When this debate was adjourned yesterday evening, I had just had an opportunity to refer to the importance of this Bill which was introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance. I said it was a very important Bill because it affects every person in South Africa, every man, woman and child and every institution, and of course it affects us here in the House because it is implicit in the Bill that there will be a certain amount of compensation paid.

In introducing the metric system of weights and measures, we have a Bill rather different from the Bill to introduce the decimalization of coins. In the case of the decimalization of coins there had to be a D-Day, a day when all institutions in South Africa and all individuals had to accommodate themselves to the new coinage and to a new calculation. Our system was comparatively simple. All they had to adapt themselves to was that there were 10 units in the shilling, ten cents instead of 12 pence. That was really all that our system amounted to. What they are introducing in Britain is something much more difficult. In Britain they have made the pound their major unit and they will have 100 cents in the pound. I do not think their change-over will be as easy as ours. Their change-over will be very difficult. When we say there are five pence in a shilling, we can imagine what the old lady going shopping will feel when they tell her that an article costs 3½d. She will take a very long period to work out what 3½d, is with five cents in the shilling. But it is contended by people overseas that the pound unit is a better unit than ten shillings, and it was the contention of some of the most intelligent people on our Commission that the change-over might be more difficult, but the eventual system, by taking the pound as the unit, would be better. That is the view, but they admit that the change-over will be more difficult.

But when we come to the metric system we have no option. There will be one system of adaptation, but although it will be very difficult, much more difficult than in the case of coinage, we have this great advantage that it can be introduced gradually over a long period. It can be introduced by one business today and by another business to-morrow. Provided it is well controlled—and the Deputy Minister’s speech in introducing the Bill indicated that it would be well controlled—and provided that we have good, strong committees, I think it can be done. Now in the Bill itself we have, of course, the conversion tables, which give seven or eight significant figures. When they convert weight or capacity, I think it is for the scientist rather than for the man in the street. The man in the street must be assisted. Now, if that is the position in introducing this system, what did the Board of our Bureau of Standards have to say. We have all studied this report very carefully and there is one clause I particularly wish to refer to. They report that a change in units of trade in foodstuffs may cause a slight increase in the cost of living, but that such increase would be absorbed in long-term trends, as was the case when the coinage was changed. That is the danger signal. When we converted to a decimal system of coinage it was quite easy for the public to say where there was an increase in the cost of living. They said: I used to spend so much of a shilling and I got so many apples or peaches, but now I do not get as many for 10 cents. They criticized it. But we were always able to give an explanation for the difference. They understood, but now they do not understand. What is the good of saying to a man it used to cost so much when it was a pound, but now it is 300 grams. It is quite a difficult calculation. In other words, we must accept that the public will never be able to calculate the change-over from our present British system of weights and measures to the metric system. They will not be able to do it. The hon. the Minister of Transport has changed over already. He changed over long ago. When he weighs luggage, he weighs it in kilos because the whole world weighs in kilos. He came to this House and told us that he was going to raise the weight of luggage from 40 lbs. to 44; in other words, he was accepting the international standard of 20 kilograms.

He changed his labour policy as well.

Yes, but this is much more serious; it is international. Now, we shall have to have very strong committees controlling this change-over. When we change over any article in price, when we change over the article throughout South Africa, it must be changed on the same day for everybody. If we give the price of local bread, it will not be 1 lb. or 2 lbs. but in a different weight, and when we give the price then it must be introduced for the whole of South Africa, because if we do not do that the public will go to the man who is using the old measure. The person who is anxious to assist will be placed at a disadvantage. We have had experience of that. We had people quoting the price of motor-cars in pounds long after we had changed over, but the Minister of Finance at the time was patient. We pleaded with him to be patient with the public, and of course now the public have responded. But in this case we want strict committees who will control all prices. That is essential. We may not be able to change over all articles in price throughout the country, but when they do change for any special article the whole country must change over in respect of that article. Let me give one example, the price of petrol. When we measure petrol in litres instead of gallons, then the whole country must change on that day to litres, so that a man cannot say: I do not think I am getting value at that garage because they are measuring in litres; the one round the corner is measuring in gallons, and I know where I am. We cannot allow that. We must have a general change-over.

Looking at the Bill itself, there are two points. I have referred to one. 1 should like now to refer to the other. When we look at the long title, it refers to the exclusion eventually, because they imagine it will take some time. I have referred to that. How are we to be sure of a good change? I think that comes in clauses 1 and 3, which make provision for the appointment of assizers who will protect the public. These assizers are to be highly educated men, subject to very severe tests. I think with their appointment we will have the protection I referred to. I hope the item referred to by the hon. the Deputy Minister in introducing the Bill will receive further consideration. In passing, he said that the Government was considering the question of compensation. I hope he will elaborate on that in his reply and tell us how far they have proceeded in discussing the question of compensation, if there is to be compensation. I hope there will be.

We in South Africa decided, in the decimalization of the coinage, on a change-over overnight. We worked out what the compensation should be. People wanted a change immediately. But in Britain they are not doing that in the decimalization of their coinage. They have given many years’ notice and they have said that there will be no compensation because people have had a long period of notice in order to make provision. In this case it is quite a different story. I should like the Deputy Minister in his reply to tell us what provision is being made for the payment of compensation, how the investigation will be carried out, and what industries or individuals will be compensated.

When the hon. member for Kensington was discussing the decimalization of our money with such gusto, my thoughts returned with so much enjoyment to the day when he crossed the floor of the House to vote with the Government, while all his colleagues remained seated on the other side.

He simply made a mistake in turning round again.

Those were pleasant days, and at that time the Opposition attacked us fiercely about all the hardships which it would entail if we were to get a decimal currency. I myself still remember how a certain constituent, a United Party supporter, of course, jumped down my throat about this decimal system and said how difficult he found it to work with this new currency. I then said to him: Never mind, do not give up hope; it is the sacrifice which we, the present generation, are making for the sake of our children and our descendants, because they will no longer know anything about pounds, shillings and pence. If they want to reduce a pound to pennies, they will not have to divide by 240; they will merely have to move decimal points forwards and backwards, and this is so easy and simple.

Now the present generation is once more being summoned to make a great adjustment, because it is in point of fact a great adjustment to convert gallons into litres, and yards, feet and inches into metres. It is indeed a great adjustment and a sacrifice for the present generation of adults, but our children and their children will praise us for this step which we took at this stage. Mr. Speaker, it is fairly difficult to make these adjustments. Just the other day someone said that beauty queens were judged these days according to their personalities and someone then asked him how one measured personality. His reply was that a girl with a personality of 36-22-36 had a very lovely personality. However, how does one now convert this into metres. A girl with measurements 36-22-36 will, in metres, have the measurements .91-.55-.91. What does it look like now, Mr. Speaker? However, by just moving the decimal place two points to the right one has a much more attractive reading, because then it indicates that she has a personality of 91-55-91. That is lovely. It immediately gives me a very handy conversion figure because that 22 now becomes 55, which immediately gives me the conversion figure of 2 now becoming 5. Two inches become 5 centimetres and that makes the conversion so much easier. One inch therefore becomes 2.5 centimetres or 25 millimetres, which immediately brings me to the question of rainfall figures. We are so accustomed to measuring rainfall in inches and points and now we must measure rainfall in millimetres. Just see how simple it really is. One inch becomes 25 millimetres, as simple as that. This indicates to us how simple the conversion of yards, feet and inches into metres, centimetres and millimetres is. Those with interests in athletics have also found that they have no problems with this change-over. Even now, long before the end of 1972, we are already talking of the 100 metres, the 200 metres, the 400 metres and the 800 metres. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that he hoped that this entire change-over process would be completed by the end of 1972. I want to prophesy that this system of inches, feet and yards converted into millimetres, centimetres and metres will take place very easily, and that long before the end of 1972 our athletes will no longer speak of the 100, 220, 440 and 880 yards, but of the 100, 200, 400 and 800 metres.

When we come to the change-over of weights, we find that it will be a little more difficult. In the pharmaceutical industry it will, of course, cause no problems, because the pharmaceutical industry has already made use of metric weights for a long time, i.e. grams, milligrams, etc. This conversion will elsewhere be fairly difficult, because one kilogram is equal to 2.2 pounds. Vice versa, as the second schedule of the Bill states, one pound is equal to .45398237 kilograms. I humbly want to suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister consider reversing the conversion table in this second schedule as well, so that we may read there that one kilogram is equal to 2.2, and a few more decimal figures, pounds. It will make the conversion so much easier for us. I am now merely thinking of the time when I get to my doctor and he tells me that I am 30 lbs. overweight and that I shall have to reduce. That 30 lbs. now becomes 13.6 kilograms, and that does not look quite so bad. I specially think that the ladies will find consolation in this, because when fashion prescribes that they are 30 lbs. overweight, it merely becomes 13.6 kilograms and that does not sound quite so bad. She is, after all, not quite so much out of fashion.

When we look at the change-over of measurements of capacity, we see that here we are going to experience our greatest problems. Our housewives are so used to their pint of milk every morning and their bottle of cooking oil, not to mention the old farmhand who goes on Saturday to buy his small can of vaaljapie for the weekend. What does that gallon of vaaljapie now become? It is indeed difficult and the old farmhands will say, “Baas, what sort of a thing is this litre?” I must then explain to him that a litre is equal to 1.32, or nearly one-and-a-third bottles, of our present measure. I perceive a small amount of danger here, because if our present bottles are replaced by litre bottles will our farmhands not consequently drink too much? They are then surely going to drink one-and-a-third times as much if they buy the same number of bottles.

It appears to me to be a little difficult, but all these problems are very definitely worth the effort for the sake of the great convenience which this system entails. Quite a few years ago I spoke in this House about our fruit exports to the Continent. On the labels of those boxes the weight of that fruit was indicated in pounds. They are only familiar with kilograms, and how on earth can one develop a market if one presents the buyer with a measure with which he is unfamiliar. However, to put pounds and kilograms on those labels, and in the different languages as well, will make the label so cluttered up with words and figures that it will appear altogether unattractive. We are now going to solve that problem easily, because now we are going to inscribe the weight on that label in kilograms alone. We shall then immediately satisfy everyone.

In order to facilitate this change-over process, the Government conducted a very sweeping investigation. With the appointment of the Metrication Board, with its three subdivisions, the problem is greatly facilitated. The hon. the Deputy Minister said yesterday that there were three groups of people working towards facilitating this change-over, namely the trade group, the industrial group and the group for diverse services, such as roads, postal traffic, education, etc. These three groups are again subdivided into committees. There are thus 23 committees in the trade group which must facilitate the change-over. In the industrial group there are 13 committees and in the group of diverse services, 17 committees to facilitate this change-over. It is in point of fact a long-sighted policy to let this change-over process take place as smoothly as possible and therefore I look forward to the end of 1972 so that we can forget about the present difficult system of yards, feet, inches, pounds, gallons and pints. It will be a happy day for our children, because their arithmetic will also be so much easier. They will merely shift decimal points forwards and backwards, and what an enjoyable game that is. Arithmetic which is a bugbear for certain children, will become an agreeable school subject and a delightful game.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should let the hon. member get away with playing politics. At the beginning of his speech he referred to the contribution made by the hon. member for Kensington and then made one or two remarks at the expense of the Opposition. I wish to place on record that the hon. member for Kensington, who introduced a private Bill on the decimalization of money, had the principle of the Bill accepted by the then Minister of Finance, but when decimalization was later introduced, no official recognition whatever was given to the hon. member for Kensington. At public functions, when various arrangements were made, when various people were invited and tributes paid to decimalization, the hon. member received no official recognition whatsoever. For the Government to want to claim the credit now at the expense of this party is, I submit, not only unfair but also shows a lack of graciousness on the part of the Government towards the outstanding contribution made by the hon. member for Kensington in the interests of decimalization.

The hon. member for Paarl has referred to some of the difficulties of the metric system. I think the Minister should take into account the long period of adjustment which will be necessary before people become accustomed to the change. But that is not all. As far as the cost of the change is concerned, we are not sure to what extent compensation will be paid. The bottle industry, those who sell milk and mineral waters, the wine industry, but particularly sellers of milk and mineral water bottles must have millions of bottles in circulation right throughout the country. The costs of these have virtually been written off as part of the cost of distribution. But when they have to be replaced, the cost will be substantial. It will not be substantial only as far as replacement of the millions of bottles in circulation is concerned, which will be discarded, but many thousands of rands will be spent on the making of new dies and the adjustment of machinery. Many times members of the Government have talked of the advantages of mechanization and they have advocated the introduction of mechanization. Well, Sir, mechanization involves adjustments to machinery, the acquisition of automatic machinery, automatic labelling, automatic sizing, and automatic weighing. A change-over involves adjustments not only to machines in factories but every single petrol bowser in the country will have to be adjusted. I concede that will not be particularly difficult, but when it comes to automatic machinery in factories, bearing in mind our shortage of manpower, including ordinary maintenance staff, it is going to involve considerable expenditure and a considerable number of man-hours to effect a change. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister when he replies will indicate whether the Government intends to pay compensation, because if there is to be no compensation paid, there will have to be a lengthy period of adjustment to the new system contemplated in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, according to the remark which the hon. member for Pinetown has just made, it seems to me as if he is very hot under the collar because the hon. member for Paarl remarked that the hon. member for Kensington agreed with the Government at that time. I accept the fact that he feels very badly to-day because the rest of his party did not agree at that time, that there was only one member of that side who felt that way about the matter. In this House hon. members on this side paid tribute at that time to the hon. member for Kensington for the sensible step which he advocated, while not one of his party associates supported him. To the hon. member for Kensington I want to say thank you once again. In addition I also want to say this. On 26th March, 1964, I moved the following motion here, as recorded in Hansard, vol. 10, column 3703—“That this House requests the Government to consider the advisability of introducing the metric system for weights and measures”. Then the hon. member for Kensington supported me openly, and I want to commend him for supporting me. Therefore I cannot understand why the hon. member for Pine-town feels so badly.

I do not want to go into the advantages of the decimalization of our weights and measures. I think that we can thank the Government and the hon. the Deputy Minister very much for the introduction of this legislation. I do not want to go into all the advantages now, because I did so by way of my motion on that previous occasion, but it can probably be said that a general desire exists in South Africa for the establishment of the metric system. With the investigation which was instituted at the time, 2,330 questionnaires were sent out. About 70 per cent of such bodies as the Federated Chambers of Industries, the Association of Chambers of Commerce, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the various agricultural bodies, the building industry, all the professional bodies, the Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of South Africa, replied in the affirmative and said that they wanted this system. Besides, our non-White population will welcome it because, as you know, they like the decimal system.

82.7 per cent of the word’s population uses the metric system of weights and measures. That was a few years ago. Only 17.3 per cent of the world’s population—and I think the percentage is definitely less to-day—do not use the system. It is actually the countries with the metric system of weights and measures which trade with us on a large scale. It will be easier for us when it comes to calculations, it will be time-saving and it will save us a lot of money to go over to this system. Therefore I say that the quicker we get this system into operation the better. It will take about 15 years before this system is functioning completely. The question of compensation for the changeover is very closely connected with this period of 15 years. The question was put about whether there would be compensation. It is not such a simple matter. The compensation will stretch over a long period. To calculate it and to say whether the Government will compensate and in what measure there will be compensation, is not just a simple matter. If the change-over is to take place over a period of 15 years, it is very easy for traders and the various companies, if they know that they must change over in, say, five years’ time, to put their affairs in order at this stage. This changeover is different to the decimalization of our currency, because that had to take place overnight. Since certain machines have already been converted, it will be very much easier for our trade and industries and for all the different sectors to change over.

There is still one small matter that I wish to speak about and that is standardization. I want to make an earnest plea and an equally earnest request to the Deputy Minister that the Government ensure that in this change-over there will be a certain measure of standardization. In our grocery stores to-day we find canned vegetables, fruit, etc., and on the containers we read that the contents are 14 ounces, 15 ounces or 17 ounces, and each a different price. We also find that the prices differ tremendously. We must now definitely standardize. These products which are canned or packaged must have certain predetermined weights so that their prices can be determined accordingly. The housewife finds it difficult to compare the prices of all the various packagings and weights which she encounters in the shop. I think that the time has come for the necessary steps to be taken to facilitate things for the housewife as well, since this great task if now being undertaken. If this standardization is applied, our dealers, industrialists, manufacturers, etc., will be forced to supply better products. They will no longer market their products by juggling with the prices and weights. By marketing a better product of better quality they will be able to compete. I want to add that if we want to compete with the outside world, we in South Africa will have to supply a better quality product at a lower price. Our gold is a declining asset and we shall have to compete on the world market with all manner of products. Therefore I want to make a strong plea that we already give attention to this matter now. Perhaps it does not appear to be serious, it may not be so large in extent at present, but now is the time for us to make a start. It is the first small step that we must take to place our trade on a sound basis, so that we can compete with the outside world, because South Africa is committed to becoming a great export country.

Mr. Speaker, I found it very interesting to listen to the discussion on this subject. I should like to express my appreciation to hon. members on both sides of the House for their very interesting and constructive contributions. The hon. member for Paarl on our side of the House made a very interesting contribution in regard to this matter. I would say that he was very practical and I enjoyed it. I want to ask the hon. member whether he ever, when he sees a pretty girl and takes her round the waist …

Order! Is that in order now? Is the Deputy Minister not on dangerous ground?

Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out that it is a topic which is relevant here, because the hon. member quoted the example of a pretty girl, a girl with the measurements 91-55-91. [Interjections.] Sir, although you do not want me to risk analysing matters further in this regard, I do want to say that, as regards the physical measurements of our ladies, or the bathroom scale, the old weights and measures will still be used for a very long time. Possibly the same position will develop as developed in respect of the guinea, after the change-over to the decimal system of currency. That is the point I wanted to make initially, namely that it will not make much difference.

Sir, the hon. member for Paarl put a question in connection with the table in the new Second Schedule A. In this table the corresponding units are given for the pound, the yard and the gallon. It is stated, for example, that one pound is equal to 0.45352937 kilograms. The hon. member asked whether we should not give the table the other way around as well, i.e. that one kilogram is equal to so many pounds. I do not think we should do so. As the hon. member knows, the new section 11B (1), as inserted by clause 5, reads as follows—

We are inserting this clause in view of the fact that when we have the new system, there will still be old agreements and various deeds and contracts which were executed in the old measures. It will be necessary to determine their values in the new units. The conversion will therefore only be done from the foot-pound-gallon system to the new metric units, and not from the metric units to the old system. For that reason I do not think it will be necessary. It is therefore sufficient merely to give the equivalents in the new units for the units which existed under the old system.

The hon. member also said something in connection with the consumption of liquor. This will probably be a much more practical problem for many people. In the course of time even the drink which one orders in an hotel will be affected. When this new system is fully implemented one day, the unit which is to-day the “tot” will also possibly no longer be precisely the same.

Is it going to become smaller?

Sir, it is not for me to say, but it is possible that that unit will indeed become smaller. However, there will be nothing to stop one from buying two at a time.

Before I come to the hon. members on the opposite side of the House, I also just want to mention that the hon. member for Sunnyside raised the question of standardization in connection with articles which will be packed and sold under the new system. It is, of course, the position that the old Weights and Measures Act grants authority for the issuing of regulations to provide that certain units and certain goods may only be packed in specific quantities. This is done. There is a wide range of consumer articles which may only be packed in certain quantities under the present Weights and Measures Act. I have not had the time, since the hon. member raised this matter a few minutes ago, to look this matter up, but I have just this minute noticed a regulation of the 17th January, which is applicable to bread. It is provided that no person may make and sell bread, except a certain kind of bread, other than in units of 8 oz., 1 lb., 2 lbs., 3 lbs. or 4 lbs. Then certain provisos are added. Such regulations are not only applicable to bread. They apply to a very wide range of consumer articles. However, I shall most certainly give very thorough consideration to the idea which the hon. member mentioned, and I shall also convey it to the Department.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kensington certainly also made a very interesting speech, to which I listened very carefully. I listened especially attentively, because the hon. member is one who, in the course of years, has very much allied himself to the cause of a change-over to the metric system for weights and measures. I do not want to go into the political history of this matter, which to-day took the form of a side issue between the hon. member for Paarl and the hon. member for Pinetown. I shall keep away from that issue for to-day at least. The hon. member for Kensington said that we would need well-controlled, good and strong committees to plan and organize the change-over. I should like to say that I heartily agree with him. We have indeed established such strong, representative committees. We call them functional committees. They are undertaking the planning of the change-over as it will affect every single aspect of commerce and industry. We are relying chiefly on their advice as to how the change-over should be brought about in a systematic and orderly fashion. The hon. member also asked whether the change-over will not bring about a rise in the cost of living. He asked whether the public would be able to calculate, in this intricate manner, the value they would receive under the new system. I cannot but agree with the hon. member that the public will not be able to calculate exactly what they are receiving in terms of the old system. I think it is so that, at least in the initial stages, the public will not be able to effect a very good comparison. I sincerely hope that this change-over is not going to bring about a rise in the cost of living. Personally I do not expect that to happen, and I say that for a number of reasons. Let us, first of all, have a look at the field of consumer goods, particularly the prepackaging of foodstuffs and other items people buy in self-service stores. The competition in this field is to-day so strong that no such organization can allow its competitor to get an advantage over him. Therefore it must continue to serve the public, as he is doing to-day, at the lowest price it can possibly afford. This is one aspect. Moreover, I expect this system to bring about savings, especially a saving in time, in many fields of our economic life—bookkeeping, packaging, etc. Standardization must bring about some saving, a saving which will in due course be carried over to the consumer. It is for these reasons that I sincerely believe that this change-over is not going to result in any rising costs. However, this is an aspect which will be watched very closely.

The hon. member also suggested that when we change over in respect of a particular commodity we should do so on one day and throughout the Republic. Well, as I have said, this is a thing that is being handled by experts. Personally, however, I would say that that would not be possible, or even necessary. As it is, the legislation gives certain powers to the State President whereby the change-over could be brought in gradually—for instance, for certain commodities only, or only in certain parts of the Republic. The hon. member mentioned bread and petrol as instances. As far as petrol is concerned, I think the changeover ought to be the easiest of them all. Generally speaking, we all buy petrol for a certain amount of money and not by the gallon, although we may have some vague idea of the quantity we require. Generally we buy for either R1, R2, R3 or so on. Therefore, whether the petrol pump meter shows gallons or litres does not really matter …

Provided all garages did the same.

But the public is protected in the sense that the price of petrol will not increase—in other words, one will still get the same quantity of petrol for R1 in litres as one got before for R1 in gallons. Therein lies the protection of the public. However, I would say it would be a good thing if Cape Town or the Western Province could change over, say, within the same week. That won’t affect people buying petrol on the Witwatersrand. But those people who have actually got to do the change-over will be able to give us the best advice in this respect.

The same reasoning, I think, can be applied to bread. This, too, could be brought in per area. After all, one does not have to travel 60 miles to go and buy a loaf of bread. Therefore, this is a type of item in respect of which the change-over can be undertaken on a local basis.

Then there is the question of compensation, also raised by the hon. member for Pinetown. He said that if compensation were not paid there would have to be of necessity a very long change-over period. In that I think he is correct. If you want to change all your weighing and measuring instruments in the natural course of events, the change-over is bound to be a very lengthy and long drawn out process. That is not what we want. As a matter of fact, I do not think we can afford to have a change-over period of 10, 15, or more years. After p 11, what is the life of a scale? Naturally, therefore, the question of compensation comes to the fore as a very real issue in this changeover. I said in my introductory speech that the matter of compensation has been submitted to the Metrication Board, and is being thoroughly investigated at the present moment. It is being investigated from various angles and all possible implications are being looked at. On the receipt of their report on the matter it is for the Minister to take a decision and to make it known. More than that I cannot say at the moment. The Metrication Advisory Board is fully representative of all sections having a stake in this matter of compensation. This body is now handling this matter and must come forward with a scheme and until they have done that, I am not in a position to say very much further.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

We hear from the legal advisers that, as the definition of “special education” in section 1 (xxxix) of the Educational Services Act, 1967, reads at the moment, it is necessary to state by notice in the Gazette what education, treatment and other services are necessary so as to meet the needs of a handicapped child. That would be a major task and would be unsatisfactory in practice, as it would have to be reconsidered all the time. In the place of such an impracticable method, “special education” is now being defined to include education which is provided in order to meet the needs of a handicapped child. This definition will facilitate the implementation of the provisions of the Act. You will find this amendment, Sir, in clause 1 (d) of the Bill. In the introduction of this Amendment Bill this opportunity was seized to substitute at the same time the words “National Education” or “Higher Education”, as the case may be, for the old designation of “Education, Arts and Science”, wherever it occurs in the Act.

In the Vocational Education Act, 1955, which was repealed, provision was made for the registration of private vocational schools. When that Act was substituted by the Educational Services Act, 1967, a similar provision was included in section 15 (1) of this Act. With the transfer of full-time vocational education up to Std. X-level to the provinces, the registration of such vocational education became a function of the Administrator in question.

However, the present wording of paragraph (a) of the said section, is wider than the repealed provision and has the effect, firstly, that certain private vocational schools which previously were not subject to registration, have to be registered now, and, secondly, that the provisions can be interpreted to mean that certain other private schools which provide vocational education of a nature which belongs with a province, have to be registered by the Department of Higher Education. It was never the intention to extend the range of compulsory registration or to cause a duty of a province to be carried out by that Department.

Clause 2 therefore reformulates the exclusion of vocational education in a positive manner so as to restrict the registration of private vocational schools by the Department to what it was previously, due regard being had to the actual division last year of vocational education between the Department and the provinces.

At the request of the parent of a handicapped child, the Secretary for Higher Education may, in terms of section 37 of the Act, approve the admission of such a child to a special school. In order to expedite the procedure for the admission of voluntary pupils, it is desirable for the Secretary to be able to delegate his power to give such approval to another officer in the Department. Provision is being made for this in clause 3.

This, Mr. Speaker, is what is envisaged in the Educational Services Amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is the eternal question in our South African education: What is vocational education; when is it vocational; when is it academic and not vocational? Sir, I have quoted in this House on more than one occasion that all education is vocational, either at short range or long range; it depends on the range. We think, for example, that university education is highly developed academic education but the education of a doctor is narrow vocational education, and I think the education of a lawyer, of a man learned in the law, can be academic to a great extent but it is also vocational. Here I find that the hon. the Minister is confronted with the same problem and it is being tackled in the same way as we have tackled it in the past. We classify certain subjects as vocational, for example, typewriting, shorthand, etc., and the Minister has to fall back on the old solution that has been given for many years now, that is to say, on a time-period—the number of periods per day or per week or fraction of a week. Here they have it to so many hours a week. I quite understand the hon. the Minister’s difficulty. His staff will naturally have to face the difficulty and with the change-over especially he will be confronted with this problem. Naturally we should do everything we possibly can to assist him. We will support the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When the Department of Cultural Affairs was established as an independent Government Department on 1st January, 1968, it was entrusted, not by legislation but by administrative arrangement, with, inter alia, two important functions, i.e. out-of-school education, also known as adult education, and cultural relations with other countries. On 1st September, 1968, the Land Service and the Dietetic and Home Economics Services, which in point of fact are adult education, were transferred from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to the Department of Cultural Affairs.

In view of the fact that these services are now going to play a role which will constantly become more important and more extensive in our national life because of the proposed intensification of cultural activity and will consequently lay a claim to a larger portion of the public funds, steps have to be taken to avoid any possibility of lavish overlapping and duplication and to ensure powers for orderly administration. These objects can best be achieved by embodying these administrative arrangements in legislation, hence the Bill I am presenting to this House.

The various manifestations for the promotion of educational and cultural relations with other countries agree to those embodied in the existing cultural agreements and the informal arrangements concerning cultural relations. I would be failing in my duty if I did not make special mention of the fact that the manifestations were covering an ever-increasing field and were growing in intensity, as well as of the fact that the fruits yielded by this cultural exchange were particularly heartening. In all the countries concerned there is a marked improvement in understanding one another’s problems, cultures and achievements in the scientific, economic and other fields.

The general concept of “culture” actually covers all fields of human activity. Therefore, in order to prevent the Department of Cultural Affairs from entering the field of a host of other Government Departments and organizations, with the attendant waste of taxpayers’ funds, the particular cultural fields on which the Department of Cultural Affairs will concentrate are being defined in clause 3 (3). As a matter of fact, these are the fields covered by the Department at present. I should like to point out, however, that although these are not mentioned specifically, the activities of the Land Service and the division of Dietetic Services and Home Economics have been brought into these fields.

The importance of these services becomes clear when we have regard to the fact that—

1. (a) 50 per cent of the white pupils admitted to secondary schools in any particular year do not, not even eventually, obtain a matriculation or senior certificate;
2. (b) this percentage came to 62,000 pupils per annum for 1967 and that this figure, with due allowance for the increase in the population, may amount to nearly 700,000 over a period of 10 years;
3. (c) numerically the non-white population groups are much stronger and that the percentage of them who reach matriculation level and higher levels is increasing fairly rapidly and that the threat to the white man’s intellectual superiority is as clear as a pikestaff;
4. (d) our modern times are making high demands on man to take his place in society, and to do so properly, as a civilized social being, a faithful citizen of his country and a useful professional man;
5. (e) our material standards of living have improved beyond recognition, which consequently enables us to make better provision for our higher socio-cultural needs in addition to making the provision for necessities of life;
6. (f) the number of working hours is decreasing gradually and that there is not only a need for and an interest in the cultural utilization of leisure, but that investigations have revealed that concrete possibilities of participating in such cultural leisure activities of a high standard are inadequate in South Africa in comparison with other countries;
7. (g) a reasonably high intellectual, emotional and physical development as a unified process, is a must for our intellectual and spiritual preparedness in times of war and against the merciless, never-ending onslaughts of prejudicial, foreign ideologies;
8. (h) to cause the pendulum always to swing in the direction of material prosperity—the transitory things which will fall prey to destruction and decay—in making provision for human needs, without having due regard to the spiritual needs of man in view of his eventual permanent place of residence, is tantamount to disregarding the Christian teachings on which our State, in terms of our own Constitution, is based; and
9. (i) the proven method of taking the intellectual development of post-school youth and adults to greater heights is the method of informal education by means of the dissemination of culture, also known as adult education or out-of-school education and as “volksontwikkeling” and “Volksbildung” in the Dutch countries and Germany, respectively.

With this in mind we realize at once that there is a real need for more extensive and more purposeful and systematic endeavours in South Africa to disseminate culture.

The dissemination of culture is at least of the same importance as the creation of culture to the cultural growth of a nation. What we are concerned with here is to give everyone as much access as possible to beauty and truth. The object is to bring the entire national community at all levels into contact with the products of culture. What this amounts to is to make the entire population conscious of the significance of our own culture, of its greatness, of its depth. What this amounts to is to present the spiritual creations of the past in contemporary forms to the living national community.

Enabling people to see and enjoy art, teaching science and helping people to understand it, the creation of an individual style of life, will continually bring new individuals of the national community into closer contact with the higher realizations of culture. This gives the culture new vitality as this constantly integrates new members of the national community into the culture in which they, in their own individual way, become participants.

Mr. Speaker, with these few basic ideas I think I have placed sufficient emphasis on the importance of a nation-wide cultural campaign as well as on the necessity of an instrument from our country’s highest authority for regulating such a campaign. From the nature of the case, such a campaign demands the benevolent co-operation of the entire white population. The National Advisory Council for Adult Education (Nacae), with its expert sub-bodies, has been used up to now for ensuring the necessary contact with the broad white layer of the population. This practice is being continued under the new legislation, but the Council and its sub-bodies are only being given more descriptive names. In addition it is the intention to modernize the constitution and functions of the National Advisory Cultural Council and its sub-bodies in the light of experience over the past 25 years and to adapt those things to the fields of activity mentioned under clause 3 (3).

As there is a host of voluntary organizations and other bodies concerned in these fields, it will be tantamount to attempting the impossible to give them representation on the council and its sub-bodies. Consequently it is the intention to nominate to the new council and its sub-bodies, as in the case of Nacae and its sub-bodies, persons who are regarded as being authorities on some particular activity in the relevant fields to be covered. Consequently the persons will be elected to represent activity interests, and not organizations.

In order to give more effective direction to the proposed nation-wide cultural campaign for the future, I have decided to appoint a committee with the following terms of reference—

1. 1. The necessity, or otherwise, especially in the interests of our post-school youth and adults, of extending and organizing more systematically and effectively the dissemination of culture among Whites in cities, towns and rural communities through informal moulding known as adult education, as distinct from formal education.
2. 2. If it is found that such a necessity does in fact exist—
   1. (a) the form the extension and organization referred to should take; and
   2. (b) the cost, if any, to the State involved in such extension and organization, and the manner in which this should be financed.
3. 3. Any other matters relevant to the above.

Mr. Speaker, as will be deduced from what I have said, we are in earnest about giving our endeavours for promoting the culture in the Republic of South Africa a firmer basis in future, and I trust that we may count on the wholehearted co-operation of our white population.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has delivered a very important address in introducing this Bill. I wish I could have had the opportunity to peruse it more carefully, and that I could have given it the study it deserves. Had that been possible, perhaps I would have been able to give the reply that such an introduction deserves. It is a very important subject. Although I have spoken on many occasions after the hon. the Minister, this time I do not feel quite at home because I am not an expert on culture. I have always regarded culture as being a personal matter. When we speak of a cultured person, we speak of that person as an individual, and sometimes we say a man is uncultured because he has not been made acquainted with the finer things in life, the things that matter in life. A cultured person has developed his own personality, so that he has enjoyed the great things in life, like literature, art, music, and so forth; he is interested in history and the development of culture. I am afriad I am not an expert on this subject, but I know that culture, although it is a personal thing, can have the manifestation of a group. A group can express ideas on a common culture. The one that occurs to me, which I think is probably unique, is the attitude of the Scot. The Scots express their national culture on a special day in the year, in addition to other days, of course, being Scots. They have a “Burns nicht”. On that night. Scotsmen throughout the world come together to pay homage to the memory of the man Burns. Their toast is “the immortal memory”. In other words, they had one man who represented everything that was greatest in their lives. He is not one of their kings, not one of their prime ministers, not one of their politicians, of course; none of those. It is this literary man, who lived a humble life and was recognized by all of them as the man who inspired the feelings of all Scots. The English have no Shakespeare night. Afrikaners have no Jan Cilliers night, or even Totius night. No other people have been able to find in one individual the personification of all that they regard as their national culture. Those of us who have been born and bred in small communities realize they also have their culture. I remember on one occasion an hon. Minister introducing a Bill here and referring to British culture. There is no such thing as British culture. I had to tell the Minister at the time that there is no British culture. Welsh culture cannot possibly be compared to English culture. Their national outlook is different and the men as individuals are different. So when I come to consider the position here in South Africa, I feel I am very puzzled.

I have been able to collect some expressions of opinion which I regard as touching on this debate on culture. I should like to give one or two expressions of opinion. The first one I am taking, is a report of a speech made by a prominent civil servant at a gathering of a Sabra jeugkongres. I am going to avoid mentioning names. The Press report is in Afrikaans and reads as follows:

I think I am beginning to think that way myself, judging by my own family. I do not know what the speaker is getting at. He has some outlook I do not understand. The report goes on—

It would be very serious if we get down to that. Of course, that sort of thing one must just dismiss, or have the man psychoanalysed. I can think of nothing else to say about him. But I come to a much more important one, to the opinion of a very distinguished South African, who has probably done more for the Afrikaner in the field of culture than any other man I can think of. A tribute was paid to him the other day in the Afrikaans Press. I should like to quote from a speech he made, speaking again at a meeting of a cultural society:

The section called the Afrikaner differs from the Bantu, but he differs just as much from these people who are called “die Engelse”. “Die Engelse” are not a homogenous body; “die Engelse” are made up of several sections in this country. I think “die Engelse” is a very fine name for them. We are drawn from others. I also have a statement by an hon. Minister which I will not quote because the hon. the Minister is not here. It will not be fair to do that if the hon. the Minister is not here. Having mentioned those, I now come to a report in the Press where the editor of a newspaper gives his appreciation of the differences we have. It is rather good; I quote—

In other words, two sections of people pulling together with two different cultures and so on.

Now, Sir. I come to my final thought which is from Dr. Gerdener. I will mention his name, seeing that this speech has been reported. He is Administrator of Natal. He is not expressing his own view, but he is referring to an inquiry, research which has been made, into the attitudes which young South Africans have towards people of the other section. Here they were talking about the two sections. Of course I cannot talk about the two sections because my children are half-and-half—mine are just shandy. [Laughter.] Therefore. I cannot talk about my own children; it would not help. Dr. Gerdener is referring to the attitudes of these young people towards one another. I have seen the attitudes of young South Africans towards one another chiefly on active service, which has been an inspiration to me for life. I saw how these men got on together. This research has revealed that the boys in the secondary schools do not wish to have any association with the people of the other group. Dr. Gerdener refers to this. He says:

He gives a percentage—

They give the figures for English and Afrikaans medium schools—

Furthermore they would not admit them to their homes as friends; they did not wish to be associated with them and the same applies to marriage. They are quite opposed to that. There should be no intermarriage. (I got in early before these people got busy.) Now, what is the moral behind this? The Press have tipped Dr. Gerdener for a future Cabinet post, but I do not want to mention that. Dr. Gerdener says that the parents are primarily responsible for such harmful racial attitudes as still exist between English and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. Dr. Gerdener has got it wrong; it is not the parents. This has been inculcated into these children through our educational system. We in the United Party stand for a system of schools which was advocated by the Beyers Committee at the time of the Union of South Africa and we have remained faithful to that ideal.

Order! Is all this relevant to the Bill?

Yes, Sir, it is the culture which was inculcated in these children from the beginning. Dr. Gerdener is referring to it. Secondly, we have introduced a system of primary and secondary schools where the children are separated and may not come together. An English-speaking South African may not send his child to an Afrikaans-medium school; he may not send him for even one year. This is how we have developed this culture in South Africa; this is how we have done it. We have brought the children up separately; they do not play in the same football team, and so on.

Order! This may be the hon. member’s conception of culture, but I do not think it is covered by the Bill.

Very well, Sir, but I can say a great deal more about it. Because, Sir, we are responsible, not the parents. I live among these parents in the country, and they are not responsible. On the contrary, the parents want to have the children together. We had a man by the name of Du Preez at Lichtenburg who started holiday camps, as the hon. the Minister wants to do, for boys from the countryside and boys from the towns and cities. He took boys from the towns to the country, and he took boys from the country to the towns so that they could get to know one another. But he is only an individual.

I should like to say a few words about this Bill. The interesting thing about this Bill is this: The Minister speaks about the culture of the white population—in the singular—so he envisages a culture of the white population, not two cultures as I have been describing, but the culture of the white population. So the Minister is on my side, because he, too, believes in one culture of the white population. I hope what the Minister has in mind is also what I have in mind. What I have in mind is this: Although we have an Afrikaans culture and the culture which most English-speaking people have in South Africa, we also have something in common. Indeed, we have a lot in common. The Minister’s ideal, as I see it, is to develop this part that we have in common, where the overlap takes place. I do not want to use a word that is being bandied about today, but I say his policy is enlightened—there is a translation in Afrikaans. I say there is no separate English culture in South Africa. I am assured there is an Afrikaans culture, but the English-speaking people belong to many groups. I welcome what the Minister tells us, namely, that he is now going to develop the culture of the white population, and he is doing it through the utilization of leisure and informal out of school education. He is going to do it through a council, not several councils, only one council. We support that. I think the Minister is taking a step now in the right direction. We have, in addition to being people of different origins and perhaps different cultures, a great deal in common, and what we have in common we must develop. As I understand the ideal of the Minister it is to develop this common heritage. What does the Manx poet say? “Preserve whate’er is left to us of ancient heritage”, and that is what I think the Minister wishes to do. He wants to bring these people together. He is prepared to go further, and there I support him. He is prepared to see that our young people will understand people from other countries. I think it is most essential, having read what I have read to-day from Dr. Gerdener’s speech, that young South Africans should learn to get to know one another. That is essential, and that is why I like compulsory military service. When the boys get together in the army or the navy or the air force, then, no matter what language they use, they get used to using both languages. There was no language problem in the South African army during the Second World War; we never had a language problem: it was never talked about.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he could perhaps use his influence in assisting us in this movement by having a board that is representative of all sections of the community. We have had unfortunate experiences with the Minister in the past. He knows I have criticized his establishment of certain boards. I do not think he has held the scales fairly, and I have said so in the past. I can mention the National Education Advisory Board which I discussed in this House at length. I should like him to hold the balance fairly this time and see to it that all sections are represented. It is going to be a very fine undertaking if that could be done. Let me take one of the biggest cultural influences in South Africa, namely the S.A.B.C. English-speaking people are sick of hearing “Current Affairs”. [Interjections.]

Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill.

The S.A.B.C. is a cultural influence. In South Africa it is the greatest modern medium of communication, though there will be a better one when we get television. It is a very great one. I think where we have a board of that kind there should be some bifurcation, and I am going to suggest to the Minister that in this council he should have a little bifurcation. He should have two sections: Let the two sections find each other; let them get together and make a strong council. Proceeding on those lines with this council, with one culture, we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have often listened to the hon. member for Kensington and I always enjoy listening to him. You know, Sir, when a young person listens to an older person one does not always seek the purely scientific truths and details: these one really seeks more amongst the younger people, but when one listens to an older person one likes to seek the wisdom which should have come with the years. Sometimes I do find that in what is said by the hon. member, but I am afraid he clearly showed all of us here this morning that the United Party’s attitude in respect of this Bill is very defective.

The hon. member started his speech this morning by saying, “I am not an expert on culture”, and I must tell him that I wholeheartedly agree with him. His entire argument which followed created the impression that he knew nothing about these matters. To me it is very alarming that the hon. member who was concerned in education for many years, as a matter of fact has to admit at the end of his career, “I am not an expert on culture.” If the hon. member had remained silent after that admission, it might have been good and well, but instead of that he went on and elaborated for a good few minutes on his views regarding culture and on his standpoint in respect of this Bill. It is very clear that the hon. member has not made a study of the subject, and I trust other hon. members opposite will give us a very clear explanation of their views in respect of the basic principles embodied in this measure as well as of their ideals in this regard when this Bill will again come up for discussion next week or at some other time. If they do not agree with this Bill, they must give an explanation of what they do not agree with.

The hon. member referred in passing to festive days. I think we have quite a few festive days in this country which focus the attention of the Whites on their origin and their history as well as on their value as a nation in this country. The hon. member failed to recognize even this. I shall not go any deeper into the speech of the hon. member, but I trust that he will correct himself at a later stage. Judging from the speech of the hon. member, I can see very clearly that there is only one party that could have introduced this Bill. I do not think the United Party would ever have dreamt of introducing a Bill like this. The National Party is the only one which can and may introduce a Bill like this. There are various reasons for this. One of the reasons is that the whole character of the National Party has its roots in the way of life of our nation. Its whole character is part of the nature of our nation and part of its total existence.

What nation?

I shall come to that because I should like to hear from them their definition of a nation and even of the white community of South Africa. I must say that the United Party’s front-bench speaker on this Bill, spoke for 25 minutes without his having made any contribution.

There is a second reason and that is that the manifestation facet of our way of life which has been struggling most strongly right from the outset for the establishment and maintenance of all the facets of our way of life has in fact found its embodiment in the National Party. Another reason is that the pulse of life of the National Party really is the principle of this legislation. That is to preserve, develop, foster and extend that way of life which has become a power on this Continent. This Bill deals with culture and one may not rise here and say, “I am not an expert on culture.”

Why not?

That interjection from the hon. member for Mooi River proves his ignorance. [Interjections.] Many people, like the hon. members of the Opposition, shy away from defining the concept of culture. To concern oneself with that concept and to let it act as a criterion and standard of value in one’s life, is regarded as narrow-mindedness by hon. members of the Opposition and by many others. There are many reasons which give rise to that, but that I want to leave to them. When one wants to discuss this matter, it is essential for one to give definitions, because a definition has absoluteness. It is not an interpretation or terminology or an idiom. To give a definition one has to penetrate to the roots; definitions are based on the real knowledge from which principles are derived. There are many definitions which may be given in this regard, but I should like to read to you from the work of Professor Coertse. “Inleiding tot die Algemene Volkekunde”, and I want to quote from the section “Kultuurkunde”. I just want to tell the hon. member for Mooi River that ethnology is that division of science which concerns itself mainly with a study of concepts such as nation, race, culture, etc.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Whereas I am being afforded the opportunity of submitting this proposed legislation to the hon. House, I should like to motivate the necessity of legislation of this nature.

It is generally accepted that over the past 30 years South Africa has entered a new economic epoch, a new era. With our fixed rate of investment, almost 20 per cent of our gross national product at present, South Africa is, in addition, rapidly becoming a stable, established and mature economic community. It is conceivable that the one thing which could keep us back, is a manpower shortage. We find that this economic development, about which all of us are in fact delighted, goes hand in hand with an increased demand for manpower, particularly for skilled manpower. I think it is correct to say that it is generally accepted that at present South Africa has the necessary physical manpower. What I mean by that, is that quantitatively speaking there is no manpower shortage. Qualitatively speaking, however, I think that all of us will admit that there are gaps to be filled. Nevertheless, the physical manpower does exist. South Africa has extensive natural resources at its disposal. We are therefore in a position to raise sufficient capital so as to ensure a high growth rate. The vulnerable spot, the Achilles heel, of our economy is our manpower shortage. I think I can say that unless this problem can be solved, unless we can fill this gap, our economic growth rate will start dropping and South Africa will not be in a position to utilize properly an economic situation which is being regarded as one of the most favourable in the world.

Rapid, continuous economic growth is essential in South Africa for various reasons. In the first place, it is essential to make economic provision for our rapidly increasing population. Our population will probably number 40 million people by the end of this century. In the second place, it is essential to fill the gap which will be caused by a declining gold-mining industry. There is every indication that this gold-mining industry, which is still the cradle of the economy, which still brings us foreign exchange to the value of approximately R800 million per year, will in 20 years’ time be a mere shadow of its former self. That gap will have to be filled by an intensified industrial endeavour. Rapid economic growth is also necessary to help us to meet our defence obligations. At present our defence obligations amount to as much as R250 million per year, and once again there are indications that this amount will increase rather than decrease. In a community such as our own, a pluralistic community, a multi-racial community, I also think that it is necessary that there should be economic growth in order that we may raise the standard of living of all our various communities rapidly. That, in the last instance, is the best means of defence against political agitators. I therefore think that it will be generally accepted by this House that we should all like to see rapid economic growth in South Africa. As has already been argued, the one vulnerable spot, the Achilles heel, is a manpower shortage. We can sit here all day trying to prove by way of statistics that this shortage is real. I do not think it necessary to devote too much attention to this. Every survey which has been undertaken objectively over the past 10 or 20 years, points to a manpower shortage. During the past week the hon. the Minister of Labour also spoke about this matter. The estimates that are being prepared at present indicate that South Africa requires a large number of skilled men every year in order to sustain its industrial growth. The estimates of which I have knowledge, vary from a minimum of 30,000 skilled labourers per year to a maximum of approximately 50,000 per year. I do not know which of these figures is correct. My personal opinion is that 50,000 skilled labourers per year would probably be nearer to the truth.

Why not 30,000 per year?

All the indications are that South Africa will need 50,000 skilled labourers annually. It would be easy for me to elaborate on this matter and to indicate that the figure would in actual fact be nearer to 50,000. But this does not really matter, for the other factor is that there is such a major backlog which has still to be made up. Dr. Frikkie Meyer, a former chairman of Iscor, proved a few years ago that, if South Africa adapted its systems of management to the American model, we would need 550,000 managers, officers and actively working proprietors, as he called them. That is the figure Dr. Meyer predicted. If we examine the 1966 census figures and include everybody whom one could possibly include in that category, we merely arrive at a total of just over 200,000. There is, therefore, a major backlog which we shall have to make up in this field. Time and again it is asked: Why can South Africa not increase its productivity? Why are we unable to restrict rises in the cost of living? Why are we unable to cope with inflation? The answers to nearly all these questions are exactly the same. The answer is: Because we do not have sufficient skilled manpower to plan and maintain our economic endeavour on the optimum level.

In any event, the South African problem is unique. As regards manpower our problem is unique because we have a multi-racial community. For this reason an excessive responsibility is being placed on the shoulders of the Whites in our community. We all know that in the modern economy at least 10 per cent of the total population, in some countries it is as high as 12½ per cent, must find themselves in these highly skilled positions. If we make such a projection against our South African background, it shows clearly that out of our total population of 18 million people, at least 1,800,000 people would have to find themselves in these highly skilled positions. It is also clear that we shall not be able to fill all these positions from the ranks of the white section of our community, because our total white population is only slightly over 3 million people. The economically active section within our white population is estimated at merely 37 per cent at present. This indicates that we shall have to go beyond the bounds of the white group. In addition, this indicates once again what particular responsibility is being placed on the Whites, for in our economic system virtually every white person has to be a supervisor of some sort or other.

But a second factor is involved here. There are still too many people in South Africa who think of the modern economic labour force as something which can be represented by a triangle or a pyramid. In other words, they think that the labour force is composed of a small number of skilled persons at the top, and that it has a broad, solid foundation or base composed of a large mass of unskilled workers. This concept is completely outdated. In the modern economic force it will only be possible to introduce a maximum of 10 per cent of the workers into the unskilled groups at the bottom. The modern economic labour force ought therefore not to be represented by way of a triangle or a pyramid, it looks more like a diamond. The largest number of people is no longer at the base, because they have moved upwards. That stratification of our labour force shows once again how important it is for us to have training on a co-ordinated basis. It is true that there is no manpower shortage in South Africa, but I think it is also true to say that there is a waste and an abuse of labour. It is true to say that there is no unemployment in South Africa, but I think it is also true to say that there is more “underemployment” of manpower in South Africa than there is in many other countries. To prove this I just want to mention that a country such as Australia has an economic production which is twice as high as ours is, and Australia has a smaller population than South Africa has. Canada’s total population is the same as ours, but the value of their economic production is almost six times as much as ours is. I am trying to show that South Africa’s wealth is not its gold or diamonds. The true wealth of our country is its human talents. The best long-term investment we can make in South Africa, is to invest in the training and development of our human potential.

When I say that, my argument is not that no training is being undertaken in South Africa. On the contrary, I have a good idea of what is already being done in this regard. I know that in certain Government Departments, such as the Railways, large-scale pioneering and spade-work is being done. We are aware that training activities of a very high quality are in progress there. We know that in certain public utility organizations, such as Iscor, outstanding work is in point of fact being done in the sphere of manpower development. We are aware that in certain private organizations, such as the mining industry, work is being done, as far as the training of operators is concerned, which can be compared with the best available in the world. Therefore, my argument is not that people are not being trained. My argument is in fact that the demands for skilled labour will rise dramatically within the next decade or two. My argument is also that a great deal of the training undertaken at present, is sporadic and fragmentary. My argument is that it is not co-ordinated and that it is not properly integrated. There are no long-term forecasts as to our manpower requirements. There is a hiatus between the training provided at our schools and industrial training. If we really want success in this regard, our efforts must be coordinated to a much greater extent. Legislation is necessary to ensure that. This is not something which can be done spontaneously by industries themselves. Legislation is necessary so as to create the structure within which this training endeavour can be put into practice. Legislation is necessary in any event, because the State as the greatest consumer of manpower must throw the full weight of its authority behind an endeavour of this nature. The State must in any case make a financial contribution to training, a contribution which is a minimal at the moment.

When we consider legislation of this nature, I think that certain basic principles are obvious to us at once. To start with, nobody can be forced to provide training. If we were to pilot through legislation which provides that every employer must train people, we would really be making trouble. The only thing one can compel an employer to do, is to make a financial contribution towards a more extensive national training endeavour. I would therefore suggest that legislation or this nature should imply a minimum amount of compulsion and a maximum amount of incentive. This is indeed the principle which has been adhered to in the United States of America and in Britain, where they have already submitted legislation of a similar nature. Therefore, the main objects of any legislation should be, in the first place, to try to make provision in terms of which there will be sufficient, properly trained men and women to keep our industrial endeavour going at an optimum level. The second object of such training should be to improve the quality of our instruction and of our training amenities and facilities, and, in the third place, the object should be to spread the cost of such training as proportionately and as equitably as possible amongst the consumers of labour. It is those particular objects which I have tried to embody in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, there cannot be any objection to those particular objects. To raise objections to it, would be unpatriotic, surely; it would be un-South African. I cannot see how any of my hon. friends on the other side could revolt against such principles; surely, they must accept them.

The other principles that have been set out here, indicate that there are two things which will be required of employers. The first one is set out in clause 19. In clause 19 we point out, and it is being provided, that the employer may be asked to make available certain information concerning his labour force, the composition of the labour force and the conditions of service. Provision is also being made for protection in order that this information may not be made available to other people who may possibly act as rivals of the organization in question. The employer is being asked, in the first place, to furnish particulars in regard to his labour force, and, in the second place, in clause 16, it is provided that a training levy may be imposed. If we take the examples of other countries, we find that this levy is usually expressed as a percentage of the total wage-sheets of a particular organization, and it varies according to circumstances in that particular industry. I am aware that in some organizations abroad this levy may be as little as R5 per worker per year; in other organizations it is as high as R50 per worker per year. The money collected in this manner, is utilized mainly for three purposes: In the first place, to meet any administrative costs connected with the administration of such a scheme. In the second place, it is used to create better and new training facilities; to establish new training institutions or to do research in the field of training. But, in the third place, these moneys are also used for making payment, to those organizations where training of a high standard is provided. Therefore organizations which maintain high standards in their training schemes can never object to such a system, for experience has proved that in most cases they show a profit on this levy payment balance. They are therefore being encouraged to carry on with their training endeavour, because what they pay out by way of levy, they get back by way of payment, and the only persons who can object to a scheme of this nature are those economic parasites who do not want to undertake their own training, but who always sit back and wait for someone else to undertake such training, after which they entice people away by offering them better conditions of service.

Harry Oppenheimer is the one who entices people away from the Public Service.

Mr. Speaker, this scheme makes provision—and this is indeed the backbone of the scheme—for the cost of training to be spread over a very wide field; in the second place, it would stimulate those people who are already providing training, to greater efforts and it would also encourage those who are providing absolutely no training, to greater efforts.

I have set out what the principles of this proposed legislation are; I have tried to indicate what its most important mechanism is. All that remains is to draw attention to the organization structure which has to be established in order to deal with a thing like this. From the legislation submitted here it is clear that three types of organizations are envisaged. The first, for which provision is being made in clauses 2 and 3, is the manpower board. A board will be constituted for every industry or every group of industries. It is also clear that provision is being made for equal representation of employers and employees. The minimum size of such board must be seven persons, under a chairman, and all of them will be appointed by the Minister of Labour. The functions of this board are set out in clause 3, and it is clear that they are the group which must take charge of training for a specific industry or a specific group of industries. Consequently I regard these boards as being extremely important. The part they play in this training scheme is an important one. But, Sir, if one were to stop at these boards—and in Britain for instance, one has at the moment as many as 15 of these boards which represent more than 10 million workers—it is still clear that something is lacking on a national level; consequently provision is made in clause 24 for a national advisory council on industrial training. I regard this advisory council as being extremely important. Provision is being made for us to assemble in this council our leading experts in this country in the field of industrial training. Once again employers and employees will have equal representation, but provision is also being made for at least six chairmen of boards, and the Minister of National Education is also being asked to appoint at least six persons in order that their special approach to this problem may also be included here. Sir, if we do not have such a national body, training will continue to be sporadic and fragmentary. This council has to make the long-term forecasts; this council has to establish the structure on the basis of which our training can be organized. There is a last type of body for which provision is also being made, and that is being done in clause 25. It is clear that friction may arise, and for that reason provision is being made for appeal tribunals. For instance, people may say that they do not belong in a specific industry and that they should rather be classified under another industry. Or there may be objections to the levy imposed, or they may feel that larger amounts should be paid out to them. In this way provision should therefore be made for an appeal tribunal which would then be able to give rulings.

Sir, this is briefly the organization structure for which provision is being made. I want to conclude. We have a national, countrywide problem here. I wanted to draw attention to it. I wanted to indicate what its importance is. To a certain extent we have already had success with it, for, as you know, Sir, the Minister of Labour is also considering legislation of his own at present. I just want to say further that the first reactions to what I have submitted here, were of a favourable nature, because the trade unions came forward and said: “We support this fully.” Some of the big employers have also said that legislation of this nature is absolutely essential. Professional organizations such as the Staff Management Association have come forward and said that they support this fully. We have therefore made progress. Sir, we have come to the cross-roads. My plea to the hon. the Minister is that we should not water down this matter to such an extent that we are left with something which means absolutely nothing, because I have an idea that this is what is probably going to happen. We have here a situation which requires dramatic action. To nibble at this matter in a captious manner, is not going to do any good. Let us take dramatic action; let us do this with imagination. Here we have a patient who is ill, Mr. Speaker, we cannot bring him to with pills; he needs a heart-transplant. We have done the spadework; we have provided the instruments; we have all of that here, and I now ask the Government and the hon. the Minister to take over and perform the operation.

The hon. member for Hillbrow started off by making the statement that ours was a multi-racial nation, a statement with which we are in complete agreement, but the hon. member simply left it at that and never came to what he really had in mind, i.e. the introduction of more non-Whites into our industries.

This has nothing to do with the colour problem.

With the introduction of this Bill I have to accept that the hon. member for Hillbrow has decided for himself and his party that there is a need in the Republic of South Africa for the efficient training of sufficient manpower. Otherwise, if this were not so, there would have been no need for this Bill. In other words, the charge against the Government is that it has done too little to meet the demand. We shall closely analyse this charge a little later. In the second place the hon. member could not suppress the voice of Harry—and I do not mean Harry of Umlazi, but the voice of Harry Oppenheimer. Where we have a so-called shortage of trained manpower for meeting our demand, the hon. member envisages with this Bill the training of non-Whites on an unknown scale, throwing open the flood-gates and allowing more non-Whites into the industries. I shall deal with this too.

But this has nothing to do with the colour problem.

I want to make it very clear that this side of the House has never adopted an indifferent attitude to the training of persons in certain activities of industry and commerce. On the contrary, I shall prove what this side of the House has in fact done in the past with its existing systems of industrial councils, apprenticeship committees and a National Apprenticeship Board in order to meet the demand for training. This Bill submitted to us by the hon. member for solving our South African problems has been taken virtually word by word from the British Industrial Training Act, and then the hon. member thinks that he has come to this House with something original. This Bill has been taken section by section and word by word from the British Act; the sections have only been re-arranged to some extent.

The Americans have exactly the same legislation.

I say that that is where this Bill comes from. Even the fines prescribed in this Bill for offences are the same, except in one case. Now I ask myself whether we have to accept that the British pound and the South African rand have the same value. The hon. member might just as well have asked the former British Minister of Labour, Mr. Godber, to have introduced this Bill here. It would have saved him a great deal of time.

He did it much better himself.

Does the hon. member now want us to adopt this British Act holus-bolus and then to accept that we shall no longer have any problems in South Africa? It is ridiculous.

The Dutch have exactly the same Act.

This is what happens once one has lost contact with what is one’s own and no longer knows in what country one is living. I have always thought one could take notice of the hon. member for Hillbrow, particularly in view of the fact that he is also being regarded as a possible leader of the United Party, but now I have to discover to my disillusionment that there is not much in him and that he is, as the children say, merely a copy-cat. He comes along with a British Labour Act to try and solve our problems for us. Does the hon. member realize that the sources of labour from which one can draw in England and in South Africa are completely different? Does the hon. member realize that the constitution of our population is completely different and that there is a world of difference in conditions? One thing is very clear and that is that the hon. member is completely unaquainted with our labour legislation if he looks for a solution to our problems in the British Statute Books. A White Paper was published at the time of the introduction of the British Act, and seeing that the hon. member simply copied the British Act, you will allow me, Sir, to refer to the reasons advanced in justification of the introduction of the British Act. On page 659 of the Parliamentary Paper’s Vol. 31, the following appears—

And further on—

These are the reasons which were advanced. It is clear that they required legislation of this nature to solve their problems. In this country the situation is completely different. We have an existing Industrial Conciliation Act, which makes provision for everything for which they did not have an Act, and with the proposed amending Bill the hon. the Minister of Labour is going to introduce, it will be possible to achieve a great deal more, and with much less difficulty, than with this Bill of the hon. member. I am not going to discuss this legislation in any more detail, in view of the fact that other members on this side of the House will do so.

In this Bill provision is being made for the establishment of manpower boards, each consisting of at least seven members for each particular industry. These boards will fulfil certain functions as set out in clause 3 of the Bill and may appoint certain officers and servants. Now, in view of the fact that we had 100 registered councils at the end of 1967, you can think for yourself, Sir, what a clumsy organization it would be if we were to appoint a manpower board for each industrial council. This would mean that 700 members would be required only for staffing such manpower boards.

One needs 15 at the outside.

We can see what a clumsy system it would be and what a waste of manpower it would entail, if we were to accept that basis. Can you imagine, Sir, the tremendous costs this would entail for the taxpayer? In the case of the British Act, it is costing the State R100 million per annum in the form of subsidies.

And it is a mess.

The hon. member said all employers supported this Bill. Sir, I want to tell you that Mr. Drummond of Seifsa made a study of this legislation outside South Africa, and what were their findings? They found that this Bill was unnecessary and that the training under our existing laws was of the most modern and the best in the world. These were the findings of Seifsa.

Do you know him? I know him personally and he knows nothing about the whole matter.

Then I can only quote the decision of the Economic Advisory Council, which met in Pretoria on 29th and 30th August and produced a report, which reads as follows—

This is the man I was referring to.

I say that I shall prove the contrary, and that is that this side of the House has in fact studied the matter. I come back to my accusation that the hon. member is in favour of bringing larger numbers of Blacks into our industries. We know, and the hon. member will agree, that their policy is economic integration. Their policy is to throw open the floodgates of labour and allow non-Whites to stream into the industries, whereas we are prepared to control the stream. That is the basic difference between these two parties. We realize that we have the Coloureds and the Bantu with us and that we have to use their services, and we also realize that we are dependent on them to a certain extent, but the opposite also holds true. They also know that they need us and they are also dependent on us. For that reason we dare not disturb the balance or the principle ever, because if we were to do so, we would experience the most severe industrial unrest in this country.

But this Bill does not mention Whites or non-Whites.

I must say that the hon. member for Houghton has my sympathy. Since her political playmates have left her, she has been sitting in the political corner for lonely hearts, but it is noteworthy that the charming gentleman of Hillbrow is paying court to the beautiful lady of Houghton in an attempt to find a joint solution to their common problem, i.e. the shortage of trained manpower. It would not surprise me in the least if at some time in the future they were to enter into a political marriage, because the solution of both is to be found in training non-Whites and allowing more of them into the industries. I am not the one who said this. In The Star of 1st August 1968, there was an article “South Africa at labour crossroads”. In that article the following statement was made—

And what does the hon. member for Houghton say? A report in the Cape Times of 21st March, 1964, reads—

For these reasons it is very clear to me that we may expect a political marriage before long. It is not only the primary duty of the Government to ensure sufficient work for the available manpower of this country, but it also has to ensure that one race group will not be swamped by another, and most of all that the Whites will not be swamped in their part of this country. The industrial peace and calm we are enjoying in this country is unparalleled in the world. I attribute this to the Government’s labour policy and its industrial legislation. I trust that this Minister will continue to ensure that the supply will meet the demand as he has been doing in the past.

If the economic growth is of such a nature that we cannot keep abreast of the demand for trained manpower, we prefer to cool down economic development rather than abandon any principles. We prefer to do this rather than to throw open the flood-gates and allow larger numbers of non-Whites onto the labour market and create chaos. We have seen how the countries of Europe have been crippled by strikes and we have seen how they have been brought to their knees. That is something we do not know here. During 1968 there were 21 strikes in the Republic which involved a total number of 1,963 workers made up of 248 Whites and 1,715 non-Whites. This industrial peace and calm is worth more than an angry labour force. If that member wants to continue with the idea of allowing larger numbers of non-Whites into our industries, he and his Party will suffer even more severe set-backs than they have suffered in the past.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made another accusation against hon. members on this side in that he said that this side of the House had not done enough as far as the training of manpower was concerned. In the first place I want to tell him that the quality of the artisans we train in the Republic is of the highest in the world, and that many countries can learn from us. The system of training artisans might have been outdated, but it has been improved and streamlined to a great extent in the past few years. In 1960 the National Apprenticeship Board conducted certain investigations into the training of our apprentices and made certain recommendations which were adopted in 1963. The old system of a five-year apprenticeship, whether that was good or bad, is something of the past and many improvements have been made to the system. I want to mention a few of the recommendations which were accepted: vocational guidance, aptitude tests and better selection, precise job definitions in respect of the various aspects of a trade, the streamlining of class attendances and monetary compensation in the form of supplementary wages for scholastic achievements, the introduction of a system of voluntary trade testing, the shortening of training periods, and others. What these recommendations have resulted in is that apprentices with certain qualifications can acquire artisan status after 2½ years instead of 5 years. The prescribed wage of apprentices rests on a percentage basis in respect of the wage prescribed for the artisan, with the result that there has been a big improvement in this regard. Because of the improvements made to the National Apprenticeship Act there has been a tremendous increase in the number of apprenticeship contracts. In 1963 6,611 apprentices were registered and last year 9,090 persons were registered as apprentices. There was an increase of 44 per cent in the total number of current contracts from 1964 to 1968, i.e. a total number of 10,750. Not only has there been an increase in numbers, but the quality of the training given has improved to a large extent. There has also been an improvement in the qualifications of apprentices. In 1964 we attracted 540 apprentices with a Std. 9 or a Std. 10 certificate and last year we attracted 1,250. More success has also been achieved with the qualifying trade tests. In 1964, 4,100 did those tests of whom 1,600 passed. Last year 6,300 did those tests of whom 2,200 passed. Over and above the training of these apprentices, the Government has also made provision for the training of adults. Up to the end of last year 1,582 adults were trained. This is what the Government has done. I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that he will have our wholehearted support for the amending Bill he intends introducing, and that this Bill, which was introduced by the hon. member for Hillbrow, and which we regard as unnecessary, will not get our support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark who has just spoken has done a disservice to South Africa and to the skilled workers of our country.

He has done what?

A disservice [Interjections.] He has done a disservice by trying to turn a debate which has nothing whatsoever to do with the colour bar or with colour into a political debate.

Do not bluff yourself.

The hon. member is out of date and does not know that Newcastle is over and that they voted on Wednesday. It is no use trying to sweep up emotions now. We are dealing here with the measure proposed by my colleague, which is a measure dealing with the cold reality of life. It is not a political measure, but a measure designed to raise the standards of our White workers and of all our workers, to a higher level. I challenge that hon. member to show us where in the Bill, which we are now debating, there is any reference whatsoever to colour.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. member prepared to insert in every clause of this Bill the words “White or European only”?

I do not know whether it would please the hon. member for Turffontein to see that in, but it certainly will not please his own Minister. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is correct that or whether he denies that he said at Dundee last week that if there were not enough white workers …

This week.

Yes, last Monday. That non-White workers would have to be used and trained for those jobs.

That is an incorrect report and I will refer to it in my reply.

The hon. the Minister now says that it was an incorrect report, but he will not deny that throughout South Africa in almost every industry non-Whites are having to fill the gap, because there are not enough white skilled workers. There sits the hon. the Minister of Transport. He can tell the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that whether you have the people or not, you still have to get the job done. The object of this measure before us is to try to provide more trained men with higher skills and therefore with greater productivity.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned, I was replying to the so-called speech of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark.

Why “so-called”?

If one listened to the nonsense he was talking, then it is no wonder that the hon. the Minister fell asleep to try to shut that sort of rubbish out of his ears. When we asked the Minister across the floor to answer certain questions, the Minister continued to doze away in his euphoria. Our complaint is that this Government, when dealing with the manpower problem of South Africa, is living in a dream world of hope and wishful thinking. It was the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark who was talking to Newcastle voters, forgetting that he was too late and that the thrashing had already been delivered, and that thousands of Nationalists had failed to vote for his party.

But I do not want to waste more time on the hon. member. I would rather do something constructive and congratulate the hon. member for Hillbrow on bringing this Bill before the House, a Bill which has been welcomed by all thinking people in South Africa. That, of course, excludes members on that side of the House. It has been welcomed by all those concerned with the growth and the progress of South Africa’s economic development, and particularly its industrial development. The mover of the Second Reading of this Bill has set before the House clearly and in indisputable terms the reasons and the need for this Bill, the procedures proposed under this Bill and the effects which it will have.

I want to deal particularly with the aspect of the need for a measure of this sort. I am not talking about the halfhearted acceptance by the Government, the Minister’s halfway step to produce a sort of Bill to deal with manpower training. We do not want half measures; we want a real measure which will work. The Government’s proposals are simply fiddling while Rome burns. They are halfhearted. They do not even start to go along the road towards solving this problem. As long ago as the original economic development programme for 1965-’70, we find that in the conclusions on page 86, the following was stated:

It goes on to conclude that—

That is in 1970. I do not want to deal with the tables which give detailed breakdowns. That is the cold, hard reality. According to the Government’s own investigations by its own commission, the report of which was released by the Department of Planning, by 1970 there will be a shortage of 30,000 white workers. That assumed at that stage a net immigration rate of 30,000. Now we have the latest forecast of the E.D.P. for 1968-’73. That deals with three possible growth rates for South Africa. It deals with a growth rate of 5 per cent, 5½ per cent and 6 per cent. It concludes unequivocally and with no qualification that the limiting, determining factor on South Africa’s growth rate will be the labour situation. It will not be capital; not raw material, not all the services such as water, power and everything that is required for development, but solely and only the limitation of labour. The hon. the Minister of Labour knows it. It is his own Government’s forecast. Labour is the sole limiting factor on our growth rate. It is assumed in the latest survey that, at a rate of growth of 5½ per cent, we will require a minimum of 30,000 net increase per year in immigration to South Africa, plus improvements in the productivity of our existing labour force. It is then estimated that, with a net increase of 30,000 immigrants and an increase in productivity, the demand will still exceed the supply both of white and of non-white workers. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether that is correct or wrong? Does he dispute the findings of the experts who have produced the Economic Development Programme and brought it up to date for 1968-’73? Does he say they are talking nonsense, that the Government is wrongly advised, when it is told by its own experts that with a net immigration of 30,000 the demand for labour will still exceed the supply, both of White and of non-White? What is then left for South Africa to do? If one does not have the people, there is only one other way to close the gap, namely to increase the productivity of the people one has. The mover of the Second Reading of this Bill dealt specifically with the comparison of our productivity compared to that of other countries of the world. He indicated clearly the tremendous scope there was to increase the productivity of our own workers. The Bill before us is designed to do exactly that. But what an indictment on our country, that this country of ours, with all the potential and all the prospects we have, should have to count exclusively on immigration in order to close the gap in our own labour requirements and availability? I would like to ask the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, who is absent, who made such a noise about this being a “bedekte poging” to break down the colour bar, whether he is satisfied. Seeing he is not here, I will ask his rowdy colleagues behind him, who enthusiastically supported him, and the Deputy Minister as well, whether they are satisfied that white people in South Africa should push barrows and carry suitcases, that white people in South Africa should drive the sanitary wagons of the Health Department? Under their Government, the job of driving vehicles for the sanitation department in Durban is reserved for white people. Are they satisfied that that is the sort of work which white people should do in South Africa? Then they talk of “breaking down the colour bar”. What they are doing, is to push white people down into jobs which they should not be doing. What we want to do, is to raise the white man’s standard of skills so that he does not drive trucks for sanitation departments, but he does constructive work, which will give him a higher standard of living and greater productivity in the economic progress of South Africa. I doubt whether the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and the two Deputy Ministers, who are making so much noise, will get a licence to drive those trucks, even they could be trained. I am sure we could find a job they could do if we had proper training facilities in South Africa; we have not found the job yet, neither has the Prime Minister, unfortunately.

If he had a job, he would not give it to you.

I am sure that with proper training even that hon. Deputy Minister could be found a job.

May I put a question to the hon. member? It will be a short question, and a very civil one. Did you not tell the people at Newcastle that it is this Government that hands over the white jobs to nonwhites?

No, Mr. Speaker, I did not. But what the hon. member is referring to, is obviously a pamphlet, which stated a historical fact, namely that under this Government there were very few, if any, white workers in the building trade in Northern Natal, and that the non-white worker had taken over that work. That was the statement in that pamphlet. May I ask the hon. member to deny that it is true? Does he say that non-whites do not predominate in the building trade in Northern Natal? The point is, they are being tripped up by their own policy. What we are trying to do with this measure, is to avoid the situation where there are no trained white people to do the jobs. We want the white people to be trained so that they can do the jobs, so that we do not have a situation that makes that hon. member so concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask whether the Government really believes that we could not meet our labour demands in South Africa if we had the proper approach and the proper facilities for training. How many people are there in South Africa over the age of 45 who could be doing productive work, but who, in fact, cannot get a job?

You are talking nonsense.

No, Mr. Speaker, when I say “get a job”, I mean get a job worthy of them; not getting a job such as those members are satisfied that they should do. I mean getting a job worthy of their capabilities, their potential, instead of doing unskilled manual work. Those members are satisfied that those people should do manual work. [Interjections.] They want that sort of person in South Africa. They want untrained workers, because then they can go to them and say, “Oppas vir die Sappe. Hulle wil hê ’n kaffer moet jou werk doen.” They want the position to continue, so that they can go to the worker and say that the United Party will threaten his job because a black man will take it over. So the more unskilled workers there are, the happier those members are on that side of the House. We do not want people afraid of losing their jobs. We want people so trained, so skilled, that they have no fear of competition for their jobs. That is the ideal in South Africa. We want to lift people up. That, in turn, will create opportunities for the non-Whites. What is the position in many of our trades and in our industries to-day? I heard last night of a firm which refuses to take in apprentices, because they say, “We are absolutely wasting our time. First of all, they have to do military training. They do block courses. In the end we get about three months work out of them per year. That is all at our cost. As soon as they are qualified, they are poached by somebody else.” Who is doing the training and suffering the worst poaching? The Government. The Government is having more people poached from its service than any private firm. But there are also private firms who are doing training and who are suffering from this poaching. Is it not only fair that those who do the training should get some benefit from the labour of those workers or of a refund of their investment in that training?

Is the Minister of Labour satisfied that the Government should to-day be training thousands and thousands of people who buy themselves out long before their contracts to work for as long as they were trained have expired? He knows this is happening. Is he happy? Is he happy to be spending the taxpayer’s money training people simply so they can be poached by private enterprise? Because every Minister in every Budget debate complains he cannot get the staff. He complains his staff is pinched by private enterprise, drawn away by the lure of higher salaries and other inducements. But the Government trains them, and, having trained them, it then loses them. Surely it is only fair that those who are going to have the benefit of these trained men should contribute towards their training, and that is the crux of the measure before the House this afternoon. The industrialist should contribute towards the training of manpower in every field. He should pay in cold cash for the privilege of eventually being able to draw trained men if he has not trained them himself. If he trains them himself then he can get the benefit of compensation for that training out of the fund to which all the employers in that particular field contribute. Surely this is elementary. If in a certain industry some people are doing all the training and others, who do no training, get the benefit of the trained men, is it not elementary that all should contribute towards a fund and the man who is giving the training should get some compensation for it? That is the essence of this measure. Apart from the question of statistical information, that is the only demand made on industry. I do not know of any complaint from industry to the effect that they do not accept this principle. I do not believe that hon. members on that side of the House are prepared to say they do not accept this principle. They are prepared to fiddle around with the Industrial Conciliation Act to give an impression of doing something about the problem. But there is only one way to deal with it and that is to place a specific onus on every employer of labour to participate in the training of labour in his field.

In the building industry to which the again absent hon. member for Vryheid referred, what is the average age of a building artisan today? Way up over the 45 year mark, going on for 50, in other words, the old hands are still there but the young ones are not coming in. Those who want to train people, cannot get them. We are beginning to “dinosaurize” many of our skilled professions; they are going to become like the dinosaur, something extinct, something forgotten in South African life. The hon. the Minister himself appeared to face up to it in Dundee, but to-day when I questioned him before the lunch adjournment he said he had been misquoted. Well, I hope he will put that misquote right to-day and tell us who is going to do the skilled work, if there are not Whites available to do it. Is he going to pluck baboons off the trees and train them, because they are not Blacks? Who is going to do the work if there are no Whites to do it? And where will we get the white workers if we do not train them? It is as simple as that. Either you train people and you let industry participate in the training, or you are not going to have the people to do the jobs, in which case whole trades are going to disappear. You can water down, you can break down the jobs, you can have prefabricated houses built by non-white labour to eliminate the need for skilled labour, you can do what you like, but whatever you do, the fact remains that over the next five years we are not going to have the skilled labour available to meet the demands of our industry to enable a growth rate of 5½ per cent to take place. Does the Minister want a 5½ per cent growth rate, or doesn’t he? This Government wants it, this Government has set that as a target and this is the Minister responsible for seeing that the labour is there to make it possible.

What factors to-day militate against the training of skilled labour? There is the cost factor; it is cheaper for a firm to poach than to train its own people. There is the demand of military service which, despite all the pretty-pretty words spoken, has a bad effect on our labour resources. Now, let me at once say I accept military training in this country is essential. But it means we are pushed back one year as far as the availability of our manpower is concerned. We lose one year’s service from our male youth as a result of the demands of our country for security. We accept that demand in the interests of our security, but the practical effect is that one year of our male manpower is lost in the growth of industry and the development of South Africa. This sacrifice we are willing to make, our youth are willing to make it, but the sacrifice places a corresponding burden upon the Minister of Labour to ensure that that gap of one year is made up. This gap has come about as a result of the change in military training systems. Formerly some 13,000 young men were balloted for training each year, but now all our young men are called up for national service. The Minister will quote us a certain percentage; he will refer to three point something per cent and say it is negligible. One can play with figures as much as one likes. There is an old saying that liars can sure figure, and figures can sure lie. It is not a question of percentages, it is the fact that every able-bodied young man in South Africa is losing a year of his productivity contribution towards the national economy.

Then we have the demand of block courses, technical college training, which tends to put some employers off and to discourage them from engaging in training. Moreover, many employers complain that the attitude of our youth to work to-day is unsatisfactory. They say what the young people are interested in, is enjoying themselves, having a good time, earning as much money as they can, rather than equipping themselves for a career. They say in many cases young people rather go for higher salaries and comfortable positions for themselves than for posts which give them long-term security. That may be, but I do not believe that our South African youth are fundamentally bad. Nevertheless, I must accept what I hear from every employer of labour, namely that the average young man coming in to-day to work does not have the same approach to his responsibilities as the previous generation had. As a result you get people jumping from one job to another. If an employer speaks sharply to an apprentice he says, “Look, you go to blazes because I can get another job to-morrow”, and that is happening. It is part of the attitude towards the question of training, but if we have proper training facilities we will influence that state of mind, we will show that South Africa is determined that our people shall receive training, and the result will be the youth will want to become part of that pattern of training. But if the youth think the Government and South Africa do not care about their skills then they cannot be blamed if they themselves do not take the interest which they should take. In that field, I believe, we can get a better approach if the example is set from the top. And then, Sir, you have the disadvantages of post-training losses, where losses occur after people have been trained. Here again we find poaching taking place by people who offer better salaries. That is a part of the competition of free enterprise. We cannot stop it, but it is a factor mitigating against firms spending a lot of money on training people for higher skills. All these things combine to point to the urgent need for an aggressive and a determined assault upon the shortage of skilled manpower in South Africa. We believe that the Bill which we are now debating will encourage firms to train people. That is the first thing it will do. It will stabilize and modernize training methods. We believe thirdly that it will create better employer-employee relationships, because it will bring both employer and employee into partnership in the control and planning and the execution of training programmes for the future. Fourthly it will compensate those who in fact devote time, money and effort to training. Fifthly, it will relieve the State from being a nursery open to poaching from everybody too lazy or too selfish to train their own workers.

These are all steps towards a realistic target aimed at raising the skills of the white worker and thereby creating opportunity for the non-white worker in the fields which are left open. We believe that the co-operation of worker and employer is the basis upon which this can be carried out. We believe that that will be the protection against any intrusion or threat of cheap labour undermining the standards of living of the white worker. But above all, it will give an injection to our economy, an injection which will enable us when we talk of growth rates not to say that we are limited to 5½ per cent because of labour, but to say that the potential of South Africa is unlimited and that we have a manpower training system which will ensure that whatever the economy demands of the labour market, the labour market will be able to meet. Therefore, Sir, I have great pleasure in supporting and congratulating the hon. member for Hill-brow on introducing this vital issue for the consideration of this legislature.

Mr. Speaker, it is once more a great pleasure for me to say that I cannot support the legislation of the hon. member for Hillbrow. It is a pity that the hon. member for Durban (Point) today once more conducted us to the sewage drains when he tried to prove, with certain statements, that he had a case against us. We are accustomed to the fact that he sometimes takes us to latrines, but to-day he took us to the sewage drains. I do not know whether he thinks that he will thereby restore his image in Natal, so that he may recover his political leadership there. If that is what he thinks, I just want to say to him that he definitely underestimates the mentality of the people of Natal. Sir, I want to admit to-day that we have a manpower shortage in South Africa. It is probably also a great manpower shortage. I also want to concede that it is probably the duty of all of us, who advocate development in South Africa, to do everything in our power to put this matter right, at least as far as possible. But I cannot agree that it can be done by means of this legislation which the hon. member for Hillbrow introduced. I also want to say that when the hon. member for Hillbrow speaks, we immediately suspect that something is wrong, because then we know that it is the voice of the great financiers speaking. Therefore I want to make the assertion to-day that the hon. member’s entire argument is based on a few statements which he made, one of which reads as follows: “Quantitatively there is no manpower shortage”. In other words, the hon. member thinks that training alone is lacking. If this is so, and he knows about everything which is being done by the Government to give the necessary training to everyone who is prepared to accept it, this statement of his is aimed at the thousands upon thousands of non-Whites who cannot be assimilated in the industries.

Sir, I want to refer to other statements which the hon. member made in the House last year. One of them reads as follows:

The hon. member was not referring so much to our standard of living, because this is already very high. I think that he referred here to the profits of the great financiers. In the same speech the hon. member uttered something which is actually shocking. When he referred to the Government, he said—

He said that we used the axe and the knife. In other words, he thereby wants to assert that we use the axe and the knife to maintain the colour bar. I want to say to him that it will be a good thing for him if he can prove that statement to us. Let him prove that we are doing anything to cause friction between the races in this country. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that this legislation had nothing to do with the colour bar. But, Sir, basically this legislation is intended to remove the colour bar. In addition I want to say that any government which, in the course of its efforts towards solving this problem with which we are faced, does anything to undermine or remove the colour bar, is busy undermining the economy of the entire country, because it will put an end to the industrial peace which we have enjoyed in this country for years. I must actually correct that last statement of mine and say: The industrial peace which we have enjoyed in South Africa since the National Party came into power. This industrial peace is specifically the reason for South Africa’s tremendous industrial development and therefore also the reason for the manpower shortage. I say that if a government removes that colour bar, it will lay the foundations for friction, unpleasantness and disorders in our industries, which will eventually paralyse our economy. As long as this colour bar is maintained, things will go well with us, we shall continue with our programmes, and South Africa will continue to develop, enlarge and grow stronger.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question?

No, I do not have much time left.

You are afraid of the question. [Interjections.]

The hon. member declines to answer the question.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may the hon. member for Walmer say that the hon. member is afraid to answer a question?

But he is afraid.

It is hardly parliamentary for hon. members to say to one another that they are afraid of doing something.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is there not a previous ruling by the Speaker that this remark may not be made when an hon. member declines to answer a question?

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “afraid”. I say that the hon. member is unable to answer my question.

The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Speaker, our present Industrial Conciliation Act forms the basis of this industrial peace which we enjoy in South Africa. It forms the basis of the arrangement of all industrial agreements in South Africa to-day. The hon. member for Durban (Point) also elaborated extensively here on the cordial co-operation which there must be between the employer and the employee, and he made the assertion that if the Bill were to come into the Statute Book, one would thereby create a basis for greater co-operation. But, if I study section 24 of our Industrial Conciliation Act it is very clear that any matter whatsoever of mutual importance to employers and employees can be included in such an agreement. It is therefore clear that provision is already made for all matters in our present Conciliation Act. Sir, employers and employees can take part in mutual bargaining about any matter concerning the industry, concerning both the employer and the employee.

Why does the Minister want to amend the Act now?

We shall come to that.

The day after tomorrow.

This afternoon I want to make the assertion that everything which is contained in this Bill which the hon. member for Hillbrow has brought before the House, can already be accomplished under the existing Industrial Conciliation Act, and this can be done without the creation of a great number of manpower boards. Those manpower boards which the hon. member wants to create, are specifically going to be a drain on our available manpower once more. As the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said here, there are now already about a hundred industrial councils in South Africa, and if there must also be a manpower board for each of them it means that an additional 700 board members must be found, and those 700 board members must also receive remuneration for the work they do, entailing a colossal financial burden. I say that all that work can be done just as efficiently under the existing legislation by way of collective bargaining. I am convinced that greater success can be achieved with that because your employee will be involved in this collective bargaining to a much greater extent. The employee will have a positive voice there and under the system of collective bargaining he will be better able to state how the training is going to affect him personally than under a system of manpower boards which the hon. member for Hillbrow has in mind.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) asked why the Minister now wanted to amend the Act. It is very easy to reply to that. A good Government is not stagnant like United Party members. A good Government continually makes the necessary adjustments and brings about the necessary improvements as conditions change and develop. This is all the hon. the Minister is doing. The hon. member for Hillbrow said here this morning that the legislation which he introduced last year resulted in the Minister coming along with amendments. Mr. Speaker, this is not so. When the hon. member introduced his private Bill here last year the Minister had already for a long while been engaged in negotiations with the Apprenticeship Board to bring about changes and improvements in the Act so that better and more efficient training could take place. It is not necessary for the Opposition to tell the Government what needs to be done to adjust matters to new complications.

It is very necessary.

This Government is a responsible Government. It knows what to do and when to do it. It will certainly not apply to the Opposition in order to find out what it must do. Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest here to-day that apart from the efficient way in which a solution can be found for this problem under the existing legislation, the Minister is now engaged in introducing the necessary amendment to include not only those who have already been included, but also those who have not been included yet, so that more effective training can take place. Sir, let us be honest and admit here to-day that the Government has done a tremendous amount in recent years to supply the manpower necessary for the development of South Africa, and if this were not the case, South Africa could certainly not have been in the prosperous position in which it finds itself. If one thinks back to the days when the United Party members ruled in this country and one thinks of the numbers of children who received school tuition, of the insufficient education facilities that existed then and the tremendous improvements which have set in since that time, one can realize that the Government does not seek the solution by way of legislation, but by way of better provision for the child while he is still of school-going age. It is important that this Bill should refer to young people after they have passed the school-going age. Sir, ever since I came to sit in this House, several measures have been introduced here by the hon. the Minister of Education, as he was then known, to improve the position in the field of education, and as a result we to-day find that the people who enter the professions are much better equipped for them, and this is perhaps the reason why fewer Whites to-day take up trades, especially as apprentices. Sir, we want to make this assertion here to-day that those people who enter these professions at present are so much better trained that notwithstanding the fact that they are fewer in number they can be much more productive and can maintain a higher degree of production, thereby compensating for their smaller numbers, provided that the employers are prepared to ensure that the ideal conditions prevail for high production and successful employment.

I do not see my way clear to supporting this Bill. I am convinced that the Government and the hon. the Minister have the position very well in hand, and that the Minister will ensure that the necessary amendments are introduced to bring about greater efficiency and to ensure that South Africa will continue to develop and expand without the position of the Whites being jeopardized through the colour bar being attacked in a clever way, as the hon. member for Hillbrow wants to do here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this discussion has been useful and most illuminating. The hon. member for Hillbrow has brought a Bill before the House to deal with an important aspect of the most difficult economic and social problem that faces South Africa to-day, i.e. the shortage of trained manpower. His measure, when it was published last year, was welcomed by all people interested in this. It was welcomed by industry, it was welcomed by commerce; it was welcomed by some of the principal trade unions. It was welcomed by the Nationalist Press. It was welcomed, just to give you one example, Sir, by Dagbreek en Landstem, which normally is not very sympathetic to members on this side of the House, with the headline—

Everyone welcomed this Bill. But it was quite clear that the Government could not face another instance where the Opposition had to do the thinking for South Africa and expose the Government as laggards in furthering the interests of the people. So the hon. the Minister, after the hon. member for Hillbrow had published his Bill, came with a Bill of his own which he published on 22nd January in the Government Gazette, a Bill which has merit because it accepts the principle of the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Hillbrow. That is its great merit. This is where the hon. members for Langlaagte and Vanderbijlpark have been a little bit silly, if I may say so with respect, in trying to oppose the principle of the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Hillbrow, when the hon. the Minister has accepted the principle of that Bill in a watered-down version, because that is all the Minister’s Bill is. This is a watered-down version of the Bill of the hon. member; it is an attempt to implement the principle of the Bill of the hon. member for Hillbrow, who thought of this before the hon. the Minister woke up to the need for it. That is the simple answer. I am very sorry to see, Sir, that in the hon. the Minister’s Bill certain things, which are most commendable in the Bill before us to-day, are omitted, such as, for example, making grants to those sectors of industry who really take trouble to train workers at their own expense and to have some reward for the enlightened employer who trains workers and some penalties for those employers who do not train workers. Sir, this is a serious problem. One of the serious aspects of the shortage of manpower is the suborning of workers by one group of employers from the other. The lazy, lackadaisical, disinterested employer steals employees from the enlightened employer who does the training. The State knows this, because the State is one of the principal sufferers, so much so that the chairman of the Public Service Commission, Dr. Dirk Steyn, had to refer to this when he spoke before the Work Study Association of South Africa on 2nd May of last year. Let me quote what Dr. Steyn was reported to have said—

That, Sir, is the point, and that is one of the points which the Bill of the hon. member for Hillbrow meets and which the hon. the Minister’s proposed Bill, as published, fails to appreciate. I was interested to see that Dr. Steyn added this—

Sir, this recommendation by the chairman of the Public Service Commission is met by the provisions of the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Hillbrow, but not by the proposed Bill as published by the hon. the Minister, although the principle is the same, although the Minister accepts the principle. The Minister runs after the hon. member for Hillbrow to try to implement the principles contained in his Bill but misses one of the most important aspects of that Bill.

At the same meeting, Sir, Dr. F. J. de Villiers, the chief of the Productivity Institute of the C.S.I.R., also spoke. I do not want to quote at length, but these words are interesting—

Sir, what the hon. member for Hillbrow is trying to do here is to create the necessary machinery and to make available to the workers of South Africa the most advanced methods, techniques and knowledge; it is designed to train our workers. One cannot deplore too deeply the transparent attempts by hon. members opposite like the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, who spoke first, to draw the dreadful red herring of colour and race across the floor of this House when we are dealing with such a vital matter. [Interjections.] The colour bar is to a small extent statutory in South Africa but is for the greater part a conventional colour bar—a custom which is observed between employers and organized workers in South Africa. It was designed to protect the white worker against the unfair competition of non-Whites who could compete for his job at a lower wage and probably do it almost as well. I say it was designed to protect the white worker against unfair competition, but I want to ask whether the time has not come in South Africa where this colour bar is operating in many instances to retard the progress of the white worker. It is happening, because we do not allow non-white workers to do certain jobs and therefore we are forcing White workers to remain in those jobs.

Nonsense!

How can the hon. member say it is nonsense? Can you believe, Sir, that this is the Government which, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) pointed out, published one of its few job reservations to make it compulsory that white workers should remove the night soil of the people of Durban? I say that no white man should be expected to do that work in South Africa. He can be used to better advantage in the interests of South Africa. I say without fear of contradiction—and those who contradict me do not know what they are talking about—that the result of the operation of their colour bar and of their prejudices and of their fears is that white men are being compelled to do work they should not be asked to do in this country anymore. Sir, the facts speak for themselves. Educational authorities have pointed out that children, because there is a shortage of manpower and people can get jobs almost at a moment’s notice, are leaving school prematurely in their thousands.

Because the employers persuade them to do so.

Yes, the hon. member has the point and I am amazed that he recognizes it. Children in South Africa are under pressure from employers to leave school, while they can still benefit from further education. I say there is no greater and no more deplorable waste in South Africa than the waste of the human talents of our white children who should be at school but who are enticed, because of the shortage of manpower, to leave school. Surely a measure such as this proposed by the hon. member for Hill-brow, which will enable our children to continue training when they have left school to become more skilled and to do better jobs than their education at school would have permitted them to do, should have the enthusiastic support of every member of this House, and not elicit the type of argument we have had from hon. members opposite who tried to detract from the value of the thinking of the hon. member for Hillbrow. Have we not the true interests of the white workers at heart? Are we trying to exploit their fears and their prejudices to deny them opportunities? Because that is what the Government members are doing.

Why did you not do these things when you were in power, when thousands of Whites were unemployed?

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad is young, and I must forgive him his ignorance. The only time when thousands of Whites walked the streets of South Africa was in 1932 and 1933, owing to the ridiculous policy of the then Nationalist Party Government, when Gen. Smuts had to join Gen. Hertzog to save South Africa from the consequences of their stupidity. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not know what I am doing wrong, Sir. I would like to raise the level of this discussion slightly above the interjections of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and quote somebody whom we all respect. I have quoted this in the House before and I make no apology for quoting it again. The man who said this has since died. I refer to Mr. Hugo, the late General Manager of the South African Railways, who in June of 1967, in one of the last major public utterances he made, made a statement which is so wise and so necessary, so enlightened and so intelligent, that I would pray every member of the Government to listen to it and to heed it. He was referring to the shortage of manpower and the problems it creates. According to a report in The Star of 14th June, 1967, Mr. Hugo said this—

We in the United Party are sometimes criticized because we stand for a policy of white leadership, but it applies not only politically but also socially and economically and I am grateful to see that men with the peculiar knowledge and information of the late General Manager of Railways could state this so clearly—

I hope that the Government and hon. members opposite will be capable of this reorientation which is inescapable. Either we bring it about in an orderly fashion, or it will be forced upon us in conditions of economic chaos approaching disaster. To return to Mr. Hugo, he said this—

This I recommend to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and the hon. member for Langlaagte—

What a fine statement by Mr. Hugo! What a denial of the prejudice, the lack of insight and the lack of imagination displayed by hon. members opposite in this debate! Sir, the shortage of manpower is the greatest opportunity for the children and the youth of South Africa and for all the workers of South Africa that one can imagine.

White or mixed?

You see, Sir, what happens. Even a man who is theologically trained thinks with his prejudices instead of his intelligence. I have made the point that this is the greatest opportunity for our Whites. I have made the point that the conventional colour bar is to-day retarding the progress of white children. I made that point, but the hon. member for Witbank comes along with this prejudice, this ignorance. It makes it impossible to carry on a worthwhile discussion in this House upon a matter so important to our youth and to our future. The hon. member for Witbank should be ashamed of himself.

Is it prejudice to protect the white worker?

No, but when you work to the disadvantage of the white youth, pretending that you are protecting them, because you want to further political ends, then I say it is prejudice in its worst form, and that is my accusation against the Government and hon. members opposite.

If you tell that to the workers, you will get an even bigger hiding.

Sir, I do not know whether I will be in order if I react to that interjection. All I can say is that I am the first one to admit that from 1945 to 1966 the Nationalist Party politically grew and grew in South Africa, but if hon. members opposite will be honest they must also admit that since 1966 that growth has been arrested and reversed and the speed of the reverse is increasing, and the results of every by-election since 1966 prove that. [Interjections.]

What about Windhoek?

Windhoek is not part of the Republic of South Africa; I am not responsible for that; I am quite willing to go into it; I know nothing about that; I am talking about the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I was making the point that the shortage of manpower is so acute that the conventional colour bar to-day can retard the progress of white workers because they are forced to remain in jobs, because the prejudice of the Government will not allow them to leave those jobs, because non-Whites will have to do the work. That is my charge, and I think we should be reminded of how serious the shortage of manpower is in this country. Yesterday I looked for the first time at the latest annual report of the new General Manager of Railways, and in no fewer than five places he has to refer with concern to the shortage of manpower on the Railways. I should like to quote just two of his statements referring to this matter. On page 4 of the report he says—

And then, at page 86, to take just one other example, the General Manager gives reasons which are interesting—

You will recall, Sir, that last year the Minister of Railways told us that he had not been able for many years now to spend the money Parliament votes the S.A. Railways for essential capital development because of lack of manpower and that, if he were suddenly given that manpower to-morrow, it would take him years to make up what has been lost in the past few years owing to the shortage of manpower. There is something like R500 million of capital works which should have been done, but which could not be done because of lack of manpower. We can look at any branch of industry. We can look at the Public Service. Must I mention telephones? Everywhere our progress has been slowed down by the shortage of manpower. The Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Committee warned that we could only hope to maintain our progress at the planned rate of 5 per cent or per cent with 30,000 immigrants a year; otherwise we will be retarded and frustrated by the shortage of manpower. It is critical; it is vital. But when an hon. member like the hon. member for Hillbrow comes along with positive suggestions for the improvement of this situation, we get the race prejudices of people exploited in the most unfortunate manner, as we had from the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark and—I expected better of him—Langlaagte.

Of course we will have to make changes in the traditional pattern of our labour development in South Africa. It is inevitable, but if we are wise and if we have a government which is not inspired by fear and prejudice in these matters it will redound to the tremendous advantage of the white people of South Africa as well as that of the non-white people. Labour leaders tell us this. They have the insight to appreciate this long before the politicians on the other side of the House can appreciate it. Mr. Liebenberg, until recently the chairman of the Railway Artisan Staff Association, said in July, 1967—

The hon. member for Hillbrow comes with a Bill which proposes that boards will be created, that there will be representatives from various industries of employers and employees and that there will be an appeals board and an advisory board to the Minister. These will all be concerned only with one problem, namely how to train the workers of South Africa and to train the white workers of South Africa to do better jobs and be more skilled and productive and therefore more useful to the South African society. Such a tremendous lot can be done.

I do not want to anticipate discussions that have still to come, but I want to pay tribute to the management of the South African Railways who, in spite of manpower shortages, can handle more and more traffic. They only do it because they train and educate their people and because the hon. the Minister of Transport laughs in the face of the hon. the Minister of Community Development and spends money in Langa to accommodate workers of other colours to do the work that the white people cannot do and that Coloured people refuse to do. That is the answer. If the hon. the Minister of Transport had to follow the example of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark or the hon. member for Langlaagte and compel the Whites to continue to do the less pleasant jobs on the South African Railways, where would they be? Mr. Speaker, South Africa is a wonderful land and we are privileged to live in it. But one has difficulty in understanding why Providence has so arranged matters that this country has to suffer under a Government with such a restrictive outlook. All I can hope for is that when the hon. the Minister gets up now he will bring some new vision and insight into the discussion and will show to the world that all South Africans are not fools. I hope that he will show that some of us, especially members on the Treasury benches, are willing to see the truth and are willing to act in the interests of all the people of South Africa and certainly not least in the interests of the white workers of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, for a rapidly developing country like South Africa a discussion on a question such as manpower is obviously a significant one. It is fitting that the discussion should take place in this, the highest council chamber. I am glad that it was possible for it to take place on the basis of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Hillbrow. The fact of the matter is that this was not a discussion of a motion, but a much more important discussion than merely that of a motion by a member of the Opposition or another private member. This discussion is taking place on the Second Reading, after the introduction of a Bill. If this House should vote to-day and this Bill were accepted, it would be the task of the Government to implement it. As long as I am there as Minister of Labour, and my Department is there, we will be entrusted with the task of implementing this Bill. This is not an ordinary discussion of a motion therefore, but a discussion which we should view in a much more serious light. For that reason one should view the introduction of and motivation for such a Bill in a very serious light. As you know, when any legislation is passed and is subsequently tested in the courts, the question is always asked: What were the intentions of the legislature in regard to that measure? We must therefore have a great deal of clarity in regard to this measure and its objectives. We cannot content ourselves here with a popular discussion on manpower shortages, we must know precisely what the objectives of the legislation are. This is necessary because in a multi-national country like South Africa, the question of manpower is not merely an economic matter, but also a matter of social importance. In a country such as this the question of manpower also has political facets. One must therefore have a very clear idea in one’s mind when one discusses the question of training facilities, of legislative machinery which has to be established, and it is necessary to know what this entails, who has to be trained, and for what reason they have to be trained. If we do not do this, we would be moving into a maelstrom, and we would not be doing justice to future generations which will have to test this legislation on the basis of what its intention is.

I want to say at once that as far as the intention is concerned we cannot, in a country such as this, simply calculate our manpower requirements in terms of the shortage of skilled workers, the shortage of technicians and what this will be in ten years’ time. In the light of our multi-national character we must know considerably more than that in regard to the question of manpower. We must also take into account our traditional labour pattern and to what extent that manpower which is being trained will fit into that traditional labour pattern to-morrow and the day after. That means that one must take into account the attitude of the various groups of workers. One must take into account the disposition of the different colour groups towards one another in the various workers’ groups, because the disposition of our workers is of the utmost importance in this very question of manpower. Manpower is not a matter which can simply be calculated by means of figures. Manpower is a question of disposition of those men who are doing the work. This is the strength of manpower, and this determines what they are able to produce. Mention was made here of optimum productivity, and so on. Manpower can only produce optimum productivity if the workers concerned are happy in their work and if that work affords them security. That is why it is of the utmost importance that one should have a clear idea of what is entailed when it comes to a question like this, namely a Bill for the training of manpower. We must know what our aim is with the training of that manpower, who we want to train, and what we want to train them for. If we do not take a clear view of those facts here, we would be seriously disrupting the industrial peace which we are enjoying, because one would then be undermining the confidence and the disposition of our workers, and specifically the white workers. It would then serve no purpose to work out with figures here what the manpower shortage is. I want to state very specifically now that the hon. member for Hill-brow and the other speakers, to a man, did not give us a clear picture of the objectives of this Bill. They were very upset when hon. members on this side pointed out to them that they wanted to bring about an influx of Bantu into white areas (verswarting). It upset them very much to know that it would disrupt the colour bar, and others again stated that the Bill had nothing to do with the colour question. Mr. Speaker, we cannot with this kind of evasiveness deal with such important matters. Because the hon. member for Hillbrow did not afford us the opportunity of gaining a proper knowledge of what his intentions were, I took the trouble of ascertaining what the hon. member has in fact already said about this matter. Last year the hon. member for Hillbrow was quite loquacious on the question of manpower. On various occasions and in various interviews he elaborated on the topic of our manpower requirements. Because the hon. member did not this morning give us a proper insight into his objectives with this Bill, I had to take the trouble to look up what the hon. member said last year. In the short while at my disposal I cannot mention everything he said. However, I want to furnish hon. members with three quotations from three different speeches. One report on what the hon. member said at the United Party congress last year read, inter alia as follows—

It is a good thing that somebody should be optimistic in regard to a possible assumption by the United Party of the reins of government, but I want to come to the crux of the matter. The report reads as follows—

That is the first quotation I want to mention in order to indicate what the true objectives in regard to this Bill are.

… to ensure the optimum utilization of the country’s manpower resources.

That sounds like a very fine general statement. Fortunately the hon. member gave us more specific information in this regard on another occasion. According to The Star, 27th May, 1968, the hon. member stated—

In another interview, and the hon. member conducted many interviews, he asked, “And what about the African worker”? [Interjections.] We in this House must know what the objectives of the hon. member and his party are with the introduction of a Bill such as this. It is of no avail simply talking about a man power shortage here and saying that we should train people if we do not take this House, the country and the workers into our confidence in this regard. Consequently I am obliged at this stage to refer in the first place to my Dundee speech. I am doing so for two reasons. Reference was made in this House to my speech, and the English language Press hawked it about. I have noticed that the Opposition also tried to do this. They tried to peddle an incorrect version of what I said at Dundee. I am going, with reference to the notes which I used at Dundee, to try to repeat what I said there. This matter is significant to me, and I am not only mentioning it here because of the incorrect version of my speech and because the United Party tried to hawk it about, but because it is significant to see how the United Party tried to seize upon this incorrect version. They seized upon it jubilantly. I find this significant because the true objectives of the United Party in regard to this matter becomes apparent from that. They tried to argue away the question of the training of non-Whites here, The hon. member for Yeoville was the last speaker on that side of the House. [Interjections.] He may even be the last United Party member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville was very upset about the accusation which was levelled at him to the effect that the United Party could perhaps, as a result of this Bill, disrupt the colour bar. But the hon. member went further and stated that the colour bar in fact prejudiced the Whites. He said that the time has come for us to consider whether the colour bar was in the interests of the Whites, since it could confine certain Whites to certain types of work. That is the kind of rubbish we have to deal with here.

I want to come now to the speech I made at Dundee. A report on my speech appeared in the English Press to which I want to refer now. In this report it is stated, inter alia, that I—and it would have been stupid of me to have said this—had said: “… to hold back South Africa’s development by not allowing non-Whites into the trades”. In addition the report states—

But it is a fact.

That is not what I said. I shall tell you in a moment, with reference to my notes, precisely what I said at Dundee. I want to tell hon. members what caused me to make this speech at Dundee and another in Newcastle the following night. I had to make this speech as a result of the pamphlet which the United Party had issued at those two places. The pamphlet begins as follows: “This Government is replacing white workers with non-white workers.” These are the same people who advocated to-day that we must use more non-Whites for certain work since there is work which should not be done by Whites. The pamphlet also states: “This National Party Government has pushed out white artisans from the building industry and replaced them with non-Whites.” The pamphlet referred to the position in Natal. As a result of this I dealt with the matter at these places, and I pointed out that the National Party had, throughout its policy of work reservation, protected the white worker with his higher standard of living in the first instance. Where we apply work reservation, we do so first and foremost with that objective in mind. But if there is an insufficient number of Whites for certain work, then non-Whites are afforded the opportunity of taking over that work which had previously been done by the Whites. I also said that this was being done with full consideration for the white trade unions. It is also being done on an exemption basis so that when Whites become available again, that work must be given back to them. I added that with the introduction of this legislation we had said that work reservation would not be applied in such a way that the economic development of the country would suffer under it. We said that it would be applied in a reasonable way, taking into consideration the position of the Whites as well as the development of the country. After that I referred to the tremendous building activity in our country. The value of building activities increased from R60 million in 1950 to R195 million in 1968. I told those people that we should discuss Natal in particular since the attack of the United Party had been specifically directed at Natal. I then mentioned the case of Dundee. In 1968 buildings to the value of R142,000 had been erected and in 1968 buildings to the value of R572,000 had been erected. I then mentioned the case of Newcastle. In 1960 buildings to the value of R23,000 had been erected there and in 1968 buildings to the value of R3,372,000.

But you had to make use of non-Whites to erect these buildings.

There are other figures which I also want to mention. The hon. member must just listen for a while, he will then find the light he is seeking. I said at that meeting that we could not hold back this development. I said that it was the intention of this Government that South Africa should develop economically as well. I said that in the very first place I wanted to sketch the position of the white workers. In this pamphlet the United Party had stated that white workers were being replaced by non-white workers. I stated that the position was just the reverse. Between 1948 and 1968 the number of white builders in Natal had increased by 1,000. That is the first lie the United Party told in this pamphlet. But then I said that I admitted that although the number had increased by 1,000 the number of coloured builders in Natal, i.e. the Indians and the Coloureds, had increased from 730 in 1958 to 3,791 in 1968. I furnished these figures openly. I also stated that it was the policy of the Government to give the work to the available Whites. I stated that if there was a white builder in Dundee or Newcastle who was unemployed, he should get up so that employment could be found for him the next day. Not a single person stood up, because there are no unemployed persons there. I stated, and this links up with the discussion here to-day, that the difference between us and the United Party is that where there are not sufficient Whites available to do the work which they have always done, non-Whites can in fact be allowed to do that work, according to the exemption for which provision has been made. We will therefore allow that nonwhite employment in a controlled way, with full consideration for the opinion of the White trade unions. But opposed to that the policy of the United Party has always been: Open the sluices wide and let those who want to come in come in. They want to allow it to happen without any control. That is the fundamental difference between our policy and that of the United Party. [Interjections.] That Is precisely what I said at Newcastle. That is why I not only find it shocking that this incorrect version of what I said is being presented but …

What is your complaint against the Press?

Were you not listening to what I said? My complaint against the Press is this. I did not advocate “allowing non-Whites into the trades”. [Interjections.] Listen now. Has the hon. member followed what I said about the building industry in Natal? I was discussing this with reference to the pamphlet drawn up by that party on the building industry in Natal. The hon. member says he followed it. I was talking about this. The figures I furnished concerned the non-Whites who entered the building industry in Natal. I was not speaking about all the industries in the country. [Interjections.] Now, first listen. Do not be so satisfied with the noise you are making. I was talking in the first place about the building industry in Natal.

Order! I want to make an appeal to hon. members to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity of making his speech alone. *

Secondly, I was not talking about all non-Whites; I was talking about the Coloureds and the Indians who had entered there. This report creates the impression that the sluices of non-white workers—the “African force” as the hon. member for Hillbrow calls it according to newspaper reports—should be opened. That is not what I said, and I am repeating it now. According to my notes, that is not what I said. There are Members of Parliament here who were present and who can confirm this.

What one finds significant is the fact that the United Party is seizing upon this incorrect version because that shows us what the real objective of the United Party is in regard to this measure. To my mind this is the main reason why the Government cannot accept this Bill. The main reason is the lack of clarity which exists in respect of the objectives of the measure.

I have said that the question of manpower is to us not merely of economic and social importance, but that it is also of political significance in this country. I think that if we want to stimulate and promote manpower training then we must state very clearly in the first place who we want to train, what we want to train them for, and above all we must be very honest towards all who are concerned in the matter. I want to emphasize that if we are not going to adopt this attitude, we will no longer have this continued industrial peace in this country, and that is why it is of the utmost importance to the Government that it should see a Bill such as this in true colours. Because these objectives have been obscured to-day by means of all kinds of evasions, it is our task—we will have the responsibility of implementing the measure—to penetrate to the heart of the measure. We must take into account the objectives of the hon. member for Hillbrow, who introduced it, and the hon. member stated that “the manpower of all races” must be harnessed, “and what about the African force”? [Interjections.] If people do not want to understand a certain thing for political reasons, one would probably be unable to drum it into their heads, even if one used a sledgehammer; all that one can do is leave them to their own devices.

In the short while which still remains I want to refer to the prehistory and the mechanism of this Bill. This measure has a prehistory. Last year TUCSA and its then chairman, Mr. Tom Murray, began to make onslaughts on the Apprenticeship Board system and after these attacks by Mr. Tom Murray the hon. member for Hillbrow came forward and made his comment in this regard. As a result of this criticism which TUCSA expressed, I asked the Apprenticeship Board to investigate this matter again. They were to investigate the entire system of apprenticeship training, and the Apprenticeship Board which, as you know, consists of an equal number of representatives of employers and representatives of employees, found that basically there was nothing wrong with our apprenticeship system. They also dealt with a motion by SEIFSA, and that motion was that any investigation should be made, inter alia, into the British training system which the hon. member has slavishly imitated in this Bill. As a result of that motion a sub-committee was established by the Apprenticeship Board, and Mr. Drummond the director of SEIFSA was sent overseas to go and investigate this British Training Act as well as other training systems. Though I would just like to say at once that I deplore the fact that the hon. member for Hillbrow saw fit today to denigrate Mr. Drummond here by saying that he is a man who knows nothing. Mr. Drummond is director of one of the largest federations in the country. He is a respected and eminent member of the National Apprenticeship Board; he is a member of the Economic Council and he is in all ways a respected leader in the field of labour. That is why I deplore the fact that he has been denigrated here. Apparently because he does not agree with the hon. member’s measure. That is why I deplore it. SEIFSA sent this principal representative of theirs overseas in order to go and establish how the British Act was functioning.

Where did he establish that?

Go ahead and ask him, and I hope you will ask him and the steel federation that question in public. He came back and reported to those people, who are definitely no fools, i.e. the members of the Apprenticeship Board. He reported to them, and this was confirmed by their own knowledge, that the British system could not entail any improvement in this respect for us. In fact, they found that our Industrial Conciliation Act and our apprenticeship legislation was so good—it is in fact among the best in the world—that we could make the necessary training systems compulsory within that framework and expand them. This Bill, which immitates the British Act slavishly, has now been dished up to us here by the hon. member, and obviously we had to make very thorough inquiries. It then appeared, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has already said, that this measure which the hon. member wants, is based on levies which the employers have to pay, in the same way as the measure which I also want to submit to the House. This levy system must be applied and according to this grandiose scheme which the hon. member is now proposing, the accompanying costs will, in the opinion of the State, be proportionately excessive when compared with the results. That tallies completely with what is happening in Britain. There the British Training Act has already cost them R100 million and British employers have serious reservations about the effectiveness of the Act and its operation. The system which is not working properly in Britain and which is costing that gigantic amount, is now being dished up to us. Apart from our main objection that the objective of this Bill is not clear, it is unacceptable to us on these grounds as well. To tackle the matter like this which has never produced any appreciable results, at this high cost, is simply too much for us.

Mention is now being made here of manpower boards. The hon. member states that he does not mean that each one of the 100 industrial councils should get its own training systems: he thinks that 15 can be introduced. In addition to that there will still be a national council as well as appeal boards. Who are going to serve on all those boards? It is ironical. [Interjections.] The hon. member can laugh about it heartily if he wants to, but after he has finished laughing he can listen to what I have to say further. That is the irony. Ostensibly the objective of this measure is to make it possible to train more people, but at the same time he is establishing such a grandiose scheme with such dubious benefits which will require so many people on the multitude of different boards which have to be established that the people whom it might perhaps be possible to train on one hand, will be swallowed up on the other by a host of boards. In point of fact the scheme will then give us a very slight net profit.

This is not only my opinion of the matter. Let me now quote the attitude of a very important federation. The building industry in this country, one of our largest federations had this to say about this matter at its latest congress—

This same opinion was repeated by this important building federation at its congress. When a report was made to the union congress, it was stated that “the executive had decided”. It is not only Mr. Drummond who, according to the hon. member, knows nothing. I am quoting—

These are the people who have to undertake the training, and if in addition one considers this grandiose mechanism which is the purpose of this motion, i.e. councils and even more councils for manpower, then I feel that the Department of Labour which has to administrate it, will in the first place not have sufficient people to be able to do so, and secondly the number of people who will have to be found in order to do this will be quite out of proportion to their productivity. In contrast to this we will shortly submit to the House this amendment to the Industrial Conciliation Act, which in broad outline makes provision for the Industrial Councils, to utilize the existing industrial council systems on a larger scale than has been the case up to now for the training of people. It also provides that that council system should be used for the training of more people. The advantage of this measure is that it can be made compulsory. It is of no avail discussing the manpower shortage here with fine words; if you are convinced that something should be done the State must see to it that it can be made compulsory. According to this measure—I do not have the time nor the opportunity at my disposal now to discuss it—these industrial councils will in future be authorized, will be authorized by the State to expand those systems of theirs in the first place to associated spheres of employment and in the second place to make it compulsory as far as those spheres of employment are concerned. That is why I feel that, in the light of the benefits of this scheme as opposed to the dubious benefits of the proposed scheme, we simply cannot accept this Bill. In conclusion, I want to refer back to the hon. member for Hillbrow’s words. Towards the end of his speech he made an appeal, that we should now take dramatic action. That sounds very interesting. What is more important to this Government and this House is that we are dealing in this connection with an important political-social and delicate matter which is also economically important. That is why I believe it is far more important to act in a realistic and honest way than to act in a dramatic way.

Mr. Speaker, there is not time to respond fully to the remarks made by the hon. Minister although I believe he missed the point completely. I suggest that the question should be put.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—23: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Emdin, S.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

NOES—62: Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Pienaar, B.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I move—

1. (1) centralized control of national road-building programmes;
2. (2) the establishment of (a) a national aviation fund, (b) an aviation commission and (c) a national aerodrome planning committee.

For the sake of the record I think it is proper for me just to quote at the outset a report published in this morning’s Cape Times—

The following words appear in the same report—

Mr. Speaker, as regards the first part, it is not my intention at all to interfere with the powers of provinces or to enter that field in any way. If one wanted to do so, one would do so in an entirely different way. Therefore I think that it was not fair of The Cape Times to infer that. As regards the second part, it is very interesting to note that they are making such predictions. One would like to know who their informants are or what their source of information is.

Is it true or not?

It is not necessary for me to go into detail as regards the rapid development of South Africa; that is well known. I want to concentrate in particular on the role transport and certain aspects of transport play in the rapid development of the country. Transport channels are often described as arteries through which things such as economic development, industrial growth, etc., flow. I think that in a country such as ours such a statement is very pertinent owing to the distances our transport links have to span. In the second place, in my motion I referred to the growth of tourism, the increasing flow of tourists to South Africa, and in this regard I just want to quote a few figures to prove my premise. There are many countries in the world which regard tourism as their main source of revenue, and the day may not be very far off when in South Africa, too, tourism will represent a considerable part of our revenue. During the first ten months of 1968—these are the latest available figures—250,000 tourists visited South Africa, and one may therefore assume that over the whole year more than 300,000 visited this country, and that that volume is going to increase steadily. It is also predicted by experts in this field that the flow of tourists to South Africa will show a considerable increase in the near future. An international survey that was made recently, indicated that during 1966 more than 127 million people travelled from one country to another, and it is estimated that by 1980 more than 770 million people will make use of air transport alone. Sir, if one takes this into account, it is important that we in South Africa should also prepare ourselves so that we may be in a position to handle that increasing flow of tourists to our country.

Mr. Speaker, my time is limited and I want to turn to the substance of my motion itself. I have a problem, namely that there were three commissions that were instructed to submit a report on this subject. Two of these reports are available at present, i.e. the report of the Schumann Commission and parts of the report of the Borckenhagen Commission. The most recent commission was the Marais Commission, which had to inquire into the coordination of transport. Sir, I had the option of letting this matter be and awaiting the Government’s White Paper and the debate on it, or to take a stand in regard to the matter in the meantime. I arrived at the conclusion that nothing prevented me from drawing the attention of the House to certain aspects at this stage. I hope this motion is not interpreted as an attempt to influence the Government in any way, or that I want to anticipate the Government’s standpoint in respect of the report of the Marais Commission.

Sir, I want to refer to the first part of my motion which deals with national roads. According to the Bureau of Statistics there were 1. 8 million registered motor vehicles in South Africa on 30th July, 1967—this is the latest available figure. Since this figure increases by approximately 17,000 per month, we may assume that there are more than 2 million registered motor vehicles in South Africa. In passing it is interesting to note that in 1967 there were million motor vehicles in the whole of Africa, of which 1½ million were in South Africa. The C.S.I.R. established in 1962 that 11,000 million vehicle miles are covered annually in South Africa, of which 46 per cent are covered on rural roads and 54 per cent on urban streets. In reply to a question the hon. the Deputy Minister said in this House last Tuesday that 6,040 miles of national road had already been completed, that 500 miles were under construction, and that 1,393 miles of road had been approved for construction. According to the latest report of the Transport Commission, i.e. the 1966-’67 report, 164 miles of double-carriage freeways and 245 miles of single-carriage roads had been completed at that stage, and approximately 1,000 miles of double-carriage freeway standard roads and approximately 2,000 miles of single-carriage freeways were required. Sir, in this regard I should like to refer to the 1967 Hansard, when the then Deputy Minister of Transport, the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, addressed the House in Committee. On that occasion he said—

Continuing, he said—

If this trend continues, it is necessary to look at the financial sources from which the National Road Fund derives its money. The most important contributor is undoubtedly the motorist himself. The motorist’s contribution, directly and indirectly, by way of taxation, was approximately as follows for the financial year 1964-’65: Customs and excise duties on petrol, motor vehicles, spare parts, accessories, tyres and tubes amounted to R107,55 million; in the same year provincial motor tax amounted to R32½ million, and it is estimated that the indirect tax contribution amounted to approximately R30 million. In other words, in that year the contribution of the motorist amounted to approximately R170 million. It can be inferred that the motorist does to a large extent pay for that part of the infrastructure of the country of which he avails himself. By way of a levy of 6 cents per gallon of petrol, which is being paid into the National Road Fund, the motorist is one of the biggest contributors in that respect as well. The National Road Fund’s revenue for the previous financial year is estimated at R47 million, and for the current financial year, at more than R50 million. The annual expenditure of the National Road Fund is important: On an average the construction of provincial roads accounted for R7 million per year, urban freeways for R5 million and the reconstruction of existing national roads for approximately R8 million. Sir, this is already an amount of R20 million. If you compare this with the total revenue of R47 million, you will realize that somewhere in this sphere a problem is arising. To build national freeways of the standard being built at present, costs approximately R400,000 per mile, and if this rate has to be accelerated in any way, you will also realize that a problem is going to arise there. It is therefore very obvious that a financial problem is involved in this matter.

The solution to that problem is that the control of national roads—and this is the object of my motion—should be taken over by the Central Government and that they should, in addition, be built by the Central Government itself. What I am pleading for, is that planning, design research, expropriation powers and eventually the construction and the financing of the roads themselves should be undertaken by the Central Government. The present position is that national roads are being financed 100 per cent by the Central Government through the Roads Fund, whereas the provinces are building them. This is also the way in which it has been laid down statutorilv. In addition, 70 per cent of the cost of special roads is being borne by the National Road Fund, whereas these are also built by the provinces. Sir, if I say that the provinces are not in a position to meet their obligations in this regard, I am merely stating a fact without trying to draw unpleasant conclusions, as is suggested in this newspaper report and by certain other persons. However, I want to summarize by referring you, Sir, to just three newspaper reports. Die Vaderland of the 21st of this month wrote as follows, referring to the Administrator of the Transvaal (translation)—

Then he was quoted as follows—

Sir, this is precisely my approach, i.e. that centralized control and planning should be brought about, and I think that this would completely solve the problem the provinces have in this regard. I want to refer by way of summary to this report that appeared in Die Vaderland dated 5th March, 1968 (translation)—

Then, finally, another report that appeared in Dagbreek, dated 26th January, 1969 (translation)—

Supporters of this plan argue that this would give rise to several advantages …

I. e. if the Central Government itself were to take over the road-building programme—

Sir, by and large this summarizes my ideas in this regard, and my colleague who is going to speak later on, will have more to say about this matter.

I shall now deal with the second part of my motion, i.e. the aviation part. Customs and excise duties on aviation fuel amount to 13 cents per gallon, of which the amount of 5.35 cents is paid into National Road Fund. There is a feeling, and I think dissatisfaction which is quite justified, about this contribution, obtained by way of duty on aviation fuel, having to be paid into the National Road Fund. I should like to state the views held by the hon. the Minister of Transport in respect of aviation fuel. According to Hansard he said the following in the course of a debate held in April, 1965—

We are very grateful for the hon. the Minister of Transport’s sympathetic attitude, of which I am very thoroughly aware. It is important that the aircraft industry should get a fund out of which they, too, may undertake certain things. The purport of my motion is that a national aviation fund should be established, into which these excise duties may be paid instead of being paid into the National Road Fund. This fund may be utilized for a variety of purposes, such as research in the aviation industry, which is very important. Two years ago a symposium took place in Pretoria under the auspices of the C.S.I.R., where aviation research was reviewed in a very thorough manner. I just want to mention a few of the possibilities for such an aviation fund if it is utilized, according to this person, Professor Smoleniec of the University of the Witwatersrand. He said—

Then he summarizes at the end—

A real need does exist. This work, which has already been done by the C.S.I.R. and which is very valuable work, needs to be backed by a fund such as the one I am advocating at the moment. By making such a fund available it will be possible to undertake a great deal of planning, by assisting municipalities in planning the laying out of aerodromes, etc., and then subsidies may also be granted to a certain extent, where necessary.

Now you will ask me, Sir, what the scope of such a fund is. During 1961, 20,881,000 gallons of aviation fuel were delivered, in 1962, 22.5 million gallons and in 1963, 25 million gallons, and it is likely that more than 40 million gallons of fuel will be delivered this year. In 1963 the excise duty was only on 8 per cent of all the aviation fuel delivered, and it is estimated that in respect of the period 1st April, 1950 to 1966, an amount of approximately R1.1 million was collected in this way. This is a relatively small amount if it were to be paid into such a fund.

Then there is the administration of such a fund. The other part of my motion contains the proposal that an aviation commission should be established. At the moment statutory provision in respect of the Transport Commission does exist, i.e. by way of various pieces of legislation which in the limited time at my disposal I shall not be able to quote to you, Sir. But with a few minor amendments the tasks which have, in terms of legislation, been entrusted to the National Transport Commission may be entrusted to an aviation commission. What I really envisage, if I want to take a broader view, is an aviation commission which can undertake research and planning in respect of aviation in general and also in respect of licensing. I envisage a roads commission undertaking research and planning and licensing, and, in a supervisory and coordinating capacity, I envisage the National Transport Commission acting in a much wider field so that at the moment it cannot always devote sufficient attention to these matters which I have already mentioned.

Would Railways policy also come under that?

It is interesting that the hon. member asks that question. When such a thing is taken to its full logical conclusion, it would mean that there might also be a shipping board, and when the co-ordination of transport becomes the full terms of reference of a commission, it might mean that certain aspects of Railway transport might also be included under such a commission.

Finally there is my plea for an aerodrome planning committee. Towards the end of 1966 there were 403 licensed aerodromes in South Africa; 172 of them were public aerodromes and 231 were private aerodromes, of which only five had runways longer than 8,400 feet. In regard to this matter I just want to quote from two reports of the advisory committee on civil aviation. In both cases there were pleas for the rapid extension of aviation and town planning and the provision of adequate aerodrome facilities, in the first instance, and in the 22nd annual report the following is stated (translation)—

At that stage that committee decided not to take that matter any further as the Marais Commission had been established, and it was decided to await the report of the Marais Commission instead.

Owing to certain practices which are being followed, we are faced with a problem at the moment. Certain residential areas are being laid out at points where they imply a danger to the future of aviation and also to themselves. Certain residential areas, White and non-White, are being laid out in such a way that, if the accident that took place at Windhoek were, for instance, to take place at Jan Smuts or at some of the other airports, a terrible national disaster of much greater magnitude could result. While we have the opportunity of planning for the future, it is essential for us to devote attention to this matter. There are places where oil refineries are being built at sites where they may become the victims of aeroplane accidents. There are places where airports are completely hemmed in by buildings erected by other people, without there being any control whatsoever or without there having been any co-ordinated planning in regard to the future of such an airport. That is why it is essential that there should be advance planning. I want to give one example of what I have in mind.

The Witwatersrand is a unique urban complex which may for all practical purposes be regarded as a city which covers an area more than 60 miles in length and 15 miles wide. At the moment there is the Jan Smuts Airport, an international airport, and there is the Rand Airport at Germiston, which, incidentally, is situated right on the approach line of one of the main runways of Jan Smuts, whilst the latter is, at the same time, the airport which has had the greatest number of aircraft movements in South Africa over the past year. The Grand Central is situated just to the north of Johannesburg, between Johannesburg and Pretoria, but it is obviously an airport without a future. Situated south of Johannesburg is Baragwanath, which is already in the process of disappearing as an airport. That leaves us, in that entire urban complex, with Jan Smuts Airport only. In practice this means that a person who comes from the Vaal Triangle, from the Vereeniging complex, and wishes to fly to Welkom in the Free State, or to Bloemfontein or Kimberley, has to drive through Johannesburg to reach an airport so that he may fly south. We shall have to devote attention to the future planning of this. We shall have to devote attention to alternative aerodromes for those complexes as they are springing up at the moment. Then there are other complexes which are going to spring up, and I am aware that planning is being undertaken. By no means do I want to suggest that the Department of Transport is not devoting attention to this matter. There are complexes which are going to spring up, such as at Richard’s Bay, where we are going to have a whole new urban complex. It is essential that there should be a planning committee, on which the Departments of Transport, Planning and Defence must have representation. There are, in addition, many other bodies which are concerned in this matter. There is Bantu Administration, which is very closely concerned in the planning of such future complexes. Community Development is affected by it, and the Department of Land Tenure as well as provincial and local authorities are implicated in this matter. It is essential that there should be co-operation and that there should be a co-ordinating body somewhere in order that the future planning may meet the needs and the demands which can be made on such an area. I am aware that there is informal cooperation on certain levels. What I am advocating, is a body which will only be able to act in the interests of South Africa for the purpose of continuing this future planning on the highest level possible and for ensuring that future planning in this sphere is undertaken now.

The motion moved by the hon. member for Middelburg is an interesting one. We have listened to the constructive speech he has made this afternoon. The motion, of course, is very wide. On these two subjects, roads and aviation, one could of course talk for a whole week without covering them fully. But we feel that something should be done and therefore I should like to move the following amendment—

I think this amendment will cover everything the hon. member said. There are items that he did not cover. He did not deal with transport, but I agree with him when he says that in a debate such as this one, we would be better armed if we had the reports of the Schumann Commission and of the Borckenhagen Commission in front of us, and also that of the Marais Commission. When an hon. member on the Government side thinks as we do, it shows that something should be done, but we find that things take such a long time to get moving. I want to put it to him that he has seen what happens when commissions are appointed; it takes years for them to complete their work, so they are not the very best method to use when you start talking about centralizing. I will deal with roads, to some extent and my colleague here will also cover the aspect of roads as well as that of airports and airfields. Before I do so, the hon. member for Middelburg did make one remark about the provision of airports and airfields and he will forgive me if I say that he had the Transvaal and the Johannesburg outlook when he was speaking about Jan Smuts Airport. I think he meant to include the rest of the Republic, but I would like to remind him—and I think he knows it because he is an airman himself—that when you go to the London Airport and see the enormous amount of traffic handled there, Jan Smuts cannot compare with it. While I always say that there should be a satellite airport adjacent, I do not think there is any necessity for another large airport near Johannesburg.

To get back to our national roads, we in this country can be very proud of our road system. It stems from the National Roads Act that was put through this House in 1935. Hon. members will recall that we had the most atrocious roads in this country. One had to use a dust coat if one went a few miles. Through public pressure, the Government of the day was forced to take action. They were up against the same old problem, namely, what do we do for money? What did they do about it? The Government of the day decided to earmark threepence a gallon of the tax on petrol to a fund. At the present moment that has been increased to 5.35 cents. The National Road Fund was set up. It was only in 1949 that the National Transport Commission was formed. It is interesting to note that the National Transport Commission, like its predecessor, never built a road. There were planned and built by the provinces. They have the necessary machinery, the staff and the engineers to build the roads. The national roads that one sees to-day, were built by money provided by the National Roads Board and its successor, the National Transport Commission. The money was provided, as the hon. member said, on a basis of 70 per cent for three special roads and 100 per cent on national roads. With the taxation derived from car licences., the provinces built their roads, namely the ordinary provincial roads as we know them.

The Government and the National Transport Commission in their wisdom at a later stage decided that they would assist the local authorities by making contributions towards urban freeways, as supplementary to the national road system. They thought there was no point in building a national road to a city and then having no outlet. It was like laying a 36 inch main water pipe to a city and then having no pipes leading from it. Of course, it would just be a waste of money. So the Government in its wisdom and the National Transport Commission decided to subsidize the urban freeways. We are disappointed to learn from the hon. the Minister of Transport that, as a result of investigation by his chief engineer overseas, he came to the conclusion that these urban freeways do not fulfil the purpose which they were intended for. It was leading to greater traffic congestion. The Government has now decided not to contribute towards the urban freeways. I shall come to the financial aspect of the question later. The hon. member mentioned a newspaper article. I think we have all read this article. One rather underestimates our provincial system as far as road building and other aspects are concerned. From my own experience of the provincial council and in the light of what they have done one can admire the provinces for the wonderful work they have done with regard to this aspect. I know the former Deputy Minister of Transport made a speech in this House in which he said that there were delays between the provinces and the National Transport Commission, that the Government could not afford these delays and there should be a measure of centralization. He said that some years ago. I do not know whether this motion is the forerunner to a change as far as the National Transport Commission is concerned; whether the National Transport Commission will set up its own organization as far as road building is concerned, The real nigger in the woodpile with regard to the delay in building roads, is not so much finance. Those hon. members who have read the National Transport Commission’s report year after year, will find that they end up with a surplus of money every year.

A lot of money is invested.

Quite a lot of money is invested, as the hon. member for Green Point says. So, it cannot be a question of money. If we look at the mileage of roads being built, I know we will be disappointed at the very limited progress that is being made. If one considers the high standard to which these roads are being built, one realizes that, like Rome, they cannot be built in a day.

There are no two ways about it that the National Transport Commission is realizing, as the hon. member said, the position as far as tourists are concerned. It is necessary to build roads to assist the tourist industry, where-ever possible. They are assisting with the building of roads in the Kruger National Park. I do not say that they are building the roads, but they are advancing the money to the road-building unit in the Kruger National Park, and these are being asphalted.

We on this side of the House do not underestimate the position with regard to tourists. A few years ago I was in Spain, and between Madrid and another city road conditions were being improved in order to attract tourists. Tourism has grown in Spain. There was this 30 mile road from Madrid being built. There were four major contractors working on this road. It was a double carriage freeway. They made use of lights and they were building this road day and night. That was the emphasis they were placing on tourism in Spain. Of course, our National Transport Commission has realized that they may have to advance the money. If the National Transport Commission or another central authority decides to take over in order to expedite the building of national roads, one wonders what is going to happen to the financing of our provincial roads. Is the National Transport Commission, still going to assist the provinces in financing their roads, or the Tourist Corporation in financing their tourist roads? If that happens, it would mean scrapping the provincial road building system as far as the staff is concerned. That is what would happen if the system is centralized.

Now I want to take the financial side into consideration. I have some very interesting figures here from the Treasury. It is very interesting to see what the motorist does pay to the Government in the way of excise and customs duty. Customs duty in 1967 amounted to approximately R34 million, which was in respect of fully assembled motor cars, other fully assembled motor vehicles, including motor cycles, motor-cars imported in a completely knock down condition, other vehicles, including motor cycles imported unassembled, motor vehicles’ spares and accessories, petrol, automatic diesel fuel and pneumatic tyres and tubes. In 1968 R37 million, only in respect of customs duty, was contributed to the coffers of the Treasury. In the same year, 1967, they contributed approximately R155 million in respect of excise duty, and in 1968 a similar amount. So, you can see it is a huge amount that is being paid by motorists in indirect taxation. Added to that the hon. member gave figures as to the amount paid in licence fees. If one is going to centralize the roadbuilding programme, one will have to decentralize the cash because the provinces or the local authorities certainly will not have the money to build roads, without some provision for cash from somewhere. I do not think that the public and the motorist will accept higher taxation. Considering the resistance that we have at the present moment as far as the pipeline from Durban and the very high price that people pay for petrol in Johannesburg, are concerned, I cannot see those people accepting a position where they would pay extra tax to build the provincial roads. It will be an impossible position.

The real retarding factor as far as building these national roads is concerned, is not money but staff. In every report that comes through, to this House, there is the plea for staff. In the previous debate we heard of the great shortage of staff on the Railways. The same will happen to the National Transport Commission. So the problem will not be solved by centralizing the control and building of these roads somewhere in Pretoria. If we think of another building or anything like that, we always seem to think that the centralized control is in Pretoria. However, I do not think that centralized control will assist, because, as I have said in my opening remarks, we have had commissions sitting on these various questions of financing, the financial position of the provinces and of the local authorities under the Central Government. We also have the Marais Commission on the co-ordination of transport. Still we have seen no reports and no results emanating from those commissions. One has to keep in mind to-day that the building of a freeway—this is the National Transport Commission’s estimation—costs something like R400,000 per mile. So it is an expensive business. The money has to be found somewhere and it should come from the road users’ pocket. The hon. the Minister might say that I must talk to the hon. the Minister of Finance and try to get money from him. I think that the principle—and I agree with the hon. member for Middelburg—is that the moneys paid by the vehicle owner should be used for the development of the roads.

I want to dwell just lightly on airports. As I have said, this motion of the hon. member is very wide. The other day when the hon. the Minister of Transport told us about the new aircraft that he was going to buy, he remarked that airways activities were growing so rapidly that it was difficult to predict how many aircraft would be required in the near future. Airways transport has outgrown the control of the hon. the Minister’s department. Added to that we have the curious position that the P.W.D. build the airport buildings, the National Transport Commission build the runways and the South African Railways buy and operate the aircraft. So, there are three organizations trying to work together with the result that at Jan Smuts and D. F. Malan the buildings are outdated and the runways need improvement. When one asks the Minister of Transport about these things, he says that one must ask his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Public Works, about the buildings, and the hon. Minister of Transport about the runways. We have this muddle and I think the hon. member for Middelburg has a point there. We want some centralized control as far as aviation is concerned, therefore those three departments should be under one head as far as Airports are concerned.

I think I have covered most of the points. In conclusion I want to say that we do not want to see any changes in our road-building set-up from what we have at the present moment. We think that the National Transport Commission functions well in conjunction with the provinces. We would not like to see the organization built up over the years being broken down. I see that the hon. the Minister of Police is looking at me, because he had a lot to do with this when he was in the province. The provincial council members of the Cape and Transvaal are very jealous of their provincial system. I do not think that any centralized control is going to assist us in any way. I do not think that it is going to build one mile of road any faster. What is really required is more staff. I think the liaison is there, and we do not want anything else. We also want the National Transport Commission to take a greater interest, not only in link roads, but in tourist roads. It is interesting to see what they are doing to attract tourists in South-West Africa, a country which we have just adopted as a province of South Africa. They have been building roads right into their wonderful game reserve. The building of these thousands of miles of beautiful road is a really outstanding achievement. When you go to Rhodesia, you will see the wonderful roads that have been built from Beit Bridge up to the Falls, the roads which they are building from Beit Bridge to Salisbury. The way in which they are setting that country open for tourists, is really amazing. There is a lot of money in tourism. It could outstrip the gold mines in this country quite easily. Provided that we give them the facilities, like hotels and good roads, we should attract many tourists because we have the attractions in this country.

Mr. Speaker, right at the beginning I should first of all like to correct the hon. member for Salt River. He did not quite follow the statement made by the previous speaker in regard to airports. It is not the case that the hon. member thought the Jan Smuts Airport incapable of coping with the traffic, but the fact of the matter is that South Africa is a vast country and it would be of no use to have only one airport there. If a person had to go to another place a few hundred miles further on, it would be useless to him. There must be effective planning, and it is for this reason that the hon. member raised the matter. He did not in the least doubt the possibility of Jan Smuts Airport accommodating those aircraft. During the course of my speech I shall deal with the other points referred to by the hon. member.

To me the question is who will be responsible for building these essential national roads. In our country there are the three systems of government, namely the Central Government, the provincial councils and the municipalities. It is obvious to me that providing these essential national roads, which are of national importance, is the function and the responsibility of the Government; it is the task of the provincial councils to construct roads in the province which are important to them, and it is the task of the municipalities to construct the streets in their areas. Certain arrangements were made by way of legislation in 1935. The National Transport Commission was established and it was envisaged that these roads of national importance would be the task and the responsibility of the National Transport Commission. I have here a statement made by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the House of Assembly when he was still Deputy Minister of Transport, and I just want to read a short sentence from it. On 19th April, 1967, he said: “That it is time-consuming and that much time is lost though it is undoubtedly true, and I further believe that it could also lead to a waste of money.” Here the hon. the Minister at that time made a very clear statement on the basis of the thorough knowledge he had gained. I want to make it very clear that if delays can be eliminated, I feel that we must do everything in our power to put this matter right. I want to emphasize, however, that I am not at all a supporter of breaking down the provincial system. In the present circumstances, with the shortage of engineers and technical staff, it is extremely difficult for the provinces to build the essential roads required in each province. For this reason I think it will be a relief to the provinces if we can take this task off their hands I want to state very clearly why I am putting it in this way. This task was entrusted to the provinces years ago. At that time they were in a position to undertake it and they systematically built up road construction units for carrying out this function. They had the engineers and the technical staff, and I should like to pay the highest tribute to the provinces for the exceptional task which they carried out in constructing these roads. We know that the cost was borne by the National Transport Commission, but the provinces did the work. Especially during the post-war years, when road construction machinery was unobtainable, the provinces performed a special task which could certainly not have been performed by anyone else. For years they have made it possible for us to meet the stringent requirements that were set. However, during recent times, with the more rapid growth and development of this country, they also experienced a manpower shortage, mainly in respect of engineers and technical staff. Gradually these people had to hand over their task to tenderers, who constructed the roads.

The necessity of the rapid construction, and the importance of, national roads cannot be over-emphasized, in view of the enormous increase in our traffic and the heavy demands which will be made in the near future. The high death toll on our roads to-day is a very serious matter to me. There is sufficient evidence that the number of precious lives daily sacrificed on our roads coud be very much reduced by efficient roads. I want to mention an example which you are all aware of, i.e. the road from Cape Town to Paarl. This road was rightly called the road of death. We know that large numbers of accidents occurred on this road daily. Since an efficient road has been built the number of accidents has virtually been reduced to a minimum. One of the points I want to emphasize when efficiency is discussed is the fact that roads in urban areas have a lane for bicycles. To me this is sufficient proof that we can save many valuable lives by building efficient roads. This high standard of roads is urgently necessary for reducing the number of road accidents.

The construction of roads in the provinces is as essential. As I have said, the provinces do not have the necessary engineers at their disposal and they have to make use of private consulting engineers. I think that if we took this task off their hands the provinces should be able to carry out better the duties which they are meant to carry out. I regard it as essential that this high-speed traffic should be carried along these roads with the greatest measure of safety. After thorough investigation it has been found that 1,046 miles of double lane roads and 1,828 miles of single lane roads have to be built. I mention this figure to indicate to you. Sir, what an enormous need there is and what the magnitude is of only this one task of the National Transport Commission. It was laid down as long ago as 1935 that this task is the responsibility and duty of the Government. These roads are of the utmost importance and form the transport arteries of our fast developing national economy. With the daily increase in traffic it is important that this requirement should be met and that these urgently necessary roads should be constructed. We will have to be realistic in our future planning. Our approach to this national road construction system should be to accelerate it so that it can be completed as quickly as possible. Especially when taking into account our limited funds and limited number of engineers and technicians, I believe that the National Transport Commission will be better able to do its work if the construction of these roads is entrusted to it directly.

Of course, planning is highly necessary. We must determine what the future needs will be. If we look at the amounts required for building roads through a few urban areas, then we see that planning is essential, and that we cannot wait until those areas are built up, so that higher costs will be involved in constructing roads. Here are a few figures relating to the estimated cost in regard to roads which may still be built. The future throughways through Durban will cost an estimated R58 million, through Port Elizabeth R20 million, through Johannesburg R63 million, and through Pretoria R73 million. These figures emphasize how necessary it is to plan in good time. In terms of our Constitution provincial administrations or their agents may construct the roads. The administrations constructed these roads very efficiently, but, as I have said, they are no longer able to do it to-day. The National Transport Commission must supply the specifications and do the planning. They have quite a number of engineers and if the services of consulting engineers are to be used it will be easier for them to do it directly and to conduct tender negotiations. I believe the total cost will eventually be less than it is to-day, as the provinces are virtually acting as agents for the National Transport Commissions. When the Commission felt that they were nearing the end of their road construction programme, they subsidized special provincial roads to a very large extent and took the responsibility upon them. Under the present circumstances, with our tremendous economic and industrial developments, with the enormous increase in our traffic, and especially if we take into account the fact that the roads which have been built during the past thirty years are virtually collapsing as a result of the heavy traffic which they have to carry, then it is extremely necessary for this matter to receive renewed attention.

The maintenance of our roads is also an enormous task. One seventh of the total duty on petrol is spent on it. The amount for the past year is R5,685,000. The total revenue from duty on petrol amounted to only R44 million. The cost of reconstruction of national roads and bridges amounted to R46 million. We must think realistically, we cannot brook any delay. We must always bear road safety in mind. The rapid development of the Republic also requires that our high-speed traffic be carried along our roads with the greatest measure of safety. This makes the construction of our roads of the utmost importance.

I want to conclude by saying a few words about our urban throughways. It has been announced that the contributions have been discontinued. Certain municipalities have been planning and negotiating with the Road Transportation Board for many years. The Bloemfontein City Council has been negotiating with the National Transport Commission for 12 years, but time and again some obstacle or other was encountered. For example, delays have been caused by requirements laid down by the National Transport Commission. The construction of these proposed roads has not vet commenced. Now these proposed roads no longer qualify for a subsidy.

Order! Urban throughways have nothing to do with this motion.

We must do everything in our power to speed up our road construction programme so that we can meet the requirements of the country’s traffic.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself to a certain extent in agreement with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) when he points out some of the big problems which face our country to-day. He mentioned the question of manpower shortage in the field of transportation, and I agree with him there. He also mentioned the need to keep pace with development. We know this Government has not been keeping pace with development. He also mentioned the need for realism when planning for future needs. What has the Government been doing up to now? Has it not been realistic? Is that what I must read between the lines of the hon. member’s speech? He emphasized the need for speed. Has the Government really been so slow? I think I must agree with the hon. member. He also stressed the need for planning ahead, in fact indicating there has not been sufficient planning ahead over the past years.

If one looks at the Government to-day one sees signs of the breaking down of communications in all spheres. This motion now before us deals with one of the most important forms of communication, namely our road and air system, the transport systems in general. They are breaking down, the same as our telecommunication systems are breaking down, as other systems of communication are also breaking down. As a matter of fact, the communication system between the Government and the people of South Africa is also breaking down, as we saw in Newcastle yesterday, but that aspect does not fall within the ambit of this motion, as you will no doubt tell me, Sir.

The problem is a serious one, as has been emphasized by previous speakers and as was so brilliantly started by my colleague here earlier this afternoon. It is quite clear that within the next decade passenger mileage and freight transport mileage on our roads will increase by at least 50 per cent, if not more. It has been estimated by a Stellenbosch University professor that by 1985 we shall have million motor vehicles on our roads, where we only have 1,100,000 at present. This gives an indication of the extent of the problem.

Road transport, as is mentioned in this motion, is a vital service, it is one of the vital tertiary economic services of our country. It is important to mining, to commerce, to industry, our whole economy, and inefficiency in our transport system means the harming of our economy as a whole. To try and maintain even the status quo in these matters needs proper planning. For instance, the Railways have always dealt with a certain form of traffic and is expected to continue to do so into the far future. We have the stultified outlook of the Government to contend with. Actually, the inefficiency of many parts of our transport system to-day is resulting in our products being outclassed in price in overseas markets. Indeed, they cannot even compete with produce imported into the country. Getting our produce by road transport or any other form of transport to our harbours has made many of our products uncompetitive in this highly competitive world.

One cannot discuss transport without also mentioning in passing the very important role played by the Railways in South Africa, and I think the great error in our thinking in the past has been that, in trying to get the National Transport Commission to co-ordinate our transport problems, we have always looked upon the Railways themselves as a sort of sacred cow, an untouchable organization which should not fall within the sphere of the National Transport Commission. The law, however, actually does allow the National Transport Commission greater power and latitude in regard also to bringing the coordination of railway transport within its ambit.

We have to think of the problem of transport as a whole in South Africa, including the Railways. In Britain the railway network has been reduced by one-third over the past few years, whilst road transport has been given more prominence. The future of our country depends on the road transportation network linking our large metropolitan centres. In this regard I wish to refer to Johannesburg which I have the honour to represent in this House. Johannesburg is the gold capital of the world. It is South Africa’s most important transport and communication centre in our economic life to-day. But I am sad to say the actions of the National Transport Commission and the actions of the hon. the Minister are making it impossible for Johannesburg to develop a road network outside as she would like to do. Mr. Speaker, you ruled that freeways fell completely outside this motion. I think I must have misunderstood you because the National Transport Commission is giving funds for freeways in Johannesburg, but they have decided to cut down on the freeways. A very large part of the Commission’s funds were spent on those freeways.

Order! Free ways do not form part of the national roads and therefore they are not covered by this motion.

If I may put it this way, freeways are part of the communication system between one centre and another, it is part of the country’s road system.

So is a footpath. I have given my ruling.

With respect, Sir, if one wants to go from Pretoria to Vereeniging one of the best ways of doing it in future will be to travel on the freeway system, which is part of the national road system.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the motion of the hon. member for Middelburg refers to “centralized control of national road-building programmes”.

National roads are not covered.

The motion refers to “national road-building programmes” …

National road-building schemes are outside our cities; they do not form part of a city’s road system.

Mr. Speaker, my submission is that the National Roads Fund, which controls the national road-building programme, does road-building within city boundaries too.

It does not.

Mr. Speaker, the National Transport Commission gives funds as the successor of the National Roads Board. It gives funds to Johannesburg and Pretoria, and so forth, for the freeways which fall outside the control of the municipalities concerned. I do submit this with respect. Some years ago a plan was proposed to the National Transport Commission in regard to roads of this nature, and it was agreed that the province, the city council, and the National Transport Commission should share the costs. The cost was in the vicinity of R45 million in the case of Johannesburg. Then the shock came when the Minister of Transport made his announcement. It has been a shock for our road system in the whole country. The Minister said these freeways were of no use; he was not going to subsidize them any further; and I really think the Minister should give us a reply on this point here this afternoon.

Order! National roads are not subsidized roads. The State pays the full amount. City freeways are thus not covered by this motion.

If that is your ruling, Sir, I shall not continue.

That is my ruling; I have now given it three times.

Now he has finished his speech too.

I shall leave that matter in abeyance for the moment. I only hope that the few words I have said will impress themselves upon the hon. the Minister. Sir, the trouble that does arise, as is so often the case when we come with constructive suggestions from this side, is where the money is to come from.

You must stick to telephones.

Sir, I am not talking about communications to-day, and the communications on the road are just as bad as the communications in the telephone system. One of the great problems, of course, according to that side of the House, is the question of finance, but if we look at the facts and figures, that can be no excuse in future. In fact, I believe we are not spending sufficient money on our roads. In Great Britain they are spending R500 million a year; we are spending scarcely a fifth of that on our roads in South Africa annually, if it is as much as that. Sir, the money is there. The National Transport Commission in 1966-’67 showed a surplus of R7½ million. Last year, I believe, there was not a surplus, but even so there has been an accumulated surplus over the past years of close on R40 million, if not more, so there is no excuse whatsoever for the Government and the Minister to say that the funds are not available to-day. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Middelburg, who introduced the motion, said that no less than R170 million came from the motorist every year, and a greater proportion of that could certainly be used on the roads of South Africa. Sir, R170 million is derived from petrol taxes, from excise, from customs duties on vehicles, from excise on petrol, from excise on tyres and from customs duty on motorcar parts introduced into the country. The money is there and that money is being paid by the road users to-day, but unfortunately that money of the road user is not being used to the extent to which it can be applied towards improving our road system in South Africa.

Money would be available, Sir, if there were not such wastage. Let me give one instance. Some years ago—incidentally this is a matter to which reference is made in last year’s Auditor-General’s report under “National Transport Commission”—national road units were being used in the Transvaal for private purposes; 26 dams were built for private people; road work was being done without authorization for municipalities; a tarred road was built privately, using the transport machinery of the Transvaal Provincial Administration Board, and now the National Transport Commission, for which the hon. the Minister is responsible, has asked the Provincial Council of the Transvaal to pay them for the work that has been done. As far as I know there has been silence up till now. Perhaps the hon. the Minister might be able to tell us something about it, because I see a smile on his face. We still have not got part III of the Auditor-General’s report.

Sir, I say that the question of money is not the major problem. The funds are there and, secondly, there would be more funds if we did not have so much wastage. The trouble really is that the National Transport Commission is not making full use of its power to coordinate as it could co-ordinate. It seems to be very afraid of the Railways. It is not properly co-ordinating the problem of the division of transport between the Central Government and Provincial Governments, between the Railways and Roads, between the private and the public sector of transport, between coastal transport and land transport, between suburban transport run by the Railways and suburban transport run by the municipalities. These are vast problems in which this board could do further co-ordinating work in regard to road construction, civil aviation, pipeline development and railway transport. Sir, the hon. the Minister looks at me. I am quite sure that if the National Transport Commission were to look into that important aspect of the transport of fuel in South Africa through our oil pipelines, a great portion of those funds could be used for the development of our national and our urban roads.

Sir, in the short time still left to me I would like to say a few words about another problem which is allied to civil aviation which is referred to in this motion. That is the problem of the development of our airports in South Africa, a matter which was raised to some extent by the hon. member for Middelburg, who was speaking from experience and who made some quite telling points. Sir, I would like to speak about the difficulties we are having in Johannesburg, about the lack of planning outside Johannesburg in regard to Jan Smuts Airport. I believe that Jan Smuts Airport can be developed and should be developed in this jet age to fit in with the transport needs of the future. Sir, we see jumbo jets coming; supersonic planes will be here within the next decade at least; huge new developments are coming in the near future.

How must the airport be developed?

Let me first of all tell the hon. the Minister how it should not be developed. First of all, one should not draw up plans and then after a year scrap them and make new plans, as happened seven years ago. Secondly, one should start as soon as possible to build an airport instead of delaying the plan for three or four or five years, and, thirdly, the hon. the Minister of Transport should not have to go to the Minister of Public Works and say “Please hurry up; please get a move on with the work”. That is how it should have been speeded up, and it should have been speeded up further by having the passenger terminal and the freight terminal planned in such a way that they can meet the needs of air transport in South Africa for at least 15 to 20 years ahead. At the present moment I believe that the freight terminal is already proving to be not as adequate as one would wish it to be. We have the example of the chairman of B.O.A.C. appealing to the Government to have the terminals ready for the great transport revolution that is coming: to have these terminals ready when the jumbo jets and the supersonic planes come to South Africa. Can we have the assurance from the hon. the Minister, not from his Deputy—after his experience in Agriculture I am not too sure that one can place too much confidence in what he says—that Jan Smuts Airport will be ready when the supersonic planes want to come here; can we have the assurance that Jan Smuts Airport will be ready when the jumbo jets arrive? We have heard and seen reports about difficulties at the present moment and about growing difficulties which are foreseen for the future in regard to air transport, and particularly freight transport, to Jan Smuts. The trouble, of course, is that when it comes to the development of transport facilities, there are so many fingers in the pie. If one looks at the development of Jan Smuts Airport we find that the following Departments have a finger in the pie: Public Works, Railways, Transport, Customs, Health, S.A. Police, Foreign Affairs, Posts and Telegraphs, Agriculture, Immigration and Finance. All these Departments have a part in the development of Jan Smuts Airport. No wonder that these difficulties are being experienced at the moment.

What difficulties?

If the hon. the Deputy Minister would only read the newspapers and get into touch with people who transport freight from Europe to Jan Smuts, then he would realize what the problems are. The position is so bad at Jan Smuts Airport that the Government actually had to go and borrow a lift truck from one of the private companies in order to lift freight. Now at last they have had a new lift truck installed, but for a long period they had to borrow that machinery from a private company at Jan Smuts Airport itself. The position is so bad that some of these oversea air companies have offered to build their own private freight installations at Jan Smuts Airport, and yet the hon. the Deputy Minister says he knows nothing about it. He thinks that everything is fine. Has he been there; has he seen, as I have seen, how overloaded it is on occasions?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I have your ruling as to whether the subject which is being debated at the moment, forms part of the motion before the House?

What was the point raised by the hon. member?

I was referring to Jan Smuts Airport, but actually I have come to the end of that part of my speech, so I will not deal any further with Jan Smuts Airport.

Sir, I think the picture is indeed a sad one. It is a picture of lack of planning, of lack of co-ordination, of slowness, of waste. Indeed it is a picture of an ageing Government, and when a person’s body gets aged, there is a breaking-off in his hearing and all his other faculties. In the case of this Government it is indeed an aged Government. Its telecommunications are collapsing and, as we have seen this afternoon, its transport communications are collapsing too, and I am afraid that the injection which the hon. member for Middelburg is trying to pump into this aged body, however well meant it may be, will unfortunately not stop the decay of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, one does not really like to insult “fools” but I can really say to the hon. member: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

Order! The hon. Deputy Minister may not say that; he must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

On a point of order, Sir, may I point out that the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted a well-known saying, namely: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

But before that he spoke about “fools” as such and then quoted the saying. In any case, it would be better if the hon. the Deputy Minister did not use that word.

Both the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Sea Point tried to make out a case for an amendment which they moved to a very well thought out and scientific motion which the hon. member for Middelburg moved here. While the hon. members for Middelburg and Bloemfontein (District) wanted to exchange a few ideas here on transport the sole purpose of their amendment was to make a little political capital out of it. The hon. member for Orange Grove, as well as the hon. member for Salt River stated here that our entire transport system was collapsing. Sir, that can only be said by people who are sitting in a party which has collapsed completely, who see things through those kind of glasses, a party which has deteriorated to such an extent since 1948 that it has lost one man after the other, as happened again the other day. It is a party which has collapsed completely. That is why they came forward with the accusation that our transport system had collapsed. I shall return later to the hon. members for Orange Grove and Salt River as far as these accusations are concerned, but I want to make one fact clear at the outset: both these members came forward with the suggestion that a great deal more should be spent on our roads in South Africa, that millions more should be spent. The hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned a figure of R170 million which he thought should be spent. He said that an inadequate amount was being spent, but only this morning the hon. member for Pinelands put a question in this House. He wanted to know the extent of the increases in tax which the Government had collected from 1948 up to the present; and when the amount was furnished there were whistles of astonishment, while reference was made to the following: Look what you are taking away from the public; you are taking all the money away from the public, and the taxes, levied by the Government, are increasing every year. But on the same afternoon they state on the other hand that too little is being spent on roads and airports, etc., one cannot reconcile both these points.

What are the accumulated funds of this commission?

I shall come to that in a moment, and indicate to you that those funds cannot be spent freely.

There are four parts to the hon. member’s motion, and I am not going to spend a great deal of the time of the House on this motion. In the first place I want to congratulate the hon. member for Middelburg, as well as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) who participated in the debate, for having stated this matter in such a concise, clear and objective way without dragging in party politics, and without levelling any accusations at the provinces or any other body; in other words, that they both came forward with a motion in order to look ahead with the eye of a planner, which is the task of this Government, and which the members of this party accept in that way. I want to congratulate them on their contributions.

Now I want to say at once that as far as our roads are concerned, our entire transport system is the infra-structure of all development in South Africa, in every field. Communication is one of the age-old foundation stones on which the development of agriculture, industry, tourism, defence and sport rests. I am not going to waste any time in this regard. In regard to road construction, we in South Africa have this position that there is divided control in regard to national road building. I am not going to say much about this matter, but I must point out that at the moment we are in this position that the local authorities are responsible for their road construction, their streets, etc., in the cities. It is not a task of the Government or of the province; it is the urban local authority’s responsibility. In regard to the financing thereof, various investigations have been made, and I shall deal with that briefly in a moment. The provinces are accomplishing a tremendous task because they are responsible for provincial roads, district roads and numbered roads, and at the moment the provinces are still responsible for building the national roads and the special roads. The national roads are paid for 100 per cent by the National Transport Commission, and the special roads are subsidized to 70 per cent. If one considers the task on which the provinces are engaged, one realizes that it is a tremendous one. If one had looked at yesterday’s newspapers one would have seen that the Transvaal is now announcing a R100 million scheme which has to be completed in five years’ time, and which has nothing to do with national roads. The responsibility which rests on their shoulders therefore amounts to R20 million a year.

I want to point out to the hon. Deputy Minister that I ruled that those roads are not national roads.

I am simply referring to what hon. members said in regard to the construction of roads and communications.

They are not national roads; these are provincial matters.

Now, the hon. members for Middelburg and Bloemfontein (District) were quite right in saying that my predecessor, who is now the hon. Minister of Posts, made a statement in the House of Assembly on 19th April, 1967 in regard to the construction of national and special roads, the financing of these, and the divided control which existed. As a result of that statement, negotiations were entered into between him and the provinces which have not yet been rounded off or finalized. But it was not only as a result of that statement. As a result also of the Schumann and Borckenhagen commissions, the Government had the matter investigated further by the Marais Commission, not only in regard to the construction of national roads, and this matter of divided control, but also in regard to the financial relationship between these bodies and the subsidization in regard to all these problems of communication. Because this is the case, I do not want to state in advance now what the policy should be and what my personal opinion on this matter is. I do not want to analyse the disadvantages of divided control, because I do not want to find myself in the same position in which England and France have found themselves at the moment where, when he wanted to negotiate, De Gaulle was accused of certain things. That is why I do not want to say very much more about this matter, except to state very clearly to the hon. member who introduced the motion that we are considering this matter without pointing an accusing finger or a reproaching finger at some or other body. We are in the position that, in terms of section 17 of the National Roads Act of 1935, Act No. 42 of 1935, the provinces are at the moment constructing those roads. I must point out to this House that the provinces are in a dilemma, because a national road is a limited access road, i.e. a road which one cannot enter through normal entrances, one must find access by means of fly-overs and clover-leafs. It is the great task of the province to regulate transport for its people, for its citizens, and often it is not possible to supply the necessary services for that kind of transport by means of a restricted road. That is the one aspect.

The second aspect is that the province will, because it has to take local transport into consideration, always try to put as much as possible of that transport on the national road, because that would entail a saving. It is obvious; it is only human to do so. Since the provinces are in this dilemma, it is necessary for us to negotiate in a friendly way with the provinces on this matter. I am not going to point out all the other aspects, not even the reports of the Select Committees. It is not necessary for me to do so now. It is only necessary to say to hon. members that we have the task in hand and we are considering it.

When I say that the provinces are in a dilemma, I must point out that the provinces are also adjusted to using not only their own funds there, but also those which the hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned. Sir, you will allow me to mention just these figures, because it is on record that the accusation which those two hon. members levelled at the Government was that with this national road construction we were channelling the traffic to the towns and cities and that the cities could no longer handle this traffic because we had withdrawn the subsidy on freeways.

Mr. Speaker, have you not ruled that out of order?

Yes, it has been ruled out of order.

Very well. I am not going to discuss the principle, but there is just one matter I must rectify. The impression was created here that not enough was being done, and because I cannot debate this matter I simply want to mention two figures. The first figure I want to mention is that as far as these areas are concerned, in regard to which an accusation is now being levelled at us, i.e. Durban, Port Elizabeth, Pretoria …

Order! I think that is out of order. That matter has nothing to do with this motion.

Then I just want to place on record the fact that the accusations made by these two hon. members were incorrect, because we have already made R172 million available for that. I now want to refer to the following aspect, and I am leaving the topic of roads at that. I want to say at once to the hon. member that with the need for transport effect is being given to the principle of co-ordination by Act No. 44 of 1948, which makes provision for a National Transport Commission and the transfer of the functions of the former National Roads Council, the Central Road Transport Council and the Civil Aviation Council to this commission. I must point out, because it was mentioned here, that railways, harbours and pipelines were also excluded, and these were not implicated in this matter. But the former civil aviation council and the national roads council were replaced by this National Transport Commission. The main task of the National Transport Commission is in the first place to see to it, as a bridging organization, that transport in South Africa is properly coordinated in regard to air services and road transport, and the construction of national roads. Since that task has, up to the present been performed by them, I want to return to the accusation made by the hon. member for Orange Grove, in which he stated that the transport system had collapsed. I want to say to-day that this National Transport Commission is being accorded nothing but praise for the way in which they have succeeded in South Africa to such an extent that at the moment we have the best transport system in the entire world, that there are no bottlenecks anywhere, and that our transport system is neatly dovetailing together. They saw to it that the S.A. Airways received all the necessary assistance and co-ordination, so that we have the best airways in the world in South Africa. One can compare these with any other in the world, and I have been overseas to see. They have seen to it that one does not have new airline services in South Africa which existed for a short while and then went bankrupt. That is because they supplied the necessary protection. In addition they saw to it that road transport and bus transport was of the very best. But then the hon. member comes forward with an accusation like that. He also came forward with the other accusation that the transport system in the Railways had collapsed. Is he a stranger in Jerusalem? Does he not see in which way our transport is being dealt with, in contrast to the strikes which one finds in the outside world? In South Africa one does not have the chaotic conditions in shipping one has in the outside world.

Who spoke about harbours? I did not. *

Harbours also form part of the transport system. The hon. member went on to ask that with the establishment of an aviation commission we should institute more specific investigation and do research in regard to aviation. In the first place I want to say this, that if research has to be undertaken, we are still making use of the C.S.I.R. at the moment, and we are letting the C.S.I.R. do all the research in regard to aviation. Now the hon. member has asked that we should establish a fund for this aviation commission which he has in mind. I should like to mention that out of levy on fuel which is at the moment being allocated to roads, there is no concession for kerosene and aviation fuel being used, because in South Africa the South African Airways as well as the overseas airlines do not pay this fuel levy. It is only the local consumer and the local airways which pay. Since civil aviation has always had the sympathetic ear of the Minister, as the hon. member himself stated, the Minister has already addressed a communication to the Minister of Finance to see whether the civil aviation people cannot be accommodated with a rebate on, or an exemption from the duty they pay on, their fuel. This is a matter which belongs under finance. However, I do not think that when the hon. the Minister addressed that communication, he did so with the idea that it should be kept apart as a separate fund for this research work. I want to point out to hon. members that when research will have to be done and one’s funds are not adequate, one will in any case have to apply to the Treasury. One will in any case have to obtain the necessary funds from the State coffers for that research as we are in fact doing at the moment in regard to the research which is being undertaken. Consequently I want to ask, if there are certain deficiencies, whether we cannot continue to accommodate both deficiencies by means of the National Transport Commission? I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the objects of the National Transport Commission. The purpose of the N.T.C. is as follows—

In other words, the constitution of the Commission provides that one will be able to establish the very best services there. Because this is so, I want us to view the premise of the said Act in such a way that any person who wants to supply air services must make application in the manner prescribed in the Act and that the details should then be published in the Gazette. I am not going to elaborate on this any further; you know how it works. But what does the National Transport Commission take into consideration when it deliberates? Here is a list of a few of the aspects which are taken into consideration: The need of that sector of the public affected by the application; the category of air services for which authorization is being requested; the co-ordination and development; the avoidance of uneconomic duplication and then, without prejudicing the above-mentioned considerations, the existence of other air services in the areas, the possibility of air services in that area, the efficiency and regularity of air services, the period for which such services will be supplied by the applicants or by other air services, etc. Consequently there is a whole series. In other words, with the composition of the National Transport Commission provision has already been clearly made to the effect that those services can be provided and that research can be done. The National Transport Commission was also constituted in such a way that there are two members who are conversant with civil aviation and with airways as such, so that that category is also well represented. I should like to point out that except for the executive powers of the Administration and the control measures which apply to civil aviation, motor transport, the planning and financing of national roads, the object of the National Transport Commission is to promote the development of transport in the Republic and to encourage it where this is necessary; that is the most important aspect. In order to co-ordinate various phases of transport, in order to derive the maximum benefits and efficiency from transport services for the public, the public and the developers of South Africa are always accorded first place.

When are they going to make a start?

The Commission has certain advisory functions which I want to mention in regard to particular transport matters. I had the matter investigated, and I want to inform the House that it agrees in general with machinery for the regulation of transport in other countries, particularly the countries in the European Common Market, where these countries, in addition to the usual commissions entrusted with road, rail, air and sea transport, also have a higher transport council. The activities of our Transport Commission correspond with what is being done abroad. That is why I think that this Commission is doing the necessary work. The other portion of the motion of the hon. member for Middelburg deals with the introduction of a national aerodrome planning committee. I think the hon. member succeeded very well in bringing it to our attention that we should take cognizance of the need for future aerodromes in South Africa, and the planning necessary in this regard. The hon. member did not level the accusation here that this had not been done to date; on the contrary, he simply looked ahead in a positive way and he mentioned a few examples of what, as he saw the matter, could be done in future. But now I want to reiterate that I cannot deny the necessity and desirability of aerodrome planning. Up to now it has been the Government’s policy to have the planning in respect of State aerodromes undertaken by the State, by the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport is doing this in co-ordination and in conjunction with the Department of Defence. It is being done in this way throughout, I am not going to spend time now on municipal and local aerodromes—you know that they can also receive the necessary assistance from the Department of Transport. They can even obtain assistance in that we level their runways.

I want to conclude by saying that doubt was sown here by means of the statement that our earodromes were not meeting requirements. This doubt was sown by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I want to say to the hon. member for Orange Grove that when the jumbo jets come to South Africa, Jan Smuts Airport will be prepared to receive them.

And supersonic jet liners?

When any of these aircraft come to our aerodromes in future, our aerodromes will be ready to receive them thanks to the timeous and wide-awake measures taken by the Minister and the National Transport Commission. You heard the Minister announcing the other day how we were going to lengthen the runway in Cape Town, how we were going to lengthen the runway in Durban and how we were going to undertake development at Jan Smuts. I am therefore casting it back in the teeth of those hon. members who wanted to allege that the aerodromes were not keeping pace with development, and that they would not be able to carry the traffic. Although they had a lot to say about a collapse, it is only their party which is collapsing.

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the explanation he furnished. Owing to the late hour, however, I will not avail myself of my privilege to reply, and with your permission, and if the mover of the amendment is prepared to do so, I should like to withdraw my motion.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.