Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the House long. I would like to refer to a difference of opinion which revealed itself yesterday between the hon. the Minister and myself regarding the planning and control of major railway works and to correct his faulty recollection of the factual position. I said, in the course of my speech on the second reading of this Bill, that the Minister has inherited from his predecessor a transport crisis, and that to rectify it he went frantically to work. He tried to “spend his way out of that crisis” by lavish action in order to eliminate bottlenecks, caused by his predecessor and to equip the railways to carry all the goods offered for transport by agriculture, commerce and industry. As the result, as I declared, there had been over-hasty planning and unsatisfactory control of works, from an administrative and financial angle. I said that works had been commenced without detailed plans or estimates having been prepared and that this had resulted in strictures, from an all-party Select Committee, being unanimously passed, criticizing the Railway administration. Both sides shared in these strictures and criticisms. The Minister denied that my statement was correct. He said that no Select Committee had ever said anything of the sort had ever happened. No Committee had ever said that anything was wrong with plans or estimates. Then he went on to say that, if the Railways Select Committee had said it, they did not know what they were talking about. Now, just to get the record straight I would like briefly to read some of the remarks of the Railways and Harbours Select Committee in trenchant criticism of the Administration. I quote from Resolution No. 2 of 1961. It says this–

Order!

…and in that predicament he must find it very difficult to run away from our justified criticism of his past misdemeanours. He has no answer to offer us. He cannot refute my accusations.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with legislation of this kind is always to decide how far one must be prepared to go to meet the evils which one hopes to combat without destroying the very essence of the way of life which we have come to know in South Africa and which we hope to protect. The danger in legislation of this kind is very often that you may be creating something containing many of the elements of that against which you wish to protect the State. In respect of this legislation, I think it is common cause on both sides of the House that all of us are against Communism. [Interjections.] I think it is common cause likewise that all of us here are against sabotage.

Since when?

The hon. member has obviously not been listening to the debate, and I suggest that he read the amendment moved by this side of the House in the second reading, where he will find it very clearly stated that this party is determined to maintain the safety and security of the State, etc., which puts the position very clearly indeed.

But you voted against the principle of the Bill.

But there have been attempts, and here we have it again, to define the principle of the Bill in a manner other than that in which you, Sir, interpreted it, and in a manner other than that in which it was understood by this side of the House. But I shall deal with that in due course, perhaps to the satisfaction and discomforture of certain of those trying to make cheap propaganda out of the attitude of this side of the House. May I say that when one looks at this Bill at a third reading, there is no real problem for an Opposition. We will concede that the Bill has been slightly improved in Committee, but in essence it is the same Bill and the same kind of Bill that came before us at the second reading and to which we indicated our objection. We have no hesitation in saying that in the light of the existing machinery available to the Minister and in the light of the provisions of this Bill, this is bad legislation and largely unnecessary legislation and it will not get the support of this side of the House. Therefore I propose to move the following amendment—

1. (a) it grants to the Minister arbitrary and excessive powers never before vested in any Minister in time of peace; and
2. (b) the definition of the crime of sabotage is too wide in that it includes acts which in no way undermine the safety and security of the State”.

Having said that I think we should decide what are the principles of the Bill which are before us to-day and what their passing at the second reading involves. Sir, I differ from the hon. the Minister. I agree with your interpretation as to what the principles of this Bill are. I believe one of the principles of this Bill is that there will be vast new powers to the executive, to the Minister, uncontrolled and uncontrollable by the courts. I think that is the first principle: Vast new powers to the Minister, uncontrolled and uncontrollable by the courts. The second principle is the extension of the scope and the operation of certain very severe legislation already on the Statute Book, in a manner which we cannot accept. The third is the creation of a new crime which is now defined in such wide terms that it can involve people who in no way endanger the safety or security of the State.

Let us look at what this Bill sets out to do. We find first of all that it creates, as I have said, vast new powers for the Minister, but in doing that it creates a new punishment in South Africa, a new punishment which I have equated to civil death, a new punishment that can be inflicted upon a citizen at the discretion of the Minister, because this Bill gives the Minister the power to determine the rigorousness and the severity of that punishment.

Do you equate ordinary citizens with communists?

The Minister will have his opportunity, and I will deal with that question very shortly. I say it is in the discretion of the Minister whether that punishment is inflicted upon a citizen or not, and it is within his discretion to determine the rigorousness and the severity of that punishment. He is a man who has the power to determine the extent of the confinement of the citizen; he has the power to determine with whom the citizen can communicate, who can visit him, what activities he can undertake and what activities he cannot; the extent to which any statement that he makes can be used in public, except in the courts of law. In other words, he determines the severity and the rigorousness of that type of punishment. He takes that power over anyone in respect of whom he is satisfied that he is engaging, inter alia, in activities which may further the activities of the objects of Communism or directly or indirectly or of any organization advancing any of the objects of an unlawful organization. He is the sole decision. He alone will decide whether that situation arises. There is no recourse to the courts. The citizen has no right to go to the court and to challenge whether or not what he is doing may or may not further the objects of Communism or of any unlawful organization. There is no inquiry, as there used to be, by independent people. The Minister and the Minister alone decides—that is the provision of this Bill as it stands to-day—and his decision is final. He has that power over those in respect of whom he is satisfied that they engage in these activities. But he also has that power in respect of members of organizations which directly or indirectly are carrying on any of the activities of an unlawful organization; and an “unlawful organization” here means not only organizations unlawful under the Suppression of Communism Act, but also an organization unlawful under the Unlawful Organizations Act. If it is accepted, as I think it is accepted throughout the civilized world, that the freedom of the citizen is dependent upon his right of recourse to the courts, then this legislation opens the way for the gravest inroads into the freedom of the citizen at the behest of one man, at his decision, without any remedy to the citizen—inroads which in my submission are so dangerous that no true democratic people, no truly democratic Parliament, no country with any respect for democracy, could consider granting except in times of national crisis, except in times of civil war or except in times of war. Those would be the only circumstances which would justify the granting of powers of that kind to a Minister with no recourse to the courts. This Minister has told us that the situation in South Africa is calm, quiet and peaceful, and he is the Minister of Justice and he is supposed to know.

It is even better now.

The Minister says that it is even better now. I take it then that he is withdrawing the Bill. Sir, this Bill does something else; it increases the power of the Minister in certain other spheres as well, and one of them is the power over gatherings of all kinds in South Africa. He has two powers under this Bill; first of all he has powers over gatherings of all kinds whether they have a common purpose or not, and that means that there are included social gatherings, religious gatherings and business gatherings. We have reached the position that he has the power to ban almost any gathering in South Africa, and we have come to the point where under certain circumstances almost any gathering can only be held at the pleasure of the Minister. Look what the Bill does. The Bill gives him the power to prohibit the assembly of any gathering or any particular gathering of a particular nature, class or kind if he deems it to be necessary in order to combat the achievement of any of the objectives of Communism. He and he alone decides when those objectives, in his opinion, are sought to be achieved. It gives him the power to ban any gathering if he deems it necessary or expedient for the maintenance of public peace. In this last stage, of course, the word “gathering” has its popular meaning and not the wider meaning referred to in the first prohibition. Here again there is no recourse to the courts. The Minister’s decision is final; he and he alone decides. Sir, the definition of Communism is so wide that it can, as we know, include all sorts of activities that have nothing whatever to do with Communism in the accepted Marxian sense of that word, and anyone who cares to study that definition will find that that is indeed so. The Minister, under the extension of the Riotus Assemblies Act provided for in this Bill has the power, as I have said, to ban gatherings if he deems it necessary or expedient for the maintenance of public peace. When or when not public peace is likely to be endangered is a matter of opinion. The Minister has already indicated that he has certain odd ideas as to when public peace may or may not be endangered. He seems to think that whenever there is a meeting on the Parade in Cape Town, public peace is endangered. He seems to think that whenever there is a meeting on the City Hall steps in Johanesburg, public peace is endangered.

I do.

He does think so, Sir. We have his assurance that he thinks so. I do hope we shall be able to educate the Minister in the course of time. This Bill gives the Minister other powers in respect of newspapers, with his colleague, the Minister of the Interior, and we are placed in the position that he can virtually impose a conditional fine in advance, and should he find it necessary in due course he can exact either the whole or a portion of that fine.

Sir, that covers roughly the first principle involved in this Bill—vast new powers granted to the Minister, uncontrolled and uncontrollable by the courts—and while that is a fundamental principle of this Bill, as you have ruled it to be, Sir, we cannot accept it on this side of the House. The Bill goes further; it extends the sphere of certain existing legislation which has been on the Statute Book but which is of a dangerous kind. It gives the Minister the power, when there is an emergency anywhere in South Africa, to legislate by decree, to apply regulations throughout South Africa. I know that those regulations are passed by the President, and therefore it is wrong to refer just to the Minister as having that power, but he will also know that under that Act, in times of emergency the Minister can act without the President, and therefore, he has those powers under certain circumstances also. We objected to that extension and we still object to it. If he wishes to use emergency powers he must declare a state of emergency, and it is a ridiculous state of affairs that because there is an emergency in one district he should be able to use powers throughout the whole of South Africa. Secondly, an Act placed on the Statute Book last year, providing inter alia for powers of arrest for 12 days, during which there was no right to bail if the Attorney-General so directed, has been extended for another year, and in our opinion no case has been made out for that—no case at all. It was placed on the Statute Book at a time when there was difficulty, when the Minister expected trouble. A case was made here and we were asked to assist. We could not support that legislation at that time and we cannot support its extension for another year in the present circumstances when, as the Minister says, everything is calm and quiet and peaceful in South Africa.

Then, lastly we come to the third fundamental of this Bill and that is the establishment of a new crime, the crime of sabotage. I have said that we are all against sabotage; I believe we are, but if there is to be a crime of sabotage then it must be properly and carefully defined in such a way that it will not get within its net, people who have no intention whatever of endangering the State or the security of the State. In our submission the onus should remain with the State to prove that the accused is guilty and there should not be a shifting of the onus in respect of this matter. Here we are again faced with a definition so wide that all sorts of people could be caught up in its net. I instanced earlier in this debate—and I could instance again, because no change has altered that position—that a young man tearing down the poster of a political opponent because he hopes to get his own candidate in and further his cause in that way, could be charged with sabotage under this definition and get a minimum sentence of five years and be subjected to the possibility of a more serious sentence. I believe under this definition you would be in the position that if you trespass on to anybody’s property in order to destroy a poster or to damage that property, you could be found guilty of sabotage under this Bill.

That is an extravagant statement.

Sir, that is a ridiculous state of affairs. I am glad to see that the Minister has remedied the position as far as strikes are concerned, but nevertheless the crime is still so widely defined that it is more of a danger than a help on the Statute Book, and in addition the minimum sentence is still applicable to juveniles. That is a serious situation and one from which we do not seem able to budge the Minister. But it remains something which I believe is a blot on our law and something which should not be approved of by this House. I believe that this definition as it exists is almost a greater danger to the democratic way of life, a greater danger to the things that we stand for in South Africa, than the danger of sabotage as it exists to-day, because we all know that while there has been much talk by the Minister, there has been very little sabotage in South Africa—very little indeed. The Government has come to us for approval of legislation of a most far-reaching kind, legislation which makes inroads into all the pillars of democratic government as we knew it in South Africa, and I believe that this legislation is being placed upon the Statute Book because this Minister and his Government are becoming frightened of the situation that they have created here themselves. I see the hon. gentleman smiles. What other excuse is there for this legislation but panic on the part of the Government? Can anyone suggest for one moment that there has been a state of affairs in South Africa so serious as to justify inroads into the rights of the courts to protect the citizen, so serious as to justify the giving of these tremendous powers to a Minister, powers far wider than has been given to any Minister in peace time either in this country or any other country that I know of other than dictatorships? Where is that state of affairs, because the Minister himself tells us that everything is calm, quiet and peaceful in South Africa.

I second the amendment.

I shall be very brief. Nothing has happened which has changed my original impression of this Bill. A few minor concessions were wrung out of the Minister by his ex-colleagues at the Bar. His colleagues in Parliament have been less successful, and the changes which they managed to persuade the hon. the Minister to accept are of very minor importance indeed. I say therefore that the impression that I had of this Bill at the second reading remains. It is a Bill, I believe, which is going to do very much damage to South Africa outside our borders, and I believe that within our borders it will do nothing what ever to solve any of our problems because it makes no attempt to tackle any of our problems. It puts them in a dark cupboard and it locks the door, but the problems remain.

Why do you worry then?

Because I would like to see our problems tackled. I would like to see the intrinsic, basic causes of unrest in this country tackled.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. The hon. member must not allow herself to be led astray by the Minister.

I shall try to be very firm about that, Sir. I want to say that the Nationalists in proposing this Bill think that they are making history for South Africa. My contention is that they are in fact betraying history. By this Bill they are betraying the history of a people who valued freedom so much that they gave up their possessions and security and trekked away into the wilderness. This Bill which purports to fight Communism, imposes on the people of South Africa the sort of régime that one only finds behind the Iron Curtain. It is a Constitutional dictatorship which is being imposed on South Africa to-day, and I reject it now just as strongly as I rejected it originally. I want to tell the Minister that those of us who oppose the Government’s policy and who are not communists will not be intimidated by this Bill. We will continue to oppose the policy of the Government and we will speak up, just as before, as loudly as we always have against the things that we do not believe in. I want to say in the words of Shelley, that we will continue “to defy the power, which seems omnipotent; to love and to bear; to hope, till Hope creates from its own wreck, the thing it contemplates”. Sir, I wish to move the same amendment that I moved at the second reading—

There being no seconder, this amendment dropped.

We have reached the closing stages of a long debate. I must say that the line which the Government is taking to deal with the problems with which the Minister seeks to deal in this Bill reminds me of nothing more than the walls of Rome. Sir, in the days of Rome’s decadence, when they could no longer hold the hordes at bay, they decided to build a wall. That wall stands to this day. It was built by the leading military engineer at the time; it was considered to be absolutely impregnable, and I think this Government should learn a lesson from the fact that, within 15 years after the completion of that wall, the Goths took over the government of Rome and destroyed it.

The course taken by this Government is exactly the same. In seeking to deal with Communism they have attempted to deal with it by legislation. Look at the Government’s record. Look at all the measures which are being amended in this Bill. When the original Act was put on the Statute Book in 1950 we were assured that this would enable the Government to deal with this problem and to root it out. Within a year they were back before this House asking for an amendment. The amendment is referred to in this Bill. Three years later another Bill was brought before this House. Apart from that, there was a host of other pieces of legislation, such as the Public Safety Act, certain of the provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act, the Unlawful Organizations Act, and various regulations, and on each of these occasions, when the law was extended, hon. gentlemen on the other side seemed to think that the problem was as good as solved. Sir, the lesson which, I believe, the Government should learn from this is that, if they wish to deal with these problems, this is not the way to bring an end to Communism and to bring an end to sabotage.

Order! I shall be pleased if the hon. member will come back to the Bill.

Sir, I appreciate your guidance. I have been attempting to put a parallel before this House and to show why this legislation is objectionable. Certain points have been made by my hon. Leader. We do not believe that the Minister should have powers such as he has in terms of this Bill. They are powers over the freedom of the individual. It is a matter of hundreds of years since the right of the individual to protection by the courts and not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest was established in Britain; that has been followed throughout the civilized world, and here powers have been extended in conflict with that principle and are again being extended in this Bill by this Government without apparently making any progress in dealing with the problems which they said they would be able to deal with in this country.

The hon. the Minister has told us that the Bill as it is before the House very largely meets the objections of the Bar Council in South Africa. I think it is right that I should put on record what is in fact the position. I have a statement here from Mr. George Coleman, who is supported by a statement to the same effect by Mr. Warner. The hon. the Minister said that they agreed with the principle of this Bill. He said at the second reading that I had indicated that I agree with the principle. That is completely incorrect, Sir. The hon. the Minister, as my Leader has pointed out, limits the principle, and then says that the Bar Council agrees with it, and it indicated that I had agreed with it. I agree that in the circumstances you must deal with communists. I agreed that under the circumstances which had arisen under the Government you must deal with the crime of sabotage. It has to be done; it was done during the war, but that does not mean an acceptance of the principle of this Bill. Sir, you have ruled again and again that certain provisions which this side of the House desired to attack—not the provisions to which the hon. the Minister referred—were in fact principles of the Bill, and that we were with the crime of sabotage. It has to be done, what the position is. The position in which we found ourselves in dealing with the latest stages of this Bill is exactly the position in which the Bar Council found itself. It was in this position that it had to discuss with the Minister “possible amendments designed to mitigate the undesirable features, but such discussion was not intended to convey approval of the provision, even in the amended form”. Mr. Warner put it differently. I have here the report from the Burger; he said this in a telegram to the Minister—

The case that has been put by this side of the House is entirely in line with the attitude of the Bar Council, and the hon. the Minister had no right whatsoever to claim that they agreed with him on the principle of this Bill.

Sir, I do not wish to keep the House long. We have made our protests; we have done our best at all stages to mitigate the provisions of this Bill. We have had some very minor successes, but, as has been said, the principles to which objection was taken stand very largely as they were when this measure was brought before the House. Sir, I believe that the thing that we as South Africans have to do is this: we have to try to bring about a better state of affairs in South Africa. It is only in that way that we can deal with the problems, and, if we do that, I hope it will be possible before very long to remove from the Statute Book a blot, that blot being this legislation and a number of the Acts which this legislation amends.

In common with other hon. members, I, too, should like to record my protest against this Bill on this last occasion we will deal with it, i.e. at its third reading. I do so because if this Bill is passed and becomes law, it will become a permanent feature not only of our South African law, but also of the South African way of life. Nowhere in this Bill, even as amended as a result of protests which came from this side of the House, is it clear that this is going to be the law of our country only when an emergency exists. Nothing the hon. the Minister has said up to now justifies, to my mind, the permanent changes of our laws on the lines indicated in this Bill. The Minister, I submit, has at no stage and by no means convinced this House or the country that we are living under conditions which threaten us and justify the passing of this Bill in its present form. His failure to do so drives one to the irresistible conclusion that this Bill is intended more to regulate thinking and to control the free expression of opinion than it is intended to control sabotage.

In view of the Minister’s failure to bring any convincing proof to this House of the fact that South Africa is being threatened by conditions which warrant the passing of this Bill in its present terms, is it any wonder that a large section of the South African population and practically the entire overseas Press condemn this Bill?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the third reading of the Bill.

I am saying, Sir, that the terms of this Bill at its third reading stage, are such that the entire overseas Press sees it as aimed at regulating and controlling the right of free assembly, the free movement of our citizens, and the free expression of opinions. Is it any wonder, therefore, that, in view of the hon. the Minister’s failure to convince the country that this Bill is justified, such a view is being taken by a large section of our population as well as by overseas opinion?

What section of our population are you referring to?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the contents of the Bill.

The powers which the Minister is taking unto himself in this Bill are indeed frightening. In view of your ruling, Sir, it is not my intention to deal again to-day with these wide powers. The Minister claimed that he needed these powers in order to enable him to deal adequately and effectively with the menace of Communism. But the Minister is asking for these drastic changes in our law on the flimsiest of evidence. On this side of the House we claim that existing legal powers are adequate to deal with such a menace if, indeed, it exists.

Order! The House is now concerned only with the contents of the Bill.

Well, Sir, the contents of this Bill are such that it gives the Minister these very wide powers. I am suggesting that these wide powers are not necessary for the reasons the Minister states them to be necessary.

Order! Then the hon. member can vote against them.

That is what I propose doing, Sir; what I am doing now is to give my reasons why I shall vote against the Bill. I said in my second reading speech on this measure that I am quite prepared to fight Communism by every means at my disposal.

Order! The hon. member cannot repeat his second reading speech now.

Surely, Sir, the third reading stage is intended to indicate to the House the reasons why …

Order! The third reading stage is concerned only with the contents of the Bill.

Well, Sir, I want to say that the contents are such that, to my mind, they are wholly unnecessary for the purpose for which the Minister is wanting them, i.e. to combat Communism.

Order! The hon. member has now said that repeatedly. He should go on to a new point now.

Then I want to say, Sir, that I am not prepared to see the democratic structure of this country crumble merely on the flimsy evidence the Minister has given us.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the contents of the Bill.

The powers which this Bill vests in the hands of one member of the executive are, to my mind, totally unnecessary. Accordingly I, in common with other members on this side, wish to register my protest against such wide executive powers being granted in this way. We on this side have done everything possible to prevail upon the Minister not to proceed with the Bill. The Minister, however, is adamant to proceed with it. He has given the assurance that it will only be used against communists. The onus will, therefore, now be on the Minister to show, by his administration of the Bill, whether he was justified in proceeding with it. I propose to vote against the third reading of the Bill.

We were told by the Minister that the only principle contained in this Bill was the combating of Communism. For the purpose of viewing the Bill as it has now come to us from the second reading and Committee Stage, I want to accept that its only purpose is to combat Communism. I do so despite the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, have clearly ruled and also the Chairman when the Bill was considered in Committee that there are other fundamental principles contained in this Bill. But for the purpose of analysing the Bill as it appears before us now, i.e. at its third reading stage, let us accept that the only principle which it contains is to combat Communism.

And sabotage!

The hon. the Minister did not mention sabotage at the time; but I accept that when he spoke about combating Communism he included therein sabotage committed by communists.

I coupled the two right throughout.

I accept that. It is, after all, not an important point for my purpose. Let us now look at the methods which the Minister is going to use for the purpose of fighting Communism and sabotage. The first method is that the Minister can—and that for the first time in the history of our law—ban all gatherings, even social gatherings. What is more, he can do so by decree. Initially he wanted powers to issue a blanket ban—in other words, if there were one communist active in the land he wanted the power to issue a blanket ban on all gatherings throughout South Africa. Since then, however, he has accepted an amendment which will compel him to apply his mind to the type of gathering and the nature of the danger facing South Africa. But the Bill still contains powers enabling the Minister to issue a blanket ban, banning all gatherings, including social gatherings, in South Africa.

The second method constitutes a very strange principle. Because the Minister is faced with the difficulty of banning or suppressing certain publications which, in his opinion, are calculated to serve the ends of Communism and which after having been suppressed once, reappear subsequently under the same directorships, the same editor and for the same purpose, the Minister is introducing a provision into this Bill requiring any person who wishes to start a new publication to deposit up to R20,000 with the Department of the Interior. Should the Minister then decide that any publication is only a revival of a communistic newspaper which was suppressed before, he can ban it and by ministerial decree fine the responsible person up to R20,000. It must be noted that it is the first time in the law of our country that a member of the executive gets the power of fining citizens of South Africa up to R20,000 without any reference whatsoever to a court of law and without any proof of their guilt being adduced before an impartial tribunal.

In Clause 8 we have a clause which my leader has so aptly called a clause by means of which a person can be sentenced to civil death, because the Minister can confine him to his house, determine who should speak to him, and control almost his every action during every hour of the day. All these things, Sir, the Minister tells us, are necessary in order to enable him to combat Communism. There is the clause which makes it a crime for a man who, even unknowingly, reproduces any statement or writing by a person who is listed as a communist. The only difference is that court proceedings will be excluded in terms of an amendment which the Minister accepted during the Committee Stage. Clause 17 is a re-enactment of a measure which was adopted during the emergency at the time of Sharpeville, i.e. that people can be detained for a period of 12 days at the Minister’s pleasure without being arraigned before a court. We have tried to determine just why this measure is necessary but we have not yet received a satisfactory reply from the Minister.

Finally, Sir, there is Clause 21 which creates the new crime of sabotage and which after the discharge of a simple onus by the State placed a very heavy onus on the accused to prove that he is not guilty of this crime of sabotage.

There was much discussion on this Bill in its course through Parliament. Many pleas were made to the hon. the Minister inside as well as outside this House as a result of which certain amendments were either accepted or introduced by the Minister. I think we should take a brief look at these amendments in order to see whether they present any genuine attempt to ameliorate the provisions of this Bill and to bring them into accord with the principles of democratic practice in a democratic State. So let us see what type of amendment the hon. the Minister has accepted in the course of this Bill through the House up to now.

On request of the Bar Council, the Minister has consented to allow the legal advisers of a person who is under house arrest to be freely admitted to such person. He, also at the instigation of the Bar Council, accepted a provision whereby when attempting to serve a notice on a person accused of communistic activities the publication of such notice in the Gazette will not be sufficient, but that a genuine attempt shall be made to serve the notice on the person concerned or if that is not possible such notice shall be displayed at the last-known address of the person concerned. At the request of the hon. member for Houghton, the Minister accepted an amendment providing that persons who are found to have in their possession communist publications, will have six months, instead of 30 days as originally provided, to get rid of such publications. Then, as a result of representations particularly from this side of the House, the Minister accepted an amendment providing that reasonable attempts must be made to serve notices before deciding that publication thereof in the Gazette will be sufficient notice. The Minister also accepted an amendment in terms of which banning notices will only be issued if the Minister is satisfied that such banning is necessary in order to stop activities calculated to further the interests of Communism and not, as has been the position previously, when such activities “may” have the effect of furthering Communism.

Finally, the Minister accepted amendments in two clauses of the Bill. These came from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) and have as their object the exclusion of trade unions registered under the Industrial Conciliation Act from the operation of the Bill.

These amendments did not come from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, but from the Trade Union Council!

Well, whoever they came from, it can be said that these are perhaps the only significant amendments which the Minister accepted in respect of the entire Bill. Nevertheless, we appreciate it. For the rest, the amendments accepted by the Minister were unimportant. The Minister himself proposed amendments which will have the effect, inter alia, of excluding court statements from the crime of disseminating or reproducing statements by communists. Then the Minister accepted an amendment in terms of which trials under Clause 21, instead of being summary trials unless the Attorney-General directs otherwise, will be preceded by preparatory examinations unless the Attorney-General directs otherwise. Another amendment reduced the minimum sentence under this Bill from three years to one year; but this was done only because the Minister had intended all along to make it one year only and the provision of three years was a mistake.

This was the type of amendment which the Minister accepted during the course of debates on the Bill so far. Each of these amendments has importance in its own way but taking them together, they do not mitigate against the fact that the contents of this Bill purporting as it does to serve in the fight against Communism, are utterly unacceptable to any democratic State. We must accept that the State has the right to take measures, extraordinary measures if necessary, in order to combat Communism and this for one simple reason, namely that Communism, like the establishment of the Republic in South Africa, once it succeeds is final. It is like death—there is from it no return. Communists use the privileges which democracy affords them and the freedom which is offered them in order to destroy that very democracy; thereby making a return to democratic principles afterwards entirely impossible by any peaceful means of change. For that reason a democratic State is entitled to take measures to safeguard itself against the dangers and assaults of Communism.

I feel, however, that all such powers, however extraordinary they might be, should be subject to one safeguard at least. This safeguard, Sir, you have ruled, has been excluded by the Bill, and its exclusion is a principle of the Bill. The overriding safeguard is that any action against any citizen should be controlled and checked as to the relevant facts by the courts of the land. The life of a citizen should be regulated in accordance with only the law and for that purpose courts which are independent from the executive should have the right to have the final say, whether a person’s life is being regulated in accordance with the law. A citizen should, in other words, be entitled to go to court and be given an opportunity of establishing his innocence by producing facts. In the same way the State should be entitled to take a person to court in order to establish his guilt before an independent judiciary. This principle is, however, according to your ruling, destroyed by this Bill. We were consequently not permitted during the Committee Stage to try to restore this very important principle of the rule of law to the legislation in terms of which we are ruled in this country.

The question which we as South Africans now have to ask ourselves is whether we are entitled, in our fight against Communism, to use these very means and methods which we detest mostly in a communist state. Because the first thing that happens when Communism takes over a State is that the rule of law disappears and therewith the opportunity for a citizen to defend himself before an impartial tribunal. He is then at the mercy entirely of the executive. And this is the principle which is embodied in the Bill we are dealing with now; it destroys the rule of law by the elimination of the courts from the determination of the innocence or the guilt of a citizen. This we cannot accept. Indeed, in our stand on this we have already been proved right by events which have occurred since this Bill has been introduced. Condemnation of South Africa overseas is being based on this Bill. This Bill served before Parliament at a time when the Prime Minister was trying to create a favourable impression in the eyes of visitors about South West Africa from the United Nations. At that time this Bill was being discussed by Parliament. Being a Bill which excluded the rule of law it evoked unfavourable reaction to South Africa in the eyes of people overseas. It was unwise and foolish, Sir, to come with this Bill at that juncture.

We think the contents of this Bill militate against the concept of democracy in South Africa because it destroys the fundamental protection which the citizen has under a rule of law, i.e. to prove his innocence before an impartial tribunal. It also removes the duty from the State to prove a person’s guilt before an impartial tribunal.

For these reasons this Bill remains utterly unacceptable to the Opposition and we shall vote firmly against its third reading as we shall do against every stage of its further progress through Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I did not recognize the hon. member for Yeoville at all this morning, for he has never, in all the years I have been here, been so docile as he has been this morning. In fact, while listening to the hon. members opposite, I thought I have never yet experienced a debate which has had such an anti-climax as this debate. Hon. members at the outset started very slowly in order to wake up completely, but when they began to be pressed, they attacked with violent anger in the second reading. Having listened to them this morning, and having seen how they act now, we may say that their conduct is like that of old women at a dance—it starts off at great speed, but it is over very soon.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—on what clause is the hon. the Minister speaking now?

In all fairness I have to say that the hon. member for Green Point was not at the dance to which I have referred. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked me a very fair question, and that is: “How far does one have to go to combat evils of Communism?” This is a question which has arisen with everybody in this House and one to which each one of us has had to find a reply. On the Government side it has been admitted—I made the admission in my second reading speech—that we realize we are going far and are taking wide powers. However, we motivated it by saying that we are dealing with people here who do not play the game according to recognized rules; with people who will find a loophole if they are given the slightest opportunity to do so. We have said that we required these powers to close all the loopholes having regard to the dangers and problems we have to face. That was our attitude throughout. We are prepared to face any criticism of this attitude, and we are prepared to run the risk of being reproached for it as we have indeed already been reproached by the Opposition about it. So we were prepared to go so far.

However, how far were the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party prepared to go? They were not prepared to accompany us for even a few paces. Yet I may be doing them an injustice by saying that, for according to the first statement by the hon. member for Germiston (District)—which he tried to get away from this morning—they were prepared to go quite far. But hon. members have not been allowed to go far. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that everybody is opposed to Communism and sabotage. I should like to accept that. They know what our attitude is on this side of the House and how far we are prepared to go to give effect to our attitude and to act. Hon. members have attacked us because we have done so. I also accept that hon. members opposite also are opposed to it, but they have notified the world of that in a very peculiar manner. We were attacked throughout this debate because we want to combat these forces that are menacing us. We for our part have compared the powers embodied in this Bill with the powers the United Party exercised on occasion. Hon. members opposite contended that they had to take those powers because they wished to combat Nazism. We may differ on that if we wish, and we could talk a lot about that if we wished. However, let us assume for the purposes of this debate, that the United Party at the time asked for the wide powers for one purpose only, and that was not to persecute or hurt Afrikaners, but to combat Nazism. If we are prepared to do that. I would appeal to the Leader of the Opposition, and tell him that I understand that they have not hurled all the fire they had shown against Nazism into the conflict against Communism. At the same time I should like to ask him to give us only one-tenth of the fire they showed to combat Nazism, to fight Communism. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has accused me of making “inroads in the freedom of the citizen” in this Bill. But I am not launching an attack upon the freedom of the citizen. What I am doing is to restrain the liberty of the communist to destroy the freedom of the citizens. And it is not only I who am seeing it in this light, but the public outside also see it in that light. The hon. member’s supporters also see it that way. The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) and others have once again referred to the feelings this Bill has aroused outside. I wish to say with all the emphasis at my command that this “feeling” has not in the first instance originated with the Nationalists; nor with members of the United Party. On the contrary, it was feeling that was stirred up artificially among members of the Progressive Party, the Liberal Party and the communists. How do the general public regard this Bill? The reply I wish to give to this question does not come from me; nor from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; but from one of his backbenchers, namely the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman), who according to the Argus said this last Friday:

That was the reaction among the people of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Because that is the kind of reaction that arose, we can understand this “docile” third reading. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said further that I am asking powers “to legislate by decree in cases of emergency”. The Act relative to states of emergency, which was supported also by hon. members opposite, gives the Minister the power to declare a state of emergency in South Africa as a whole in times of emergency. The hon. member knows that surely. He surely studied the Bill before they decided to support it. All I am doing now—and with the best will in the world I cannot understand why the hon. member reproaches me for doing so—is that, instead of using the powers that have been given to the Minister inter alia, by the hon. member to declare a state of emergency in the whole of South Africa, I wish to declare a state of emergency in a particular area, and then issue some regulations in respect of other areas with the object of preventing the spread of the state of emergency. I expected the hon. member to welcome such a step. A matter I cannot leave unanswered, is the charge the hon. member repeated once again, namely that under the sabotage clause of this Bill we are placing the onus of proving his innocence upon the accused…. With that argument—and I have recently spoken to many overseas Press representatives—the Opposition has done South Africa very great harm. I would not have minded, if what you said were true, but Mr. Speaker, that is not included in the Bill as you have it before you now for the third reading. Let us once again look at what the State must prove and let us contrast it with the hon. member’s proposition. The State has to prove that an act of sabotage has been committed. The State has to prove that the man in the dock is the man who has committed that act. The State has to prove that the accused in the dock who committed that act did so unlawfully.

Has the State to prove that the act was an act of sabotage? The Bill does not say so.

I do not understand the hon. member. I did not know one’s legal knowledge corrodes so soon when you are no longer practising.

You ought to know it.

Wait, let me then teach the hon. member, if that is necessary.

You need not do so.

Surely there must have been people present.

And then the State has to prove that the man in the dock is the person who committed that act of sabotage at the Roeland Street Gaol; then the State must prove that he did so unlawfully, and next it has to prove further that he did so intentionally. That is the onus resting on the State and which the State has to discharge. Then the question arises which the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) dealt with so well in the second reading debate. Then the motive comes into the picture—the motive of the accused. We give him the opportunity—and I have tested hon. members on that point—to say: In spite of the fact that I have blown up this gaol, that I have done so unlawfully, that I have done so intentionally, I want an opportunity—and I give the person that opportunity in this Bill—to say that I did not do so with the objects set forth in Section 21 (2). I tested hon. members one after the other when they said here that the onus is placed upon the accused under Section 21 (2).

That is correct.

There we hear the answer that it is correct. Why then did they not accept my challenge by moving the deletion of Section 21 (2)? For then there would not have remained any onus upon the accused. I gave them the fullest opportunity. In fact, I challenged them and I intimated my willingness to withdraw 21 (2) if one of them merely had the courage to move that it be deleted.

We wanted both (2) and (1) to be deleted.

No, Mr. Speaker, there was no substantive motion from any hon. member for the deletion of Section 21 (2). What was moved here, was that (1) and (2) be deleted …[Interjections.] Not a single one moved that (2), in which you say the onus is placed upon the accused, should be deleted.

It is not sabotage until mens rea has been proved, and the onus is laid upon the accused to prove that he did not have it.

Let me repeat it once again for the benefit of the hon. member. The State has to prove that it was done unlawfully and that it was done intentionally. Now I ask the hon. member: When are you dealing with statutory offences—and we are now concerned with the statutory offence of sabotage—can the hon. member mention one statutory offence where that kind of mens rea to which he has just referred, comes to the fore in our statute law? Under our common law, yes. When you are dealing with common law offences, it is so; but when you are dealing with statutory offences, that principle does not come into play at all. Then the motive to which the hon. member for Ceres has referred comes into play. Here we are giving the accused the opportunity to tell the Court what in spite of the contravention of law that has taken place was his motive with which he committed the contravention.

May I ask a question? Will it not be more equitable to say that when certain things have been proved under this Act, mens rea is presumed unless the contrary is proved by the accused?

My question to the hon. member is: If that is the distinction, what is the difference? I know why the hon. member asks that. My hon. friend is trying to escape from the charge my hon. colleague has flung at him that they in the 1950 Act had placed the entire onus upon the accused. The hon. member has said that this Bill is a sign of panic. It is not a sign of panic. It is not a sign of panic so far as the Government is concerned. It is a sign that the Government is aware of its task and its responsibility, and that it wants to take certain precautionary measures before it is too late to do so. I have seen panic in these days, and it was not a nice sight. It was the panic a single lady with a red cardigan sowed among a great and mighty political Opposition.

The hon. the Minister must now return to the Bill. He must not follow the red cardigan too far.

Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I shall not permit myself to be tempted. I have now dealt mainly with the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) showed some fire—and I am grateful to him for that—when he made an attack upon Communism. I am sorry he did not participate in the second reading debate, to give a lead in that respect. The hon. member made one point that I cannot permit to pass, and that was in respect of the 12 days we may detain a person without charging him. It is not so. We can indeed withhold bail from him for those 12 days, but we still have to charge him within the 48 hours the code requires from us. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has referred to the Bar Council. I do not wish to join issue with the hon. member in that regard. I have read out the telegraphic exchanges between me and the Bar Council to the hon. House, and I think all of us can draw our own conclusions.

I am thankful, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to conclude on this note, that this third reading of the Bill has not ended in the way the debate started. I am thankful—one cannot expect a party to admit it—that the Opposition have come to realize that they have made a mistake by acting the way they have done. I am thankful too for the admission of the hon. member for Zululand that as far as this Bill is concerned, as he put it “we feel we successfully irritated the Government into realizing that it was not quite right in its approach to the Bill”. I am pleased that the admission has now taken root that we never were wrong, that in principle we have done nothing wrong, but that we merely did not act “quite right” according to the Opposition. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill will do what we have in view, namely, to make it extremely difficult for Communism to undermine and destroy the way of life all of us cherish. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made a prophecy as to the final result of this Bill. He has never been right in the past, and I am not in the least afraid that he will be correct in this regard.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—86: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H. Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. C. J.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M.D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; S’choeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W.L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—42: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Eaton, N. G.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Higgerty, J. W.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and the Bill read a third time.

When business was suspended last night I was saying that the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing could not sit under the shade of the Marketing Act and do nothing. The Minister has challenged farmers’ organizations to suggest that the Government should take over the responsibility of food distribution through the control boards. If the Minister thinks that his Department could make a better job of the distribution of food he should say so and make this offer, or can we accept it that the Minister has now made the offer across the floor of the House that his Department is prepared to take over the distribution of food through the control boards? I should like the Minister to give us an emphatic reply in that regard. All control boards, Sir, Table reports annually in this House. That indicates State responsibility. The Government accepts the responsibility of alleviating famine so it should always encourage a surplus production of food. When control boards in regard to a specified product run into difficulties there should be a get-together with farmers’ organizations and responsible officials of the Minister’s Department. Plans should be worked out in which the Government should share some of the responsibility. It is no good hon. members on the Government side saying that the farmers are experiencing a period of prosperity. We know to-day that the tobacco industry, the pineapple industry, the chicory industry, the egg industry, the dairy industry and even the meat industry are faced with almost insurmountable difficulties. To carry conviction in this regard I should like to read a letter from the Secretary of the Tobacco Industry Control Board. In one paragraph he states—

You want me to go against the will of the farmers?

No, I am not suggesting that the Minister should go against the will of the farmers. But if the Minister is now making an offer that his Department will organize the distribution of food, I should like him to assure us that that offer is open to farmers’ organizations. Because I can assure him that if he has something better to offer to the chicken farmers, to the pineapple farmers, to the egg producers, to the dairy product producers and even to the meat producers, I am quite convinced that they will accept that offer from the hon. Minister. The time has arrived that the Government has got to do something. To feed the nation is a national responsibility, the Government cannot get away from that. The Government is afraid even to canvass an agricultural policy. Our problem, Mr. Chairman, is not over-production but under-consumption. That is the problem which the Government must tackle. Three-quarters of our population suffer from malnutrition. We have the food and our local markets should be developed so that they can absorb that food. We know that we have the greatest difficulty in selling on the overseas markets to-day. All the overseas markets are over-stocked with all types of agricultural products. They are over-stocked and the position is going to get even worse when Great Britain joins the Common Market. It is time that this Government woke up to its responsibility. The farmers have responded wonderfully in building up food supplies and in conserving their soil. They have reacted to every encouragement the Government has given them. It is now time that this Government did its part. What future is there for a nation if it cannot produce its own food? South Africa must be a nation which is self-contained like the Americans. We should be able to provide everything we need. If the Government is going to restrict production what future awaits this country? Those are the questions which the Minister must face up to. I say in all seriousness that it is a definite responsibility of the Minister. If he has any schemes or suggestions to make, it is time that he did so. I know how the pineapple farmers are suffering. I deplore statements such as those which we got from the hon. Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs who said that any farmer who failed only had himself to blame. As regards the pineapple farmers they had a guarantee from the Government that the market for their product was unlimited. They went into full production. I tried to discourage it, but I was countered by Government advisers. They were told that there was an unlimited market for canned products. These people went in for pineapples. They accepted the assurance of the Government. They laid out their plantations according to the most up-to-date methods. They assured the country of a good pineapple production; they assured the country of a great future as far as its canning industry was concerned, and what has the Government done to assist? Absolutely nothing. They have been in power for 14 years and they should by now have introduced some system of control and distribution in regard to pineapples but they have done absolutely nothing. I warn the Minister that that is not only the position in regard to the pineapple industry, the tobacco industry is also in difficulty; it is also carrying an enormous surplus. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) instead of facing up to his responsibility as a member of the Government should do, talked about the milk which a calf should drink in order to grow up. All farmers know that. A great many of his arguments were not even practicable. He should have got down to the difficulties which face his constituency which is one of our premier tobacco-producing areas in this country. I cannot over-stress the Minister’s responsibility to-day. The whole future of the agricultural industry depends on him. It is no good the Government getting up here and blaming the farmers when they fail. There is no doubt about it that much can be done to alleviate the difficulties from which the farmers suffer. We know that. There should be more humane and more sympathetic treatment as regards the small farmer. I could give the hon. the Minister several tips in regard to maintaining the small farmer on the land. I have no doubt, Sir, that we could do that. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) became so excited about all the problems he sees that he contradicted himself three or four times during this one short speech of his. On the one hand he says that this Minister has done nothing to combat over-production, and, on the other hand, he complains and says that this nation is not self-supporting as regards production. So the hon. member contradicts himself. I shall deal shortly with the challenge he threw at the Minister just now in regard to greater control over distribution. I should like to point out to the hon. member that, where he referred to tobacco, he did not know what he was talking about. For Cent.-Tobacco is the organization that controls the co-operative tobacco associations in South Africa, and Cent.-Tobacco is quite satisfied with the position we have in South Africa at the present time. Cent.-Tobacco has no complaints. Cent.-Tobacco is the example of how the producer in South Africa can control his affairs through cooperative control and co-operative marketing. I wish, first of all, to deal with the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman). He compared the increase in production in the Republic, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and he said that South Africa has not maintained its increase in comparison with the others. But I should like to ask the hon. member who was the chairman of the Wool Board during that period? What did that chairman of the Wool Board do during that period? I should like to ask further: Did that chairman of the Wool Board ask the Government to pass legislation to increase levies and to make it available for the very purpose of assisting the wool grower with research and publicity for his product? Was it not intended to assist the wool grower in South Africa in this respect also, or was that money intended for a chairman who travelled around at the greatest expense? That chairman was a certain Mr. Jan Moolman, who is so concerned about lamb’s meat now. It is the greatest complaint I have ever heard a man make against himself, what the hon. member did yesterday. He, who was the chairman of the Wool Board, specifically takes wool to show there is a back-log in South Africa in comparison with the rest of the world, but what did he do to help? No, he arraigned himself in this House of Assembly as the chairman who did not carry out his duty. I should like to ask the hon. member another question. He took the Minister to task yesterday because the Minister had said that the producer in South Africa will have to adapt himself to over-production and the dropping prices. At the same time he admitted that the wool grower had to do so already, of necessity. But let us look back a while. In 1951-2 Minister le Roux gave the wool grower timeous warning when he had the enormously high wool prices, and said: Do not pay these high prices for land, for wool may drop again. At that time there was one Mr. Jan Moolman, who was chairman of the Wool Board, who issued a Press statement and said the Minister was talking nonsense; he should not warn the wool growers, for they are living on the cream of the country. That was the same hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman). When the Minister cautioned them timeously, he issued a statement and said: Don’t warn the wool grower; permit him to pay high prices for land injudiciously. But now he comes along and complains that the wool grower has been compelled to adapt himself. But I want to ask another question. I want to ask whether it is not true that, if you can process your own products to some extent, it will entail greater stability in a country, if you could make your products available to our own industries. So it was with wool, and the wool growers of South Africa, 50 per cent of them, asked: Do not repay those wool profits to us, but rather issue it to us in the form of shares in a cooperative wool-scouring mill, so that that factory can enter the market of South Africa and serve as a stabilizing factor. And who opposed it most strenuously? The hon. member for East London (City), who is so clever now. And why? Because he never believed in co-operative control of the farmers’ products. No, the farmer has just to be thrown to the wolves.

But I wish to deal with another matter. The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Swart) has said that the Marketing Act is now being subjected to another test. He says it passed the test of protecting the consumer, and now it should pass the test of protecting the producer. I agree with him and say that the Marketing Act, which is an empowering Act, provides that the reports of the boards should come to the attention of Parliament through the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and so it is subject to parliamentary control. Hon. members of the Opposition have never yet found that those control boards have acted improperly in any respect, or that they have spent their money improperly. But I should like to ask whether the time has not arrived for the Marketing Act to be tested by these four factors: Firstly, can the Marketing Act intervene in such a way that we can do away with the outmoded shop hours we have in South Africa? Distribution should be capable of being reviewed under the Act, and these kinds of shop hours we have, which make it necessary for people to go and do their shopping during certain hours only, and which involves the existence of a delivery system, put up our costs. Secondly, can we have an inquiry into these specialized shops, where you have a shop that sells meat only, and another that sells fish only, and another that sells bread only, and compels the public to go to four or five shops when they want to buy their supplies, and to look for parking space, and where you also compel the shops to send four delivery vans to deliver goods at the same house, whereas, if you were to buy at one shop, you immediately save 30 per cent? I would ask whether there cannot be an inquiry into this iniquitous credit system, and whether we cannot introduce differential prices, so that the man who fetches his goods himself and pays cash for them, can have the benefit of a lower price than when the goods are ordered on credit and still have to be delivered. In this system of ours it happens that a woman Dicks up the telephone to order a small bottle of aspirins that has to be sent two miles by bicycle, with the result that the shopkeeper has to charge all the other products with the cost of delivery, and so the cost of living is forced up into the skies. The result is that it becomes too costly for that shop to carry on. I want to put it very clearly. If we could dispense with those shop hours and only limit the working hours of the staff, our shops could be kept open to supply the needs of the public who wish to buy themselves, and then we could have a saving of 10 per cent. [Time limit.]

Yesterday I accused the hon. the Minister of taking the line of least resistance, and his reply to the debate was nothing different from what I accused him of; he is still taking the line of least resistance. He intends to reduce prices in the most difficult period, when he should rather be nursing the small farmer instead of reducing his prices. In his reply to me last night the Minister accused us of wanting the Government to take over distribution. Nobody on this side of the House suggested that the Government or the control boards should take over distribution. What we asked for was an investigation into the increasing costs of distribution and production, for which I gave him figures which he could not deny. Sir, he wants to do all that and still reduce prices. He also replied to me on the question of quotas. I happen to know that the Minister is utterly opposed to quotas. But yesterday I suggested that the Minister investigate the question of quotas so that he could bring the larger producers, the monopolists, the land-grabbers and the large combines, under a quota and relieve the position of the small farmer. That is all I asked him to do. As a matter of fact, before the year is gone the Minister will have gone into this question of quotas, and he may even accept it. I repeat that the Minister must investigate giving quotas to the larger farmers. Supposing we have one of these big people who produces 30,000 bags of maize, why can he not be given a quota, and let him take his chances when exporting what is surplus to his quota? Or why cannot he go in for the production of some other commodity of which there is no surplus? However, those are items the Minister can deal with. I want to remind him that his predecessor in 1950 in Hansard, Vol. 70, Col. 1961, gave the mealie farmers the assurance that if they sold their maize in this country at a very reduced price compared with the export price, he would ask the Minister of Finance to subsidize the farmers, as he was subsidizing the consumers in this country. Would the Minister care to have a look at it? I think he should acquaint himself with the undertakings previous Ministers have given to the farmers. What I told him on a previous occasion, and again this morning, applies to many of the products in this country. This Minister is responsible to the boards and this is the only place where we can indicate to the Minister the shortcomings that are taking place. It is this Minister who accepts the recommendations of the Board or turns them down, and I doubt whether he can deny that he has turned down many of their recommendations. May I ask the Minister—and I am not accusing him—whether he knows of the 1959-60 Report of his Department where we get this statement—

In the next report—and we should have had a further indication from the Board as to what it recommended to the Minister, and perhaps the Minister will tell us what they recommended to him to fill that gap, the difference between the floor price and the average price realized—here the Minister reports—

If the Minister goes back to his first report, he will find that the average increase over and above the floor price was 29s. Surely the recommendation of that Board would have been something like 50 per cent above the present floor price, according to the demand. But no, a pitiful 25c is granted. The small farmer is absolutely essential to this country and it is the Minister’s duty to protect him. He is getting a raw deal. They do not want sympathy or charity; they want a square deal and it is the Minister’s duty to see that they get it. The Deputy Minister for South West Africa is not present, but he attacked me for daring to suggest that many farmers would go out of business. Many farmers will go out of business, but at no time did I suggest that any farmer was going out of business, which is the attitude that he took up. Sir, there are three alternatives here. If the farmers have to face reduced prices, farmers will have to go out of business and thus they will play into the hands of the “land-barons” who are the only people to take over that land. Secondly, they will have to undermine their soil, and they will do so because they have to live, and they can hardly be accommodated in commerce or industry to-day. If that is the approach of the Deputy Minister, then I want to assure him that the sooner he leaves agriculture alone in this House the better for him. The first thing he does is to thank the Minister for reducing prices. I wonder what the farmers of South Africa would think of that? Then almost in the same breath he pleads for the maintenance of meat prices at the present levels and then asks for a bigger quota for South West Africa—a quota which is something which neither the Minister nor he likes. He pleads for a bigger quota for South West African meat for the Union. I have asked the hon. the Minister, and I ask him again, whether he will not investigate the ever-increasing costs of distribution. I can give him examples. What it takes the farmer three years to produce is sold for 10 cents at the abattoir, after the farmer has paid all the expenses, of which abattoir charges alone account for 12½ to 15 per cent. It takes the farmer three years to produce; its costs 25 cents to distribute in a period of 24 hours. Take milk, for example, I am taking precisely what the Minister discussed last evening. It costs 30 cents to distribute a pint of milk. It costs R1.20 per bag to distribute maize in South Africa. Those are all charges which have to be paid by the producer, and I think in fairness to the farmer the Minister should investigate this matter or ask his control board to investigate it. Surely the hon. the Minister can see what is taking place in the country. He has a duty to the farmers of the country and I accuse him of neglecting the farmers. If all the support that he can get is the support that he had last night from the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs and from one or two others, then I am afraid it is a sad state of affairs for South Africa.

The Opposition have attacked the hon. the Minister in regard to his agricultural policy.

His lack of an agricultural policy.

The criticism levelled by the Opposition thus far has been of a very negative nature. I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister for having shown himself as the friend of the farmers of South Africa when they are in need. When a catastrophe struck us in the form of foot-and-mouth disease and drought, it was this Government and this Minister who showed that they were the friends of our farmers and we are grateful for it.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) has referred to the fact that our people in this country are underfed and that they ought to receive higher wages so that they may then have the proper distribution of food. I wish to refer you to a motion that was introduced here earlier this year by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and in which he also pleaded for higher wages for the working class. If the working class wages were increased, so he argued, that very fact would increase the production costs. I am thinking of implements and fertilizer that have to be used by the farmer. When the wages of people employed in these industries are raised, it forces up the production costs and you can see what the result of that will be.

We have listened here to a whole lot of complaints from the Opposition in regard to farming matters. I should like to pay the highest tribute to-day to the farmers of South Africa for the manner in which they have succeeded, not only in maintaining production in South Africa, but in raising production by 5 per cent during the past year. Our farmers did it notwithstanding the fact that they had to produce under unfavourable natural circumstances. They achieved it by using the most modern and scientific methods. The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) said that our agricultural and export products have to compete on the overseas markets with products from other countries that are probably subsidized and that are possibly producing more cheaply. But he did not indicate to what extent this Government is already subsidizing our farmers. Just think of the subsidies in connection with dairy produce; we are also thinking of maize where the Government makes its contribution. The farmers are grateful for that assistance they are receiving. Not one of the Opposition members has shown to what extent they expect the Government to subsidize the farming industry; they have not indicated to what extent the Government should subsidize the exports of agricultural products. Have all the surpluses to be subsidized and to what extent and for how long must the Government continue it? As I have said, the Government is already paying certain subsidies and one is grateful for it, but it is very clear, too, that if one has a very big surplus and very big exports, and everything has to be subsidized, then you simply encourage the production of that product still more and the result will be that you will merely have a bigger surplus. So you cannot go on indefinitely subsidizing surpluses for then you are going to have a greater economic setback and chaos than you have ever had before. The hon. member for King William’s Town has also said that it is the policy of this Government to export products after provision has been made for the country’s own requirements. That is perfectly correct. Surely We do not export products of which we have a shortage. We do export products of which we have a surplus in the country. But the fact of the matter is that in the past we had the greatest degree of instability in the prices of the products that were dependent for their price upon the overseas markets. I am thinking of a product such as wool which still has a reasonable price to-day; there we had very great instability, and as I know our farmers, this instability is one of their greatest complaints indeed. They do not like prices that fluctuate a lot. If you have a small surplus and you export it, you do not have a big problem, but when you have a big surplus then you have a big problem if you cannot obtain a good price for that big surplus overseas.

As regards meat, I should like to thank the Government for having decided that meat surpluses may also be exported now. For many years we experienced a shortage of meat in South Africa. I felt that we could possibly have started sooner exporting regularly small consignments so that we would be well equipped and prepared to export on a larger scale when we have surpluses, and so that we would be equipped to handle that meat in the proper manner. As regards this matter, I should like to ask that the Meat Control Board should play a bigger role with regard to the export of meat, if private enterprise cannot do so. In this connection I should like to ask that it should only be done under the most favourable marketing methods. In other words, the meat should be handled in a very neat and hygienic manner and the meat should be kept under the correct temperatures. Moreover, the best quality meat only should be exported. In this manner then we could build up a good name for South Africa overseas for the day when it will become necessary for us to export large quantities of meat. Mr. Chairman, to solve our problem of surpluses, we have to adopt certain measures, and certain steps have already been taken. One of the steps of course is to exploit our local market to the full. In this connection we know that certain steps have already been taken, but I believe that we should do a lot more and should devote much more attention to distribution and publicity to sell our products here in South Africa, for the internal market after all is the most stable market. As regards foreign markets, we shall also have to do much more to develop that market fully, and in this regard one is grateful that missions have been sent overseas to investigate this matter. The ideal of course is that our farmers should endeavour, in order to make their economic position as solid as possible, to produce at the lowest possible cost, and that they can achieve only by harnessing science still more than to-day, and by adapting themselves fully to the changed circumstances. I cannot emphasize sufficiently that we should see to it, when exporting products, that those products should be of the very best quality only.

At the outset I said that I wish to pay tribute to the farmers and wish to laud them for having succeeded in not only maintaining our production, but also in raising it. As regards agriculture and animal husbandry and horticulture, production has been increased by 5 per cent during the past year. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) is not here now, but I should like to know from him how he reconciles that fact with his statement that our farmers are bankrupt and are going bankrupt? How can he reconcile his statement with the fact that production in the past year has been 5 per cent higher? The value of that production has reached the record figure of R814,400,000. Notwithstanding this record production in the history of South Africa, the hon. member nevertheless says that the farmers are going bankrupt. [Time limit.]

Ask the farmers around you.

There are a few small matters I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister, particularly matters affecting the people I represent here. The first matter on which I wish to speak is the granting of permits for butcher shops and bakeries in the Coloured areas. It is not necessary to remind this Committee that it is the policy of the Government to allow the Coloureds to have their own businesses in the Coloured areas as far as possible. Where Coloured areas arise, and where Coloureds apply for butcher shop licences or for bakery licences, I find that the control boards concerned—in the one case the Meat Control Board and in the other case the Wheat Control Board—are always putting so many difficulties in the way of these people that it is wellnigh impossible for them to obtain the necessary permits. I realize that these various boards have to carry out certain policies in order to protect existing businesses. One of course would not like to see that these new butcher shops or bakeries should end in failure financially, but I should like the Minister to use his influence with the control boards to make it as easy as possible for the Coloureds to obtain these privileges in their own areas.

Then there is another matter I should like to raise, and I know the Minister is going to laugh when I talk about it, but if he were a Coloured Representative and if he had the annoying trouble I have, he will realize why I am raising the matter here. Hardly a week or fortnight passes in which some Coloured person does not write to me and tells me:“Can you not assist me with £150, Sir? I want to buy a pair of chinchillas, for I understand one can make a fortune out of it. I am a retired teacher and my pension is very small, but if only I can get £150 to buy a male and two females, I shall make so much money in three or four years—time that I shall really not even need the pension.” Not one case, but dozens of cases have come to my attention, and I am becoming perturbed about this thing, especially when I read what a well-known farmer, Mr. Selwyn Brown, who was very interested in this industry, said recently. He went overseas to investigate the matter and in the report he drafted he told me that he had found that 90 per cent of the people who had invested money in this business had lost everything. So I am feeling very worried about it. I have his report here, but I do not wish to read it further. Now I know the hon. the Minister will say: “But what can I do about it if people want to invest their money in fur-mice?” I shall tell you why I bring it to the attention of the Minister. Although the Minister’s Department cannot concern itself directly with the business side of this thing, I feel that more publicity should be given to the matter to make the people aware that all is not gold that glisters. I am sorry to say this, but I have come to the conclusion (I may be wrong) but this fur-mice business is a “racket” of one or two big companies. I am very sorry to say that, but I feel that the Minister will render a great service to the people I represent if his Department were to give a little more publicity to the facts in connection with this matter.

There is one further matter in regard to which I am grateful to the Minister. I do not like saying thank you to the Minister, and I am the first one on this side of the House who says thank you to him, but I cannot neglect to do so in this case. Last week the K.W.V. held its annual meeting, and at the meeting the chairman in his speech revealed that the directors of the K.W.V. had approached the Minister to increase the wine quotas and the Minister refused. I wish to congratulate the Minister.

Where do you get that from?

If the Minister does not know about it, then he did so unwittingly and then I still wish to thank him, for it is one of the best things he has done as Minister. I have here the report not only in the Burger but also in the Landbouweekblad, and I am surprised that the hon. the Minister does not know that he did it. [Laughter.] In any case, I am thankful he did so, and every wine farmer will be grateful to him. But I am raising this because I would not like him to accede to the request of the K.W.V. next year or the year after. The question raised by the chairman of the K.W.V. was that they had approached the Minister notwithstanding the fact that there is a surplus and notwithstanding the fact that he is afraid that if England joins the Common Euromarket, we shall lose our market there, and notwithstanding his fear about a lot of other things, yet he insisted upon a bigger quota. The hon. the Minister knows that quotas have already been granted for more than 1,000,000 leaguers, and our production at the present time is between 600,000 and 700,000 leaguers, but the chairman of the K.W.V. says: Yes, but the plantings during the past year simply compensate for what has been uprooted. But the chairman surely has not forgotten that when the quotas were issued, they were based on the vines then standing and the vineyards that were planted during that year, and cuttings that were in the nurseries. How can the chairman of the K.W.V. then expect that production will suddenly be increased? I do not wish to be involved in an argument, but as the Minister has unwittingly done a very good thing, I hope that he will adopt the same attitude next year and the following year.

I do not wish to reply to the previous speaker, for then I may kiss the bottle. I want to return to the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Swart) and the submissions he has made in a very dispassionate speech, a speech which in my view revealed a measure of study. I am thinking particularly of his proposition that the Marketing Act should not be there only for the producer but also for the consumer. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. the Prime Minister stated a number of propositions before the Export Convention in Johannesburg on 17 May, and one of those propositions was that South Africa could not isolate its cost and price structure from that of foreign countries if we wish to build up and expand our export trade. If we take the proposition as a criterion, surely no truer word could have been spoken as regards our maize farmers, and in regard to the mess in which our maize farmers now are in regard to the export of their surplus maize. You will recall that our maize prices are determined according to cost of production plus a reasonable entrepreneur’s fee. Apart from the overseas prices of maize, this price structure has been built up in South Africa and has made it quite unrealistic and completely out of relation to the overseas prices of maize. The result is that it is completely in conflict with that proposition made by the hon. the Prime Minister. We have built up a price structure in our country which is completely isolated from foreign countries, and the result is that we are now in a mess as regards the maize farmers.

The hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing has said that the farmers have to adapt themselves. I quite agree with that. Nor do I ascribe this state of affairs to these artificial prices for the maize farmer, to the maize farmer; nor to the Maize Board; nor do I blame the hon. the Minister for it, for in that price that is artificial there has been built in the factor of costs of production and those costs of production have been built up internally equally artificially. The price structure of the means of production for instance, of our farmers, has been as artificial as the producers’ price of the mealies themselves. I should like to test this proposition of the hon. the Prime Minister by reference to one of the means of production, namely fertilizer.

During the past decade the price of fertilizer to the maize farmer has increased by 300 per cent. If the price of fertilizer overseas had also increased by 300 per cent, then there was an adjustment and then there is no question of isolation. But there is isolation in fact, for you must remember that in the same way as the maize price is fixed annually by the Maize Board, so also the price of fertilizer is fixed by the Department of Commerce and Industries. What now is the basis they take for the determination of the price of fertilizer? I am quoting now from a report that was tabled at the beginning of the year, on the fertilizer industry. Paragraph 248 reads as follows—

The next paragraph, 249, says this—

Of course with a return of 13½ per cent on the capital invested. Paragraph 250—

I do not wish to quote all of it, but throughout you find this. You will recall that in 1958-9 already I indicated in this House that the fertilizer companies were making more than 20 per cent on their product. In 1960 the method of price determination was changed, and it was made 131 per cent on their capital investments. Mr. Chairman, there are many of our farmers who do not get even 1 per cent on their capital investment, not even a 1 per cent. There are some farmers who are producing at a loss. But these big fertilizer companies receive 13½ per cent on their capital, so that an artificial price structure is established for one of the means of production of the farmer. One of the directors of one of the companies told me the following in a letter—

But this “headache” has been prevented, for the report of the Committee on fertilizer informs us in paragraph 251—

The result of that is that both are making an exorbitant profit. These fertilizer prices are quite artificial and unrelated to the overseas cost and price structure. The overseas fertilizer products can be imported and sold here at 33½ per cent less than the price at which our fertilizer products are being sold in South Africa. I have sufficient proof in this regard. I have been dealing with this matter for four years, and these are the true facts. But it is one of the means of production of the farmers which makes his price structure artificial and unrealistic, so that he cannot compete with overseas producers as regards the export of his maize. Those people can no more compete with overseas countries as regards their price structure. I maintain there should be coordination between Commerce and Industries and the Department of Economics and Marketing, so that this artificial price structure cannot be built up in our country, and the primary producer has to pay for it. The primary producer in South Africa cannot carry secondary industries on its back.

In the same way in which I have now done it in relation to the price structure of fertilizer, I should like also to present another little picture in regard to the same means, the content of fertilizer. It is necessary that the maize farmers should get their fertilizer in the cheapest and most effective manner. Now there are three nutritive materials in it, and in order to get the nutritive materials in the mixtures in the right proportion, they have to add a certain amount of sand. Experts have estimated that for every ton of mixture in the country, at least 2 per cent sand has to be added. More than 400,000 tons of mixtures are sold in our country. It then works out at 8,000 tons of sand that has to be transported by the Railways annually at a very high railage. The average price of those mixtures is R30 per ton; 2 per cent of that is the total amount of R240,000 per annum the farmers are paying in connection with sand.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing whether his attention has been drawn to a letter which appeared in the Transvaler of 5 June. It is pointed out in this letter that while there is tremendous over-production of mealies there is a great shortage of mealies in some parts of the Republic; that mealies are unobtainable. I quoted a few moments ago what the writer of the letter says.

I really rise to ask the hon. the Minister to consider having a very thorough investigation made into the position of this industry in the Republic. The mealie farmers are very worried about the future of this industry and about the product which he produces. We have reached the stage where we are faced with tremendous surpluses of mealies. Curiously enough this has been brought about as a result of putting into practice the knowledge gained by research; because of the knowledge gained from research improved scientific farming methods have been followed and that has resulted in a greater yield per morgen than previously. Allow me, Sir, just in passing to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) whom I do not see in the House at the moment unfortunately, that in respect of what he said yesterday, he should not lose sight of the fact that when you get seven bags per morgen and your profit is calculated per bag and your entrepreneur’s wage is 9s. 2d. per bag, it makes a big difference if your yield is 14 bags per morgen. In the last-mentioned case your total profit per morgen will be greater than when your yield is seven bags per morgen, because your preliminary costs always remain the same. Whether you get seven bags per morgen or 14 bags—circumstances may exist which are beyond your control—your preliminary costs remain the same. I say that we are faced with these surpluses because of the knowledge gained and the improved scientific farming methods which have been followed. Nevertheless, I say that the mealie farmer is very worried about the future of the industry. What we need in South Africa is that the mealie industry as such should be stabilized, and that the maize farmer should know where he stands. To accomplish that we require a long-term policy and that is why I think that this matter justifies a thorough and searching inquiry. Now that we are faced with these surpluses, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am grateful to him for the attention which he has given to this matter because it is necessary that this matter of surpluses be treated as sympathetically as possible. It is a problem. Nor do I think that you can stabilize the position of a product by controlling its price or by lowering the price. The reason why I say that, is this, that if it is not profitable to produce 10,000 bags of mealies it is not profitable to produce 2,000 bags either. It is either profitable to produce the product and to market it or it is not profitable. That should be the approach and that is why I do not think that we can limit and control the production of mealies simply by reducing the price. I do not think that offers a solution. I do not think the solution lies in that direction

But. Mr. Chairman, I want to plead seriously that the State should establish a permanent board to advertise mealies, a board which will be able to conduct research in all directions to increase the consumption of mealies locally. There was a time when the farmer received guidance and when the previous Minister of Agriculture told him that the solution was to be found in leycropping and the reintroduction of the animal factor. Many farmers responded to that. To-day the farmer is faced with a surplus of dairy products, something which has created another problem to him.

I now wish to quote the letter to which I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention. It was written by Mr. Fanie Naude of Hoopstad, and it was published in the Transvaler of 5 June. He writes this—

Mr. Naude goes on in this letter to show at how many places no mealies were available during that time. I now want to make a further plea, and that is that, if necessary, more points of distribution should be established where mealies can be distributed so that mealies will always be available. Mr. Chairman, it is an injustice towards the mealie industry as such to send missions overseas to find markets for our mealies if there is a demand in the Republic for more mealies That is a well-known fact and I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to it. I ask that this question of establishing more distribution points in the Republic from which mealies can be distributed should be investigated and considered. We simply cannot allow the Republic to suffer mealie shortages when we are faced with these surpluses. I want to tell the Minister that these things are not figments of the imagination. I am aware of the fact that this is a daily occurrence in Sekukuniland. I know that farmers in the vicinity of Kuruman have a struggle to obtain mealies and that they have to go without mealies for days because it is unobtainable. I want to ask that everything possible should be done by the establishment of a publicity committee to make mealies more readily available to whomsoever might need it and wheresoever there is a demand for it.

We agree, of course, with what the hon. member has just said. I agree with what the hon. member for Pietersburg has said. He said, inter alia, that he did not like prices to fluctuate and then he started to thank the Minister—I do not know what for—because the policy of this Minister is precisely to cause prices to fluctuate. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon. the Minister to get up and to deny that the marketing boards recommended that he should not increase the floor price of mutton and the reason given was that a fluctuation in the price was the very thing needed so that demand and supply could regulate the flow to the markets. That is the official policy of the Minister. Let him get up and deny that it is not. That is the antithesis of the policy of price fixation. Let us understand each other clearly. The old policy of price fixation has been thrown overboard completely by the Government, by the Minister’s predecessor and now by him. Two years ago this Minister told us that it was not his duty or responsibility to evolve schemes; his responsibility was only to decide whether a scheme was good or bad when it was submitted to him. What worries me, however, is this. The Minister used to be a grain producer in the Western Province and throughout the years he fought for the interests of the grain producer. He was a director of one of the biggest agricultural co-operative societies.

He served on the Wheat Board and when he was appointed we thought that although he may not be the most capable person in the world, he would at least always be well disposed towards us. I do not want to go into the question of what has happened to his ability, but we have also lost his sympathy. The Minister now says that prices should be calculated on a new basis and I should like the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) to get up and to tell us that he subscribes to that policy of the Government. He can only play the fool and as long as he gets his salary he is satisfied. A meeting was held in his constituency, in Moorreesburg, of which the Minister is aware, and a reduction in the price was justified at that meeting because, said the Minister, under the new prices the unit as a whole was still sufficiently economic to give the farmer a good price. If the Minister believes that, does that mean that he wants to penalize the farmers for having improved their farming methods? I want to ask the Minister this: Two or three years ago he agreed to the price of fishmeal being increased from £37 per ton to £39 per ton. Fish-meal is the basic food used in a great variety of farming operations. I pointed out to him at the time that the fish-meal factories certainly did not need that increase because they had paid a dividend of 25 per cent on their capital investment and that no farmer received more than 10 per cent on his capital investment. But he deemed it fit to increase the price of fish-meal by 30 per cent in spite of the fact that the fishing industry had paid enormous dividends. His argument was this that the canning of fish might be profitable but that the production of fish-meal was not. I now want to ask the Minister this: What grudge has he against the wheat farmer for using a different yardstick in his case from the one he uses in the case of the fishing industry? We as farmers are in a difficult position. The Minister expects us to take world prices in consideration when we produce wheat. I want to give him some figures. Unfortunately they are not the latest figures but in 1956 the price of wheat in the United Kingdom was 538 cent and 538 cent in the Union. In 1958 it was 499 cent in the United Kingdom and 539 cent in the Union. But then we get the other side of the picture and the position is the same in the case of mealies and sheep. Will the Minister tell me what the British farmer pays for his fertilizer as opposed to our farmers?

What about his labour?

I am coming to that. The hon. member for Heilbron mentioned the figures at which fertilizer could be imported. In England the farmer pays £20 9s. 6d. per ton for amonium sulphate, and he is subsidized by the State to the tune of £9 9s. 0d. We in South Africa pay £20 1s. 6d. and we are subsidized to the tune of £1. In other words, the farmer over there pays £11 Os. 6d. and the South African farmer pays £19 1s. 6d. Let us take phosphates. In England the State pays a subsidy of £6 9s. 0d. and the farmer pays £7 6s. 0d. for a ton of phosphates. In South Africa the farmer pays £10 3s. 8d. and he only gets a subsidy of £1. That is happening while the Minister expects the farmers to subsidize Sasol by forcing the fertilizer factories to buy ammonium sulphate from Sasol at £3 and £4 per ton more than the price at which they can import it and to buy phosphates from Foskor at £1 per ton more than the price at which they can import it. The father of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) is also a prominent wheat producer and that hon. member asked what about the labour in England? Of course labour is more expensive in England. It is about £1 5s. 0d. per day over there as against approximately 7s. 6d. here. But in South Africa the soil is impoverished which reduces the yield per morgen. According to the report of the Food and Agricultural Organization of UNO for 1958 it appears that, if you take it per kilogram per hektare, in England the wheat yield is 1,200 and here it is 560. In other words, if any value can be attached to the argument of the Minister that a greater yield per unit must reduce prices, he should increase the price of wheat in this country and not reduce it. [Interjections.] I wish those hon. members who are not interested in farming would remain quiet …[Inaudible.]

The hon. member is getting personal.

I say that if you take the position of the farmer in this country and you expect him to compete with the overseas farmer, you should make it possible for him to do so and he should have a sympathetic Government which will enable him to do so. The hon. member talked about the labour overseas but some members of this Government plead for it that the Natives should be removed from the Western Province. I wonder whether that will happen.

What about the swimming at Sea Point?

If that hon. member were to swim more he would be much whiter than he is at the moment.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that and apologize.

I withdraw it, Sir and I apologize. That is as far as the position of the wheat producers is concerned, but take the position of the meat producers. When this Minister’s predecessor abolished price control the Minister said the permit system was only there to see to it that the abattoirs were not over-stocked. [Time limit.]

The wheat farmers experienced a particularly dry period during their sowing season. When you listen to some hon. members opposite who are now pleading their cause, you can only wish them a very successful season because then there will definitely be a good rainfall. The hon. member for Sea Point said that the wheat farmer deserved the sympathy of the Government. I want to go so far as to say that no Government has been so sympathetic towards the wheat producer than this very Government and the plea made by hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) on behalf of the wheat producers, is simply to hide their sins of the past, because what was the position 20 years ago? We also had a debate in this House at that time in connection with wheat prices and a commission of inquiry was appointed to inquire into the position of wheat prices. The commission found that in the vicinity of the farm of the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl), where he farmed together with sharecroppers at the time, the net profit on a bag of wheat was 5d. Furthermore, the Commission found that, on the same basis as the 1938-9 prices, 20 years ago, one-third of the wheat produced in this country in 1941-2 was produced at a loss. Many representations were made for a higher price and we had to import a large quantity of wheat, as the hon. member for Green Point said the other day, even from the Argentine, at £5 per bag and that was sixth grade wheat which produced a poor quality flour. But no sympathy was shown to the wheat producers at that time. The pleas on behalf of the wheat producers fell on deaf ears. Because the Minister and the Wheat Board have, on the recognized basis of price fixation, announced a small decrease in the price of wheat, because the production costs per unit have dropped, hon. members come here this afternoon and they make a big hullabaloo about it as though the Minister is the enemy of the wheat producer. I can well imagine, Sir, that had the Minister who himself is a wheat producer, announced a higher price for wheat this afternoon because of increased production costs the hon. members for Sea Point and Green Point would not have spoken but the hon. member for Yeoville would have told the world outside: That person who is a wheat producer himself, only looks after the farmers. I am pleased that the hon. member for Green Point is back because I want to tell him something, but I first want to say this: It is understandable that no farmer–and I am a farmer myself–is pleased when the price of his product drops, but you should at least show a sense of responsibility when you talk in this House about price fixation, Sir, and I am afraid the hon. member for Green Point succumbed to the temptation not to act in a responsible manner. He said that formerly share croppers produced a great deal of wheat in his area. He wanted to know where they were to-day. I want to say immediately to that hon. member that those share croppers are to-day making a much better living than they did then because they are working as artisans in the cities and towns. The Commission which sat during the régime of the Government of the hon. member, found that the profit on a bag of wheat was 5d. because of the system of share croppers, because that is an unproductive method of production. The position to-day is that the farmer has concentrated on producing productively. He employs better and more economic methods of cultivation and that is why the share cropper has disappeared from the scene. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is satisfied with the price of wheat which has prevailed up to now?

Yes.

But the hon. member blames the Minister for the disappearance of the share cropper; he says they have disappeared because of the new price which only comes into effect in November. The hon. member spoke about the great sacrifices which the wheat producer had to make during the war years, but surely that was their own fault. Why does he hold that against the Minister to-day? The hon. member was a member of the Cabinet at that time, why did they not assist the farmers more? I want to remind the hon. member that this is not the first time that the price of wheat has been reduced as a result of a reduction in the production costs per unit. The price of wheat was also reduced in the past and for the same reason. I am now referring to the mid fifties. In 1952-3 the price was R5.41 per bag. In 1953-4 it was R5.50 and the next year it dropped to R5.41 and the year after that it dropped even further to R5.32½. And then it started to rise again. And during that time it was also reduced because of the decrease in the production costs per unit, which is the basis the wheat producer has accepted for the fixation of prices. The hon. member for Green Point also said that when he followed the system of wheat, oats, fallow, he had one wheat crop in three years and to-day he only had two wheat crops in eight years from the same land because he was sowing lucerne but he did not refer to the sheep which he was keeping.

You are talking nonsense, because the sheep graze in any case on the stubble fields and fallow fields.

If the hon. member sows rotational crops and he keeps stock on his lands, surely it is stupid of him to continue doing that if that is not profitable. Under the old system the hon. member overcropped his land and to-day, with a sounder system, he is producing more wheat. The last inquiry revealed that the wheat producer derived 50 per cent of his income from stock, alongside his wheat which is produced more productively. However, the hon. member also displayed a complete lack of knowledge about the way in which prices are fixed, because when prices are fixed all these factors are taken into ac count. I want to say this: I sympathise with the wheat producer if and when his price drops a little because of the decrease in costs per unit, but all concerns the question of adaptation to which the hon. member for Gardens has referred. In that case the farmer finds it difficult to adapt himself, but I want to say this. The wheat producers may find it difficult to accept this reduced price but they will put up a strenuous fight if an attempt is made to change this basis on which prices are fixed because the basis of production costs plus an entrepreneur’s wage has always offered security to the wheat producer. He always knows, no matter what happens, that there cannot be a marked fluctuation in his price. [Time limit.]

I found it interesting to follow this debate particularly the speech of the hon. the Minister last night and to see the reactions of hon. members opposite. As far as the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) is concerned, I found it very interesting, because I have always maintained that the wheat producer was in a better position than any of the other farmers in South Africa and the Minister also said that, and it is because of the very factor which he has mentioned here that the cost of production plus a reasonable entrepreneur’s wage are always taken in account when prices are fixed; in addition to that the wheat producer has always had the animal factor on which he could rely, particularly as a result of the sowing of lupins. A very great part of this debate has been devoted to the mealie producer and how does the position of the mealie farmer compare with that of the wheat producer? His entrepreneur’s wage has been fixed at 9s. 2d. [Interjections.] According to the control board production costs in the Transvaal amount to 23s. 7¼d. without the cost of the bag, in the Free State it is 18s. 4d. and in the Western Transvaal 16s. 2d. Then you have to add 3s. 6d. being the cost of the bag. That means that the production costs are 27s. 1id. on the Transvaal Highveld; in the Western Transvaal the entrepreneur’s wage is 7s. 5d. per bag, in the north western Free State it is 5s. 3d. per bag, without adding the cost of the bag. Compare that with the wheat producer. [Interjections.] The hon. member asks who is in the better position. Did the hon. member not listen when members on this side spoke, like the hon. member for Wolmaransstad the hon. member for Heilbron and others? The hon. member is trying to get away from the basic point of dispute and that is that the mealie producer cannot make a living and I am not a mealie producer; I am a stock farmer. I am not, therefore, pleading for my own existence but I know in what position those people are. [Interjections.] The shouting of the hon. member for Cradock will not improve the position. We have listened to a story of failures and superficialities. The Minister told us a whole story of failures. I notice that the Prime Minister is in the House and I think he ought to take note of this. There is no co-ordination between the various Departments of this Government. I was very observant during the discussions on this Vote and the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services was never in the House and when his Vote was discussed neither the Minister of Agricultural Economics nor the Minister of Economic Affairs was in the House. There is no co-ordination. The hon. member for Heilbron indicated how the cost of fertilizer had risen. I want to say this that the costs of production of the farmers have risen and again I am referring to the mealie farmers, because they are the people who are in difficulty, because of the lack of co-ordination and no effort is being made to reduce the cost of machinery and spare parts. I have said that there is no co-ordination, but I find that there is no attempt on the part of the Minister to assist the farmers. I have a letter here written by the Minister in which he says the following in regard to criticism which has been levelled at him–

But the Minister did not say a word about that in this House. There was nothing constructive in his speech. I want to ask the Minister another question. What assistance did the farmers get from the Minister when they attempted to grow rotational corps? I have in mind, for instance, some parts of the Free State and the Transvaal where beans can be planted as rotational crop but I find that beans are being imported from other countries. I want to know from the Minister what his policy is for the ensuing year because as soon as the price of beans increases a little, the Minister imports beans. At the present moment the price of beans is fairly high, but I am informed—I do not know whether this is correct—that the Minister will again allow beans to be imported and that the price will be forced down. Who is going to import beans and at what price? What guarantee will the farmers have that they will receive a decent price for their beans? I find that large quantities of beans were imported in 1958. From Kenya 893,000 lbs were imported, 745,000 lbs. from Tanganyika and in the case of Kenya it rose to 5,500,000 lbs in 1959, from the Federation to 5,750,000 lbs. and in the case of Tanganyika to 1,700,000 lbs. and over 1,000,000 lbs. from Uganda. Similarly we find that in 1960 large quantities were imported and according to the figures given by the Minister, a fairly large quantity was imported in 1961. Where the farmers are trying to sow rotational crops, large quantities are immediately imported and the price is forced down. At the moment the price of sugar beans is 140s. per bag and if the Minister again allows importation this price will be forced down. The Minister generalized in his speech and he treated the whole matter superficially. He told us nothing about the meat market. We know that during recent months the position was this that that 8,000 head of cattle sometimes arrived at the Johannesburg market, whereas only 1,600 or 1,700 were slaughtered per day because the permit system was abolished. I maintain that the same thing will happen in the case of meat prices as happened in the case of other prices and that is they will drop. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) alleged that the mealie producer was in a bad position. Curiously enough the production of mealies has risen during the past 10 or 15 years from 20,000,000 bags per annum to nearly 64,000,000 bags per annum. I do not think I over-estimate the intelligence of the mealie producer when I say that he will realize that he is making a very big mistake if he continues to produce more and more every year at a greater and greater loss.

Is he quite satisfied?

I as a farmer am quite satisfied. If I lose 10 cent per bag and I produce 1,000 to-day I will not be so stupid as to produce 2,000 bags, thereby increasing my losses from R100 to R200. Another pointer in regard to the position of the mealie producer is the fact that the price of the land on which mealies are produced has not decreased in the meantime; it has continued to rise from time to time. That proves that it is not unprofitable to produce mealies but that it is profitable.

What must he do then?

In that case he can either live on his interest or seek a livelihood elsewhere.

But he is an untrained man.

I think what I have just touched upon is a very sore point with hon. members opposite. Surely hon. members know what an uneconomic unit means. If a man farms on an uneconomic unit must the State compensate him for his losses year after year? Where will that end? No, if you consolidate these uneconomic units and convert them into economic units, you would be achieving something. We will not be able to continue in future to allow farmers to farm on uneconomic units because at some time or other they will be hard-pressed and they will simply lose their land.

It is not being done for them free of charge.

My hon. friend knows the circumstances under which that dam is being repaired. It was such an enormous task that the farmers could not tackle it alone and that was why the State stepped in to do it on behalf of the farmers. That is large-scale assistance and not only one farmer but a great many farmers are being assisted in that case. During severe droughts the Minister of Transport has even made railway lorries available to convey water to the drought stricken areas to assist the farmers and they received further assistance in the form of reduced railway rates. A large portion of the Cape Province has once again been declared a drought stricken area and the farmers in those areas enjoy the benefits of those reduced tariffs. Hon. members come here and continually ask for assistance to the farmers. Sir, that is not what the South African farmer wants. He wants to retain his independence, that is why I say I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Gardens casting that blot on the farmers of South Africa by trying to make us believe that the farmers were insolvent and needed assistance.

It is a long time since last I heard so much about the prosperity of the farming community as I have this afternoon from that side of the House. [Interjection.] Hon. members may say now that it is a long time since last they heard so much about the adversity of the farming community as yesterday and to-day from this side of the House. Come we now make a joint admission that it is not going so well with the farmers of the north-west and the farmers of the Springbok flats, with the farmers in Western and Northern Transvaal who had a very poor crop this year, and who shot animals because they could not move away with them because of the foot and mouth disease. There are many farmers with whom it is going well, and we are grateful for that, but I should like to refer to something that has been mentioned here by the hon. member for De Aar (Colesberg) (Mr. M. J. de la Rey Venter), namely that the small farmer ought to disappear.

On an uneconomic unit.

…whether or not he is on an uneconomic unit.

No, that is not the way I put it.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it is due to goodwill or decency on this side of the House, but I should like to say that we treat the speakers on that side with more courtesy.

Order! The Chair will maintain order properly; the hon. member need not dilate upon that.

I come back to this matter that the small farmer should not disappear from the rural districts. If there is one plea this side of the House wishes to make, then it is that the minimum number of people should be driven from the country to the towns. Those small farmers are needed, all of them, in our agricultural economy and we must not destroy them; we must not let them leave and we should do our best to convert the uneconomic unit of the small farmer into an economic unit by means of advice and information and other assistance.

He is not here to defend himself.

I did not go to the East as often as he does, for I was not out to run after Japan or after India.

Leave the present chairman alone; he is not here to defend himself.

I was attacked when I was not here by the hon. member for Cradock. Mr. Chairman, here I have an extract from the report of the meeting held in Australia at the beginning of May, and the following statement appears in it–

No, it is not so. Surely you know that is not true.

It is true. I have asked the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the statement. [Interjection.] I quote further–

What did the S.A.P. do?

One commission after another has been appointed in this connection: A fact-finding commission, and abattoir commission, a related facilities commission. How long are we going to wait for the reports of the endless commissions that have been appointed? Obviously there are only two methods of dealing with meat. The one is to take the meat at any time and to store it. Take it when it is ready for the market and store it. The other is to control the supply, and if the quota system cannot do it, then we know of only one other system, and that is the permit system. And for how long did we not plead for the introduction of a permit system–a permit system on the basis of the requirements of the market plus 20 per cent? I went so many times, even to the Minister, to plead for a permit system based on the requirements of the market plus 20 per cent, so that the consumer cannot say that you are putting up the producer’s prices artificially by stinting the market. Mr. Chairman, it is being done in so many countries–not a permit system in accordance with the needs of the market plus 20 per cent, but a permit system based on the requirements of the market alone. It is my contention that, if this permit system cannot be introduced in regard to the supply of meat, the confusion will continue–we do not have the cold storage facilities as yet; we do not have the markets as yet; we cannot export the meat immediately; we are already saddled with 38,000 beef carcasses. I am not sure of the number: I am speaking subject to correction. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to reply to what the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) has said. I think the Minister will reply to him. We have only ten minutes at our disposal and if I had to reply to the host of matters raised by the hon. member, my time will have expired.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. Van der Ahee) has just said by way of interjection that if the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) has to reply to the hon. member for East London (City), then he would eventually tell as many lies. I think it is quite unparliamentary to say that.

Order! Did the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet say that?

I said that if he replies to it, he will eventually lie just as much.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

I think that we should in all sincerity pay tribute to those to whom it is due, and I should like to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister within the existing set-up and within the framework within which he is operating under existing circumstances, and in the light of existing circumstances, and he deserves praise. He has a most difficult task. All of us are worried, and I think the whole Cabinet is worried; all of us are worried and the farmers are worried about the appearance of surpluses. I should like to confine myself mainly to the maize industry. Nobody can accuse the Minister of being unsympathetic; nobody can accuse him of not giving aid where assistance is a dire need. Nobody can accuse him of acting carelessly and approaching matters in a reckless fashion. On behalf of all the farmers in our country I should like to thank him for those careful, sympathetic, judicious acts. But I think we have now come to the cross-roads where we shall have to decide whether we shall continue with the old set-up and whether in the light of changed circumstances, we shall have to face the new set-up we are forcing more and more into our faces every day. The new set-up requires new ideas, new systems and if need be a new policy, and we cannot entrust the carrying out of a new policy to the Opposition, for they are in the grip of so many inconsistencies and they are saddled with so many weaknesses that we cannot entrust the cause of our farmers to them. That is why we take the liberty of putting the case here as we see it. No policy in agriculture can be inflexible because our entire agriculture, our whole climate, the conditions under which we are practising our farming activities, are extremely elastic and consequently we cannot apply any agricultural policy that is absolutely inflexible. But we have reached a period of surpluses, and we shall have to experience this period of surpluses for quite a long time still. Science and technology, the ingenuity of our farmers and their increased experience will contribute to us having to face this problem of surpluses for a long time to come. A time will arrive when our volume of production will balance our volume of consumption again, but that will only happen when our population increase is so great that our consumption will be able to absorb that volume of production. Our producers do not wish to live on subsidies. It will be an evil day when the Government has to keep non-bona fide farmers going particularly by means of subsidies; I am not even referring to bona fide farmers. What our farmers ask for is security; what our farmers ask is a basis on which they can plan and budget individually. What all of us want is that we should put right the relationship between the producer and the State; a definite basis of relationship should be determined. Neither the State nor the producer sees any good in the for ever rising prices of land; nobody wants it; it is an evil, but our producers do not want to pay for the maintenance of other industries. Our producers do not wish to be solely responsible for the maintenance of low cost of living either. With these few principles I have mentioned here I should like to plead here to-day for three matters. In the first place, I wish to plead for a proper registration of all producers, mainly of the commodities of which there are such surpluses, such as in the maize industry, which is causing us considerable concern and is creating a great problem. A system of compulsory registration of producers with the control boards concerned is essential for efficient planning in the interest of the producer or in the interests of the relationship between the State and the producer, or in the interests of that industry. One producer may register as producer of as many commodities as he wishes. This registration of producers is essential on account of the many factors I could have referred to here, but time does not permit me to do so at the moment. The second matter for which I wish to plead is this: I want to plead that in regard to these commodities of which there is a surplus at present and where the surpluses will continue to increase in the future as far as we can see, and which we shall not be able to absorb internally in the foreseeable future, or dispose of externally at a profitable price, the Minister will cause an inquiry to be made into a system of delivery quotas for producers of those commodities the surpluses of which are becoming an evil for us in the agricultural industry. But as regards the inquiry, I should like to put three requirements, and I should like to say at once that when one refers to quotas, you can refer to a production quota which is capable of quite a different construction to a delivery quota. You may interpret quota in different ways, and apply it in various ways. It is not my task to put it here in this limited time, but I should like to mention three requirements that should apply in regard to that inquiry. The first is that a minimum quota should be computed in accordance with the number of bags in the case of maize or the number of gallons in the case of milk that is necessary for the economic livelihood of that producer. The second requirement is that no initiative should be restricted by the introduction of such a delivery quota, and the third is that by such a delivery quota a definite fixed determination for the relationship between the State and the producer shall come into being. [Time limit.]

We have had the strange phenomenon here this afternoon and during the past few days that members on the Opposition side have been pleading the causes of their colleagues. So the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) for instance, made a moving plea for the wheat farmers, and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) who says she is a stock farmer (and I take it that she also represents stock farmers) made a plea for the maize farmers. But the acme in this regard was reached by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) who with much gesticulation pointed out that the interests of the farmers in our country cannot be looked after by the Government because on the front benches on the Government side there are only three farmers, whereas on the front benches of the Opposition there are six farmers. But now I should like to ask how many of the farmers that are now sitting in the front benches on the Opposition side still represent farmers’ constituencies. There is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who represents the Rondebosch constituency. Does he represent farmers? The hon. member for Green Point, does he represent farmers? The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) does he perhaps represent a farming constituency? The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) is he a representative of a farming constituency? The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West), the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Florida, is there one of them that represents a farming constituency? What they do indeed, is that they are pleading for higher prices for the farmer–s products, in other words, they are pleading for higher cost prices for their urban voters. If they go on like that, they will certainly not represent those urban constituencies much longer. No, I have the fullest confidence in the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, that he does in fact look after the interests of the farmers. I should like to refer to a report that appeared in the Burger recently and in which it is said–

I have a large number of Coloured farmers in my extensive constituency who generally speaking are concentrated at certain places. These people are to be admired for the manner in which they have clung to their little pieces of land throughout the years under difficult circumstances. If one has regard to the respects in which they were handicapped in comparison with their White neighbours who were also carrying on farming, you have to admire them. For instance, there is the poorer mortgage capacity and poorer credit capacity of the people, the greater difficulty they have with the education of their children because there are no transport facilities for them, and there are no hostel facilities for them, then for more than one reason they are to be admired for the manner in which they have clung to their land. It is because the Coloured in South Africa, in the same way as the White Afrikaner, is imbued with that love for the land, and because the same circumstances apply in his case that he has that urge to remain the master of the land he occupies. But there is another respect in which the people have been handicapped in comparison with their White neighbours, and that is that you have developed your co-operative system throughout the country at the present time, to such an extent that there is hardly a place or a district where the farmers are not connected with a co-operative in one way or another. That applies to the purchase of products and virtually also in regard to all the requirements that are bought, such as implements, seed etc. as well as his household necessaries. Unfortunately the Coloureds cannot become members of the co-operatives anywhere because they are Coloureds. In spite of the fact that they cannot become members, they are still compelled to sell their products through, and to buy all their requirements from the co-operatives, without being able to enjoy the privileges of the membership concerned. My personal point of view in the matter, and I think it goes also for the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) is that bona fide farmers whether or not they are Coloureds, should be able to be members of the co-operatives.

They can have their own co-operatives.

We just cannot listen to such ridiculous interjections. It was under these circumstances that I went to the hon. the Minister and discussed with him the matter in regard to a district with which the hon. the Minister fortunately is very familiar. After a few days he informed me that he had found a solution. Now I have to admit that the solution was not what I desired, but I can appreciate the Minister’s difficulties. I should have liked these people to be able to be members of the White co-operatives, but the Minister has informed me that what he has done is that he has arranged for these people to be able to sell their products to and to purchase their requirements from the local co-operative, and that thereby they will receive members’ benefits, and that at the end of the year, the bonuses that are normally paid to the members of the co-operative, will be added together so far as the purchases and sales by Coloureds are concerned, and that the proceeds will then be divided between the Coloured Welfare Organizations in that area. I immediately told the Minister that I thought my people would be satisfied with the arrangements under the circumstances, and on behalf of them I wish to express my appreciation for the arrangement that has been made, namely that as regards purchases and sales, they enjoy member’s privileges, and that the bonuses revert indirectly to the organizations in which they themselves are concerned and which will work for the benefit of their community. However, I should like to appeal to the Minister to apply the same arrangement to other areas also, and if possible to tell us that it will be possible to make such an arrangement in other areas where there are bona fide Coloured farmers too. While the hon. the Minister is giving attention to this matter, I hope he will also clear the way for these people to become members of the co-operatives without the stigma of being Coloureds, and as such to enjoy as bona fide farmers the benefits or disadvantages thereof, and that it will not be done by way of favours and gifts. In the meantime I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell me whether the arrangement that has been made in this one particular district, will be capable of being applied throughout the areas where there are such Coloured farmers.

I do not intend covering once again the whole field which I covered yesterday, but hon. members have raised certain new points to which I must reply. In reply to what the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Van Staden) has said about the wine quotas and the problems connected therewith, I just want to say with reference to his request for a commission of inquiry that a committee was already appointed last year consisting of officials of the two Departments of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and Agricultural Technical Services and the K.W.V. to investigate whether there is justification for retaining the restrictions in the production of wine and to recommend, if the increase in demand for wine and wine products is of such a nature that it is necessary for any extension only to take place under control, on what conditions such extension should take place. The committee has completed its work and will probably submit its recommendations in the near future. I also think this is what the hon. member for Karoo was referring to when he referred to the chairman who had said that wine quotas would not be increased or changed this year. The other question which the hon. member asked relates to the granting of quotas to wine farmers in the past, when there were a number of “hard-luck” cases (as they are usually called), that is to say persons who for various reasons did not obtain a quota and in whose case it was perhaps not clear whether they did in fact qualify for such quotas. To meet these difficulties I have negotiated with the K.W.V. in order to find a solution to this problem. Amended regulations have already been drawn up whereby in certain cases where quotas could not be determined the K.W.V. will be able to give consideration to the granting of quotas to farmers who are detrimentally affected by the existing regulations. The amended regulations are being considered by the law advisers to see whether they are legally in order and they will be published in the near future. This will enable persons to whom the hon. member has referred and who have been unable to obtain quotas, to submit their case for reconsideration under the new regulations to the K.W.V. In terms of the new regulations the K.W.V. will then be able to help these people in those cases where bona fide mistakes have been made and when they are genuinely “hard-luck” cases and doubt exists. The hon. member can therefore inform people who find themselves in this position that such regulations will be published and that they can then resubmit their cases to the K.W.V.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) has made the accusation that during the 14 years this Government has been in power, a pineapple scheme has not yet been introduced whereby pineapples can be marketed on a more orderly basis. The hon. member surely knows that the Department on various occasions has called together the pineapple farmers with a view to establishing such a control scheme for them. The hon. member also knows that on one occasion he himself came to me with a deputation of pineapple producers, and that they asked for a scheme. But they said that their costs of production were such that if they were to have a scheme and the price was not a certain amount per ton (which at that stage was unrealistic), they did not want the scheme. The hon. member’s farmers are apparently under the impression that a scheme can fix a price for the producer even if that price cannot be obtained on any market. But we have already negotiated with the farmers in respect of this matter on various occasions and the Marketing Council has once again drawn up a specific scheme for the control of pineapples. This scheme has been discussed with pineapple producers in the Eastern Cape. But now the hon. member must remember that the Marketing Act is an enabling Act, as has already been said on various occasions, and the Minister can only introduce a scheme subject to certain conditions. It must comply with certain requirements, and one of these requirements is that he must convince himself that a large majority of the producers want such a scheme. But not only that; the majority of the producers who produce the major proportion of the product must also ask for such a scheme. Then only can the Minister introduce a scheme, if he does not want to submit the scheme to a vote as required by the Act which in turn involves other requirements which must be complied with. As has been said, this scheme was once again submitted to the producers in the Eastern Cape. The majority of the producers voted for it, but the majority who voted for it did not even produce 40 per cent of the total production. That is the problem. But now the hon. member accuses the Minister of not having established such a scheme during a period of 14 years. The hon. member must go to his voters and educate them to accept such a scheme. The hon. member has failed in his duty. He has not given his farmers a sound education in this regard. The hon. member has alleged that the Government has given the farmers a guarantee as regards pineapple production. He has referred to a “guarantee to the pineapple growers”. I do not know where the hon. member comes by his allegation that the Government has given the pineapple producers a guarantee. What sort of guarantee? A price guarantee? What sort of guarantee? On one occasion canning factories submitted representations to the producers to the effect that they should produce more pineapples, but I really think the hon. member should be fair: If canning factories encourage the farmers to produce more pineapples, he can surely not simply accept that this is a guarantee which the Government has given. The hon. member must not make such submissions. I have always liked the hon. member. He is not such a bad chap. But the difficulty is that the hon. member simply makes submissions which are not quite in line with the truth. The hon. member must not do so and he must be careful that our good relationship is not disturbed.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has alleged that the Minister retains control over the boards and that it often happens that a board recommends a price which the Minister does not accept. That is quite correct. That does happen. But the hon. member must bear the provisions of the Marketing Act in mind. The control board must advise the Minister. The Minister must refer the board’s recommendation to the Marketing Council, the Marketing Council in turn must give its advice; and then the Minister must decide on the price. I do want to tell the hon. member that if the Minister were always to accept the recommendations of the boards for price increases, many of our agricultural commodities to-day would be faced with far greater difficulties than they actually are. Then the losses which the boards suffered on meat, which is bought in under the scheme, would have been far greater and a far greater contribution would have been required from the producer. Thus the Minister has power over the boards, which Parliament has given him, because he must render account to Parliament. He must ensure that he can justify his actions when the price is increased. It therefore happens that a board sometimes recommends an unduly high price. It also happens that a board recommends a price and the price entails a tremendous subsidy by the State. It recommends a price, but it recommends in addition that the State should subsidize a certain amount. It can happen that the State is not prepared to subsidize the product under the circumstances, and for that reason the price cannot be accepted. The hon. member for Karoo has discussed the granting of permits for butcheries and bakeries to Coloureds in Coloured areas. It is the generally accepted policy of the Government that each racial group should be given the best service possible in its own area. If such an application is received, the board must of course go into it and decide whether there is not over-trading, etc. It has always been the policy to grant butchers’ licences to Coloureds in their own areas as far as possible. I have often been reproached for granting registration as a butcher to a Coloured in his own area over and above the board’s recommendations. But in the case of bakeries the position is a little more difficult because the largest proportion of the workers in the baking industry, are after all Coloureds, whether the bakery is owned by a White or a Coloured who in turn is merely financed by some large miller or other (this is after all the pattern found in the case of bakeries). It is usually Coloureds who are employed in the bakeries. And if there is overtrading in the industry, this forces up the costs because sales then decline. For this reason the board acts with the utmost caution in order to prevent the price of bread rising unduly. It strives to keep the price as far as possible within the means of all population groups and not to allow so many bakeries that an unnecessary increase in costs is caused. However, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that as far as I am concerned, my attitude is always that wherever we can do so, we should like to grant registration to Coloureds, nor shall we easily grant registration to a member of another race on the border of such an area because we do not want any exploitation.

The hon. member has referred to the chinchillas. I want to assure the hon. member that in the case of the importation of chinchillas, where the permits are granted on the recommendation of my Department, we refused in the first instance to recommend the granting of permits to companies. We did this particularly because we preferred to grant permits to individual persons who made application, and secondly because we were not certain whether the industry would be able to become a stable industry in this country. Later larger companies entered the field, which is perhaps a good thing in certain respects because one cannot have a chinchilla industry in one’s lounge, as many housewives in Pretoria and the Rand were told, namely that they should buy two chinchillas which would cost them R300 per pair, and within a few years they would be wealthy. The price paid for the skins is only between approximately R7 and R20, and hon. members can work out for themselves, if a chinchilla has a litter of three each year, how long it will take for one to recoup one’s capital investment. But it is clear to us that when this type of farming is undertaken on the correct basis and when a large amount of capital can be invested in it, that is to say, when it can be undertaken on a large scale, there are possibilities for making a success of it. There are two ways in which chinchillas can be bred. The one is like the human being—it has one wife, like most people of course have. Some have more! There are companies which operated in our country and which told their clients that they could only keep chinchillas in pairs. In other words, one had to have a male for every female, and they then asked a high price for such a pair. They went further and told the people that one could not inbreed chinchillas, as in the case of other animals, because their condition would deteriorate with the result that one always had to introduce new blood. The position was that such a person then bought the chinchillas from the companies. He delivered the live chinchillas to the company which were then slaughtered and he was paid for the skins. This did not seem to me to be quite right either, with the result that we then granted permits to companies on application being made privately by individuals through them. But, as the hon. member has asked, we sent a pamphlet to every person in which he was told about all these problems which have been experienced in America. Whether the pamphlets reached the persons who made application, I cannot say. But we have received reports on this matter from our Agricultural Attache in America and also from the American Department of Agriculture and others. These reports all indicate that, as most people in our country are already doing, it is not necessary to have a male for every female, but that for breeding purposes one can have eight to ten females for each male which of course makes the investment far smaller and of course reduces the necessity for compelling breeders to introduce new blood. I do believe that there are circumstances under which, by means of a large capital investment and the use of the correct equipment, a success can be made of this type of farming. But I also believe that this “franchised” system of selling, as the hon. member for Karoo has said, has every possibility of becoming a “racket”. We have therefore decided that we are not going to grant companies any further import permits until they have proved that this industry can be a success in South Africa. The company which can prove that it has sold skins and that its prices are such that it can make a success of this industry will be granted a permit; but we are not prepared to grant further import permits to those companies which cannot prove this. I think that will satisfy the hon. member.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) has discussed the unavailability of mealies in certain areas. The hon. member will know of course that mealies are sold through the normal commercial channels. Mealies can be ordered at any time from any agent of the board. It is not the board itself which distributes mealies. The mealies are distributed by the ordinary trade, and if there are places where mealies are un available, it is because the dealers and other persons who are responsible for supplying mealies in those places, have not ordered mealies from the board or its agents either timeously or in sufficient quantities. I do not think it is necessary to appoint a commission of enquiry into this matter. If the persons concerned place their orders timeously, they will be able to obtain the mealies they require for distribution. Of course it always takes a little time, but it would be impossible for the board to have depots throughout the country. There are places where only 100 or 200 bags of mealies may be sold over a long period, and the board would have to have a depot there with a manager, etc. This would entail additional expenditure for the board in order to have the mealies available in such an area with the result that it would mean increased losses to the board, an increased levy on the producers and eventually a lower price. I think the hon. member should advise those people to ask the persons with whom they place their orders to order mealies timeously. They can also buy directly from the agents of the board. They must insist on their having sufficient quantities of mealies available for their clients.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has claimed that before a large levy was imposed on mealies to meet the losses on export mealies, the entrepreneur’s wage on a bag of mealies was lower than that paid in respect of a bag of wheat and that this is the reason why the mealie farmer makes less profit than the wheat farmer. I think the hon. member is quite wrong. It depends on the production per morgen. The hon. member must remember that if the yield in the case of mealies is 12 bags per morgen, and 8.5 or 9 bags in the case of wheat, the mealie farmer with a lower price is still making a bigger profit per morgen. But I shall now give the hon. member a very simple example so that she herself can calculate whether it has hitherto paid better to produce wheat or mealies. The hon. member can go to the best wheat producing areas in the Western Province and she can take the land prices paid there and compare them with the land prices in the mealie areas. She need not even take the best areas. She can see for herself which of the prices is the highest. A farmer after all does not pay a price for land if it is not remunerative for him to buy that land. There the hon. member has a very good example. The hon. member can make the comparison herself; I do not want to give her the figures now.

The hon. member has also discussed the importation of beans. Beans have been imported from time to time, particularly the haricot beans for canning purposes. These beans have been imported because the factories could not obtain sufficient supplies locally. During the years to which the hon. member has referred, beans were imported without my Department making a recommendation. The reason for this was that many of the importers were no longer importing certain consumer goods which they had imported in the past because these goods were being manufactured locally with the result that they used their consumer goods permits to import beans. The beans regarding which the hon. member has quoted the figures for the year 1958-9 entered the country in that way. In the meantime this has been stopped and the beans can no longer enter the country in this way. Beans can still be imported, but not in that way. The hon. member will understand that if there is a shortage and there are too few beans to meet the demand of the factories for canning and other purposes, it would be foolish of the Government to refuse to allow importation. The hon. member will also understand that if consumers prices shoot up because there is a shortage, the Government will also have to take steps to make beans available in order to keep the cost of living within limits. That is self-evident.

I should now like to say a few words about the criticisms put forward by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) regarding the International Wool Secretariat’s Report in which they say that they want to encourage the processing of wool in India and other Eastern countries. The hon. member has asked whether we are going to spend our money for this purpose. I find it very strange that the hon. member has asked such a question. He says that the Chairman of the Wool Board now travels more in the East than he travelled. But the hon. member also travelled to the East on a few occasions …

Once.

And then he returned and made the accusation against this Government that it was due to its policy that no markets could be found for our wool in those parts of the world. We remember the speech he made at Queenstown. It was just before he joined the United Party. He was apparently already a “Sap” but he did not know it himself yet. The hon. member accused the Government in that speech of not trying to find a market for our wool in the East, and now he is asking to-day whether we are going to help the Indians in order to expand our wool market there. When the hon. member was not yet a member of this House, he made the accusation against us that it was due to our policy that we did not have a market for wool in those areas, because our colour policy was in conflict with the beliefs of those people. But now the hon. member urges that we should not co-operate with the International Wool Board because they want to use part of the funds which we contribute for advertising in India and the Eastern countries. He now urges that we should not make funds available for that purpose in order to expand our wool markets. I think that if the hon. member would consider the matter further, he will see for himself that he has moved a long way from the attitude which he has always upheld. After the hon. member’s Queenstown speech, I thought he would welcome it that we are going to assist the Indians to process wool so that we can sell more wool to them, or else I cannot see why he made that speech. Something else which I cannot understand, if that is his attitude, is how he could eventually join the United Party.

Then I also want to say a few words about the remarks of the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan). He has asked whether we will not use our influence with the Deciduous Fruit Board to persuade them to devote more money to advertising in Europe. I want to tell the hon. member that the Deciduous Fruit Board is already doing so to a certain extent. During the year 1960-1 the amount spent in the United Kingdom totalled R211,549 and the amount spent in Europe R29,401. This year the Board has made provision for the spending of R250,000 in the United Kingdom and R80,000 in Europe. I therefore want to give the hon. member the assurance that the Deciduous Fruit Board is to an ever increasing extent, becoming aware of the importance of advertising in Europe as well.

The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) has referred to the Coloureds. I am prepared to tell the hon. member that we shall also make the arrangements which have been made in those areas applicable to the other areas where Coloured farmers find themselves in the same position. What we would, of course, prefer to see is that where there is a large community, they should have their own organizations. But I realize that there are areas where this cannot be done.

Now I also want to say a few words about meat, to which hon. members have referred. Various hon. members, including the hon. members for East London (City), King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) and others have referred to the meat position. The hon. member for King William’s Town has submitted, as proof that the Minister does not always accept the board’s recommendations, that the floor prices were completely out of proportion to the average price at the time when an increase of 2s. 6d. was granted. He has said that the average price was completely out of proportion to the floor price which had been fixed during that period. I just want to give the hon. member the comparative figures. In 1961 the average floor price, that is to say, after the seasonal premium had been added, was R11.63 per 100 lbs. The average auction price was R12.18 per 100 lbs. In other words, the average floor price was 95 per cent of the average auction price during that period. In 1962 the average floor price was R11.75, together with the additional 25c. At that time the average auction price was R12.18, with the result that the average floor price during that period was 96 per cent of the average auction price. But during this year there were relatively long periods during which the floor prices, if they had been increased by more than 25c, would have been considerably higher than the auction prices. One simply cannot offer more than that average price because otherwise we would undermine the whole object of the auction system. Then we would be going back to an absolutely fixed price such as we had in the past.

The hon. member for East London (City) has referred to the export of sheep carcases to Rhodesia. These were, of course, sheep carcases which the Meat Board had bought in at the floor prices and which were then kept in the refrigeration chambers and not sold on the auctions. In 1961 3,973 sheep carcases were sold in Rhodesia at an average price of 9.3c per lb. During January and March 1962 2,700 carcases were sold at a net price of 9.5c per lb. I must once again remind hon. members that these were chilled sheep carcases. During this year the price obtained in Rhodesia has been 10c per lb. The hon. member has asked why the surplus mutton is being exported to Rhodesia at these prices. But these prices are still higher than we could obtain overseas. The hon. member is probably unaware of the fact that Australia can deliver mutton in Rhodesia at a price lower than 10c per lb., and if we were to ask more than 10c per lb., we would not be able to sell our meat. Then Australia would sell its mutton to Rhodesia.

The price is 10.5c.

10c is the price we are now obtaining in Rhodesia. If we do not supply it at that price, Australia would supply the meat and then we would have the same position as we had with out butter. Rhodesia took a large proportion of our butter; she obtained nearly all her butter from us. This year we have lost part of our butter sales in Rhodesia precisely as a result of competition from Australia. I just want to point out to hon. members that when we speak of a fixed price, particularly for mutton, it is not so easy to obtain a higher price for export meat. The hon. member will understand that if Australia can supply meat to Rhodesia at 10c per lb., how much more easily she can supply meat for 10c per lb. to the Middle East.

I should now like to say a few more words about meat. Hon. members have said that it was incorrect to abolish the permit system because this has resulted in the market being over-supplied. I wonder whether hon. members have ever taken the trouble to draw comparisons between the permit period and the period during which the permit system has been abolished, in order to see to what extent the markets were over-supplied during the corresponding periods—i.e. when there were one or more holiday days in a week. If they make such comparisons, they will find that under the permit system exactly the same position arose. Hon. members also forget that the total number of sheep and cattle supplied is more than it was a year or two ago, and that the markets must therefore receive more. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) has said that we have introduced a quota system and that we have transferred the responsibility to the agents. He says the Minister and the board are now shifting the responsibility onto the agents. But, Mr. Chairman, must the agent then have no responsibility in this regard? It is true that in the past the agents had no responsibilities and that is why there was such a ready flow of stock to the markets. The only aspect in which the agent was interested—and I would have done the same if I were he—was simply to see how much commission he could earn during a particular period. He had the protection of the floor price. He knew that the board would buy in at the floor price and he could at least obtain his commission on the floor price. The result was that he had all the protection in the world. The more stock he could bring in at the floor price, the bigger his commission. If he must provide that service, let us give him the responsibility, and that is what the quota system now does. The quota system vests the agent with the responsibility of ensuring that the market is properly controlled. But I want to repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I believe that this quota system which has been introduced can only be a temporary measure which can prevent, particularly on holidays, congestion at the markets. If we keep stock away from the markets by means of the quota system or by means of a permit system or by whatever means, that stock must be somewhere; they do not disappear into thin air. Then they pile up outside the controlled area. Then only one of two things can be done with that stock. They can be placed on the market in the uncontrolled area and sold there at a lower price or they must pile up. That is of course what will happen and such a position will develop that farmers will eventually be dissatisfied. We have that position to-day. We have introduced the quota system but we have left the market at Port Elizabeth open and to-day there is such congestion at Port Elizabeth that the Railways have given instructions that no more stock can be sent to Port Elizabeth. In other words, we must also introduce the quota system there. The further one extends the quota system, the more the product piles up outside. Thus we shall eventually have the position that the quota system will not work either. I have already given the reason, to which I want to refer the hon. member for East London City. It is because the facilities are not available. It is not a question of the facilities having become less over the years or of our not having been able to meet the requirements for years past. This is a position which has arisen over the past year or two or 18 months. It is expensive to provide facilities. Abattoirs such as the one we have in Cape Town cost a few million rand. The one at Port Elizabeth cost a few million rand. It is essential when we make facilities available that we should institute a thorough investigation as to where the abattoir should be situated, who must control it, and who must bear the costs. I already appointed a commission last year to carry out that investigation. I hope that we shall receive their report in the near future. I do not know what they are going to recommend but it is quite possible that they will recommend that a different method of control should be instituted. I just want to refer hon. members to another factor. If we erect a new abattoir in an area such as Johannesburg or Pretoria, it means that the cost involved in such an abattoir will be two or three times that of the old abattoir. If we erect a new abattoir at Germiston for example, how many farmers will send their stock to that abattoir where it will cost him R1.70 or R1.80 per head while the cost at the old Johannesburg market is 85c per head? It is obvious that in such a case we shall have to devise a method whereby the costs will be equitably distributed amongst the various abattoirs; otherwise the one will always be more attractive than the other. For this reason I repeat that our main problem in connection with meat is the facilities at our abattoirs. A very big question which is linked to this matter is who should provide those facilities, particularly the facilities to meet consumption over and above the normal consumption of the town or city concerned; who must pay for the abattoir; and who must exercise control; that is to say, the facilities needed in respect of that portion which is normally exported.

The hon. member for East London City has said that in my first speech I said that we should develop the local market but that I did not refer to the foreign markets. The hon. member is incorrect. I referred to all the boards which sent missions abroad from time to time to encourage the sale of our products on overseas markets. During the last few years we have started to export meat because we have also had surpluses of that product. Just for the information of hon. members I want to give a few figures. We have exported 11 consignments of frozen boned beef—these were carcasses which had been bought in by the board. The results achieved by six consignments are already known. Of these consignments two were exported at a small profit of .6c and 2.2c. Four have been exported at a loss of, respectively, 1.4c, .9c, 2.6c and 3.7c. The average loss, Mr. Chairman, on these beef consignments has been plus minus 2c per lb., which relatively speaking is not high when we take into account that this represents a very small percentage of the total sales on our markets. We have developed a scheme whereby we export young carsasses without sending them to the markets. Eleven consignments of such young super grade carcasses, the figures in respect of three of which have already been received, have been exported. An average loss of less than lc has been suffered. I merely mention this to show that I think there is a possibility that we can sell our surplus beef on the overseas markets at reasonable prices, although those prices are lower than the local guaranteed prices. However, when we come to mutton, the hon. member will understand that if we have to sell mutton at 10c per lb. in Rhodesia, what will happen to larger quantities of our meat on the European markets. There is therefore very little possibility of selling mutton on the overseas markets at anything like a remunerative or reasonable price.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have now answered all the questions and representations by hon. members. I want to thank hon. members for not having been too unreasonable in their criticisms, although sometimes they have been a little unrealistic.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 38.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing (General),” R34,700,000 put and agreed to.

Vote No. 39.—“State Advance Recoveries Office,” R335,000, put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

On Vote No. 41,—“Labour”, R6,314,000,

May I claim the privilege of the half-hour? We are to-day dealing with the Vote of a new Minister of Labour, a Minister who is responsible for carrying out the policy of the Government, a policy, Sir, to which the Minister did not subscribe, apparently, until after he was asked to become a member of the Cabinet. For that reason I think we are entitled to ask the Minister to tell us exactly how he intends to implement the policy of the Government, and particularly how he intends to meet the problems of the working people, as well as some of the major problems of South Africa itself which are affected by the policy of the Department of Labour. I think one can truthfully say that it is a mark of the South African society to-day that although there are many signs of prosperity in the country as a whole, yet the wage-earner and the salaried man are having a hard time. Indeed, it can be stated on authority that increases in our national income are not enought to maintain the standard of living of our increasing population in the face of the steady decline in the value of our money. It seems that the policy of this Government, as of many other Governments in the world, is to accept a situation of creeping inflation as part of the financial control of the State. There is seeming prosperity, but the salaried people and the wage-earners do not share in that prosperity. Sir, there is dramatic evidence of the truth of that statement in South Africa to-day. Perhaps the most dramatic of all is the fact that last year no fewer than 600,000 summonses for debt were issued in South Africa, and 96,000 summonses for debt on the Witwatersrand alone. This means one summons for every two families in South Africa. I do not think that any Government can be proud of that situation, and no Government can fairly claim that we are a prosperous community when the people of South Africa are either unable to pay their debts, or else are encouraged to incur obligations which they cannot discharge in order to keep the wheels of commerce and industry turning.

The second piece of evidence which no one can deny is that although there seems to be a slight improvement in the employment situation in recent months there are still some important pockets of unemployment. I think especially of the building trade. A great many people are eagerly looking for jobs which do not exist, and many people are subject to privation and difficulty. A survey by the University of Natal has indicated that to-day one out of five of the Indian work-seekers of Natal are unemployed, and it has also been calculated that no fewer than 100,000 of the Bantu people who want to work cannot find work. Of course, our unemployment figures are completely phoney, to use an American word, because they are limited to registered unemployed among the Whites, Coloureds and Asians only, and ignore any other unemployed who are not registered, and it completely ignores the unemployed amongst the Bantu.

There is another piece of evidence I want to quote. In the January issue of the magazine “Agricon” the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing wrote an article in which he related that for many years, as long as the United Party was in power, there was every year an increase in the per capita consumption of most agricultural products in South Africa. Even allowing for an annual increase in the population of 2 per cent, there was still an increase in the consumption of agricultural products. But from 1953 onwards that position changed, and the Secretary writes that from then, from 1952-3, the per capita consumption of most forms of agricultural products remain relatively stationary, and in some cases even declined. If anyone can allege that the people of South Africa on the whole are well-fed and that there is no malnutrition, he may give the explanation that that is because people do not need more food. But the truth of the position is that our own population should be able to consume many thousands of extra tons of food products before we can claim that our people are properly nourished; and yet the consumption of most agricultural products is stationary or shows a decline.

Another piece of evidence is what is happening to our retail trade. According to the Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics of the Reserve Bank for March this year, one finds that the value of retail sales has increased from 1957 to last year from a figure of 112 to 115, if one takes 1953 as being 100, i.e. an increase by 3 points, a very small increase indeed. And it is very doubtful that there was any real increase at all, because if one looks at the previous page of this bulletin, the indices of prices, we find that the average price of retail goods in South Africa in the same period, again taking 1953 as 100, rose from 110 to 119.2—9.2 points. In other words, the price of retail goods has risen faster than the consumption. In other words, people are consuming fewer goods. In any advanced country, where there is an increase in the income of the ordinary people, the consumption of consumer goods increases; but it does not happen in South Africa, and that can only mean one thing—that the real income per capita of our people is not keeping pace with the creeping inflation which is still current in South Africa.

Now, what is the Government’s answer to this? It takes two directions. In one direction the Government tries to spread whatever butter it has for the relief of the difficulties of these people even more thinly. The limited resources to cope with this difficulty are spread further, so that there are less resources available for the relief of people. We had a striking example of this in this House recently when the Minister came with amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to make the resources of that fund go further at the expense of the workers by decreasing the benefits granted to the unemployed. The other reply of the Government is to throw up their hands in surprise and to say: “How can you say that people are having a difficult time? Look how prosperous the country is. Look at how the Reserve Bank reserves are soaring. The reached an all-time low last year, and now they are approaching a record of nearly R400,000,000.” But the Minister, in considering the position of the ordinary man, should ask himself, and should answer audibly for all of us to hear, whether those reserves would be so high in a free economy. Secondly, he should tell us this: What earthly use are reserves in the Central Bank of South Africa to the man who has no money in his pocket? If I had £100 invested in a successful enterprise in South Africa, and I suddenly lost confidence in it, although it was still paying me 10 per cent interest, and I sell my shares in that enterprise and put my £100 in my pocket, and hold it in reserve, am I a wealthier man, and am I more prosperous? Yet this is the sort of answer we get from the Government when we point out that the ordinary man is having a difficult time. There is only one answer, and the Minister should give it to us to-day. What will the Department of Labour do to assist to bring about a state of affairs which is essential and necessary to the people of South Africa if we are to continue to be known as a prosperous country, in which the ordinary people share in the prosperity of the country? For that purpose we must have an expanding economy, expanding fast enough to give employment to a growing population and to ensure rising minimum living standards. I am glad to see that there are signs that the Government is aware of this essential need. We have heard it announced by the Minister of Economic Affairs that at least in the Government sector there are vast plans for establishing new productive enterprises, vast plans for the expansion of Iscor, Escom, Foskor, etc., which are excellent and which will enjoy the full support of this side of the House. At the same time we have had the announcement, after 14 wasted years, that the Orange River Scheme will now be tackled, with modifications, it is true, and that in the years to come some R400,000,000 will be spent on that scheme. But the Minister of Labour should tell us whether he believes that South Africa in the present circumstances, and in the light of the laws that obtain there, can find the essential skilled labour which will be required to put all those wonderful plans into practice, to the advantage of the people of South Africa. The limiting factor in the development of South Africa, even when the Government is willing to pour millions of rand into semi-public enterprises, quasi-socialist enterprises, is that we require skilled hands and brains to do the work [Interjections.] I shall be interested to hear that in future the plans for the enlargement of Iscor will be abandoned by the Government and left to private enterprise. If that is what the hon. member for Vereeniging is insinuating, let him get up and say so. But at the moment the intention is that these should be Government enterprises, the capital for which will be provided by the Government, and the Government will be the principal shareholder, and therefore I say they are similar to socialist enterprises. At the present there is not the confidence in the Government to give the stimulus and to create expansion necessary to maintain our people; therefore we say that in these circumstances these activities of the Government are to be welcomed, but where will the skilled hands come from to do the work? Our trouble in South Africa of course is that we have only 3,000,000 White people, and from them we have to find all the executive, administrative, cultural, commercial and industrial leadership for a community of 12,000,000, and the other 9,000,000 people are precluded by a great many restrictions from doing their share in supplying the skills that we require. That is our fundamental problem; we do not have enough White men to carry out the policy of the Government, and it is having its effect all over. I find, for example, that Prof. Prinsloo, Head of the Department of Physics at the Pretoria University, says that there is a crying shortage of mathematics and science teachers in South Africa, and that this acute shortage could cripple the Republic. We find a similar cry from Mr. A. J. van Rooyen in his presidential address at the Tenth Conference of the Federation of Societies of Inspectors of Schools. He also complains about the declining quality of the teachers in our schools because of the shortage of personnel. In the same company is the chairman of African Explosives, one of the biggest enterprises in South Africa, an enterprise the success of which is important at this moment to everyone in South Africa, because this is the enterprise which will have to supply most of the arms for our extended defence plans since we have been ousted from the Commonwealth. What does Mr. Oppenheimer say? This is what he says in his chairman’s addressȄ

That is another answer to the story about our wonderful reserves. What is the use of having all that money available? It is useless unless it is used by people, either for purposes of consumption or for production. The fact is that we do not have enough people with the necessary skills to undertake this work. And while that is the position, the Minister is responsible for carrying out a policy which is most wasteful of the existing skills in South Africa. I want to give one example. Under the administration of Clause 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, Coloured people in the clothing industry who did certain skilled work at 1 December last year are automatically exempt from the Minister’s order excluding them from that industry, but if for any reason they leave those jobs they cannot be re-employed in an occupation where they can use their skills without the special permission of the Minister. Thus we have the case of a Mr. Arthur Lothian, who is a skilled cutter in the clothing industry. He recently left his job because he could not get on with his employer. According to reports in the Press of 22 May, we are told that factory owners would like to employ him because they cannot find Whites to do the work. He has been offered work at R9 a week instead of the R35 to which he is entitled because of his skill. We read that Mr. J. H. Thomas, the general secretary of the clothing industry industrial council, said—

That is said in a country where shortage of skill may be the retarding factor in the necessary development of our economy and the maintenance of the standard of living of our people.

The Government uses the Industrial Tribunal to report upon the need for job reservation. The Tribunal recently reported on the necessity for job reservation in the textile industry, and it is so interesting that I would like to read it to the House. The Tribunal says—

The general impression given by this report is that there are not enough White people to justify job reservation in that particular industry.

No, that was not the impression at all. The impression given is that the Whites do not like that type of employment.

If we must now resort to quibbles, the Minister is welcome to it.

No, really.

No, I read out this extract which said that White employees were scarce and the labour force could not be maintained. If White people do not like to work in a particular industry, must they now be compelled to work in it by the Government’s race prejudice? [Interjections.] If it is the desire of people not to work in an industry when other work is available, that is no reason to force them to work in it. I agree that in this particular industry the employers cannot find White workers who are willing to work in that industry, because they do not want to work. They are not willing to work there. They cannot find enough workers in that industry, because White workers do not want to work there. [Interjections.] Is the Minister going to change his mind again?

No, but what I am going to do is to give the hon. member the full report.

Since the time this clause was discussed in the House, it was said that employment in the clothing industry was not popular with Whites. If they can find work in another industry they will take it, and the Coloureds are only too grateful to work in this industry; yet the Minister puts the Tribunal to work to see whether they cannot apply job reservation in that industry. It is ridiculous in a country with a shortage of workers. [Interjections.] If this is not true, why was the Minister of Labour also put in charge of a new portfolio, the Department of Immigration, against the Government’s professed policy for the 12 years since they have been in power? For 12 years we were told that to bring immigrants into this country would take the bread from the mouths of Afrikaner children, but at last the Government has been forced to admit the correctness of the United Party policy, that we need more White people.

Your are discussing the next Vote now.

I am asking the Minister of Immigration what the Minister of Labour would do to meet this shortage of skilled workers. One of the possible answers is of course immigration. Fortunately he is also the Minister of Immigration. I want to tell him at once that immigration will not give him the answer. They have missed the bus. The opportunity has gone.

You would know best what it means to miss the bus.

Order! I would like the hon. member to confine himself to labour. I have allowed him to touch on immigration, but he should not go further.

I want to make the point that even with immigration it will still be necessary to find skills amongst our own population. Immigrants will not be the solution. When an immigrant comes in to do a skilled job, he creates a demand for skilled jobs in other spheres, such as housing, teaching, etc. Immigration will mean, contrary to what the Government has always held, not that there will be fewer jobs but more jobs which will have to be filled. We still want to know from the Government what it is going to do when we have only 3,000,000 people in South Africa to supply the leadership and the skills which are necessary to maintain an expanding economy and to make possible increasing standards of living, or at least to maintain present standards of living for all our people.

I can see only one way in which the Government seems to be toying with the idea. In a statement issued by the Prime Minister’s office last year, it was announced that one of the inducements the Government would offer to entrepreneurs who wanted to establish their factories away from the present industrial areas (not to decentralize for ordinary economic reasons to places like Ventersdorp or Alberton or the Free State) to go to the borders of the reserves, one of the inducements would be that they would be allowed to employ people there at wages lower than those determined for the existing industrial areas, and apparently also that job reservation would not be applied against employers in those areas. In other words, the Government’s idea of meeting the difficulty I have stated is to break down the protections that exist for the workers in the existing industrial areas in order to further the impossible ideological policies of the Government, of making our industries in White South Africa dependent on the labour of Black South Africa. That will result in lowering the standard of living of the White people in the existing industrial areas. I hope the Minister has been Minister of Labour long enough to realize what this policy which he helped us to fight, until recently, will lead to. I can remember from personal experience the days when Germiston was the centre of the clothing industry in South Africa, and when some 4,000 White women were employed there, but as the result of the Government’s policy of allowing decentralized industries to under-cut those industries and to pay sweated wages, there are only 400 women left in the Germiston clothing factories. The Minister must give us the assurance that this will not happen under the Government’s policy of encouraging border industries, and that the same process will not be repeated in the case of other industries, and that the rate for the job will be applied in all the border industries to ensure that employees in those border industries doing the same work as employees in the existing industrial complexes will be paid the same wages and that there will not be, as in the case of Charlestown, the under-cutting of wages, which should not be tolerated in a state which claims to be civilized.

One should have thought that the hon. member who is regarded as an authority on labour matters on that side, would have made a speech to-day truly dealing with labour, but here the hon. member for Yeoville has made a speech that introduced just about anything, and he referred to a number of matters that are completely out of touch with realities. One comes to the conclusion that things are going so well with the Department of Labour and labour in South Africa, that they cannot make a speech to-day without collecting a whole lot of generalities and then relieving themselves of it upon the Labour Vote. We admit that during the previous few years there has been a period of slackness, but this Government took the necessary measures to deal with it and to protect the workers who were unemployed, particularly in the clothing industry. The Government took steps to give the necessary stimulus to our economy so that our economy could expand. The hon. member says he admits that there is a revival at the present time. It is the work of the Government in giving that stimulus. But as the Government made these plans, we may ask to-day what those hon. members did to help to make South Africa economically prosperous, and what their Press did to make South Africa prosperous when we were in difficulties. Let us say clearly that it was not only South Africa that was in difficulties during recent years. Even America and England experienced a period of economic recession. Now the hon. member comes along and he says that the people no longer have any money in their pockets; that so many summonses are being issued against the people, and he says that while knowing that our savings in South Africa are of the highest in the world. The savings that are taking place in South Africa to-day are about 30 per cent. I do not have the figure here but I think in the year 1959-60 the savings were 29 per cent. That is a colossal amount; it is one of the highest in the world, and then the hon. member comes along and says people do not have money in their pockets. I should very much like hon. members opposite to tell us what their policy is. We know that in South Africa we have a shortage of executive proficiency; we have a shortage of people who can manage; we have a shortage of technicians, but there is such a shortage not only in South Africa. The same shortage is found in England and in America at the present time. In England the British Government has now taken steps with a view to repatriating the people who emigrated from England to America, by all kinds of means. On the other hand I wish to say also that the Government is also facing this problem—and I do not wish to refer to immigration now; we shall discuss immigration later when the Vote is called. But I wish to know what is their policy. The hon. member says there are too few Whites. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and any member opposite prepared to rise and to say that they are willing to allocate the higher posts in White industry to non-Whites to a greater and greater extent? I shall come to the higher posts in non-White industries just now. If you draw the logical inference from the speech of the hon. member, you must conclude that they are prepared to train the non-Whites to occupy executive or technical positions, and I shall be very pleased to be informed whether that is the policy of the United Party.

What is this Government doing? There is no Government that has done more to give the Bantu themselves, and the Coloureds and the Indians an opportunity to develop. There is plenty of proof that as a result of the attempts made by the Government by means of its Wage Board and by other means, the wages of the non-Whites have risen in the country. I have here a cutting from the Star of April 1962, and in this Mr. Mentz, chairman of the Native Labour Council says that the wages of the Bantu have increased by R21,000,000 during the past three years. There is plenty of evidence that the wages are rising and that plans are being made to cause wages to rise. I am not saying that wages have increased sufficiently, but the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly urged industries to co-operate in order to increase Bantu wages. Even as regards these things, more and more opportunities are being afforded to the non-Whites to occupy higher posts in their own areas and in their own vicinity and among their own people—much more than the previous Government ever did. That is why I am saying I should like to know whether they want to continue the policy this Government is pursuing now, and whether it is becoming their policy to give the non-Whites an opportunity to occupy executive and technical positions in the White industries. If they say there are too few Whites, then they must tell us what they intend doing. If then we have missed the bus, as they say, if there are no people to bring into the country, then the question still remains what they will do if they were to be returned to power (which will never happen) to solve this problem.

The hon. member made great play of the large number of unemployed non-Whites. But that is a state of affairs that has existed for as long as South Africa has been an industrial country. The unemployment among Indians that existed under the United Party government, is a problem the Government is now trying to solve, or in any event they are trying to improve the position. There has been unemployment among the Bantu throughout the years; there has never been a period of full employment among the Bantu, and the same applies to Coloureds. But that is not as a result of the Government’s policy; it is as a result of the position that has always existed in South Africa; and to come along now and blame the Government for it is to create an entirely wrong impression in the country outside. That is why I say that the hon. member is now raking together everything he can lay his hands upon to find arguments to use in this debate, arguments that have no regard to the facts that exist in South Africa. He refers to the 400 women who are working in the clothing factories in Germiston. It is a difficult matter to find Whites at the wages that are being paid in the clothing industry to-day. It has been proved time and again that whenever an industry is occupied by non-Whites, the Whites leave. The White woman no longers wants to work in an industry where a large number of non-Whites are participating with her in the same operations.

But Germiston is the only place where there are no non-Whites employed in the clothing factories.

Oh no, there are non-White employees. It is indeed the place where the largest percentage of Whites are employed, and it is the place where the highest wages in the country are being paid, for the very reason that they are trying to keep their Whites, but even that is not sufficient to keep the White women working in those factories, because they prefer to go to other spheres of employment. I wish to tell hon. members opposite that by means of job reservation we are trying to prevent the Whites being ousted by the non-Whites, for it is a natural process that is found in South Africa at the present time. If in any trade you begin to permit a number of non-Whites to do the same work that is being done by Whites, the Whites abandon that trade and then it becomes a non-White trade. That is the position in the textile industry to which he referred also. The textile industry has been non-White for years because the wages paid in the textile industry are too low for the Whites. That is why you cannot attract White workers to the textile industry, and because the textile industry forms the basis for our Clothing Industry, we cannot permit the prices of our textiles to become too high either. That is why the textile industry is to-day regarded as a non-White industry, and that is why it is useless to come along and say that no Whites are found in that industry, and that is the reason also why a job reservation determination has not been made applicable to the textile industry. The Government is doing its duty to protect the worker of South Africa in the first place, as regards his wages, in order to promote the economy; in the second place to increase the wages in a natural manner within the paying capacity of the industry; and in the third place, to protect the Whites against penetration of the non-Whites into their own spheres of employment. [Time limit.]

We have listened to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. v. d. Walt) attempting to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and I think it is significant that he has not been able to make any impression on the committee in his reply to the points raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. This question of job reservation and the protection which it offers to a section of the working population is one which, I think, we have to examine very closely. I think to begin with we have to be quite clear what the policy of the Nationalist Party is in relation to job reservation. I think that we can describe it in this way, that it is a policy designed to prevent inter-racial competition, that it is a policy designed to protect the White worker against a non-European who may be paid less than a European in a particular work or industry. That, I think, is what the aim and object of job reservation is. In those industries where there was that danger in the past, the principle of the Industrial Conciliation Act is that there should be no discrimination based on colour in respect of wages paid. So what was the problem that we had? The problem was that there were certain employers who were not prepared to pay the same rate to the non-European as was laid down in the industrial conciliation agreement for White workers. Or, to put it in another way, the wage agreement arrived at resulted in a basic wage being accepted; many employers were paying more than that basic wage to the Europeans, but other employers were paying less than the enhanced rate paid to Europeans, with the result that there appeared to be an imbalance; there appeared to be inter-racial competition. Why? Because there were not enough Europeans to do the work, and those who were available were paid more than the agreement laid down in order to induce them to remain in that employment. It was under those conditions that we had non-Europeans employed not only at a rate less than that agreed to by the union but at the basic rate, competing with Europeans who were being paid more than the basic rate. That is what we had, and the Government introduced job reservation in an attempt to prevent that from happening. But what have we got developing now? I want to know what the Government’s policy is in this regard. We are not getting interracial competition where wage conditions are under the control of Industrial Council agreements; what we are getting now is interracial competition in that way. Here I should like to quote what the Minister said in the Other Place, as reported in the workers’ magazine, The Metal Worker, which is the new name of the old magazine which is known to us all. In its edition of May 1962 there is a report of what was stated by the Minister of Labour in the Other Place on 20 March of this year. He is reported to have stated that “his policy in regard to wage regulation in the border areas is as follows …” I want to quote the second point which is made here—

In carrying out that policy, what is the Minister actually doing? He is creating inter-racial competition between the Bantu who are employed in the Bantu areas and the workers who are employed under a different wage-regulating machinery in the European areas. The Minister has been asked to meet deputations to deal with this problem and he has refused. He has said that there is no point in meeting him to discuss it. I want to ask the Minister why he adopted that attitude. What is the purpose of it? Then, Sir, I want to quote an article which appeared in the Natal Mercury of Wednesday, 7 March 1962—

I ask the Minister why he does not meet these people and explain what the policy is and hear the case that they have to present to him, because the information which is given here is that a learner in the industry employed at Hammarsdale receives R3.25 and in Durban R4.13; that a machinist (male) after five years receives R8 at Hammersdale and R11.14 after four years in Durban; and that a machinist (female) after four years receives R7 at Hammarsdale and R9.90 after three years in Durban. Sir, this is in respect of one industry, the clothing industry, but there is also this problem facing the industrialist in another industry. This is what was reported in the Sunday Express of 18 March 1962—

Here are two illustrations of how the Government’s policy of job reservation in respect of those who are under the umbrella of industrial council agreements, is creating that very problem by not having the same sort of umbrella over these border industries. There, Sir, is your inter-racial competition—the Blacks in the border areas, not directly competing with Europeans in those actual factories but taking away the work from the workers in the European areas where a higher wage is being paid. Under these conditions I say to the Minister: What is the Government’s policy? Where is this thing going to end? I have dealt with only two industries, but if we take the motor industry, we find that the same thing is developing there. There are large motor firms on the Reef who find that cars owned by Europeans are being repaired in the Bantu areas at a much lower cost than in the European areas. And who are the people who are suffering? The people whom the Government claims to protect, the White workers. I say to the Minister that under these conditions it is no wonder that we have an increase in the number of unemployed Whites, and it is no use telling me that the unemployment position is as it is due to factors other than those I have indicated. We have unemployment, and the unemployment as far as Europeans are concerned is amongst the wage group that finds difficulty in obtaining work anywhere. I refer to those over 45 years of age. [Time limit.]

Naturally there is a small degree of unemployment in South Africa. The degree of unemployment in South Africa is almost 2½ per cent, a percentage which in any country in the world would be regarded as full employment. The hon. member says that there is unemployment amongst a section of the workers, namely those over 45 years of age. That is a section which every country experiences difficulty in placing in employment. The unemployment position in South Africa is improving considerably.

Surely the percentage is relative to the population.

Mr. Chairman, listen to that nonsense. The hon. member says that the percentage is relative to the population. Of course the percentage is relative to the population. How could it be otherwise? Two-and-a-half out of a hundred is 25 out of a 1,000, or does the hon. member not know that? Mr. Chairman, I have never heard the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) struggle more than he did here this afternoon to find some point of criticism. What is his criticism? His criticism is that the workers are not sharing in the country’s prosperity. After having been told by that side that a great economic disaster that would overtake this country, the hon. member now comes along and tells us that this country is prosperous but that the workers are not sharing in that prosperity. There can only be one reason for that and that is that wages are too low. Why does the hon. member for Yeoville lack the courage to plead for what he wants? Is he pleading now for an immediate increase in wages? And if that is what he wants to plead for, then he is making his plea to the wrong body. Why does he not make his plea for increased wages to the right people? The most that the Government can do is to fix minimum wages. But surely the hon. member knows that wages throughout South Africa are higher than the minimum wages that have been fixed. Is his plea simply that the Government should increase minimum wages? How would that help the worker? Because the wages of the White workers in South Africa are considerably higher than the minimum wages. The hon. member must not make his plea to this Government and to the Minister of Labour for higher wages; he should make his plea for higher wages to Mr. Harry Oppenheimer; he should make his plea for higher wages to the Chamber of Industries and to the Chamber of Commerce. This is not the place to come and plead for higher wages, because the most that we can do is to fix minimum wages, and the present wages are already considerably higher than the minimum wages. Even if the minimum were increased considerably, it would not put a penny into the pockets of the workers. But if wages are too low and if the people are struggling so much, why are there no strikes for higher wages? When last did we have a strike in South Africa? I want to say this to the hon. member for Yeoville: He can safely leave the determination of wages to the trade unions and to the employers of South Africa. The trade unions in South Africa, both the mine workers’ trade unions and all the other trade unions, have never hesitated for a moment to agitate and to strike for higher wages if they thought that their wages were too low. As the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has indicated, if wages are so low, if the workers have no money in their pockets, where does the money come from in the building societies, which have so much money to-day that their coffers are overflowing?

That was not the position last year.

No, but that is the position to-day. That money which is invested in the building societies has nothing to do with our exchange reserves, because the money in the building societies represents the savings of the salary- and wage-earners. Those are the people who invest their money there. The hon. member talks about the 600,000 summonses which have been issued. Sir, it is high time we realized why those summonses are issued. These summonses are not issued because wages are too low. As I have said, as far as wage determinations are concerned, that is a matter which the politicians can leave to the trade unions and to the employers. The hon. member for Yeoville is only trying to disturb the harmonious relations; he is not going to win a single vote by putting forward that type of plea here. It is high time—and I would seriously urge this upon the Minister—that we read the signs of the times. Why do we have this large number of summonses, which are issued mainly against the workers? The reason why these summonses are issued is the absolutely scandalous and ready way in which credit is given in this country.

The hire-purchase system.

Yes, the hire-purchase system. Mr. Chairman, there are salesmen who sit on the doorsteps of these poor workers and offer them colossal radio sets at a small deposit and low instalments. The same applies to motor-cars. In the main these workers are young people. When I was a young man I also allowed myself to be persuaded by these people and very soon found myself in debt. Mr. Chairman, the question is whether we should continue to place our courts at the service of these people who recklessly offer credit facilities, who give people unnecessary credit, who sell radio sets to people which they know they cannot afford. They all know what the wages of these people are and they can very easily determine how much the purchaser can afford to pay by way of instalments on a washing-machine or a radio. But if the seller wants to enrich himself by giving unnecessary credit to a worker, why should we protect him? We are not protecting the worker. Why should we protect the retailer and the wholesaler and Trust Bank and all these financial institutions which recklessly provide credit facilities to the workers? The only reason for this large number of summonses is the fact that credit is being given to the workers in a reckless fashion. I want to ask the Minister in all seriousness whether he does not think that the time has come to appoint a commission of inquiry to go into this question of the reckless extension of credit facilities to the workers of South Africa.

But this Minister has nothing to do with it.

He could in any case raise the matter with the Government. That is the problem of the workers in this country. This Minister looks after the interests of the workers, and he can definitely initiate this if he wishes to do so, and I am quite convinced that he will do so.

But who decides to buy—the seller or the purchaser?

The buyer decides to buy, but the hon. member knows as well as I do that it is the easiest thing in the world for these clever salesmen to persuade a person to buy something that he does not need, or to buy something much bigger than he needs. I say that too much credit is being given today and that it is being given too readily. I told the workers in Vereeniging this and the trade unions agreed with me. They would be the first people who would welcome it if we put a stop to this unnecessary granting of credit facilities.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana talks about large-scale unemployment, but the whole argument of the hon. member for Yeoville was that there were too few workers in South Africa. It was Mr. Harry Oppenheimer who said the other day that there were “too many jobs chasing too few people”.

He never said such a thing.

I was not quoting that hon. member; I was quoting Harry Oppenheimer. I was quoting the hon. member for Umhlatuzana who talked about excessive unemployment in South Africa, and I then proceeded to quote what Mr. Harry Oppenheimer had said the other day in his annual report to Anglo American, and that is that the position in South Africa is that “too many jobs were chasing too few people”.

He never said anything of the kind.

“Too many jobs chasing too few people.”

No, he said just the opposite. I do not have the report here at the moment otherwise I would go and fetch it for the hon. member. Mr. Harry Oppenheimer said that there were too many jobs for too few people. That is the problem in South Africa, and that was largely the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville. We warned the Government when the Economic Affairs Vote was under discussion here that this was going to be South Africa’s great problem within the next few years. Then the hon. member for Yeoville says that the private sector lacks confidence and that is why it is necessary for socialistic institutions like Iscor, as he puts it, to go in for expansion because the private sector has insufficient confidence. Let me say this to the hon. member for Yeoville: The Government is not providing a penny of the capital that Iscor needs for expansion. Iscor is not borrowing a penny for expansion; every penny that is being spent on expansion comes out of its profits. The hon. member says that the private sector lacks confidence. Does he not read his newspapers? Is he not aware of all the plans for expansion? Is he not aware of the R4,000,000 expansion of the Ford Company in Port Elizabeth? Is he not aware of the Shell Company’s R25,000,000 refinery in Durban? Does he not know about Caltex’s refinery here in Cape Town? Does he not know about the R5,000,000 expansion of the American company at Phalaborwa? Does he not know about the R4,000,000 expansion plans at Tsumeb? Is he not aware of those things? There has never been more confidence in the economy of this country on the part of the private sector than there is at the moment. The only factor that stands in the way of the private sector is the shortage of technicians. It is not a shortage of confidence or a shortage of capital. But I want to come to this other point of criticism. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has a wonderful facility for using facts that suit his own purposes and ignoring the ones that don’t suit him. Now he has made one statement which I must challenge him on immediately, two in fact. The first statement was that he was perfectly content to leave it to trade union organizations to improve the conditions of workers. Of course as far as White persons are concerned, that might be perfectly true. It is no accident that the White workers in this country have indeed had very substantial increases in real wages over the last 15 years. But the hon. member is completely forgetting that as far as the bulk of non-White workers are concerned, that is the African workers, in semi-skilled and unskilled trades, there are no registered trade unions and therefore as far as these people are concerned they are denied all the benefits of collective bargaining. Consequently it is no accident that the wages in the unskilled fields of employment for African workers hardly moved at all in 14 years from the end of the war until 1959. From that stage onwards there have been increases. The Wage Board machinery has been speeded up to a considerable extent and there have been increases. But they certainly have not been enough yet to catch up with the increase in the rising cost-of-living and of course to offset the very obvious low standard of wages, which had obtained right through that 14 year period. That is the first thing. In mentioning one part of the trade union organization, the hon. member completely forgot to mention the non-White workers. The other thing is that he attempted to use the words quoted by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) about Mr. Oppenheimer’s speech at an annual general meeting recently in which he stated that there were too few people chasing too many jobs. I am quite certain that when Mr. Oppenheimer made that speech he was referring of course to skilled workers.

What did Mr. Oppenheimer say?

I remember when the hon. member for Yeoville was speaking it also struck me that this could not mean that there was no unemployment in South Africa. It meant that there were in fact not enough people for skilled jobs, with a result that expansion does not take place at a fast enough rate and that the economy is not keeping up with the demands of an increasing population. There are two factors: The first point is that in fact there is unemployment among semiskilled workers and unskilled workers because the economy is not expanding at a fast enough rate to take up the additional numbers of people who are coming into the employment field; the other problem is a vastly different problem, and that is that South Africa is not producing enough skilled technicians. Therefore we have got unemployment in semiskilled and unskilled fields and we have not enough skilled workers to fill the skilled jobs to promote the expansion that is necessary in the industrial field. The whole question of wages and unemployment is of course highly complicated, too complicated to deal with in ten minutes. It concerns trade union organizations, the need for the recognition of Black trade unions, or multi-racial trade unions, of allowing African workers to come into the whole scope of the Industrial Conciliation Laws; it needs changes in control and mobility of labour. All this is involved, it is not only job reservation which restricts the productivity of our workers. There are many things in this country which deliberately restrict productivity: Influx control which keeps thousands upon thousands of Black workers locked up in uneconomic activities, either in the reserves, or on many White farms, where in fact marginal and sub-marginal White farmers are attempting to employ labour. All that is uneconomic activity. It is not only the Black workers who should be leaving the land. I disagree with what the hon. member for East London (City) (Mr. Moolman) said and that is that we should try and keep as many small farmers on the land as is possible. I don’t agree with that at all, because I believe that we should be utilizing our labour in the field where it pays us best, and South Africa is not a country which is best suited to agriculture on a small scale; it is essentially a country suited to agriculture on an extensive scale, and therefore it does not pay us to keep submarginal and marginal farmers on the land. But that is another subject. All this has to do with productivity and using our resources to the best of our ability. Now it is a fact of course that according to sociologists, according to economists, research bodies, such as the University of South Africa which recently conducted a whole survey on the question of African income and expenditure, this country has a large number of people living below the poverty data line. Survey after survey has shown that higher minimum wages are required for urban workers, let alone rural workers who get a certain amount of pay in kind, which is generally overrated by the farmer and underrated by the worker, but anyway in our industrial areas, it has been proved beyond doubt by all sorts of independent social and other surveys that labour is employed at wage rates which are below the poverty datum line. The recent survey done by the Bureau of Market Research of the University of South Africa supplies some very interesting figures. It conducted its survey in respect of over 1,000 households in the Pretoria area and they found—

Well below the poverty data line for a family of five. What I am trying to get at is that it would redound to everybody’s advantage of course if the earnings of the vast majority of our labour force were increased. Farmers today were talking about surpluses. I want to tell them that the problem could be solved by a stroke of the pen if the demand for those products went up. It has been proved that the minute a rise in wages takes place, an increase immediately follows on expenditure on food, and of course on clothing and other essential goods. The proportion, incidentally, on food is less than on other articles, because of course the demand for food is less elastic than in respect of other products, since people first have got to eat before they can do anything else, although they also have to provide certain essentials such as rent and fuel and coal, even if they have not enough to eat.

What effect would increased wages have on the cost structure.

The hon. member asked me about the cost structure. Long ago even Adam Smith realized that there was a great deal of fallacy in this idea that you could only increase rates if you at the same time increased productivity and kept costs low. Of course it is advantageous to keep up productivity and try to keep costs low, but the fact of the matter is that in South Africa where people are underfed anyway, you are not going to increase productivity until you first improve their health and increase their ability to work harder. The second of course is that there is nothing to stop management from using labour more economically, and in South Africa we don’t use our labour properly and economically, because we have this fallacy in South Africa that labour is cheap and the result is that there is a tendency in this country to use labour in the most wasteful manner possible. It has been found by various organizations, such as the Bantu Wages and Productivity Association, which has gone into this whole question of the raising of the wage standard of non-Whites in order to improve the whole internal market in South Africa, so that everybody can share in these benefits, farmers and industrialists alike, that personnel management and proper utilization of labour in this country would immediately be improved if in fact employers had to pay more for their labour. They would utilize their labour more economically. That is of course another very important factor which so many people forget.

The hon. member for Vereeniging again made one of his half-true statements in this House when he stated that if you want wages to go up, don’t come and ask the Government, don’t blame the State, ask Harry Oppenheimer, ask the Chamber of Industries, ask the Chamber of Commerce. Surely the hon. member realizes that the only way in which you can get a concerted rise in wages throughout South Africa is if the State takes a lead, and it is a fact that the State in many fields pays lower wages than private employers. But most important of all is that you cannot expect the private employer to take the lead if his competitors are not doing the same thing, and while you might get a few philanthropic employers who try to put up wages, as in fact many have done, it will obviously act to their detriment unless all their competitors are forced to raise their wages at the same time by the State laying down minimum wages. Otherwise they will go out of business. As I said before, the two go hand in hand. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) admits that with the assistance of the machinery of the Wage Board the Government has done a great deal towards increasing Bantu wages and the wages of unskilled workers in general in our country. Nevertheless she says that the wages have not yet been increased sufficiently. Well, Mr. Chairman, as far as the raising of Bantu wages is concerned, it is true that it can have certain advantages. Higher wages paid to lower-paid workers result in increased productivity, because it results in improved nutrition, improved housing and greater satisfaction. If Bantu wages are increased and productivity as well, it will have the further advantage that less Bantu workers will congregate in the White areas. The raising of Bantu wages will, as the hon. member for Houghton has correctly said, also assist in expanding our local markets. She has said that the Bantu have in the main devoted the increases they have been granted hitherto to the purchase of essential foods. But the Bantu will only have increased purchasing power if increased wages are accompanied by correspondingly increased productivity. Otherwise it will only mean that money is taken from the employers, the entrepreneurs, and transferred to the workers. On the other hand I want to tell the House that it is equally true that drastic increases in Bantu wages can also have many disadvantages for our economy and our country as a whole. Drastic wage increases can result in the ruination of many undertakings which cannot afford the increased wages.

Then they are not economic industries.

After all it still remains uneconomic to pay inefficient or unskilled workers more than they earn or are entitled to receive. Increased wages can therefore result in large-scale unemployment amongst Bantu. It is in any case better to work for a lower wage than not to work at all. However, I want to concede readily that the problem of unemployment can be overcome if this labour can be diverted to factories in areas where border area development is taking place. Increased wages can also have the further disadvantage that they will attract more foreign Natives from elsewhere in Africa than we already have here if counter measures are not taken timeously. I want to make it quite clear that if an increase in Bantu wages is not accompanied by a deliberate effort to achieve increased productivity, we shall have increased costs of production and eventually once again inflation, which will eliminate the advantage of increased wages. The Bantu will only have an increased purchasing power as a result of increased wages—and this the hon. member has admitted, and I do not know why she is once again differing from me—if those increased wages are accompanied by increased productivity and increased production by the workers. And it is here that the hon. member has said that the Government must take the lead, that the Government must take positive steps. But the matters I have mentioned are practical considerations which the Government must take fully into account, and I am convinced that no fault can be found with the Government’s present policy of gradual and selective wage increases. The Central Native Labour Board has been entrusted with the task of implementing this policy, and as the hon. member for Houghton has admitted herself, the wages of 468,000 Bantu workers have been increased by R20,800,000 per annum during the past three years as a result of the efforts of this Central Native Labour Board. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Van der Walt) has given the figures.

They were shockingly low before.

The hon. member for Houghton has also said that the Government has gone out of its way to expand the machinery of the Wage Board and to expedite the working of that machinery. The Executive Committee of the Federated Chambers of Industries asked in March this year that the Wage Board should give precedence to general wage increases in each important industrial area on a wider basis than previously. This is something which is already being done because the Wage Board has been instructed to investigate consolidated wage determinations. The hon. the Minister of Labour has explained in the Other Place that instead of issuing six instructions in respect of six different centres which results in six investigations, six recommendations and six separate determinations, there will now just be one investigation, one recommendation and one determination while precedence will also be given to industries which employ large numbers of unskilled workers. I am convinced that the policy followed by the Government will receive full support from commerce and industry, if they approach the matter objectively, and also the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) if she considers the matter objectively. Thus Mr. Dienst of Dima Paints for example said at the managerial conference of the National Development Association held in Johannesburg in October last year, that he associated himself with the plea for higher wages, and his opinion was that such wage increases should not be granted all at once, but gradually and systematically, in order to raise the general standard of living of the Native. This was moreover the general reaction resulting from that conference. The reaction of the delegates was that they all favoured wage increases, but that they did not think that they should take place holus bolus, that certain conditions should be laid down before the wage increases could be granted. One of the most important conditions was that the effects of wage increases on productivity should first be carefully investigated to determine whether such increases would not cause economic disruption and possible unemployment. If the hon. member for Houghton is urging the Government that steps should be taken to expedite wage increases, I ask why it is essential that the Government should do so. She admits herself that the Government has done a great deal to improve the position. What stops commerce and industry from doing so themselves, as the hon. member for Vereeniging has said? Why must commerce and industry ask for legislation or Government action aimed at increasing the wages of unskilled workers? Is the reason perhaps that commerce and industry and also the hon. member for Houghton, who agrees with them so wholeheartedly, or certain circles in commerce and industry want to find a scapegoat when the general reaction of the public against a drastic increase in Bantu wages is encountered? The hon. member has said that productivity can be considerably improved. I agree with her. If commerce and industry would do the same in our country as Mr. Arnold indicated at this conference of the National Development Association, then we shall be able to make great progress. He indicated what the Standard Oil Company had done. Mr. Arnold is their managing director. He has said that they reduced the workers in one of their sections over a period of five years by 50 per cent; wages were doubled during that period; but although the total wage bill remained the same, production increased by 50 per cent. [Time limit.]

I don’t intend to follow the line taken by the last speaker, save to say that if people in private business have to take the lead in regard to an increase in wages, hon. members must realize that nobody will do it if his competitors do not follow suit. There you have a vicious circle and nobody does anything because nobody wants to follow suit. Therefore I submit that it is incumbent upon the Government to take the lead in regard to that matter. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) opened his address in speaking about the question of wages paid to the workers of South Africa. I would like to confine myself solely to the Coloured people in that regard. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that he should investigate why there are so many people occupying sub-economic houses in South Africa. There are millions spent, according to the Minister for Coloured Affairs, by the Government to provide sub-economic houses for people in South Africa. That to me is evidence, if any evidence is needed at all of the fact that people cannot afford to pay-an economic rent because their wages are not sufficient for that purpose. I intend to take the matter up under the Coloured Affairs Vote, but I submit that if the wages of the Coloured people were increased, it would not be necessary for those people to live in the type of sub-economic houses which are to-day provided by the authorities. It all is a question of wages paid to these people and if there is an increase in wages, these people will be able to afford to live in better houses and they will be able to own a house and not be dependent on the type of sub-economic house that is to-day provided for them. There is the answer to all these hon. gentlemen. They need only go into the figures of the number of sub-economic houses which are being built day after day by public bodies for poorer people to find the reason why, we say that wages should be increased. People cannot afford to rent other houses because their wages are not sufficient. There are many instances I could give of public bodies having to supplement the earnings of Coloured householders throughout South Africa. We have a very excellent undertaking with regard to school-feeding. Why must we have school-feeding schemes in progress? Because of the fact that the Coloured child does not get sufficient nourishment at his home. There are other charitable organizations assisting the poorer people because of the fact that the people do not earn sufficient to maintain their families adequately.

The Government should take a lead in regard to the unemployment question. I want to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to this fact—my colleagues here will support me—that we are inundated daily by Coloured people who write to us or come to see us and say to us “Please get us work, please get us work!” We try our best, but unfortunately we are unable to place all of them. Sir, it is a known fact that unemployment has increased. All cannot be absorbed and the Government should give the example by providing relief work. Many years ago when we had a similar position, the local authorities undertook certain works which were not of immediate urgency, but they were undertaken with the help of the Government, with a subsidy from the Government. They undertook these non-urgent and perhaps non-essential works immediately in order to absorb the unemployment there was in those days. I would ask the hon. the Minister to seriously consider making an appeal to the local authorities throughout the province and throughout South Africa, asking them to immediately undertake certain works with the object of absorbing the unemployed people who cannot find employment to-day. The hon. the Minister will find if he goes through the records of many of these public bodies that that was the position many years ago. I am thinking now of 1933 and those days. Unemployment was rife and many local authorities undertook to start these non-essential works in order to absorb these unemployed people. I do not know what Mr. Oppenheimer said, but the fact remains that there are not sufficient White people, skilled people, for the work there is required in South Africa. I have pleaded before and I want to plead again, that use should be made of the Coloured people of South Africa for the work which cannot be done by the White people. Let me put it this way: To fill the need that exists for additional skilled people, let the Minister make use of the Coloured people. The hon. the Minister should make it his policy to see that Coloured people are entitled to be apprenticed in every sphere of employment. To-day there is a bar. Very few Coloured people are apprenticed. There are thousands of Coloured youths, a large number matriculated, boys who are willing to work and who can undertake skilled work if they are given an opportunity, and I say that this Minister should kill this skeleton in our South African life of job reservation. This hon. Minister should see to it that as far as the Coloured people are concerned, they will get every opportunity in every phase of our economy. There is no reason why Coloured men, capable in every respect, should not fill the need which apparently exists in regard to skilled employment. I would like to say this to the Government and especially to this Minister, that he must once and for all throw off this cloak of the Government-called “job-reservation”. It is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker, to see Coloured men coming to us quite capable to perform certain tasks, but not being able to find work because of Government policy. They want work; they beg for work. Many of them are educated people but they cannot find work because of the colour of their skin. It is a blot on the fair name of South Africa. [Time limit.]

I shall not deal with the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. I shall leave him to one of my other colleagues. I want to come back to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) who opened the debate for the other side of the House and who has once again made his annual attack on job reservation. To-day I noticed, and perhaps the House did not notice, that he has started attaching quite a different meaning to their cry of “the rate for the job”. Mr. Chairman, you must remember that the expression “the rate for the job” was put forward in the first place as the alternative policy to job reservation. But the hon. member now apparently attaches quite a different interpretation to that slogan. Remember that when job reservation was introduced into this House in the form of legislation, this was the alternative put forward by the United Party to job reservation, namely “the rate for the job”. We have gradually noticed that certain members opposite are not familiar with the meaning of “the rate for the job”. To-day the hon. member has said the hon. the Minister should also apply “the rate for the job” to the border industries, as though he wishes to interpret the “rate for the job” as meaning that there should be as is also the position under the Wage Board determinations, no difference on the ground of colour. That is so, and the hon. member knows full well that in terms of that interpretation which is quite a new thing to-day one cannot apply the “rate for the job” in one area and not another.

I want to come back to his argument of “the rate for the job” as alternative to job reservation. I now want to say, Mr. Chairman, that when the “rate for the job” was applied throughout South Africa, it did not succeed in one single case in keeping the White man in his job; in not one single case throughout all South Africa did the “rate for the job” succeed in safeguarding the employment of one single White man. On the contrary the “rate for the job” had the result in the lower strata in the Cape Peninsula that the Coloureds were forced out of jobs which they had formerly held in their thousands, with the result that this work is done by the Bantu. This has happened since 1937. Here the Bantu have forced out the Coloureds for example, and the Coloureds in turn have forced out the Whites from certain types of skilled work. I do not think that here in the Peninsula we can find one single White man employed in the building industry. That is the result. This process was taking place throughout the country. Mr. Chairman, you will remember that the hon. member threw up his hands and asked: “Where are the skilled White men to do the job?” In other words, he was just afraid to say so, but he wanted skilled work to be given to the non-White races at wages equal to those paid to the Whites. Our policy is: No, we want to make industry in the White areas White to an ever-increasing extent. And in order to give the non-White artisans an opportunity to be able to progress in a way which is just as much in keeping with their human dignity, we are making provision for them in the border industries.

In the White areas?

Does the hon. member not know about the border industries, more specifically on the borders of the Bantu areas? [Interjections.] The hon. member must not, now that we have him cornered, start asking ridiculous questions in order to waste my time. I am criticizing them for this un-South African and harmful policy which they advocate.

May I ask a question?

Mr. Chairman, I should have liked to answer a question by that hon. member if I had had half an hour at my disposal, which I do not have. I do not want to be discourteous to him, but my time is very limited. I say, Mr. Chairman, that for this reason this is the policy of the National Party because the policy which hon. members opposite advocate has never enabled the White man in South Africa to retain his employment. What the “rate for the job” really means, is that one has to pay the same wage to every person who does the same type of work. And if one does that in the White areas, one finds that the White man is systematically forced out. Let us deal with the hon. member’s cry or the fervent wish which he has expressed to the Minister: Bring us White immigrants; let them please come. Mr. Chairman, what person with any commonsense would dare to bring White workers on a large scale from Europe, from England, from Scotland, from Germany or from France; what person would bring thousands of artisans from those countries to work here with the Coloureds and the Bantu at the same bench? How long would they be here before returning to Europe? Do hon. members see the foolishness of the policy which hon. members opposite expect us to implement? It is a policy which they themselves could not implement and never dared to implement. How can one think of large-scale White immigration to South Africa, if we tell those people when they get here that they must work with the Bantu and the Coloureds? How can we advocate such a nonsensical policy and then expect Whites to immigrate to South Africa? Mr. Chairman, it is surely unthinkable. Do hon. members not think that the whole pattern to be found on the Continent of Africa is not already known in all the countries of Europe and that all these workers are so ignorant? They know that in all the other territories, with the exception of the Republic of South Africa, the White man has not been able to maintain himself in the labour market in Africa. They have heard that the policy of the hon. member for Yeoville has been implemented in Ghana. There they said: Let the Bantu qualify and enter the highly skilled fields of employment together with the White man. What has been the result? One day when they opened their eyes, the Bantu said to them: Get out. And they had to get out. Now the hon. members, despite this failure in all the African states, despite this failure in our neighbouring states, are still advocating the same policy, and the hon. member for Yeoville persists in making a speech year after year advocating that policy, and they expect us to accept it. No, if the hon. the Minister goes to Europe in order to recruit people in our countries of origin, and he recruits them from all levels and he does not merely look for a few technicians, then these factors must be taken into account. Mr. Chairman, it is the worst possible type of bluff to say that technicians and highly skilled people, professional people, should be allowed to come. They can come. But I say that if we must recruit that type of person, then it means nothing. I say that if we must recruit highly skilled technical or professional people, then in my opinion such a person stands at such a low level in his own community that he will mean nothing to South Africa. Because a man who has received that measure of training and education, is a man who will come here of his own initiative, and it will not be necessary to recruit him or to buy him or to persuade him to come here. The people whom we want to come here on a large scale in order to strengthen our White population come from the general mass of the workers: the builders, the artisans of all types. But to-day hon. members opposite want us to fetch those people and bring them here and then to expect of them that they should work with the Bantu at the same bench. No, I want to make an appeal to hon. members opposite to open their eyes and to stop using these silly arguments because whenever they advocate such doctrines, the White workers in South Africa reject them evermore emphatically whenever they get the opportunity. The only pattern which we can have in South Africa is the one we are implementing at present, whereby we are making our White areas White to an ever-increasing extent, particularly in the already highly industrialized areas, and whereby we shall give the non-White races their opportunities in the other areas. Then we shall eventually have a policy, the consequences of which are of such a nature that we can defend that policy and belief before the world tribunal. But when we have to approach the matter in this underhand way, when we have to draw up a labour policy on the basis of statements made by interested parties, then it feels like a dagger in my heart when I am always told that Mr. Harry Oppenheimer’s beliefs must serve as our yardsticks … [Time limit.]

I cannot appreciate the hon. member’s defence of his party’s policy of job reservation. He practically admitted that job reservation meant reserving jobs for nonexistent Whites and then granting exemptions. I say that it does not do only this. All that it does is to blacken us in the eyes of the Western world, which is entirely unnecessary, and it causes a lot of dissatisfaction among the non-Whites in our own country who try to live a decent life.

I want to talk to the Minister on slightly different lines. One of his main jobs is to endeavour to see that effective steps are taken wherever the possibility of unemployment arises. It is not for him to rely on statements made by hon. members opposite and by members of the Cabinet that everything in the garden is rosy. It is for him to keep his party’s feet firmly on the ground and to keep on stressing on the Cabinet—obviously he will not do so for public consumption—where things are going wrong and what changes are to be effected to their policy if jobs are going to be affected by that policy. I admit that things are not as simple to-day as they used to be. I admit that he cannot work alone. He has to work in close co-operation with the Minister of Economic Affairs, with the Minister of Mines, and with the Minister of Finance. In fact I think he realizes to-day that he must even work with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and also with the Ministers concerned with Bantu Affairs. Above all, he has to keep one eye on the Prime Minister. Mr. Chairman, men want jobs always; men want to know that they can keep their wives in comfort, that they can educate their children and that they can put something aside for their old age. When the hon. the Minister was a member of the United Party he represented an East Rand constituency, Brakpan. He knows the problems of the East Rand. I personally had discussions with him many years ago on the matter and I know that he had the problems of the East Rand and the problems of the working man on the East Rand very much at heart at that time. He knows of the dying mines; he knows of the battle for new industries; he knows the factors which exist on the East Rand and he knows of the problems of the working man in that area, as I have said. He knows that thousands of men there have put all their life-savings into homes. And he also knows that each and every one of them is to-day worrying about his future. The Minister knows himself very well that if the Government itself does not actively encourage industries to go to the East Rand, the time will come when we will have a great deal of trouble and large-scale unemployment. He knows, as I have said, that the mines are dying and unless a miracle happens that the whole area will be in difficulty within the next few years.

At this stage I want to ask the Minister a few questions. Firstly, I want to ask him whether he believes in the Prime Minister’s policy of encouraging new industries to open up on the borders of the reserves probably in competition with established industries on the East Rand? Secondly, does he believe that new industries should be encouraged to start operations roughly 30 miles away, in virgin territory for factories, to find “jobs for 60,000 Natives in that particular area”, to use the words of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, just outside Pretoria.

The hon. member is also on the border-line of the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, please, if there is no business there will be no jobs. I want to ask the Minister a question which I asked the Minister of Economic Affairs. I maintain that their responsibility is equal. I want to know whether the Minister will co-operate with the Minister of Economic Affairs to encourage industries at Hammanskraal at the expense of the workers on the East Rand with its dying mines. I want to know whether he will cooperate with the Minister of Economic Affairs who is giving inducement to industry to establish itself in this area or in similar areas, at the expense of the workers on the East Rand? And I want to ask him whether he intends to hide away from this tremendous problem in that part of our country, the East Rand? Does he want to hide behind the industries on the borders of the reserves policy? Although I must say that from what I have seen recently that does not mean taking new industries to the borders of the reserves but bringing the borders of the reserves to industry. I want to ask the hon. the Minister these questions: The Minister of Economic Affairs, with whom this Minister has equal responsibility, is establishing a new area 30 miles away, adjoining Pretoria, for industries.

Order! I cannot allow the member to continue on those lines.

I want to point out to the Minister that there are 215,000 Whites on the East Rand; that is more than four times as many Natives in the area mentioned before. There are 417,000 odd Natives on the East Rand; that is seven times as many in that new proposed industrial area. Most of these White workers have their life savings invested on the East Rand. The mines are the main factor on the East Rand. The prosperity of the people on the East Rand depend on those mines, I will not say completely, but at least for 50 per cent. All these factors which I have mentioned are well known to the Minister as an ex-East Rand man. I want to stress that every time that he co-operates with his Government in establishing industries in close proximity to the East Rand, he is giving the East Rand a stab in the heart. His job, Mr. Chairman, is to watch and to coordinate. He must not tell me that he is only there to hold the balance between employee and employer. His Vote includes expenses connected with industrial legislation conferences and also unemployment expenditure. The question of unemployment expenditure is the head under which I am talking. I can only repeat that I hope that he fully appreciates the problems of the East Rand; that he will do what he can to help us and give us an assurance to that effect.

I should like to return to what the hon. member for Boland has said. He urged here that the basic wages of Coloureds should be increased. As has already been shown here, the Government and the hon. the Minister can do very little in this connection at the present stage, because the majority of these Coloureds at the moment are already earning much more than the basic and minimum wage that has been fixed for them. The hon. member should go and look for the solution in the goodwill of the employers of these people, of that hon. member’s friends. It is in their hands to pay better wages to these people. What is stopping the industrialists from paying better wages to their Coloured employees? I agree with the hon. member that what is required i.a. is greater opportunities for employment for Coloureds. The Government is doing its best in this connection by way of separate development to create new avenues of employment for the Coloureds that have never existed before, and to create those avenues of employment in their own areas. But the hon. member for Boland does not support the Government in the attempt to establish more avenues of employment for the Coloureds. On the contrary, the hon. member is fighting it every day. What is required, moreover, is that the Coloureds, particularly in the vicinity of the Western Cape, which is their traditional home, should be protected against the Bantu. I have never yet heard the hon. member for Boland pleading that the Coloured worker should be protected against exploitation by the Bantu.

That he will not do.

What the hon. member for Boland does do indeed, is that he is seeking the fault where it is not situated. He seeks the fault i.a. in job reservation, and I should like to say a word or two about job reservation here. In this connection I should like in the first place to ask the hon. the Minister a question. Earlier this year there was a report in the Press indicating that the Industrial Tribunal would be ordered to make an inquiry into possible job reservation in the trade of waiters in hotels, private hotels and boarding houses in the Western Cape, particularly with a view to reservation of these jobs or trades for Coloureds. Now I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this inquiry has already been ordered and if so, when the report is expected to be available.

Mr. Chairman, job reservation is at the present time represented to the non-Whites in the country, particularly to the Coloureds as something that is aimed against them, that it is legislation that cuts one way only, which is only intended to safeguard and secure the position of the Whites. Here there is an opportunity to apply job reservation in such a manner that it will also prove to the Coloured that it is in his interest, and positively in his interests. I should also like to suggest to the hon. the Minister for his consideration that he should order an inquiry into the trade of filling-station attendants in the Western Province. They are the people who serve the petrol bowsers. The work of waiter and filling-station attendant is comparatively well paid work, and this work is being taken away from the Coloured in the Western Cape to a greater and greater extent by the Bantu. I should like to urge here that job reservation should be introduced in these trades, in the first place in the interests of the Coloureds, but also with a view to the removal from the Western Cape of a number of Bantu. I would ask that if it is deemed necessary to apply job reservation in these trades, it shall not be on a percentage basis, because the Bantu have already infiltrated much too far into these avenues of employment. I would urge that the trades referred to by me, be reserved wholly and solely for the Coloureds.

I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to another industry, namely the building trade. As a result of the slackness in the building trade, many Coloureds have become unemployed. In the Western Province this industry has been taken over fully and completely by the non-Whites, and the disturbing phenomenon to-day is that, now that the White man has been driven out of the trade, the Bantu are now driving the Coloureds out of the building trade in the Western Cape. That is why I should like also to plead here for the need that the Industrial Tribunal should be ordered to investigate the building trade, with a dual object in view, namely to reserve labour in the building trade in the Western Cape exclusively for Coloureds; and secondly, to safeguard the interests of the small number of Whites that have remained in the trade.

In the Western Cape there are very few opportunities for the White man who has to do manual labour to make his living in particular, except in Government Departments, for skilled as well as unskilled Whites. The small percentage of Whites who are still employed in the private sector—it is imperative that their interests be safeguarded. I want to ask whether more consideration cannot be given to the possibility that on the part of the State, more employment in the vicinity of the Western Cape can be created for Whites who are compelled to do manual labour. These are the people who, on account of the standard of living they have to maintain, cannot compete with the Coloureds. These are the people for whom there are very few opportunities for employment in the Western Cape, except in so far as the Railway Administration is concerned. The more unemployed Coloureds there are, the more difficult the position of these Whites becomes in this vicinity, for the more Coloureds are unemployed, the greater the competition becomes and the lower the wage at which the Coloureds offer their services. It is becoming completely impossible for the White man to compete with the Coloureds and Bantu on the labour market. Therefore it is in the interests of the White man that job reservation should be applied, and it is in the interests of the White man that the position of the Coloured should also be protected; and it is in the interests of the White man and the Coloured that they should be protected against the Bantu.

I do not intend to answer some of the questions put to me by the previous speaker, but I do want to say this to him that it seems as though he is taking the same line as the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) namely that the Government’s only duty is to arrange the minimum wage and that the Government’s responsibility ends there. My complaint is that the minimum is first of all too low and that in most cases the minimum is accepted as the maximum. In other words, where the minimum is laid down, which I maintain is far too low in certain industries, the employers also make that their maximum. The Government should set an example by going into these factors and try to raise the minimum. You will then find some increase generally in the payments to Coloured people.

I want very briefly to remind the hon. the Minister of the point which I raised under the Vote of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and that was the question of the postmen’s union. I am informed that since they have become a separate union they find it almost impossible to obtain representation as regards staff matters on the main body. When they were part and parcel of the mixed union, they tell me, they had all facilities for representation in regard to staff matters but now that they are a separate union they find that they cannot get representation. I do feel, Sir, that where this union has followed the Government’s policy and separated from the mixed union and have become a separate union, they should not be made to feel that they have lost certain privileges which they enjoyed as members of the mixed union. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give me an indication that he will go into this matter so that I can take a message to those people. I have spoken to the Minister privately about this but I raise this publicly because I want this to appear in Hansard so that the postmen will know that I have raised it. That is the only reason why I have again raised it publicly in the House. I have no reason to believe that the hon. the Minister will not come to the assistance of these people.

The Minister of Labour, in the very nature of his portfolio, must be vitally interested in the most important aspect of social research in South Africa, and that is the one which is directed towards raising the productivity of all the races in South Africa. It is quite obvious that for many years to come, as the hon. member for Yeoville has stated, we, the White section of the population, will have to provide the necessary leadership in all fields, whether scientific, technical, administrative or business, for the whole population of over 14,000,000 people, and this can only be possible if all the available talent in this country is developed and all those who are capable of assuming that leadership are educated to the highest possible degree. The Minister is responsible for vocational training, for educating those who who can best serve this nation as skilled workers and artisans. I know that to some extent the Minister of Education comes into the picture, but it is in the Department of Labour where the root of the matter is to be found. These workers who acquire their skill during a period of apprenticeship are subject to conditions which are regulated by the Minister of Labour, and the Minister must therefore be concerned with what exists in the form of a potential pool of workers which is created for this country by our educational system. These workers must be trained to think and to work in such a way that they will be able to maintain themselves against the competition of Black labour in industry. That was brought out very clearly during the earlier part of this debate, and I am not going to deal with the controversial subject of job reservation—but clearly our skilled workers must be able to compete with the Black workers. I therefore wish to enquire from the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of a recent survey of manpower made by the National Institute for Personnel Research under the experienced leadership of Dr. Simon Biesheuvel, which involved a large and representative sample of the male White population between the ages of 17 and 19, at the point where the majority of them are completing their education and are entering the labour market and become of some significance to the labour potential of South Africa. With the co-operation of the Department of Defence, use was made of the system of compulsory registration of all male citizens at the age of 17 in order to obtain a representative population sample, to provide information on their occupational intentions and on the standard of education they had attained. Another sample in fact, a sub-sample, which is perhaps of even greater significance, of about 5,000 individuals, was also taken and given intelligence tests in order to test their achievements and aspirations and their intellectual potentialities. The result has not yet been completely analysed, but this is what emerges up to now. The analysis of these data shows that 21 per cent of the male White population between the ages of 17 and 19 have not proceeded beyond Standard VI or its equivalent, and 37 per cent have Standard VII status only, or less. Of this group, 70 per cent state that they have no intention of obtaining any further scholastic or vocational training. This means that about 25 per cent of the male White population will remain practically unqualified vocationally, with only minimal scholastic education. It was further calculated that 43 per cent of those with Standard VII or less had at least a 70 per cent chance of passing Standard VIII. This means that no less than 16 per cent of our male White youth faded to develop their intellectual potentialities, even at the modest Standard VIII level or its equivalent, without good cause. Failure to realize potential abilities up to the Standard X level is likely to be more serious, but final figures have not yet been calculated. It is evident that there exists a serious problem, both of motivation and of finding productive outlets for people of limited capacity and ambition at the lower end of the White ability scale. Now, it should be remembered that this dealt only with the male White population and had no bearing on the female White population, where one can assume that the position in regard to aspirations and the desire for vocational training is even worse than was revealed in this survey. It is perfectly clear that there is a dreadful waste of human material which could make an irreplaceable contribution to the wealth and stability of South Africa. It therefore becomes urgently necessary to examine what the Department of Labour is doing to reduce, if not to eliminate, this obvious waste. I am well aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister is also responsible for immigration, but I would like to put this point of view to him: that if he were to choose between concentrating his energies on what may, after all, be the will-o’-the-wisp of immigration, or on developing the existing human potentialities in this country from the point of view of his portfolio, I am quite sure that he would know what decision to make. Now these boys and girls obviously do not wish to, or cannot, pursue their education for its own sake, but they can be turned to good account for themselves and for the country as a whole, if they could be integrated into the existing system of vocational training.

Do not read your speech so fast.

I therefore want to ask the Minister whether he has implemented all the recommendations of the National Apprenticeship Board, which reported to the Minister of Labour in 1960 on the revision of the system of apprenticeship? This report, which is not readily available even in this building, is a fairly long one of some 108 foolscap pages, and it makes a large number of recommendations, some of which are referred to in the annual report of the Department of Labour for the year ended 31 December 1960. It is, of course, a pity that we are talking about it in June, 1962; to what extent these figures or facts may be out-dated I am not able to assess, although the Minister may be able to do so. However, some of these recommendations, according to the report of the Department of Labour, are among those which have been accepted by the Minister. For example, it says here that the recommendations accepted by the Minister include the following: that the remission of the prescribed period of apprenticeship in respect of pre-apprenticeship training and qualifications should no longer be granted at the commencement of the apprenticeship period, but that such training and qualifications should determine at what stage during the apprenticeship period an apprentice should be afforded the opportunity to undergo a qualifying trade test on a voluntary basis. The position that arises is made perfectly clear in this report of the Apprenticeship Board, and I therefore want to ask the Minister whether other recommendations which do not appear as being included in those accepted by the Minister have either been considered, or accepted, or both. For example, the Board recommended that in so far as the rural areas are concerned, the disabilities of would-be apprentices would to some extent be eliminated if a free rail warrant and subsistence for travelling to the centre where the trade test is to take place, would be granted. I should like to know whether that is being done, or will be done. Clearly, the youngster on the platteland has less opportunity for vocational training than the one who lives in one of the larger cities, and I think that every step should be taken to encourage the young people of the platteland to develop what educational abilities they have gained at school by way of vocational training.

Another recommendation which was made by this Board was that in regard to large industries, large employers of labour, the Minister should be prepared to set up a separate unit of an apprenticeship committee, although that particular industry as a whole may already be under the control of an apprenticeship committee. That would serve a very useful purpose in regard to bringing out the very best material. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I think that at this stage I should reply to some of the points raised by hon. members. I want to deal with the hon. member for Yeoville first. He raised several important matters, and I want to deal first of all with the question of job reservation which he raised, and which was also raised by the hon. member for Houghton, and the hon. member for Boland and other hon. members. The hon. member for Yeoville put a pertinent question to me. He asked me what my policy was as the new Minister of Labour in regard to job reservation. I propose to deal with this question of the administration of job reservation. I have very little doubt that there are hon. members who are anxious to know how I, as the new Minister of Labour, feel about this measure which is so often criticized, particularly by the Opposition. It is true that in 1956 when I sat on that side of the House I supported the opposition to the Industrial Conciliation Act, and particularly Section 77. I have found that in theory that opposition was all very well, but I have found in actual practice, since I became Minister of Labour, it is a different story. Let me therefore say at once that in so far as work reservation is concerned, I do not contemplate any change in the policy which has been pursued by my predecessor.

You are not allowed to.

As I said, the experience I have gained so far on this subject has convinced me that job reservation is essential for the maintenance of racial harmony in the field of labour relations. I have found that the demarcation of work between the different races would seem to be a logical development in a country like South Africa where the different races have reached different stages of development and have different standards of living. It can hardly be expected that employees who have for generations formed the backbone of the labour force in an industry and who have contributed largely towards the establishment of that industry will look on peacefully while they are being replaced by employees of another race who are able and willing to perform such work at lower rates of pay. [Interjections.] I am coming to the border industries. I say that employees of any racial group are entitled to a measure of protection against the disruption which may be caused by the competition of another racial group in the labour market. It is all very well for people to oppose job reservation on the ground that it interferes with the employers’ free choice of their labour force, or that it is a restrictive measure in other respects. What they seem to forget is that it is the Government’s duty to ensure the orderly co-existence of the different races in our country. The attempts that were made in the past to eliminate inter-racial competition have failed, as hon. members well know, and in view of the numerous complaints about the displacement of employees, received by my Department during the past years, it was obvious that a policy of liassez faire could no longer be followed, and that action had to be taken. To my mind, job reservation is a reasonable measure, provided it is carefully applied and is applied with justice, and that is what we do.

Hon. members will have seen last year, when a brochure was issued by the Department on job reservation, which was distributed to all hon. members of this House, that a thorough investigation by the Industrial Tribunal takes place in every case and interested persons are given very opportunity to make representations before work is reserved in any particular industry. The whole procedure indicates that the utmost care is observed in making a determination when applying that determination. I think it must be obvious to hon. members that I would not permit work reservation which would cause any dislocation. The measure may be harmful if it is applied injudiciously, but the Government does not apply it without the very fullest investigation and the greatest care. Since the discussions took place in this House last year on the subject only three new determinations have been made. I need not go into them: it would detain the House too long, but I think hon. members know what they are. The one was in regard to the driving of heavy vehicles up to 10,000 lbs. on the Goldfields of the Free State. The other was a determination in regard to the City Tramways in Cape Town, and the other was for the Springs Municipality in connection with the driving of vehicles. That, shortly, is my view of job reservation.

The hon. member for Yeoville also raised the question of unemployment and I would like to give him and the Committee some figures and facts in regard to unemployment. The unemployment figure which had been steady at about 25,000 since 1959 rose in 1961 to a monthly average of 30,508, and it reached a peak of 34,000 in February this year. Slightly more than half of these were Whites, including men and women, the rest being Coloureds and Asiatics. As the hon. member for Yeoville said, the Department does not register Bantu unemployed, so we have no figures dealing with the Bantu. Sir, although the unemployment figure rose substantially, the actual number of persons unemployed, viewed in relation to the working population, has never been such as to give cause for alarm. Even the high February figure which I mentioned represents under 2.5 per cent of our employed White, Coloured and Asiatic population and this, in most countries, is regarded as full employment. The available figures for other countries show very much higher figures. Canada’s percentage in February this year, for instance, was 9.1 per cent.

But that includes the whole population does it not?

Yes, in Ireland the latest figure was 5.7 per cent, in the U.S.A. it was 5.6 per cent, in Australia, 2.7 per cent and in the U.K. I believe the percentage is low but I do not have the figure. I quote these figures to emphasize that other countries have a bigger unemployment problem than we have and in any case our percentage of between 2 per cent and 2.5 per cent is consistent with what is internationally recognized as full employment. But I want to say that however favourable this position may be when we look at percentages, I am the last man to shrug off the predicament which unemployment may bring to individuals. If only one man with a wife and children were unemployed, I would be concerned. My Department has a number of officials doing nothing else but trying to place persons who are unemployed, and we have had a fair measure of success. In April this year we placed more than 7,000 unemployed persons, Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics. I am also pleased to be able to inform the Committee that the unemployment figure has taken a turn for the better. The March figure was 33,161, and it was 544 less than in February. At the end of April there was a reduction of 347, and at the end of May a further reduction of 253, to bring the total to 32,561. So hon. members will see that there is now a gradual reduction in these figures. This reduced figure, I must say, is accounted for almost entirely by a reduction in the White unemployment. Unemployment amongst Coloured and Asiatics still remains very high, particularly amongst the Indians in Natal and the Coloureds in the Cape. And those figures are the highest we have had.

I also found that some of the registered unemployed are not genuinely unemployed, but they registered solely to obtain the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and after the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Act which was recently passed comes into operation, which will be in August probably, these benefit-seekers will disappear from the registers of the Department in due course and we will be better able to judge the extent of genuine unemployment. I think that in reply to a question which was put during the Session, I stated that the unemployment position is constantly kept under review by an inter-departmental committee which was appointed in June last year. In its most recent report, which I received last month, the Committee states—

This latter recommendation I have conveyed to the Department of Water Affairs. [Interjections.] In this report they talk about unemployment in the building industry, but I understand that the building trade is picking up. The building societies are granting more loans, particularly for the building of private houses, and the building trade is picking up. My information is that in Durban more building artisans are now being employed.

The next point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville was the question of work reservation in the textile industry, and the hon. member quoted a report from the Press. I think hon. members would like to know the details of this matter, because it is quite important as showing that after the investigation by the Industrial Tribunal, they made the recommendation that there should be no work reservation in the textile industry. I have the report here of the Industrial Tribunal, and I will not detain hon. members very long, but I think I should read some extracts from that report—

That sounds like one of our speeches against Clause 77.

The hon. member asked what happened and I am giving him the report—

In fact, in the textile industry to-day there is a very high percentage of Coloureds, and as hon. members know, in the clothing industry, particularly in the Cape and Natal, 84 per cent of the employees are non-Whites. So much for job reservation.

The hon. member for Yeoville also came again with the same old story which has so often been disproved in this House, that the decline of the clothing industry in Germiston is due to the establishment of border industries. And, Sir, believe it or not, he again mentioned Charlestown. I think it is at least an act of grace that on this occasion he did not again mention Hong Kong. I am told that the hon. member has made this speech for some years. [Laughter.] On each occasion he was told by my predecessor that impartial investigations by statutory bodies like the Wage Board and the Industrial Tribunal have shown conclusively that the few factories established at Charlestown and Ladysmith have in fact had little or no effect on Germiston. The factories at Germiston manufacture goods which are not made by the factories at Ladysmith, for example.

That is not true. We had a case quoted to us about blazers.

The decline in the employment in the Germiston factories is due to factores arising from the natural effect of competition under a free system of enterprise.

I think the hon. member for Pretoria (West) said this afternoon that the Government was doing everything possible that it could or should do in a system of private enterprise and that was to encourage collective bargaining and to fix minimum wages in areas where there are no industrial councils. I think I have said that work reservation in the clothing industry merely preserves the status quo. It recognizes that in the Cape and in Natal the clothing industry is non-White while in the Transvaal to some extent it preserved for Whites those occupations which they now hold.

I now want to come to the question of the border industries which several hon. members have raised to-day. I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) raised a question in this regard as did the hon. members for Yeoville and Benoni (Mr. Ross) who raised it in an oblique way. He was concerned with the question of industries on the East Rand and the dying mines. Most of the questions which he put should of course be directed to the Minister of Economic Affairs. I have nothing to do with those questions. However, he did mention the question of border industries. I think I should reply to those questions because it is an important subject and I welcome this opportunity to clarify the position. The desirability of greater decentralization of industry is realized in all industrial countries. In our own case in South Africa the necessity is all the greater because large numbers of Bantu workers who obviously will constitute the greater proportion of the labour force required by these new industries on the borders, live in areas which to a limited extent in the case of Natal, are far removed from the major industrial areas. To transport these people to the industrial areas even on a temporary migrant basis creates social and economic problems of such magnitude that I think it is obviously in the interests of the country to encourage industrial development in areas which are nearer to the Bantu homelands which we generally refer to as the border areas. Mr. Chairman, the Government is well aware of the necessity of ensuring that this development takes place without crippling established industries in the urban areas. With this object in view the policy of developing border areas is being broadly developed on the following basis: Let me make it clear right away that no compulsion is applied by the Government in the siting of these industries. It follows that industries established in urban areas and which can best continue to flourish in those urban areas, will not incur the risks involved if they should have to uproot themselves. Even in the most favourable circumstances development in the border areas is likely to be too slow rather than too quick. There are enormous natural and economic disadvantages which militate against the establishment of industries in the border areas. There will be no development whatsoever in these areas if some endeavours were not made to overcome those disadvantages. It is the function of the permanent committee for the establishment of industry which we have brought into being, to formulate plans and to assist industrialists who contemplate starting factories in these border areas. This committee is under the chairmanship of Dr. S. P. du Toit who was for many years the chairman of the Wage Board and also of the Industrial Tribunal. So hon. members can be quite sure that the labour aspect of the problem will most certainly not be overlooked or under-estimated. There is the closest liaison between this committee and my Department. Indeed one of the members of this Committee is the deputy Secretary of Labour. The Labour Department is concerned with the impact of the policy of developing these border industries on employment in established industrial areas. It is for that reason that we have this representation on this permanent committee. It is certainly not Government policy that employment should be created for Bantu in border areas at the expense of White, Coloured and Asiatic workers in urban areas.

That is what is happening.

I am coming to that question which the hon. member raised. It is our contention that the prosperity of the country as a whole is bound up with the development of our undeveloped areas. The old established urban areas cannot continue to prosper if steps are not taken to spread our employment opportunities more evenly. Even although some temporary disruption of individual factories may be caused, this will be of minor importance compared with the disastrous results which may follow if we tried to maintain a concentration of all our industrial development in a few already over-crowded urban areas. Therefore, taking the long view, I believe that the decentralization of industry and the development of the border areas will help rather than hinder the older industrial areas, because our economy as a whole will benefit.

I want to deal with the detailed application of this policy. My Department is affected mainly by the application of wage regulating laws to the border areas. I am now answering the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The policy in this field is as follows: (a) The established Wage pattern which provides for wage differentiation between industrialized and rural areas will be maintained; subject to such variation as may be justified by factors which normally affect wages, for example, increased productivity, local cost of living and the profitability of the industry concerned, (b) Minimum wages in border areas in respect of industries which are not subject to industrial council control will, when necessary, be fixed by the Wage Board, (c) No change is contemplated where Industrial Councils already have jurisdiction in border areas, for example, the National Industrial Council for the iron, steel, engineering and metallurgical industry which has jurisdiction throughout the Republic. The Government expects industrial councils to co-operate in the application of its policy, particularly industries where large numbers of Bantu workers are employed. In other words, reasonable exemption from the wage rates applicable in industrialized areas must be granted to enable new factories to overcome the initial disadvantages attached to the employment of untrained Bantu workers who are unaccustomed to industrial employment. I am assured, Mr. Chairman, by experts, including the Wage Board, that this disadvantage is substantial and border industries simply cannot survive unless, in the initial stages, they are assisted in this way. The Wage Board has also made it clear in its reports on the clothing industry that the competition of the few clothing factories established in some border areas, for instance at Hammersdale in Natal, is greatly exaggerated. I believe, for instance, that there is keener competition between clothing factories in the Durban/Pinetown area than there is between these factories and the one or two which are now manufacturing at Ladysmith and at Hammersdale. Mr. Chairman it is my personal conviction that industrial expansion in South Africa can only take place if we make proper use of our available manpower resources. As I have said the Government’s policy is to assist these industries to establish themselves. I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana raised the question of a sewing machine industry which has been established at Hammersdale. They applied for an exemption from minimum wages; the exemption was granted for one year. Objection was taken by the Industrial Council of the engineering union and I heard their case. I thereupon agreed that in future before any exemption is granted on any of these wages they would be consulted before the determination is made and not thereafter. So that in future they will be fully in the picture.

I just want to finish with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. member raised a complaint which the industrial council for the clothing industry in Natal had in regard to a clothing industry at Hammersdale. He quoted from the Natal Mercury of 7 March. The heading is “Border Industries Hit Durban Clothing Makers”. The hon. member said that this particular body had asked for an interview with me to put their case. The facts are that they complained on 28 August 1961 about alleged unfair competition from the clothing factory which I have mentioned and asked the Minister for an interview. The Minister was my predecessor. He replied to that request in the following terms on 21 October 1961—

This letter was written by the Secretary—

I have looked at the papers and I quite agree with the decision taken by my predecessor. This industrial council had every opportunity to appear before the Wage Board; they did in fact appear before it and they made full representations. Evidence was heard. So I cannot see how any good purpose could have been served by granting another interview to this particular body.

Are you not prepared to see them now?

No. I do not want to be unreasonable, unless they have any new factors, new evidence, new points of view which they want to place before me; then of course, I will see them. But judging from the request which was received from them they set out their case and their case was exactly the same case that they put before the Wage Board. So what good purpose will be served if we simply traversed the same points again?

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and I think one other hon. member, raised the question of Bantu wages. I think I should deal with that, Mr. Chairman. This question of Bantu wages is a subject which has given rise to much speculation and much discussion in the last six to nine months. During that time many decisions were taken at various conferences. Meetings have been held to discuss how Bantu wages could be increased. This question, of course, was also given the very greatest publicity in our newspapers. I find, Sir, that divergent views were expressed by these bodies which met from time to time and they advanced numerous theories whereby Bantu wages could be increased most expeditiously. As a result of these discussions a very strong rumour was set on foot to increase Bantu wages. This movement gave rise to the establishment of the Bantu Wages and Activity Association. Discussions which recently took place in Johannesburg—I think it was in October—of the National Development Foundation attracted a great deal of publicity as hon. members know. As far as my Department is concerned I wish to refer to the statement which my predecessor made in November 1960, wherein he outlined the policy of the Government in regard to the payment of wages to unskilled labourers. He then said, inter alia—

He announced furthermore—

This is the Central Wage and Labour Board—

I think that is quite an achievement, Sir.

Were the trade unions consulted?

The trade unions may have assisted this Central Board in their negotiations. I have no doubt that they did do so. I want to say this, Mr. Chairman, that if the wage increases which have been obtained through wage board investigations and negotiations by the Central Native Labour Board are taken collectively, the fact is substantiated that much has been done by my Department to improve the service and the living conditions of the Bantu workers.

Mr. Chairman, I think that I should take this opportunity of paying tribute to Mr. S. P. Mentz who recently relinquished the post of chairman of this Central Native Labour Board. Mr. Mentz was the first chairman of the Board which was established under the Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act. He had the responsibility of setting the course of the new venture. He brought it into being in the face of very stiff opposition from those who then thought that the recognition of Bantu trade unions was the only solution to the problem. It gave Bantu workers an opportunity of giving expression to their growing needs and a greater say in regard to their wages and their working conditions. Mr. Mentz with his lengthy experience in the Labour Department was able to show that at this stage of the development of the Bantu worker, industrial peace could be achieved by the system set out in this 1953 Act. The success which attended the administration of this measure is attributable to the far-sightedness of one of my predecessors, the present Minister of Transport who was responsible for placing this Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act before Parliament. If hon. members will look at the annual report of the Department, they will find that it records that potential labour disputes are settled before they can develop and the Central Native Labour Board carries the major responsibility for this success in so far as the Bantu workers are concerned. Mr. Chairman, this happy position has been achieved by the co-operation which exists between the board, the regional Native labour committees and industry. Nor can anyone point a finger at the Board and allege that industrial peace has been secured at the expense of the worker. The chairman of the board recently estimated that the average minimum earnings of unskilled workers in commerce and industry, most of whom are Bantu, have increased from R22 per month to R30 per month since 1959. To put it another way: The wages of unskilled workers have increased by something like R21,500,000 per annum in the last three years and this is a continuing process. To achieve this co-operation between the board, industrial councils and the wage board has been necessary. All constituent parts of our wage determination machinery have functioned together to bring about this result. As was indicated recently in the Prime Minister’s statement after the last meeting of the Economic Advisory Board, the primary responsibility for raising wages to rates above the fixed minimum rests on industry itself. The Department of Labour will continue to play its part by ensuring that the wage board and industrial councils work at all possible speed to review minimum wage rates as and when necessary. Our policy is not to push the pace too hard. South Africa cannot afford to create a facade of high wages which are rendered useless by increased unemployment and by low productivity. The prime consideration must remain the encouragement of industrial expansion in order to provide more employment for more people of all races. The records show that reasonable wage increases are not incompatible with this aim. We shall continue to follow the road of selective wage increases with due regard to the economic needs of our country. When this matter was discussed in the Other Place I referred to the necessity for increasing productivity. I mentioned that in this regard we should consider the question of incentive bonus schemes to increase productivity. This question is primarily one for the attention of management. There can be no doubt that a great deal still remains to be done in this field. I recently had some correspondence with the Cape Wage and Productivity Association on this subject. This association is closely affiliated with the Bantu Wage and Productivity Association which was formed a few years ago. Organizations of this sort play a valuable part in stimulating public opinion. I think they are now concentrating their efforts on bringing about the acceptance of the need for increased productivity, a decision which carries my sincere approval, as I am sure that without increased productivity we shall not get far with our endeavours to raise unskilled wages.

There are just one or two other points with which I wish to deal briefly. The hon. member for Yeoville also asked me whether I believed that South Africa could find the essential skilled labour to develop these grand schemes that we have in South Africa. My answer is yes, I feel optimistic that we will be able to get this skilled labour. I might deal with that when I deal with the Immigration Vote. I will then indicate that I have hopes of getting skilled labour from overseas.

Permanent?

Yes, permanent labour—immigrants. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that in regard to the case of Loddan which he mentioned—the case was reported in the press of the 22nd of May—when I saw the report in the press I gave instructions that the particulars of this case should be sent to me. I will have this case investigated and I feel that if there is no White labour available for this particular job, an exemption will be granted to this man.

Why does it take so long?

This report says that the matter has been referred to me, but that is not so. My Department had no knowledge of the matter at all. It was only this report in the newspaper which indicated that this matter had arisen.

But the report Appeared three weeks ago.

I know; I am getting the particulars.

I now want to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotze). He raised the question of filling stations He asked whether I would consider work reservation in favour of Coloureds as far as filling station attendants were concerned. I think he also spoke about the building industry. In regard to the filling stations I have received no complaints about the employment of Bantu workers. If complaints are received I will have the matter investigated. In regard to the building industry, I have a report before me in regard to that industry and it will be investigated in due course.

What about the waiters?

I am coming to that. In regard to the catering trade in the Cape Province and in Natal I have given instructions for an investigation into that industry. That is, in the Cape the question of reserving the catering trade for the Coloureds—that has been their job traditionally—and in Natal the question of reserving it for the Indians. An investigation is now being made to see how far they can be protected against unfair Bantu competition.

Seeing that that investigation is being conducted will the hon. the Minister at the same time investigate their wages, because the Coloureds cannot make ends meet on their present wages in that industry.

The industrial Tribunal is conducting an investigation in that regard.

The hon. the Minister indicated earlier this evening that he would give us a statement as to how job reservation would be applied in respect of the border industries to be established. We are all anxious to get get that statement from the hon. the Minister.

I am sorry, but I cannot give the hon. member a statement now. All I can tell the hon. member is that that matter is now being investigated by the Economic Advisory Council Planning Committee, the chairman of which is Dr. Viljoen. We also have a representative, as I have stated, on that economic council and they are investigating this very question now of work reservation in the border areas, but I cannot give the hon. member any definite information as to what the result of their investigation will be. It is a very important matter and that is why I asked that it should be investigated immediately by this body. I do not know when I will be in a position to give the hon. member the information, but if at a later stage during the recess he wants the information, and he will write to my department, I will see that he gets that information.

Listening to the hon. the Minister’s defence of job reservation, one can only conclude that this Government is losing faith in job reservation. I admit that the hon. the Minister had a case which one cannot justify objectively, but at least his predecessors put a lot of emotion and conviction in their cases, but this time the present Minister spoke without any conviction and without any emotion whatsoever. The hon. the Minister also made a concession. He said, “that we on this side might have been right that time in theory to say that job reservation was wrong, but in practice, the Minister said, he has now discovered, since 1957 (or I don’t know when the Minister exactly made that discovery) several new facts have come to his notice and he now finds that in practice job reservation is necessary for racial co-operation and for the races living together in harmony and amiably. I do not know when the Minister came to this discovery and what new facts have come to his notice. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that if he really objectively studies the matter, he will find that the whole of history shows that just the reverse is the case and that in practice job reservation has proved to be completely wrong, because job reservation is not a new thing. You had job reservation in the Middle Ages. It is really a Middle Age concept, this concept that you can regulate the welfare of the people by prescribing by statute or by another instrument what jobs a man may do. In the Middle Ages attempts were made to keep social peace that way. It is a medieval concept and if the hon. the Minister had ever studied economic history, he would have found that the impact of industrial revolution destroyed that completely. It shows how impossible a concept like that is, this concept that you can reserve for certain classes of people certain work in a dynamic society. If you had a completely static society and only a limited number of jobs, something might still be said for this. But after all, our society always creates new and better jobs. That is why job reservation is such a stupid policy and such a senseless policy in this country. In a dynamic society you are always creating new and better jobs and you cannot prescribe certain jobs for certain people, because you never know what new jobs are going to eventuate. It is not only that history has shown that in a dynamic capitalistic society, like the one that we live in, job reservation has no sense at all, this idea of regulating the welfare of every section of the community and of every person by law, but the hon. the Minister to a very large extent proceeded to prove that in practice in fact job reservation has not worked in South Africa either. He said for instance, and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) earlier on also explained that job reservation was necessary because on the one hand Natives were replacing Coloureds in large numbers in their traditional jobs and the Coloureds in their turn were replacing the Whites in large numbers in their jobs again. But what are the facts? The Minister quoted the facts himself. He showed that under job reservation you have had the highest unemployment since the war, and to a very large extent job reservation has brought this about by destroying the confidence of industrialists and investors. The Minister’s own figures showed that job reservation is totally unnecessary and far from protecting the White workers, it has created bigger unemployment. The hon. the Minister gave another example. On the one hand the hon. the Minister said that job reservation is necessary for the peaceful co-existence between the races, and when he came to specific examples, he said that the textile industry found that it was not necessary. Now on what logic does job reservation keep racial peace in one industry and not in another? The textile industry is no different in its structure than any other like industry. The textile industry relies on basically the same type of labour as the clothing industry. Why does job reservation keep racial peace in the clothing industry and not in the textile industry? The reason is quite simple. The clothing industry is an old industry where a certain pattern of labour has been built up, and because the Government has static ideas and does not realize that the world is changing from day to day and that better jobs are being created continually, they want to retain that static structure in the clothing industry. The textile industry is the same kind of industry, but it is a new industry in this country and it has never had a large number of White employees, and they have now suddenly decided that work reservation is not necessary there. I want to suggest also to the hon. the Minister that he should co-ordinate and liaise his policy with that of the hon. member for Krugersdorp, because I distinctly understood the hon. member for Krugersdorp to say that job reservation will not be applied to the border areas. Now the Minister says that the matter is being investigated—on the old principle that if you don’t know what to do, you appoint a commission. The hon. member for Krugersdorp, however, said emphatically that there would be no job reservation in the border industries because there “Naturelle kan tot voile menswaardigheid ontwikkel That is what the hon. member said. Now surely if job reservation is clearly a thing that keeps racial peace, it is not simply a cynical ad hoc method to safeguard White voters in certain areas where the Government wishes to do so, with total disregard for the long-term interests of the country. Surely if it is not just a political mechanism then why should job reservation keep the social peace in established industrial areas and not in the border areas?

Because the finest experience we have had in the mines?

How?

Apparently the hon. member for Krugersdorp wants to apply it to the border areas now. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister another question: What is his policy going to be in regard to job reservation in the Western Province in respect of Coloureds? As I understand the Government’s policy and the moral basis explained by the hon. member for Krugersdorp, every section of the population should in its own area be able to develop its full potentialities, because, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp says: “Ons moet dit kan verdedig voor die Wêreldhof se mening.” If that is the case, I want to ask what the hon. the Minister is going to do about the Coloureds and Whites in the Western Province. If I understand the theory of the Nationalist Government correctly, they say that you can justify job reservation against the Natives because they are really interlopers here in the Western Province. But the Coloureds are as much Western Province as the Whites are. I am always amazed that hon. members on the other side who represent the Western Province and want the Western Province to develop rapidly industrially, can possibly be in favour of job reservation as far the Coloureds are concerned, because if they had any understanding of the position they would realize that the most important natural resource as far as the Western Province is concerned, for industrial development is the Coloured population, and there you have job reservation limiting their skills and curbing their ability to develop. The hon. member for Yeoville posed another question. Every Government Department complains about a shortage of technical skill, of a shortage of people with technological skill. Now, Sir, if you want to develop rapidly economically, you cannot put bars in the way of the permanent population like the Coloured people in the Western Province, to develop their skill and to use their skill. The hon. the Minister now says that he will import skill from overseas. I am rather surprised at that too, because in the past hon. members on the other side always said: We are not in favour of immigration, because the only immigrants you can get are the unskilled ones, and they will have to compete with the Natives here. We on this side repeatedly said that you can get skilled labour from overseas. In any event I am very pleased that the Government has changed its mind and that it now realizes that you can get skilled workers from Europe. But they will never get sufficient to be able to put an arbitrary bar in the way of the Coloured people.

I think the weak criticism of the Opposition to-day on the Vote “Labour”, and more specifically on job reservation, is the best evidence of what a great success job reservation has proved to be during recent years. We expected that on this Vote there might have been a much more vigorous attack that has appeared thus far. We also expected that in regard to the implementation of job reservation many more specific cases would have come to the fore to show how cruel and inhuman it is, the stories we have heard during the past six years from the other side. Instead of that we had a few slogans that had very little substance, slogans such as that of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) who has just referred to job reservation as something that is medieval. Now if job reservation is medieval, then South Africa certainly is not the only country that is medieval, for then we are indeed in good company, for then we are in the company of two countries such as England and America that also have job reservation. They have conventional job reservation. When the movement recently reared its head in England, that in England itself, in London, they wished to appoint non-Whites as policemen, public opinion came into revolt and said: “It is good and well to have it in Birmingham, but not in London, for it is in conflict with public opinion.” That is job reservation which is now being labelled as medieval.

Is it Government policy over there?

Job reservation need not necessarily be statutory. By far the greater part of job reservation is not statutory, but is a convention, in our country too. This job reservation measure is only a watch-dog to see to it that conventional job reservation is maintained, so that a breakthrough through the conventional workers’ pattern does not take place gradually. And if the hon. member for Jeppes refers to job reservation, which he regards as medieval, then we should also consider the American way of job reservation and regard it as medieval too, for there it is the trade unions that apply job reservation. There the trade unions have a very strict provision that affects many of them that Negroes may not become members, and if you do not belong to the trade union you may not enter certain trades. That is nothing but job reservation. But in this respect we are also medieval together with England in that England applies job reservation in another manner also, namely by means of its immigration quotas, the manner in which England now stops Jamaicans from entering the country freely. That is nothing other than job reservation. They keep the West-Jamaicans out in that way, so that they do not come along and oust their own people. So, if we then are medieval, we have "the consolation that we are medieval together with other Western countries. But I had really thought that we would have heard from the hon. member for Hong-Kong, sorry, (Yeoville) (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) into what serious trouble job reservation in the clothing industry has fallen. The hon. member surely remembers years ago when the legislation was piloted through this House, and when subsequently the first determinations were made, how the hon. member together with the Leader of the Opposition stirred up the whole world and whipped up the Coloureds against us by saying that as a result of job reservation, 35,000 of them would be thrown on the streets. I had thought that in this debate we would now get the proofs of the 35,000 that have been thrown onto the streets as a result of job reservation in the clothing industry. Now the hon. member may possibly be interested to hear what the latest position is here in the Cape, to determine to what extent job reservation has affected the clothing industry, and employment here locally, in the Cape. I should like to quote from a speech made by the Chairman of one of the industrial councils recently, in January 1962. It is as follows—

In other words, there is an increase of 300. But that is not the only increase. When this job reservation was applied for the first time a few years ago, the membership of the Clothing Workers Trade Union in Western Cape totalled 15,000.

15,000 of what?

15,000 Coloureds who were members of the trade union. Since job reservation has been applied, the total Coloured membership has risen to 17,000. In other words, here we have an industry in the Cape in which job reservation has been applied, and an industry about which the Opposition, and more particularly the hon. member for Yeoville, set the whole world aflame and said it would be to the detriment of the Coloureds and in this industry the number of Coloureds has not dropped, but the position of the Coloureds has improved and there are more of them in the industry to-day than before. Now one should like to ask whether the Opposition thinks it is serving the interests of the country in this manner.

How many Whites are there?

It has increased slightly.

So job reservation was unnecessary?

It has at least protected the Whites in the industry. But according to the attitude of the hon. member, they also may be squeezed out to-morrow, and then the hon. member will probably raise his hands to the skies and go into ecstasies. This side of the House cannot adopt such an attitude and we shall not do so. But there have been further complaints again about the harsh effects of job reservation. I have just shown that job reservation really is nothing else but a watch-dog to see to it that the conventional workers’ pattern is maintained, and to allege that the actual application of statutory job reservation prejudices your people really is nonsense and in conflict with the facts, for during the six years in which the new Act has been on the Statute Book in terms of which job reservation may be applied, up to the present lime only five job reservation determinations have come into force, and a few will come into operation in a few months’ time. At the moment only five are in operation and it affects an insignificant percentage of your entire workers’ population, perhaps a percentage of two or three per cent, and if now you had the prejudice for the workers, then surely it would have been reflected already in the form of strikes and protests, etc. But on the contrary, we are not getting any protests in regard to the application thereof. All we get perhaps is a little bit of raising the dust in the debate in this House and in the meantime if some industrialist wishes to relieve himself of something and has nothing else to talk about, he refers to “job reservation”, for it is always a popular thing to which the Press is eager to give some publicity. But for the rest there is no substance in this complaint. I wish to express my conviction that the job reservation has affected an insignificant number of workers, that it has not prejudiced anybody, and that it has not thrown any Coloured person out of work. On the contrary, thanks to job reservation, Coloureds here in the Cape are to-day enjoying protection such as they have never enjoyed before in the clothing industry, and thanks to job reservation, they will receive protection in the hotel industry such as they have never enjoyed before. This job reservation will in course of time penetrate to the minds of the Coloureds through the class propaganda hon. members opposite are making, and they will come to realize that it will be a measure of protection to them in the same way that it protects the White workers. [Time limit.]

After the speeches of the hon. Minister of Labour and his Deputy, we on this side of the House, and I think the country, are absolutely confused as to the real attitude that hon. members opposite want to adopt. The hon. the Deputy Minister seems to be talking at cross purposes with the hon. the Minister, because the hon. the Minister in referring to the tribunal of the textile industry of 20 October 1961 gave the speech that I would have liked to make from this side of the House in quoting their remarks to substantiate our viewpoint. But the hon. the Minister left out one important part of that report, where the tribunal acknowledges “that protection would neither attract to, nor stabilize White labour in the middle and lower work categories”. That is the most pertinent part of that report which I am afraid the hon. the Minister, probably inadvertently, did not refer to, and it is on that comment by the tribunal that the whole condemnation of job reservation, as such, comes from our side of the House.

Nonsense!

It is not nonsense. These are the words of the tribunal. They themselves say that you will never be able to stabilize or attract White labour in the middle and lower income groups under job reservation.

In the textile industry.

In following up that argument, I want to refer to the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister when he virtually said that there was no need to legislate on this question of job reservation. He said in so many words “let convention take its course”.

I did not say that there is no need for legislation.

But the hon. the Minister said that in England there was job reservation “by convention”. That is what we have said all along. There is no need to have this iniquitous type of legislation in this country which has been a blot on our legislation ever since it has been in practice. We have always maintained that you could let tradition and convention, as practised in this country, take its normal course and that you did not need all this legislation, with continuous exemptions having to be applied for. Mr. Chairman, if you analyse the position, what do you find? What has been the need, and what has been the result of these various determinations? There has been 11 determinations of which, as the hon. the Deputy Minister quite correctly said, only five have been implemented in practice. Actually I think there are six, and of those six, how many White people has it affected? It has affected approximately 307 White persons. I am leaving out Determination No. 1 and also Determination No. 8, because in view of the court case that took place and the revised determination, the status quo has been established and a fixed percentage has to be maintained at all times. So all this unfavourable reaction by the outside world against South Africa, is in respect of the protection of the work of approximately 307 persons. Is it justified? Can we as White people in this country justify ourselves in the eyes of the world in regard to the deprivation of the rights of people to prove themselves by their own skills? And, Sir, if we are going to carry on with this iniquitous practice of job reservation, have we not reached the stage that we are discouraging our own White children of the incentive of advancing themselves in skilled occupations? We know as children advance, their education becomes more improved, education reaches a higher standard and they do not go in for these semi-skilled jobs. It is only natural that they should look for better and more congenial employment. No matter how religious-minded, how civilized and how educated a man may be, you cannot just say because his colour is brown or his colour is black, that he, for all time, must be denied the right to advance himself economically. If we persevere with this argument that we must reserve jobs for people on the basis of colour irrespective of the “rate for the job”, then it is just a matter of time before everybody will be asking for protection. You have already had the case this evening where the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) has asked that Coloured petrol-attendants should be protected, and that Coloured waiters should be protected; he has asked for protection for Coloureds in the building trade, and so on. Sir, the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) has mentioned a case that the hon. the Minister of Labour only touched on by reference. Let us now see how paradoxical this whole situation has developed. What has happened in Springs? There the hon. the Minister appointed a tribunal to investigate job reservation into motor-vehicle driving in the refuse removal services of the Health Department of the Town Council of Springs, and this tribunal reported as follows: That the refuse removal services of the health department means that section or part of municipal undertaking charged with the transport by means of a motor-vehicle of all rubbish, refuse or night-soil, as well as the lifting, collecting, loading, unloading and removal thereof, and this shall be reserved to White persons. Sir, honestly, what stage have we reached when the Minister of Labour, as one of the first steps that he took when he became Minister, put his signature to this night-soil determination?

At whose request was that determination made?

The Employees’ association.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOUR:

At Springs?

The Town Council of Springs was specifically against it. They advanced argument after argument in their memorandum to show that it was totally unnecessary; to show that it was going to cost the ratepayers R30,000 a year extra, in order to protect the right of two White European drivers to drive garbage vans, to collect, as the definition now says, “rubbish, refuse and night-soil”. In the eyes of the outside world we create the impression that we had to spend thousands of rand in having a tribunal sitting on a matter like this, when actually all you are doing here is to humiliate the White people in compelling them to accept jobs like that in the future, and not encourage them to seek more attractive work.

How many people applied for the posts?

Sir, these people were transferred from the sphere of lorry-drivers and given more satisfactory and remunerative employment in the Municipality of Springs as overseers. But they are now being compelled to carry on with this garbage van driving. They may find themselves driving these lorries with non-Europeans sitting next to them in the cab, because it is obvious that eight Bantu who have to assist in this work, cannot all sit in the body of the van, and at least two of them will sit with the European driver in the cab. This is then called “job-reservation”, Sir, we are absolutely humiliating the White people of this country when we compel them, by legislation, to accept jobs of this nature.

What the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) suppresses is that it was the municipal employees’ Association who had asked for job reservation in the case of Springs.

That is not true.

Of course it is, and it is a big association. It struck me in this debate, how the United Party moved like a cat on hot bricks in regard to this matter of job reservation. There was a tilt on the part of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) at job reservation, and also the hon. member for Benoni hit out at job reservation, but nothing really came of it, until after the hon. the Minister stated his attitude in that regard. Now they are trying to ridicule it in the manner in which the hon. member for Springs has just tried to do so. They are now trying to make job reservation look ridiculous. But now I should like to ask them a question. Are they, if the impossible were to happen and the United Party were ever to come into power again, are they going to abolish job reservation, yes or no? I ask them to reply to that, any one of them who has the moral courage. Let them say whether they are going to abolish job reservation when they are returned to power. Now they are completely silent. Why are they so silent now? Are they saying “yes” or “no”? Now I wish to go further and say that if they have it up their sleeves to abolish job reservation, to delete Section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, let them have the moral courage to tell us so. But as they do not have the moral courage to reply to that question now, I should like to ask them another question: Are they going to abolish the application of the colour bar in the mines, if the impossible were to happen and they are returned to power? I should like to have a reply to that. Complete silence. It is very clear to me that the United Party does not have the courage to reply to that, and I can understand it very well. They are afraid of the workers of South Africa, if they were to say “Yes”. But the question, what have they up their sleeves? If one were to assume that they are going to abolish job reservation, according to their attacks upon it to-day, then surely one can infer that they will also abolish the colour bar in the mines, for actually there is no difference between the two cases, although the Opposition always wants to tell the outside world that there is a distinction between job reservation and the application of the colour bar in the mines. There is absolutely no distinction. Job reservation means that you demarcate certain jobs for the Whites and certain jobs for the non-Whites and the colour bar in the mines means exactly the same, namely that you demarcate certain jobs for the Whites and certain jobs for the non-Whites. So there is no difference between the two, for if A is equal to X and B also is equal to X, then surely A also is equal to B. So there is no difference between the application of job reservation in the factory and the application of the colour bar in the mines. There is no difference. The two things are identical. The Opposition do not have the courage now to say whether or not they are going to abolish it. The workers of South Africa, however, know what to deduce from their silence, and what the United Party have up their sleeves in these tactics, namely that they want to abolish the application of job reservation and of the colour bar in the mines. That is the only inference you can draw from their silence. Let the workers of South Africa know that. I want to say this, moreover, namely that if job reservation had existed in 1922, there would have been no strike and accordingly no bloodshed either. But it was the very fact that there was no such thing as job reservation or a colour bar, that conflicts arose. The non-Whites were ousting the Whites in the gold mining industry. If job reservation had been in operation in the ’thirties, and in the ’forties also, you would not have had the conflict in the clothing industry. The great difficulty that arose in the clothing industry would not have come about, namely the trouble in consequence of the fact that White women were being ousted in the industry by non-Whites.

I should like to come to another matter now, and that is the fact that the White workers have been ousted from the clothing industry in Germiston. The hon. member for Yeoville has quoted figures to show that where formerly there were 4,000 White workers, there are only 400 now. That the hon. member for Yeoville attributes to the border industries. That, however, is not the truth and it has nothing to do with the whole matter. He referred to the unfair competition from the border industries. But that is only a small drop in the ocean. The true state of affairs is that the non-Whites of Johannesburg ousted the Whites under the leadership of Solly Sachs. They ousted the Whites to a steadily increasing extent under the pretext that there were no Whites available. But we knew that in fact there were Whites that were walking the streets unemployed, while the non-Whites under Solly Sachs’ régime were employed. So cheaper non-White labour was employed in the factories at Johannesburg, and in the long run Germiston had to give up the struggle against Johannesburg. I know what I am talking about, for I myself was involved in that struggle. That then is the reason why the White clothing workers were ousted from the Germiston factories, namely to make way for cheap non-White labour. The cheap non-White labour of Johannesburg therefore was the reason why the clothing industry in Germiston eventually also became Black. The employers there were well disposed to the Whites, but they had to give way to the competition that came from Johannesburg with its cheap labour, and they themselves had to employ more and more non-Whites. That is the reason why there are so few White clothing workers in Germiston at the present time. The struggle against the cheap labour of Johannesburg was too much for these employers of Germiston. So it has nothing to do with any competition that came from the border industries, as the hon. member for Yeoville tried to suggest.

The hon. member for Boksburg has once again attempted to defend the policy of job reservation. I do not, however, wish to pursue that aspect any further as there are other aspects of the Labour Vote which we on this side of the house should like to obtain information on from the Minister.

First and foremost is the question relating to those young persons who at present are undergoing full-time training in the citizen force. The Government saw it necessary to pass an Act last year which made it compulsory for much larger numbers of young persons to be called up to undergo full-time military training for a period of nine months. The first ballottees, who commenced their training in January, will be returning at the end of September and I believe the stage has now been reached where the Minister should give the House some indication of what steps he and his Department are taking with a view to fitting into the labour market those young persons who have not yet had an opportunity of finding employment. With the system of calling up more young persons for full-time training, comes the necessity to obtain them straight from school. As the scheme gets under way and as more and more young persons are called up every three months, so we shall find, particularly so next year, that a large number of these persons are being taken for training straight from school. As I said, the group who commenced their training in January this year, will have completed that training by the end of September. The Minister should, therefore, give us an indication of whether he is taking any special steps to meet the situation which will be created by their return. Such steps are urgent. Inquiries should be made amongst employers with a view to finding out what vacancies exist in which these young persons might be accommodated when they return to civilian life. The Minister in reply to a question put to him in this connection by me on 11 May, regarding the part which the juvenile affairs boards could play, said that in certain respects these boards could provide vocational guidance and find employment for these youngsters on the return. The Minister should, however, give us an indication of what other steps he is taking so as to ensure that these youngsters are absorbed into the labour market. There is the question of apprenticeships. A concession was made to the effect that four months of the nine months’ training will be counted as part of their apprenticeship period but this applies only to those who are already serving apprenticeships. Those who are leaving for camps straight from school will be making a great sacrifice because they will be sacrificing almost one year of their time. They will not come in for consideration in so far as a remission of apprenticeship period is concerned because they will have not yet commenced their apprenticeship when they are called up.

While dealing with apprenticeships, I want to say that am sorry the Minister did not reply, when he replied to the debate earlier on, to certain questions which were put to him by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). I know the whole apprenticeship system is receiving the attention of the National Apprenticeship Board. This Board has brought out a very comprehensive report which covers almost every aspect of the system. This report was brought out in September 1960. On 31 January 1961 I asked the then Minister of Labour whether any steps would be taken to introduce legislation amending the Apprenticeship Act of 1944. His reply on that occasion was as follows—

That was in 1961. Again at the beginning of 1962 I repeated the question to the present Minister of Labour and he replied that legislation was being prepared for introduction during this session. Well, we are now moving towards the close of the session and according to such information as we have, such amending legislation is not forthcoming. This is a vitally important matter. It has been standing over since 1960. I do hope, therefore, that the present Minister will give his serious attention to the matter with a view to revising the apprenticeship system. Let us look at the figures for new registrations for apprenticeships, and let us bring that into relation to our developing economy. On the strength of this one would expect that there should be a larger intake of apprenticeships. According to the Viljoen Commission, however, there is a shortage of apprentices, particularly in certain trades. In addition the general rate of intake of apprentices does not keep pace with the rate of increase of industrial employees as a whole. These facts are also borne out by the latest reports of the Department of Labour. During 1959 17,556 new apprentices were registered whereas in 1960 this figure decreased to 7,017, i.e. a decrease of 539. According to the table of contracts in operation in the various industries, at the end of 1959 27,607 such contracts were in operation, in comparison with 26,618 in 1960, i.e. a decrease of 989. Surely it is a vitally important factor in our expanding economy that we should increase the number of artisans which are being trained for the future. This is a matter which I think deserves the serious consideration of the Government and particularly of this Minister whose duty it is gauge the intake of labour and to control our labour forces.

The report and recommendations of the National Apprenticeship Board cover a variety of aspects. I think the Board’s terms of reference for this inquiry included 14 different aspects. Certain of these recommendations have been accepted by the Minister. Amongst these recommendations are important ones such as that duly qualified inspectors should be appointed to see that apprentices are receiving sufficient training in their respective trades. With the development to-day of new machinery and new techniques, it is vitally important that our apprenticeship system should be modernized so as to keep pace with these developments. I, therefore, ask the Minister to give serious attention to this matter. The whole basis of the future industrial development of South Africa depends to a large extent on the development of our apprenticeship system.

Dealing with the question of artisans and of skilled and trained men, I should like to point out that upon looking through the estimates which we are now discussing, we find that drastic reductions have been made in the amounts of money which are being set aside for the training of artisans in terms of the Act of 1951. On page 259 of the estimates, only R34,000 is set aside as allowances to trainees, supply of overalls, tools, etc., for the coming year whereas during the financial year 1961-’62 an amount of R122,000 was provided for in this respect. On this particular aspect of the training of artisans, therefore, there has been a decrease of about R88,000. Does this mean that there is going to be a decrease in the activities in connection with the training of artisans? [Time limit.]

I am rising to reply to one point only. It is a matter raised by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) in regard to job reservation in the health division of the municipality of Springs. I am very surprised at his attitude which creates the impression that he is not aware that the inquiry concerned was ordered at the request of the employees themselves. I want to be fair to the hon. member, and that is why I now wish to ask him whether he is aware that the Municipal Employees’ Association asked for the inquiry? Does he know that they complained and then asked for the inquiry?

Yes, I am aware of that. But may I now ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware that the two Whites who were replaced by certain National Party city councillors, were asked to bring the matter to the attention of the Municipal Employees Association?

I regret that the hon. member, who is the member for Springs and therefore ought to be very familiar with the circumstances surrounding this matter, has created the impression that this is an inquiry that was ordered without consultation with the employees about it, or without it being asked for by the employees. The report submitted at the conclusion of the inquiry is available to the hon. member. If he studies this report, which he should have done if he wished to speak to it, he will see very clearly that the Municipal Employees Association called for the inquiry. I have never had the impression that the Municipal Employees Association would permit itself to be influenced by two National Party city councillors. To suggest that, casts a reflection on that association, and I wonder therefore, whether they will thank the hon. member for Springs for having made a statement to that effect. Let me deal further with the matter. When complaints were received from the Municipal Employees Association in regard to the proposal of the City Council of Springs to have this particular class of work in question here done by non-Whites whereas Europeans had always been used for it, the reaction of the United Party members in the City Council concerned was that this was a very modest (humble) kind of employment inasmuch as the removal of night soil also fell under it. That is why they disposed of it lightly as being Bantu work and not the kind of work that ought to be done by Whites. The attitude of the Municipal Employees Association, however, was quite different, and it is as well that we have it as a pattern of the operation of the machinery that I have described as the “watch-dog machinery”. This pattern consists of this, that the Municipal Employees Association expressed the fear that other employees could also be replaced by non-Whites once it is conceded that non-Whites should do the kind of work concerned in question. Here is the point I should like the hon. member for Springs as well as the whole United Party to realize, namely that as soon as work, however humble and simple it may be, in the eyes of some United Party people, begins to pass into the hands of non-Whites, the whole workers’ pattern can be changed,—the conventional workers’ pattern—and afterwards there can be no more security for your White workers. It is with this very object in view that the security of the White worker may be undermined, that this inquiry was then called for.

I hope the hon. member for Springs will report to the Municipal Employees Association of Springs on this matter when he returns to Springs. It will interest all United Party members opposite to learn that while this inquiry was being held, representations were received by the industrial tribunal concerned from the Municipal Workers Association of Durban. Representations were made that the ousting of Whites by non-Whites should receive serious attention. Their own words were as follows—

That is why it is improper for any member of the United Party to belittle this work, that was in question in Springs, by saying that it is only night soil work and therefore need not be done by Whites. In this connection I should like to point out that after this particular work was reserved for Whites, 100 applications from Whites for those jobs were received, according to a communication from the hon. member for Geduld.

No, 130.

The hon. member for Brakpan says it is 130. In any event, these are the people who are regarded by the United Party members of the city council of Springs as people who wish to do insignificant work that ought to be done by Bantu. The hon. member for Springs is not fighting for these people. But apart from that, I wish to remind the hon. member that he represents a mining constituency. Something that apparently has never been driven home to him is that his miners there are protected by the first statutory job reservation that was made in our country, namely the colour bar of 1926. That was the first clear-cut statutory job reservation in South Africa, that is to say, a long time before the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956. Does the hon. member now want us to abolish the colour bar of 1926 also? I want to warn him that if the constituency Springs becomes National at the next general election, he must know it is because the miners and other workers find no protection in his and his Party’s pleas.

Before going on to the matter which I should like to deal with, I should like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister on behalf of the people that I represent that his comparison between job reservation and what he called, conventional job reservation in England, is a revelation-May I remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that convention, usage and custom can best be likened to a living organism and the peculiarity about such an organism is that as soon as you reduce it to legislation, you kill it. If you do away with convention by legislation, disruption and disaster follow. The latter has been the case in this country over the last few years. Let us consider the prospects of establishing the rights of Coloureds on the ground of convention. About 25 years ago there was hardly a single White bricklayer working on buildings in Cape Town. Is it then the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intention to reserve the job of bricklayer to Coloureds only on the strength of this usage and custom? As a result of this convention? If he does not, as he evidently does not then his arguments do not hold water. The argument is not correct, it is a subterfuge. Let us, therefore, leave well alone.

The practice in Cape Town has for many years been that Coloured people have been employed for electricity and water readings. A logical later development was that Coloureds were also employed as traffic constables. There was no public outcry against this development. For some reason or other, however, the Government stepped in and applied job reservation with the result that all Coloured traffic constables had to go. It was only after intervention and strong representations that those already employed were allowed to stay but no new ones can be employed. That, I think, is utterly wrong. It is an example of the application of job reservation to the detriment of the people we represent in this House.

The European traffic policemen appealed to the Government to protect them!

But there was no outcry on the part of the public of Cape Town. If an appeal from European traffic policemen was the sole justification for this action, the Government should have known better. If that is so, there still would have been no such appeal to the Government had the European traffic policemen not known that their appeal would be met, to the detriment of the Coloured people who could not protect themselves, and because they knew that because they wanted it so, the Government would readily accede otherwise they would not have made such an appeal. What has been done, therefore, cannot be justified.

Take the trades of mechanics, electricians, turners and fitters, etc., for example. We have to import trained people in these categories from overseas. But if we can provide better facilities for the training of our Coloured people in these trades, we shall not have to import people from overseas. Legislation, however, prohibits a Coloured lad being apprenticed to a White artisan. He must be apprenticed to an artisan of his race. That is what is holding the Coloured people back and that is why we have to look for these people overseas.

The hon. member for Vereeniging said that wage determinations should best be left to trade unions and employers. I do not agree with him that this applies in all respects and especially not in so far as the wages of Coloured farm labourers are concerned. The position of Coloured farm labourers in the Cape is in many cases absolutely deplorable due to the misery and poverty in which they have to live. In many cases, their housing conditions are deplorable and yet there is nothing they themselves can do about it. Farmers have a just grievance when they say that industrialists and employers in the cities get municipal housing for their employees whereas they, i.e. the farmers, have to provide that themselves for their labourers. In the meantime the people who have to suffer as a result are the Coloured people. They have no protection as far as their wages are concerned. I do not say that all farmers are underpaying their labourers or are not treating their labourers properly. There are, however, cases where Coloured farm labourers are underpaid and have to live in miserable conditions. They have no opportunity of sending their children to school because there is no such thing as free transport as is the case with White children. Neither are there any boarding house facilities for them. Their low standard of living makes them a burden on the State. Eventually they will move to the towns and live there. That is the case already right throughout the South-Western Districts. When you talk about it to farmers, they invariably say that those Coloured labourers do not want to work. But the fact of the matter is that these poor people cannot, with the wages they get and the conditions they live under give their children an education and feed and clothe them properly.

And I do not want to confine this to labourers of farmers only. The same applies to contractors doing construction work. In this connection I should like to mention a case in point. Just recently a power station was built just outside Mossel Bay. For the work the contractors employed Bantu labour. When they moved to complete a sewerage scheme at Riversdale, they wanted to take their Bantu labourers along with them. There was an uproar, however, as they had to get permission from the municipality of Riversdale to do so. Some members of the municipality maintained that local Coloured labour should be used. The contractors said they could not get Coloured labour. I guarantee that in Mossel Bay itself you could within a few weeks find between 800 and 900 Coloured people who are unemployed. But they cannot work for, and maintain their families and themselves on the wages that the Bantu labourers work for.

What is your suggestion for a remedy?

I am pleading for something which the hon. member for Ceres knows is long overdue, namely the appointment of a commission of enquiry into the wages which are being paid to farm labourers and construction labourers in the rural areas. Such a commission should also investigate the question of accident insurance for Coloured labourers. Such insurance can be obtained at very cheap rates. And yet in some cases callous negligence is permitted by some employers to their Coloured labourers. I am dealing with one such case at the moment where a Coloured labourer has been injured as a result of criminal recklessness. This Coloured is now a burden on the State for the rest of his life whereas he could have been provided for by an insurance. Employers should be compelled to provide for insurance benefits for all their labourers. [Time limit.]

In reply to the hon. member who just sat down, I should like to say that industrial legislation does not apply to agriculture and, accordingly, there is no machinery where under wages of farm labourers can be fixed. It will, in any case, be an almost impossible task to prescribe wages for farm labourers in view of the enormous variety of farming operations which are encountered right throughout the country. There is the distribution of manpower, the geographical position of our farming areas, climatic conditions which have a direct bearing on production, and prices which fluctuate affected by the distance from the market and the cost of transport and above all, the uncertainty of nature. In view of these circumstances it would to my mind not only be impracticable to prescribe wages for farm labour. It will, furthermore, be an impossible task to attempt it, however sympathetically one may be inclined.

In regard to the questions put to me by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), I regret that I did not reply to him when I spoke earlier on. This also applies to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). The hon. member for Hospital quoted certain interesting figures which show that a large proportion of our White youths do not proceed beyond St. VI and are not interested in further education. I agree with him that this is a serious problem. It is, however, a matter primarily for the education authorities. It is a matter which could very well be considered by the proposed National Education Advisory Council to be set up under a Bill which is now before the House. The hon. member for Umbilo also asked about the implementation of the recommendations of the National Apprenticeship Board. It is quite true that I said at the beginning of this Session that I might be able to introduce amendments to the relevant Act in the course of this Session. After having drafted the necessary legislation, however, I received representations from the Trade Union Council. They had serious objections to some of the proposals. Consequently, the legislation is being held up, but I can give the hon. member the assurance that the Bill will be introduced next year.

Is there any possibility that it will be published in the Gazette during the recess?

That might be possible. The hon. member also asked me what steps were being taken by the Department in regard to youths who are at present undergoing compulsory military training. This matter is being taken in hand. Vocational guidance officers are being placed in the camps and they are lecturing to these boys so that when they come out we can canvass the required vacancies for them.

On Vote No. 42.—“Immigration,” R2,942,000.

This Vote affords us the opportunity of asking the hon. the Minister, who is a new Minister in this portfolio, to state his policy in regard to immigration. We do not want to be referred to a statement he made in the Other Place. There are certain classes of immigrants to whom I should particularly like to refer in the hope that the hon. the Minister will specifically deal with them when he gives us a statement of his policy. The first group concerns immigrants from Kenya. Another group concerns those immigrants coming to us from other African territories which were within the Commonwealth. A third group concerns immigrants coming to us from territories which are not part of the Commonwealth. There is, of course, also a fourth group of immigrants, i.e. those coming from oversea countries, but in regard to the first three groups, and particularly in regard to immigrants from Kenya, I should like to know whether the Minister intends making some special provision for them so as to induce them to come to the Republic.

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

The House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.