I move—

At the Second Reading of this Bill we opposed this measure and we still intend opposing it to-day. The Minister, in introducing the Second Reading, referred to the motion which he introduced in this House in 1962. On that occasion he traced the history of this system of trial, and he said that as far as he could gather its history went back over 700 years in Europe, and that it was generally assumed that it was the British who had developed this form of trial although it was not certain exactly where it originated. Sir, this system of trial was brought to this country and enforced here in 1827 after the second British occupation of the Cape. It seems a pity that a system with such a long history, a very creditable history as the Minister pointed out at the time, should now be abolished in this manner. It cannot be said that this system was forced on South Africa by the British. It is a system which certainly has been preferred in the English-speaking countries of the world, but I would like to remind the House that in South Africa, the Voortrekkers, when leaving the Cape, took this system of trial with them to the Free State and the Transvaal. It was certainly not forced on them. They themselves instituted this form of trial in those two republics. The system had only been in force in the Cape for seven years when the Voortrekkers took it with them to the new republics. That, I think is evidence of the great store placed by the ordinary citizen on the fairness of trial in this manner and the desirability of this system of trial.

We know that the laws applicable to trial by jury have been amended from time to time and that the system has to a certain extent fallen into disuse. The hon. the Minister and other speakers have also pointed out that a jury may be swayed by emotion, although we have taken steps to avoid that by giving the Minister certain powers to stop trials by jury. It may also be said that the layman is not the best man to judge the facts. I disagree with that, but I would like to point out to those critics who say that the ordinary citizen is perhaps not the best man to judge the facts, that judges are not infallible either. In fact, if judges were infallible in deciding matters of fact, we would have no appeals to the Appellate Division, but the fact is that they are fallible and that is why it is necessary to have a system of appeal. I would point out that if the system of trial by jury is abolished, an accused may be tried by one man alone, and although it may be said that he can go on appeal if he disagrees with the finding on the facts by the judge, it is not always easy for him to do so because there is considerable cost involved in appeals of this nature. Sir, if in 1962 the House felt that it was not advisable to abolish this system of trial, I ask the Minister why he is now proceeding with the abolition of this system. The then Minister of Justice could have adopted the motion but he did not do so.

We know from what the Minister has said now that the different bodies which have been consulted are not unanimous in supporting him. He quoted Mr. Justice Hiemstra as being critical of this system and he relied to a large extent on the judge’s criticisms, but as the Minister quite rightly pointed out the judges did not all agree with Mr. Justice Hiemstra’s point of view and he will probably have seen in the newspapers that in a recent case in East London, the presiding judge, Mr. Justice Addelson, remarked on the fact that he was probably hearing the last case to be judged in the Eastern Cape by a jury, because of this Bill which is now before the House. The judge expressed his regret and he remarked that other judges shared his great regret that this system of trial was to be abolished. I say therefore that the judges are certainly not in agreement on this issue. The Minister told us that he had not consulted the Bar Council or the Side Bar on this issue because they had been consulted after the 1962 debate, and that he had no reason to believe that they had changed their minds. I say that in view of the fact that the judges themselves are not in agreement and that the Minister believes that the barristers and attorneys are opposed to the abolition of this form of trial, it is a pity that he is now proceeding with this measure. If the system is dying out, as the Minister says, because less and less use is being made of it, why not let it die out on its own then; why does the Government interfere? If the ordinary citizen does not want this system of trial it will die out on its own. But while they do want it, I submit that we should not take this privilege away from the citizen who wishes to have this system of trial.

Sir, as I remarked in the Committee Stage, trial by jury is one of the hall-marks of a democratic State. The Minister, I think in 1962, pointed out that when the jury system was first introduced it had a certain effect on the administrators because they realized that if a law was unpopular or harsh in its application, juries refused to convict the accused if they disagreed with the administrators. So this system has had its advantages in the democratic world, and I submit that we should keep this system in this country, since we pride ourselves on the fact that this country is still one of the democracies of the world. I appeal to the hon. the Minister even at this late hour to give this system of trial a further lease of life, and to do what he did in 1962 when he withdrew his motion after discussion in this House.

When I spoke at the Second Reading, I appealed to the hon. the Minister not to go ahead with this Bill, and I want again to add my appeal to that which has just come from the hon. member for Transkei. I have examined the reasons put forward by the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading as to why he wishes to get rid of this right, because it is a very important democratic right. One of his motives was that this system was falling into disuse. I am sure he is too good a logician to think that that motive is sufficient to justify such far-reaching action. His second motive was that there were too many people in the country who were exempted from the obligation to serve on juries. There are two things that he can do, if he likes. Firstly, I do not suppose there are fewer than half a million people to choose from, even when all the exempted people and the sick and the lame and the females are excluded. He can, if he likes, make it compulsory for women to serve on juries. Then he talked about administrative difficulties. How can it present any difficulty at all? I do not think that the reasons which he has put forward are in any way convincing. Lastly he said that the Judges, or some of them, had advised in favour of the abolition of this system.

Most of them.

But he also says that the Bar Council has advised him against it. The member of the Bar Council is the future Judge and so perhaps the Minister is out of date. He is antiquated in that respect and instead of listening to the Judges he should listen to the future Judges, who can foresee the future, because he is dealing with the future. He is not dealing with the present; the system is in disuse at the moment. If it will always be in disuse I cannot say. One thing that stands out about trial by jury is that lawyers are always Judges in their own cause and this is one occasion on which the layman has a right and may demand to be judged by his own people. There can be cases where lawyers are the complainers or even the accused. In these cases the layman has the only opportunity of fighting the legal combination which could be created against him. In the interests of the lawyers themselves they should say: Well, if you do not like it, you can be judged by your own people and not by another lawyer.

Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I as a farmer stand up to take part in a debate which I believe to be confined to the legal fraternity. But I believe that we, as farmers, have a right to express our opinion.

It is only on this side of the House that farmers can express their opinions.

I am interested to notice that on the other side of the House there was not one voice raised in favour of this system of the administration of justice. The hon. member for Durban (Central) made the point which I think is the really valid point in the whole of this discussion, namely that the system of trial by jury is the only way in which the common man, the farmer as well as the townsman, has a chance to take part in the administration of justice. Mr. Speaker, we stand here in the words you recite every day when we come into this House, i.e. “for the welfare of society and the just government of men”. I believe that every single person has the right and duty and ought to be allowed to take part in what is the process of the welfare of society and the just government of men. When the hon. the Minister moved a motion in 1962 in regard to the abolition of juries, he sketched the background of the jury system very briefly, but I think he missed the essential point, which was that the jury system has been tied inextricably to the cause of political liberty, especially in Great Britain.

And in the United States.

Yes, also in the United States. It is as a result of the victories won for political liberty in the British Isles. I believe we should look at this system which the hon. the Minister rightly says comes out of the dimmest antiquity of the Anglo-Saxon people. He rightly said it was used in the Doomsday Survey, an administrative procedure where 12 good men were on oath required to furnish to the appointees of the king the facts surrounding their locality and to establish in the Doomsday Book the right of every single man, every baron, lord and the king himself in England (in 1083) as it then was after the Norman conquest. Right through the whole history of Great Britain one finds that juries have been used. It was used by Henry II when he began to encroach on the rights of the barons, and it was against this, and this is something which I think is so commonly overlooked, that the barons who drew up the Magna Carta appealed for the traditional rights of the people of England to be protected. They were looking for their rights and not the rights of the common people. There was never a period in the history of England that there was less justice done than when the Star Chamber was established which did away with the right of trial by jury. In 1628, when Sir John Elliott, Chief Justice Cook and others began to lead the opposition to the growing autocracy of the Stuart Monarchy, they made an appeal for the ancient rights and liberties of the people of England.

The re-establishment of trial by jury was a central right in order to do away with the injustices which occurred under the Star Chamber system. All this comes back to the same story, namely that the common man should have a right to express his opinion and his voice in the administration of justice and to make sure that justice should not only be done, but shall be seen to be done. There is such a concern in this country to-day regarding the culture of our people and I want to say that this is part of our culture. This is part of the very thread of the life of the English-speaking person in South Africa. I believe that this system of trial by jury cannot be lightly thrown away and discarded because the hon. the Minister, or some of his advisers, happen to feel that it is something which can simply be done away with because it is no longer being used to such a great extent. This is a very real, living thing in our lives and the day may yet come when we will live to regret the fact that whatever the inconvenience may be to the common man and however much it may take him away from his work and however much it is a bother to the people who have to empanel juries, this system whereby the common man can participate in the administration of justice has been done away with. This is a system which has been adapted over the centuries and why should we do away with it and abandon it now when, in our country, we might have occasion and cause to adapt it to various other administrative procedures? The hon. the Minister made the point that there are no peers when Bantu are tried. This of course was a justification of trial by jury, namely that a man should be tried by his peers. I wonder whether it ever occurred to the hon. the Minister that it might have been possible to use Bantu juries in cases where Bantu were concerned in their own particular areas. This will allow the Bantu people to see that justice is not the administration of the white man, and it will show them that they themselves have got a very real and living right and interest to establish what the facts are so that the truth might be known and exercised in the courts of our country. It occurred to me that this is a system which has lived through the centuries and that it can be adapted to very real present uses in our country. I want to support the hon. member for Transkei in his appeal to the hon. the Minister. I can see from the stony face of the hon. the Minister that my appeal will fall on deaf ears, but nevertheless, I want to record my own emphatic feeling that this is a system which ought to be preserved even if it is merely left to fall into desuetude by the course of time and by lack of interest of our own people, rather than being abolished by the positive action of the executive branch of our Government. I do want to make this appeal to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River said that this system is of such wonderful importance to the English-speaking people of this country. I should like to point out to the hon. member to what extent this system is used in his own province, that is to say, in the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court. In 1959 there was not one single trial by jury, in 1960 1.3 per cent of the trials were trials by jury, in 1961 there were no trials by jury, in 1962 .5 per cent were trials by jury, in 1963 to 1965 there were no trials by jury, and 1966 .5 per cent, in 1967 .49 per cent and in 1968 there were no trials by jury. The hon. member’s province has therefore itself abolished the system.

I have the highest regard for the history of the jury system, and in 1962 I took great pains to trace its history. I expressed my appreciation for the jury system as it existed and as was applied. I also expressed my appreciation for the jury system as it existed and was applied in this country. The fact of the matter, however, is that the system has abolished itself. The system has fallen into disuse, and a further fact is that it is an expensive system to maintain. As I told hon. members in my Second Reading speech, we still have to draw up these lists for each magisterial district after each general registration. This, of course, entails a tremendous amount of work. In course of time these lists become obsolete. People change their addresses. When an accused prefers to have a trial by jury, the deputy sheriff must serve as many as 150 summons in order to assemble 21 jury members. When these 21 persons have eventually been assembled, the accused gets up and says: No, he would prefer to be tried by a judge and assessors. That is what happens. In reality the system has abolished itself, and is not being abolished by me. Hon. members on the opposite side want us to maintain it artificially and at great expense, so that we do not break with the past. There are other things in our legal system which have also fallen into disuse over the years, things in respect of which the courts have said: “They have been abolished by disuse.” The jury system is on our Statute Book, and as long as it is there, we have to maintain it artificially. This is the one and only reason why I am proposing in this House that the jury system be abolished.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—85: Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grey-ling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Lewis, H. M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P., Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S., Pelser, P. C., Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; 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 H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—34: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Marais. D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, as it is before us now, with the amendment which has been incorporated in it, deals specifically with matters falling within the sphere of responsibility of the Minister of the Interior. During the course of discussion on this Bill, which deals in the main with administrative functions, the hon. the Minister has met some of our objections. He has conceded merit in our criticisms on certain aspects of the Bill, and he has undertaken to investigate these aspects. What is now important, Sir, is the attitude of the Minister in regard to the administration of this Bill, and the manner in which he will put it into operation. There are certain points in that regard I should like him to clarify before this Bill is read a Third Time.

The first point is that, in terms of this Bill, the Minister will have the authority to extend powers to classes of officials who come within the purview of his department. It is a departure from the present state of affairs in that in future it will be possible, for example, to give powers of arrest, under the applicable laws, namely the Aliens Control Laws, to persons who previously as individuals were granted such powers by notice in the Gazettes. These powers will be very wide. As I have said, they will include the power of arrest. We on this side conceded that the Minister had reason to ask for this amendment, because of the remoteness and the extent of the borders where alien control must be exercised. These are the areas where the admission to and departure from the country across our borders must be controlled. But, Sir, it will be in the nature of things that this control and these powers of arrest will in some instances be vested in officials of what one might call a junior status in the service. These officials will have power to arrest aliens or persons suspected of being aliens because they are not in possession of documents to prove their right to be in the Republic. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this power is one which will, for its implementation, need the highest degree of discretion and circumspection when it is used. One can compare this power with powers which already exist, namely powers relating to other sections of our community. In the case of the nonwhite community, the power of arrest exists, for example, when a Bantu is not in possession of his pass documents when asked to produce them. There are many occasions where persons do not carry their documents of identity with them. One often wonders how many of the hon. members sitting in this House, for instance, if they were suddenly requested to produce their identity cards, would be able to produce them from their pockets or their wallets.

Can the Minister do so?

Yes, I wonder whether the Minister himself would be able to produce his identity card from his pocket at this moment.

Yes, I can.

Well, I accept that the hon. the Minister is setting a good example. What I want to impress upon the Minister is that there are occasions where persons quite legitimately are without their papers. This power, which has existed before, but which is now to be extended to lower grades of officials, to arrest persons, is a very serious one. I trust that the Minister will assure us that the instructions which he will give, and which will be given by his department, will ensure circumspection in the carrying out of these powers, and that adequate opportunity will be given to persons suspected of being unauthorized aliens in our country to produce their documents.

The second point I want to make is in regard to a question which has already been discussed, namely the question of loss of citizenship and consequent classification, for purposes of this Act, of a South African-born citizen as an alien. We have heard some rather extravagent arguments about it being a question of “Good riddance” to such people. We on this side agree that persons should not in every case retain full rights of citizenship merely because of birth. One concedes that there are laws in this country which deprive persons of their citizenship. But the Minister has conceded on his part that there can be, and probably are, cases of hardship and injustice under this rigid rule as it now appears in the Act. The hon. the Minister knows of the difficulties which arise in regard to other aspects of the administration of his Department, where rules are too rigid when dealing with individuals. I should like the hon. the Minister to undertake as soon as possible the investigation which he has assured us he will undertake, in order that he can rectify or alleviate the position which we see as oppressive under this Act, and I hope that he will introduce legislation, if necessary, to cover the case of the person who was born in South Africa, and who has lost his citizenship, but who is a good and worth-while person whom we would like to have back in this country of ours. This was our main objection to this clause and the Minister conceded that we had a point. The Minister has given us the assurance that he will look into this matter. We look forward to hearing from him what steps will in fact be taken.

There has been some confusion in regard to the loss of citizenship and the consequent application of clause 2 to persons who leave the country without a passport. It is accepted legally that the grant of a passport is the prerogative of the State. That is the position. There is no argument about that. But what we have found during the course of this debate, is a suggestion that that prerogative is in some instances not being handled according to the accepted and traditional tests which are applied by the State to determine whether a passport should be granted or not.

There is a large question mark in this House as regards the Minister’s attitude to applications for passports by Coloured persons. The Minister has said that when a passport is requested by a Coloured person, or by Coloured persons, as has been happening, he asks for a deposit. He explained that the reason for such a deposit was to ensure that there would be no expense to the State if such a Coloured person were repatriated without acquiring the nationality of another state. But, Sir, the hon. member for Outeniqua, in the course of this debate, suggested that the reason for this requirement of a deposit or a guarantee for return fares, was to dissuade Coloured intellectuals from leaving South Africa. He suggested that, by putting difficulties in their way, they would remain here for the benefit of ther own Coloured people. I want to ask the Minister, as I asked him during the Committee Stage, to say quite categorically that the hon. member for Outeniqua was misinformed. I still hope that the hon. the Minister will at this stage of the proceedings assure us that the hon. member for Outeniqua was quite incorrect in what he said. I want to ask the Minister something which is most pertinent to the question of the loss of citizenship. I want to ask him whether there is a consistent approach in considering an application for a passport in the case of all South African citizens, no matter what colour or race they might be. In other words, if a person who holds South African citizenship approaches the hon. the Minister for a passport, will the same tests and the same requirements be applied to all citizens? I want to know whether there are not certain classes or grades of citizens who have differing tests applied to them. Because if the Minister does not request a white professional man who wishes to leave South Africa to provide these deposits or guarantees, but does in the case of a Coloured professional man, he lays himself open to the accusation that he practises discrimination, which cannot be tolerated in South Africa, also not on account of South Africa’s good name. Having regard to the debate as it has proceeded thus far, at this Third Reading we are asking from the hon. the Minister a categorical assurance that there will not be this discrimination, discrimination on the basis of race. Because all are citizens of South Africa. The administration in any other way of these rights vesting in the Minister would be most harmful to the good name of South Africa. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me on this point and that he, if there has been any administrative inconsistency in the handling of this matter, will see to it that it is put right.

The fourth and last matter which I want to raise on the Third Reading of this Bill relates to the question of the giving of reasons for deportation orders. This House when it was in Committee agreed to the Minister’s request that he be not compelled to disclose reasons for deportation orders when such orders have been given, in his opinion, in the public interest. I am sure you, Sir, realize what the effect of this amendment may be. It does mean that every alien entering this country will have a sword of Damocles hanging over his or her head, the possibility that the Minister may at any stage decide, in the public interest as he sees it, to deport him or her without the person concerned having the right to test the validity of the Minister’s decision. It might conceivably be argued that it is a good thing to have this sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of aliens in this country during the period up to the time they have acquired citizenship as it would act as a deterrent to those who might want to indulge in undesirable conduct. However, the majority of immigrants coming to this country are good men and women who come to this country with a view to remaining here. This amendment is going to mean that the Minister is going to be the final arbiter in this matter. So, I should like to make an appeal to him. I should like to appeal to him that he should open his door a little bit wider than it was done by his predecessor. I believe it is in the interest of our country as well as in the interest of the administration of this legislation that whenever an aggrieved person has something which he wishes to discuss either with the Minister or with one of his officials, that person should get the maximum opportunity to come and discuss his grievance. The Minister knows that in the past there have been errors of judgment in these matters, quite bona fide errors may be—for instance on the basis of incorrect information. It is quite conceivable, and we have to accept it as such, that similar errors may occur again in future. Therefore, we hope the hon. the Minister will give us the assurance that he will allow any aggrieved person the maximum opportunity to be heard either by himself or by one of his senior administrative officials.

We on this side of the House did not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill because we realized that the administration of aliens and their movements required that certain administrative powers be entrusted to the Minister. We realize that the Minister has conceded certain of our criticisms of this measure and that he has undertaken to see how that criticism can be met by positive legislation. For these reasons, and provided the Minister gives us the assurance on the four points I have enumerated, we shall not oppose the Third Reading of this Bill either.

I am afraid I cannot adopt the same line as the Official Opposition and not oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. You may say that I am more sceptical than members of the Official Opposition but from my experiences in this House I have learnt that ministerial assurances are not sufficient. What one really requires is those assurances embodied in the legislation itself. It is not enough to leave it to the individual Minister concerned to exercise his discretion, benevolently or otherwise, when it comes to the implementation of laws which do not contain those safeguards which one believes are necessary. It is not, therefore, a question of my disbelieving the hon. the Minister. The position is just that I am not prepared to accept that assurances constitute a sufficient safeguard. I should like to see them being embodied in the legislation itself. If that is done, one can ask for amendments if one has any objection and when such amendments are not acceptable, one can then vote against the legislation.

As far as I am concerned, this legislation does contain certain very important amendments. We are moving ever more in the direction of granting greater and greater arbitrary powers to Ministers, without any redress and without any appeal against their decisions. This legislation takes us further along that road, and I am against it. I do not think good enough reasons have been advanced for the greater measure of control which is being considered necessary by the Minister. Appeals against and a review of decisions of the Minister are excluded for the reason that it is not “in the public interest”. This is a term which is being used more and more frequently in South Africa to explain anything which might be embarrassing to the Government. Everything is simply lumped under the umbrella of “not being in the public interest”. The Government always knows more than we know and everybody is prepared to accept that. As far as I, however, am concerned, I have been in direct contact with many persons who have been at the receiving end of this Government’s policy, people who have been denied what is regarded as a privilege. By the way, in America the courts ruled that a passport was a right and not a privilege. But in the U.K. as well as in other countries it is a privilege, as it is in South Africa. But, as I have said. I have been in personal contact with people who have been refused passports and I am sure amongst them are cases where no reasonable court will find that good reasons have been advanced for refusing a passport. Another difficulty is that these people very seldom have access to the Minister himself to put their case. I have myself attempted to arrange interviews with the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, in cases where I felt passports were unjustifiably refused. But I have not been successful and the people concerned had to leave South Africa on exit permits—never to return again. The situation now will be that if they ever want to come back, they have to come back as aliens—that is, if they are allowed to come back. And amongst these people are some of our finest young people, from universities and elsewhere, people who are citizens of which any country can be proud. The necessity for Coloured people to make large deposits, deposits not required from individuals of other races, has not been satisfactorily cleared up either. The hon. member for Green Point is, apparently, satisfied with the Minister’s assurances that this particular form of injustice will be reviewed. As for me, I should have liked to see it being embodied in the law, giving the right of appeal especially where deposits are demanded. I see no reason why individuals of a particular race should be singled out for such treatment. I take completely the opposite view from that of the hon. member for Outeniqua who spoke yesterday. It is the right of this Government to deny professional Coloured people the right to leave South Africa because their services are required here, he said. That is the sort of mentality, of course, which is a totalitarian mentality. That was the practice followed by totalitarians during the Nazi days and it is the sort of experience which is to-day taking place behind the Iron Curtain. It does not, however, behove a country which professes to be a democratic country, to adopt practices which might be interpreted in that manner and, indeed, have so been interpreted by an hon. member of this House. Therefore I am against any extension of powers as given by this Bill.

I do not agree either with the fact that the right of appeal has now been withdrawn from aliens who are to be deported. The hon. the Minister told us yesterday that this House never intended that there should be an appeal. That may be so, but then I feel that the House was originally making a mistake, because I believe there should be the right of appeal. Now it is specifically being removed because the courts have upheld the view that an appeal in fact should be granted. Again I know of many cases of people who have been told that their right of residence has been withdrawn and that they have to leave the country. No reasons are given. Some of these people have been high-ranking churchmen who have done very good work among the non-white people, but because, just by the circumstances, they happen to be considered in a political light by the Government, because they have come under fire during cases that have been considered to have some political content, and have become political in their effect, those people have been told that they are meddling in South Africa’s internal affairs and their right to remain here has been withdrawn. Now they no longer have any appeal whatever. For all these reasons I wish to record my objection to the Third Reading of this Bill.

To a large extent the hon. member for Green Point again raised the various clauses which we had disposed of in the Committee Stage. I think the hon. member did so with the intention of dealing more particularly with the future administration of those various clauses. He started off by dealing with clause 5. In this connection I just want to say by way of further explanation that section 30 of the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act defines a passport control officer as “any person on whom powers have been conferred or to whom duties have been assigned by the Minister as to the carrying out of Act No. 22 of 1913”. The hon. member will appreciate that, in the light of the circumstances as we have discussed them here, certain problems arise in practice and that there are prohibited persons whom we are trying to get hold of and that it is not so easy to find them. As a result it became necessary for us to appoint people to act also in other places where there were such prohibited persons and, if necessary, to arrest them and bring them before a passport control officer for the necessary investigations to be made. I do not think that we should deduce from this that further powers are actually being granted to the Minister or to the administration. We are only trying to achieve more efficient operation. In this connection I just want to refer to clause 5. As regards that clause, we reached a settlement as regards the word “may”, which we altered and where we laid down that it “shall” be done “as soon as possible”. I also want to point this out to the hon. member for Green Point, and I want to express my appreciation for the interest displayed in this debate by members of this House. This is the benefit one derives from a frank discussion of matters of this nature. The hon. member raised the point, which was also discussed in the Interior Group of the governing party, and the hon. member for Waterkloof was responsible for the idea, i.e. that the provision should be amended as it has been amended now. I think that as it stands now it will cover all the difficult practical cirsumstances which may arise in the course of the operation of these matters.

The hon. member said quite rightly that the granting of a passport is the prerogative of the Government, but he expressed his misgivings about the fact that there is not always complete agreement about the reasons for refusing a passport. That may be, and I accept this as being the position, because the psychological approach of the Government in respect of passports may not be quite the same as that of the Opposition, and it is most certainly not the same as that of the hon. member for Houghton as regards the granting of passports. But in this connection I think we should content ourselves with the fact that, after all, the responsibility rests with the Minister. I do not want to evoke a discussion of the Vote at this stage, but as far as the administration is concerned, I want to point out to the hon. member that all the important cases where passports are refused are submitted to the Minister. Of course, the hon. member himself knows that where passports are issued in the normal course of events, it is done on an administrative level.

I spoke about the differentiation between the cases of Whites and those of non-Whites.

I shall come to that. The hon. member also referred to the deposits that are required. We have discussed this matter sufficiently, and while we are dealing with it now, I want to say in passing that the hon. member for Houghton is completely obsessed with colour. She is so conscious of colour that there is nothing on earth that she can discuss on merit. The Government is often criticized on matters of colour and race, but the one person in this House who is really conscious of colour is the hon. member for Houghton.

Because I see all the victims of your policy.

She cannot discuss anything without thinking that a Coloured person or a non-white person is treated differently from a white person. I do not want to analyse the merits of the speech she made this morning, but throughout the whole of her speech she made an analysis of the way the non-Whites were being treated. I want to give her the assurance now that, notwithstanding her misgivings, passports in the case of non-Whites are dealt with in the same way as in the case of Whites. [Interjection.] I am not talking of Coloureds only; I am talking of non-Whites. This does not apply only to Coloureds, but also to Indians as well as Bantu. I want to give the hon. member for Green Point and especially the hon. member for Houghton the assurance that in so far as we feel ourselves compelled to require deposits, we do not only require deposits in the case of non-Whites or only in the case of Coloureds. The percentage is probably larger in their case, but we also require deposits from Whites where necessary. As regards deposits, let me state quite explicitly that no differentiation is made between Whites and non-Whites when it comes to the question of considering deposits. Every case is treated purely on merit and the question of whether a person is White or Coloured has nothing to do with it.

I want to conclude. The hon. member is now trying to involve me in a discussion of the way in which these matters are being administered, a discussion which properly belongs under the Interior Vote. The hon. member for Outeniqua yesterday mentioned the case of a particular person and his passport. The hon. member for Green Point knows and will agree with me that the reasons for the refusal of passports are not disclosed; this is an accepted fact throughout the world. But I want to say this to the hon. member, and I think he can draw all the conclusions he needs from what I am going to say now: There is only one consideration—this is my policy and this is the way it will be carried out—in the granting of passports, and that is national security. Mr. Speaker, I do not think this matter need be discussed any further at this stage.

Motion put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

I move the motion standing in my name as follows—

The motion presupposes three things in particular, which I shall dwell on in turn. In the first instance it refers to the positive way in which this Government is fostering the cultures of Afrikaans- and English-speaking people in our country, bearing in mind particularly the fact that this Government has in all the years since 1948 had to cope with major national problems which, from the nature of the case, had to receive priority. Nevertheless the Government has always given attention to the fostering of our culture, and for that we are grateful. But it still remains a difficult struggle to foster the cultural interests of a small nation such as ourselves here at the southernmost tip of Africa. That is why we have all the more reason to be grateful to the Government to the specific Minister concerned, and to his Department of Cultural Affairs, who have been devoting their energies to this great task with great enthusiasm. However, there is not sufficient time to go into everything they are undertaking in detail, but for the sake of the record I think it would be a good thing if we did nevertheless focus attention upon certain aspects.

It is the positive aim of the Government, through its Department of Cultural Affairs, and through its actions, to subject the individual, and in that way the nation, to sound formative influences, a process which the individual is susceptible to throughout his entire life. In the first instance these formative influences come into their own particularly in the fostering of our culture in general and in bringing home to our people an appreciation for our spiritual property. I am convinced that through the actions of the Government and of the bodies concerned in this matter, a very large measure of success has been achieved in fostering our culture in general and inculcating in our people the value of our spiritual property. But in the second place this is being done by educating the individual to be healthy in body and mind; in the third place by teaching our nation to enjoy and appreciate recreational activities and promoting the aesthetic enjoyment thereof by our people; fourthly by enabling the individual to make social contacts and to expand his circle of friends; fifthly to enrich the emotional life of the individual; in the sixth place to teach the individual to appreciate spiritual and moral values; and in the seventh place by ensuring the intellectual development of our nation. Those, Sir, I regard as the fields in which the Government has up to now succeeded in justifying itself in respect of our cultural requirements and our cultural interests in South Africa; and because these things are being done it is fitting that we should express our appreciation here and particularly so during the discussion of this motion, which is in fact what I am only too glad to do.

However, when we come to the second presupposition in the motion, which deals with the question of spiritual superficiality, I must point out without beating about the bush that we in South Africa, speaking of the Whites, are dealing with two cultures, an English culture which is very closely bound up with the general concept of a western culture, and an Afrikaans culture which, as one writer expressed it, is not a mere extension of the Western culture, but a renewed independent out-growth of that culture in circumstances which have made new demands on the Westerner here in this country. As an Afrikaans-speaking person I should like, not in a spirit of pessimistic defeatism but nevertheless in a very serious vein, to express a few ideas on the spiritual superficiality which is taking root here, and in particular to indicate how it is specifically affecting the Afrikaner. Seen from the Afrikaner point of view, we must ask ourselves this question: Where do the greatest dangers of superficiality lie? Sir, it is going to be my submission that the greatest degree of superficiality lies in the fact that our national consciousness and national pride are being undermined. Without elaborating on this for an unnecessary length of time I simply want to emphasize what is general knowledge, namely that the Afrikaners as the bearers of a specific culture, the origins of which lie deep in the past, have become the victims of a purposeful campaign in which the maintenance of an independent national Afrikaans culture is being presented in a suspicious light while the increasing unification of people on earth, in which the nation and its interests are being made subservient to the interests of the individual, is being strongly praised. I wonder whether we do in fact realize how far we have already progressed in that direction of wiping out national dividing lines, blunting our national solidarity, and breaking down our religious and family ties so that we can ultimately coalesce into an international unity. It is much later than we think. When people deliberately begin to break away from the responsibilities which they have towards their cultural compatriots, when they begin to evince a growing realization that the cultural attempts of their own people are no longer worth while, and when they begin to laugh at the inferiority which they then supposedly see in what is their own, it has become far later for us as bearers of culture here in South Africa than we want to admit. This expansiveness of spirit and this internationalism in our thinking predicts nothing good for the future. Before one can reflect on methods which can be applied to counteract this superficiality, we must also take note of the factors which could possibly be contributory to this superficiality. I told you a moment ago how we saw where this superficiality was occurring, but now there are factors on which one can very easily lay a finger and to which we must give our attention. In this respect I should like to refer to the question—and now I repeat that I am talking in the first instance as an Afrikaans-speaking person to my own people—that the Afrikaans-speaking person has reached the stage where we are suffering from over-confidence. The long road which lies behind us bears witness to efforts and struggle, but it also bears witness to great victories in numerous fields. But where do we find ourselves to-day? Are we as strong in our dedication and in our spirit of endeavour as we were in those days when we had to struggle to get what we believed belonged to us? Are we to-day still prepared to the same extent to harness our spiritual and physical powers to keep the soil in which our culture is rooted nationally fertile? In this respect in particular I want to break a lance for our numerous voluntary cultural organizations which are still prepared, despite the very heavy obstacles placed in their path, to play their full part in admonishing our nation culturally, so that they will adhere firmly to what they believe in. I think we accept too readily and too easily that these organizations will always be with us, and I want to state here to-day that if there is one means which can be applied very successfully in order to make our people continually aware that the struggle is not yet at an end, and if we want our people to realize that one must, in one’s victory, continue to be as good a fighter as in the days when one was still faced with a hard struggle, then we must encourage and assist these numerous voluntary organizations with everything we have. At this early stage already I also want to advocate that our Government, which has up to now been prepared to support these undertakings with a very generous hand, should in future prove to an even greater extent that they will also in future want these organizations to do their share.

Of course we cannot leave everything to these numerous voluntary organizations. The Government will, just as in the past, have to continue to help develop our culture, which is after all the outlook on life of our nation as it is being realized in every field of our national life. When I refer with great gratitude, praise and recognition to what is being done by the Government, I add to that my earnest plea that even more should be done in future. I have already said that with the fostering of our culture we must look upon it as the outlook on life of our nation as it is being realized in every sphere of life. I should now like to draw attention to a few fields and ask that further consideration should be given to possible assistance in these particular spheres. In the first place I want to refer to our literature and to those people who have, through the written word, in the past made a tremendously great contribution towards making our nation aware of whence they came. I want to point out that in the past we advocated in this House that the Government should give consideration to granting specific assistance to these people. This morning I want, once again, to request—and I know it is in good hands—that the Government should in fact consider the position of these artists and see what can be done in order to alleviate their lot. But to that I want to add, without being a prophet, that I am convinced that alleviation will definitely come for them.

I also want to refer to the role which our other arts can play in making the Afrikaner aware of what is his own. I want to refer to the field of our religion and morals, and how the Government can do a great deal to keep things in order in those particular spheres. I also want to refer to our social relations and to the relations between employer and employee, to which I shall return later. I want to refer to the economic life and how this forms part of our culture in this country and how contributions will still have to be made in order to prevent that sphere from being lost to culture. I also want to refer to the need for the national stabilization of our language and the preservation of the purity of our race. These are fields in which this Government has, without fear of contradiction, laboured with great conscientiousness during the past 21 years.

In conclusion I also want to refer to a further danger which we have perhaps to a great extent lost sight of up to now. I want to call it a danger, Mr. Speaker, in the full knowledge that it also has a reverse side. It has a very favourable reverse side, but it is a cultural danger to us. I am talking about the process of industrialization which is at present taking place in our country, and the effect which it is having on the spirit of our people. One should not call it a danger because it is important that our country should have an increasing measure of industrial development, and we cannot deny that it holds great advantages for us. However, are we not sometimes a little obsessed with the advantages attached to that, without taking note of the dangers? I want to state without fear of contradiction that the externalized routine which people acquire in this age of highly developed industrialization hardly—and I am putting it very mildly when I say “hardly”—affords the spirit any opportunity for betterment. The spiritual strength of the individual, the patriot, is dissipated in mechanical activity. The externalized, fine-seeming technical civilization brings sentimental films which are too easily repelling. It brings with it an over-awareness of sex. It creates mental anxiety and fear, from which an escape is sought in the use of strong liquor and other means of gaining oblivion. This kind of civilization degenerates in due course into a civilization of fine-sounding slogans and words without deeper significance: mankind in all his nakedness and in all his weakness is paraded before the world. Ridicule and cynicism become very popular. It is my argument therefore that there is a tremendously great task to perform in the way of informal education so that the nation can be led to greater spiritual independence from which will have to emerge, and will emerge, new cultural creations.

In conclusion I want to advocate that we give attention to the facets to which I referred. These are important matters. But in that process we must not forget the small things; we must continue to activate our fellow-citizens to regard these things with the necessary respect. I am referring in particular to the small things, which Dr. Verwoerd once described in the following way. He said there were other things which counted in the life of a nation, often the simple wattle-and-daub hut in which a nation’s leader was born and which in its innate smallness and in its humbleness makes one think back to our origins, our origins not out of riches but out of poverty, not out of prosperity but out of suffering, out of which, in fact, the character of one’s nation of to-day was built. I say there are numerous opportunities in this respect which we dare not lose sight of. I trust that the Government, the hon. the Minister and his Department, will give their attention to this matter in future as well. We are too easily obsessed with the larger things in life, and our souls suffer because the small things are lost to us.

In addition I want to advocate, and this is the third statement to which I referred at the beginning, that this work be proceeded with particularly by the Department of Cultural Affairs in the way in which it has been done up to now, but at an accelerated rate in future. However, it must not be deduced from this that my plea this morning was that it was only the Government which has a responsibility in this respect. Far from it. When I raise a plea to the effect that this work should be proceeded with, then I am advocating in the first instance that recognition should be given to those outside bodies, and that the State’s assistance should in fact be supplementary. In this way these organizations, and through them the nation, will be activated into doing this good work which will lead to greater prosperity in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Springs who introduced this motion can be congratulated on the fine, extremely calm way in which he introduced it. I want to inform the hon. member right at the outset that we on this side of the House are not going to move an amendment to his motion for the simple reason that it is one of those motions which can be discussed to good effect without moving any amendments. I cannot see how an amendment can serve any purpose under these circumstances.

In reality the hon. member’s motion is a substantial one. Praise is meted out in the motion, and at the same time a warning note is sounded to the effect that the situation in South Africa still leaves much to be desired. We listened attentively now to the hon. member and all our attention was focused on him, but what I was particularly interested in was the second part of his speech, namely the increasing dangers of spiritual superficiality and deterioration. I think that the interest was principally focused on that leg of his motion. All of us probably expected the hon. member to quote grave examples of spiritual superficiality. On the contrary, all the hon. member did was to issue warnings, and to a certain extent he generalized and stated that there was a measure of spiritual superficiality among the people of South Africa and particularly, as he put it, among the Afrikaans-speaking sector.

When a motion of this nature is discussed, I think that one should try to find a more or less scientific basis for the hon. member’s feeling that spiritual superficiality is in fact taking place. I must honestly admit that I did not find the examples the hon. member mentioned here adequate. I realize only too well that if one talks to people every day and comes into contact every day with our Afrikaans-speaking compatriots, then there are in fact cases which cause one to think, “I wonder whether there is not an element of spiritual superficiality among our people?” Is it really such a great danger? Are the majority of our people guilty of this? In reality this is after all the test one must apply: Is there spiritual superficiality among the majority of our Afrikaans- or English-speaking people? That is what we must ask ourselves.

During the course of his speech the hon. member stated that particularly when people began to talk about their own weaknesses in a disrespectful and scornful way, the tendency towards superficiality was there. Now I wonder whether this is an indication of spiritual superficiality? I wonder whether it is not rather an indication that South Africa is coming of age. I wonder whether it does not reveal a healthy sense of humour on the part of all the population groups in this country. I think it is a sign of growing maturity when a person can in fact ridicule his own weaknesses and refuse to take himself seriously.

When the hon. member states that there is spiritual superficiality what would you and I say it meant? I would say in the first place that it meant a lack of interest in the fine arts, in the sense that there were empty houses at stage performances, a lack of appreciation for sculpture, and an indifference to poetry and all the other literary arts. I would also say that such a superficiality would mean that a wide interest in a variety of subjects was totally lacking. One can also say that there is spiritual superficiality when people waste their time with small talk, instead of a thoroughgoing study of a subject or specific subjects. I would also say that it means that people have ceased to think, that they prefer to leave it to others to do their thinking for them. In addition I would think it means that they no longer have a love for their own cultural possessions, not even for their own, to say nothing of the cultural possessions of others.

If one applies these tests to South Africans, and particularly to the Afrikaners, are they really guilty of displaying spiritual superficiality? In addition I would also say that it means spiritual superficiality and deterioration when the vast majority of the public is fond of devouring popular reading matter in a superficial and banal way and only display an interest in what stimulates the instincts and urges. Is it really the case that this is the situation among our people? I am prepared to say that when there are dangers one must admit that they exist. But one must not see bogeys where none exist. I want to warn the hon. member in this respect that we really must not think that we, particularly the Afrikaans-speaking section of our population, can encase ourselves in a cocoon and then think that we will never be subject to any influences from outside. Some of the greatest cultural, political and economic leaders in South Africa studied abroad. Just think of how many people who have emerged as leaders in this House since 1910 were people who studied at overseas universities and who were therefore subjected to the influences of the outside world. Were they really under pressure from the foreign cultures and influences to which they were subjected to such an extent that they became completely alienated from our people? I do not think that is the case. One of the dangers which the hon. member for Springs mentioned is that a person can lose his national ties completely. He does not want the Afrikaans-speaking sector of our population in particular to forget what group they belong to. He stated that our language, and even our race, must be kept pure. I take it that the hon. member was referring to the Afrikaans-speaking sector in that respect as well. I do not share the hon. member’s pessimism at all. I am glad however that I am able to say that he stated in his speech—and I want to be fair to him—that he was not too pessimistic. After he had stated that, he did in fact go on to deal with the dangers which he thought a wrong and foreign influence could have on South Africa. I want to say to the hon. member that we on this side of the House share the attitude adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister a few months ago when he said on a public occasion that he had confidence in the youth of South Africa. He said that in spite of the foreign influences which were being exercised on our youth to-day, our youth was not worse than that of a generation or two ago. I want to ask the hon. member again whether the situation is in fact as he tried to sketch it here? Are our youth worse off in the cultural sphere for example? Do they really possess less appreciation for that than the older generation? If that is the case one must then feel a measure of fear for the future of our young people in whom we do, after all, display the greatest interest? I do not share that fear, but have confidence in the young people of this country. However, it is in fact the case that the modern age is making increasingly greater demands on the individual. One result of the manpower shortage for example is that the most highly trained individuals in South Africa have to work all the harder. A second result is that specialization will be the order of the day. A third result is that there will be a continual call for increased production. Therefore, if we have the idea that there is a frantic pursuit of entertainment and light relief, this must not always be held up as an example of a form of superficiality. Not only physical relaxation but spiritual entertainment and relaxation have become a must in the modern age. The more we industrialize the greater that need will become. The hon. member sees in this a danger, in this sense that the individual is being absorbed into a greater international technological community. However, I do not see a danger in that so much, but rather in the fact that as a result of industrialization relaxation on a spiritual and physical level will have to play a greater role in future. If the nation of South Africa are offered adequate opportunities for relaxation, that superficiality will, if the hon. member is correct and there is in fact the danger of superficiality, not exist. I am afraid that the hon. member for Springs could have sketched that aspect better. Nevertheless he reminded us of what the State and the Department of Cultural Affairs were already doing in this respect and asked them to do more.

However, I want to associate myself with one point which the hon. member mentioned. He advocated that assistance should be given to the voluntary organizations which are helping to promote culture in South Africa. I want to say to the hon. member that I agree with him 100 per cent in that respect. More assistance can undoubtedly be given to these people, because they are playing a considerable role in the national life of this country. We should like to see more opportunities being created in order to prevent spiritual superficiality in South Africa, if we need concern ourselves about that.

I should like to bring one matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister, a matter which I think should receive his attention and that of his Department. There is in South Africa no opera company of any major importance. The only group which, to a certain extent here in Cape Town for example, entertains us from time to time with some of the best operas which we know, is the Eoan Group. I wonder whether the time has not come for the establishment of an opera company in South Africa so that South Africa can also play the same role in that respect and have the same opportunities as many of the European countries have, whose traditions in this respect go back a long way. One thinks of the best opera singers and songstresses which South Africa has already produced. Where are those people? Most of them have been forced to go to Vienna to find a scope for their talents, whereas we ought to be offering those people the most wonderful opportunities in South Africa. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not in this respect consider giving greater support to the establishment of our own opera companies in South Africa so that we can also produce the best in that field and can develop our own talent and in this way offer these people a good livelihood. Why are all these people going overseas? They are going overseas simply because they are being offered better opportunities there than in South Africa. I want to urge the hon. the Minister to give attention to this matter.

There are other hon. members on this side of the House who will have something to say on other aspects of this matter. As far as I am concerned, I just want to mention one example, an example which in my opinion is not exactly a good example of superficiality. It is, however, a matter which should receive the attention of this House. The Afrikaans-speaking people will, in their outward movement, become more and more subject to foreign influences. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is concerned about the fact that we will, as a result of this new direction …

What new direction are you talking about now?

… and as a result of immigration and an increase in tourism in South Africa … Does he think that that increasing exchange of ideas between ourselves and foreigners will in any way result in superficiality? I think we are entitled to put this question to the hon. the Minister. Because, you see, Mr. Speaker, the world is becoming smaller and smaller, all the more constricted. As it becomes more constricted and smaller, South Africa will be exposed to an ever-increasing extent to an exchange of ideas with the outside world.

This is no new direction, this has been the case for centuries.

But the hon. member for Springs is concerned about it. He is concerned about the so-called foreign influences. Hence I am asking the Minister whether he shares that concern. There are certain groups in South Africa to-day, such as the Genootskap vir die Handhawing van Afrikaans, the Christelike Kultuur-Aksie, Anticom, and so on, which are continually trying to conjure up spectres by trying to make the Afrikaners believe that they are in danger. It is these people who are in fact sabotaging the outward movement and who are trying to oast suspicion on this new outward movement.

What outward movement? [Interjections.]

That is why I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he also shares that opinion. I am asking him this question because it is, in my opinion, important that we hear his reply in that regard. The Afrikaner is at present as well established as he will ever be. His language is in no danger, nor his culture nor his economic position. But nevertheless there are people who are trying to induce a certain psychosis by pretending that the Afrikaners are supposedly in danger. That is why the hon. the Minister ought to see in this motion an opportunity of giving a clear reply to those people, people who are not so much in this House as outside, who are trying to induce this psychosis and exploit the situation by trying to make the Afrikaner believe that his language, culture and spiritual property is being endangered by immigrants and by rubbing shoulders with somebody who is not a member of his language group. If the hon. the Minister could give a reply to this question, he would be making a considerable contribution to the fruitful discussion of this motion.

Once again I want to thank the hon. member for Springs for this motion and congratulate him on the fine way in which he presented it.

I listened with special attention to the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Newton Park. I found it interesting to hear him discuss a matter such as this, especially because normally he participates in agricultural debates only. There is one misunderstanding that I want to eliminate at the outset. I think the hon. member misinterpreted the hon. member for Springs as having said that the spiritual deterioration he referred to occurred especially among the Afrikaans-speaking people. What the hon. member for Springs really wanted to indicate by that was that he as an Afrikaans-speaking person was speaking on behalf of the Afrikaans-speaking people in the expectation that if an English-speaking person should participate in this debate, he would look at the moral standard of the English-speaking people from the English-speaking point of view.

Furthermore, I deem it a privilege to support the ideas the hon. member for Springs expressed here and to add some ideas of my own. I have great appreciation for the work the hon. member for Springs has done in this connection over the years. When one has to speak about a motion such as this, one must of necessity in one’s own way first have thought about man, about his being, his activities, his origin, his aims, the time in which he is living, his habitat and many other facts of his existence. In that process one will of necessity start thinking about man through the ages, and as one finds him to-day in all his diversity. Of course one will not be the first person to think about these things; neither the last. One must also take into account the fact that one’s argument about these matters will not necessarily be the very best. However, what is of importance to me is that one is, together with one’s contemporaries, prepared to think about mankind as such, and in particular about one’s own people and its pattern of life. This motion, then, refers to our cultural wellbeing, or our cultural ill-health, as it developed in the conditions that prevailed after the Second World War. I do not believe the influence of the Second World War on mankind has been investigated deeply enough yet. Here in South Africa I have not been able to find any detailed work which offered a clear analysis of the effects of post-World War II conditions on mankind. One does find loose fragments, compiled by a variety of persons, loose thoughts on man and his development after the Second World War. But the mass of material available to us still has to be processed. My contribution this morning will also be a rudimentary one—actually, only an intuitive approach to the situation. To me, as someone who only came into contact with the realities of life after the Second World War, there are two salient factors. The first of these is that races and nations that had not come into contact with each other for centuries, came into very close and intimate contact with each other as a result of the Second World War. Ethnologically speaking, the Caucasians came into contact with the Mongoloids, and the Mongoloids with the Negroids of Africa, as well as with the population groups that are found within the specific main racial groups. In this connection I just want to make a brief quotation from the work of Ndabaningi Sithole, “African Nationalism”, which shows how he as a Bantu—I think he belongs to the Shona group—saw this effect of the Second World War. He writes as follows—

Sir, I am reading this to you just by way of example that, in the mental world of the black man, the Second World War has indeed had an influence on his view of life.

But there is a second effect, and that is the enormous development in the technological field and the influence this has had on all the material inventions of man. The astounding inventions in the technological field have been aimed at exploring and controlling not only the macrocosm, but also the microcosm, and have also had an influence on the cultural creations of man. They have had an influence on his social organization, his economic life, his political organization, his education, his legal system, and also his religion. These changes that have taken place, have been brought within the range of vision and also within the reading range of man in an exceptional way by the other specific technological inventions he has produced. The thoughts of people, the ideas, the ideologies, events daily being brought to the notice of modern or post-World War II man by means of what we can group together under the concept of the Great Stereopticon. I want to quote briefly from a view expressed by Richard M. Weaver in his work “Ideas Have Consequences”. By the “great stereopticon” he refers in particular to the mass communication media. He writes—

In the light of these ideas and one’s daily experience I think it would be a good thing and would be interesting if one could in a truly scientific way determine the influence of the written word, the radio and television on modern man. As far as the Western Christian is concerned, this enormous technological development has the effect that the old accepted Christian concept that life is more than merely the period from the cradle to the grave, is changed into the ideal that the accent should only be placed on man in the period from the cradle to the grave, and that technology can control the material world to such an extent and make matters so much easier in this regard that it is worth one’s while to adapt one’s life only to the time and space aspect of one’s existence. So it happens that the powerful established interests direct man’s life towards comfort, and when comfort is no longer comfortable enough, then all the available media must be applied to stimulate the sensual until there is even the possibility that sensuality may be worshipped. In many centres, especially in the large urban complexes, we find this post-World War II man, who is like a spoilt child. During the previous four centuries, more or less, he was taught that his salvation lay in the conquest of nature. He is given the impression by some scientists that there is nothing that he cannot know and false propagandists tell him there is nothing he cannot get. Therefore, what he desires he wants to have, even if he has to get it by means of continual complaints or by means of unreasonable demands. This spoilt child is unable to see the relationship between effort and compensation. Upon further analysis one finds that he very often feels lonely, lost and disregarded in society, and therefore he devises many ways of attracting attention. He often achieves this by shocking people, by attacking and ridiculing what is traditional, and by establishing his own new orders at a moment’s notice. He does not care about the disintegration of the accepted systems of society. In fact, he actually prefers conditions of social promiscuity. In this respect I have often, when talking to young people—and I may mention it here to-day as well—referred to a very fine speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister, Adv. Vorster, in 1962, at the Youth Congress of the F.A.K., in which he addressed the youth and in which he used the following phrase which has stuck in my memory: “Careless dress engenders careless morals” (Losse kleredrag bring losse sedes).

Seen against the background of the above-mentioned spoilt child and his muschroom like little cultures which are springing up today, these words of the Prime Minister contain a valuable message.

But in spite of these consequences of the great war, which the older generations experienced to a much greater extent than I did, there is in many countries, and in fact in all the countries of the Western world, a strong feeling for meaningfulness, order and integrity. The retention of those values that gave stability is being sought afresh to-day. To-day we find throughout the world numerous individuals, organizations and establishments that are now, more than ever before, aiming at the preservation of our Christian and Western heritage, especially as it has found expression within their own pattern of life. In various parts of the world, for example, the need is felt at universities to establish the so-called “schools of cultural studies” where students with a wide range of interests get the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the cultural subjects. But lately we at the same time find a revival abroad of the interest in the national past or the study of one’s own environment. So, within the past four years, the School of Scottish Studies was established in Edinburgh (Scotland), the School of Folk Life Studies in Leeds, and the Museum of English Rural Life in Reading (England), all three of which are extremely vigorous, as is also the case with the dialect research institute which is attached to St. Fagan’s Castle near Cardiff in Wales. In Flanders, for example, the establishment of regional circles, which study the immediate cultural environment, the so-called “heemkunde” (local lore), is receiving special attention at present. But in South Africa we also find this academic interest. As far as the Afrikaans universities are concerned, the University of Pretoria has had a Department of Afrikaans-Dutch Cultural History for many years, where a man like Professor Van der Westhuizen has been doing valuable work for many years; at the Potchefstroom University, the P.U. for C.H.E., I understand there is a Department of South African Cultural Care; then, in 1966-’67, the Department of Afrikaans Culture and Folklore was established at the University of Stellenbosch, where a person like Professor Dr. Bun Booyens is doing very important work and is laying extremely sound foundations; I know that Dr. Bax also has a small department at the University of Cape Town in which he is making a particular study of Dutch cultural history. All this is taking place at the university level, and if I may refer to the English universities, I think it has perhaps become essential that they too should in the academic field give attention to the culture established in South Africa by our English-speaking citizens. Mr. Speaker, our Government made its most significant contribution with the establishment of the Department of Cultural Affairs, some of whose functions were placed upon the Statute Book here during the past week or so on which occasion it was evident that the Whites of South Africa would have to establish very close ties with other white nations of the world, especially in respect of our common origin and our common Western heritage. This may have the result that the infinite harm the Western nations were caused by the Second World War will in its after-effects not cause even greater disaster and greater loss of life and culture, but that the white nations throughout the world will daily become more aware not only of those elements seeking their downfall, but of their own identity, their own value and their own heritage.

Here in South Africa, as elsewhere, we will have to pay increasing attention to the attitude adopted to life and to the world by the rising generations, particularly in the preservation of our cultural heritage. I want to quote a brief thought in regard to philosophy of life from the work “Oorsprong en Rigting” by Professor H. G. Stoker, in which he writes as follows (translation)—

Therefore I want to ask that we in South Africa, on the part of the Government and other responsible bodies, should continually and with sympathy and patience and as best we can impress a philosophy of life on the rising generations which springs from the ideal of freedom as contained in our Christian heritage, as it has found expression here in South Africa in our own pattern of life.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a final quotation from a speech by a person for whom I have always had the greatest appreciation and who certainly exercised the greatest influence on me. That is the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd, who at a Nasionale Jeugbond meeting at Loskop Dam in 1965, said the following in speaking about the survival of the white man in South Africa. He concluded his speech with these words (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, it was difficult to infer from the motion introduced by the hon. member for Springs, as it stands on the Order Paper, exactly what the hon. member was going to tell the House this morning. Consequently it was necessary for us to wait until the hon. member had made his speech in order to see what contribution we on this side could make.

Before I come to his motion and the points he raised, I just want to refer briefly to one statement which the hon. member for Rissik has just made and which I find rather strange. This is his statement in regard to the tremendous spiritual harm that was done to mankind as a result of the Second World War. I do not know whether the hon. member was referring to what I regard as the major effect of the Second World War, i.e. the process of emancipating man over very extensive areas of the globe. This is most definitely something towards which we as South Africans ought to adopt a very sympathetic attitude. It is true that with the position in which Russia found herself after the war, there was also another side to the picture, and that certain parts of the globe had also come under its control and consequently this was a retrograde step. Over very extensive parts of the world the most important effect of the Second World War was the process of emancipation. Not that this was successful everywhere. One could mention examples of countries such as the Congo and others, where this was not so easy, but we must bear in mind that in its struggle to reach the position it has reached to-day, the white Western civilization also had terrible revolutions, as was the case in France and in England where the heads of kings and queens rolled in the sand. In this way the Whites, in advancing towards the emancipation of man, also experienced revolutions, which were in many respects much worse than what took place in Africa. I think that if one measures the whole revolution in Africa in terms of what took place in Europe amongst the Western nations, one will find that what took place in Africa is in actual fact a picnic in comparison with what took place in Europe. With reference to the points the hon. member made here, I just want to mention that South Africa was the first nation in Africa to free itself from imperialism and domination by others, and if there is one country and one nation which should always be sympathetic towards that movement, which gained so much momentum in the Second World War, for granting freedom and self-determination to others, then it is South Africa. That sympathy ought to be more evident in South Africa than in any other country of the world.

You must only be careful not to confuse that process of emancipation with the liberalism that is found in the world.

What is that supposed to mean, Sir? Liberalism is another old bogey which is being produced from time to time. It is conspicuous that every reformer in the world has always been accused of being a liberalist. That applies to all of them, including Calvin. Every reformer who effected a change, has always been branded as a liberalist. One could go back right up to the Creator of the Christian religion; this has always been the attitude. The person who is opposed to change, always sees a form of liberalism in change. What that hon. member ought to do, is to learn to distinguish between change and liberalism. Of course, there is a difference in meaning between the classic liberalism to which the progress of the Afrikaner is also attributable, and liberalism in the sense in which the hon. member is using the word. But where would the Afrikaner people have been to-day if they did not have those inner urges of the classic liberalism? Would they have had their freedom to-day? I reject this easy method of dismissing certain matters by simply attaching a label to something.

The hon. member for Springs said many things here with which we can agree and of which we approve. We agree that a government should do everything in its power to encourage cultural development. We spoke of alleviating the lot of artists and authors. In the debate we had recently I also spoke to the Minister specifically along these lines, and at that stage he hinted that in the Estimates we could probably expect something good for those pursuing the art of writing. We approve of all those things. But I nevertheless want to make this point, Sir: I find it a pity that an exaggerated state of constraint is always being created, particularly when it concerns the Afrikaner people. I have always adhered to the view that the Afrikaner people have been destined for greatness, not for smallness. They have a colossal task in Africa. They are continually being told how afraid they should be and how they are always in the process of going under. If one analyses all the speeches on culture which one hears from day to day, one finds that they always try to stir up fear and that the Afrikaner people are being told that they should be careful because they are on the verge of going under. This does a terrible amount of harm to the Afrikaner people, and they could have made much more progress if their leaders had pointed to their opportunities, their potentialities as a nation, rather than the dangers threatening them. Let us take a look at the Afrikaner nation. The Dutch came first; they were followed by the French and they became part of the nation. Subsequent to that the Germans came and made contact, and the same applies to the Malays and the English. Under the old British Imperialism every effort was made to squash the Afrikaner, but it was unsuccessful. On the contrary, they grew. Groups of Afrikaners emigrated to many parts of the world. One group emigrated to the Argentine, and after finding themselves in a strange culture for years and years, far away from their country, they were still Afrikaner people. The trekkers in the Thirstland emigrated to Angola, and in this House we have an hon. member whose father was one of the leaders who led that trek back …

They warned against the dangers.

No, the fact of the matter is that some Afrikaner people also emigrated to Kenya and that one could still find the Afrikaans community there after many years, in spite of all the contact with strange cultures which they had there. Here in South Africa we have had contact with Blacks, brown-skinned people and with any form of culture, as well as the tremendous pressure brought to bear by the mighty British Empire. What does that teach us? That the Afrikaner is a weakling who is always on the verge of going under? On the contrary, it has taught us that the Afrikaner is one of the toughest articles of modern times. Therefore one hopes that Afrikaner leaders will place the emphasis on the toughness of this section of the population and that they will advance fearlessly. I think the time calls for an outward policy in all spheres. Let us go back into the cultural history of South Africa. There was a time when the radio in South Africa was an English language private enterprise in the full sense of the word. The cinema, to which millions of people are flocking, is virtually 99 per cent English to this day. A few years ago it was possible for us to celebrate the wonder of Afrikaans, in spite of this mighty influence of another language. The effect of the other language did not imply their downfall at all. Today we have a bilingual radio service, and we hope that the day will come when we shall also strike a better balance as far as films are concerned. However, all of this has done absolutely nothing to the survival of the Afrikaner people and the growth of the Afrikaans language.

It is for this reason that I say that it is a good thing that the hon. member is placing the emphasis on encouraging the Afrikaans culture. However, I only hope that in using the word “encouragement”, the hon. member does not mean encouragement to the Government to intervene too much in these matters. We must always distinguish between the authoritarian approach and the fact that our culture is, above all, founded on the democratic tradition. This is so peculiar to the Afrikaner that we should never lose sight of it. To my mind the author N. P. van Wyk Louw phrased this very strikingly in one of his books in which he asked what the fundamentals of democracy are. He said that one person regarded the “parliamentary institution” as being the most important; another thought it was universal suffrage; another thought it might be proportional representation, and yet another thought it might be economic democracy, i.e. the labourer having a joint say in all controllable circumstances of his work. Whatever the case may be, the circulation of ideas is indispensable in every system which seeks to be democratic. In addition to what we want to promote—since we are asking the Government to encourage it—we should always respect the democratic character of South Africa and permit a free circulation of ideas. Of course, there is a limit to everything. We have checked communist ideas for a very good reason, i.e. because the communists informed us that they wanted to destroy us. Why would one therefore grant a person who has informed one that he intends to destroy one, the freedom to suppress one’s freedom? There are obvious limits, such as those of filth and pornography. I do not say that when we come to these aspects there should be a free circulation of ideas—that is obvious—but whatever the Government undertakes, it must keep an eye on the democratic tradition of a free circulation of ideas at all times.

In his motion the hon. member spoke of the danger of spiritual superficiality. With all due respect to the hon. member I want to tell him that this is a charge which has been levelled over the centuries. Every generation considers that it is seeing grave dangers of superficiality. Then one asks oneself this question: When did this earthly paradise exist, which could then serve as a norm and of which we could say that it was the golden era and against which we can measure the present superficiality? There has never been such an era. There has never been a golden era, and over the centuries the charge has always been that superficialization was taking place. The question is still: what is the norm? I want to emphasize once again, Mr. Speaker, that we should distinguish between what one is so easily inclined to mistake for superficiality—or what the hon. member simply called “liberalism” here—and change. Change is part and parcel of human nature and it will always be with us. We should therefore not confuse superficialization with change. The other day I quoted an author who had said that “every generation is a new country”, and this is true. I am of the opinion that when one takes the history of South Africa and its people, we can face the future with the greatest measure of confidence. I do not want to say that there is no room for a great deal of improvement, and I should like to mention a few matters. The first is in the sphere of education. South Africa is privileged to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but I am sorry, however, to say that we are not utilizing that wealth for putting first things first. We need a government which would at all times put education and training first. In politics it always strikes me that when a political service is requested, the Government finds it very easy to find the money for that purpose, but whenever more education facilities are requested, it is said that there are insufficient funds. That is not true, because we have sufficient funds for doing everything that has to be done. In this regard I should like to mention a few aspects to the hon. the Minister. It is pathetic to see what little attention is paid to culture at some of our schools where a child has to spend the first seventeen years of his life. I am of the opinion that more money should be spent on this aspect. Sometimes it is pathetic to see how small the libraries are at certain schools where, by taking a little trouble, they can be provided with the necessary facilities.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the bells rang for the lunch hour, I was just engaged in emphasizing that we ought to give priority in South Africa to the question of education and training. It seemed to me as though the hon. the Minister felt that we were once again riding a hobby-horse, and that we were not giving recognition to the work done by him and his Department. But let me admit quite frankly that major progress has been made and that we have very high regard for what has been done by the officials in the hon. the Minister’s Department. We have respect for the people he has there. But when I said that, I did not really have the hon. the Minister himself in mind. I was thinking more specifically of the Government as a whole. I thought back, for instance, of what we saw in Cape Town at the beginning of this year, where large numbers of children had to be turned away from schools because there was not enough room. In certain cases this happened at Coloured schools, which do not come under the hon. the Minister. But my point is that such a thing ought not to happen at all in a country such as South Africa. In a country with our riches it is unthinkable that any child should at all be turned away from a school because there is not room for him. I would have thought that an alert government in South Africa, if it gave top priority to education, would immediately have set to work and shown that it was in earnest about the supreme importance of developing the human material in South Africa. This must apply to all races; because the intellectual standard of the Whites will also show a downward trend if they are surrounded by people who are not making any progress, nor any cultural progress in life. When one comes to education and training, I believe that all other matters should, if necessary, come to a standstill. It ought to be top priority.

I should like to tell the Minister that we believe that the schools should be the power-stations of cultural life in South Africa. There is tremendous scope for improvement. I am thinking of schools in my own constituency where the situation is pathetic. I do not think it is right that in a country such as ours schools should still be hampered by inadequate facilities for the cultural education and development of our people, as is in fact the case. One merely has to mention a simple example, such as libraries. This is one way in which the Minister can assist in encouraging the art of writing, i.e. by seeing to it that schools have adequate libraries. Wherever one goes in this country, this is the complaint one hears. Then there is the question of musical instruments. If there is one cause in South Africa which we ought to encourage, it is that of the art of music amongst the young people in our schools. Schools are continuously struggling to raise funds for purchasing the necessary instruments. There are outstanding, talented children who often do not have opportunities for developing their talents. After all, if one goes back into the history of talented young children—for instance, Marion Friedman—one finds that their talents were discovered at school. One asks oneself: What has happened to our major national festivals of music for schools? If I were in the Minister’s position, I would organize major national festivals of music for our children in South Africa, festivals where they might be brought together in order to compete and might develop that aspect of our culture further. One asks oneself: where are the “Hollywood Bowls” in South Africa? These are matters to which one ought to give thought. The hon. the Minister ought to devote more of his attention to matters of this nature. In the second place, I want to plead that the Government should harness every technological means for promoting culture in South Africa. This is most definitely not being done.

I do not wish to start another debate on television to-day. But I am not apologizing for mentioning it. Throughout the world one finds that the children of other countries are in many respects far ahead of the children of South Africa because of the influence of television. [Interjections.]

Order!

Anything can have a bad influence if it is done to excess. The radio can have a bad influence. Anything can have a bad influence if it is not controlled properly. We on this side have never pleaded for uncontrolled television. What we want, is that when such a service is introduced, emphasis should be placed on education and cultural development in particular. This may be controlled in the same way as the radio is being controlled. But I have seen places where the radio has a bad influence. Especially in smaller towns, such as in America, where broadcasting is in private hands, it may have as bad an influence. I believe that, if one harnesses the technological developments in the world correctly, one could harness it for the development of cultural life in South Africa. The Minister who is sitting over there ought to take the lead in South Africa in pleading for the introduction of television. [Interjections.] No, he is not doing it. He ought to do so. As the Minister of National Education he is pre-eminently the person who could do so.

In conclusion I just want to mention one other matter. I want to ask that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to appointing a commission to inquire into the question of week-end idleness. We know that at present Saturday is the great day for sporting activities in South Africa. I am not pleading for another day for sport. In fact, I think we are overdoing sport in this country. But a serious social problem is developing in South Africa in regard to what people are doing on Sundays. This is something which is particularly evident in major cities such as Johannesburg, of which I am a representative and one who knows what is going on. Church services take an hour or more for those who attend them, but during the rest of the day tens of thousands of people mill about and often loaf about aimlessly, or thousands of them are bored in their own flats in the city. This is soul-deadening, and in itself it creates all sorts of spiritual problems. That is why there is a rush for Sunday papers to-day, or why that day is being made a second day of sport in private. This is a delicate matter and I know that there are malicious people who will try to suck poison out of what I am raising here now. But I want to make it clear that I am not advocating the continental Sunday. Nor am I advocating that we should try to get around the churches or that there should be any form of licentiousness. But as matters are at present, we are dealing with a very serious social problem in our major cities. I think there ought to be means whereby people may be helped to promote what is good in such a manner that it will still be in keeping with the character we should like to associate with the Day of the Sabbath.

Towards the end of last year I had the privilege of visiting Germany. What struck me there, was that in the major cities, and especially in Hamburg, every cultural institution, especially the orchestras, was expected to give up one day in the year as a donation to the public. Consequently one finds that in the large, central civic gardens of the German cities some of the best artists are engaged in rendering a service to the public over weekends. I found it enjoyable to see the aged, families and flat-dwellers going towards the central civic gardens for the purpose of deriving spiritual refreshment from what the artists were presenting. I think this is something which is in any event worthy of imitation in any country. I concede that it will not be easy to find the right solution to this social problem. Nor do I suggest that I have the solution to that problem. But it seems desirable to me that the hon. the Minister should appoint a commission, of clergymen in particular, to see what can be done about these difficult social problems in regard to the urban week-end. They should see whether they can be of assistance in steering matters in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik when he was speaking made the point that this is a debate which is not restricted only to the discussion of the Afrikaans-speaking culture. I think it is a point well taken, because the whole motion centres around the lack of spiritual enrichment of the people of South Africa. We who are English-speaking and our culture stand in a peculiarly difficult situation, because we are a minority, and yet, at the same time, we represent the culture of the world outside, which is an extremely potent force. We represent the culture of the English-speaking world, which is being pumped and flooded into South Africa by all the powers that exist in the cultural world. Of necessity, we find ourselves the representatives in South Africa, where we are a minority, of a culture which overseas, I believe, has gone beyond what I would call the bounds of decency. I think we have to realize that this permissive society which is spoken about and which obtains throughout the length and breadth of Europe and North America, is not a freedom, but a discipline in itself, Which affects and takes over the minds of the young people. It could be made to appear that it is through our language, our culture and the contribution that we are making to South Africa that these kinds of thoughts are being introduced here in South Africa. I say this is not a freedom, but a discipline which requires young people to obey certain sets of standards which I am convinced the bulk of them simply do not accept; but because that is the mode of the moment and the fashion of the hour, young people throughout the world and to-day, to some extent, in our country feel that they are forced to obey and give way to what are, in fact, the desires and appetites of only a few people among them. I am quite convinced that the hon. member, in moving this motion, wanted to draw attention to that fact, to warn against the dangers which can come in. They will be dangers which come, I believe, from outside, because I do not think they have their roots here in our own culture, English and Afrikaans, in South Africa. I believe that we have in our country a tremendous reserve of spiritual strength which I think is going to be of vital significance to the Western world in the times ahead. I am quite certain that the youth of our people, in the world outside as well as here, will revolt against the present tendencies which manifest themselves in the novel, the stage, the film and all these kinds of manifestations where mankind is stripped of all decency, where one simply looks at mankind as he can be, very often at his very worst. I think that all of us have a part to play in this matter, whether as parents or as members of society, to stand up and be counted for the things we know are right. If these influences come into our country, it will not be the fault of the young people; it will be our own fault.

I believe that every single one of us has a task to see to it that we play our part. After all, spiritual enrichment is a matter of the mind. We have to look at the world as it is. We have to choose. All of us, not only here, but outside, have to make a positive contribution, because the culture of the people is a synthesis of the thoughts of all the people. One finds that some that are extremely left wing and some are extreme right wing. One can find in any given society exponents of the most outrageous thoughts, but the culture of the people is made up by the broad body, the consensus of opinion. Only those of us who stand firm for the things we know are right will be able to influence the future of our country. I believe that the Department and the hon. the Minister, who has control of the schools in a sense, have a vital part to play. I believe, from my own point of view as an English-speaking South African, that the Minister and his department have a vital part to play in the encouragement of our culture in South Africa. I can remember when I was in another House asking there that the Minister would consider the introduction of prizes, to be awarded in one year for an English-speaking person who produced a work of art in Afrikaans, and the next year the other way about, in order to encourage what I regard as a dialogue between the two different language sections in our country, so that we may have a flow of ideas, a point that was mentioned earlier on in this debate. I must say the Minister was kind enough then to welcome the idea very sincerely and very nicely, I felt, but I have not yet seen any action in this regard. It may be that the Minister has difficulties; I do not know, but I do believe there is still a part that this kind of action can play. I believe it would fit in with the motion which the hon. member has moved. It would be something that would seek to protect the spiritual heritage which we in South Africa have brought here and for which we have got to stand, if the civilization which we represent here is to stand at all.

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that, in view of the very interesting discussion we are having here, the time factor should be catching up with us. If I were now to respond to everything which has been said, and add to that what I have to say myself, then there would not be sufficient time, but I shall try, as briefly as possible, to get to the heart of what we have been discussing.

For almost a week we have been dealing here with measures in regard to the fostering of culture, with cultural institutions, and with the preservation of our cultural heritage. We have been very busy with these matters. I think we have in this way perhaps built up an overall idea of what is in fact understood under the concept culture. I must say that I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout when he made the point, while we were dealing with the legislation on the fostering of cultures that it would ultimately be developed into the manifesto for cultural promotion. That legislation will afford us the opportunity to do so. I think it is one of the rare occasions on which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has understood and expressed my ideas and intentions clearly and so concisely.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Springs on this motion of his. He struggled with many practical problems which have to be considered in the fostering of culture. I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to all the hon. members for what they have had to say about what this young department of Cultural Affairs is already doing and what we will be more capable of doing in future, provided the very necessary evil, which goes hand in hand with that, namely the necessary funds, are made available.

I think the hon. member for Springs focussed the spotlight with great insight on the problems and challenges of cultural promotion, and in regard to a great many of them, little or nothing can be done. That is our greatest problem. He placed particular emphasis and drew attention to what we should really do in order to ensure a secure existence as a white nation, and how it should be tackled with unwavering purpose in order to ensure this continued existence.

Now, I am afraid that there has been a bit of misunderstanding here, and the misunderstanding arose with the hon. member for Newton Park in that he made the allegation here that it seemed as if the Afrikaans-speaking people were afraid for their culture and their survival was concerned, that they felt that they should to a certain extent remain isolated, that they were afraid of the outside world and of making the necessary contact, and that they felt they would be corrupted and their culture would be affected. I think that is far from the truth, and that it was by no means the intention of the hon. member for Springs to create that impression.

I think something is being overlooked. Those participating in this debate to-day were for the most part Afrikaans-speaking. We know our history. For more than two centuries the Afrikaans-speaking people had to wage a struggle, both an internal and external one, in order to be and remain themselves. There was no other language from which they could in any way derive inspiration. It is a language which grew out of the Afrikaner people themselves. As all of us probably know, the first group of people who struggled hard for our language was Die Genootskap van Regte Afrikaners. Their struggle was directed inwards. Our own people reviled our language, to mention only one cultural asset, as a patois. That was less than a century ago. A small handful of people had to wage the struggle in order to accord this language, which was reviled as a patois by their own people, the right to exist, to turn it into a cultural language, and to make of it a language with which we could confer with our fellow men and with the outside world.

But apart from the internal struggle they also had to cope with the external struggle. In fact the Afrikaner had to endure onslaughts from within and without on all his cultural activities, and it is obvious that it is only during the past few decades that he has felt confident that the struggle is no longer necessary. He knows that he has established himself, he is no longer ashamed of his language, he has a right to use his language, he has the right to practice it, to engage in all cultural activities confidently and in public. Now there is no longer such a struggle. Mention is being made of a so-called outward movement, but it is not this side of the House which attached that designation to that movement, nor is it a new movement. It is a perfectly natural development, which did not begin with the present Prime Minister now, because it has been in progress for a very long time. Dr. Malan did this, so did General Hertzog, and let us not merely talk party politics now—Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts also did this. To want to offend a label to the National Party and state that it has suddenly come to light with an outward movement and that some of its supporters are in favour of this while others are not, is surely not correct. It is utter nonsense. As far as the contacts which are being sought, since when have there not been contacts with the United Kingdom, for example, and with our other cultural mother countries? There is the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, besides the United Kingdom. There have always been overseas ties in the cultural field, in the political field, in all fields. I think this is a misinterpretation of what the hon. member for Springs had to say. There is no fear, there is no isolation, we are not surrounding ourselves with an impregnable barbed wire fence so that we can remain untouchable. We can stare the world in the face, we have something to offer, and our cultural achievements are already so immense that we are participating in world expositions, inter alia, in Sao Paolo and Venice, where we are gaining plaudits with our arts. I think we are past the stage where we want to dig in our heels and close ranks for fear that we will be overwhelmed by foreign cultures. For I do not regard the English language culture in South Africa as a foreign culture.

I think that we have reached a great degree of unanimity this afternoon and as far as the need to make more comprehensive and more efficient attempts in respect of fostering our culture. I think that is what became apparent in all the speeches which were made here. Various means and methods were suggested, and certain points were mentioned to which we will have to give attention and which we will have to emphasize. When I discussed this fostering of culture in a Second Reading speech I emphasized cultural diffusion and cultural creations. In the discussion which followed an attempt was made by one of the hon. members to give a definition of culture. I then replied, but I now want to say to with even greater emphasis: It is hopeless to try to define culture. The hon. member also candidly admitted that he was using the definition of an expert. However, I have now had an opportunity of going into the matter, and I want to point out that there have been hundreds of experts who have made attempts to define culture, but their definitions have not been complete, descriptive and inclusive enough. It is one of the concepts which one may as well leave at that. Just consider how widely this discussion ranged to-day. There is not one sphere which we cannot include under the concept of culture.

In the very short time at my disposal I still want to reply to a few aspects of this matter. The hon. member for Newton Park pleaded for an opera group of our own. I just want to inform him that we are already spending more than R2 million per year in subsidies for the performing arts in our country. This is being done jointly by the Government and the provincial administrations. This is one of the most expensive undertakings one can imagine. We began on a very small scale, and I am in full agreement with him that we cannot allow these talents of ours to drain away to countries abroad. We must retain them all, but opera is probably one of the most expensive of undertakings, second only to the maintenance of an orchestra of our own. But what is more, is the fact that if we have an opera group we must also have proper opera houses. But Cape Town expects that an opera house will shortly be erected. In Pretoria a very large opera house is going to be built, and Johannesburg is also going to get an opera house. Once we have these physical facilities, it will make the task of making proper use of those facilities much easier. I agree with the hon. member, and I should like to see this happening.

Other requests were made. I am going to say something about education at a later stage. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke about the question of the spending of leisure time. Once again I want to agree with him whole-heartedly that it is one of the greatest evils which exist, i.e. if in this era, which is passing very rapidly, there is still an opportunity for wasting time. However, there are unfortunately people who have nothing to do with themselves over a week-end. As a result of the fact that there is a working week of five days, we actually have two days of rest. During those two days these people do things which are definitely not conducive to good for any good community. I am stating the matter in general terms, without chasing up a new hare. We have now appointed a committee, which I recently mentioned in a Second Reading speech, which will begin its deliberations soon. The committee will consider in particular what can be done to organize the youth better, and channelize them in directions where they will in fact spend their time valuably. One of the terms of reference of the committee, on which great emphasis is being placed, is inter alia, the question of leisure time. I hope that the experts who have been appointed to this committee will succeed, with the aid of all the investigations which have already taken place—and quite a good few have taken place—in finding a formula by means which these people can be set on the right road.

Now, in conclusion, I want to say something about education. I actually thought that this matter would best be discussed under the Education Vote. But I want to agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. As bearers of culture we do in fact have two very strong means at our disposal. The one is formal education and the other is informal education. The formal is compulsory education and the informal is the post school training which is being provided by this Department of Cultural Affairs. As far as formal education was concerned, the hon. member saw fit to refer to all kinds of weaknesses which were to be found in it. I want to admit that it is not perfectly organized. When I say that, I am also doing so on behalf of those persons who cannot say it here themselves. These are, in other words, the provinces which are to a large degree responsible for formal secondary school education. I am including my own Department in this. The fact of the matter is that South Africa is growing so rapidly and has expanded to such a phenomenal extent, that it is quite impossible to get all these things functioning properly at the outset. In the years when the hon. member’s party had to fight a war we did not even have proper buildings. The hon. member is now complaining that in this case as well children have to be sent away. In my days I taught in a tent. I also taught in the kitchen of a house. We had to do this, because the circumstances which were prevailing were at the time abnormal ones. I concede that the circumstances were abnormal. But the circumstances now are also abnormal. They are not all that normal. Tremendously rapid progress is being made. I want to say to the hon. member that in an area such as the Vaal triangle, for example, two new large schools full of children appeared, one can almost say, overnight. Let us just consider what is happening at universities, in the tertiary field. This year alone the increase in the number of students amounted to 3,200. We must therefore make provision for those 3,200 additional people. For example, it costs the state R3,600 to make provision for one student. It therefore costs more than R11 million just to make provision for the newcomers this year. I can continue in this vein. I am not looking for excuses, because these are all facts. Advance planning must take place, but we must be very careful. At certain places, particularly where the population is sparse, one can plan in advance, but one cannot erect a school or a hostel here or there in the platteland and then find that these places are not fully occupied. That is only that part of the formula.

We now come to libraries. I want to admit that when I first came to this Department and when higher and vocational education was still under our control, I found that the libraries at the higher technical schools and the higher commercial schools were of a particularly poor quality. I immediately held discussions with my Department and we have introduced a tremendous change there. When I arrived in Witbank for example, at the commercial high school there, I said: There is not even a piano here; how do you want the girls to occupy their spare time if there is not even a piano? These things are all facts, as the hon. member said. Take music appreciation for example. I just want to say that there has already been a great improvement. A great deal of time is being spent on singing and music and the art in those schools. But I do not claim to be perfect, and I agree that our formal education is undoubtedly the mother of the continued existence of everything which is absolutely essential in this country. If it is neglected there will be no children capable of eventually taking the matter further.

But when we come to the informal part, I want to say that we then find ourselves in the sphere in which we are engaged in, and that is the cultural sphere. The Department of Cultural Affairs, with the legislation which we have passed here, and with these very useful discussions and suggestions which have been put forward here, will be given much assistance. To the hon. members for Springs and Rissik I just want to say that Rome was not built in a day. But we now hope and expect that with effect from 1st January, 1968, when this Department of Cultural Affairs was established, with this high ideal which we are pursuing, with these fine objectives which we have and the tremendous amount of planning which is being envisaged, with the help of the hon. members here, and with the co-operation of the general public outside, I can foresee—and it does not take a great prophet to do so—our entering a new era; that we can look forward to a new major development; that with this development we can walk forward hand in hand, taking with us all our White population, Afrikaans- as well as English-speaking; that we will be able to retain and preserve the cultural assets we have, and that we will develop them into something fine which will not only satisfy us but which will cause us to gain favour in the eyes of the world, so that they will recognize us as one of the great cultural countries with a culture of our own and not necessarily an extension of Western culture.

The purpose of this motion was to afford us an opportunity of discussing this very important matter in a calm atmosphere. That being the position, I feel myself at liberty to move, with the leave of the House—

Agreed to.

With leave, motion withdrawn.

I move—

Sir, 20 years ago, almost to the day, the late Dr. Malan came to Kimberley as a guest of the city, and I had the pleasure of presiding at a civic function at which he was entertained. At that time, the idea of incorporating South-West Africa into the Union, as it then was, was uppermost in Dr. Malan’s mind, and I recall so well, that when the felicitous speeches were being made I said to him that I had great sympathy with him in trying to get South-West Africa into the Union; because I had been trying for many years just to get Kimberley and the Northern Cape into the Union. His ideal and dream have been reasonably successful, but we, in the Northern Cape, are still waiting to be recognized and acknowledged by the Government as being part of the Republic of South Africa, and as such, entitled to some share in Government-sponsored industry with which to stabilize the region, and, with which to give encouragement to industrialists and businessmen to invest their money there.

Over the years we have had a concerted effort by all public bodies and public men in the region, who have forgotten their political affiliations in the one goal and objective of trying to persuade the authorities, that the time had come when something should be done for that part of the country. I want to acknowledge all those men, and there are many of them, who have given of their time and ability quite freely, with this objective in view. I would, however, be remiss if I did not say that the editors of the newspaper, which is based on Kimberley have done a sterling job in promoting this ideal by trying to create a community spirit and by propagating the idea, that the rich mineral and agricultural resources of the region should be utilized to the best possible advantage.

Various things have been suggested over the years. Organizations have been formed to promote the interests of the region and many suggestions have been submitted. I think back to the years when suggestions were made for the establishment of some branch of the railway workshops there. I think back to when we tried to persuade the Government to make it possible to cut small diamonds. I think of the arguments we have had with the Minister of Transport about Railway tariffs. I think of the days when we pressed for a good electricity supply, which of course has now come to pass, because the network is there, and it is just waiting for the industry to appear. Water was another problem with which the community was faced. As you know, Sir, the Vaal River is being dammed in its upper reaches for the benefit of the industrial areas in the Transvaal, even to the point, where water is being taken over the watershed of the Vaal River and Johannesburg complex into the Pretoria complex. We, in the lower reaches, have had legislation passed, by which the water supplies at our end of the river are regulated.

My purpose to-day in moving this motion is to make an earnest appeal to the Government to adopt the recommendations which this motion contains, because I feel that the community itself, is beginning to wonder what is really in store for it. It has been mentioned to me that the motion could have been much wider and could have included Upington and Vryburg. I want to say, that in framing the motion in the form in which I did, there was no intention of excluding these two very important centres in the Northern Cape region. My purpose was to confine the attention of the House to the potentialities, the wealth and the riches, which lie in the region in the form of base minerals and precious stones as well as salt and asbestos. When I tell you, Sir, that of all these materials which occur in the Northern Cape region, only two are processed in the region, namely lime, which is turned into cement, and clay, which is turned into bricks, you will wonder what the reasons are, why everything else is carted away to distant places. I have no intention to-day of pleading again, as I have done before, for the establishment of a third Iscor there, but I must say in passing that people in the Northern Cape are disappointed and seriously concerned at the trend in the Government’s policies of promoting the interests of other parts of the country, which are already prosperous, and which do not really need at this stage, to have these additional facilities and industries. We do not say that in any spirit of giving up hope at all, but when I tell the House, that the steel production of the whole of the African continent is only .8 per cent of the total world output and that the Far East, excluding Communist China, produces 18 per cent, then you will wonder, Sir, why we in the Northern Cape feel that a concerted effort should be made to attract the market on the African continent. I say, that if it is possible for the Japanese to import raw materials on the scale they do, much of which comes from this country, you will wonder why it is, that the Japanese are so prosperous and have such a flourishing steel industry, whereas ours, although large by our standards, is small by world standards. The Japanese import 91 per cent of their ore, 70 per cent of their coking coal, 12 per cent of their scrap iron and 12 per cent of their pig iron. We view with alarm the type of remark we got from the hon. the Minister of Transport earlier in the week, when he talked about having trains carrying 3,000 tons of ore drawn by one set of locomotives. When we are considering taking raw materials away on such a scale—and it is already happening; 180,000 tons was taken from Sishen iron mine this last year—and when we realize that these are the thoughts in the minds of some Ministers of the Government, we feel the time has come, when we should at least draw attention to what we regard as an unfair balance in the economy of the country.

My views, I hope, will not only be shared by my colleagues opposite, who represent seats in the region, but I hope that they will make some contribution to-day, to let us know exactly what the Government has in mind. The motivation for this particular resolution arose from a report, which I saw in The Argus a little while back. One aspect surprised me, the other shocked me. The shock—let me deal with that one first—was that the area north of the Orange River is not to be regarded as a growth point. The surprise, of course, was that the report said that the Members of Parliament for the Northern Cape region had a plan. Eighteen months ago, in September, 1967. I wrote to each of these gentlemen personally and asked them, if they did not think the time had come to get together to formulate an action committee, if one may use that expression, to push the claims of the region and to promote its interests. I offered in that letter, since my political affiliations are in the opposite camp, not to take it amiss if they should decide not to include me in such a committee. I am hoping to-day to hear what has happened, because last year at a Nationalist Party Congress, I think at Port Elizabeth, a committee was appointed consisting of the Members. of Parliament of the region, with instructions to produce a report. I also want to acknowledge that the University of Potchefstroom, in collaboration with the Ministry of Planning, is making investigations into the proposition that I enunciated but on slightly different lines. I make all these acknowledgments, but the fact remains that to-day in 1969, 100 years after the discovery of diamonds in the Kimberley region, the City cannot be regarded as being one of the foremost from the point of view of growth and prosperity in the Republic. I think people there are entitled to know, without any further delay or any further beating about the bush, what the reasons are, what the prospects are, and how far they can expect to go. Sir, subsequent to reading the report that the Northern Cape, or for that matter nowhere in the Cape except the Ciskei and the Transkei, was considered by the Government to be a growth point, I made it my business to ascertain from the Department of Industries what they had in mind. I got a very nice pamphlet from them, and I must say that on reading this wonderfully attractive pamphlet, which has the innocuous title, “Decentralized Industrial Development in South Africa” …

What kind of title?

Innocuous—harmless. It is quite a simple word. It is the sort of thing that the hon. member could be described as. When one reads this, one realizes that the Government is seriously offering concessions to industrialists. I do not want to enter into the controversial aspect of what this pamphlet discloses. I want to discuss it from a totally different angle. The permanent committee for the siting of industry wrote recently to the Chamber of Commerce at Kimberley, with whom I have been in correspondence. They had been asked what prospects they had and what was in their minds with regard to the development of the region. The reply was, firstly, that they—that is Kimberley—were not anywhere near any Bantustans and, secondly, that they were considering doing something for other groups. That might have been for Coloured people and, if so, we are grateful. But I would like to stake a claim for White people, who are the business people and the inhabitants of the region. I want to know why, when the Government can offer the concessions which are offered here, other business people cannot get the same facilities and discounts, the same rates of interest and the same rebates on taxes which are set out in this pamphlet; because if the Government can afford to give cut rates on rail traffic from the Transkei and the Ciskei to the nearest port, then it makes a mockery of the argument of the Minister of Transport that railway rates do not militate against the siting of any particular industry, and that, if that was stated to be the case, then he would like to be given examples. It makes a mockery of that particular attitude, because in this pamphlet he does offer rebates on railage of goods manufactured in these areas. Furthermore, the areas which are mentioned in this pamphlet are in the main in the Transvaal. The reasons as to why they are in the Transvaal do not matter, it does not matter what the main purpose is of the facilities that are offered. What I want to establish is the fact, that there is a differentiation in the minds of the Government in regard to white businessmen, because if a businessman is prepared to set up his business in the places enumerated here, he would get these very good concessions. The people in the area and the region for which I plead, have said for years: “Give us concessions on railage rates.” I asked the Minister of Economic Affairs once at a congress at Kimberley if there was any chance of getting back some of the taxes which we paid over the years, some of the millions and millions and millions of rand which had gone into the coffers of the Government from diamonds, and he said that it was an unheard of thing to give a rebate on income-tax to special groups. May I say that for some years every Minister has been in this region, many of them just to shoot springbuck, but they have all had a good time there; they have all been shown what is going on. They know exactly what the aims and ambitions of the people there are, and, funnily enough, they have almost without exception pledged their support for the projects which have been put before them from time to time.

I have never been invited to shoot springbuck there.

I can arrange an invitation to the hon. the Minister. I might even give the springbuck one or two shots beforehand to make sure that the Minister gets his springbuck.

Is that horse-trading or springbuck-trading?

Sir, the basis of my contention this afternoon is that the time has arrived when we should know what the position is, and I am hoping that not only is the Minister of Planning going to support my proposition, but that he is going to give an undertaking that he will act along the suggested lines. I am also hopeful that the hon. member for Gordonia, who has also been one of the stalwarts in fighting this case, will join in and confirm what I am saying. I would like him to know that in my file here I have stacks and stacks of letters and telegrams expressing approval of the motion which I have moved here this afternoon and which I am hoping will be carried by the House. Every town council supports what I am saying; I have the support of every chamber of commerce and every public man of any consequence. That part of the country is absolutely unanimous in putting forward this request.

I am sure they are not as badly informed as you are.

Sir, when I come to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s Vote, I will have a few things to say to him.

Unfortunately he is handling this motion to-day. What hope is there for this country!

Sir, all these people are waiting hopefully. The position is that the municipalities have made every possible effort to make the towns and the villages and the cities good, modern and up-to-date with modern amenities and every possible facility. They have gone out of their way to appeal to as many as possible to put some pressure upon the Government, upon the Minister, with the object of getting some Government—and I want to emphasize that—supported industries. There are many places in this country on which the Government has lavished great sums of money. I do not envy them their good fortune. All I say is, that the time has come when something should be done for this region. Why, even the Administrator of the Free State had complimentary things to say about the suggestions that were offered from time to time and promised his support. The hon. the Minister must realize that the public are perhaps better informed than I am, because I always take the word of Ministers when I meet them on the platteland and when we entertain them, as we have done; I have always accepted that when they spoke to you there their word was their bond, and I have no reason to doubt that that is so.

Sir, in the limited time still at my disposal, I would like to say one or two further things. I believe that salt which is the basis of chemical industries should be exploited. Eighty per cent of the country’s supply comes from that area. No asbestos is processed in the region. I have already touched on diamond-cutting. The manganese and the iron-ore are being carted away in thousands and thousands of tons in the worst form of colonial exploitation that could ever be devised. We hear talk of terminals at the ports to which the Japanese are going to bring ships carrying away 100,000 tons of ore to Japan.

The Government has never said so.

That may be so.

It was Dr. Van Eck.

How right the hon. the Minister is. I think Dr. Van Eck is running the show in this field. I do not want to discuss Dr. Van Eck here. I have a great regard for the man; he is a very able person, but I think the position becomes quite impossible when Government Departments compete with business on the scale that they do. One finds that this is the thinking to-day, and the report of Iscor confirms what I say. The strange thing is that last year when I spoke to the hon. the Minister of Transport across the floor of the House he denied that there were any complaints about the high railage rates and port rates on exported ore. Within a month, I think, of the rising of Parliament one of the biggest Japanese iron and steel men confirmed what had been said here and the Minister of Transport was smart enough to make a reduction in certain port and dock dues at Port Elizabeth. Sir, I think we have a good case and I do hope that the Government will treat it with the same degree of sincerity in which I make this plea. I make a plea to the Government to face up to the fact that we require, need, and want some Government-sponsored industries.

My final point is this: When the Verwoerd Dam and the Orange River scheme project was announced, everybody threw their hats up in the air but what happened? Once again, although there were great promises made in respect of the P.K. le Roux Dam, better known as the Van der Kloof, and of the third dam down the river at Torquay, nothing has happened. This is the one that is near to us. I think one of these days we will have to ask some very searching questions about what is going on at Van der Kloof or rather what is not going on at Van der Kloof because this, Sir, is the whole backbone of the development of the southern portion of the region, namely water. The municipalities who had the foresight in years gone by to make provision for water supplies in the Vaal River, have had their water cut off, and that is a very serious thing.

To all of us!

The industrial complexes in the Transvaal are getting to the stage to-day where the Vaal River, above the Vaal Dam, must be used exclusively for the industrial development of Johannesburg and now for the industrial development of Pretoria, which does not rightfully fall within the ambit of the Rand Water Board and the supply of water from the Vaal Dam. Do not forget, Sir, that we also have to supply water to the Free State goldfields. Recently, of course, the Department of Water Affairs has built a dam at Oppermansdrift near Bloemhof. Sir, may I just say at this stage that the agricultural aspects of my plea to-day will be dealt with by another speaker to follow. The farmers in the Vaalharts area have also had to accept restricted water. The use of water there is not as free as it should have been.

Finally, I just want to say this: I believe that the planning is not anywhere near the visionary type that we require to-day. Anybody who has been in public life in this country must realize that planning and projection of future development have always been on too small a scale. The reason is, I think, that we are thinking small instead of thinking big. I want the Minister to-day to think big and to tell me, without too much persuasion, that not only is he convinced by me, but that he is more than convinced by speakers on his side of the House whom I hope will follow me now.

Mr. Speaker, there are certain points raised by the hon. member for Karoo with which I disagree and certain ones with which I agree. It is a little difficult to agree with the hon. member especially if he begins a speech as he did this afternoon. I also want to say to the hon. member that he is somewhat difficult to follow, because one never knows where he is leading one. In my opinion a parallel can be drawn between the aspirations of a country and its inhabitants—and now I am speaking of the large Northern Cape as mentioned in the first part of the hon. member’s motion—to process their own resources themselves and to receive the economic benefit thereof, and the aspirations of a particular region to derive some benefit from its resources, and not simply to have them drained away. But it is generally known that it is present Government policy, in terms of economic decentralization, to ensure more general utilization of economic benefits for our country. We must accept it and develop it in our position as the Government party. And yet the demands of backward and remote areas such as the Northern Cape will continue to increase and we shall have to heed those demands. At the outset I just want to say that I support the hon. member in respect of the broader principle, where he pleads for benefits for the inhabitants of the Northern Cape. I cannot do otherwise. But I just want to say to him that the matters which he raised, have already been put forward frequently and comprehensively in this House by other speakers and other representatives of that area. But I must differ radically from him about the manner in which the motion was drawn up, as if it were true that there has not yet specifically been any action on the part of the State to determine the agricultural and mineral resources. In the past five years continuous attention has been given to these problems. Before one comes to those problems, which he also mentioned, one must actually take into consideration the primary terrain in which a State task is a State task. In the field of industry the State ought to act in a supporting and a developing capacity, but this is not primarily its task, its terrain, in our free market economy. However, I do not disagree with him in his plea for border area benefits for the Northern Cape. I think that it is a meritorious request. One can find no fault with that. But I am in no doubt that the most important need of the Northern Cape at present, the greatest task for the State, lies in the establishment of a system of basic facilities, without which agricultural and mineral development, which he would like to see there, cannot take place. I am now thinking of the large Northern Cape, not of the small triangle to which he would like to reduce it, although he used the term “Northern Cape”. I am thinking of good roads, transport facilities, sufficient water for present and future needs and of cheap extended electric power. It is clearly a task for the State. We do not need to argue about this. It is specifically on the basis of investigations which have already been conducted and which the State had a hand in, that we can come to this conclusion. These investigations in the Northern Cape proved that the area is being crippled by certain deficiencies, which I have no doubt must be eliminated before any thought can be given to the problems which the hon. member mentioned, otherwise the development of those industries is not possible. Then the prospects of this greater Northern Cape will be rosy, especially if one abandons the principle of summarily removing the resources of a region without the region itself being able to enjoy the benefits of those resources, even if only to a certain extent.

I therefore first want to mention what has already been done by the State by way of regional studies to determine to socio-economic position, the bottlenecks and the prospeots of the Northern Cape. In 1962 the then Deputy Minister, Minister Haak, offered the assistance of the State in the drawing up of a regional study for the Northern Cape. This regional study was begun with the assistance of the State. Other bodies also contributed, and it is known that five parts have already appeared in connection with the work which has already been done, giving a general resume of the climate of the Vaal River basin, of the utilization of land and water, of an ecological study of the plant communities of the banks of the Vaal, of regional income, with a correlated projection to the year 2000, with due consideration for the use of water. It is fairly interesting to think of what the hon. member said, i.e. that there is no long-term vision. The reports which have already been brought out also deal with planning in respect of the present and future use of water of such sectors as industry, the local authority, the mines and the Railways. Other reports will follow and will appear in the course of this year. We also have that assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister. Because studies of this nature do not only convey facts, but also embrace analyses, summaries, conclusions and recommendations, the hon. member may be assured that he will find all the recommendations in respect of the industries about which he is concerned in these regional studies when they are completed this year. In addition there are numerous proofs of what the State has already done to determine the resources of the Northern Cape, on fronts wider than merely the mineral and the agricultural. There was a socio-economic survey of the Lower Orange Region, which covers more than 40,000 square miles. It was carried out by the Economic Investigation Bureau of the University of Stellenbosch in 1967. The Department of Planning gave ample financial support, as did the development association of the Lower Orange. It was a comprehensive investigation and here I come once more to the point of the infra structure which is so necessary for those industries. The year before last a comprehensive investigation and the submission of a transport plan for the Northern Cape was completed by Professor Verburgh It was also done for the Department of Planning. In 1964 a regional survey was done of the Western Cape. It included a very large portion of the North Western Cape which the hon. member had in mind, and it gave rise to quite a few additional and also more intensive surveys. In addition to these studies the State also had a direct and indirect hand in many visits by high officials, Ministerial visits and investigations. These things undoubtedly indicate a great interest in and concern with the problems of the Northern Cape, not only in order to combat these problems but also in order to adopt a far-sighted approach in regard to the Northern Cape and to try to determine its prospects and, of course, the factors which impede development. I think that we can take appreciative note of the State’s interest, its task and its actions in respect of the points which the hon. member raised. These studies and investigations revealed quite a number of facts. Conclusions could be drawn which were also of great importance for agriculture and mining. In the Lower Orange Region agriculture to-day constitutes 38.5 per cent of the gross regional product and in the more easterly parts—i.e. nearer to Kimberley and thereabouts—it still constitutes 24 per cent of the gross regional product. For mining the figures are respectively 13.5 (Orange) and 18.5 in the vicinity of Kimberley. These two sectors furnish the most important contribution, as you can see, to the geographic product which was already more than R152 million ten years ago. This is with the exception of Namaqualand, which I also include in the Northern Cape, and where the mining sector is predominant. There copper and diamonds alone yield an annual amount of almost R47 million in foreign exchange. We learned a few things from these investigations. The hon. member mentioned them. The hon. member is well acquainted with the mineral potentialities of his region. We know that the Northern Cape is the worlds largest supplier of blue asbestos. Regardless of differences of opinion, it nevertheless appears to be generally thought that the iron ore of the Northern Cape, which is valued at about 5,000 million tons, can earn a greater income for us at the end of this century than the gold mining industry has done up to now. We know that as far as manganese is concerned, South Africa is to-day the third largest supplier in the world. We know of the tin over there and also of the tremendously large salt deposits in the Gordonia district. There is also gypsum. These things are merely waiting for efficient exploitation. Alongside this mineral region there is the agricultural aspect. Agriculture makes no insignificant contribution to the economy of that region. On the contrary, it makes a particularly important contribution. In the Lower Orange we have 25,000 morgen of land under intensive irrigation. In terms of the present-day State expenditure members can see what tremendously large irrigation areas will be supplied with water by the Orange Scheme. These things and the investigations into the water position in our country—which includes those portions—and the investigations into agriculture, leave us in no doubt about what is contemplated in the future for agriculture and mining as sectors in contributing to our economy. One can surely not be in any doubt about that, as is implied by this motion. It is a good thing that industry is being given consideration, as the hon. member stated here to-day. But I think that in such a thinking process it is better to place first things first. And it is therefore my request that in consequence of the results of these completed investigations and of others still to come, preference be given at this stage to the speedy creation of an efficient and rounded off infra structure for the Northern Cape. These studies reveal certain problems to us. The most important was that industrial development—except the truly local service industries, etc.—and especially the exploitation of base minerals can never prosper in that region unless there is an ensured and sufficient provision of water for future agricultural, urban and industrial use; unless there is a cheap and easily excessible electric power network, which will not only cover the hon. member’s vicinity, but will stretch over the entire Northern Cape; and unless—and this is the most important—there is not an efficient internal transport system, which is well-linked up with the metropolitan areas and is preferably rounded off with harbour facilities on the West Coast of the Northern Cape. We are applying ourselves to these problems because they are the most important. I have already spoken about water last year with special reference to those parts of the Northern Cape which we call the Lower Orange. I made out a case for a storage dam west of the confluence of the two rivers. I obtained certain assurances. And I also want to mention here what the State is doing. The Minister of Water Affairs appointed a special commission to plan for the water needs of the Lower Orange. This extends as far as Namaqualand. I mention this with appreciation today. However, I still stand by my past request in connection with a storage dam. Some of these regional studies have indicated that a power network is very necessary there. But our main bottleneck is the deficient transport system. Of the total rural network of significant roads in the Northern Cape only 6 per cent are tarred, as against 15 per cent in the central Cape and 22 per cent in the Southern Cape. The 6 per cent will perhaps be increased with a view to the existing road building program. But there is no final rounding off ab out a very important road such as the one which must link up Namaqualand with the Lower Orange and with the important Witwatersrand centre. In respect of the authorities there are still at present, no encouraging signs to be observed that real action is contemplated in respect of the establishment of sufficient harbour facilities on the West Coast of the Northern Cape. I regard it as very important to open up this part of the country and its sources. I am therefore pleading for the most important things first. I intended to move an amendment—and now you may laugh at me—but I eventually felt sorry for the hon. member. I then decided not to move an amendment.

I appreciate it very much.

At this stage I merely want to say that my actual view is of a co-ordination of the regional studies which have already been done and of regional studies which may still be done. But those regional studies and that co-ordination must see the Northern Cape as a whole, which begins 500 miles into the interior and extends up to the Atlantic Coast in the west. It is a tremendously large area, whose salvation I think also lies to the west. In the final instance I want to say that the Department …

Order! The hon. member is digressing rather far from the motion. An amendment which went as far as that would have been out of order.

I am busy dealing with the Northern Cape and pleas for an infra structure. If the departments coordinate these various regional studies with a view to the establishment of a sound infra structure for the whole of the Northern Cape, which is described in the first part of the motion, we will be satisfied and 120,000 Whites will be satisfied, as well as 250,000 Coloureds who live in a remote and extensive region. But in the co-ordination of and the decision about this infra-structure which must be established I ask that the profit and loss account not be considered for the present but that more attention be given to the long-term economic and social benefits. We have already accepted this principal in respect of the Bantu homelands. My plea is that we accept it with as much confidence and idealism in respect of regions which are far away from us and which are pioneer regions where the people deserve it and which require special attention.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all of us connected with the Cape Province will echo and support the appeals which have been made by the hon. members for Karoo and Gordonia. In recent years, when still a member of the executive committee of this province, other members and I visited the particular area to view the problems facing that area. We had very modest requests for things to be done. I do not know whether it was indicative of the modesty of those people, or whether it was a manifestation of their despondency, but when a member of the provincial council from that area asked for some assistance as far as bridge-building there was concerned, he ended up by saying to us, “Gee maar net een pilaar per jaar.” They would then know they were moving in some direction, albeit slowly. But I think that at this time this “een pilaar per jaar” is a bit slow for the development of the northern area of the Cape Province. I think this is an area which needs attention, because it is of vital importance not only to the Cape Province but to the whole of South Africa.

I am very glad to see the hon. the Deputy Minister of Planning here because I should like to discuss with him some of the thoughts he expressed on development when he spoke at Heilbron on the 21st of February this year, when he discussed the question of regional development. He made a statement with which none of us can disagree, I think, when he said the following—

We agree that the Deputy Minister stated the position very accurately. But it is a matter of now applying what he said then to the areas with which these hon. members are particularly concerned.

The Deputy Minister went on to say “Geen landsdeel mag in die gemeenskaplike belang oor die hoof gesien word nie.” This applies also to the North-West Cape. Later on he said—

That is correct, but there has been an awful long time since then before this development is really being tackled in these areas, before the development in the North-West Cape is really being tackled.

As far back as 1964 the provincial administration of the Cape received a detailed report on the regional planning of the Cape Province, and particular reference was made to the North-West Cape, in fact to what was then referred to as the Orange River Area. Very little has happened since then, though, and I want to suggest that one of the reasons is the fact that there is no real statutory obligation on any particular body to get a move on with this regional development. It is a question of passing the matter from one tier of government to the other in our three-tier system—and a lot of tears are shed in the process. There is a lot of talk about whose responsibility it is to get on with this work and this development.

The Deputy Minister knows that this question of some statutory or some governmental directive has been raised over and over again. Mr. Robinson, the consultant, reported to the Cape Provincial Administration in 1964, and at that stage he drew attention to the importance of creating machinery, powers and financial means to give effect to regional planning. He recommended an investigation of the statutory provisions needed to facilitate effective and integrated regional planning. He asked that there should be particular attention given to the machinery for the adoption of regional schemes, their desirable legal status, as well as changes to the existing system so as to secure proper implementation of regional schemes.

But these matters have drifted on. All that we have had before Parliament was the Physical Planning and Resources Bill where the motivation, according to what the hon. the Minister of Planning himself said, was not the economic factor, but the race policy of the Government. I mention this because this is a problem in the North-West Cape that must be tackled by virtue of the economic aspects involved, and not because of any ideological or party political factors. I think it cuts across party political differences. It is a development which is needed by all sections.

In that regard the Deputy Minister dealt very fully with this question of regional planning. Right throughout he laid the emphasis on the local authorities, the local interests, the local bodies, the local organizations, rather than on some central director. I wonder whether that is the correct way of doing it. I wonder whether that is the way that will achieve results. Let me quote one or two other passages from the Deputy Minister’s speech. He said—

These are commendable thoughts, but where is the action? Where do we have these sentiments converted into activity? The Deputy Minister went on to say the following, and here I feel is the justification for the motion moved by the hon. member for Karoo. The Deputy Minister said:

Surely this shows the necessity of some positive action which is to be taken by the Department of Planning. After all these investigations which have been done at various levels, i.e. on local authorities, provincial authorities and local bodies—it has in fact been done as far as the North-West Cape is concerned—we have reached the stage where some dynamism must be introduced. It can only be introduced by further Government action. I have said that this is a matter which concerns primarily the Cape Province but it concerns in equal measure the State. I venture to suggest that the Provincial Administration has, within its limited resources, done what possibly can be done, trying to assist in this development. Matters of public transport and rail development and the availability of water and related matters, are not the responsibility of the Provincial Administration, nor are they the responsibility of the lower tier, i.e. the local authority. It is the responsibility of the Government. The province is hamstrung by this matter. When I say it is of particular interest to the Cape Province one only has to have regard to what that development would mean economically to this province. At present this province has to be heavily subsidized by non-statutory grants because of the difficulties it faces because of its size. As the hon. the Minister knows, the Cape Province is bigger than the other three provinces put together plus a third of them in area. The hon. Minister also knows that the North-West Cape, which we are referring to this afternoon, is one of the areas which has not developed to its maximum potential. If one mentions the size of the province, I just want to indicate to you, for instance, that the length of the national roads—which would cover the North-Western Cape, these “uitgestrekte gebiede”—in the Cape Province, roads which have been built, are to be built and are being planned at the moment, cover 4,369 miles. In the Transvaal the total is 1,384; in the Orange Free State, 1,128 and in Natal, 1,053 miles. That indicates the vast area which is covered by the Cape Province. We cannot leave the potential of the North-West Cape undeveloped to the same extent as it is undeveloped at this moment. There is another aspect which is in the national interest and that is that the Northern Cape is strategically correctly situated for great industrial development for South Africa. It is on our west coast, and strategically, I mean strategically in the world picture, it is the area in our country in which there should be the maximum development. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister, in dealing with this matter, will indicate to us that some force, some impetus, can be given to the planning of the North-West Cape, not only for the benefit of the North-Western Cape, but also for the benefit of the Cape Province and the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Green Point for dealing in particular in his plea with the interests of that part of the Northern Cape which we call the North-Western Cape. I do so because it is a matter very dear to my heart in view of the fact that I represent that area. However, it is clear to me that the hon. member is not altogether well-acquainted with what is actually happening there, because certain aspects which he mentioned are specifically those which are receiving attention.

To-day I should like to discuss the whole area of the Northern and North-Western Cape, because I regard that area as a unit—the one the hinterland of the other. In the development of the Northern Cape it is very essential that that western portion be developed together with the rest of the Northern Cape, because they share the same water sources, are climatologically the same, are equally extensive, and for various other geographic reasons. I should like to make use of this opportunity to-day, because it is the first opportunity I am being afforded in this House of thanking the Department of Planning, and specifically the Secretary for Planning, for an extraordinary action which was performed in the interests of this area when, in 1957, he organized a visit of six departments on secretarial level, with dignitaries and experts in the respective departments. That visit was definitely not a holiday. Work was definitely done, Investigations were made—I believe that it will lead to precisely what the hon. member for Green Point pleaded for—to get to know the potential and the problems of the area. It was done at the highest level of all departments concerned. On behalf of that area I want to convey our sincere gratitude and appreciation to the Secretary for Planning for that tour which he arranged under very difficult circumstances. We know how busy those people are, we know how extremely difficult it is to coordinate those people in a combined tour.

When we think of that area, to which we referred to-day, we immediately think of a backward area. That area has, in the first instance, lagged behind as a result of the way in which development took place in South Africa. We know that, until very recently, development simply took place according to circumstances. If gold is discovered in an area, railway lines are constructed to that area and then the areas situated along that route derive benefit from it. When a war was fought in South-West Africa, a railway line was constructed in a certain direction and the areas derived benefit from it. Then the Department of Planning came into being with the purpose of co-ordinating that planning and conducting it in a specific direction. This is what is now taking pace; now there are investigations; now planning and pre-arrangement take place. That is why I say to-day that the Government is busy doing those things which are being asked for here at present, and we appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, while those things are taking place, it is most certainly a very good opportunity to bring the potentialities of the areas to the attention of this House. There are people who are inclined to say that the North-Western Cape is a backward area because it does not possess the potential and the wealth. I consider it an extremely erroneous view and I should like to use a few moments of the very short time at my disposal to speak a bit about the potential of the Northern and North-Western Cape in particular. It is a generally known fact—my colleague has already referred to it—that from the North-Western Cape, from the constituency of Namaqualand to be precise, R47 million in foreign exchange is earned per year with the sale of copper and diamonds alone. It is a well-known fact that diamonds are a very selfish mineral. What I mean by that is that the area concerned does not benefit from its diamonds because extensive safety measures are applied and because it does not actually need very much transport. It does not actually bring an infra-structure to the area, and that is precisely what has happened in those areas; with its diamond wealth and even its rich copper mines, those people acted very independently, and actually no great infrastructure was created. But in the meantime the State obtained extensive revenue from it. We realize, and I think that the Government is very conscious of the fact, that one cannot indefinitely scoop off the wealth of an area without ploughing something back into it. Then the less profitable minerals will eventually not be able to make their full contribution to the development of our fatherland and of that region. I therefore want to plead that very speedy action be taken in the development of that part of the Northern and North-Western Cape, while the mineral wealth is still in heavy production and while there are still diamonds, copper and other minerals in those parts which contribute to the wealth of the country. Sir, I must tell you that it has been proved with statistics that the high-grade copper in the North-West has decreased, but that there is a tremendous amount of lower grade copper. New copper deposits are still being discovered, but in that area the surface has actually only been scratched. I am thinking, for example, of a large region such as the Richtersveld, in which there has never yet been a mineral or even a water drill, because that area is so inexcessible that drills simply cannot get in there.

To-day no one can tell what the potential of that area is. We know that people continually tell one that it is an area of specimens (monsters), and here I am not referring to the “monsters” that catch people; I am referring to collectors’ specimens. It is a very eroneous conception. No one has ever gone to explore there in order to see whether those specimens are really large creatures or whether they are merely specimens. I think that the time has come for us to begin investigating very seriously whether these specimens are merely specimens or whether they have actual potential.

But there is also proven potential which we are absolutely certain about, potential which is to-day exploited with difficulty as a result of certain infra structure problems. We simply do not have power there. If you go to the North-West, you will find that the price of power there is very high because for the power which is, for example, generated at the mining town Na ba beep, coal is used which costs R10 per ton by comparison with R2 per ton in the Transvaal. One can thus realize that it is tremendously expensive power. You will also realize that we are faced with tremendous water problems in that area. We are faced with a water problem because at present the mines obtain their water from the dry bed of the Buffels River which has a large catchment basin. But the rainfall is very irregular and we are frequently faced with extreme crisis conditions in those areas. We were recently faced with a situation that after the Buffels River had not flowed for two years, there was only water in that basin for three months. You can imagine what a tremendous retarding effect it had on the production of that area and what a tremendously chaotic effect it could have if those conditions were to continue and the water supply of that mining town were to have dried up. That is why we are very busy thinking about an infra structure which is absolutely necessary there.

But I said that I should like to say something about the proven potential of that area.

Order! I want to ask the hon. member to come geographically a little closer to the area mentioned in the motion.

I am dealing with the Northern Cape. I am not going to argue, but I am very definitely in the Northern Cape. The Northern and the North-Western Cape form a unit and I do not know where you want to direct me now.

The area mentioned in the motion is the Northern Cape and the hon. member is now very far from there. I do not mind the hon. member referring to that, but he must not make it his main theme.

The district of Postmasburg is mentioned here and I am referring to the district of Postmasburg in particular because Postmasburg, for example, has iron and that iron must be processed somewhere or it must be exported at a certain harbour. I therefore cannot possibly speak if I do not have the right to speak about the export area of that iron. I think that you will agree that you are limiting me extremely if I cannot speak about that. Then there is also the marketing area, and perhaps I shall have to go to Japan later on and then you will also have to pardon me.

No, Japan is too far.

I am merely discussing a certain area here which is mentioned in the motion, and the hon. member who moved the motion mentioned certain towns. I do not want to speak about those towns now; I just want to speak about the development of that area. But unfortunately my time is now also up and I cannot actually speak about this any more. But I want to state that to-day I saw it merely as a start, and I think that what is necessary is a master plan for the whole Northern and North-Western Cape, to create the necessary infra structure there so that the industries in that area can be developed and so that the potential of that area can be extended. But I have not yet come to the potential and I have not come to the master plan and my time is up. I just want to mention that I hope to discuss it in greater detail under the Budget, and then I trust I shall not be ruled out of order if I discuss the area in somewhat broader outline.

It falls under that debate. There it will be in order.

I shall try not to land up in Japan this afternoon. I should like to go there one day, but I shall not land up there to-day. The hon. member for Namaqualand also strongly supported the motion, as we all do. We all feel it to be a very important motion and we are all very glad that it can be discussed this afternoon. He told us of the planning which is taking place, etc., and then he made a plea for certain parts which, he claimed, fall in the Northern Cape. All the previous speakers spoke of the importance of that part of our country, and we should all like to emphasize the importance of the area. However, this afternoon I should like to speak of a particular aspect, and that is the aspect of agriculture in the Northern Cape, and I shall confine myself to that.

The Northern Cape is an area producing quite an extensive amount of agricultural products along the Vaal, Harts, Riet and Orange Rivers. The wheat production along the Vaal River amounts to ½ million bags, and the production of dried peas amounts to 60 per cent of the Republic’s production. The lucerne crop there constitutes about 50 per cent of the country’s production. Some of the finest seed potatoes are produced there, and about 35 per cent of our cotton comes from those parts. In other words, it is a very important region as far as agricultural products are concerned. As far as animal products are concerned, 20 per cent of our butter and 30 per cent of our cheese are produced there. The cattle there comprise about 30 per cent of the Republic’s livestock, and the sheep about 10 per cent. It is the region producing by far the most karakul pelts in the country, which are of great importance to us because they provide us with foreign exchange. The rainfall in those parts is rather low and droughts frequently occur. This year, as in all previous years, we have already talked about the difficulties with which the agricultural industry in South Africa is faced, with drought, shortage of capital and high interest rates, etc. Those parts are as subject to those factors as any other part of the country, and I do not want to speak about that now because we have already done so, and it is applicable to the entire Cape Province and therefore to those parts as well.

I should like to mention two aspects which affect those parts in particular. The one is the encroachment of bushes in the Northern Cape, especially in the Molopo area. There is a portion of about 1.5 million morgen where bush encroachment has increased tremendously and is still doing so. It has become a tremendous hazard. I read here on page 32 of the report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services that—

You should rather have mentioned it under the Agricultural Technical Services Vote.

Those are the problems which exist there and I should like to draw the Department’s attention to them, because it is essential that those parts be developed, and if the expected development takes place as a result of this motion, the food production will be of the utmost importance to South Africa. I have already mentioned the number of morgen which are threatened and something will have to be done to combat that problem. We cannot merely allow a large portion of our agricultural land to be destroyed like that without doing something about it. We shall have to check it and the necessary research will have to be done to devise a plan to fight that encroachment. Today it is a costly process. It is virtually impossible for the farmer to eradicate the swarthaak. He cannot afford it, and the Department will have to carry out research to find an economical method of doing so.

The other aspect which I should like to mention is the question of water. All the previous speakers have already spoken of the water shortage in those parts. This is, of course, the greatest problem with which those parts are faced. It has already been mentioned that the Vaal River no longer brings any water, because its water is required for the Rand complex. When the Oppermansdrift Dam has been completed, at the end of the year, it will be a great help, but it will certainly not be sufficient; the other source is the Orange River. We are, of course, deeply disappointed that the work on the Van der Kloof Dam has been suspended and that everything has to wait upon that, because these parts would also have benefited greatly from the construction of the Van der Kloof Dam; water could then have been taken to Kimberley, to Vaalharts, to the Riet and Orange Rivers. All the irrigators along those rivers experience a shortage of water each year. Vaalharts is at present subject to water restrictions because the Vaal Dam received relatively little water during this rainy season. I understand that it contains a mere 42 per cent of its capacity. These people are consequently subject to severe restrictions. Year upon year they are subject to restrictions; year upon year the Lower Orange areas experience water shortages, and this is a tremendous impediment to agriculture in those parts. I want to appeal to the Government for something to be done now to commence work on the Van der Kloof and P. K. le Roux Dams again. Too much depends on those dams and it is essential that the necessary work be tackled there.

As far as the farms are concerned, one also has large areas which are experiencing water shortages. The Marais Commission recommended that the Kalahari be withdrawn entirely. I cannot foresee it ever happening. I cannot see how that large area, where a lot of meat and karakul pelts are produced, can ever be withdrawn, but we shall have to take the necessary steps to ensure that those parts are protected and that proper conservation methods are applied there. One of the necessities there is to ensure that more water is available. The Kalahari has too little water; its water is situated at great depth; much of it is bad and consequently it is difficult to farm in the Kalahari; the animals must walk long distances to water and therefore they trample the veld. What is more, the water of the Kalahari is not very permanent; it is situated at great depth and there is a possibility that that water will one day be exhausted. One therefore wonders whether the time has not come for the Government to investigate the possibility of pumping water into those parts. I realize that it will be a costly process, but I think that we can investigate it to determine how costly it will be. If the Kalahari does not have sufficient water, if not much more water can be brought to it, if the possibility exists that that water may perhaps one day be exhausted, it will perhaps be economical to pump the necessary water into the Kalahari from the rivers. For sheep one does not need such a tremendous amount of water. It may perhaps be economically possible and I think it should be investigated to see whether it can be done.

Mr. Speaker, that is all that I want to say. I wanted to emphasize that aspect of agriculture, i.e. the shortage of water in those parts. We can no longer neglect to supply the necessary water for those parts.

The hon. member for Karoo moved a very interesting motion, one which may be very fruitful if it is discussed maturely. I am sorry, however, that he presented his motion in the way he did. He tried to imply that the Government had been giving no attention whatsoever to this important region of our country in the past few years; he tried to imply that all the pleas he had made in the past had fallen on deaf ears. His motion has two legs, of course. In the first leg of his motion he asks for an investigation into the agricultural and mineral resources of the Northern Cape. He asks for an investigation as though those resources have never been investigated and are not being investigated at the moment. The second leg of his motion calls for recommendations to be made in regard to the establishment of industries in the triangle, Kimberley, Postmasburg and Kuruman. As far as the first leg is concerned, I just want to say this: This implies that he is of the opinion that the Government has not been doing its duty towards that region. The hon. member is very badly informed. I told him by way of interjection that he was very badly informed in my opinion. I want to state most emphatically here this afternoon that the Northern Cape is a region to which the Government is giving serious attention, as I shall try to indicate. The development of the Northern Cape has been enjoying the attention not only of local interests but of the State in particular. A previous speaker mentioned the offer made by Minister Haak in 1962 when he was Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs. At an annual congress of the Regional Development Association of the Northern Cape and Adjoining Areas he made an offer that the State would assist in compiling a regional plan for the Northern Cape. That was as long ago as 1962. At that time the University of Potchefstroom was already engaged in making a survey for the development association. An auxiliary committee of the N.R.D.C. (the Natural Resources Development Council) was then established, and the University of Potchefstroom was requested to continue its work so as to fit in with a more comprehensive regional plan. That being the position, the University of the Witwatersrand was also brought in as that University was already engaged in making a regional survey of the Vaal River basin, which also had to fit in with a more comprehensive regional plan, so as to enable the co-ordination of all these endeavours. The Provincial Administration of the Cape Province as well as the Provincial Administrations of the Free State and the Transvaal were also brought in, and in 1964 all these organizations, i.e. the Northern Cape Regional Development Association, the Association of the Catchment Area of the Vaal River, the University of Potchefstroom, the University of the Witwatersrand, the N.R.D.C., the Provincial Administrations of the Transvaal, the Cape Province and the Free State, met at Potchefstroom and on that occasion Minister Haak once again attended the meeting and gave an assurance that in the first place this undertaking should be the responsibility of the State, and that in the second place the Department of Planning, which was to replace the N.R.D.C., would act as the coordinating body.

Two committees were appointed in 1964, one an auxiliary committee and the other a technical committee, and in view of the fact that water was the decisive factor, it was decided at that time that the water aspect of the plan should first be investigated. As you heard here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members all spoke of the Northern Cape as though it extended from Hondeklip Bay to far beyond Askam in the Kalahari—actually the entire north-western part of South Africa, actually the dry part of South Africa where water is the important and decisive factor. The hon. member for Gordonia has already mentioned the fact that this auxiliary committee issued a report consisting of five volumes. These five volumes have been published. There are more volumes which are still outstanding and which will also be published this year. There are another three volumes which will be edited within the next month or so and which will then become available as well. The three reports deal with the following aspects: The first report deals with: Climate, water resources, traffic and tourism potential of the Northern Cape; the second report deals with: Population and social aspects; and the third report deals with: Economic structure and development possibilities. After the publication of these three volumes, eight volumes will be available of the report on this survey which has been conducted as a result of the steps taken by the Government. A final report will also be published which will deal with minerals, but as I shall indicate in a moment, a thorough investigation has already been made into the question of minerals. You will allow me, Sir, to refer in brief to this question as well. Various organizations have already made thorough investigations into the mineral potential of that region, but I want to make special mention of the fact that Iscor and Amcor have conducted a considerable number of investigations in that region. As hon. members know, Iscor has been doing prospecting on a large scale not only in the North-Western Cape but also in the Northern Cape. As far as searching for minerals as well as encouraging the mining of such minerals is concerned, the Geological Survey Division of the Department of Mines has also made a number of contributions by means of surveys conducted by that Division and by means of publications of that Division. I can mention a whole series: There is “Die Geologiese Kaart van die Mangaanafsettings by Postmasburg, met toeligting van mnr. P. L. Nel”; this was a special publication of that Division. Then there is “The Iron Deposits of the Union of South Africa” of Mr. P. A. Wagner, which deals with the iron ores of that region. Then there is “The Manganese Deposits of the Union of South Africa”, which also deals with the manganese deposits of those areas. Then there is “The Pre-Cambrian Dolomite and Limestone of the Northern Cape Province” of one Toombs. In addition there are “Die Geologiese Bladkaart” of Visser and “Gips van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika”. These are all minerals which are found in those parts. Then there is a contribution of the inter-departmental committee on Tiger’s-eye. The following publications are being edited at the moment: A manuscript on “The Geology and Mineralogy of the Kalahari Manganese Fields”; a manuscript on “Die Verspreiding, Ontstaan, die Struktuur en die Moontlikhede van die Asbesbelt tussen Prieska en Kuruman”; “Hersiening van die Geologiese Bladkaart van die Postmasburg-area”; a handbook on salt—as hon. members know, most of our salt is mined in those areas. In the vicinity of Postmasburg an area of 2,000 square miles will be covered by a magnetic and a radiometric survey from the air as part of a programme of the Department of Mines. I can also mention other facts. The Geological Survey Division has two regional offices in that area at the moment, one at Kuruman and one at Prieska. For the past eight years the staff of those offices have been doing a large amount of hydrological work as well as geological mapping, economic geology and engineering geology, and they have been rendering assistance to and advising members of the public and the mining companies in those parts. From this hon. members will deduce that a thorough investigation has in fact been conducted into the resources of those parts. I just want to add that the permanent committee for the location of industries and the development of border areas has conducted an investigation into the possibilities in respect of the location of industries in the Northern Cape. It is hoped that this report will be available at the end of April. I hope the hon. member has now been convinced that this area has been enjoying the attention of the authorities in particular. As soon as we have these reports at our disposal, we shall be able to give this matter further consideration. But what is also important, is this report of the Department of Water Affairs. I should like to quote an excerpt from that report in order to illustrate how important the question of water is to those regions. In this report a projection is made in respect of water consumption by the year 2000. (I do not know why it has been necessary lately for us to make so many projections to the year 2000.) The report reads as follows—

The important thing about this is that I have taken the figures from this same report in respect of those regions about which hon. members are concerned. A projection to the year 2000 was then made of the water consumption in those specific parts. I find that the projection in respect of those parts indicates that the water consumption will be more than triple the present consumption. In other words, these reports foresee tremendous development for that region. Whereas the projection in respect of the entire country puts the figure at 2.45, the figure in respect of that region is more than three times as much. I can furnish the figures to hon. members (translation)—

We see therefore that it will be more than three times the present consumption, in contrast to the figure of 2.45, which is the projection for the whole country. From these figures hon. members can therefore see that attention is most definitely being given to this region.

But the motion of the hon. member has a second leg. I now come to the question of the development of industries in that area, which he raised. The hon. member for Green Point quoted from a speech I recently made at Heilbron in which I said that every town and every region were not industrial areas just as every town and every region could not be a gold mining region. But each has its own potential and has the right to develop that potential. It is correct that I said that. But I want to draw his attention to the fact had I placed the emphasis on local initiative throughout. It is for local initiative to develop the natural resources in the first place. It is not the primary task of the authorities to set development in motion. The primary task of the authorities is the establishment of an infra-structure only. That is all. But the real initiative should preferably come from the private sector. This we must always bear in mind in dealing with this matter. The hon. member for Karoo proceeded from the premise that the Government was to establish and start industries in that area. This is not the Government’s task.

The hon. member also made special reference to the processing of iron ore in those areas. It is true that the largest deposits of iron ore in South Africa are to be found in that area. As the hon. member for Gordonia has already mentioned the iron ore deposits in that area are estimated at 5,000 million tons, and the deposits of manganese ore at 1,000 million tons. These are two very important metals for the development of the steel industry. The hon. member then said that he was not advancing a plea for the establishment of a steel factory there, but that he nevertheless wanted to draw attention to this matter. That is how I understood him. I take it that he wants consideration to be given to the question whether the third Iscor can be established in that area. I think that is what he meant. I want to say at once that that area along with other areas are being considered for the establishment of a third Iscor in South Africa. That region has certain advantages as regards the establishment of a third Iscor. That I want to concede. I have already mentioned the potential iron ore deposit of 5,000 million tons as well as the manganese ore deposit of 1,000 million tons. These are factors which contribute to the possibility of establishing a third Iscor in that area. On the other hand, however, other factors are not favourable, and these we duly have to take into account. I hope the hon. member for Gordonia too will not hold it against me when I say that not only the Northern Cape or the North-Western Cape should be seen as a whole when the State is creating an infra-structure, but that all of South Africa should be seen as a whole. When we come to the infra-structure of the country, we may not look to one region only; we must have regard to the country as a whole. Now, there are a considerable number of unfavourable factors which the State has to take into account as regards the establishment of such a steel industry in that area. Coal and coke, for example, are being mined a long way from that area and will have to be transported over long distances. This of course will make the manufacture of steel in that area expensive. Steel is being manufactured cheaply in many countries, and in order to compete with them, we must be able to manufacture it as cheaply as possible.

The generation of power is another factor which has to be taken into account. At the moment we use mainly coal for the generation of power. We envisage generating power also by means of a hydro-electric scheme when the Orange River project has been completed. In addition there is the prospect of a nuclear power station here in the Western Cape. But at the moment we have to depend on coal. Consequently the generation of power for that area will be very expensive. This is a prerequisite for the establishment of a steel industry in any area. Transport is another factor; not so much the transport of the material, but the finding of markets for the processed material. All markets are situated a long way from that area. The processed material has to be exported or go to areas in our country where it can be processed further, for example, the Rand and Pretoria.

The hon. member mentioned the decentralization of industries and the pamphlet he received in this connection, but he said that no attention had been given to this particular region. I have already drawn his attention to the fact that the permanent committee for the location of industries hopes to issue a report in April on border industry development in that specific area, which will be placed at the disposal of the Minister of Economic Affairs. Further discussions will be held subsequent to that. Therefore this matter has been receiving attention.

The hon. member for Gardens mentioned the significance of that area to the agricultural development of South Africa. This is so. He confined himself to bush encroachment in particular. Now I want to tell him at once that in point of fact bush encroachment does not have a great deal to do with the motion we are discussing here this afternoon. He merely referred to that in passing. Perhaps the hon. member is not well informed, but I can tell him that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is combating this very effectively.

That is stated in the report.

Yes, the report mentioned that. But that Department has been employing very effective methods of combating bush encroachment.

The hon. member also mentioned the question of water which had to be brought to that area. This will naturally happen. He knows why the Van der Kloof-P. K. le Roux Dam is not receiving the attention at the moment which he wants it to receive. Surely he knows well enough what the reason is. There is no question of that project being shelved. The entire plan in all its phases will be carried out from time to time according to when the country can afford to do so.

Mr. Speaker, there is not really much more one can say about this particular motion. I just want to bring it to the attention of hon. members once again that the entire situation of that entire region, as large as it is, including the North-Western Cape, is receiving special and serious attention from the Department of Planning. It will most definitely always receive the attention that can be devoted to it, because we have to deal with the whole of South Africa, and we cannot have regard to one region only, however important that region may be. That region has very rich natural mineral resources, but it does not have other things, such as water and power, whereas human material too is still thinly scattered. There would have been human material if the region had these other things. If water and power are too expensive, however, we simply have to mine those deposits and process the ore elsewhere. One cannot process everything at the place where it is mined if circumstances do not justify that being done. I am surprised at what the hon. member for Karoo said. He spoke here this afternoon as though we were applying a kind of colonial exploitation and as though the rest of South Africa was exploiting that area. Throughout the years when that exploitation was being done outside South Africa, the hon. member and his Party did not lift a finger. Now that we are processing those resources inside South Africa, they describe that as exploitation of that part by the rest of South Africa. In my opinion that was a particularly unfair remark. We must see to our fatherland as a whole and not have regard to one part only. The authorities will most definitely do their utmost to do justice to every area, just as they will do justice to this region too.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that I have received the assurance from the hon. the Minister that the Government is paying attention to this particular region of the Northern Cape. We have never doubted this either. We are very much aware that the Northern Cape expects to be given full attention. In fact, we have felt for many years that we have lagged behind in many respects and that we should receive the full attention of all bodies in order to bring about improvement and progress as regards the conditions in the Northern Cape, which we feel should already receive attention to-day.

I do not want to deal again with the matters and the facts which were mentioned here. However, there are two important matters pertaining to the Northern Cape to which we have to pay attention and in regard to which action will have to be taken in the near future. The first is water. It is necessary that the Northern Cape region, and the farmers in particular, should be certain at this stage that they have security. In no aspect of agriculture, whether it be irrigation or stock farming, will the farmers have a secure future unless the water supply is assured. I am glad that we have the assurance, according to the information at our disposal, that we will be able to provide security to the farmers of that settlement as from next year, as progress is made with the Verwoerd Dam. We are, however, concerned because we have no certainty that the Orange River project will be carried out as announced. I want to assure you, Sir, that if the Orange River project, as originally announced, is not carried out, it will result in the farmers of the Northern Cape having no prospects in certain respects. I therefore plead that we should carry out the project as it was originally announced.

We do not want to discuss the manganese and ore of Postmasburg and those parts now. The hon. the Minister has furnished us with a good explanation in this regard. I may just assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is one restrictive factor in this respect, namely the tariff on the export and conveyance of ore and manganese. The hon. the Minister made an appeal to private initiative recently. But as far as the mining and processing of iron ore and manganese is concerned, private initiative is hampered to such an extent by the transport tariff that in many cases we cannot make any progress. It is having such an adverse effect on us, on Postmasburg and those parts in particular, that some people have to be paid off. Those people are then forced to leave that region and to find employment elsewhere. It is also having an adverse effect on the population figure in our area. Transport is one of our basic problems in those parts. Everything that is transported from those parts goes in an easterly direction. Therefore, until we have roads and railways, no development can take place there. If we have transport from the south to the north, the Northern Cape will be developed. We found recently that while we were able to transport thousands of bales of lucerne to the north, we had to handle them at least eight times before they reached their destination, the place where they were to be used. Transport is therefore a vital factor. I am not insisting to-day that the next Iscor should be situated at Postmasburg or wherever. But we are sure—and our area lays claim to it—that if there is one place which deserve’s it, it is the Northern Cape. We are pleading for it, not only because we should like to have it there, but also because we need it. If the Northern Cape has to cede the great potential which is available there, to other parts of the country, we shall certainly feel that we were not afforded the opportunity of making use of what we were granted.

In conclusion I want to say that we in the Northern Cape are lagging very far behind as regards development. We shall be very glad if we, as a development association, can muster our resources to bring about the development of the Northern Cape and if we can receive the assurance in this connection that we have the full support of the Government and the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, firstly I would like to express my appreciation for the support given by the hon. member for Gordonia and particularly by the hon. member for Prieska. It is refreshing and heartening to know that my plea is a good one.

I want to comment only on one aspect and that is the siting of the new Iscor. The hon. the Minister mentioned the lack of water and the cost of bringing in coking coal. I do not want to enter into any controversy, but I want to establish, as a fact, that we had the water when this suggestion was first put forward. The dams in the upper reaches of the river have almost completely closed off the supply of water in the lower reaches of the Vaal River. The flow of water below Barkly West during the winter is to the order of 500 to 600 cusecs, which is very little. Secondly, we feel that the Van der Kloof Dam should be proceeded with without any delay and this will solve the water worry. As regards the matter of coking coal I want to say that this coal is carried all the way to Iscor from Natal. If one cares to read Iscor’s report which came out quite recently, one will find, that all their coking coal comes from Natal. It goes to Pretoria and to Vanderbijlpark. Even if it did not, there are new methods of manufacturing steel, namely by the use of electricity and basic oxygen furnaces. We have a fine supply of power in the area in question and the Escom people have done a magnificent job. Having established these facts, I want to say in conclusion that I am glad to hear that there is going to be a report in April in regard to the possibility of industries. The hon. the Minister must not get me wrong. I say that the Government must sponsor industry and that we want one good sponsored State industry to give encouragement to other people and to counter the disabilities with which that part of the country suffers. I take no exception to remarks made at me as to the way or style in which I have introduced the motion or to the accusation that I always bring this up. I feel very strongly on this matter and I believe that I symbolize the feeling of the people in that part of the country and I do hope the hon. the Minister will accept it in that spirit. Having said this, and having had a very good discussion and considering the fact that the matter has been ventilated and that we, as well as others, have learnt a lot, I would now like, with the permission of the House, to withdraw my motion.

With leave, motion withdrawn.