Last night when the House adjourned, I was dealing with the question of surpluses which will be built up in the revenue accounts of the different boards and pointed out that the hon. the Minister would want these surpluses to be built up so that he could make use of them. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister has accused us of the United Party of having prevented him from using the surpluses which have been built up in the Services Levy Account, and I pointed out that it was not the United Party which prevented him from using those surpluses. It was the law as prepared by Dr. Verwoerd and the promises made by Dr. Verwoerd. I pointed out to this Deputy Minister that he and his department are responsible for the building up of those surpluses. Had they carried out Dr. Verwoerd’s policy and his promises, there would have been no surpluses, because he had promised that as soon as the levy was no longer necessary for the services which he envisaged the levy would be scrapped; it would be abolished. Sir, why did these surpluses build up? They were built up for the very reason mentioned here by the hon. the Minister when he told us about the long waiting list for housing. Now why is there a waiting list in practically every urban Bantu area for housing, as he himself has said? It is because this Government has neglected its duty. It did not see to it that there were houses. We know very well that the Johannesburg municipality wants to build more houses. The Minister cannot deny that and the Minister will have to agree in this House that it is his department and he who stopped the municipality from building those houses. There is a shortage, and if the houses had been built as the expansion took place, as was demanded by the situation in those urban areas, there would have been a use for the surpluses in the Levies Fund and the levies could then have been put to use. Now these surpluses, we contend, will build up again. Although the Services Levy is now done away with as a services levy, the new levies or tax which will be imposed by this Bill under consideration will permit of the building of surpluses again, and the Minister can engineer that because the urban authorities, the administration boards or the municipalities, whoever controls the collection of these funds, can only spend the money if the expenditure is approved by the Minister. He can in effect stop any urban area or any authority from spending the money which is collected and in that way he can build up surpluses and he can stipulate conditions for expenditure from the fund. He can attach strings to his permission to spend money in urban areas. He can say: “I give you permission to use the money, provided that you do so and so.” He can, in fact, insist that they make money available for him by way of donations for use in areas outside the urban areas.

How many times have we said “voluntarily”?

All it means is that the local authority can say “All right, we will give you R1 million to spend in the Transkei on condition that you give us permission to build more houses.” Has that not happened in fact? Has it not happened in the past?

No. Can you mention one instance to substantiate what you are insinuating?

Was the municipality of Johannesburg’s donation of R100 000 …

That was out and out a donation.

Was it unconditional?

It was unconditional as far as I know, yes.

Was it not connected with the provision of additional housing?

No.

Was it not connected to the provision of additional housing for the Bantu in urban areas?

No, of course not.

Well, my information was that there was a condition about further housing. Has the Minister given the Johannesburg municipality permission to build more houses?

I have given it. As a matter of fact, I shall come back to that question when I reply to the hon. member. I have given them permission, but not on any condition.

Unconditional?

Of course, yes. As a matter of fact, I was going to challenge you or the United Party to give me one instance where a United Party-controlled council …

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why permission was withheld before? Why was his permission for Johannesburg to build more houses delayed?

Because of the fact that those requests from the Johannesburg council were investigated by the Department of Community Development. [Interjections.]

For years that investigation went on without a result. The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot pretend that the Johannesburg municipality has not in fact had to get his permission to build houses and that the permission was not withheld by his department.

But you cannot use the levy to build houses.

I am not talking about the levy.

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue. The hon. member must proceed with his speech.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the Bantu all want him to spend the money collected in the urban areas in the Reserves. The Bantu in the Reserves would certainly want that, but that is not the attitude of the Bantu in urban areas. What does Dr. Nkomo say in this interview published in Rapport? This is what he says—

That is the whole attitude of this Government, and it was stated openly by the previous Deputy Minister, Mr. Coetzee. He said it was the policy to make the urban areas less attractive and the border areas more attractive. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he is changing the wording which is used in the existing law, as it stands now. Section 19 (2) (c) of the Urban Areas Act reads—

The Minister changed it from “to be for the benefit or the welfare” to “as being in the interests of the Bantu”. I submit that there is a difference in meaning between the words “welfare” and “interests”. “Welfare” can mean housing and other amenities, but “interests” can mean anything; it can mean the political advancement, or to subsidize, for instance, a homeland Government. That would be in the interests of the Bantu, but it would not necessarily mean the welfare of the Bantu. It is only at the discretion of this Minister how the money can be used. If the Johannesburg municipality made a voluntary donation to be spent in the Transkei for some project, the Minister could say that he is not going to spend it on that. He can say that, although it is their money and although they are offering it voluntarily. He can say how the money is to be spent and he will decide in whose interest it will be spent. Let us take a case of a student in the urban areas who wanted to go to the university but who was unable to get a bursary from the local authorities because they could not use this money. I must say I am shocked to hear this afternoon, in reply to a question by an hon. member on this side of the House to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, that there are no provisions at the moment for apprenticeships to be served in a Reserve. Where are these people being trained? They are not allowed to be trained in the urban areas.

You did not listen properly to the reply. The Bantu Government are in the process of drawing up …

Yes, they are in the process of doing it, but apprentices are not allowed to be trained in the urban areas. It is against the Government’s policy to allow them to be trained in the urban areas. Therefore these local authorities cannot make provision for their training out of the funds they have at their disposal or out of the surpluses they have at their disposal. They cannot make provision for training. Over all these years this Government has done nothing to provide training for them in the Reserves. They said that they must go to their homes, but nothing has been done for them in the Reserves. Now, after all these years, they are in the process of doing something, but only after having stopped them from being trained, in Johannesburg for instance.

Do you not know how many trade schools and technical schools there are in the homelands? Why does the hon. member make such an accusation, when he knows that it is wrong?

I am just referring to a reply which was given today by the hon. the Minister.

The reply was in regard to formal apprenticeship.

I know that. Why has nothing been done about formal apprenticeships?

It is not a question of “nothing”; everything is being done in this regard.

The point is that nothing is being done for these Africans who want better training. They are prohibited from having it in the urban areas and the Government itself does not make provision for it in the rural areas. I say that we are not prepared to agree to the amendment of the existing law as has been requested by the hon. the Minister, because of the unsatisfactory manner in which the hon. the Minister and his department have handled this matter in the interests of the Bantu in the past. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this hon. member now says that I accused them of being responsible for the accumulation of these surpluses in the levy funds. Of course I made that accusation, and I am doing so again now. Those hon. members are responsible for it, and I want to try to prove it. Secondly, I issued a challenge to those hon. members on two occasions and I now want to do so for the third time. Let us then differ about who is responsible for the accumulation of those surpluses, but the fact remains that those surpluses do exist. For the third time I want to challenge those hon. members to come forward and help us release those surpluses so that they may be utilized for purposes in the interests of the Bantu. Why do they not do this?

Where?

Wherever they exist. I am issuing this challenge to the Opposition for the third time, and you, Mr. Chairman, must notice how silent they remain and sit here yawning when we issue this challenge to them. They have much to say about the levy fund, but as soon as they are confronted with the facts of the situation, they remain silent. Why? They remain silent because they do not want to face up to the reality of the situation; because they want to exploit the matter politically as they have been doing for many years and because they do not want to realize, as I tried to convince them yesterday and want to try to convince them again today, that the Bantu are coming forward and saying that it is in their interests that funds are spent in the interests of their families in the Bantu homelands. [Interjections.] Of course they are doing this.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister?

You may put a question in a moment; just allow me to complete my argument. Very recently the Chief Minister of the Transkei, Kaiser Matanzima, made a request in respect of the Bill now before this House, namely that some of this money which will be collected should be paid to the Transkei for assistance and development there. [Interjections.] But of course. Surely hon. members know too that the money collected in terms of the Bantu Services Levy Act is one of the three involved here now. Apart from the political motive behind the matter, I completely fail to understand why not one of the hon. members opposite is prepared to accept my challenge so that we may dispose of this matter of the accumulated surpluses in the levy funds once and for all. If hon. members opposite do not agree, they may rightly be accused of being the cause …

According to which method?

If hon. members opposite would only give an indication that they would be agreeable to those funds being released for utilization in the general interests of the Bantu, we would know what to do about the matter.

We have often indicated that we are of the opinion that that money should be released so that it need not be utilized only in terms of the provisions of the Bantu Services Levy Act but may be utilized in the interests of the Bantu in general. But the moment we talk about this, that side of the House accuses us of wanting to use that money for developing the homelands. Because hon. members opposite have that “kink” in their minds, they do not want those funds to be released. It is because they do not trust us. I can understand that hon. members opposite can argue like that in a political sense.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, if he needs money for specific development in the homelands, why does he not request that money from the Treasury?

Mr. Chairman, money is needed for many purposes in the homelands. Large sums of money are requested from the Treasury. Yesterday evening or this morning hon. members could again read in the newspapers that Dr. Adendorff had mentioned an amount of R254 million for homelands development. But there are other circumstances which apply as well and of which I have tried to convince hon. members. The Johannesburg City Council has realized this now. I am referring to the question of housing. The hon. member for Transkei now wants to make the charge against us that certain conditions were laid down in respect of the granting of housing by the Johannesburg City Council. I deny this categorically. The hon. member does not understand the position. What is the position? The position is that as a result of the fact that there are many Bantu employees in Johannesburg and Soweto whose families are living in the homelands, and as a result of the fact that there is a very long waiting list for housing in Soweto, people who have to deal with the administration in practice appreciate the simple fact which hon. members opposite apparently cannot appreciate, namely that if the necessary provision is made in the Bantu homelands from the Bantu Services Levy Fund and in every possible way for these people who are economically and non-economically active in Johannesburg, it follows automatically that houses become available in Soweto which may be allocated to people who can in fact be economically active in Soweto. Surely it is in the interests of those White employers in Johannesburg and in the interests of the families of the Bantu who want to be settled in the homelands, that there should be housing available in the homelands for that purpose. The Bantu realize this and so do the people who deal with these matters in practice. I therefore cannot understand why those hon. members persist in this attitude in spite of the fact that I have now challenged them three times to say whether they are prepared to allow the money which is collected by way of the service levy to be released for use in the interests of the Bantu in general. Why is there a surplus? The reason for that is very simple. The Bantu Services Levy Act provides how these funds may be applied. Consequently the funds may not be applied for any purpose other than those provided for in the Act. What does the Act provide? The Act provides that the funds may be utilized for basic services, namely for water, electricity and sewerage connections, etc.

Who provided that?

It was provided in 1952. Every time we say those funds should be released so that these accumulated surpluses would not form, those hon. members say that Dr. Verwoerd made a promise in regard to these matters, namely that these funds would be utilized only in the interests of the Bantu of the employers in the area in which the funds have been collected. [Interjections.] This is what hon. members say. Now they are saying, “Hear, hear!”. I want to say that in Johannesburg alone there is a tremendous accumulated surplus of I do not know how much.

Six million rands.

There are levy funds amounting to R6 million in Johannesburg. Why is the R6 million lying there? It is lying there because at present there is no need for sewerage connections, electricity and basic services. That is the reason. For that reason neither the Johannesburg City Council nor anyone else can utilize it.

What about houses?

The Act provides that it may not be utilized for houses.

Can the Act not be amended?

If hon. members are prepared to have the Act amended, they should say so. See how confused they are now! They do not consider these matters in all their implications. Hon. members must listen very carefully now.

Propose that we amend the Act.

Yes, that is my challenge to them, but just listen to this. The moment we say those funds should be released so as not to form an accumulated surplus, but to be spent in the interests of the Bantu, those gentlemen time and again accuse us of breaking Dr. Verwoerd’s promise and allege that we are going to use that money for Bantu homeland development. For that reason we cannot release it. We cannot release it for the reason I have just mentioned. Therefore I am challenging those hon. members and want to tell them that they are responsible for those accumulated surpluses. [Interjections.]

May I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister? The hon. the Deputy Minister says that those funds are not available for the building of houses in the White area. Would he agree if that money were released for the provision of housing in the White area?

We say that we shall be prepared to release the funds for general expenditure in the interests of the Bantu. That therefore includes houses. [Interjections.] Let me just finish speaking. Naturally this therefore includes houses. Does this answer the hon. member’s question?

No.

Why does the hon. member want to substitute another restriction for the existing restriction, which is already giving us so much trouble? It is good and highly necessary that we thrash out this matter. Surely it is better to say that it should be utilized in the interests of the Bantu, for all their purposes.

In this regard I should like to point out another very important advantage to hon. members. In discussions with the representative organizations which came to see us about this, I said that if we could, for example, release the money in Johannesburg or the more than R30 million in accumulated surpluses, surely we would be able to take that money into account in determining the fees to be paid in terms of this Bill by the White employer in respect of his Bantu employees. This is why I accused the hon. member for Durban Point yesterday of pleading for the housewives while they are the people who are making the housewives pay through their necks. That is my point. Those hon. members want to take money from the White Revenue Account in order to use it on the Bantu Revenue Account. We say that is completely wrong. I maintain that if one could release this surplus of R6 million in the levy fund of the Johannesburg local authority and utilize it for Bantu housing in Johannesburg, or for Bantu education, or even for bursaries, as I said yesterday, surely the White employers in Johannesburg would have to pay less in terms of this amount which is to be determined. Surely this is very simple. I again want to level the accusation that hon. members opposite are primarily responsible for this surplus. I want to challenge them to reply to this accusation. I want to read to them Dr. Verwoerd’s precise words in 1954 in regard to this Bantu Services Levy Act. I quote from the Hansard of 11th June, 1952, Vol. 80, col. 7766—

This is the requirement we have always fulfilled. I read further—

This is precisely what we are doing now. We are therefore implementing the words of Dr. Verwoerd. I just want to remind hon. members that many questions have been asked in this House about this issue. Much serious thought has already been given to the possible repeal of this Bantu Services Levy Act as well as to the surpluses which arise in certain areas. But why could and has this Act not been repealed? If the levy fund were not abolished completely, but only in one area, say in area A, one would have the position that the people of area B would object strenuously because the people in area B were in fact paying a levy, while it was not the case in area A. Surely that would be unfair. All the industrialists would then go to area A because no levy was payable there. To have abolished the levy in certain areas would therefore have caused tremendous problems. The abolition of this fund should therefore be universal, and this is precisely what is being done in terms of this measure. However, as far as the accumulated surpluses are concerned we have the problem which I explained a moment ago. The hon. member for Transkei spoke about the question of housing in Johannesburg and specifically in Soweto. I just want to say to the hon. member that since I became Deputy Minister, I do not know of one single motivated request from the Johannesburg City Council in respect of housing for their Bantu which was refused by me.

But not one was approved either.

If hon. members opposite agree that no requests were refused, they would realize what irresponsible statements have been made here about this question. The hon. member for Transkei now says that no one request has been approved either, but I want to inform him that in the past month approval has been granted for the construction of approximately 3 000 houses in Soweto. There are still one or two requests from the Johannesburg City Council outstanding. We have been in touch with them all along and they understand the situation very well. The reason why these requests were not and could not be approved previously, was that such a request had to go through various stages. For example, the loans involved are considered by the Department of Community Development as well as by the Housing Commission. Consequently it is a lengthy process before the necessary approval is given. But as far as my department and I were concerned, there was no delay in respect of the matter. The allegation made by the hon. member is therefore completely devoid of all accuracy.

Lastly, the hon. member asked why the words “for the welfare” are being changed to “in the interests of Bantu”. This change is being made simply because “in the interests of Bantu” is a wider concept and we are therefore of the opinion that it would be better from the viewpoint of the Bantu to use these words. One of the problems we have to deal with in practice in regard to funds voted for Bantu is that if the statutory provisions are not wide enough and contain the phrase “the welfare of the Bantu”, it is argued that certain things are not actually in the interests of the welfare of the Bantu. The legal people have advised us that if you changed it to “in the interests of the Bantu” you would overcome that problem and would not have the difficulty of being handicapped in respect of the expenditure of the funds. This is the only reason for this amendment being included in the Bill. I shall therefore content myself with saying that I hope this discussion about the levy fund and the surpluses in respect thereof will have the favourable result that those hon. gentlemen will help to release the accumulated surpluses. In this way we shall then be able to spend them as they also think they may be spent, according to the discussion we have had here in the past few days.

Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister when he says it is very important that we discuss this matter fully this afternoon. I must say, listening to him over the last 15 minutes has certainly given me information that I did not have before. For instance, the hon. the Deputy Minister tells us that the R6 million odd surplus that has been in the hands of the Johannesburg Municipality and which he is now so eager to get released, is there for one reason only, namely that “Soweto has got everything it needs by way of basic services”.

Do you not know the terms of the relevant Act?

I listened very carefully. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned them. He mentioned electricity, provision of water and sewerage. What about transport? Does that not apply at all?

No.

All right; let us leave transport aside. But let us take the three which he mentioned. I do not know whether he has been to Soweto recently, but he cannot tell me that every house in Soweto is supplied with electricity, that every householder in Soweto is able to walk in and turn on a switch, which in most Western countries is considered an absolutely elementary comfort and not as a luxury at all. Now will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me why he could not have released the R6 million to electrify the houses in Soweto?

Because the Act says you can only use it for basic services; only for connections; you cannot supply electricity. Just read the Act.

Let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that the connections are very expensive. If he supplied at least the connections to those houses, shall we say, where there are still 30-year leases— there is a large number of them and people there cannot afford those basic connections—that would be one of the services which could have used up some of this controlled surplus which he says we have to get released.

It refers to linked services, not internal services.

I am talking of links as well. Is a connection from the mains to a house considered as a link?

No.

So, even leaving that aside, will he tell me then whether every street in Soweto is electrified?

Of course not; you cannot use the levy funds for that purpose in terms of the relevant Act.

I am very ignorant about the details of how you can use this money, so will the hon. the Deputy Minister say very carefully in words of one syllable so that even I can understand exactly what form of basic service the money can be used for? He said it could be used for electricity. I have always understood that that would mean the supply of electricity to the township.

No.

Well, I should like to know exactly what it can be used for. I am sure, Sir, that even in terms of what the hon. the Deputy Minister is now going to describe, we shall find a lack or a shortage in Soweto. I know that township very well and I know that it is lacking in practically every basic amenity one can think of. Will the Deputy Minister therefore please tell me exactly what the money can be used for? If the uses to which the money may be put are so circumscribed and if every single service for which the money could be used in terms of the Act has been supplied, I would be the first to say: “Let us forget about Dr Verwoerd in this instance; let us release the money which has already been collected and use it for something else.” After all, nobody is going to hand that money back to the employers. Let me hear now exactly what sort of water services can be supplied, whether every house in Soweto is supplied, and whether there is water-borne sewerage throughout the area of Soweto. I should also like to know exactly what form of electricity this money can be used for. I believe that there is a large number of things for which the money could be used even in terms of the existing Act.

Mr. Chairman, we know for what purposes this money can be used. The hon. the Deputy Minister can explain to the hon. member the purposes for which it can be used. I know, for instance, that the money cannot be used for the purposes she wants to use it.

Sir, we are sick and tired of the challenges which are being thrown across to us by the Deputy Minister. He says that he has now challenged us three times to tell him whether we agree to this money being unfrozen, or “losgemaak”, so that he can use it for anything. Now I ask him: When has he asked us to agree to a law allowing this money to be unfrozen and used for other purposes?

We discussed it last year during the debate on the Bantu Affairs Administration Bill.

I shall tell you what happened last year, Sir. Last year protests were made by the industrialists, by the Chamber of Industries and by other employers’ associations because they feared that the surplus money would be used by the Minister in the reserves. Is that not so?

Yes, that is correct.

Did the employers not object because they feared the Minister would use the surplus money in the reserves? What did this Minister do, Sir? He amended his Bill to make it quite clear that he would not use the money otherwise than provided by law. We did not introduce that amendment. He did so, to show his bona fides to the world. He wanted to show how honest he and his Government were and so he made the law quite clear that he would not use it anywhere but in the urban areas as provided for. Was there any request by this Deputy Minister to us to allow him to use the money anywhere else?

We discussed the matter then and I said that it was a pity that we had to do that, but that, under the circumstances, we were doing so for a reason.

Mr. Chairman, I challenge this Deputy Minister to quote from Hansard or anywhere else to show that he asked us on this side of the House to help him use this money for instance for supplying houses in Soweto. He is full of challenges; now I challenge him to tell us when he asked us to give our consent to the use of this money. Must we get up in this House and take the lead because he is afraid to go back on the word of Dr. Verwoerd? That is what he is asking us to do. He does not want to break Dr. Verwoerd’s word; he wants us to do so. He wants us to be responsible. He is in fact saying: “Please break Dr. Verwoerd’s word for me; I am too weak to do it.” This is the same as their attitude in regard to section 10. They wanted to get rid of those permanent rights, so Mr. Froneman went out and told the Rapportryers that they would like to remove them, but that there would be an outcry from the United Party if they did so. Why could they not take that step? Because it was Dr. Verwoerd who gave the urban Bantu those rights and they could not go baok on them. In this regard I say: Let the Deputy Minister come to us with a reasoned case and tell us what he wants this money for. Let him go to the employers and say: “Look here, I want to use this money, the surplus which has been built up because of my failure to act. If you agree to let me use this surplus, I shall use it in the areas for which you paid that money. I shall use it for the benefit of the Africans whom you employ.”

Let him see what their reaction would be. He has never put this to the people who paid this tax. He has never put it to the people who got this assurance from Dr. Verwoerd. Sir, I cannot understand the hon. the Deputy Minister. He says that he could not carry out Dr. Verwoerd’s promise to abolish the levy once it had served its purpose in any particular area because that would have meant discriminating against employers in other areas. What does he propose to do in this Bill? In this very Bill he proposes to discriminate; he is taking the right to discriminate.

May I ask the hon. member for Transkei why he does not accept my friendly challenge to him to tell the Committee that they on that side would be willing to unfreeze those funds?

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister must think that I am a monkey if he thinks that I am going to give him carte blanche to do what he likes with that money. What has he said? He has already said in this very speech that he will use it in the reserves. Let the Deputy Minister come to us with a proposition and tell us how he wants to use the money. What is our objection to this Bill? Our objection is that this Deputy Minister is going to use the money as he sees fit and tax the people as he sees fit.

You are running away now.

I am not running away at all. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister says that he has now abolished the services levy in terms of Dr. Verwoerd’s promise because it is no longer necessary. He has not abolished it at all; he has put it in under another name; the levy still remains. What was our attitude to this provision? Did we oppose it and say: “You cannot collect that money which is being paid at the moment as a service levy and use it for services to the Bantu.” Did we say: “No.” We approved of it. What we have objected to is the fact that he proposes to take more; we have proposed that the amount be fixed at R1, the amount which they are paying at present. We are responsible people, Sir. We know that this money is needed; that it must be collected and spent in the proper way, but we are sick and tired of the hon. the Deputy Minister coming to us with these senseless challenges. Let him be “kragdadig”. Let him have the courage to go against Dr. Verwoerd’s promise and let him put a proposition to us. If he does so, we will consider it on its merits.

Sir, I do not want to add a great deal more to what has been said by my hon. friend who has just sat down, but I would like to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister how this Bantu services levy arose at all. He must remember, if he knows the history of this particular matter, that it was as a result of considerable discussions that took place between his predecessor in office, Dr. Verwoerd, who was then Minister of Native Affairs, and the Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the local authorities, because it was essential to raise funds for these services and because housing loans could not, in terms of the laws governing housing loans, be used for those linked services. A great issue was made of the fact that if funds were provided to install these linked services, the provision of housing could then be expedited. That was how the whole thing started, because at that particular time there was a tremendous shortage of houses, for various reasons which I do not propose to go into now. Dr. Verwoerd, the late Prime Minister, at that time gave this assurance to the industrialists and to the commercial people of the City of Johannesburg, where this whole issue was raised and resolved and a Bill was then placed before Parliament. But Dr. Verwoerd’s assurance was not given to us. We spoke on behalf of the country; we spoke on behalf of those people who had been singled out for the payment of this levy for a specific purpose, and Dr. Verwoerd then gave this assurance to them. He said that the money would only be used for that purpose and that the law empowering the collection of those funds would only remain in force as long as these funds were required.

Sir, let me go on to the next point. I have yet to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister appeal for the co-operation of this side of the House when he wants a particular law passed by this House. I have yet to hear him ask this side of the House for co-operation to assist him to pass a law when he knows that such co-operation could be most valuable.

Maybe the affair of Mayfair has upset him.

Yes, maybe that is so. I do not quite follow the significance of the remark, but I understand it is a very important place. At any rate, I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister and his party must be very pleased that Mayfair is so significant. But I want to go a little further now.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to issue challenges I would like him to answer two questions. More houses will be built in Soweto, as an example, or in any other municipality. Take the Cape, for instance. You may require additional link services or you may require the increase of the capacity of some of these link services. You certainly cannot permit the fund to be completely dissipated until you have completed all the buildings in the townships. Further, does not the hon. the Deputy Minister know that his Department has had discussions with local authorities in areas where land is beginning to be short, in regard to building duplex buildings and considering the question of density building? All that is part and parcel of the development of these huge complexes lying outside the various cities and towns of our country. This will require additional funds from the Levy Fund but I certainly do not think it will require this large amount which is lying idle at the moment. But furthermore, what steps have the hon. the Deputy Minister or his Department taken, or any other official source over which he has some authority, to discuss this whole issue with the industrialists and the commercial people of this country? When has he taken any steps to get together local authorities and these various interested parties to find out what their interests and co-operation would be in the matter? Because that is the way the thing originally started and they were consulted. We lived at that time in a state of Government where they had not reached the stage which the Government has reached now, where it willy-nilly pushes everything aside in order to achieve its objectives. And that is exactly what the Deputy Minister is doing now. He is trying to draw a red herring by issuing a challenge to people to whom he has no right to issue a challenge. He must issue a challenge to the people who pay and if they are prepared, then I say the Deputy Minister can come to us with a proposition. Then it is a different story. Tell the House exactly what you have been able to achieve with the taxpayer of the country, the man who has been singled out to look after this specific aspect. The Deputy Minister may well be met, of course, by the reply: What about the amenities in our own areas? He correctly raised earlier in his speeches yesterday the question of electricity as an amenity. If he examined his own Hansard he will find that he talked about electricity as an amenity. I would like to tell him that in the fifties, I think it was in 1955 or 1956, we were able to persuade the Jonannesburg City Council to set aside nearly R5 million or R6 million from its capital funds to provide reticulation right throughout the township of Soweto. It required very much more than that, but because of the restriction on the use of capital funds, the money was spent at a very slow rate on the one important amenity which could prevent crime and save lives and which could give a new picture to a town, where people need not be afraid of the dark at night and need not be afraid of this tremendous wave of crime. That one amenity which can change the entire picture, as it has of civilized people throughout the world, that is something to which the Deputy Minister could direct his attention and if he would have spoken to the employers who pay, and if he had asked them to permit him to do that in the area for which they pay, they would have been only too delighted to do so. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to get the co-operation of the employers to spend the money as the Act now stands for the welfare of the Bantu in the urban areas where they are working; I give him the assurance that the R6 million or R7 million which is lying in the coffers of the Native Services Levy Fund in Johannesburg will be spent within a year on the tremendous amount of amenities and services which are required. But do not throw challenges for the sake of publicity; do not throw out challenges for the sake of bravado, and do not throw out challenges for the sake of Brakpan or Mayfair, which you have already lost. Throw out a challenge to the employers, the people who have been singled out to pay this tax, and if you do that, you can come back to us and throw out a challenge to us.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has been throwing out challenges …

I hope the hon. member is not going to repeat all those arguments.

Mr. Chairman, are you anticipating what I am going to say?

Order!

As I say the hon. the Deputy Minister has thrown out challenges, but we have challenged him—we have not had a reply yet from him—to say when this side of the House has opposed the use of any of these funds for the benefit of the urban Bantu. That is the potent question which the hon. the Deputy Minister has to answer. My young friend from Turffontein put this question to him straight while he was speaking and he ran away from it. I must also take the hon. the Deputy Minister to task this afternoon for attempting to mislead the Committee yesterday when the question arose about the taking of this money and spending it in the homelands. The hon. the Deputy Minister then said that this had been requested by the Bantu leaders. When we asked which Bantu leaders, he implied that they were the leaders of the urban Bantu and that the urban Bantu were agreeable to this.

Yes.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says “yes”. However, this afternoon, when my hon. friend from Transkei tackled him and got him into a corner when he asked him which Bantu leaders, the hon. the Deputy Minister said Chief Kaizer Matanzima.

But I only mentioned Kaizer Matanzima as an example.

Why did he not mention somebody else? It is fine to hide behind Chief Kaizer Matanzima whom we all recognize as a pawn of the Government and who has one interest only and that is to further his own ends in the Transkei. We accept this. Of course Chief Kaizer Matanzima wants this money spent in the Transkei. He does not want it spent in the urban areas. Let the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us that the Bantu leaders in the urban areas have said that the money must be spent in the Transkei or in the rural areas. Let the hon. the Deputy Minister come with proof of that. He should produce that evidence to this Committee; not that it was Chief Kaizer Matanzima who wanted to use it in the rural areas.

The hon. the Deputy Minister will play with words—we have known him now for a few years—and he is doing it here again this afternoon. Every time we ask him about this challenge, he uses the term “in die algemeen”—in general. He said that he could use it for the Banu in general. He knows full well our opposition to that. He asked whether we did not trust him; of course we do not trust him. We do not trust him or this Nationalist Party when we come to this sort of thing, because they will not use the money in the urban areas.

Mr. Van Blerk also does not trust them.

They will not use it. The hon. the Deputy Minister is once again, as I say, hiding behind words. He is very clever this way. He talks about “voluntarily”. The only thing which happened voluntarily today was the crossing by Mr. Van Blerk. That is the only voluntary thing that happened; not what happened with the Johannesburg city council. The hon. the Deputy Minister challenges us. Once again he was being clever and playing with words when he challenged us to prove that at any time he had refused the Johannesburg city council the authority to build houses for the Bantu.

As if there is no shortage of housing.

He knows full well that that is quite correct and that we can never say that he refused it, but what about the delays?

The dragging of the feet.

Yes, what about the dragging of the feet? It is no good this hon. Deputy Minister hiding behind these things. It is quite obvious, quite apparent what his intention is here. He and the Government have decided they are going back on Dr. Verwoerd’s undertaking. We are prepared to accept this, provided that money is spent in the urban areas. Let us still stick to the spirit of what Dr. Verwoerd said when he introduced this legislation. It was pointed out by my hon. friend from Transkei that we never introduced the legislation; we never stipulated those conditions. Those conditions in respect of the spending of this money were stipulated by the Nationalist Government. If that hon. Deputy Minister or his predecessors or even the Minister himself had really wanted to spend this money on the provision of amenities or housing or anything else for the Bantu, they could have come with such an amendment and this side of the House would have given it its blessing. Once again I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister have hidden behind an interpretation of the Act as it stands today. This provision which we are amending now could quite easily have been used for the provision of these very amenities which are required in the urban areas. Today the urgency for this becomes even more important than it ever has been.

Since we have had this change of policy, this sudden “verligtheid” of the hon. the Minister, brought about, I guess, by the hon. the Deputy Minister, where he is now going to allow the temporary permanent, or permanently temporary—I do not know which way it is—Bantu employees to bring their wives into the urban areas, provided there is housing available, why does he not take this surplus and provide that housing, and let us have a peaceful, stable and settled labour force in this country? Let us do something to cool off the heat which is being engendered in these urban Bantu townships because of the dissatisfaction which is being created by the shortage of these various amenities which we are pleading for. Where he has now admitted that he has the money to do it and where he has taken the power in terms of this amendment, which he is going to force through …

To spend it somewhere else.

No, on that. He is taking the power to be able to spend that money on the provision of these very houses and these very facilities in the urban areas that I am referring to. Now I want to put my challenge to him. The Minister is going to force this amendment through. Use this money for the provision of those facilities and let us have a stable, happy and satisfied labour force within the Republic.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put the record straight in regard to one aspect. This afternoon the hon. the Deputy Minister tried to gloss over his and his Government’s neglect in regard to Bantu housing in the urban areas. I think it is time this was exposed. There is a tremendous housing shortage for urban Bantu in Johannesburg, Durban, Cape Town and many other cities.

There are thousands upon thousands who are waiting.

Yes, thousands upon thousands, and this not only proves to be very inconvenient to those Bantu who have to board with other families, but also has a tremendous effect on the so-called swamping of the White residential areas by Black people. I shall leave it at that. The fact of the matter is that the Minister has tried here to dodge his responsibilities by saying that he has never rejected a housing scheme. The true facts are that in approving applications for housing for urban Natives, the Government dawdled and delayed for such a long time that these people did not come forward with new plans because they knew it would be of no use to do so, even though it was absolutely essential. They knew there was no point in submitting new plans until such time as they could obtain approval for those plans for which they had already applied. These are the facts of the matter. There was a time when the Nationalist Party did well in regard to Bantu housing. That was long ago in Dr. Verwoerd’s time, but in recent years, when the policy was to keep the Bantu out of the urban areas, that policy was reversed, and they delayed in having houses built. Consequently thousands of Bantu were forced to board in houses that were alreday overcrowded. Other policies were followed, and that is what resulted in our reaching the present stage, namely the stage where there is a tremendous housing shortage for the Bantu in the urban areas. In the no-confidence debate I myself quoted figures showing that in Durban and Johannesburg alone there were a hundred thousand family units, individuals constituting families, who still did not have houses in urban areas. The real reason for this is the Government’s policy of trying to prevent these people from gaining a foothold in the urban areas. We are pleased that an improvement is apparently setting in now. We are pleased to hear that the Minister has approved three thousand houses. We are pleased about all the other aspects, but do let us be honest and let us accept responsibility for the consequences of our policies. Therefore we plead that the record be put straight in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, I am just rising in order to reply to a few points made by hon. members on the other side of the House. To the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I just want to say that the fact of the matter is that we can only decide on a scheme that has been submitted to us. If nothing in respect of housing has been submitted to us, there is nothing we can do about it. I repeat that the Johannesburg City Council has not submitted to me any scheme that has not been approved.

It has been delayed.

Now hon. members may judge for themselves what the position is there. I shall leave the matter at that. I am just stating the fact, and that is all I am doing.

The only thing is that it has been delayed.

Then I would like to reply to the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the Johannesburg City Council has laid any plans before him?

Yes, since I became Deputy Minister. They have all been approved, except for one or two which are still under consideration.

I understand there is a shortage of 13 000 or 13 500 houses at the moment. The figure varies. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister mean to say that the only plan laid before him in all this time has only been for 3 000 houses out of those 13 500?

Except for the one or two plans that are still under consideration. The verdict on these will be made available as soon as possible.

How many houses are contemplated?

Just over 1 000. The schemes that have been laid before me by the Johannesburg United Party Council are for approximately 4 000 or just over 4 000 houses. That is the point. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. the Deputy Minister be so kind as to tell me when the application for these 4 000 houses was submitted?

At the moment I cannot furnish the dates in this respect from memory, but these schemes were submitted at the beginning of last year, after the Johannesburg United Party members had come to see me here in Cape Town. At the time the matter was raised and also settled, as I told hon. members. The point I just want to emphasize again, is that up to now no scheme has been refused by me. I told the city councillors— and this is the policy—that I would judge the housing schemes submitted on their merits. In that way each of them is in fact judged on merit.

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me whether there were not any applications before his Department for housing by the Johannesburg City Council when he became Deputy Minister?

That may be so. I do not know about that. All that I am saying is that since I became Deputy Minister no scheme has been refused by me. That is the point. However, we can go into this matter and then we can come back to it during the Third Reading if the hon. member wants me to do so. That can be done with the greatest of pleasure.

I want to reply to the points raised by the hon. member for Houghton. I must say that it is quite astounding to find so much ignorance about this levy fund and the Levy Act. I will read the relevant section to the hon. member. Section 19 (3)bis of Act No. 25 of 1945, the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, reads as follows—

1. (a) the cost of administration of the Bantu Services Levy Act, 1952; … …
2. (b) any expenditure incurred by the urban local authority in connection with the provision of water, sanitation, lighting or road services outside a location, Bantu village or Bantu hostel under the control of that urban local authority, or outside any area approved by the Minister for future use for location, Bantu village or Bantu hostel purposes, provided such services are in the opinion of the Minister essential for the proper development of a location, Bantu village or Bantu hostel or of such other area.

That is why we commonly talk in terms of “link services”. I hope the hon. member, as well as the other hon. members who did not understand it, now understands that those funds and those moneys accumulating in these funds can therefore only be utilized for these basic link services, unless the Act is changed. That is the position.

*The hon. member for Jeppes asked me a question concerning more houses for Soweto. I have already said that each housing scheme receives attention on its own merits. The hon. member put a second question to me, and I want to reply to it. His question was: “What steps has the Government taken to discuss the whole matter in regard to Bantu levy moneys, etc., with the representative bodies?” I assume he referred to the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Federal Chamber of Industries (F.C.I.), Assocom, the local authorities, etc.

That is correct.

Yes, the hon. member wants to know what steps we have taken to discuss these matters with them. I can tell hon. members that, in preparation for both this Bill and the Bantu Affairs Administration Act that was before this House last year, we had several and prolonged talks with all of these bodies. The question of the Levy Funds Bill and the levy funds themselves also cropped up in the course of these discussions. We held discussions with the United Municipal Executive, the Institute Council, the officials of the municipalities and with all the other bodies.

Did you also discuss the R30 million with them?

Yes, we discussed that with them too.

What was their reply to that?

Some were in favour of it, but others were not. It was as a result of that attitude, such as that of the Opposition on the other side, that they suspected the Government of intending to utilize those moneys for developing the homelands, in spite of the fact that we had repeatedly said, and proved it by our actions, that, in the first place, those moneys were being utilized in the interests of the Bantu in the specific vicinity in which those moneys had been collected. It is only when money was offered on a voluntary basis, by way of donations, for those people’s families in the homelands, that it was also utilized in the homelands in the past.

I hope that the discussion of this question has brought a great deal of clarity in regard to these matters, and that we shall be taking a forward step with this, to my mind, extremely important matter.

Question put: That paragraph (b) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I raised the question of the different treatment which is accorded in this Bill to Bantu beer and Bantu beer powder and I pointed out that this was also dealt with in other clauses of the Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister then said that he had not noticed the difference in the treatment and that he would go into the matter, and that he would deal with it during the committee stage. I do not want to dwell on the subject any more and I assume that I can now look to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us an explanation in regard to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, as I promised in my Second Reading speech, I would now like to give the necessary information to the hon. member for South Coast. I want to refer firstly to the definition of Bantu beer in the Bantu Beer Act (Act 63 of 1962), in paragraph (iii) of section 1, which reads—

1. (a) the drink generally known as kaffir beer and commonly brewed by Bantu from kaffir corn or millet or other grain; and
2. (b) any other fermented liquor which the State President may from time to time by proclamation in the Gazette declare to be Bantu beer.

I also want to quote section 7 of this Act, which reads—

*The position, as hon. members will see, is that apart from this definition of Bantu beer, there now is Bantu beer powder as well, which, when water has been added to it, is included in this definition of Bantu beer.

†In other words, when water is added to Bantu beer powder, in terms of the definition of “Bantu beer” in the Bantu Beer Act, it is considered to be Bantu beer. But Bantu beer powder by itself is not considered to be Bantu beer. That is the reason why, in clause 2 of the Bill before the Committee, the distinction is drawn between “Bantu beer” and “Bantu beer powder”. In terms of clause 2 of the Bill—

Now hon. members will see in the rest of the sentence that there is no reference to Bantu beer powder, but only to Bantu beer, for the reason I mentioned when referring to the definition of Bantu beer. I continue—

In other words, this clause of the Bill now authorizes the Minister to give a licence to a general dealer to sell Bantu beer powder, which is not Bantu beer. One can use that Bantu beer powder, by way of speaking, for instance, to feed chickens. Then it does not fall within the ambit of this Act. But the moment water is added to that Bantu beer powder, it is Bantu beer. Then, in terms of this clause of the Bill, that Bantu beer is prohibited, under certain conditions, on certain premises, etc. That is the reason why this distinction is made between Bantu beer powder and Bantu beer. I will repeat it finally. The distinction therefore boils down to the fact that Bantu beer powder is not considered to be Bantu beer, unless water is added to it. Then the relevant definition of Bantu beer in terms of the Bantu Beer Act comes into operation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has made a point which I should like to have cleared up. As he put it, a person can buy Bantu beer powder and feed it to his chickens?

By way of speaking.

By way of feeding, naturally; he feeds it to his chickens.

He said “by way of speaking”.

Yes, I see. Mr. Chairman, I am not quarrelling about the hon. the Deputy Minister’s language.

Nor do I quarrel with you.

He is indicating, I take it—he must correct me if I am wrong—that such a person could use it for any purpose as powder, without necessarily mixing it with water to turn it into a beverage which, for the purposes of the Bill, is called Bantu beer. That person, buying the powder under those circumstances, must nevertheless obtain the permission of the Minister to buy the powder, in terms of this clause? Is that correct?

Just continue. I shall reply to you.

Mr. Chairman, the new subsection (1A) states—

Sir, this refers to a general dealer outside an urban area, but not to any other person who is not a general dealer. The next point I want to make is this: Would that Bantu beer powder not have to be manufactured by the local authority, the Bantu Investment Corporation or the Xhosa Development Corporation? If a person is a general dealer and he buys Bantu beer, this new subsection states that he must obtain the packaged Bantu beer from “a local authority, the Bantu Investment Corporation or the Xhosa Development Corporation”. It does not state that a general dealer, who has been authorized by the Minister, must also obtain his Bantu beer powder from those same sources. My question, then, is: Can a general dealer acquire Bantu beer powder, having obtained the approval of the Minister, from sources other than those three sources? It seems to me, on reading this new subsection that those three sources must be used as far as Bantu beer is concerned, but not as far as Bantu beer powder is concerned. This is where the differentiation in the treatment takes place.

Mr. Chairman, the position is that if the Minister authorizes a dealer to sell Bantu beer powder in the rural areas, he may, of course, sell Bantu beer powder. However, he may not do so without that authority. Let me just inform this Committee of the origin of this provision. The ad hoc Bantu Beer Committee received representations from organized trade to allow, inter alia, Bantu beer powder to be made available in the rural areas as well. This is the position and this is where this provision comes from. They pointed out that yeast and malt could be sold freely in the rural areas and then they asked for provision to be made in the case of Bantu beer powder as well so that it could be sold in the rural areas. It should be remembered that in the urban areas Bantu beer powder can be sold only by licensed persons duly authorized thereto. Those in general trade then said, “We want Bantu beer powder to be sold in the rural areas as well”. That is the reason for the provision contained in this clause; with the authority of the Minister it will be possible, if this Bill is passed as it stands, for a dealer to sell Bantu beer powder in the rural areas. We have found it possible to give effect to this request of organized trade for another reason, and that reason is that we have felt for quite some time, and we have also received representations in this connection from other quarters, that Bantu beer ought to be made available more freely in the rural areas, and one method of making it available is to grant permission to rural dealers to sell Bantu beer powder. This is the position.

Sir, a few minutes ago I read out to the hon. member the definition of “Bantu beer” contained in the Bantu Beer Act. Perhaps I should have read out to him the note at the foot of that page as well; in that case I think this matter would have been easier to understand. This note reads—

That is clause 5 here.

Yes, that is clause 5 here, but I am reading this out to show the hon. member where the wording of this specific clause originated. It originated in this note to the Bantu Beer Act by the State President in 1963.

I am sorry, you are not answering my question.

I am coming to that. The position is, in reply to the question of the hon. member that the shopkeepers may obtain the Bantu beer powder from any manufacturer. I hope I have now replied to the question of the hon. member.

Not only from these three sources?

No. The reply to that was implied in my statement when I said that the hon. member would see, if he read this clause, that it provided—

It goes on to provide “provided it is acquired from one of the three bodies mentioned in the section”. The hon. member will note that it refers to Bantu beer only, not to Bantu beer powder.

That is my point.

That is why I replied to the hon. gentleman that in the rural areas, in terms of this clause, a general dealer who has had permission from the Minister can obtain Bantu beer powder not only from these three sources but from any source supplying that powder.

Does the Minister propose to delegate his powers? That is the question which I put to you yesterday.

Sir, in my department we are generally rather reluctant to delegate powers. We are difficult in that respect, and I think that will also apply in this case. I do not want to give an assurance that these powers will be delegated beyond me to anybody else in the department. The hon. the Minister will bear me out when I say that in our department we do not lightly delegate powers.

Can you delegate powers?

No, the position is this; let us have complete clarity in this regard. I want to reply to the hon. member because I see that these questions worry him.

Will these people apply to you as Deputy Minister?

Yes.

And you then forward the application?

Yes, but may I explain that I do not delegate powers in the first instance. The hon. the Minister delegates his powers. Certain powers are delegated to me by proclamation in the Government Gazette by the State President. I will not delegate powers without reference to the hon. the Minister.

We want to know whom to apply to. The answer is then the Minister?

Yes. That is right.

I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister why it only applied to general dealers outside urban areas. I said there may in fact be urban areas where there are no licences, e.g. in Fish Hoek and there can be other country places where there is no liquor house in an urban area. Why does the Minister then allow himself to give permission to a general dealer to sell kaffir beer in circumstances like that? Why does he not just leave out the provision referring to dealers outside the urban area and say any general dealer and as a matter of policy only apply it to rural areas and to urban areas where there are no liquor distribution points?

I do not know whether I understood the hon. member’s question correctly. If I did not, the hon. member should repeat it. The position is that we have smaller local authorities in the rural areas and, as a matter of policy, we should like those smaller local authorities to accept the responsibility for their administration of affairs in that area. Therefore, in view of the fact that this is also a source of revenue for them, those smaller authorities also have to accept the necessary responsibility, in so far as it is practicable, in connection with, in this case, the provision of Bantu beer in their areas. That is why we want to take the position of those local authorities into account and give them recognition as far as this matter is concerned. That is why we want to give this right to the general dealers only in the rural areas and why we act prudently when extending this right to those smaller places, where one has local authorities. Because those local authorities, even if they are small, can obtain Bantu beer in various ways. They can obtain it from the Bantu Investment Corporation and in Eastern Cape areas from the Xhosa Development Corporation. They can obtain it also from another larger local authority and sell it at a profit. By way of example, I should like to mention the case of a small town here in the Cape Province, i.e. Springbok, which sells excellent Bantu beer. The other day when I paid Springbok a visit, I was very interested to see what excellent Bantu beer they were selling in a small place which is so remote and in which they have so few Bantu. I think they obtain it from Cape Town from where it is transported to Springbok where it is sold at a profit. Now, in a case like that, where one has a small place like Springbok, where the local authority meets the demands for Bantu beer very satisfactorily, why would one give a dealer the necessary permission to do so too? In that way one would be creating unnecessary problems. But on a farm near Springbok or somewhat more remote, where it is more difficult to obtain beer, we shall, according to circumstances, give consideration to the request of a general dealer, because the intention is to make Bantu beer more readily available in the rural areas as well. And, finally, let me tell the hon. member this as well; even in the case of a place like Springbok, if it is considered necessary on the basis of demand to give a general dealer the necessary licence there, we shall give consideration to that request and we shall go into the matter very thoroughly. This will be an additional reason why we shall not lightly delegate powers in this regard.

If you got a request from a general dealer at Springbok you could not give it, as I understood you.

No, that is quite true. We cannot give it in respect of the area of the local authority.

We have heard a lot from the Deputy Minister in connection with Bantu beer and Bantu beer powder. I put certain questions to him during the second reading debate which he completely ignored, and I can see that his attitude still is that he would like to ignore them but I will not allow him to do so because we have to clear up this question of what is Bantu beer powder. I am sorry, but I am still not satisfied what it is.

Mr. Chairman, in your opinion this might be a repetition of argument, but I will advance other arguments to show that the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot simply say that Bantu beer powder is a powder from which Bantu beer or some similar substance is obtained if water is added, because there is a lot more to it than that. There are certain products on the market, some of which have been sold for 50 years or more, from which Bantu beer is brewed, and which have been previously sold by general dealers for as long as I can remember. Those products are the ones in respect of which we heard the hon. member for Vryheid trying to be clever when we were discussing the Second Reading. They are kaffir corn sprouts, kaffir corn malt powder …

No, not kaffir corn; sorghum.

… maize sprouts, maize malt powder. These products are all used in the brewing of kaffir beer, or Bantu beer as it is put in this Act, and they are all used by the addition of water. Some of them are subsequently cooked; some are not cooked. There is one product called “Utwala” which, simply by the addition of water, produces a kaffir beer.

Can you make beer without water?

It is all very well the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture trying to be clever; I am intending to be earnest and I ask them to consider this in a serious light. He wants to know whether you can make kaffir beer without water. Can you imagine a Minister of the Republic of South Africa asking such an inane question? [Interjections.] Perhaps if he is a minister of the Nationalist Government, yes. It appears they must be able to ask inane questions to qualify as Ministers.

Come to the point you want to make.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I am dealing with the clause, whether or not the addition of water constitutes Bantu beer. That is exactly what we are dealing with.

If you sit down, I shall reply to you.

No, it is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister coming with that, because three times he has had a chance to answer and he has not answered yet.

This is serious because we have a provision in the Act at the moment which provides that any person who sells such a product which, with the addition of water, with or without the addition of yeast, creates a substance which is similar to or tastes like or looks like Bantu beer commits an offence. This affects every single general dealer in the country who has been dealing with Bantu. If the hon. the deputy Minister is going to include in the definition of Bantu beer powder these products which I have mentioned, every single general dealer in the country is going to find himself guilty of an offence. This is why it is serious. But not only that; this is a service which is being provided by these traders who have provided these products to the Bantu for the homebrewing of their beer which is not only a beverage, but is a food. These traders have been supplying a food, a nutritious food to the whole family. This brings me to the other question which I raised with the hon. the Deputy Minister in the Second Reading and to which he also did not reply. That is the provision which we have in paragraph (c) whereby he now levies a tax of 1 cent per 500 grams upon this Bantu beer powder. We do not know what he is taxing at this stage. Is it only those powders which give you an instant beer? Is this the only powder to which he is referring, those that make an instant beer simply by the addition of water, or is he referring to kaffir corn sprouts, kaffir corn malt powders and, similarly, maize sprouts and maize malt powders? If he is in fact going to tax those products as well—many of them are marketed under trade names which I do not think I should mention here—he is going to tax the food of the Bantu, food which goes to all the members of the family. I opposed this a few years ago, but before I even think of opposing it now, I want to know what I am opposing.

I also want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister—perhaps he can answer this third question as well—what he is going to do with the money which he is going to collect by means of this tax. He is going to create a new fund in terms of the amendment contained in the Bill. This fund is going to be under the administration of the Secretary for Bantu Administration and it may be charged with any service or expenditure or grant which may be certified by the Minister as being in the interest of the Bantu. Does he have any particular ideas that he would like to use this for; what is his intention in this regard?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell that hon. member very peacably that I do not think one of my ailments is not to reply to questions. It was not at all necessary for him to make the remarks with which he introduced his speech. I would have replied to that in any event in the course of the replies I give to questions in this regard. I want to remind that hon. member in all friendliness that the ad hominem argument is the weakest argument to use. I really do take exception to his making personal remarks of that type against me. I think it is undeserved and unnecessary as well.

The other day the hon. member wanted to know—as he again wanted to know now—the definition of Bantu beer powder. The definition of Bantu beer powder is—

That is the definition of Bantu powder. Therefore it does not include malt, because malt is not a powder or substance. Now I want to tell the hon. member that we have no quarrel with malt at all. Therefore malt is not at all involved in this. Nor are we taxing malt. We do not have a quarrel with yeast. The Act indicates very clearly what Bantu beer powder is and since 1964 there has been no doubt as to what Bantu beer powder is, because Bantu beer powder is manufactured under licence. I want to refer the hon. member to the Bantu Beer Act, Act No. 63 of 1962. I want to refer him to paragraph (j) of section 16 (1). The person who commits an offence is—

1. (j) sells or delivers to any person other than a person permitted under this Act to supply Bantu beer, or a local authority, any powder or other substance which when added to water, whether with or without the addition of yeast …

Therefore I say once again to the hon. member that we have no difference in this legislation between yeast and malt—

By referring to these products in this way, I have probably come closer to being a farmer than ever before. I hope the hon. member now understands the whole matter. From this definition it is very clear what Bantu beer powder is. Therefore it is very clear that there has been no problem or difficulty regarding this matter since 1964, nor do I expect any problem or difficulty henceforth. Now I have replied to the hon. member on this point. As far as I know, there remain only two questions which I have to answer for the hon. member. If I should overlook any question, the hon. member is welcome to remind me of it. The one question concerns his reference to the clause introducing a levy. He referred to the new subsection (7) (a) being inserted into section 5 of the original Act by clause 2 (c) of this Bill. It reads—

Now I just want to tell the hon. member than an excise duty of one cent is already being levied on an equal quantity of Bantu beer. If we want to strike a balance as far as this position is concerned, we cannot tax the one article by one cent and, in terms of the provisions of this legislation, exempt the other under certain conditions. Surely that is unfair; for that reason we state in this Bill that a levy of one cent will be payable in respect of each 500 grams of Bantu beer powder. I hope the hon. member understands that if there is an excise duty of one cent on Bantu beer, whereas there is no levy on Bantu beer powder, the matter will be unbalanced and that that would not be right.

The hon. member’s final question was what we were going to do with this money. We have different funds of this nature in our department. We have, what we call, the White Liquor Profit Account apart from the Bantu Beer Account. This White Liquor Profit Account is utilized for various purposes in the interests of Bantu. Our intention is to utilize the funds which will be obtained from this levy in the same way. It is very difficult for me now to specify here for what specific purposes we are going to utilize these funds. I do not know whether the hon. member would be so much the wiser if I were able to spell out to him now for what specific purposes it would be possible to utilize those funds. After all, when it comes to Bantu Affairs we are dealing with 16 million people with many different needs in different fields. They are spread over the whole of the Republic. There are, in the first place, needs in the homelands, but there are needs at other places as well. The hon. member should allow us to utilize the fund at our discretion where circumstances are the most urgent and where the fund can be utilized best. I really hope the hon. member is satisfied with that. To that I just want to add that our policy is very clear. Our policy is home and centric. Where it is necessary to do so, we shall utilize it in the interests of that. However, there are the needs in the White area as well and where it is necessary to do so, we shall not hesitate to utilize it for that purpose. For that reason I am not in a position to spell out for the hon. member the different small items for which this fund will be utilized. Surely, he should be in a position to know that it will not be much.

Mr. Chairman, I must thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his reply. I am glad he has replied. However, he left the point dealing with the Bantu beer powder out. He referred to certain regulations governing the manufacture of Bantu beer powder. Where do we find those regulations and what are they? [Interjections.] This is serious. I am serious about this. I am glad to get from the hon. the Deputy Minister an assurance that Bantu beer powder does not include kaffir corn malt, kaffir corn sprouts, maize malt and maize sprouts. As I read this definition, and from my own personal knowledge of these products—not second or third-hand knowledge, but my own personal knowledge—they could be classified as Bantu beer powder in terms of what the hon. the Deputy Minister has now given us as a definition of “Bantu beer powder”. All that the hon. the Deputy Minister has done is to read out a provision in the offences clause of the Act. That is all that he has read out. He then gave this as a definition. I accept that definition together with his assurance.

What do you want to know?

No, that is fine. I accept his definition, i.e. the definition of Bantu beer powder, together with the assurance …

I read it from the Act.

Yes, I am saying that you read it from the Act, but it is not laid down in the Act as a definition. The Act creates an offence. That is the section which was read. [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister does perhaps not understand. I said to him that these other four products I have mentioned, if that is the definition of Bantu beer powder, could, from my own personal experience, be construed to be Bantu beer powder and that everyone of those general dealers who has traded in these products, has been guilty of an offence. However, I am glad to get the assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that he does not include these in that definition. Therefore they have not been guilty of offences.

Business interrupted to report progress.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I move this motion which requests the Government to investigate the desirability of establishing an ore offloading berth at St. Croix at Algoa Bay, in the firm conviction that such a step will be in the best national interest. Taking into account all the facts at my disposal, I can certainly come to no other conclusion. At the same time, in moving this motion, I in no way wish to criticize a decision taken by the Cabinet giving Iscor the go-ahead to develop Saldanha as a major port for the export of steel, iron ore and possibly other minerals. I must say, in motivating the case for Saldanha, the information has always been a little obscure.

I also know that there was an interdepartmental committee appointed by the Government to inquire into the merits of both Saldanha and St. Croix. We have unfortunately not had an opportunity to study this report. I wonder whether I am asking too much if I request the hon. the Minister to have this report made available to hon. members at some time. I accept that the development at Saldanha in the long term—and I emphasize “the long term”—may well be in the national interest. I want to say that we on this side of the House do not contest in any way whatsoever the advisability of establishing Saldanha as a major port in the long term. However, if the development of Saldanha in the long term is feasible, I believe even more strongly that the development of St. Croix in the short term is equally as important. To substantiate this, there are many valid reasons that can be raised.

I do not suggest that St. Croix must be in opposition to Saldanha, but I believe that St. Croix must be complementary to Saldanha and that the development of St. Croix will, in fact, ultimately facilitate the establishment of the major harbour at Saldanha. In fact, I am convinced that if we want to develop our ore exports on a rational basis and to the best advantage of the country, both the St. Croix project and Saldanha can play vital parts. I am fully aware that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has indicated that there is not room for both projects in respect of handling large-scale exports of iron ore. It is because of this statement that I have seen fit to move this motion today. I believe that the development of St. Croix is so vitally linked up with the national interest of developing our export trade that I move this motion asking the hon. the Minister to persuade the Cabinet to have another look at the situation. I and other speakers will give the reasons why we believe that there is room for both major projects. For that reason I very much appreciate the hon. the Minister’s presence at this debate this afternoon.

Every member in this House is fully aware that the country is confronted with a very serious, adverse trade balance and that it is of the utmost importance that every possible—I emphasize “every possible”—step be taken to rectify this situation as speedily as possible. Speed is essential if we want to enjoy the full benefit of the present devaluation situation. Under these circumstances I believe the country is most fortunate indeed in having vast, and I emphasize “vast” resources of manganese and iron ore available to boost our export trade. But as things stand today, we simply do not have the ports to exploit this favourable situation. This is our problem.

According to expert opinion, even conservatively estimated, we have something like 4 000 million tons of high-grade iron ore in the Sishen-Postmasburg area, while the Kalahari has, I believe, the biggest deposits of manganese ore in the world. When I said that we do not have the ports to handle the export of this ore, it was not absolutely correct, because at the present time Port Elizabeth harbour is handling limited quantities of this raw material. The problem is that the current throughput of the Port Elizabeth harbour is at present only in the region of 3,7 million tons per annum. I do not doubt that this figure can be stepped up considerably although it will involve further expenditure, but I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this quantity of ore is far too little to make any appreciable difference to our balance of payments problem. We need to deal in a far bigger way if we want to effect an improvement in the balance of payments situation.

Another problem is that the Port Elizabeth harbour has shallow water and can only handle ships with a maximum tonnage of 40 000 tons. This fact places us in a hopelessly uncompetitive position with countries like Australia that are able to use big ships of up to 150 000 tons and more. The ability to use big ships is very vital to the ore export industry if we hope to enjoy the freight advantages that big ships offer. It is an interesting thought that if the St. Croix project, about which the country has been speaking for some three years, had been tackled at that time, we may today have been in the position to use a major exporting facility, and to use these big ships, which would have brought us into line with other competing countries like Australia. But we have been dilly-dallying and today we sit with the situation that we have the ore but not the ports to export the ore from.

It is also interesting to know that as a result of the tremendous progress which has been made on the Railway line between Sishen and Port Elizabeth, more ore can be delivered to the Port Elizabeth harbour today than shippers can handle. In other words, there is a surplus capacity on the Railways of which we cannot make use. I believe this is a serious matter. We have the raw materials for export, we have the trains to carry the ore, but we are in the unenviable position that we do not have the ports to take things further.

Hon. members will have seen the interesting picture which appeared in most of our newspapers during the last week, illustrating the biggest and the longest ore train that has ever moved along the Rallway lines of South Africa. This train was a mile long. We in the Eastern Cape value the fact that such tremendous progress has been made by the South African Rallways in this respect. I want to take the opportunity of congratulating every engineer, Rallway worker, and any other person that had a hand in bringing this to fruition. I think it is a singular achievement for our country. We in the Eastern Cape note with gratitude that steps have been taken to improve the capacity of the line to the Eastern Cape. Not only has this been done, but there is also another interesting programme for the future. We understand that 3 000 special bogies are on order to increase the carrying capacity of that line even further. Centralized traffic control is also visualized and more extra-duty diesel locomotives are on order. We see that as time progresses, the capacity of the line will be improved but there will not be a port to handle this capacity. The whole situation is getting out of balance.

In raising the question of St. Croix and the desirability of establishing an ore terminal there, the railway factor is important because there is not any need for extra capital outlay. There is no need for involving extra railway expenditure in the situation. The line is there. It is merely a case of providing a port. According to reliable information, St. Croix can be built within 2½ years, at a total cost which will not exceed R50 million. It involves the building of an off-shore terminal in the lee of St. Croix Island in Algoa Bay. Accurate data in respect of wind, waves and currents reveal a most satisfactory situation. There are people who allege that this project has not been properly investigated, but here is a report from the engineers, engineers that are accredited by the South African railway s, who called for the report in the original instance. If one studies this report, one sees that in every respect the St. Croix project, from an engineering point of view, is thoroughly feasible. There are people who say there are waves of nine feet and the wind is too strong, but this is not so. This report, which is available to any member in the House, finds that the lee of St. Croix offers an 85 per cent to 90 per cent berthing capacity for ships of up to 150 000 tons.

The Japanese confirm it.

What is more, the Japanese approve of the situation. They are very fussy. They do not give their approval to any situation about which they are not completely satisfied. The question immediately arises: Can the country afford to have two major ports for the export of mineral ore? As far as I am concerned, the answer is definitely yes.

I think all hon. members will agree that the country is heavily committed financially in many projects that are being undertaken. This is surely not the time to embark on another gigantic undertaking which at this stage—I do not say in the long run—is not absolutely essential for the development of our iron ore and manganese ore export programme. Apart from the construction of the harbour, the Saldanha project requires a railway line of some 850 km. The South African railways are committed to an extensive and progressive programme already. There is the Witbank-Nelspruit line, involving some R40 million. There is the Broodsnyers-Ermelo-Vryheid line involving an expenditure of R80 million. Improvements to the Durban-Rand line involve R40 million. Richard’s Bay has to be developed. I believe that the Administration are under such pressure that the line to Vryheid can no longer be electrified, and that certain of the pylons that were put up with a view to electrification are now being taken down. Iscor itself is involved in a massive expansion programme at Pretoria, Vanderbijlpark and Newcastle. These projects alone could cost in the region of R3 000 million.

Now Iscor must also finance the Saldanha project. Apart from the financial aspect, I am not surprised that Dr. Tom Muller is reported to have said that, as far as skilled labour is concerned, Iscor is skating on thin ice in so far as the Saldanha project is concerned. With this tremendous programme aimed at developing our infrastructure, our resources of capital and labour must surely be sorely tested. That is why I believe that the Saldanha scheme should best be considered a long-term project rather than a short-term project.

There are many other projects I can mention. Our national road programme must involve a tremendous part of our financial and labour resources. The P. K. le Roux Dam is being built. The canals and tunnels of the Orange River scheme have not yet been completed. All this makes one wonder whether, at this stage, we have the resources to tackle a project of such dimensions as the Saldanha project. In this connection, I must emphasize the words “at this stage”.

Then, Sir, there is the reduced demand for ore overseas. We all know that as a result of certain fiscal measures which have been adopted, the demand for ore is not what it used to be. Australia is faced with a situation where Japan has asked her to reduce her supply. Is this a time to embark on the Saldanha scheme, when we cannot be assured of large-scale orders? I think it will be impossible to contract for large orders of sufficient value to justify the Saldanha scheme.

On the other hand, a smaller project like St. Croix, which is going to cost only some R47 million, will be able to be justified on the strength of the orders we shall be able to obtain. In fact, to the best of my information, such orders have already been placed by private enterprise. There is no question about it; order-wise, St. Croix is assured of success. There are people who allege that if St. Croix is developed, the taxpayer will have to pay. This is absolute nonsense. Private enterprise is prepared to assist the South African railways with the finance. It has been worked out—the figures are available; I have them here for any member to see— that the whole project can be paid for, amortized, within eight years without any cost to the taxpayer. With an expenditure of R47 million, the country can be placed in the position where it will be exporting ore on a large scale, using the bigger ships and utilizing the freight advantage within three years.

I believe that in this way, if the Government embarks upon this undertaking, it will be able to play a major role in solving some of its trade deficit problems. I believe too that if we can get St. Croix operating, it will minimize any risk which the Government or Iscor must take in developing the Saldanha scheme. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that if we are in the trade, using St. Croix as an export base, it will be so much easier to negotiate bigger orders which, at a later stage, will justify the Saldanha undertaking.

Mr. Speaker, my time has almost expired. I leave it to other members on this side to develop further arguments to show why we believe that the development of St. Croix, even at this late stage, is a vital matter concerning the ore industry of South Africa.

Sir, as coincidence would have it, it is today exactly four years since a very exciting report appeared in our newspapers. This was a report from Iscor reflecting their resolve to export crude ore from South Africa and to do this by way of a pipeline that would run from Sishen to a point somewhere on our coastline; i.e. the ore has to be pumped. We subsequently gathered that the three points on our coast-line that were to be borne in mind at the time for a possible project were three harbours or three points on our country’s west coast, i.e. Boegoeberg, the mouth of the Olifants River and Saldanha Bay, and the other point was on our country’s east coast, at Port Elizabeth. Sir, the following report in that connection was forthcoming exactly a year later, when our previous Minister of Economic Affairs paid a visit to Japan. It was reported that he had held negotiations with eight of the world’s biggest steel manufacturers in Japan to make such a project possible. The groups with whom he held discussions at the time were the Jawata group, the Fuji group, the Nippon group, the Sumitomo group, the Kawasaki group, the Nakajama, Kobo and Jisjin groups. These discussions indicated very great potential in that connection. Sir, since these two reports appeared in our Press, I wonder whether there is a similar subject about which so much was said, written and even widely speculated as the possibility of exporting ore abroad, until the final announcement came from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs at the end of last year, in which he told us that after thorough consideration during the preceding four years our Government had decided, in the first place to export ore; to construct a railway line from Sishen to Saldanha Bay and to transport it from there. The only condition not yet complied with was an investigation to determine what that line was going to cost us over that distance. Work is still being done on that calculation at the moment. We take it that the result will become known in the second half of this year. Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is that in the four years that have passed the hon. member who has just spoken did not move a motion in this House, while this matter was under consideration, to the effect that the Government should bear his region, i.e. Port Elizabeth, in mind. He never opened his mouth throughout the four years in which this matter was discussed and written about, but now that the final decision has been announced he raises the matter here. He did on occasion refer to this situation and when was that, Sir? It was on the very eve of the general election when he wanted to make large-scale propaganda out of this situation. I quote from the Evening Post of Saturday, 7th March—

What more does he have to say in this very long report? He states that our ministers were chasing round with an eye on the election. He states that his part of the world—Port Elizabeth and environs—was going downhill; that there was no labour, no growth and no development. Instead of the Government placing this proposed project in his area, they were chasing round the country and holding election meetings. This was the first time in the past four years, during which this matter was under consideration, that this hon. member took any action in this connection. That was the kind of action he took prior to coming here today after the hon. the Minister had already made his final statement.

I want to say here today that after thorough study and consideration it is my conviction that the Government has taken the correct step. I just want to advance a few general arguments about why I think, in all humility that our Government has here taken the correct decision. Firstly, the ore potential of South Africa is there. South Africa must also employ this potential abroad. I now want to say that during this four-year period of consideration voices were raised in South Africa claiming that the Government should keep this raw material in the country, that we ourselves should process it here and preserve it for our descendants and export it at a later stage, or export less of it, as the circumstances demand. In this connection I want to advance a few arguments. The world’s proven ore potential has been calculated by geologists at about 250 000 million tons. There is an additional expectation of 200 000 million tons, so the world’s geologists tell us. South Africa’s proven high-grade iron ore reserves total more than 10 000 million tons. If South Africa exports 15 million tons per year for 20 years, this amounts to 300 million tons, or a mere 3 per cent of South Africa’s proven reserves. If South Africa does not export this ore, the steel factories of the world will not come to a standstill and assure us of the sole right for the export of processed products in later years. We shall have to use this opportunity. Countries such as India, Brazil, and in particular Australia will continue to provide the world with ore if we do not do so. And please note, Sir, that authorities estimate that Australia’s ore reserves can be calculated at about 100 000 million tons, and with the advent of these massive ore carriers it is calculated that our ships here can load about 250 000 tons and more today. And it is a scientific fact that today this ore can be brought from Australia to harbours such as Durban and Port Elizabeth more cheaply than from Sishen to one of these points. In other words, it is my conviction that here the State is acting correctly and with calculation in making use of this ore potential of South Africa.

Secondly, the envisaged Sishen-Saldanha export scheme is much more than just an export scheme, and I should very much like to put this to the hon. member. This specific project is still going to bring South Africa large and permanent assets entailing incalculable benefits for us and our descendants. In other words, we must not think small in this matter; in this endeavour we must think big. I want to present it in these terms. In this country today we are building what I want to call a divided State structure. We want to ensure a Black majority in South Africa its territorial freedom. In this process—and I find no difficulty here—there has been in recent years great emphasis on, and growth momentum in connection with, the northern part of our country. In our harbour structure great emphasis has fallen on growth in the vicinity of Richard’s Bay, Durban, East London and even in the vicinity of Port Elizabeth. I think the time has come, from a geographic point of view, for us to let new emphasis fall on other parts, i.e. the western and the north western parts of our country. For a good and calculated growth pattern in future, I consider it essential and right that we thus do so. If we now look at how this railway line is going to run, I think one could wax lyrical about the growth potential that is being unleashed and stimulated in this specific part of the country, as against these parts I have mentioned. I want to quote to you from the latest edition of Iscor News, in which an indication is now being given, for the first time, of how this railway line is going to run. My hon. friends who are sitting here, and who know this part of the world, will understand me when I say that one could wax lyrical about the potential, not only in respect of the transport of ore as an earner in South Africa of foreign exchange, but also in respect of the way in which that large part of South Africa can be made serviceable for the future of this country and its people. I have here a few short paragraphs to indicate how this railway line is going to run. This comes from the first official Iscor report that has appeared in that connection. I quote (translation)—

Knowing this part of the world as many of us do, one can wax lyrical about what is, in point of fact, being created there for South Africa, what is being released there for a new growth point, for new growth momentum in those western and north-western parts of our country that lie there in all their growth potential. I want to mention a few of these points without motivating my statements. There is, in the first place, the employment of the lower Orange River’s water potential, particularly in respect of the mining industry in this specific part of the country. At the moment there is already talk of this river’s water having to be brought to one of our copper mines at Nababeep in the Namaqualand area. Particularly in the spheres of industry and mining this railway line will entail the greater serviceability of the lower Orange River’s water for the benefit of South Africa. I now want to say that attention must be paid to the fact that the mining industry remains one of South Africa’s most stable economic struts in contrast to, for example, the agricultural industry. In 1970 alone the mining industry’s contribution to our national revenue was somewhere in the region of R1 500 million. I therefore say that from this point of view what we are doing here is correct.

Secondly there are the copper fields at Prieska. I do not have time to elaborate on that now, but at a later stage there is the link-up of these newly discovered copper fields to this railway line. Thirdly there is the mining of Namaqualand’s mineral wealth. That wealth lies there, but in the past we could not touch it because transport, if there was any, was too expensive, but chiefly because there was no transport whatsoever to afford this part of the country any growth momentum. I shall mention a fourth point without motivating it, i.e. the employment of the lower Berg River’s water for industry. I want to lift my hat very high to the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs for the motivation he gave when the Boland water project was announced. He expressly said that as far as future growth and development in the Boland or in the greater Western Cape is concerned, it is essential that we look to the water of the lower Berg River, particularly with a view to industrial development. In addition he said that we should give greater protection as far as the other water is concerned, particularly in the sphere of Boland agriculture.

There is another aspect, the fifth, that I want to mention. This concerns the potential of the natural harbour of Saldanha Bay itself. I do not want to say any more about that, because I am afraid I would grow too lyrical.

Sixthly, there is the siting of the fourth Iscor. The chairman of Iscor’s board of directors spoke about this recently and said that the fourth Iscor should be placed next to this train route. I must say I cannot see why the fourth Iscor cannot be placed within the lower Berg River area, or even within the vicinity of this area. Bearing in mind our tremendous Coloured population in the Boland, it is essential that we make the necessary provision here, and that in our handling of this project we ensure that it is brought within the context of the Boland growth pattern. There is the additional development of the mineral wealth deposits of Sishen and Kuruman themselves, an aspect about which my hon. Kuruman friend can wax lyrical, as we evidenced at our big and enthusiastic regional congress. Today South Africa already provides for its own needs with respect to steel products. Iscor alone takes care of about 77 per cent of that. The third steel factory, which will come into operation in 1974, will further increase this production. Over the next 10 years our steel production will double in order to provide for our own needs. Just think how it could affect a specific part of the country and how we could create a totally new future growth momentum in this part of the world if this Sishen-Saldanha Bay project can be implemented. To sum up …

This motion is about St. Croix.

To sum up I want to say that when it comes to a choice between Saldanha and St. Croix, and that is what my hon. friend opposite is asking me, all the benefits lie with Saldanha. The hon. member for Walmer suggested this in contrast to all his election talk. Now he also comes along with the acknowledgment. He no longer says that we should leave Saldanha, but he says that we should keep it in the background.

I did not say that.

Well, but the entire motion boils down to that. You said that you did not want to advocate St. Croix at the expense of Saldanha. The hon. member looks at Saldanha on a long-term basis. However, that is not what the hon. member said before the elections. He then said that Saldanha must make way.

I am speaking about now.

The hon. member has undergone a complete transformation in his views. I claim that if we weigh up all these advantages and disadvantages, all the big benefits lie with Saldanha. I want to put it to hon. members as follows: It is, after all, an economic law that the greater the volume of ore transport on the railway line is going to be, the more economical will the project be. Let me put it differently. Any quantity of ore more than the planned or the projected 15 million tons that can be transported in the future, will make the project more economical. The experts now tell us that the St. Croix project has its disadvantages. It has its limitations; in the long run, for example, no more than 15 million tons can be exported from that specific point.

Who wants to export more there?

If this project, which is going to cost the country a great deal of money, is tackled, we want to utilize our potential, as I have tried to indicate. It is then obvious that the Saldanha project should be tackled, because in the long run we shall reap the benefits. It is calculated—the hon. the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—that if one could export 15 million tons for 20 years the provisionally calculated costs for this railway line can be met. After that the project shows a profit, that is, without any additional aspects involved on this railway line. The St. Croix project has, in other words, its limitations. When we come to the actual profit motive, the exporting of ore must be discontinued, because there are limitations in that specific region.

We are lodging pleas for both schemes.

The hon. member says they are advocating both schemes. This brings me to my next argument. Hon. members must now listen carefully. I say that it cannot be a Sishen-St. Croix project, i.e. a Saldanha project that is tackled on a long-term basis as hon. members opposite reason things out. I shall tell them why. It is a simple truth that the cost structure of this railway line, which we have in mind, increases so fantastically that if this Saldanha project is not tackled now, it will no longer be an economic proposition in four or five years’ time. We have no option in this. We must tackle this project now. I think our Government has given this matter very thorough consideration. In my humble opinion, and from what I have heard, the State has done everything in its power to obtain the best scientific knowledge and evidence before taking any decision. As I indicated at the beginning, four years elapsed before the Government actually made the final decision. I am convinced that under these circumstances our Government did make the correct decision, as the hon. the Minister announced at the end of last year. At the end of last year, I accompanied the hon. the Minister into that part of the world. I noticed that he is a person who is very fond of smoked mackerel. I want to tell him that I hope this matter will be concluded in the second half of this year. The people of this part of the world will be infinitely glad of that. I invite him in advance to come and have smoked mackerel with us when we celebrate the finalizing of the project.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I should like to express my bitter disappointment at the tenor of the speech made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg in contrast to the high level on which the debate was introduced.

But that does not appear in your speech.

I should like to tell the hon. member for Moorreesburg that I have learned to know him as a person who comes to this House with considered opinions, particularly when he speaks in an enlightened manner about the Coloureds. But I must tell him that he knows very little about the question of iron ore. He is badly informed about this, and he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

†Mr. Speaker, South Africa’s economy is for various reasons under severe pressure today. One of the visible indicators of imbalance in our economy is the alarming deficit which has developed in our trade balance. It has become a matter of urgency that our exports be increased. It has often been stressed, and I think it is fairly obvious, that the export of minerals is the key, in the short term, to solve this problem. South Africa’s comparative massive devaluation and the realignment of world currencies will result in a steep increase in South Africa’s cost structure.

Whom are you quoting?

I am quoting Cillié, whom you do not understand.

Loans and imports from countries which did not revalue or devalue will immediately cost South Africa one-eighth more, while imports from hard currency countries will cost us anything up to one-fifth more.

South Africa requires a massive amount of capital for its development up to 1980. My hon. friend for Walmer touched on this, but I should like to elaborate on it. Before devaluation, Iscor announced that up to 1980 it would require in the region of R3 000 million for its development of the Newcastle plant and extensions to its existing plants at Vanderbijlpark and Pretoria. Escom estimated that it would require anything up to R2 000 million for extensions to its capital works. The completion of Richards Bay is going to call for hundreds of millions of rands. Vast sums of money will be required for the development of our railways, airways, harbours, roads, telecommunications, etc. Many hundreds of millions of rands will be required to complete the Orange River project. The introduction of television is going to cost the country hundreds of millions of rands. These are but the main projects that I have mentioned. South Africa is not yet in a position to generate sufficient capital to satisfy this astronomical demand. Vast sums of foreign capital would have to be borrowed to satisfy these demands. The realignment of currencies, as we have seen, has made foreign borrowings more expensive. Therefore it has become imperative that we should get our priorities straight.

It is you in particular who have to do so.

I would like to tell that hon. member that this is where the men and boys are separated. He must go to the lobby and play marbles. Everybody agrees that our steel and power plants, our communication systems and all productive processes must keep pace with our needs. In the second place everybody agrees that our exports must be stepped up and that mineral exports are the obvious first choice in this regard. Everybody further agrees that the Saldanha Bay scheme is a bold one. It is a scheme which could revolutionize the economy of the Western Cape. We have never denied that. The Saldanha Bay scheme could provide a growth point for both our White and Coloured populations, which are growing fast. It is also a scheme which could provide, perhaps, the outlet for massive exports of iron ore during the 1980s and thereafter. Experts have differed widely, however, on the estimated cost of the Saldanha Bay scheme and on the expected date when it could become operational. Before devaluation, Iscor’s experts estimated that this scheme would cost about R400 million and said that it would take five years to complete railway experts at the same time estimated that it would cost R600 million. Private marine and civil engineers have stated categorically that the Saldanha Bay project, vast as it is, will require eight to ten years to complete.

We all remember how the Government’s original estimates for the Orange River project skyrocketed beyond control. I submit that, in view of the impetus which was given to inflation through our devaluation, the railways’ estimate of R600 million is a very modest one. I make bold to say that ultimately the cost of the Saldanha Bay scheme could escalate to R1 000 million or more. Furthermore, Iscor has not yet categorically stated that it has secured firm agreements for the export of iron ore which would ensure that this vast scheme would be economically viable. The St. Croix off-shore iron ore terminal should be complementary to that of the vast Saldanha Bay scheme. We have vigorously pleaded for this scheme on several occasions. If the hon. member for Moorreesburg would take the trouble of reading the debates on the Economic Vote last year he will notice that we spoke on this very same issue. We say that the cost of the St. Croix scheme is estimated to be less than R50 million and it could become operational within two and a half years. Initially it could have a capacity of ten million tons of iron ore per year but this could be increased. Apart from these facts I want to mention another virtue of the St. Croix scheme, namely that immediately it is in operation ore carriers of 150 000 tons could be accommodated. With a little extra expenditure carriers of 300 000 tons could be accommodated. With the Saldanha Bay scheme carriers of up to only 150 000 tons are visualized. It has been calculated that if the St. Croix scheme became operational in 1975, 10 million tons of iron ore p.a. could be exported via this scheme. This could rise to 14,9 million tons p.a. by 1980, which would earn during the period 1975 to 1980, R675 million in foreign exchange for the Republic. Should the Government, however, persist in blocking this scheme, manganese and iron ore would have to be shipped via Port Elizabeth harbour until the Saldanha Bay project is completed. The capacity of the existing installation at Port Elizabeth is about 4,5 million tons per annum, but with extensions this could be increased to just over six million tons per annum. The limiting factor, however, as the hon. member for Walmer has stressed, is the shallowness of the berth. Only ships of 40 000 tons and less are able to approach the berth for loading. It is common knowledge that in the international iron ore trade, carriers of 150 000 tons and more are in use. The bigger one can ship the lower the unit cost will be and in the case of St. Croix this will definitely apply. If the Saldanha Bay scheme becomes operative by 1980 or later, the export of iron ore ex the Port Elizabeth harbour would have earned R385 million less for South Africa than could have been earned had iron ore been shipped via St. Croix. If the iron ore is exported via St. Croix, it means that South Africa’s earnings in foreign exchange would be boosted by R385 million. This would ease the chronic balance of payments situation. Foreign capital equal to the earnings need not be borrowed for capital development and a broad base for the export of iron ore would have been established by 1980. This would ensure the ultimate economic success of the multi-million Saldanha Bay scheme.

*However, another extremely important new factor has entered into this whole matter. It can be described as a technological revolution which has taken place on the railways. The heavy unit train which uses diesel traction has been introduced. Only some four years ago the railways were still working on the basis of steam trains which could transport 1 200 tons of ore at a time. But in 1972 the railways carried out a successful experiment with diesel locomotives and transported 9 600 tons of ore on one train. I want to emphasize again that the present railway system from Sishen to Port Elizabeth, with the present installation at Port Elizabeth harbour, can accommodate two trains of 100 trucks each and two trains of 50 trucks each every day. This means that 6,9 million tons of iron ore can be handled per year. On the other hand, if the St. Croix scheme is put into operation, the railway Administration will be able, with improvements on this line, to transport up to 17,5 million tons of iron ore per year. As regards St. Croix, the hon. member for Moorreesburg spoke scornfully of 15 million tons per year, but I want to tell the hon. member that St. Croix will definitely be able to handle up to 15 million tons per year. By that time the Saldanha Bay project could be completed and the bulk of the tonnage which would have to be exported, could go via that route. It seems as if this factor, i.e. the greater tractive power of the diesel units, will occupy the minds our experts and cause them to come to the decision that the vital growth point of the Western Cape should be created in some other way than by the tremendously expensive Saldanha Bay scheme.

†The hon. Leader of the House is aware that the iron ore dust emanating from the existing Port Elizabeth harbour installation is causing a serious and disturbing pollution and health hazard. This is happening within a radius of a few miles from the iron ore terminal. It was pointedly brought to his notice during his recent visit to Port Elizabeth. Even the buildings of the University of Port Elizabeth—the hon. Leader is the chancellor of this university—are being contaminated by the iron ore dust. Other representatives from Port Elizabeth and I have received many complaints and representations from householders who are being affected in this way. Attempts to contain the menace by spraying or building retaining walls are but patchwork and the only way in which it could be entirely eliminated, which would allow the Municipality of Port Elizabeth to develop the famous King’s Beach area and the hon. the Minister of Community Development to redevelop the prestige South-End township, would be by the building of an iron ore terminal at St. Croix. The removal of the existing ore berth from the harbour would also provide immediate space for the urgently required extensions.

The point I wish to stress is that the Government could set in motion the necessary steps tomorrow for the construction of the St. Croix project, which would have a beneficial ripple effect on the whole of the South African economy. I plead with the hon. the Minister to review the matter once again, urgently, taking into consideration that there is a ceiling on the rate of expenditure which can be superimposed on our infra-structure and furthermore, considering the logical order of priorities, namely St. Croix, the cheap, immediate answer for the short term and Saldanha Bay, perhaps, the long-term, vastly expensive answer for the next and succeeding decades.

Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the pleas made by the hon. members for Walmer and Port Elizabeth Central, it seemed to me these hon. gentlemen were advocating an interim phase in the export of iron ore. They then hope to make this interim phase of theirs a permanent one; that is the conclusion we must draw from the word “perhaps” which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central used here today.

Sir, the Eastern Cape members made a plea here today that the necessary facilities for exporting iron ore should be established at St. Croix, Port Elizabeth. The Western Cape members, specifically the hon. member for Moorreesburg, are very pleased that the Government has decided that a railway line will be constructed between Sishen and Saldanha and that the necessary facilities for ore exports will be established. Each of these regions sees in the export of ore through a particular harbour, new opportunities for development, new possibilities for the future, for their particular regions. We in the Northern Cape as well, where the ore comes from, would like to be put into the picture when the future possibilities of the ore industry are being considered and planned. We would also like to play a part, and have a share in the development possibilities presented by the ore industry with its tremendous potential. The Northern Cape and its people would like to derive the maximum benefit from the tremendous mineral wealth buried under its soil, but the Northern Cape and its people would like to see this wealth, this ore which is being mined, utilized to the best advantage of South Africa.

I, too; that is what I am advocating.

The hon. member, who is sitting there making a noise now, does not even know what I am going to advocate here; it could perhaps be in the interests of his region. But that is the typical United Party attitude.

Sir, last year we held a joint regional development association congress of considerable magnitude at Sishen. I think it was probably the biggest ever held in South Africa. Twelve development associations, represented by 400 delegates, convened here to consider the export, processing and utilization of the tremendous mineral wealth of this region. In addition, all the possibilities of future development which that implied for these regions and South Africa were discussed here. Although this congress was fully conversant with the possibilities of exporting ore through the harbour at Port Elizabeth and were fully aware of the existing railway facilities to Port Elizabeth and of the possible expansion of loading facilities at St. Croix, the congress unanimously resolved to request the Government to proceed with the Sishen-Saldanha project and to tackle and bring it to completion as rapidly as possible. Sir, I find it strange that the hon. member for Walmer should come to this House with this motion today. He probably has every right to have this motion discussed in this House and to put forward pleas for his region. However, I was under the impression that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs eliminated all misunderstanding and any lack of clarity about this matter last year during the discussion of his Vote. Firstly the hon. the Minister, on behalf of the Government, gave Port Elizabeth the assurance last year that the ore exports through Port Elizabeth would not be prejudiced, and that they could even be expanded. I should like to quote the reassurance to Port Elizabeth given last year by the hon. the Minister. I am quoting from Hansard of 1st June, 1971 (column 7892)—

Secondly, the hon. the Minister made it very clear that it would not be economically justifiable for South Africa to tackle two ore export schemes simultaneously. I want to quote again from this same Hansard report—

Sir, I hope and trust that Port Elizabeth will be able to take its proper place in the future pattern of ore exports; that this area will also benefit from the envisaged ore export projects, but I want to ask them, since the hon. members from Port Elizabeth have been given these reassurances by the hon. the Minister, preferably to throw their weight in and help bring this vast Sishen-Saldanha project, with which much progress has already been made, to completion. Sir, we in the Northern Cape were delighted when it was announced by the Government during December of last year that it had been decided that Iscor should continue to call for tenders for the construction of the Sishen-Saldanha project. We took that as a sign that great progress had already been made with the construction of the project. I should like to quote from Iscor News of January, 1972, in which the general manager of Iscor, Mr. J. P. Coetzee, made the following announcement. He said (translation)—

Sir, I should like to repeat this; The currency earnings from 15 million tons will be in the region of R107 million per annum: this is crude ore, but five million tons of cast iron and semi-processed steel products could earn as much as R400 million per annum. You will note, Sir, that Mr. Coetzee makes mention here of five million tons of cast iron and semi-processed steel products which will earn a further annual amount of R400 million for South Africa. I am pleased to be able to deduce from this that a great deal of attention is already being given to the refining process of iron ore. I think that this would constitute far greater benefits for South Africa than giving attention now to a second ore export project.

Australia has three.

The hon. member for Walmer wants the Government to give its full-time attention to a second ore export project, while in this process of bringing the Sishen-Saldanha project to completion the refining of iron ore could be proceeded with and we could by so doing earn more foreign exchange for South Africa. I should like to point out to the hon. members from Port Elizabeth that if we could proceed with the purification of iron ore at the mining source, at Sishen, Port Elizabeth would be able to play its role, in this and also in future phases, in exporting this refined ore.

And at present?

Sir, if that hon. member had done a little more studying, if he had done his homework a little better, he would have realized that, taking into consideration the increase in ore production for domestic consumption over the next 10 years, plus the ore which has to be exported through Port Elizabeth, which is what he wants, almost the entire railway line between Sishen and Port Elizabeth will have to be doubled.

You are quite wrong. [Interjections.]

According to geologists there is approximately 4 500 million tons of high-grade iron ore in the Sishen-Postmasburg area, i.e. ore with an iron content of 65 per cent, which is economically exploitable, which is suitable for export and for processing in our domestic foundries. It is this ore which the hon. members from Port Elizabeth would like to export through St. Croix. However, it is alleged by geologists that there are still far greater quantities, millions upon millions of tons, of low-grade ore available, ore which is not economically suitable for export or for transportation to domestic foundries. Most of this low-grade ore is handled during the mining of the high-grade ore. It is also known that plus-minus 25 per cent of every ton of high-grade ore which is mined and trimmed for transportation to an ore export harbour or to our domestic foundries is wasted. This waste product has an iron content of 25 to 58 per cent. I should like to make a plea here today for the utilization of this low-grade iron ore, which is lost as a result of mining methods during the mining of high-grade ore. I should like to see it being utilized. To utilize this waste ore and to prevent huge dumps still containing large quantities of iron from lying waste, we are asking the Government to give urgent consideration to the establishment of an ore pre-processing or refining process at Sishen, the mining source. To give you an idea, Sir, of the quantity of ore which goes to waste, I want you to consider the following figures. When the envisaged projects become a reality—and we hope that this will happen soon—the estimated quantity of iron ore which will be mined annually for domestic consumption and for export will be as follows: Plus-minus 15 million tons will be required for export, and plus-minus 10 million tons for domestic consumption. To make the aforesaid quantities of high-grade ore available means that an annual quantity of plus-minus 35 million tons has to be mined. Approximately 10 million tons goes to waste in the mining and production of that ore. If one makes a conservative estimate and says that this waste has an iron content of 30 per cent it means that 3 million tons of iron is going to waste annually here at the mining source. Then the low-grade ore and the ribbon ore has not yet been included in the calculation. Why should we not use this ore if ore in Europe with an iron content of 25 per cent to 30 per cent is being used there for the manufacture of steel? I therefore want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister to give immediate attention to this important matter and to incorporate it into the envisaged facilities which have to be established in the Saldanha-Sishen project, to establish the necessary facilities for crushing the low-grade ore and waste, refining it mechanically and compressing it into pellets, and to establish blast-furnace facilities here at Sishen where this refined low-grade ore and waste can be converted into cast iron with an iron content of plus-minus 98 per cent. I think that we could succeed in processing this waste product, which is being lost at present, in such a way that it could be utilized in the interests of our country. Then we would be achieving far more than to give attention to two ore export harbours, and we would be using the waste to create a product which is easy and economical to transport. This refined product could be transported from Sishen on existing or new railway lines to existing foundries in the interior, and this refined product could then be exported to earn a tremendous amount of foreign exchange for South Africa in overseas countries. This refining of waste ore could create avenues of employment in the far Northern Cape and attract White initiative to this unspoilt and healthy part of South Africa. Avenues of employment could be created for Bantu workers from the neighbouring Tswanaland, and they can return to their homes over week-ends. Such a refining process at Sishen could create a new frame of mind among the people living in this region. Sir, we in the Northern Cape have begun to feel like a milch-cow. Our cream, our riches, are time and again being carted away to other areas to bring prosperity and development to those areas. Such a refining process at Sishen could stimulate our ideals in the Northern Cape and we would be able to conceive of a new dynamic line of development stretching from a West Coast harbour at Saldanha, through Namaqualand, the North West, the lower and central Orange, Postmasburg, Kuruman and Vryburg, and we would even like to see this line extending into the Western Transvaal. Such a refining process at Sishen could enable us to utilize every particle of our country’s riches in the interests of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, we have heard this afternoon from that side of the House the lyrical—that is to say, the theatrical—and we have now had the theoretical. One would not think, when one listens to the conduct of the debate from the other side of the House, that we were discussing a most urgent matter of a choice between two projects which are of vital importance to this country. We are discussing priorities and these priorities can only be discussed against the hard background of facts. It is all very well to speak lyrically of the advantages of developing Saldanha. We would go along with the arguments of the hon. member for Moorreesburg on those grounds, and I would go along with about a quarter of the arguments of the hon. member for Kuruman on the benefits of refining. However, the problem is a little more complicated than he thinks. There are certain aspects of the process of refining, the cost of refining and the marketing of refined ores, which he has not taken into account, but theoretically he has made a case. But neither of these hon. members has contributed to this debate anything on the vital issue which has been brought before us again this afternoon, i.e. what choice shall we make and when shall we make it. This is what the debate is about and I propose to return to this main issue.

It is a truism that development in this country must proceed at a very rapid rate if we are going to satisfy the needs of our growing population. There is no question that this country will have to produce for the people of South Africa in the next 25 to 30 years eight times as much as is being produced today. This is because we are now in a state of geometric doubling. That is to say, one does not multiply arithmetically; when you look at the doubling effect of the population you have to look at the geometric doubling effect, which means that in every ten years or so, or even eight years, you get a doubling of demand and consequently you need more than a doubling of production. This means also that in the next three decades—we are already in the first one—South Africa will have to produce more than it has produced in the previous three centuries of its existence. This is a grave challenge, and there is no question that South Africa will need every resource that can be harnessed and every port which can be made available. The South African coastline is not very kind to us in the matter of ports. It is an intractable coastline. We have a limited number of deep indentations in our coastline indentations which can be turned to practical account as ports. There can be no question in anyone’s mind that South Africa within the next 25 years will have to start developing every single port possibility along the South African coastline. There can be no question about that. Therefore, those who say that we must think in terms of alternatives between St. Croix and Saldanha, those who have said on that side of the House that South Africa cannot afford two ore ports, are taking a short-term view; they do not realize what the enormous demands in this country, the enormous pressures on us to export, will be within our lifetime, within the lifetime of people in this House, within the next 20, 25 years.

We will need every port. It is not a question of accepting one port and discarding another; it is a question of determining the priorities in terms of time. These are the matters with which I wish to deal this afternoon against a hard background of facts.

The first thing which must be taken into very serious account is our economic situation. Is there anyone in this House who has any doubt at all that South Africa is gravely embarrassed, is gravely endangered by its growing trade deficit? Can anyone deny this or challenge this? Can anyone deny that South Africa must take major and urgent steps to correct this trend?

Diederichs does; he doubts it.

Does anyone deny that the South African export performance at present is abysmally poor? Our exports have hardly grown at all over the last three or four years. As against that our imports have soared. We cannot go on like this. We have been pleading that there should be an active export programme, that we must harness every export resource which is available to South Africa, and the case has been made over and over in this House and outside that the only immediate availability for rapid export expansion is our highly developed mineral industry. These new minerals which we can produce in such large quantities are in fact bulk exports and our problem is, of course, the infra-structure—the railways and the harbours.

Another element has come into the equation and that is devaluation in December. Devaluation, the hon. the Minister of Finance said on Monday, gives a breathing space or a new opportunity. We all understand that devaluation does or can give a new opportunity, provided you use it. The benefit it offers is of short duration. There are trade equalization factors at work on the international economic scene all the time by means of which the temporary advantages of our nation vis-à-vis another are equalized out. We have domestically an inflation problem which may also very quickly eliminate the currency advantage which devaluation has temporarily conferred on us. Therefore, if we are going to correct these things, these great dangers of which I have been talking, and use devaluation to do it, above all we must move fast. We must act quickly.

Which of these two export points gives us the best opportunity of moving fast, of curing our economic weakness, of expanding our export possibilities? I will deal with these two ports from this point of view because this is what is relevant in this debate and nothing else—not the scenery, not the charm of the Boland, nothing but this question of saving our economy from disaster. We shall give marks and points to the other questions later, but this is urgent and comes first. Let us look at the first of three aspects, the three vital aspects, with which I shall deal in turn. The first is the question of the capital required for port development; the second is the question of what contracts are available to pay and to enable us to make use of these ports and the third one is the question of time scales. I shall deal with these three aspects which to my mind are the only things which are really decisive at this stage. I emphasize “at this stage”. We know from the exponents of the St. Croix project, who have done detailed costing and have not been shy about publishing their costs —and they are backed by the opinions of some of the best consulting engineers in this country and outside it—that the cost of developing the off-shore loading harbour at St. Croix will be of the order of R47 million. The railway development is already proceeding. Through dieselization and the modernization of the railways we know that the tonnages which are envisaged—these tonnages are practical and realistic in terms of contracts available-can be carried by the railways from the Sishen area to the Algoa area without additional outlay above what is now envisaged. Therefore the basic cost, including the tugs and ancillary services, is R47 million. This is a capital sum which we can readily envisage for the sake of what it will do for us, even in our present capital-tight situation in South Africa.

The cost of the Saldanha Bay exercise is not known. The figures which have been quoted are vague to the point of embarrassment. A figure of R400 million has been quoted by Iscor. A figure of R600 million has been quoted by the top authorities of the South African railways. Both these figures are pre-devaluation figures. I mention “pre-devaluation” because of the erosion of the rand on the one hand and the higher cost of loans from abroad on the other. The hon. Minister of Finance was asked in this House this afternoon what the additional cost is in respect of our existing foreign loans on account of devaluation. The additional cost on account of devaluation, the higher price we have to pay in repayment of these loans, is over R100 million. The total amount of loans outstanding abroad is smaller than the amount which Iscor expects to borrow in order to put in hand the Saldanha project. Therefore, to any pre-devaluation figure that you mention, you have to add at least R100 million in terms of what the hon. the Minister of Finance has told us this afternoon.

Iscor is already very heavily involved. Dr. Tom Muller, the Chairman, said not more than a fortnight ago that they were planning an increase of production, that is to say an increase of steel mill production which has nothing whatsoever to do with Saldanha. He was essentially referring to the areas of Newcastle, Vanderbijlpark, and Pretoria. This expansion is going to cost the country in its first phase, which runs from 1976 to 1977, R1 100 million. Phase two, which they hope to complete by 1982, will cost another R2 000 million. That means a total of R3 100 million will be spent on the expansion of steel production plant other than any moneys which may be required for the development of Saldanha or for the steel mills which hon. members opposite speak of in conjunction with Saldanha. These are colossal sums; these are staggering sums. We welcome the forward-looking nature of the predictions and the projections made by Iscor. This shows imagination, but while they are contemplating such schemes, they are at the same time pressing for the rapid development of a harbour at Saldanha— which, strictly speaking, is not necessary now as I will show in a moment—at a cost, I venture to predict to the hon. Minister, of R1 000 million. I hope the hon. Minister will in due course have time to confirm the amount involved in the development of Saldanha. There are authorities, engineering and development authorities in this country, who agree with my figure. Let us accept that a figure of between R700 million and R1 000 million will be needed for the Saldanha project as against the cost of R47 million which will be involved in the development of the St. Ooix harbour. If we have regard to the capital shortages in this country and the high cost of borrowing money abroad and the fact that the cost of borrowing money abroad will in the last resort inevitably fall back on the taxpayer, this is a very large and a very dangerous proposition we are looking at. We have looked at the capital situation, but this capital situation only becomes realistic when you look at the contracts. It is argued that the Saldanha scheme must be implemented quickly and that it must have preference. What, in fact, is the contractual position? The hon. the Minister has said, and it has recently been confirmed by Dr. Tom Muller, that Saldanha needs 15 million tons of ore per year to start. Starting at 15 million tons of ore a year, the Saldanha Bay scheme would be expanded to handle 25 million tons a year in due course. Dr. Tom Muller said this on the 21st January, 1972. The hon. the Minister will remember that he has used the same figure, namely 15 million tons. What are the export prospects at the moment? The steel industry has suffered a major setback. The Japanese and European steel industries are reducing their output in consequence of the American devaluation and the American adjustment of its trade relationships. This information comes from Japan and from the European Coal and Steel Community. These are the two major potential purchasers of iron ore in the world. The Japanese now contemplate that in view of existing contracts already signed, they will be able to contract with South Africa for approximately 5 million tons in each of the years 1975 to 1977. It must be remembered that Iscor wants 15 million tons to make Saldanha a viable proposition. As I have said, Japan wants 5 million tons a year during the years 1975 to 1977. The Coal and Steel Community wants 1,5 million tons. This is a total of 6,5 million tons a year. From 1978 to 1979 Japan wants 6 million tons and the European Coal and Steel Community wants 2 million tons. The figures rise to 16 million tons in the early eighties. We do not have these contracts yet. These are merely potential contracts. It is quite clear that we cannot obtain the contracts in the world today to justify the building of a part which needs a base of 15 million tons. What we can justify is the building of an off-shore loading terminal which can handle flexibly tonnages rising from 5 to 15 million tons, transported on lines which the railways have available or will soon have available. The contracts for these amounts are virtually signed. They are ready. This is what we have and this is what this Government is turning down through its attitude on Saldanha.

Let us assume that the Government had a change of heart and saw realistically what this country needs in its dire economic position. It is calculated that if St. Croix is put in hand immediately, it will be ready by 1975, that the contracts will go forward, and that the additional earnings over and above what is now being exported through Port Elizabeth will be R387 million during 1975 to 1980. This is virtually a guaranteed additional income. Can this country afford to do without R387 million in additional earnings? It will not earn this amount through Saldanha. I assure this House with the utmost sincerity that we will not earn this money through Saldanha before 1980. It cannot be done.

I want to conclude by making an appeal to the hon. the Minister. We wish to say to him that we have nothing whatsoever against the development of Saldanha. We are for it. We think that it is essential that this should be done. However, we ask him to take account of the dire economic situation of this country, of the hard arguments weighed one against the other, St. Croix against Saldanha, in terms of time and the South African necessities. That is all we ask. If he will agree to give the green light to this ore-loading project, to save our economy in an hour of need, Sir, he can count on this side of the House to support him all the way on the eventual development of Saldanha. We see great merit in this; however, we see no merit in getting the priorities wrong and doing severe damage to the economy of this country.

Mr. Speaker, the motion introduced by the hon. member for Walmer reads as follows—

I must say at the outset that the Government has already given its attention to this matter. I was impressed by the enthusiasm with which the hon. members for that region championed their cause. That is why it is a great pity to have to say that this matter has been finalized and that the Government has resolved otherwise. The hard facts of the matter are that the Government has on two occasions studied, investigated and discussed this question in considerable detail. I should like to give this House the assurance that the resolutions adopted in this case were not adopted superficially but that they were adopted in me light of all the technical advice the Government had at its disposal, and after the entire matter had on various occasions been considered by a special committee appointed for the purpose. In the light of all these circumstances, the Government decided that only one scheme should be tackled for the large-scale export of iron ore, and that scheme should be at Saldanha. I am saying this right at the outset so that hon. members can know in what direction I am going to steer my discussion when I motivate this matter and furnish the grounds on which this Government took this decision.

Honestly, in the light of the circumstances, it serves no purpose to give further consideration now to St. Croix. However, I want to add that circumstances may perhaps at a later stage be different. Hon. members all know that in its latest resolution the Government laid down that when tenders are received by Iscor, the Government should again be consulted in regard to the tender prices. When these are submitted to the Government, the Government will see to what extent these are excessive or tremendously high, as the hon. gentleman predicted here this afternoon. As in the case of any person building a dam, constructing a building or planning any scheme whatsoever, it is always his prerogative when calling for tenders to decide not to proceed with the scheme if the tenders are too high. This frequently happens. The Government would like to play a part in considering those tenders. If it appears that the tenders are completely excessive and too high, and that the scheme cannot be proceeded with for that reason, then the Government may decide not to proceed with the scheme. In such a case the matter will be open again and we can return to the consideration of St. Croix.

The years of the locust.

Let us leave it at that for the time being. I shall come in a moment to how long it is expected this scheme will take to complete. As I said just now, I appreciate the efforts made by the hon. members from Port Elizabeth and vicinity in advocating that this scheme be developed there. However, a scheme of this nature has far wider implications than just those. It has far wider implications than merely to take the development and the interests of a particular part of our country into consideration. I do not want to create the impression now that hon. members on the opposite side are short-sighted and do not see the situation in its entirety, but the fact of the matter is that a person is influenced by his environment. I should therefore like to request that we take the wider interests of South Africa into consideration when we consider this matter. When these two possibilities were initially mooted, hon. members did not adopt the attitude they have now adopted. Then they were opposed to the Saldanha project. The private organization which was a great advocate of the development of St. Croix was also hostile to the Saldanha project and said that it should rather be built at St. Croix. But subsequently the Opposition changed their tune. Subsequently the merits of the Saldanha project appeared to be greater than those of St. Croix. The possibilities of the Sishen-Saldanha project do not terminate at some stage or other in the future, but become greater and greater. When the United Party realized that the merits of this project were so great, they decided to change their tactics. They then decided to say what they again told us today, i.e. that they are in favour of Saldanha as well, but that an interim scheme should be established at St. Croix.

Why are you making a political issue out of such an important matter?

I am not making a political issue out of it. The hon. member seems to be obsessed with politics, and that is why he is sitting there. I am stating the facts. This is what actually happened in this case. I want to go on to prove that even today, although they have said that they are not opposed to the Saldanha scheme, each one of them is still advancing arguments as to why the Saldanha project should not be proceeded with. Each of the hon. members on the opposite side who spoke, advanced arguments as to why the Saldanha project cannot be proceeded with. Last year I made an announcement in regard to the Saldanha project, and we then had a discussion on the matter. I should just like to remind hon. members that the estimated costs of the project at the time were put at R328 million. Recently we have been talking about R400 million because we have realized that there have in the meantime been cost increases and that the final amount will be more. I do not want to mention the merits of the Saldanha project again, for I did that last year, but while this motion is before the House it is nevertheless necessary for me to touch upon certain aspects of the matter.

In the first place, I think it is necessary that we ask ourselves whether two schemes of such vast magnitude can be carried out in South Africa. I think that hon. members on the opposite side, as well as the hon. member for Walmer who introduced this motion, proved convincingly in the House that the two schemes cannot be tackled simultaneously. We simply cannot afford two schemes of this magnitude at this stage. The statement made by hon. members that St. Croix will only cost R47 million must be complete nonsense. I shall deal with the costs in a moment, but if one were to develop the Sishen-Port Elizabeth line so that it could carry more than 15 million tons per annum, it begins to become more expensive than Saldanha. In any case, it is not possible to carry more than 15 million tons a year. As development on the Port Elizabeth line takes place, the transport of ore will be excluded to an increasing extent, so that one will gradually have to taper off in respect of ores, and will eventually be heading for a cul-de-sac.

The hon. member for Walmer objected to the many obligations the railways have. He mentioned a few examples, and mentioned all the places where the railways has to undertake construction work, and said how much this was going to cost the railway s. Why did he present that argument? Why did he mention that it is costing the railways so many millions to build railway lines in South Africa? What one has to conclude from that, is that it is already costing a great deal. How could we in these circumstances still tackle two schemes? How could we spend R93 million on the improvement of the railway line between Sishen and Port Elizabeth, and at the same time work on another project?

How much?

R93 million.

Where does that figure come from?

If the hon. member knows better than the Minister of Transport, he can try to convince me. Last year, on 18th March, the Minister of Transport said here in Parliament (Hansard, Vol. 33, col. 3034)—

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Are those figures based on the tractive power of the steam locomotive, or has the new development which has taken place with diesel tractive power been taken into consideration?

This R93 million is only in respect of the railway line which has to be improved. It does not even include rolling stock, which has still to be included in the calculation, and will probably cost an additional R80 million. Let us finish dealing with this matter here. If this R90 million has to be spent on the railway line, R47 million on the wharf and R80 million on additional rolling stock and what goes wtih it, the Port Elizabeth scheme, according to this estimate a year ago—I am adding nothing for the increase in costs which has taken place in the meantime— would already have cost R220 million. These are not my figures; I obtained them from the Minister of Transport. The figure of R47 million for building the wharf was given to me by the hon. member for Von Brandis. That is, after all, his figure. I do not have the additional figures with me now, but there is still rolling stock which has to be purchased to carry that additional load.

That must be purchased in any case.

Yes, but surely the hon. member cannot, because I want to purchase it for Saldanha, wish to use it on the Port Elizabeth line. I must purchase it for Saldanha, and it is included in the R400 million. [Interjection.] Of course it is included. The hon. member has been interrupting me a little now, but the fact of the matter in respect of rolling stock is that you need far less rolling stock for the Saldanha scheme for the same load quantity, because the turn-round time is calculated to be only half, or less than half of turn-round time in respect of the Sishen-Port Elizabeth line. I said we should consider whether we could tackle that. I also said that hon. members on that side—all of them—advanced arguments which indicated to me that we could not do so because we could not afford it. The hon. member for Walmer asked: “Have we the resources for Saldanha?”

At this stage.

If we do not have the resources for Saldanha, how can we tackle both?

Why do you quote the figure of 15 million tons to make St. Croix a viable proposition, when it could become viable on 10 million tons per annum?

It depends on what the hon. member wants. If the hon. member wants to lay out St. Croix and wants us to export only 5 or 10 million tons per annum through St. Croix, then it will of course be cheaper, but we are not geared to the export of ore on a small scale here, we are geared to the export of ore on a large scale, whether we are going to export it through St. Croix or through Saldanha. We must meet the need, which the hon. member for Von Brandis mentioned here, which exists for us to promote our exports. After all, it is of no use tackling a scheme by means of which we could export a few million tons of ore when the possibility of a scheme exists by means of which we could export 15 million tons per annum, which could be expanded to 25 or 30 million tons. [Interjections.] Hon. members must give me a chance; my time is very limited. Sir, the hon. member for Walmer refers us to all the obligations Iscor has, and the hon. member for Von Brandis did the same. What do they mean by that? Why do they point out to us all the financial obligations Iscor has? To my mind this is the first indication that we may perhaps be able to tackle one scheme, but not two. The Cabinet arrived at the conclusion to which hon. members on that side also, by implication, arrived this afternoon, i.e. that South Africa cannot afford to tackle two such large schemes, and therefore had to make a choice between the two. The Cabinet made that choice, taking a few factors into consideration. The export harbour and the scheme which is constructed for the exporting of iron ore, must in the first place serve to export iron ore. The proposed scheme, as the hon. member for Von Brandis correctly stated, is a scheme which in the initial stages will be able to handle 15 million tons per annum, in other words it must be constructed in such a way that when it comes into operation it will be able to handle 15 million tons. The hon. member for Von Brandis kicked up a great fuss about the fact that we might not get the contracts. Sir, it is true that we do not have the contracts yet. The hon. member mentioned other contracts which private organizations have; that may be the case. Two conditions were laid down when the decision was taken to proceed with the construction of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line. The one condition was that the exports going through Port Elizabeth would continue to go through Port Elizabeth, that these exports could not be taken away there, for doing so would of course be prejudicial to the economy of that line and the harbour works, etc. The other condition was that the Sishen-Saldanha railway line would also have to be made available for the transportation of other goods and for its use by other organizations for ore exports if necessary. If the hon. member for Von Brandis has so many contracts, he can come and discuss the matter of a tariff with us when the Saldanha scheme has been completed, and then he can export through Saldanha.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to the ocean depth at Saldanha. He was not correct when he spoke about the depth of the ocean at Saldanha. The technical experts have assured us that Saldanha, although it is not deep enough, can be dredged and made deep enough for the biggest ships we would like to use. Consequently that argument does not hold water. But what I want to emphasize is that we must not commit ourselves to a course here of exporting only iron ore in perpetuity. The greatest aim in this whole exercise must be to be able to export semi-processed products. We could build blast furnances.

I do not want to venture now into the realm of saying whether it will be in Saldanha or at Sishen, but we could build blast furnaces and we could prepare ourselves to export cast iron, or whatever there is a demand for. It is becoming a very popular idea in Europe, in Japan and other parts of the world, where atmospheric pollution is becoming a major problem, that they would prefer not to import ore but semi-processed products. In that lies the great idea behind this exercise. We must have those opportunities, when we carry this exercise into effect, so that we can export far less in bulk in the form of semi-processed products instead of these millions of tons of ore. Let us tell our clients that they must prepare themselves for our exporting not only ore, but for our also wanting the benefit of processing the iron ore in South Africa. With a view to these possibilities there is not really any choice between the two projects, because, as I said a moment ago, Saldanha opens up future possibilities while Port Elizabeth does the opposite.

If one asks the question of whether we can afford two, the answer is: “No, it has to be one.” If one then comes to the question of where the greatest future long-term possibilities lie, with a view to the processing of iron ore into semi-processed products, one must conclude that the possibilities lie with the Saldanha scheme and that the possibilities of the Port Elizabeth scheme are scant. There are various factors which the Cabinet took into consideration. In the first place I want to refer to the harbour.

When we considered this problem at the beginning of last year, and again at the end of last year, the harbour facilities were of course a major and important consideration. Saldanha is a very naturally suited harbour, not just as it is at the moment, but a breakwater is still to be built to keep out the waves which may perhaps be dangerous, and the experts tell us that there is not the least danger there that a half-loaded ship will have to be removed from its berth because weather conditions are such that loading activities cannot be proceeded with. But this is a very great possibility at St. Croix. Although the hon. members allege that all the tests in regard to wave and wind conditions at Port Elizabeth were successful, I say that that is unfortunately not the case. Let me now tell you why I say that this is not the case. The tests at Saldanha are much more advanced than those at Port Elizabeth. On 9th February, 1970 a letter was written to the Secretary for Industries by Mr. Zwamborn, the chief of the hydraulics research institute, attached to the C.S.I.R., and he wrote as follows to the Secretary for Industries …

What is the date?

9th February, 1970. This was about two years ago, but you will see that it makes no difference. It could just as well have been written at the present time, for nothing has been done since then. He wrote as follows—

That is the scheme at Port Elizabeth—

This is at the Swartkops River mouth—

These are highly technical people supplying this information. He goes on to say—

In the light of these circumstances I cannot accept that, as the hon. member said here, the Port Elizabeth scheme has been properly tested and shown to be possible. That is not the case. I must rather accept what Mr. Zwamborn said here, i.e. that in these circumstances it is essential that tests should first be made.

As far as Saldanha is concerned, the C.S.I.R. built a model, which is in Pretoria at the moment, and hon. members can go and have a look at it if they wish. The necessary tests are being carried out there with a view to the Saldanha scheme. This is all I want to say about harbours.

As far as the railway lines are concerned, a matter which the Cabinet also had to consider, I must say, to begin with that the St. Croix scheme railway line will be approximately 20 per cent longer than that of Saldanha, because Port Elizabeth is about 20 per cent further from Sishen than Saldanha. The gradient is also a very important factor. The hon. member spoke with great praise of the jumbo trains which are being used. The Saldanha gradient, as the hon. member for Moorreesburg said, is one in 250 to Saldanha and one in 100 for the empty train on its return. This jumbo train, which we read about in the newspapers—the hon. member for Walmer had a photograph of the train—which ran to Port Elizabeth, was hauled by six locomotives with one on stand-by. This made it, in truth, seven. On the Saldanha railway line four locomotives will be able to pull the same number of trucks which will carry the same quantity of ore with great ease. In regard to this aspect of the gradient, it is therefore no problem to make a choice between Saldanha and Port Elizabeth.

In regard to the cost factor, to which I referred briefly a moment ago, I repeat that the estimated costs for St. Croix amount to R220 million—this cannot be only in respect of wharf facilities, but must also include the railway lines. At present it is expected that the cost in respect of Saldanha, as calculated and made available to me, will amount to approximately R400 million. This R400 million includes not only the harbour, the railway lines and the rolling stock, but also the mining development necessary to mine the ore.

If one regards this matter from a long-term point of view, and you have to choose one of the two, I think there will be agreement on the conclusion which the Cabinet arrived at. And if you have to choose between the two and you take South Africa’s interests in general into account, and if you consider the long-term aspects—the possibility of blast furnaces somewhere along the line; the possibility of processing the ore; the possibility of the future export of refined ores—one cannot but choose the Saldanha scheme, as the Government has in fact done.

You must withdraw your motion.

The St. Croix scheme has a few short-term advantages. It may be possible to complete it a little sooner than the Saldanha scheme; that is perhaps possible. However, if the tests at sea in regard to the St. Croix scheme still have to be made, I doubt whether it will be possible to finalize this scheme sooner. It is the intention of Iscor that this Saldanha scheme must be completed within a period of four to five years.

There is another factor which was of course taken into account by the Government, and that is that with the Saldanha scheme a particular growth-point will be created in the Western Cape, where a growth-point is really needed. The creation of such a growth-point is important, particularly at this moment, with a view to the position of the Western Cape in respect of the E.E.C., etc. It is important to point out this aspect. Recently Dr. Hupkes compiled particulars for the Federale group in regard to the Coloured population of the Western Cape. He indicated therein how much more rapidly the Coloured population was increasing than the Whites, and to what extent the proportion of Coloured to Whites was mounting. He arrived at the conclusion that there would probably be a half million unemployed Coloureds in the Western Cape by the year 2000. As far as the Sishen-Saldanha scheme is concerned, or rather, as far as a large-scale ore export scheme is concerned, this is to my mind an act of faith. To my mind this is as great an act of faith as the establishment of the first Iscor. There were doomsayers at that time as well. At that time there were also those who said that we could not afford the scheme, and that it was too big, as the hon. members said here again today. To my mind this is an act of faith, and with a view to the future this is the scheme we must tackle. I hope that since the Government has now taken this decision, we will put an end to these little squabbles among ourselves. Let us focus our attention on this great scheme, with the tremendous prospect it offers.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister concluded by telling us what great confidence he had in this act of faith on the part of the Government in wanting to tackle the Sishen-Saldanha Bay railway line. I just find it strange that there should be one act of faith that will be great benefit to a specific part of the Cape, while acts of faith for the rest of the province, which need them so badly, are of lesser importance. I think the hon. the Minister is quite wrong in wanting to approach it from that point of view. If he approaches it from the point of view of what is necessary to create a growth point in the Western Province, then I think he is making a big mistake. If it is necessary to create growth points, then growth points are also truly needed in the Eastern Cape. This is so under these circumstances, because without being parochial I must nevertheless say that the Western Province is much better off than the Eastern Cape in that respect. Therefore the hon. the Minister cannot come along and tell us that it is an act of faith to create such a big growth point in the Western Province. The hon. the Minister said that the original advocates of the St. Croix scheme had amended their tactics, because earlier on they were opposed to the Saldanha Bay scheme. I now want to tell the hon. gentleman that he is quite wrong. He is altogether wrong, and I am already going to quote to him what the advocates of the St. Croix scheme were saying a long while back. Since then they have again drawn up a document, and I believe this to be in the hon. the Minister’s hands. I have here the first document they drafted. I shall quote what they stated in paragraph 6 on page 2:

Who are they?

The advocates of the St. Croix scheme.

Who are the advocates?

The hon. member knows who they are, they are Consolidated African Mines and others who were in favour of it. They state, and I quote:

That is what they said. There was never an idea of the Saldanha Bay scheme being abhorrent to the champions of the St. Croix scheme. The hon. the Minister is creating the impression here that the St. Croix scheme must also include the railway line costs and so on. Just imagine the two schemes for yourself; the distances traversed by the railway lines to these two places differ by only about 50 miles. At the one at Port Elizabeth a railway line has already been established. At Saldanha there is no such railway line and the harbour also still has to be built. At Port Elizabeth only an off-loading quay has to be built, because there is already a Rall link. The hon. the Minister tried to prove here that the St. Croix scheme would actually be just as expensive as the Saldanha scheme. That is the impression the hon. the Minister wanted to create here. But what are the true facts of the matter? The hon. gentleman referred here to the Minister of Transport. On 5th August, 1970 the hon. the Minister of Transport replied, inter alia, as follows to a speech the hon. member for Walmer made about this scheme (Hansard, volume 29, col. 1150)—

And in passing that is also a reply to the hon. member for Moorreesburg, who said here that the hon. member for Walmer had never opened his mouth about this matter, and that he now wants to make politics out of it.

I said that he had not moved a motion. You were not listening to what I said.

But listen now to what the Minister of Transport said—

Then he continues and comes to the next point—

Those are the words of the hon. the Minister of Transport. He adopted the view here that if he had that choice he would never have built the Saldanha line. The simple reason for that is that the railway line from Port Elizabeth to Sishen has already been completed. The hon. the Minister knows that use was made of 96 lb. Ralls, which can be changed in the course of time to 115 lb. Ralls. This change is usually presented as being a doubling of the railway line. But what are the facts about the railway line to Port Elizabeth? The installation of “central traffic control” would mean an additional expenditure of R33 million. This is being done, in any case, to cut costs and to promote greater safety on the line. To extend the “loops”, as they are called, will cost R7 million.

Which they would in any case.

Yes, which they would in any case. The “off-shore terminal” at Port Elizabeth will cost R28 million and the tugboats will cost in the vicinity of R6 million. This means a total of about R74 million. If the hon. member wants to go as far as including this as well, it would cost R74 million, but the central traffic control costing R33 million will in any case have to be there …

Saldanha or no Saldanha?

Saldanha or no Saldanha. Lengthening the so-called “loops”, so that long trains can pass, will in any case have to be done in the course of time, Saldanha or no Saldanha. Therefore it would cost more or less R74 million. But if the railway system from Sishen to Langebaan is constructed, it would cost R350 million. Now the hon. gentleman is trying to create the impression that the Port Elizabeth line would be just as expensive as this line that is now going to be constructed. An additional R50 million must still be added for the harbour that must be created at Saldanha Bay. I do not want to say that this money must not be spent in the course of time, because we are of the opinion that this is a good long-term construction scheme. I do not want to detract from that, but I just want to mention it to show the hon. House how ridiculous is the hon. the Minister’s argument that if the St. Croix scheme is constructed it would cost only a little less than the Saldanha Bay scheme.

It comes to more or less the same.

The impression the hon. gentleman wants to create is that it comes to more or less the same.

Surely I quoted the figures.

The hon. the Minister also said that the tests at Saldanha are already in a very advanced stage.

That is so.

The hon. member says they know. At the same time the hon. the Minister tells us that the Cabinet had to make a choice. How could the Cabinet make a choice while they were still busy with tests to determine which is the best scheme? I can tell the hon. the Minister that while they are still engaged in tests at Saldanha, the facts in connection with the tests at Port Elizabeth have long been available to the Government.

And he says it was not a casual choice.

What are the facts of the matter?—

That is about 50 miles further—

The tests have, therefore, already been completed. How could the Government already have made its choice when hon. members now say they have been engaged all the while with the tests for the scheme that is going to be constructed at Saldanha Bay? The hon. gentleman quoted the Soros association, and I am also going to do so—

They then go further and state the facts in connection with the tests that were carried out with respect to storms, etc. They then make this interesting point—

If the hon. the Minister can therefore quote Soros in connection with the situation in Saldanha, we can do exactly the same …

I did not quote Soros at all.

What authority did the hon. the Minister quote then?

I quoted a letter from Mr. Zwamborn.

Then I apologize to the hon. the Minister because I heard incorrectly. But what are the actual facts of the matter? Everyone wants the Saldanha Bay scheme to be developed and no-one has anything against that. All we ask, since South Africa needs this very necessary foreign currency—and we do need it and can obtain it by means of improved exports—is whether South Africa can afford not to obtain a share in international iron ore trade as soon as possible. That is the real choice facing South Africa. In recent years the international iron ore trade pattern has changed radically and completely, both in volume and in its direction of movement in the past two decades. The growth in this trade was exceptionally rapid. It increased from 33 million tons in 1950 to about 188 million tons in 1965. It is thought that this amount will double by the year 1980. As far as the volume of international trade today is concerned, iron ore is exceeded only by oil, i.e. in importance iron ore is second only to oil. Not only is the change that took place here of importance, but also the rapid increase in the world’s steel production. What is also important is the decrease in some countries’ iron ore deposits, particularly those in Western Europe. An important factor is the fact that in recent years Japan has allowed its position in respect of the world’s steel producers to increase fantastically in importance. This industry in Japan is based specifically on imported iron ore. It is calculated that the world’s steel production increased from 480 million tons in 1960 to about 600 million tons in the early seventies. It is expected that by 1974 the production will increase 775 million tons of steel annually. Australia and other countries with large iron deposits are now trying to find markets for their products, and because of the fact that those markets are so competitive, it is absolutely necessary for South Africa that we penetrate this market. We cannot penetrate the market if our prices are not competitive and we do not have off-loading spots for our iron ore in South Africa. In the light of the tremendously high costs to iron ore producers today in respect of railway and shipping rates, it is necessary for us to give them the chance to export that iron ore as cheaply as possible. It is very clear to me that the Government’s choice lies in finding a footing for South Africa as soon as possible when it comes to the iron ore that we have and to find us markets overseas. This appears to me to be the most important choice. Let the Government bear in mind that since it will take another six or eight years before the Saldanha scheme is completed, we shall be completely squeezed out of the market by our competitors in this field. At the present stage South Africa uses only about six million tons of its iron ore annually for its own purposes. Experts believe that we have anything between 10 000 million and 16 000 million tons of iron ore deposits. Even though we create a fourth Iscor, one wonders whether in the near future our own use will be much more than 10 million tons annually. We have these wonderful deposits that we can mine and export, and here we now want to wait from six to eight years for a scheme, while in the case of St. Croix we have a scheme that will be completed within years, with all the necessary tests, and that can earn us up to R387 million in foreign currency within a very short time, within a question of a year or two, as the hon. member for Von Brandis indicated. I think that is the choice.

The hon. the Minister now asks us to think on a large scale and to discuss this subject. We must not only think in terms of local interests. I think that is a good idea, but if we need this foreign currency and we have these deposits, why then waste any time? Again recently one of the biggest deposits was discovered in Australia. Here we sit with our thousands of tons of deposits, while opportunities are passing South Africa by and while the St. Croix scheme could be established for South Africa cheaply and in the shortest possible time. I therefore say that it is regrettable that the Government has already taken its final decision and that they do net see their way clear to fitting the St. Croix scheme into their general plan for the export of ore.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion lapsed.