is for the reason I mentioned a moment ago. As regards the post-1966 mines, when this formula was introduced the intention was to accommodate these mines in their process of development To place the pre-1966 mines on the favoured formula that applies to the post-1966 mines, would destroy the basis of the difference that was effected at the time.

But Kloof is one of the developing mines, just as the other one.

I do not want to suggest that this formula should always remain as it is at present. These formulas and the tax proposals are discussed in this House every year and they are amended from time to time. But as far as the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Kensington is concerned, it does not serve any purpose whatever and I cannot accept it. I think this is all I have to say at present.

Amendment put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Proposal on stamp duties:

I move—

SCHEDULE.

From the outset the Minister has seen fit to entrust the new stamp duties to me, and hon, members will realize that it was a major task to revise the entire Stamp Duties Act, modernize it and submit a new Act. From the nature of the case we could in fact do it in no other way than to submit the increases in regard to stamp duties to this Committee in the form of tax proposals. In this way an entire series of changes have been made according to these proposals, which will subsequently be embodied in an act,. But now there are certain basic principles which we took into account when we considered these stamp duties. I think the most important of these is that since there is a stamp duty which is based on a monetary amount, or which is based on a transaction which is reflected in monetary value one realizes that over the years, with the increasing cost of farm properties, etc., and the attendant decrease in the value of money, we have already received the full benefit of stamp duties as a result of these increasing values. That is why there is not the same measure of justification for effecting an increase in stamp duties in cases of ad valorem stamp duties, but it is different in the other cases. There are numerous documents on which stamp duties are being paid which are not based on monetary values and which have remained unchanged from 1911 to the present. In those cases you will agree with me that it was desirable to effect a substantial increase in the stamp duties. Take, for example, a special procuration. All these years the stamp duty on such a document has been as little as 10 cents regardless of what amount was involved. For a general procuration it was 50 cents, but for a special procuration it was 10 cents, and we are now increasing it to 50 cents. I think hon. members will agree that, in view of the circumstances which prevailed in 1911 when the amount of stamp duty for a procuration was decided upon, an increase to 50 cents is justifiable to-day.

Then hon. members will see that no use whatsoever is being made of a half-cent, and we have now attempted to lay down a minimum of 2 cents in all cases. That is why you will find that in cases where the amount of 2 cents was previously payable, 5 cents is now payable. I should welcome it if hon. members would give an indication of whether or not they agree with the modernization of stamp duties in this respect.

Accordingly, the proposals are now before you, and there are certain of them in regard to which we have in the meantime effected further changes. You will see that in certain respects the stamp duties, as you have before you to-day, differ from those which appeared on the Order Paper immediately after the Budget speech made by the Minister of Finance. Now there are two of these items in respect of which I should like to introduce further amendments, and the first relates to mortgage bonds. The duty on bonds, as well as on transfers, are amongst those which are based on monetary value and in regard to which we have already in the past. I think, to a very large extent and perhaps to an adequate extent, derived all the benefit of the decreasing monetary values on the larger amounts which are involved here. When bonds were being considered we initially debated whether to simplify the formula, because I should like to explain that with the modernization of the Stamp Duties Act we did not only try to effect a realistic adjustment in stamp duties which would be in accordance with to-day’s values, we also tried to simplify the formulas involved. The stamp duty on bonds has up to the present been 5 cents on R100 up to an amount of R1,000. From R1,000 to R2,000 it is at present still 7½ cent. After that it is 12½ cent from R2,000 to R4,000, and above R4,000 it is 25c per R100. Initially there was a proposal that it should be 25 cents throughout, and I must admit that I felt rather unhappy about that, and I subsequently reconsidered the entire question of bonds. I then came to the conclusion that we must try to find a new formula for bonds. The new formula which I then worked out for bonds is that we should try to simplify the position and that we should try to keep the bond stamp duties more or less as they are at present, but that we should retain the concession which we had for small bonds. That is why I should now like to propose that item 7 of the Stamp Duties be deleted and be replaced by what I am now going to submit. I therefore move—

All that this amendment envisages is to lay down the following stamp duties: 10 cents per R100 up to R4,000; 20 cents per R100 from R4,000 to R6,000; and 25 cents per R100 above R6,000. The final outcome of this amendment will be that we will derive more or less the same income out of stamp duties as we have been receiving up to now. With this amendment we are trying to simplify the tariff structure a little. Previously there were four separate columns, i.e. from 5 cents per R100 to the maximum stamp duty of 25 cents per R100 above R4,000. Now we will begin with 10 cents per R100, and the maximum for stamp duties will only be found at R6,000. That means that the amount on which the maximum stamp duty is payable has also been increased somewhat. As I have said, this new scale will yield more or less the same income and at the same time the small bond holder is being accommodated. I think that in general this amendment ought to meet with approval.

In addition I also want to move an amendment in regard to stamp duties on transfer deeds. The history of stamp duties on transfers is a slightly longer one than that on mortgages. Prior to 1952 the stamp duty on transfers was 5s. per £100. In that year the stamp duty was increased to 25 cents per R100 up to and including R7,000, and when a transaction exceeded R7,000, it was 75 cents on the total amount. In 1960 the Minister granted another concession to the small transferee by laying down that the stamp duties on transfers up to and including R7,000 would remain as they had been before, i.e. 25 cents per R100 and that the stamp duty of 75 cents per R100 would only be levied on the amount by which R7,000 was exceeded. It was proposed that we should also round off these figures a little. Initially it was proposed that the 25 cents per R100 be increased to 40 cents per R100, and that the 75 cents per R100 be increased to 80 cents per R100—in other words 40 cents per R100 up to R7,000, and 80 cents per R100 above that. In the proposals which are already before the Committee, hon. members will notice that provision is being made for a decrease to 30 cents per R100 for amounts up to R7,000. In addition I now want to move—

We are therefore keeping the position as it was, i.e. 25 cents per R100 up to and including R7,000, and 75 cents per R100 above R7,000. I want to make it clear to the hon. gentlemen that as far as transfers are concerned the position remains exactly as it is at present. I am only including it in the tax proposals because the formulation thereof is now different. Previously it was based on £100— now R200—and in order to adapt it to the new system it is now being included in the taxation proposals, and the amounts are 25 cents per R100 on the first R7,000, and 75 cents per R100 after that. Therefore, the position as far as transfers are concerned remains unchanged. As I have already said, we are making a small adjustment to mortgages in order to simplify the formula, but the end result as far as the revenue of the State is concerned, will remain as it is at present. I hope and trust that this amendment will be a concession which will receive the support of hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, we are all pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister has had second thoughts and has amended sections 7 and 21 of the proposals as they appear on the Order Paper. But we do not think these amendments alter the basic consideration of the proposals to any great extent. The Deputy Minister has not told us whether the fiscus is going to suffer to any extent by these changes. He said the fiscus would receive the same amount as before, but he has not told us what amounts he expects to collect as a result of the new proposals.

The first indication we had of these new proposals was in the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance, when he said the following—

It is these rates we are now debating. If one analyses the statement of the Minister of Finance one finds this. Firstly, there was criticism that the existing Stamp Duties Act was involved and had become antiquated; secondly, the late Dr. Dönges had agreed to replace the Act with a modernized and simplified version; thirdly, financial and other institutions were asked to submit their views and suggestions; fourthly, comments submitted were given due consideration. Unfortunately we have not seen the comments or suggestions submitted to the Minister of Finance, but I think there is one thing we can say with certainty. That is that the suggestions did not provide that the taxpayer would be required to pay an additional R6,500,000 per annum in a full year as a result of the proposals we have before us this afternoon, because that is the total effect of the proposals.

It is true the Minister has done away with the stamp duty on receipts and in terms of an amendment which the Minister tabled today to item 8 no stamp duty will be levied where marketable securities tax had been paid. We accept these two concessions. They, of course, are pertinent to the Bill really and not to Ways and Means. But the Minister has given with the left hand and taken back with the right hand and unfortunately for us his right hand is much more dexterous than his left hand. I say this because if one deducts from what he is going to take from us with his right hand what he is giving back to us with his left hand, one finds he has a surplus of R6½ million in his pocket. This is what these proposals mean. What led to the criticism by interested parties was not the low rate of stamp duties; it was the fact that there were inconsistencies and difficulties in the context of the Act itself, not in the Schedules. What appears to have happened is that the Minister and the Deputy Minister, finding it was necessary to change the context of the main Act, decided they might as well get the benefit of changing the Schedules at the same time. But they got the benefit, not us, because every single item has been increased.

The hon. the Deputy Minister told us that some of these rates have been in existence since 1911. This is quite true; many of them have. But what is the necessity or the wisdom of raising these rates at the present time? The Minister gives two reasons. First of all he says we must modernize and streamline our procedures. This is true, but it is a very strange thing that in the course of this modernization he has not found a single case, except as far as receipts are concerned, where that modernization is in favour of the public. In every single case this modernization is in favour of ‘the fiscus. All I can say is, if this is going to be the case throughout the civil service, then heaven save us from any further modernization! Because instead of benefiting us it is harmful to us. Surely the purpose of modernization is to improve things for the taxpayer, not to place further imposition upon him. Then the Deputy Minister says one of the reasons is that he has not used the ad valorem basis, in other words, it is for a service. I want the Deputy Minister to tell me where it costs the fiscus any more when I place a stamp on a power of attorney to-day than it did ten or 20 years ago. Yet he says that where previously one paid ten cents on a special power of attorney, now one must pay 50 cents. What additional cost am I now bearing that the fiscus has incurred? This is what the Deputy Minister says. It may be that in some cases where a service is rendered there may be excesses, but there are dozens of instances where this is not so.

Surely this is not the time for the Government to ask from the public additional funds. The Deputy Minister in his budget showed a surplus of R5.1 million, and he expects from the increases in stamp duties this year an amount of R3.2 million, so even if we do not increase these stamp duties he is still going to have a surplus. So what is the point in asking the public to pay more when the Minister of Finance has R180 million that he does not know what to do with. He has a surplus for the year he does not need, and yet he says to the public, “Please pay more.” I am very glad the Minister brought in his amendments this afternoon because we were going to take the Government very seriously to task for imposing on the small man. But all these new amendments have taken from the small man, the impositions which were originally proposed. There is still one which the Deputy Minister has not removed, and that is the extra half-cent on cheques. I do not think it does the Minister justice to come to this House and say, “We round off our figures; we do not want to deal in half-cents.” We will find occasion to bring this to the notice of the hon. the Deputy Minister again, I am quite sure. The hon. the Minister gave me this indirect answer in advance. He said the reason why the stamp duty on cheques has been increased from 1½ cents to 2 cents is because they do not like dealing in 1½ cents. But this is an imposition on the small man and the small woman. We are not concerned about the big businesses who undoubtedly issue a large number of cheques; we are concerned with the small man who runs a bank account, whose money is invested with a local bank free of interest, which money in the normal course of events flows into commerce and industry in this country. These are the people who are now going to be penalized by an extra half cent on every single cheque form which they issue. As I say, the hon. the Minister has dealt with most of the issues. But there is one left, namely the question of share transfers. The hon. the Minister has perhaps been reasonably mild in his suggestions regarding other matters, but here he is asking for an increase of 1,000 per cent. The present Act provides that one must pay 5 cents per R200 to transfer a share. Now the hon. the Minister wants from us 50 cents per R100. I can see no justification at all for this specific item, any more than I can see for all the items that appear in this “Ways and Means” proposal, and therefore we shall vote against these proposals.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great attention and interest because I very much want to know what the reaction of the hon. member for Parktown would be to these proposals. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister, as the hon. member does, that we welcome very much his proposal that items nos. 7 and 22 be changed. It is true that, particularly in our small country towns, we have pensioners who purchase small houses and take bonds which seem very small to us who live in the cities. But nevertheless these are actual figures and actual transactions which are taking place in certain sections of our country and amongst certain income groups in our country. That is why I should like to say that in fact we welcome this very much.

In addition I listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Parktown had to say. The hon. member is not opposed to the simplification, shall we say the polishing up and renovation of the Act as such, and the attendant scales. It seems to me he welcomes these as well. I heard him raise only one real point of criticism, i.e. he said that we should not take more money out of these people’s pockets nor should we do so in this way. But now I do want to say to him that I am under the impression that a part of the proposals before us are proposals which the United Party has been advocating very strongly over the years. I call to mind that the hon. member for Kensington has risen to his feet in this House year after year and said: “Look, it is not right that if people negotiate share transactions they should do it outside the Stock Exchange. They ought to go to the Stock Exchange and to a broker”. That has been the attitude which the hon. member has consistently adopted here in this House. I do not think the Opposition can raise any objections to-day if requests such as those made by the hon. member for Kensington and by the Stock Exchange, which is a very important institution in our country, are acceeded to. That is what is happening. People who previously concluded large-scale share transactions outside the Stock Exchange, transactions which involved millions of rand, and who only paid the registration fee—I think it was 10 cents—now have to pay 50 cents. In reality it will, in terms of these new proposals, still be only half of what has to be paid if people purchase shares on the Stock Exchange through a registered stockbroker, practising on the Stock Exchange. I do not think there can be any objection to that. If I understand the proposals correctly, it now costs two amounts of 50 cents each, that is to say a total of R1, if one purchases shares on the Stock Exchange, i e. for the broker’s note of the seller plus the marketable securities tax, as well as that of the seller.

50 cents for the two together.

That is a total of R1. This is what it is, according to my information. It was R1.10 under the old provisions, which we are now replacing. I think that is the reply which I want to give the hon. memfor Parktown, since he stated that nowhere else was it cheaper; unless I am not understanding this matter correctly now. I concede that these matters are complicated, but I think that where it previously cost the buyer and the seller 110 cents, it will now only cost R1…

The two together, yes.

… if they conclude the transaction through a stock-broker. This is a reduction. The increase which has been introduced is, however, as I have said an increase to which the Opposition can make no objection, and it is in cases where one negotiates share transactions outside the Stock Exchange. There the buyer must now pay 50 cents instead of 10 cents upon registration. That is the one aspect.

The other matter I would like to raise is the following. The hon. member also said: “Every single item has been increased”. But that is not as I understand the matter. There are many items which remain the same, which are not being increased. If my figures are correct…

Is there any decrease?

No, but all I am talking about now is that the hon. member said that there was not a single item which had not been increased. I maintain that there are many here which have remained the same. That is what I am asserting. There are a good many which have remained unchanged. Take the following example. The levy on a sworn statement has been 10 cents since 1911. It is now being increased to 20 cents. That really does not seem too unfair to me. For example, the levy on bills of exchange and promisory notes is only one amount now, namely 5 cents per R100. This is merely the amount which bills of exchange, in contrast to bills of demand, always were. Only bills of demand were always 1½ cents.

I want to mention two other reasons here to the hon. member for Parktown as to why we are now going to obtain more money out of these proposals. It seems to me that the hon. member for Simonstown might be going to speak. The one is for example that it was possible for a company, which perhaps owned an entire fleet of motor cars or motor trucks —it could have had 8, 10 or 100—to have them insured under one third party policy. Under that provision it only paid 10 cents stamp duty per policy. Now we are changing it so that the amount is payable per vehicle. To my mind that seems quite fair. This will of course make available a large amount of money.

Why increase it?

The hon. member now wants to tell me that if a man has 100 vehicles in his business undertaking, he should only pay 10 cents for his third party policy stamp which is the same as the man who only has one motor car and who uses it to drive to work.

Why are you not reducing the levy on the man who has only one motor car?

I find it interesting that the hon. member seems to think that, if one has 10, 100 or 800 motor cars—I think there is an organization in South Africa which has 800—one should only pay 10 cents on the third party insurance. Then one should abolish the 10 cents which the hon. member for Yeoville and myself pay, and then one would still be doing something which is fair. I do not think the hon. member can assert that this will be a fair solution.

But there is another item here, i.e. item no. 20, in regard to security. Previously this was evaded. One simply omitted to specify the amount of the suretyship, and then one paid the minimum amount, which was 5 cents. But now a provision is being inserted which reads—

An amount of R10 is payable. That does not seem too unfair to me. Then there is another one here in regard to the registration of a company. A company is registered with a nominal share capital. Previously it paid almost nothing, and now the company also has to pay a certain minimum amount. I think it is also R10. Surely one establishes a company with a purpose, and if one deems it worthwhile establishing a company, I think one ought to be prepared to pay this R10 stamp duty on the deed. That is my reply to the hon. member. I do not think that the amounts indicated here are in any way unfair. I think the hon. members on the opposite side will have to rise and mention the specific item which they think is unfair if they really want us to argue this matter. They must prove their statements. We can no longer retain the figures on the 1911 scales. These are normal changes which have become necessary with the passage of time. They comply with the new demands and circumstances of the economic situation in which we find ourselves to-day.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we should accede to the request of the hon. member because we would be setting a very bad example. When we dealt with certain items of detail the hon. the Deputy Minister used some unfortunate words. On reflection I think he regrets using those words. He suggested that we were dealing with the matter in a school debating society manner. I do not think that it became the hon. the Minister to make those remarks. If we are to accept the views of the hon. member for Queenstown and consider the matter item by item, we will do it in a schoolboy debating society manner. I suggest that is not what the hon. the Minister wants. The main charge made by the hon. member for Parktown was that this was taking another R6 million out of the pockets of the taxpayer. Once you consider the matter item by item you must consider all the pros and cons. We could be here all day considering each item separately. The main charge of the hon. member for Parktown was that the Government was taking another R6 million out of the pockets of the taxpayer and that it was not justified. But seeing that the hon. the Deputy Minister is in a critical mood to-day might I suggest to him that when he introduces items of this kind and changes his mind at the last moment he should give us more adequate notice than he has given. He has had these items on the Order Paper for several weeks. We are grateful to the Minister for giving us a list yesterday afternoon to consider overnight. Now while the hon. the Minister has been talking this afternoon messengers have been bustling around the House giving us his latest ideas. I submit that is not the way for an aspiring Minister to treat this House. He should put them on the Order Paper in the proper way.

I thought I was being critical.

It is our turn to be critical now. Since the Deputy Minister has decided to be critical, I think that we can be critical in turn. The Minister’s budget proposals were put on the Order Paper and he has every right to change his mind. I should like to suggest that we should be given more time to consider them and that they should be printed on the Order Paper to prevent this last minute scramble which does not befit the House or the Minister dealing with the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I find it easy to understand why the hon. member for Pinetown is so bitter now. It is because the hon. the Deputy Minister has, with his proposals in this House to-day, taken the wind out of the sails of the hon. members on that side. They thought that they would be able to blow up this question of the stamp duties on bonds, and on the other item which has been decreased, i.e. deeds of transport, and go to the general public with these things again as the champion of the small man. Now they have come off second best. The hon. the Deputy Minister will most probably deal with the hon. member for Pinetown. I just want to return to two aspects which were raised by the hon. member for Parktown. He began his speech very well by repeating the speech made by the hon. the Minister in respect of stamp duties word for word. I sat listening tensely waiting for him to read out a very revealing and important section, namely where the hon. the Minister stated that: “Hon. members will ascertain with pleasure that the stamp duty on ordinary receipts will be abolished entirely.” This is a very sound and productive concession which is being envisaged. I expected the hon. member for Pinetown to refer to that, because here the Treasury is not only surrendering revenue, it is also saving manpower in that it is now eliminating the necessity to affix stamps to receipts.

Order! Would the hon. member please give me the reference to the item in the Schedule which he is now discussing?

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling. I return immediately to item 5 (1) in respect of which the hon. member for Parktown objected strongly to the increase of .5c stamp duty which is being levied on a cheque. Now I just want to point out that when decimalization was in progress two pennies, or 16⅔ per cent of the then valid monetary unit, namely one shilling which consisted of 12 pennies, was the valid stamp duty on a cheque. With decimalization the point of departure was apparently, and this was an excellent point of departure, that decimalization as such was not to be used to make money for the Treasury. Consequently the stamp duty on cheques was decreased to 1½c, namely 15 per cent of the at present valid monetary unit of 10c. It was therefore a decrease in the stamp duty at that juncture of 1⅔ per cent. Since an increase of a ½c per cheque is now being announced, it is in my opinion a valid and an easily justifiable increase, because previously there had been a decrease, and because the increase must not be seen as an increase of one-third on the valid monetary unit, but an increase, seen in its entirety, of 3⅓ per cent, or in fact one-fifth of what it was before decimalization. Consequently I do not find it easy to understand the reasoning of the hon. member for Parktown.

There is another aspect in regard to which the hon. member for Parktown expressed vehement criticism, i.e. the increased stamp duty in respect of share transfers. What other person purchases shares but that man who can afford shares transactions, who can afford the risk attached to that, and who, according to his judgment, because he would not otherwise buy them, is going to make a profit out of it? Does the hon. member for Parktown deny that the transactions on the share market in Johannesburg have increased tremendously, from R164 million during the last three months of 1967 to R285 million in the first three months of the current year? If the public of South Africa and the public outside South Africa want to negotiate share transactions, then to say that the increase is something which has been valid for many years is not an argument which can be put forward here as a reason why share transfers should not be taxed more heavily. As regards the argument of both the hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Parktown that an additional amount of R6.5 million is being taken from the pockets of the public, I should like to know how the hon. members derived at that figure. I should like them to demonstrate to this Committee what their source in that regard is, because the impression we have at present is that the new stamp duties will not entail that type of additional advantage. At the same time I want to argue that if additional funds can be acquired for the Treasury by means of simplification and modernization, in regard to which there is apparent unanimity, then no objection can be made to that. In point of fact, we have a surplus of funds and if an alteration of the stamp duty will facilitate this state of affairs for the State, why should it not take place?

I am surprised at the callous approach of the hon. member for Wonderboom to what he admits is a 20 per cent rise in the cost of a cheque in comparison with its cost at the time of decimalization. I think that just shows the trend of thought of Government members in regard to any form of increased taxation. Sir, I do not regard a cheque book as being a luxury. I think the average person in the middle income group possesses a cheque book, and it seems to me that he is being penalized in every phase of our financial life. Sir, do you know that the cost of a cheque book containing 20 forms is 40 cents at the moment, and the cost of 50 is R1.00. I admit that the existing stamp duty is low at 1½ cents but I do not think it is necessary to increase it to 2 cents. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with me that the consequence of this step will be that the cheque book user will use cheques less often? Is that what he wants? Secondly, the cheque book user is going to transfer his account to a savings account either at a savings bank or with building societies. Is that what he wants?

I have no objection.

But is that what he is aiming at by increasing the stamp duty?

By no means.

Then there will be a further consequence. The banks have already been hard hit by the credit squeeze and by various ceilings which have been put on their activities. They will pass on the increased stamp duty of ½ cent per cheque to their customers. That, in turn, has an accumulative effect on the general pattern of the spiralling cost of living. It seems to me that Government members are filled with equanimity whenever there is an increase in taxation. There has recently been an increase in motorcar licence fees; there has been an increase in rail-fares, there has been an increase in telephone charges and now there is an increase in stamp duty. All this fills them with equanimity—but not the man in the street!

I thought that hon. members would accord these proposals a far greater welcome than they did this afternoon. I am rather disappointed since I came forward myself with concessions in respect of stamp duties on bonds and deeds of transfer. I just want to point out to the hon. member for Pinetown that this concession on deeds of transfer alone will mean a loss of R300,000 in revenue, and that it will mean a loss in respect of bonds of R 150,000. The hon. member could at least have subtracted that amount when he made that calculation here a moment ago.

Mr. Chairman, let me dwell for a moment on the increased stamp duties on cheques, in regard to which hon. members on that side kicked up such a fuss here. The hon. member for Pinetown stated that he did not want to argue about details, because I would then have said that we would be bringing the level of the debate down to that of a school debating society. Sir, we can argue about details here, because we can achieve something here by doing that. Earlier this afternoon we were not dealing with a matter in regard to which we thought that we could achieve something. As far as this matter is concerned, we can in fact achieve something, and that is why I expect hon. members to stand up here and state: “See here, previously the stamp duty on a sworn statement was 10 cents, and it is now being increased to 20 cents; this is unrealistic; it does not take into account the changed values of our money.” If they had put forward arguments like that, their arguments would have had some value, but they did not come forward with arguments like that. There are many examples I can mention in this regard. Let us start with the stamp duty on cheques. In general hon. members on that side objected to the fact that the stamp duty on cheques is being increased by a half cent. I want to say to the hon. member for Simonstown that the increased stamp duty will of course be paid by the man who writes out the cheque. It is not the banks which are going to pay it. Hon. members must remember that we have already done away with the stamp duty on receipts. This concession entails a loss of more than R1 million in revenue. Who are the people who are going to be affected? If the hon. member is pleading for the man in the street then I want to tell him that a very large percentage of these people do not have cheque book accounts. The people who use cheque books are the large businessmen which we have now accommodated by doing away with the stamp duty on receipts. They are the people who write out hundreds and thousands of cheques. Take my own case as an example. I think that I can be regarded as a reasonably average case. I would say that for my domestic requirements I write out at the most perhaps 200 or 300 cheques per year, or perhaps not even so many.

That will cost R1 more.

This item will therefore cost me an additional R1 per year. I want to ask the hon. member to go into the history of the stamp duty on cheques a little. In 1911 the stamp duty on a cheque was one penny; we are now making it two cents.

When was it made 1½ cents?

I shall now explain the history further to the hon. member. I am now asking the hon. member again: If he has no quarrel with me when I increase the stamp duty on sworn statements from 10 to 20 cents, for reasons which hon. members are themselves aware of, then surely they can put no argument forward as to why, if we want to be realistic, we should not increase the stamp duty on cheques from one penny in 1911 to two cents to-day.

It is unnecessary.

We are dealing here with the modernization of our stamp duties; but the purpose is not merely to simplify the system; the purpose is also to obtain a uniform pattern throughout. I think it would also be realistic to obtain more or less the same pattern as we had in 1911, in other words that we accept the 1911 pattern as being a good basis. I am not saying that it necessarily is a good basis. Errors could have crept into the provisions of the Stamp Act in 1911. But if we want to remain more or less realistic on the 1911 basis and we find that our income from transfers and our income from other ad valorem stamp duties has increased tremendously, then I want to know why the other man who is paying a stamp duty on a document which is not based on monetary value should get off scot free; why should he not pay a little more as well? The modernization of our stamp duties entails that stamp duties, which owing to circumstances have not been increased, should be increased and that the troublesome incidents in respect of stamp duties on receipts for example should be rectified. The abolition of stamp duties on receipts is meeting with great approval because it is inconvenient to have to affix a one-cent or two-cent stamp to each receipt which is made out.

The hon. member for Yeoville asked me to delve a little deeper into the history of the stamp duty on cheques. In 1911 the stamp duty on a cheque was one penny. From 1931 until decimalization in 1961, it was two pennies. We did not want to make it 1⅔ cents, which is more or less the value of two pennies, and we consequently made it 1½ cents. In 1961 therefore, as a result of decimalization, we effected a decrease in the stamp duties in cheques. We would not want to work with ½-cent units. Hon. members are laughing, but I should like to hear their serious opinion in this regard, because this Stamp Duty Act which we are now placing on the Statute Book is something which we would like to keep for many years, and we must not make a political issue out of the matter. Let us be honest, and try to determine what stamp duties should be placed on certain documents. Let us put forward proper and fundamental arguments in this regard. We now have an opportunity of doing so, and I want to invite hon. gentlemen to do so. I feel that the increases which we are introducing here are realistic; they are not unsuitable, and in the light of all the circumstances I would have expected hon. members to welcome them.

Sir, I should like to say something else in regard to the stamp duties on the transfer of shares. The hon. member for Parktown stated that we had increased it 1,000 per cent. I was surprised that the hon. member for Kensington did not discuss that matter. I was waiting for him to speak because I think that he is on my side. He has been advocating this for many years.

I want to let you down gently.

Yes, the hon. member has let me down this afternoon. I waited for the hon. member to speak because he has been advocating this for many years. He told us—I am now returning to the hon. member for Parktown—that it was the small man who undertook his business through stockbrokers. The small man has up to now paid 110 cents on a transaction of R100. The seller and the buyer have each paid 50 cents, and on each of the broker’s notes there was a 5 cent stamp duty. Over and above that the buyer still had to pay a 5 cents stamp duty on a transaction of R100 for registration purposes, for the transfer of his shares.

That is what the small man paid, but the big man, whom the hon. member for Kensington told us about, does business in hundreds of thousands, and millions, but he does not go through the brokers, and what does he pay? He pays only 5 cents on a transaction of R100. I think that we should ask ourselves on what this tax is based. If I were to analyse it I would say that it is based on the fact that a change has taken place in the proprietary right of shares, and that it is on this basis that the tax is being paid. If one accepts that is the basis on which the tax has to be paid, then hon. members must in point of fact tell me that whereas we are now imposing a tax of R1 on a transaction of R100 which goes through the broker, we should also upon registration, charge R1 on a transaction of R100 which does not go through a broker. Is that not correct? Surely that is correct. If the basis of the tax is that a change takes place in the proprietary right of the share, then I ought to-day to impose a stamp duty of R1 on the transaction of R100 for the registration in cases where the transaction does not go through a broker. But in contrast to that we are only imposing a stamp duty of 50 cents. I think this is quite correct. Why should the big people get off scot free, whereas the small man has to pay the tax because he is compelled to go through the brokers and through the Stock Exchange? No, I do not think the hon. member for Parktown had any argument in this respect. We have given this tax our careful attention. I want to admit candidly that it is a difficult and complicated matter. I should like to see that we investigate the matter further during the course of the year. We now have something on which we can work for the time being, but I would like to see that we investigate this matter further, and take all the different arguments and aspects into consideration to see whether the stamp duty should not in both cases be precisely the same. According to these new proposals the stamp duties on transactions which do not go through the broker will only be half as much as the stamp duties in the case of transactions which do in fact go through the brokers. I think that we are being reasonably realistic. Of course this is not a case where one can say “Twice two is four and twice four is eight”. One must, as far as possible, be realistic in regard to stamp duties, but I think that we have made an honest attempt, and that we have achieved a good measure of success.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Proposal on marketable securities tax:

I move—

Agreed to.

Proposal on customs and excise duties:

I move—

1. (1) the ordinary customs duty in Part I of Schedule No. I to the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, on the goods described hereunder and classified in the tariff subheading set forth hereunder, be amended to the extent shown:

1. (2) excise duty to the extent shown be imposed on the undermentioned goods manufactured in the Republic and customs duty to the extent shown be imposed on similar goods imported into the Republic:

1. (3) the amendments to the customs and excise duties set out in paragraphs (1) and (2) above be applicable to the goods concerned which have not been entered for home consumption at the time this Notice of Motion is tabled.

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions on income tax, stamp duties marketable securities tax and customs and excise duties reported with amendments in the resolution on stamp duties.

Resolutions adopted, with amendments in the resolution on stamp duties.

When the debate was adjourned last night, I was speaking about the weed hakea. I mentioned that it belonged to the protea family and that it was therefore very difficult to eradicate it. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is taking this matter very seriously. They have gone as far as sending people to Australia to do research in connection with this weed. Unfortunately it is difficult to import parasites or fungi to destroy it, because they would also attack our proteas. Moreover, such biological methods of control are long-term projects and at this stage the Department cannot give any assurance that these methods of eradication will be successful. In the meantime, therefore, we have to continue eradicating the weed by mechanical means, but unfortunately this is a very expensive process. It costs from R40 to R60 per morgen to eradicate the weed where its growth is dense, and therefore it is very necessary that more money be made available by the Department of Forestry for this purpose. Of the 100,000 morgen contaminated, the greater portion is State-owned land, and therefore more ought to be done by the Department to eradicate it. I just want to mention in passing that magnificent work has been done in the Western Cape by the Land Service Movement in clearing the mountains near Stellenbosch of this weed. In the Outeniqua Mountains and the Tsitsikama Mountains, however, this weed is still rife and something will have to be done there. The farmers are experiencing difficulties as a result of the fact that State-owned land is infested with this weed. They clear their lands of it, but then the south-east wind comes across the mountains and blows the seed over their lands, and then they have to begin clearing all over again. I therefore want to make an appeal to the Minister of Forestry that he should see to it that the State will also do is duty in clearing its land and in preventing this weed from spreading any further. The farmers also need financial assistance for this, but that does not belong under this Vote, and at this stage, therefore, I only want to ask that the State-owned lands be cleared of this weed.

I am sure I speak for all my colleagues when I say that we on this side of the House will support the hon. member for Humansdorp in his plea for assistance from the hon. the Minister and his Department in the eradication of hakea. The hon. member also spoke about the great advances in forestry, and he mentioned the annual report of the Department and the enterprises undertaken by this Department, but I want to talk to the Minister this afternoon more about the private sector.

The question of financial assistance to help the smaller growers to plant trees is still a very vexed one. Many areas of South Africa are unsuitable for other types of agriculture, but are suitable for afforestation, yet those areas remain unplanted. The inability of timber planters to obtain loans at low rates of interest over long periods is one of the reasons and perhaps the most important reason why those areas have remained unplanted. Yet we find that similar loans are available in respect of other types of farming. The hon. member for South Coast mentioned the wattle industry. I am sure the Minister knows that the wattle industry is in the doldrums and that rationalization has brought about the position where many planters of wattle have found that they now have to eradicate upwards of 50 per cent of what they already have established. This is a most costly business. It is not only the felling and the stumping, but it is the eradication of the “opslag” which continues for years and years. Because of this, the land which has been planted to wattle is not always suitable for other agricultural crops. It has been found that the easiest way to utilize land that has been under wattle is to plant some other type of timber. But this is an expensive business and very many farmers find that they cannot afford to lay out a large amount of money for which they will get no return for eight, ten or 15 years, depending on what they plant, so much so that you will find that at the recent congress of the S.A. Timber Growers’ Association a motion was discussed urging that some form of low-interest loans over long terms should be made available to timber growers. This Minister, I submit, in the interests of the timber industry and of South Africa generally—because, make no mistake, this is becoming big business here—should bring his influence to bear on his colleagues and try to obtain some form of financial assistance for the small timber grower. I know this question was raised during this debate last year, but unfortunately at the conclusion of the debate the hon. the Minister rather begged the question although it was obvious that he was sympathetic to the growers. He advised the Committee that he had appointed a committee which was investigating this very point. He went on to say that its report would be submitted in due course and he realized that this was something which needed the attention not only of himself but of his Department. I want to ask the Minister whether this committee has reported and, if he has received the report, will it be tabled in this House, and if so, when will it be tabled? Has the Minister been able to make some headway? Perhaps he can tell us to-day that some financial assistance for small growers will be forthcoming.

I have been trying to find some statistics and information on the timber industry in this country, and I found it most difficult to get any up-to-date statistics. The annual report of the Department is a very good report, but unfortunately it only reports on Government activities and not on what is happening in the private sector. Nowhere in that report is there any mention of acreages under timber, the production of timber and things like that, statistics which are vital to this industry if it is to continue. It is obvious from what I have been able to find that this is a rapidly expanding business. The volume of cut timber, for instance, in 1961 was only 8.3 million cubic feet, and in 1966 it was estimated at 20 million cubic feet. I believe it has nearly doubled since then, but unfortunately we cannot get the statistics. I want to urge the hon. the Minister to do something about this and to get statistics, particularly accurate and up-to-date statistics, from which projections can be made into the future. Timber growing is a long-term business and it not only affects the grower himself but also the consumer, the industrialist who uses timber products. This is one of the reasons why the industrialist is becoming a planter who is competing with the farming industry. He must have continuity of supply and the dearth of statistics in this country has put him in the position where he does not know whether he will have continuity of supply, and therefore he has had to resort to planting his own timber so as to be sure that he will have something in the future.

The annual report of the S.A. Timber Growers’ Association shows that from the point of view of the planter the timber industry is growing in all spheres. It shows that some sectors have reached the stage where there is actually over-production. Either the Association or the Minister and his Department, or both in collaboration, must now look for further markets, and particularly must they look for export markets, or for ways of encouraging further consumption in this country. I think particularly of sawlogs. I believe that the production of sawlogs in South Africa to-day has come to the point where we no longer need to import any building timber at all. This, together with the improved techniques of processing, finger-jointing and glue-laminating, have put us in the position at the moment where we do not need to import any building timber at all. The anti-inflationary measures, I believe, have affected the building industry, and similarly the sawlogging industry has been affected to the extent that to-day they are faced with an over-production. I want to urge the Minister to see whether he cannot look for other markets. It has been suggested that South West Africa, Rhodesia, Malawi, Botswana and Lesotho are potential export markets for this particular sector of the industry, and I want to urge the hon. the Minister to look into that matter and to assist us.

We find that at the same time in the pulpwood sector the report shows that the production of pine for pulping exceeds the demand, so that once again we must look either for further uses for this product in South Africa or for export markets. But we find that hardwood pulps are still in short supply. In fact, two of our own local industries have guaranteed to the producers very much increased quotas which they will take in, if they can be produced locally. We find that the supply of poplar, notwithstanding the fact that the match factories are no longer using wood for their match-boxes but have turned to cardboard, still falls short. We find that the production of treated timber for droppers, fence posts, electric light poles, telephone poles, etc., is exceeding the demand. I am pointing these things out to the Minister to show that statistics in regard to these matters are needed, not only statistics of what can be produced to-day but what can be produced over a period ahead, based on what is planted already, so that not only the industrialists but the planters themselves can be guided in various spheres, for example rather to plant poplars than logwood. Estimates can only be based on accurate data and statistics, and I submit that it is the duty of the Minister and his Department to gather those statistics.

Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker dealt mainly with the role of the private sector. I do not want to touch on all the points which he mentioned, and mentioned convincingly, but I want to draw his attention to the fact that the report of the commission of enquiry into private forestry in South Africa is very enlightening. I am not sure whether he is awaiting this report or the report of the committee which is recommended. He referred to the question of financing. On page 53 of the commission’s report they make certain recommendations.

Do not forget it has not been tabled yet.

That is only a technical point. I think hon. members can acquaint themselves with the position and see that progress is in fact being made, that work is being done. It is so opportunistic to ask for something when one knows that it is just round the corner in any case, because then it seems as though one has served as a stimulus for the release of the report or for the work which is done. I do not want to dwell on this any longer.

I now want to exchange a few ideas about the question of marketing and so forth. I should like to consider forestry in South Africa as a whole. In terms of my approach I am very enthusiastic and I feel very happy about the development of this industry. It is true that there are certain bottle-necks, but if we think back to what the position was 40 or 50 years ago, then I venture to suggest that the development of forestry in this country symbolizes the development of the country as a whole. We who saw how the people, led by the Department of Forestry, planted trees in the high rainfall areas by the sweat of their brows, we who saw those trees grow, and who to-day look upon those beautiful forests from the Cape right up to the Soutpansberg mountain range can only feel proud of the work that has been done. We are aware of the part which the Department of Forestry played in that regard and which it also played subsequently by providing the private sector with information and assisting it in various ways to allow forestry in this country to come into its own.

As a result we have the position to-day that forestry is making a valuable contribution in the economic sphere in respect of the national revenue, and in providing employment in various fields. Not only does the industry have great economic value, but it also has a tourist value. I mentioned how one could see the beautiful forests from the Cape up to the Soutpansberg mountain range, and along the southern and eastern mountain ranges of our country. I think that these beautiful forests play a large role in making our beautiful natural scenery even more vivid and in increasing and promoting the benefits which this holds for us. It is therefore a good tourist attraction. In the Eastern Transvaal in particular one can see the enormous forest plantations.

I think that we should go further in expressing our appreciation here. In the previous annual report of the Department it was envisaged that it would take quite some time before the Forest Act could be revised and consolidated. I am glad that the matter has already progressed so far that it can probably be disposed of this year. I want to congratulate the Department sincerely. I think this is a milestone which will mean a great deal to forestry in the future. There is perhaps one aspect which has been overlooked, i.e. that of the small producer. I hope that the question of financing will, in fact, receive further attention and that we shall be able to meet this need to a certain extent.

Another point which is very important is the question of the utilization of our forests. This is something which I find very interesting, and the previous speaker also referred to it. If we look at the report of the Timber Growers’ Association and at other reports, inter alia, that of the S.A.B.S., then we notice that while in 1948 only 15 per cent of our construction timber was grown locally, we are now obtaining as much as 80 per cent of our construction timber from our own forests. I think this is an exceptional achievement. However, there is a shortcoming in this connection, and that is that last year only one half of this timber carried the mark of the S.A.B.S. This is nevertheless an improvement on the previous position. In 1960, 600,000 cubic feet of timber carried the mark of the Bureau, while in 1967, 4.5 million cubic feet of timber carried this mark. This is indeed a very great improvement, and now that the Act has made it compulsory for sawmills to make use of the mark of the Bureau and since standardization is to come, I definitely feel that we are making very good progress. The use of finger joints and laminated wood has of course contributed to the greater use of wood.

I also want to touch on the question of paper. Last year it was carefully estimated that 350,000 tons of paper were already being produced locally and that this represented an exchange saving of R50 million. There is a rapid increase in the rate of production and use. All these things are very encouraging signs to us and indicate that the Department of Forestry and the private sector are co-operating well. The liaison and the co-operation between these two organizations have already reached a particularly high level and I feel that we can be particularly proud of it.

I want to emphasize that there are marketing problems and that we should begin to think about exporting. I foresee that in these fields we are going to experience great difficulties, because the other timber producing countries of the world have mainly natural forests, which are of particular advantage to them. I was disillusioned to see what wages were paid to lumbermen and sawmill workers in countries in Europe as well, countries which have a high standard of living. Their wages sometimes compare rather unfavourably with those which we pay our Bantu labourers at our sawmills. This, of course, makes the problem of competition even more difficult. There is the prospect of our finding a market in the African states for certain quantities of wood in the near future, but I feel that those countries themselves will to an increasing extent emerge as primary producers of timber products. We are already finding this position in Swaziland. The marketing of our own products is adversely affected by the fact that they are mainly dependent on us for the marketing of their products. A good prospect here is the construction of timber houses. If one reads the report of the Timber Growers’ Association, one sees that this type of house has not yet found sufficient favour. I now want to refer to something which I have also seen in my own constituency. Farmers and others are making use of timber houses in providing accommodation for their employees. These houses are extremely durable and well-planned. I feel that our architects and our public bodies should give greater attention to houses of this type, because it would mean a greater market for a product which we ourselves produce locally in this important industry.

I also want to refer briefly to our indigenous forests. I do not want to say a great deal in this regard, except that there can perhaps be a better planned utilization of our indigenous forests. In the distant past some of our forests were exploited ratner rapidly and to a certain extent ruined. The matter has already received attention, but I feel that more attention can probably be given to it. I also want to hold out the prospect of future research in respect of the improvement of some of these outstanding indigenous trees. This is perhaps only a figment of the imagination at this stage, but I do think that the. Department can begin thinking along these lines. If they are engaged in planning for the better utilization of our indigenous forests, they can perhaps also give a little attention to the improvement of these valuable trees. For example, I am thinking of the stinkwood, yellow wood, kiaat and even marula trees which can have greater commercial value for us in future than is the case at present, if we can succeed in bringing about the improvements which I have suggested. From the nature of the case this is, of course, a long-term undertaking, but they should devote attention to it at this stage already. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when my time ran out yesterday I was dealing with the question of the planting of timber trees in certain areas where difficulties had arisen because of the drying up of water supplies. I pointed out that one had to be very careful in this matter because often the gospel of to-day is the heresy of to-morrow, and what was believed ten years ago is often rejected to-day. There is undoubtedly the odd instance here and there where the planting of timber can have detrimental effects on water supplies. I think it can be accepted that in some instances this is so. I wish to point out the value of this industry to-day, particularly in the private sector which is expanding so rapidly, to our South African economy. This is a new industry providing employment for a number of people and which is earning hard currency for South Africa to a far greater extent than was possible by agricultural means in the past. This is a delicate matter which should always be in the mind of the hon. the Minister and the Government.

These considerations lead me to ask whether it is not possible for the Minister to establish closer ties with the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. Unfortunately that Minister is not here at the moment. The interlinking between water supplies and care of water sheds which may be forested or under scrub or grass, is an important matter. These water sheds require protection, indeed as much protection as the State can give them. Often one comes up against very hard and fast lines which are drawn between, for example, the Minister of Water Affairs and the Minister of Forestry. The Minister of Forestry has an Act dealing with the protection of water sheds and water sources, “waterbronne”. The sources of the rivers, the big sponges and so forth, can be demarcated forestry and then they are protected in terms of the Forestry Act by the Department of Forestry. All the water that comes from those sources goes to the Minister of Water Affairs, but he has no say over the sources from where the water comes. In practice this set-up causes great difficulties. When speaking on the Water Affairs Vote the other day I said it seemed to me that sooner or later at least one aspect of forestry should be linked closer with Water Affairs. Soil and water conservation, the protection of our water supplies, and the sources from where our water comes, these things are all closely related, they are all part and parcel of one central problem. Water being so important and as it has repeatedly been shown how vital it is for water to be protected in this country, it seems to me that all we can ask is for the Minister of Forestry to co-operate as closely as possible with the Minister of Water Affairs so that they can have a common object, which will not be forestry but the protection of water supplies and the protection of the sources of our streams. That should be the common goal.

Related to this question is the matter of hydrological research, which I want to deal with now for a moment. A certain type of hydrological research is undertaken by the Department of Water Affairs. In respect of the forested areas, especially in those areas which are forested by the State, there is vast room for scientific investigation and research in the Department of Forestry which falls under this Minister in regard to fundamental matters connected with hydrological research. This research work can deal with increased or decreased precipitation, increased or decreased run-off and it can be scientifically ascertained what is the result of the protection of our mountain ranges under one or other type of vegetation. There is a vast field which can be investigated in respect of matters which fall under this Minister. It is parallel to the type of research being undertaken and which can be undertaken by the Department of Water Affairs. I ask that more money be made available both under this Vote and other related Votes for basic scientific research work to be carried on. It must be done in many fields, not only in regard to the conservation of our water, but in many fields connected with our forestry which, as I say, is such a valuable and growing asset in South Africa. Basic scientific research should be assisted by all the means in our power. If we can get the staff, which is one of our troubles, let us see that when we have them, we keep them, and let us see that the facilities are made available to them, so that they have available the opportunity to carry on their research in that field.

I want to make another plea in regard to cedrus deodara, the Himalayan cedar. I speak with knowledge of my own province, and not so much in regard to the other provinces, although I imagine that possibly on the eastern slopes of the mountains in the Transvaal, the same would probably apply. But there are areas in Natal, all around the Ngeli mountains, and the offshoots of the berg up there, where the Himalayan cedar does very well indeed. When I say it does very well indeed, I have in mind the fact that two of the first trees that were ever planted in South Africa, are now over a hundred years old. They are near Karg’s Post, just outside Kokstad. Those two trees were well over a hundred feet high some ten or twelve years ago. They are not only magnificent trees, but they are magnificent timber.

We are developing our forestry in South Africa along the lines of quick-growing timber, producing pulpwood and sawlogs at the earliest possible age. In the end result we want sawlogs. That is what we are aiming at. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) earlier said that probably we could exist now on our own sawlog industry. We may not need to import construction timber any longer. We can saw our own logs; we have sufficient. It is perfectly true when I look at some of the timber that has been produced by the Government sawmills. I think of Weza, where there is patula, which is 30 years old and over. That timber is magnificent. Patula has always been rather looked down upon as not producing a very good timber. But I must admit that the 30-year-old timber that they are sawing at the Weza sawmill is excellent timber. It is first-class timber. Even some of the people who boycott South Africa and have nothing whatever to do with us, find that it pays them to buy some of the sawn timber from South Africa, which is patula. This is fine. This is excellent. We have to produce in bulk quickly timber for building purposes and pulp.

There has been a need for haste because of South Africa’s lack of a quick-growing indigenous tree which could be used for building purposes. Our trees by and large, are slowgrowing and they are found in limited quantities. So South Africa’s policy was always aimed at producing good timber quickly. I mentioned before the paucity of literature dealing with this problem. When the matter was under discussion three or four years ago, I asked the Library here if they would let me have the best reference book that they had on pines. They sent me a very interesting book, dealing with the growing of pineapples, down here at East London. That was not exactly what I wanted, Sir, as you will understand. I had to go along, and of course T found what anybody interested in forestry will know. Until a book was produced by the Stellenbosch University not long ago, the best book on South African pines was one written by an Englishman who was out here. I feel that we should do something to give deodara a chance, even with limited plantings, so as to get that class of timber in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Nelspruit said a moment ago in connection with the development of our indigenous forests. Firstly I want to express my joy at the Department’s appointment of a qualified individual in the person of Mr. Von Breytenbach, who is stationed at George and who has been specially commissioned to utilize our indigenous forests. While our forebears destroyed the indigenous forests, we have protected them fully since 1909. We virtually ceased felling trees in the indigenous forests, with the result that the indigenous forests have developed into a very large asset to-day, not only from the recreational aspect or from the nature-lover’s aspect, but also as a source of very good timber. I understand, for example, that there are nearly two million cubic feet of iron-wood available in those forests, but that there is no market for the wood. I was quite amazed to hear this, because iron-wood is a very beautiful wood if it is properly processed. It can be a very great asset to us. I think, for example, that if in our Government offices or our Post Offices we could have ironwood parquet floors or panelwork on the walls, it would be very attractive. I have already mentioned to the Minister that it is perhaps in the mehod of presentation that the fault lies. There is not only iron-wood; there is also a large quantity of yellow-wood and South African beech wood, as well as the kinds of wood which the hon. member for Nelspruit mentioned, which can be used in our Government offices. I wonder if the time has not come for the Department of Public Works, when drawing up specifications in respect of Government buildings, to tell the architects to make use of these kinds of wood.

I should like to touch on another item which has to do with the attractiveness of our forests and our utilization of them. I noticed that in the Estimates the amount for camping sites in forest reserves had been increased from R9,000 to R29,000. I understand that the Department of Forestry has a five-year plan as regards opening our forest reserves and plantations to the public. I just want to express my joy at this. I think that it is a very good idea. People will then have a greater appreciation of the indigenous forests and plantations. They will see that the Government is putting to very good use the money which is being spent. The old question of whether we should allow the public into the forests, it appears to me, has now been answered. It has apparently been decided that we are in fact going to allow the public into our forests. Proper provision must just be made against fires, and then this danger will also be eliminated.

Our State-owned lands can be divided into various groups. There are the mountain catchment-areas, where there are no forests. There are our indigenous forests, which I have already mentioned, as well as our plantations. Then there are also the coastal areas, where driftsand is being combated, which can also prove very useful for the city-dweller who wants to get out a little. I just want to indicate a few possible lines of thought here. For example. I am thinking of motor tours which can be arranged. Roads which are made for forestry purposes can be opened to the public, and even more roads can be built in our mountain areas. All that is necessary is turnoff spots along the road and camping sites where a man can light a fire if he wants to grill his meat. I also envisage that our firebreaks which are made up in the mountain areas will be opened for those who want to go there. I am also thinking of walking tours and mountain-climbing. A great deal can be done to make footpaths in the mountains. I am also thinking of the erection of mountain huts to make our mountains more accessible to the public. Camping sites at our indigenous forests or beaches or on river banks, where driftsand has been combated, can also be very useful for such purposes. We can provide picnic spots at any place where there is scenic beauty. There are so many places on State-owned land. Then I also have in mind fishing and water sports, where the balance of nature will not be disturbed. We must of course be careful not to act indiscriminately and not to allow things which ought not to be allowed. There are many special sights for which tourists will travel far. I am thinking of the way in which the Knysna forests are now being developed, for example, by making it possible for visitors to view the large trees, waterfalls, or other attractions. With only a path made in that forest, the place becomes more attractive. People will drive far to see it. I am also thinking of the possibility of the erection of holiday huts next to the sea and in our coastal parks which are now being developed. Apart from the pleasure which it would afford our public if we open up our forests in this way, we can give the people a greater appreciation of our beautiful forests.

Mr. Chairman, I should first like to reply to the speech the hon. member for South Coast made last night. At the outset I want to say that I appreciate the atmosphere in which his Vote has been discussed and the way in which hon. members discussed the merits of factors of which so many of them have particular knowledge. To that extent one can approach this subject with complete objectivity. In the first instance I must say that I disagree with the hon. member for South Coast when he says that I should now in conjunction with the Minister of Economic Affairs have a full-scale inquiry, and I think those were his words, into the machinations of a particular international group in regard to the wattle, industry. I will tell the hon. member why I say that. I do not do it because I merely want to oppose him from this side of the House. But I submit to the hon. member that there is the Wattle Industry Control Board, which is established as a statutory body. It consists of 14 members, seven of whom are producers and seven of whom are manufacturers. Out of this seven only one represents this group the hon. member referred to. There we have a body to whom I as a Minister, and to whom the Government looks to advise us on the wattle industry in general. I am quite prepared to convey to them the content of the hon. member’s speech, but I think that they would regard it as a lack of confidence in them, if I were to accept over their heads what the hon. member for South Coast has submitted to me, I think they would react in that way. I think that that is the responsible body and the body to whom I and the Government must look for any suggestions or any representations they want to make and not, I regret to say and I do not say it with any antagonism, in this instance to the hon. member for South Coast who asks for a full-scale inquiry, casting suspicions on a particular sector of the industry. This would be the effect if on the basis of what he has said in this House I were to join with the Minister of Economic Affairs and request a full-scale inquiry.

Have you no other evidence apart from what I said?

As a matter of fact I have spoken to the board on a number of occasions. I have had deputations from their Marketing Committee, and I have always regarded the approach to their problems as being made in the light of objectivity. These approaches were not dictated as the hon. member for South Coast seems to think by this particular firm. The marketing decisions were reached after very careful consideration. I might add that this Marketing Committee, as it is called, consists of nine members. Admittedly this firm serves on the Marketing Committee. I would say quite rightly so because it is an experienced international firm. I know economics, markets and business and I would say that this committee would be at a very great disadvantage if it did not have a member of that firm serving on it. I have met the committee and I think that if I said to them that their policy of marketing was dictated by this firm they would treat my insinuation with a great deal of scorn because I do not think that that is the position. I do not want to pretend that the wattle industry is in a wonderful position. The wattle industry has had a great battle as the hon. member has quite rightly said. It has had an uphill battle. The mere fact that it had to reduce the production of its members to quotas of between 40 and 45 per cent shows the marketing problems they have. But these problems did not arise as a result of an individual firm. These problems arose because in the international field there was synthetic leather which did not need tanning extract to produce the final product.

That is not the point.

The hon. member is a wattle grower and he has a vote for the representative on the Wattle Board. That is his representative. What does his member say on the Wattle Board about the point he has raised? He should have made his representations to him. I want to say to the hon. member that to use Parliament when it comes to matters of this nature, to make charges which in fact involve a lack of confidence in the Wattle Board itself is going very far, because this body is responsible for the industry. This body knows what it is doing. Whatever the hon. member may say and whatever asides he may make in this regard, these are responsible people, I have known many of these growers and I have spoken to an hon. member on the other side who is a grower. As he told us in this Committee his forefathers were among the original wattle growers in Natal. I have never heard him say to me: “You know there is a scandalous state of affairs in the wattle industry because of this particular firm”.

He is still a grower.

Yes, and I presume that the hon. member for South Coast is also still a grower. He says that he may leave the industry in three years. [Interjections.] Then the hon. member presumably decided to sell his quota.

No, I have not. I am out of the industry.

Then the hon. member must be selling something else or growing something else.

I said yesterday that I left the industry nine years ago.

What I am saying and what the hon. member cannot get away from is this. Here is a responsible statutory body but now I must take the advice of a member of the Opposition on how their affairs should be conducted. I do not think that that advice is sound. As I have said I am not prepared to charge that there were any ulterior motives behind the members proposal because I do not believe it. I would, however, say that when you have a board such as that, if you do not recognize the responsibilities of that board and you act on representations made across the floor of the House, I doubt whether the Minister would be acting very responsibly. That then is my view on this subject. I am sorry that I am not prepared to follow up the suggestion made by the hon. member for South Coast. I will, however, bring his speech to the notice of the Wattle Board, and then they can tell me as the body which represents the wattle industry what they feel about the situation. I will do that but I will not conduct a full inquiry.

Then the hon. member also spoke about the Compensation Committee. He also seems to indicate that this committee was not handling the affairs of the grower properly. He said that he would like to know more about this committee. I shall tell him the little I know about the committee. It is run by the Wattle Board itself. It is not controlled by me. The hon. member rightly said that I did not enter into certain problems that arose, because they resolved them themselves. It is only when they do not resolve their problems that they have the right to appeal to the Minister of Forestry and ask him to make a ruling. But they never did it, because they were able to reach agreement amongst themselves. That is the right way. I do not think this industry should be controlled from the top, but should be allowed to develop in its own right sector. I always felt that this was the right policy and I am sure the hon. Chief Whip of the United Party will agree that that is the right policy for me to follow. But all of a sudden the hon. member now wants me to tackle this industry from a different angle. Well, I disagree with the suggestion and I cannot concede his point. Let me give the hon. member some information about this fund. The seven wattle growers on the board and seven industrialists, only one of which is an international firm, came to an agreement and eventually established a fund of R 160,000. The object of the fund is to compensate growers, and not industrialists, because on the basis of a certain rationalization schemes the industrialist was going to move certain of his factories. It is the growers who have the say about the method how the formula of compensation is to be applied. I think there are three growers and only one manufacturer on the compensation committee. What could be fairer? Therefore, the hon. member should not cast any suspicion on the growers’ committee. What the hon. member should do if he feels he has no more confidence in the committee is to go to his representative and try to persuade him. He should not throw it across the floor as he did there this afternoon.

I am not casting any suspicions; I am merely asking what the conditions are under which compensation will be paid.

No. The whole tenor of the speech of the hon. member, where he talked about this international firm, this “great” international firm, was to create an atmosphere of suspicion. He continued the same vein in an endeavour to put over some insinuation on that issue.

I will show you my Hansard. I did not cast any suspicion whatever.

I could not have listened to the hon. member more carefully than I did. Did he not ask for a full scale investigation…

That has nothing to do with this question of compensation.

I am talking about the hon. member’s attitude. Did he not talk about the influences which may be brought to bear on this question of compensation and “I will get nothing out of it?” Were not these his words?

I shall reply to you.

When the hon. member tackles something of this nature, he should be factual and must not come here and suggest things which can only create ill-will in an industry which already is facing many problems. An industry which has to use marketing systems available to it and which in fact have been used to its advantage. The hon. member must not insinuate that things are all wrong and that there ought to be a full scale investigation.

We only said what needed to be said for a long time.

The hon. member said very much more than what he should have said. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is now trying to save the hon. member. The hon. member for South Coast also raised the question of the Himalayan Cedar. In this connection I can inform him that the forestry experts of my department have suggested that officials of the department should go to Mexico to investigate the availability of the seed of the Mexican Pine because they feel that species have more prospects of success in South Africa than the other species of pine, like the Himalayan Cedar. These experts are responsible people and know what they are about. Therefore I accept that they made that recommendation on the basis of their knowledge and that their recommendation is justified.

Have these been tried in this country before?

Yes.

Where?

It has been experimented with already, but they are now thinking in terms of bringing in larger quantities of seeds. The idea is that departmental officials should go over in order to be able to select the seeds themselves. They have already experimented with small quantities of seeds at our various tree breeding stations. They have now reached the stage where they think these seeds should be brought in bulk for distribution in South Africa.

As far as hydrological research is concerned, the department has at present three hydrological research installations, namely at Cathedral Peak in Natal, in the Transvaal and in the Cape. In addition, in collaboration with the Departments of Water Affairs and Agricultural Technical Services, research is being carried out at Lebanon and Zachariahoek Forest Reserves in the Cape Province.

I now want to deal with the first part of the hon. member for Humansdorp’s speech. At the outset I want to say that the accounts of the department are quite complex and therefore I do not want either him or myself to draw any unnecessary conclusions from what one reads on the surface. The reason why I say this, is because the total expenditure of this department is some R14 million. Even in the accounts to which the hon. member referred to there are items of capital expenditure which should not really be reflected in a profit and loss account. On the other hand they also contain items which are non-revenue producing such as the control of sand dunes, for instance. There is no revenue attached to these items and yet the department fulfils those functions. As far as hakea is concerned, I want to say that the amount that has been granted for hakea this year is R54,000 compared to R27,000 last year. This amount is in respect of the plantations of the department itself. Contrary to what the hon. member said I want to point out that as far as our information is concerned there are 15,000 morgen of our State forests which are infested with hakea, compared to the private sector where more than 100,000 morgen are infested. The amount voted for the department is used for the plantations of the State itself and is naturally not spent on the private sector. I was very pleased to hear what the reaction of the hon. member was when he saw the timber-frame houses at George. We are also satisfied and, in fact, another unit has been established at New Sabie, which is also manufacturing timber houses for the Bantu. The same programme that is going on at George is also being carried out in the Transvaal.

The hon. member, and also the hon. member for Nelspruit, raised some questions on tourism. I do not have to explain the fact that forests are beautiful natural amenities. As far as the visitor is concerned, this was something that struck me immediately. I have been to some of the forests and I felt that, although there were certain amenities and certain camping areas I wanted to expand them. In conjunction with Treasury it was decided that we would go into a five-year plan. The idea is that certain amounts will be spent in various of these areas for the purpose of creating more and better amenities. I do not want any hon. members to think that there is going to be a luxury. It will be camping and picnic sites. To give hon. members an idea, R5,600 is going to be spent this year in the Tokai forest, which many of them know, on 50 additional fire places, a new water scheme and other facilities so that more people here in the Peninsula, who want to go out into those beautiful surroundings, will have certain camping facilities made available to them. I have visited Cane Vidal in Zululand and the very thing that the hon. member suggested has been arranged there. Ski clubs have been given certain facilities where they can house their ski boats and also a place where their members can go and even sleep overnight. These are, however, on a limited scale but we are gradually developing this approach. At Cape Vidal itself where there was an, area for 50 caravans, we have gone further into the valley and hope to extend the facilities to accommodate 100 caravans. An ablution block will also be established which, up to now, has not been available. A water scheme will be provided. In this way, with the amount that is available this year, we intend going ahead to create facilities in these forest reserves for more and more people.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) talked about the lack of statistics. As the hon. member knows, as he served on the Select Committee, this was one of the matters which was dealt with by this particular legislation. As a result of a report on private forestry, two matters were included in this new Bill, namely registration and compulsory statistics. I quite agree that, if one can provide better and up to date statistics in respect of the timber industry, it will be a big asset to them and to the State as well. It will not only give the private sector information which they need, but it will also give the department and myself as the Minister information which we can use at various times. He also talked about the financial assistance to timber farmers. This is also dealt with in the report and whereas I would say that it is not my intention to table the report, I made the report available to all interested bodies. I made it available to the hon. member and to the members of the Select Committee. I also made it available to all the private sectors concerned with forestry and anybody who is genuinely interested and wants to make a study of that report can obtain one. The department has not withheld it from anybody.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Can I then take it that those of us who serve on the Select Committee, and to whom you kindly gave reports, do not have to keep them confidential?

I might mention to the hon. member that those reports were also made available to members of the trade. I therefore do not expect these reports to be regarded as confidential at all. They are there for study, comment and criticism.

Can we expect some results in regard to finance?

That, as the hon. member knows, was dealt with very carefully in the report. I think he was not quite right when he said that there are various sectors of agriculture which have the same facilities. I think that there is only a category 3 in agriculture where there is a subsidized rate of interest. I think that that is the only category in the whole of the agricultural industry where there is a subsidized rate of interest, although they go in for fruit tree growing and vine planting. In brining that to his notice I merely do so in order that he will appreciate that what he probably had in mind is not a general criterion for agriculture. On the other hand I appreciate that timber farming is a long-term investment. What has worried me is that whereas long-term money is available to big units, it is not available to small units. This is a matter I will certainly go into. If the small unit goes into the open financial market, he is charged a rate of interest which may be regarded as exorbitant. He is therefore not in the position to raise money at the low rate of interest the big unit can. That feature I fully appreciate.

The hon. member also spoke about sawn timber and what I could do to extend the market. All I can say is that I do not look so much at the export market, but to the local market for increasing sales of sawn timber. If we can encourage a greater consumption of sawn timber in this country it will be our best market. The consumption dropped from 2.5 cubic foot per head to 1.5 cubic foot per head in this country. The basis for introducing compulsory standards for the construction timber was to ensure that people who were building houses need not fear using South African timber, and would not make use of substitutes or importations. The hon. member knows there are many substitutes for timber.

With regard to research and wood promotion the Government has always contributed to both these aspects with the idea of creating a better demand and better understanding and knowledge of the use of timber. The report on private forestry in South Africa which was submitted to the members of the Select Committee is one which I do feel members should study very carefully. I myself found it very interesting.

The hon. member for Nelspruit talked about the potential of tourism and I answered his question partly when I replied to what was said by the hon. member for Humansdorp. I think that we must educate our people more and more into making use of these natural relaxing amenities of our forests. I only hope that our people will appreciate that when they are allowed there they must behave in a responsible manner. In Pietermaritzburg I spoke to private plantation managers and they nearly shouted me down when I suggested that they should open up their forests to tourists. The reason is that to them the most fatal thing that can ever happen, is a fire in a plantation. They felt that South Africans were not careful enough when it came to fires and taking precautions where carelessness can cost foresters such large amounts of money. I can assure the hon. member, however, that the aspect of the potential is not lost on me and I hope that he will see in the future results which will satisfy him.

With regard to our indigenous timbers I want to say that there are magnificent trees particularly in the Knysna area and also in the Northern Transvaal. I realize that this is a matter which has an aesthetic attraction. Commercially the man-made forest is apparently the one which shows a more viable approach than the indigenous timber. But I was shown a tree in Knysna, which I was told was 500 years old, so the indigenous timber in this country has a record of age which is quite formidable. I would like to see indigenous forests preserved as an attraction to tourists.

Sir, I think I have replied to all the speakers. I realize that the hon. member for South Coast is just waiting for me so I shall sit down to give him an opportunity to speak.

How right the hon. the Minister is! Sir, let me deal first with the question of the committee which is dealing with compensation for those who have suffered as a result of the adjustments in the wattle bark industry. I cast no reflection on that committee. I said that I had been unable to ascertain the principles upon which compensation will be paid; that I in the next two, three or four years would be completely out of wattle and that I would have to change over to a different type of timber, if I wanted to go in for timber growing, and that it would take me nine or ten years before I could get a return. I want to know whether in terms of that arrangement I was one of those who would be deemed to be someone who had suffered and therefore entitled to compensation. That is my own personal position, but I am one of many. I need not apply it to myself because I am only one of many. I said to the Minister: “If you have the conditions under which compensation is to be paid, will you please inform this Committee?” not for my sake, but for the sake of that group of people who will be out of wattle. The Minister obviously has not got the conditions under which compensation will be paid. He does not know how those who have suffered will be compensated. All he can say is that there is a sum of money of plus-minus so many thousand rand and that there is a committee of four, three planters and a member of a milling group who, he says, is associated with an international group, who are dealing with that compensation fund, but he does not know the conditions. That is what I wanted to know. I said, “If he knows the conditions, will he tell the Committee”. He does not know the conditions. As regards the question of the status of the company in respect of which I want an inquiry, let me say that the committee set up in terms of the Act, i.e. the general committee, has nothing to do with international companies and affairs overseas. That was a company that was set up in terms of the Act for our domestic purposes in South Africa, where it operates. It has neither influence nor anything else, and may I say to the hon. the Minister that a predecessor of his went across to the Argentine in the early stages to see whether something could not be done about it. He was prepared to go across there himself personally and I mentioned his name yesterday—the hon. Senator Paul Sauer. When he was Minister he went across to the Argentine. This is not a case of the Minister taking the word of the Committee or acting on its advice. What I said was this—and I am entitled to say it in Parliament; this is the one place where I can say it on behalf of the whole of the industry.

No, on behalf of Douglas Mitchell.

That is a shameful thing to say and I take the strongest exception to it.

You do not represent the industry.

That is an absolutely shameful thing for the Minister to say. You see, Sir, it challenges me to a come-back when he uses language like that, but I am going to resist the temptation. I can control myself better than the hon. the Minister can apparently control himself.

I am not afraid of Douglas Mitchell.

Sir, we are getting to a wonderful level if the Minister adopts that attitude. Let me deal objectively with the matter in hand. I say that I am speaking on behalf of the whole of the wattle industry of South Africa when I say that the international company—and the hon. the Minister was the man who named it an international company this afternoon—has a hold on the marketing of vegetable tanning materials in the world markets—that was what I said yesterday—and therefore its association with our wattle industry in South Africa has its repercussions in the price paid for our wattle bark when it is sold in the world markets against other vegetable tanning materials. What is the association? How far can markets in which we have to sell be determined by that particular company? What is the proportion of wattle extract which it sells in relation to the total production in South Africa? We keep some of our extracts, some of our pressed bark, our chopped bark, for the purpose of our own leather tanning industry, but in the main our existence as a wattle industry is dependent upon oversea markets. When an international company like this one…

Now you are using the word “international”.

I am taking the Minister’s word; am I not entitled to quote him? He used it first. I made no secret about it yesterday that what I was talking about was an organization that had a controlling interest in the vegetable tanning markets of the world, whether it is quebracho or other vegetable tanning materials, whatever they may be. That company has this controlling interest in those concerns and now it has a wholly-owned subsidiary operating in the Republic of South Africa. How far then is our market prejudiced or influenced or affected? That falls outside the scope of our wattle affairs committee in South Africa created in terms of our Act. That is why I suggested to the Minister that he should co-operate with the Minister of Economic Affairs. It probably falls outside his scope as Minister. He cannot entirely deal with it; it has to go to the Minister of Economic Affairs for him also to lend a hand so that use may be made of the agencies which we have in those other countries, with a view to trying to ascertain how far we are being affected, prejudicially or otherwise, by the interests and the ramifications of the business interests of that particular company, in so far as it affects the marketing of our produce when we send it overseas to the international market—chopped bark and tanning extract. That is what I asked the hon. the Minister to do. Sir, I cannot make him carry out that investigation. If he is not prepared to do anything as Minister to try to assist the wattle industry of South Africa, if he is trying to hide behind the fact that there is a committee in terms of the Act created here in South Africa, if he will not move, if he is too timid, if he will not do anything on his own responsibility, then there is nothing more that I can do about it. But it is perfectly clear to us now exactly what the position is, and that is that the Minister is not prepared to act at all. He has a committee to hide behind; that seems to be his attitude, and I lay that squarely at his door. I say that in this matter where nobody else has any authority whatsoever and he is the only one who can act, he is apparently afraid to accept the responsibility.

Sir, I am not going to let the hon. member for South Coast get away with his bluff. We on this side of the House know him. Of course, you must not say anything about politics. He comes here and says that he talks on behalf of the wattle industry of South Africa. Of course he does not talk on behalf of that industry. There is a wattle industry board that talks on behalf of the wattle industry. He is just trying to rake up something to see if he cannot make a bit of propaganda for himself and for his Natal Stand. I know the hon. member. He must not try that sort of bluff and bluster on me; I know him only too well and I am not frightened because he throws his arms around and gets himself excited. It leaves me cold; I have seen him perform too often. I saw it in Durban and I have seen it in Natal. No, that horse will not run any more.

Are you sure it is bluff?

The Wattle Board is the body that will tell me what to do, not Douglas Mitchell. After all, there are seven growers on the Wattle Board. They will come to me and say: “This is the situation, we want you to hold a full inquiry”, but I am not going to do it just because an hon. front-bencher on that side of the House stands up and tries to make insinuations without any concrete evidence. That is why I say he does not represent the wattle industry in this House. He does not talk on behalf of the wattle industry in South Africa; he talks politics when he says it is this Minister who will not move a finger and is not interested in the wattle industry at all. Of course the member maintains that is not politics; it is just Douglas Mitchell having his little fun. The hon. member then says that I have taken the wrong line as far as this committee is concerned. How could I have taken the wrong line? He was the man who said that he, like so many others, was not receiving compensation, although he and the others were being forced out of business by this—I had better not say “international”—by this company which markets tanning extract on a world basis; and then he himself used the word “international” which he objected to my using. I just cannot understand the hon. member. It is just a torrent of words that flows from him. This committee consists of four members. It has a farmer from the Transvaal, a farmer from Zululand, a farmer from Southern Natal, where the hon. member comes from, and it has one representative of the Natal Tanning Extract Company. Compensation will be considered by the committee to those who have claims on the fund. The claim of growers on the fund is (a) the net amount that would have been received for bark delivered to the closed down factory; (b) the actual amount received for the new deliveries. The difference between the two amounts will be reimbursed to the grower and these reimbursements will continue for a period of ten years or until the fund of R 160,000 is depleted, whichever period is the lesser. Now the hon. member wonders why I do not want to make a big song and dance about the conditions of compensation. But it is in the hands of a body which is controlled by producers—three to one. They know what they are doing. The hon. member makes these assertions. I say he must make sure of his facts. I do not want to make a political issue out of a debate like this, and right in the beginning I thanked the hon. member because he did not do so. I said that I hoped this would be an objective discussion, but that does not mean that if the hon. member makes wild allegations I just have to accept them without replying to them, and they are wild allegations. I think anybody who knows the wattle industry will know how the Wattle Board has been established and the manner in which it operates, and will know that his are wild allegations when he calls for a full inquiry.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 38,—Tourism, R1,710,000:

The Vote we are now about to discuss appears to me to be one of the Cinderella Votes, if I may put it that way. It is difficult to appreciate what the responsibility and activities of the Minister are. It is one of these intangible organizations which is rendering a service, and you cannot judge results except by the number of visitors who may be brought to South Africa and by the service given to internal travel in this country. It is very difficult to ascertain what exactly is happening. It is appreciated that the Minister has many difficulties. He has said that his function is one of a propaganda Minister for tourism. I think that is correct, summing it up very briefly; that appears to be his function. If he is tackled about doing things in regard to a particular problem, he states that it is not his responsibility; he can only do it by persuasion, in other words by convincing others of what has to be done. I should like to know from the Minister what success he is having, what are the problems he is busy with, and what success he is having in persuading people into co-operation and action; because it would appear that talking about tourism is everybody’s concern, but action on tourism is nobody’s concern. That is one of the difficulties as I see it. How is the Minister going to achieve some positive, some definite result in this very vital industry of tourism to South Africa? Of course it can—and other members will deal with this aspect of it—mean a great deal to this country in foreign exchange, and a very necessary substitute for activities that in the future may fade away. It has become in other countries one of the foremost industries. In some countries it is their first industry. South Africa has great potentialities and possibilities of becoming one of the foremost tourist countries. We have difficulty, because it is off the beaten line at the moment, and there are other difficulties, but there is no reason why it should not become one of the great countries for tourism. One knows that when one is dealing with a Department and one has to persuade others into taking action, then one is up against great difficultés. I should like to ask the Minister what success he is having with the regional development which replaced the old provincial basis we had and which failed. For various good reasons, like the fiscal policy and the authority of the provinces, we did not get very far with that scheme, and now we have gone back to this regional scheme, and I should like to know what success or otherwise the Minister is achieving and what problems he is faced with. In regard to the structure of his Department, you have Satour the body which deals with international travel and travel into South Africa from overseas. you also have the Hotel Board which is dealing now with the grading of hotels and allied subjects, and then you have the Department which apparently deals mainly with internal tourism and keeps a fatherly eye over international tourism. So we have representatives on Satour and also on the Hotel Board. Now those two organizations, I think it may be said, are doing a good job of work, generally speaking. They are doing their best, but there are difficulties. I believe, for instance, in the Hotel Board not sufficient emphasis is being put on services in the grading of hotels. A great deal of emphasis is put on the tangibles, the carpets you can measure by the square yard and the curtains and the mirrors that you can measure. Those are all calculated and accurately calculated, but there is a feeling that in regard to service not sufficient credit is being given to some of these establishments. Other members no doubt will deal more fully with the activities of the Hotel Board, but I would like to say a word about the Satour side of travel and their publications. They bring visitors here and they have various publications, all excellent in their way, but when one sees the results one asks oneself whether it is achieving what it sets out to do. I think the question was asked in this debate last year whether consideration should not be given to the type of publicity being put out; in other words, is it pulling the traveller to South Africa or has it become too general to attract them? It may be interesting but it does not make the traveller want to come to this country.

I should also like to ask the Minister how far he has got with the survey. I notice in the annual report of his Department that projects receiving attention or research are set out very fully, and the various matters to be gone into are very fully set out, and quite accurately, and it states at the end that sound planning can only be based on research.

As I understand the position, the Minister started out to get outside people to do this research work. It was found to be too expensive and unsatisfactory in its nature, and it was decided to have it done by the department itself. How far has the Minister gone with this? Because it would appear to me and I think that I have seen it somewhere, that such a policy will make progress very much slower, although it will increase the quality, rather than having it done outside. I am wondering whether the Minister would consider taking expert people on contract to help to do this work and facilitate it. He has, as is shown from the annual report of Satour. a limited staff. That staff has I think, expanded from 15 to 67. But it is still limited. One wonders whether he would not be wise in going outside, taking people on contract and forming an organization in his department, under the Secretary of the department, to get on with the research and direct it as to what they want and why they want it. Because I believe that a lot of what is decided to-day is “by guess and by God”. We have no figures and no accurate information. One can have a discussion with somebody and then think afterwards: “Well, that is the thing to do.” It may prove right or utterly wrong. I think we should as soon as possible get away from that position.

The other point I want to make in my limited time is: How prepared are we for the age of what we call the jumbo jets? Five hundred people can arrive at one time, and very frequently. I am informed most reliably that today, if a party of 60 people want to come to South Africa in the season, unless they gave two years’ to a year’s notice, they could not be accommodated. That is the considered opinion of people in the travelling business, namely that, if they have to notify people that they were coming here, it would be arranged with the greatest difficulty. Probably they would have to turn it down because it was at a busy time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Von Brandis put quite a number of questions to the hon. the Minister. They are questions to which one cannot really expect any member on this side of the House to reply. However, I should just like to associate myself with one question put by the hon. member, i.e. when he referred to the report of the Department of Tourism for the year ended 31st March, 1967, and particularly to page 5, where mention is made of research work that will have to be done in order to allow this industry come into its own in South Africa.

I think we all appreciate the statements made on page 5, and identify ourselves with the idea that, where every industry on earth must of necessity be based on research, on the gathering of information and the evaluation thereof, we must also use it as a basis for our future actions. While the tourist industry is by far the largest industry in the world to-day, and there are indications that it will increase its lead in the years to come, relatively little research work is being done in other parts of the world as regards the tourist industry. Therefore it was gratifying to see that this young Department intends to undertake research work in connection with this industry on quite a large scale here in South Africa. Therefore I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Von Brandis by saying that any money which has to be spent to expedite this research work as much as possible and consequently to obtain the plan which ought to result from that for this industry is money which this Committee should vote without any hesitation. This Department is one of the youngest and smallest in our State administration. But the South African Tourist Corporation will already be 21 years old on 1st August this year. One may be grateful for the work done by the South African Tourist Corporation, and if one looks at the annual statistics, not only of tourists entering South Africa from countries in Africa, but also those coming from Europe, Asia, the Americas and Oceania, then one finds the increase to be a reasonably constant one. The figures are mentioned in the report, and we find that the stream of tourists increased from 202,000 to 257,000 from 1962 to 1966. These numbers are probably quite encouraging. It should further more be mentioned that the stream of tourists from Europe and all other countries outside Africa to this country doubled itself in the years 1962 to 1966. The South African Tourist Corporation can be proud of the record they have built up over the past 21 years. The tourist industry is an extremely large one, not only in the case of other countries of the world, but also in the case of South Africa and her neighbouring states, and we should consider whether we can be satisfied with Southern Africa’s receiving such a small amount of the money spent by tourists all over the world. Therefore I think this Department has a double task to fulfil. Since South Africa is the basis of the development which has to take place to the borders of many countries to our north, this Department is still going to play a large part in the tourist industry. This industry is not only of great importance to South Africa, but also to her neighbours. The Department should make an exhaustive study of this industry and develop it until eventually it occupies its rightful place in our national economy.

It was recently announced that about ten projects were to be undertaken in South West Africa on which approximately R7.4 million would be spent up to the year 1970. I notice, furthermore that in the five-year plan which Portugal announced for herself and her overseas provinces, R253 million was allotted for the development of communications and transport in Angola, Moçambique and certain other small Portuguese provinces abroad. More than half of the amount allotted for communication and transport in Angola in particular, will be spent on road construction. This means that a big, new tourist route might come into being between Cape Town and Luanda during the next three years. The vote for communications and transport in Moçambique also stresses the importance of the construction of roads, and a third big rourist route may possibly come into being during the next few years, i.e. from Durban to Beira. The situation developing at present is one not only of large-scale development in South Africa and her neighbouring states, but also and particularly of a good network of roads which will extend from 2 000 miles north of Carte Town, from Luanda on the west coast to about 2,300 miles north of Cape Town in Beira.

If we consider the number of tourists who visited South Africa in the last few years, then it is notable that the Percentages, particularly in respect of tourists from the Americas, are still exceptionally small. I want to plead now that when we endeavour to attract tourists to South Africa, we should see South Africa as part of a larger complex, and we should perhaps concentrate on attracting tourists from countries related to Angola and Moçambique, and particularly from South America. As a result of the establishment of new communications between the Republic and South America I think we should expect a normal increase in tourist traffic from South America to South Africa. We are to have a particular population composition in Southern Africa, especially as far as the Whites are concerned, in future years, and we should take note of the fact that Portugal intends to settle approximately 500,000 Portuguese immigrants in the Kunene Basin alone. In the Zambesi Valley, under the Cabora Bassa scheme, there will likewise be approximately one million white Portuguese eventually.

That means that, in addition to some 3½ million Whites in the Republic, we shall have a Portuguese population of approximately the same size in the two Portuguese provinces on the east and west coasts. Considering the immigrants which South Africa has been attracting in recent years, it will be a natural thing for people in the countries of origin to visit the members of their families who live here. As a result of the information sent by immigrants to their people abroad, members of their families in their countries of origin will naturally be inclined to visit the Republic. People in countries such as Brazil and other South American countries as well as in Portugal, will also be inclined to visit immigrants in Mozambique and Angola. We should therefore expect that, apart from the normal tourist routes we have overland from South Africa to the Victoria Falls and which we call the great northern route, a great western and a great eastern route will likewise develop. Perhaps it will be known some day as one of the most attractive tourist areas in the world. I shall be pleased if the Department takes note of these developments and I hope that the Department will be one of the greatest in our national economy 21 years from now.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us some clarification regarding the tourist position in Natal and what development he envisages in that province. We have in Durban a very alive organization dealing with visitors and tourists. We have on the South Coast, at Margate and so forth, another very live organization. We also have a very active organization in Pietermaritzburg. But by and large the picture is one of individual groups of people and municipalities working in isolation and unco-ordinated.

In Durban there is a young man who to my knowledge has already gone overseas twice to “sell” South Africa to potential tourists. He owns an hotel in Durban. He believes in selling goodwill and selling what the country has to offer the tourist. But these are isolated instances. I do not want to follow the hon. member who has just sat down. I think he made a very fine speech and raised some very good points. What he envisages is a much larger organization which can offer many tourist attractions so that it can play a worthy part in drawing tourists to his country. There are also other organizations which can also play a worthy part. As I say, in Natal we have independent activities, nothing is coordinated. In the main the task has fallen on the Natal Parks Board. I raised this point here in the past years. But the Natal Parks Board is not a tourist organization, nor is it a tourist promotion organization. Because it is a conservation body, people want to see what is being conserved; they want to see the animals, the rhino, the buffaloes, and all the other animals. So people came to look at the animals the same way as people visit the Kruger Park to see the animals. As I say, it was not however a tourist promotion body but a nature conservation body.

The fact that it has attracted tourists in ever-increasing numbers is incidental to its main purpose, which is nature conservation. I wonder, however, whether this is a good long-term basis on which nature conservation should be established, that a body which is promoting tourism should be independent of a body which is concerned with nature conservation. The facilities and amenities which are related to nature conservation and which are available to people from overseas and our country will undoubtedly attract visitors. In itself this is good. But what is lacking is a central organization in Natal. I think the Natal Parks Board is co-operating fully with the Minister’s Department and his officials, and I think we shall improve this co-operation greatly.

When the hon. the Minister took over this portfolio there was an understanding that finance would be made available and channelled through committees established by the Administrators of the various provinces. This arrangement however broke down because of certain constitutional difficulties which we do not need to go into to-day. The Minister knows what they were. The difficulties were insurmountable. The difficulties apply as far as the provinces are concerned but they do not apply as far as other activities are concerned and other branches of tourist promotion.

My colleague the hon. member for Von Brandis spoke about what would be the position when the first jumbo-jets arrived in this country and the difficulties of having to cater during the tourist season for a tourist group of say 60 people who came together and wanted accommodation. The first jumbo-jet will be the forerunner of many others and we just do not have the accommodation to deal with so many arrivals. Steps must be taken now and money must be made available so that we can cater for the people who will come. We can talk as much as we like about this subject, but if the capital is not made available for the provision of facilities for tourists, then we will not get the tourists. Because of the credit squeeze, high interest rates and so forth, private enterprise which would be interested in providing capital are simply shut out. That is also the position of the Natal Parks Board. It is not one of the functions of the board to provide these facilities. They cannot expend money on these things because their Estimates have to go before the Natal Provincial Council and before the Administrator and the money has to be voted in terms of the constitution of the Parks Board. As I say, they are a conservation body. Large sums of money are required to provide the necessary facilities for the many tourists we should draw. We are only scratching the surface of the world tourist industry. We are only scratching the very outside edges. We are getting dozens and scores of tourists where we should have them in thousands, people who should be spending their money here. I want to suggest to the Minister that money laid out to provide facilities and amenities for tourists is money well spent. Tourists do not come here to see our towns and cities. They can go to a thousand towns and see buildings like those we have in Durban, in Cape Town, in Johannesburg. No, they come to see our natural features, our wild life and our Bantu life. That is what they come here for. It should be possible for a tourist say in Western Europe to buy a ticket in his hometown and come here on a planned and organized tour with others to see what he wants to see here in South Africa, not what we want to show him. We must let the tourists see what they themselves want to see. That tour must continue until eventually the tourist ends up in his hometown once more, having paid for his trip, gone on a properly organized tour, seen what he wanted to see and, “provided for from beginning to end”. There should not be any breaks or gaps in the tour. No unexpected difficulties should arise. Human nature and human affairs being what they are, difficulties do sometimes arise, but so far as it is humanly possible the tours should go off without a hitch. When one sees in certain overseas countries how well-organized their tourist industry is, one realizes what can be done through human endeavour. I say we are merely scratching on the surface of something which is so vast and so important in terms of money. But I say we must lay out our funds so that we can lure tourists to this country. I ask the Minister whether he could not envisage some scheme for Natal which can provide a central authority in which all those people, who are only too anxious to play their part as far as the development of tourism is concerned, can play a part. Moreover, some financial assistance should be forthcoming. It is no use sending back people who are keen to provide amenities for tourists and telling them to approach a bank for assistance or directing them to orthodox financing systems at the present time. But now is the time that we should be spending money on facilities because the jumbo jets will be coming here. Instead of there being a good advertisement for South Africa and tourists leaving South Africa satisfied and happy, we are going to have a bad beginning and send away dissatisfied people who will have no regard for the arrangements which they encountered in South Africa. We must take time by the forelock and do what is necessary now, even if the tourists will only be coming in two years’ time, because it will take at least two years to complete even the initial steps to cater for the many visitors who are coming.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast will most probably not take it amiss of me if I do not follow him up. He mentioned certain positive points here and the hon. the Minister is sure to pay the necessary attention to them. My time is too short to elaborate on them any further.

The Department of Tourism is a relatively young one, but it has nevertheless done a good job of work already and has made good progress. If we look at the departmental report for the period from May, 1963, to 31st March, 1967, then it is very clear that good progress has been made. We wish to express our appreciation for that. It is clear that the attraction of tourists is one of the cheapest ways of earning money for any country. Practically no money need be invested abroad, but the tourists come of their own accord if there is something to offer them. If we look at the report of the control board of the South African Tourist Corporation for the year ended 31st March, 1967, we see that there has been an increase of 50.37 per cent over the past five years. We see, further more, that tourism has increased by 547.55 per cent since 1946, which is a tremendous increase. We have already exceeded the quarter of a million mark. 82.7 per cent of the visitors entered our country on holiday and 70.6 per cent of the 257,008 visitors who visited this country in 1966, were from countries in Africa.

We know that all the countries in the world are at present promoting their tourist industry. They are doing their utmost to draw tourists. Last year the increase in the number of tourists who visited the Republic was 7.3 per cent, which is just a little more than the average increase for the world. If we want to take our rightful place as a tourist country, we shall have to raise our annual increase to at least 18 or 20 per cent. There were 138 million tourists in the world last year, of whom only .2 per cent came here, and that is a very small percentage. Our country has so much to offer the tourist, and the percentage coming here is much too small. I know there are many factors to be taken into account, such as transport, accommodation, etc. World political conditions also play a part.