Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I should like to touch briefly on what was said by the hon. member for Port Natal. Unfortunately he is not present.

He will be here shortly.

If he will only be here shortly, I want to put a question to him now in this House which can be conveyed to him. The question I want to put to him, concerns the remarks he made in this House yesterday in regard to housing, particularly housing for the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians. I want to ask him whether in his heart of hearts he is truly a South African …

Of course.

I do not mention the word “Afrikaner”, because I do not expect that, but I do want to ask him whether he is truly a South African.

Of course.

If he were a South African, he would not have made statements, while he was being loyal in his heart and soul to the country which houses, feeds and clothes him, that the people in this country were living in holes and under trees and pieces of corrugated iron. It is disgraceful to say that.

It is true.

Sir, the Opposition says that it is true because the truth has caught up with them. The truth of 25 years has caught up with them and they are unable to get away from the truth. For 25 years the electorate of South Africa has been rejecting them because they speak ambiguously. Those members know as well as I do what has been done in regard to housing in this country. They know what privileges have been created for the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians. They know, too, what privileges have been created for the Whites in this country. It costs us more than R2 000 million per annum, and I am telling them now that it is disgraceful to say that it is true that our people are living in holes and under pieces of corrugated iron and in shanties. No government in the world has done more for the housing of its population than this Nationalist Government has done during the past 25 years.

And after 25 years they are still living in holes.

Sir, that poor member is a lost soul wandering in the desert. If he says that, his own party will reject him in the future, because the question is this: Is that member speaking the truth or is he speaking a lot of lies?

Sir, I should like to touch briefly on what was said by the hon. member for Hillbrow. He is a person who in his lifetime has been influenced a great deal by a predecessor of his in this House, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer. I want to put a question to the hon. member in regard to the constituency he is representing here today. I want to know whether he knew that constituency in the early fifties shortly after the National Party had taken over the reins of government. Does he remember the Act which was introduced by Dr. Verwoerd, the “Locations in the Sky Act”? What did we seek to achieve thereby? That legislation was passed in the interests of the poor Bantu—now I am mentioning him—who was being exploited and impoverished injustly in the flats of Hillbrow. Sir, I can talk about this matter because I was involved. I can tell you that in the evenings, Bantu men lay packed like sardines in the flats on the top floors. The Bantu there had to pay something like £2 and £3 per month with the result that the landlords of such a flat received something like £60, £80 and up to £100 per month for that flat in rentals. We removed those people and placed them under the Resettlement Board, and now they are happy. And what does the hon. member for Hillbrow say now? Is it still the same? The member does not know what is going on in his own constituency. The trouble with the United Party, Sir, is that they have lost touch with their voters. They can no longer talk openly and honestly to their people. They have one obsession only, and that is to get rid of the National Party, even though they stake themselves as White people. That is the obsession they have. Sir, I want to say to those people: Let us differ from one another politically; that is quite in order, but there are certain principles in respect of which we as White people may not differ from one another. One of these is that one must act with honour and justice in one’s heart. But it is the voice of Harry Oppenheimer and the hon. member for Hillbrow who condemn this. Sir, it is a case of the voice being that of Jacob but the hands being those of Esau. They can say what they like, but that is the truth.

Sir, I now come to a major problem which will have to be solved in the near future. This is the problem of District Six. Sir, they are fighting the steps being taken in regard to District Six. They refuse to allow the clearance of slums such as those in Sophiatown. In the case of the Coloureds they do not want those people to be accommodated in decent houses where they will be able to maintain a decent standard of living. They refuse to let the Coloured people have that [Interjections.] It is true, because before that hon. member was in politics, I was dealing with this kind of thing. I am telling the hon. member for Hillbrow now that we have been dealing with these matters for a long time, and this matter will be resolved. For a Coloured person it is monstrous to be living there in District Six. However, before we are able to remove him from District Six we first have to make accommodation available to him elsewhere. When District Six stands in triumph as was the case with Sophiatown, they will once again be as quiet as mice. They were as quiet as mice after we had cleared Sophiatown and had re-established the Bantu who lived there. Today it is known as Triomf; the White man is happy there but then they condemned it. Did they also accompany the clergymen on visits to that area? I saw the clergyman there, although no one else in this House saw them. Let me tell you this, Sir. When we were taking the Bantu aboard in Sophiatown, these clergymen ran along behind those vehicles to bid the Bantu farewell for the last time. The Bantu called to them, “Goodbye, we shall see each other again in Meadowlands or Diepkloof”. But they never paid those places a visit.

Your time has expired.

That hon. member says that my time has expired, but it hurts him when I am speaking of the truth. I do not come along to this House with a lot of things I have sucked out of my thumb, and that is why these things are hurting the hon. member. Sir, what are his plans for the future? What do they want? Sir, we can supply the housing needs of all sections of the population, but then every White in South Africa must pay half of his income in taxes. Sir, I want to say this to the hon. member for Port Natal, who is being fed and clothed by this fatherland of ours: Give half of your salary to the State so that we may build more houses for Indians and Bantu. No, that the hon. members do not want; they want to fill their pockets and they want to impoverish the State by expecting of the State to perform a virtually impossible task, within a few days or a few years. I thank you.

Sir, I should like to reply at this stage to a number of points that have been raised in this debate up to now, since we still have a great deal of time left for discussing this Vote. I refer, in the first place, to a speech made here by the hon. member for Pretoria West yesterday afternoon. He made certain representations, especially with regard to the aged. In that connection I should like to give him the assurance that in so far as my department may be involved in the matter, his representations will receive attention.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North also made certain statements here, with which I want to deal now. In the first place, he expressed the suspicion that profits were being made by my statutory boards at the expense of a certain section of the population. I take it that here he was referring especially to the activities of the Community Development Board. I want to tell the hon. member that it is simply impossible to reply specifically to such vague statements, but I can give him the assurance that the actions of this board are effected in terms of a precept, and that that precept applies to every section of the population. Every section of the population —White, Coloured and Indian—is affected by the activities of this board, precisely in terms of the same precept. I simply cannot imagine at all how steps can be taken specifically to the detriment of one section of the population and why this would at all be done. The hon. member also referred to building plots for certain religious and cultural needs of the community in Lenasia. I want to tell him that that matter has been brought to my notice. It is true that the prices determined by the Community Development Board as an autonomous body seem high when compared with the prices determined in other areas for plots for similar institutions, but on the other hand the position is that that area was zoned for business plots, and the board was prepared to rezone this area for these purposes. The hon. member should, in order that he may arrive at a reasonable conclusion, see the picture in the overall pattern of how the board determines its prices. The prices at which plots were offered to this community were probably 50% lower than the prices the Community Board would have been able to get if it had made those plots available for business purposes. But I realize that the prices are high. At the time I discussed the matter with my department, and it has been suggested to the community that in view of the further development which will now take place in that area as a result of the uncertainties that have now been cleared up in respect of the dolomitic deposit, consideration should instead be given to making plots available to them in those areas, in that area intended for further development. I hope that this will bring satisfaction.

In respect of purchase deeds without purchase prices, the position is that the department never made any plots available without any price being put on them whatever. But it was agreed that that price would be a provisional one as the department was not in a position at that stage to determine with any certainty what the final cost would be of the scheme that was being developed. Rather than holding it back and keeping the people out of it, these measures were taken. In other words, it was done in their interests. If the department had only been intent on making profit, it would have been very easy for it to determine a price ensuring that it would be in a favourable position there and would then probably sell the plots at those prices. In other words, these measures were taken with a view to the interests of the people concerned and not with any other object in view. The position has now developed to the point where it is possible to give the final purchase prices now.

Then the hon. member referred to the Indians of Lenasia being in the hands of the department because no other land had been available. Well, I honestly want to say that I cannot understand that argument, i.e. how the provision of more land, which must in any case be developed by the local authority and by my department and on which all the services must be provided, could place these people in a more favourable position than is the case at present. This simply does not make any sense to me.

They have no option.

My point is that even if one were to make other group areas available to them in that vicinity of Johannesburg, the position would still be that it could not bring about a saving for them; on the contrary, it would bring about duplication, and that would in turn bring about costs which would have to be passed on to them. My experience at present is that Lenasia, after initial resistance, is very popular with the Indians, and the demands made on my department for housing are far greater than what my department can provide.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North also referred to statistics relating in the manner in which land prices had risen in this area. But costs rose gradually and adjustments had to be made as costs rose, in order that the department might have reasonable certainty that what it had spent there, it would be able to recover in due course. This was not done, as is being suggested, with a view to gain. Gradually, as it went along, there were increases. The cost of services increased; services had to be provided and the moneys for that purpose had to be recovered in some way or other. The logical way is to recover such moneys the way it was done here. Here, too, the same consideration applies. My department and its statutory boards are not out for gain, and whether or not hon. members want to accept this, this is the position.

The hon. member for Parow referred to unauthorized non-Whites living in White residential areas. At this stage I should merely like to say to the hon. member that both my department and I myself are fully aware of this problem. In fact, virtually daily I see this problem developing in Sea Point. I often meet inhabitants of Sea Point who are becoming increasingly concerned about the position which is developing there. We have problems and to a considerable extent the hon. member is aware of those problems. Only this morning I had another discussion with my department on that matter. It is receiving our attention, and I hope that I shall be able to introduce measures within the foreseeable future in an attempt to remedy this position in as far as this is practicable.

The hon. member also referred to transit camps. In that respect I think the same applies as what I told another hon. member in this regard, i.e. that the solution is being sought in the direction of the cheapest type of house that can be made available.

The hon. member for Jeppes asked me for some statement or other on the Johannes Committee. At this juncture I am not prepared to make any statement. I have good reasons for this. I do not want to say today that when the legislation which may result from it is dealt with, I shall not make available to the House the data which was furnished by this committee. This may prove to be necessary, and if it does I shall do it. However, at this juncture I do not see my way clear to acceding to his request.

The hon. member also said that he had hoped for a more imaginative programme in the light of the growing building needs of South Africa as projected to the year 2000. We all know what the anticipated position is and that, as I said yesterday, the expenditure in the building industry will amount to R10 000 million per year by that time. However, I prefer to stick to the real facts. If we must talk about imaginativeness or something spectacular, I think that the department’s achievements, in which I only have a very minor share, since it really got into the swing of exercising the functions assigned to it, are spectacular in themselves. This is my sincere conviction, and I think hon. members who know what has been achieved will agree with it.

The hon. member also referred to the return on properties let and, on the strength of information given to him, he calculated an income from it at 12½%. I do not know what objection the hon. member could have in this regard. The board must recover its expenditure, because it must be able to cover the liabilities contracted by it. Interest is being paid on this money at a rate which is normally 8½%. That interest must be recovered. In this letting scheme one often finds that there are properties which have been bought out but which the previous owner wants to rent from us until such time as other arrangements have been made. There are other expenses as well. If such a property is being let, municipal rates and taxes must be paid on it. Then there are administrative costs that have to be covered. More often than not there are maintenance costs that have to be covered. When all these expenses are added together, 12½% is to my mind a fair rate.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Could the hon. the Minister perhaps tell us why he is acting contrary to the decisions of the Rent Board in this regard? The Rent Board lays down a certain rate of interest, but why does the department receive interest at rates which are between 25% and 30% higher than the rate laid down by the Rent Board?

No, I do not think it can be worked out that way. I think there is a mistake in the hon. member’s calculations. All the things taken into consideration by the Community Board, are things permitted under the Rents Act in order to determine the rate. All these are things that are permitted.

I can give it to the hon. the Minister.

In a case where, for instance, a flat-owner has a bond on that property, the interest paid by him on that bond is permissible as an item of expenditure in the determination of what the rent will be. It is permissible. I do not think that there is anything unreasonable here, but what happens in actual practice? What they do is merely human; the hon. member would do it and I would probably do it, too. When one sells a property, one tries to get the highest price possible and one tries to negotiate what one can. When such a person subsequently let that property, the price negotiated by him is immediately taken into account in respect of the determination of the rent. Then that person is startled by the rent he has to pay as a result of the price he negotiated.

I want to express my appreciation for the comments made by the hon. member for Innesdal and for the suggestions put forward by him in his speech. The hon. member for Maitland thanked the officials of Cape Town for what they had done for him in his constituency. I want to thank him specifically on behalf of the officials of Cape Town for his thanks. He should only try to see the matter in its true perspective. Apart from the Minister there are quite a number of officials, and the officials who have to settle the matter are sitting in Pretoria. The hon. member …

Next time I shall do it myself.

The hon. member says he will do it himself next time, but I just want to repeat that the matter is settled finally in Pretoria. The hon. member also spoke about vacant plots in Bothasig and suggested that houses be built on them as soon as possible. My information in this regard is that we are building at a rate of approximately 200 houses per year. The city council is building a large scheme at nearby Sanddrift. Next to that, again, the Garden Cities syndicate is building houses at Edgemead. The Goodwood Town Council itself is also building 54 houses. Very good progress is therefore taking place in Bothasig. That process is continuing, as I have indicated here.

Then the hon. member asked for a central housing bureau. People would then be able to obtain information on housing at such a bureau. What this means, basically, is that another cost item should be created whilst provision is already being made for places where people can obtain information. It is possible for people to approach the city council for such information, and they can also approach the housing office of my department in Cape Town for this purpose. It is possible for them to obtain all the information they may possibly want to obtain from such a central bureau, and, what is more, if they are interested in the private building industry they will also consult the estate agents.

The hon. member also asked for more effective advanced planning in respect of Coloured housing in the Peninsula. I shall furnish more information in that regard later on. I indicated yesterday, by way of statistics I had given to the hon. Committee, what the position was in that respect. I do not think the hon. member can find much fault with that.

If I understood the hon. member correctly, he pleaded yesterday for adjustments to the Rents Act whereby protection in respect of the aged could be embodied in that legislation. I do not think the Rents Act is the instrument which should be applied for such purposes. In fact, I am afraid that if such measures were to be embodied in the Rents Act, the elderly would be the very people on whom these would boomerang. It is logical that if such protective measures were embodied in respect of elderly people, flat-owners would then try not to take them into their blocks of flats. We have other instruments, such as sub-economic housing, homes for the aged and other welfare schemes. In cases where we have to do with the aged, the solution is to be found in that direction.

The hon. member for Malmesbury gave a very sound, broad survey of the activities of the department. He also made an appeal to building societies, which I appreciate. To a certain extent my department also liaises with building societies and we get the opportunity to exchange ideas. As far as statutory adjustments are concerned, I want to say that this is actually a matter for the Minister of Finance, and I think the hon. member realizes this. He also gave a general, broad survey of how this was to be fitted into this whole pattern.

Then the hon. member for Salt River spoke about District Six. A matter about which the hon. member was apparently very sceptical was when a start would be made with the renewal of District Six. I have here a report which was submitted to me and which is somewhat outdated, for it was prepared at the beginning of this year, but I nevertheless want to quote from it. I want to quote, briefly, certain relevant parts of this report (translation)—

If the hon. member is interested in this, I should like to tell him that the area is 110 to 120 morgen in extent. This includes Zonnebloem College, the controlled area in Sir Lowry Road. The total number of properties is 2 375, and those already acquired come to 1 818. We are conducting negotiations in respect of 125 properties, whereas 30 properties are to be expropriated. The balance of 402 properties belongs, for the most part, to the State, the provincial administration, the city council, and 80 are under leasehold to churches and mosques. What has already been paid out up to now, is approximately R20 million, and it is expected that the total will come to between R25 million and R30 million. The hon. member will perhaps have noticed that there are extensive open spaces in that area already. In fact, an amount of R173 481 has already been spent on demolition work. This means that 354 properties have already been demolished. Other properties which have been evacuated, but which cannot be demolished at this stage because people are still living in adjoining buildings and because the one building supports the other, are giving rise to all sorts of evils at the moment, but at this juncture nothing can be done about the matter. The population was 8 122 families at the time of proclamation in 1966, of whom 405 were Indian families; 2 600 Coloured families and 102 Indian families have already been resettled. In other words, on paper the following number of families have to be resettled: Coloureds—5 208 families; Indians—300 families. If the hon. member will visit the District Six area, he will immediately be struck by the fact that the population there has already been thinned out to a large extent. Where all these people have gone to, I would not be able to say, but they definitely are not where they are supposed to be on paper. In fact, even at present it looks like a relatively deserted area.

The hon. member also referred to Mitchell’s Plain, and in this regard he said, “People say it is just a dream.” I shall give the hon. member an idea of what this dream looks like at this juncture, but before dealing with that—this is subsequent information I have obtained—I want to say to the hon. member that he should after all be aware of the delay we had there. It was ascertained that mineral rights existed there, and the value of those mineral rights had to be determined. This took time. A division of the Department of Mines, Geological Services, had to be called in because careful valuations had to be made. Those valuations have more or less been completed now, and it is therefore possible now to negotiate with the owners of the mineral rights. The responsible body is the Cape Town City Council, as was also said here on a previous occasion yesterday. The Cape Town Divisional Council will also assist in the final development. The Community Development Board has just decided to make a loan available to the Railways for the purpose of extending railway lines to Mitchell’s Plain and to Strandfontein along the cost. I mention this because the question of railways was raised here.

Who is providing the loan?

The Community Development Board. On the 10th of this month we received applications from the Cape Town City Council for 4 948 economic dwellings, 1 022 sub-economic dwellings and an additional 4 000 economic dwellings. This is what this “dream” looks like at this juncture. The applications have already been received and will be considered.

Then the hon. member made the request that District Six be made available to the Coloureds again. Apart from the fact that I think that request should actually not be made to me but to a colleague of mine, it would also be better if he did not make that request to me, for all the logic and understanding of the matter which I have at my command, clearly tell me that I cannot have any sympathy for the hon. member’s representations.

To the hon. member for Stilfontein, who spoke before I rose, I want to extend my sincere thanks for his contribution and for the fact that he did not have any criticism of my department; he only had good things to say about it.

Mr. Chairman, when listening to the hon. the Minister and, in fact, when listening to the majority of the hon. members opposite, one sometimes cannot but gain the impression that they are completely out of touch with reality in South Africa. Take for example the reply given here by the hon. the Minister to the hon. member for Johannesburg North when he discussed the matter of Lenasia. The gist of his plea was in fact that something should be done in regard to the exorbitant prices which Indians are having to pay for land there. The hon. the Minister said in reply, “Yes, but Lenasia is popular.” Does he not realize that the Indians have no choice in the matter, that this is the only area there is for them? After all, if larger areas or a greater number of areas were made available to them, the price would drop. I can tell the hon. the Minister that this is not only a case which is limited to Johannesburg or Benoni. In Durban one finds precisely the same position in Reservoir Hills bordering on Westville. There, too, the Indians have to pay two to three times as much for their land than is the case in elite White neighbourhood. All this means is that the effect and application of the Group Areas Act has resulted in Indians having been deprived of their land for next to nothing. They are being forced, through artificial circumstances, to pay tremendously high prices.

Last night I listened attentively to the hon. the Minister when he launched his attack on the hon. member for Hillbrow. I received the impression that to some extent he was unsympathetic towards the fate of the tenants. I want to fell the hon. the Minister that such an attitude is a very dangerous one. The Rents Act is being circumvented and that is a fact. Not only is it being circumvented in Hillbrow in Johannesburg, it is being circumvented everywhere, including the constituency I represent. The malpractices mentioned are malpractices which we also find in virtually every urban area. If the hon. the Minister in any way creates the impression, as he did last night, that he is sympathetic in this regard, he is giving the green light to those people who are trying in all kinds of ways to circumvent the Rents Act. In my opinion this is an irresponsible attitude.

I should now like to come back to another aspect. It has been said here on a number of occasions that the department is one of the largest estate agents in the country. But, Sir, I can tell you that with regard to the Durban Central constituency, the department of the hon. the Minister certainly has more properties at its disposal than any private company. I shall take only a small section of my constituency, Block AK, as an example. Here the hon. the Minister’s department expropriated 162 properties in the late sixties. And that is not even taking into account the properties it has purchased since 1964. There are other parts of my constituency, namely Block G, the Warwick Avenue area and the area south of the botanical gardens. Everywhere this expropriation is taking place in the good name of urban renewal or the need to clear slums. A fact which we have to accept, however, is that worse slum conditions sometimes develop after expropriation than before. This is particularly the case if the plans for the use of the areas were unsatisfactory. The buildings are then rented out. In this way slum conditions develop more rapidly. Now I want the hon. the Minister to admit that the big problem is that freezing and expropriation takes place before the department has proper plans in regard to the development of the area and before thorough valuations in regard to the cost to the department are carried out. The result is that postponements and delays occur when compensation has to be paid. The department simply does not learn from the mistakes it makes.

Now I want to present the example of Block AK to hon. members. This is a typical example of this incompetent way of doing things. In 1968-’69, 162 properties were expropriated. In 1970 I asked the hon. the Minister what the estimated value of the area was. At that stage he said that it would cost R3 500 000. I put a further question this year, and from the reply it appears as that 96 claims have been paid out, but that the department has already had to pay out R3 250 000 in claims. There are still 48 claims outstanding, the value of which amounts to R1 719 000. If the various amounts are added up and compared with what the department, a few years ago, said the value of the area would be, we find that their estimation was at least 50% out. This, basically, is the problem we have to contend with. Over-hasty action is taken, with the result that the development in such an area cannot proceed.

It is interesting that according to a reply I received this year, 144 properties could be accounted for. But in 1970 I was told that 162 properties were expropriated. What has become of the other 18 properties? I have heard of sheep and cattle and horses disappearing, and I am also aware of how difficult it is to find a needle in a haystack, but this is the first time I have heard of buildings, premises and properties which simply disappear. I should therefore be pleased if the hon. the Minister could give me a clear outline of the precise position in Block AK. Has the original expropriation order been withdrawn in respect of the 18 properties, has no offer been made after all these years, have no counter claims been received, or is it simply a case of the department owning so many properties that, like the rich man who is no longer able to count his sheep, it is no longer capable of accounting for all its possessions?

But what is even more important, is that I want to know from the hon. the Minister exactly what the plans in regard to Block AK are. Last year, in replies given in this House, we were told that no clear indication could be given of concrete plans. We know that certain portions have already been utilized for a freeway, but I also want to know from the hon. the Minister whether private entrepreneurs will eventually be allowed to develop certain portions of it, and when these portions are going to be made available. Recently the hon. the Prime Minister spoke here and may covertly have been accusing the United Party of socialism, but I do not know how the hon. the Prime Minister can reconcile the actions and activities of the Department of Community Development with his accusation that we are leaning towards socialism in South Africa. As far as Block AK is concerned, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that when the final chapter is written about the matter and it is found that private entrepreneurs are not going to have a share in the development of that area, it is going to be a tremendous disgrace, because even before the department appeared on the scene, there were private entrepreneurs who had plans for the development of that area and who owned sufficient properties for development and renewal. In Block AK we have also had other incidents which are so typical of what could happen. A property is expropriated; it is resold to a second person, at a profit; a year or two later it is re-expropriated from that person and the amount which is then paid, of course represents a large profit for the person who bought the property in the first place.

Another point I want to mention is that the damage suffered by a city as a result of the loss in municipal rates are not taken into consideration. When the department expropriates large areas and leaves those areas undeveloped, we find that the municipality concerned loses rates. Take the case of Block AK for example. Four or five years ago the municipal rates in that area amounted to more than R30 000. Today, of course, those rates would be worth a great deal more. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Durban Central will excuse me if I do not follow up on what he said. He discussed local matters and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will reply to his pleas.

Sir, I too want to discuss a matter of a more local nature. If ever there was a case where we could with justification say that far-sightedness was displayed, it was when the decision was taken to resettle the Lady Selborne Bantu. If ever there was a tremendous achievement, it was this one where thousands upon thousands of Bantu were transferred to better dwelling places with more facilities. This was a case of slum clearing at its best. Sir, we have reason to pay tribute to the department, to the city council of Pretoria and to everyone concerned with this tremendous task. No wonder, then, that we in our constituency also decided to suggest that a new, more appropriate name be given to Lady Selborne, and therefore we appeared before the Place Names Committee and suggested the name Vergesig; Vergesig because it meant a great deal to the Bantu and the Whites that that huge slum area was cleared. We want to express the hope that as far as the future is concerned, as far as the planning of this area is concerned, it will be associated with this far-sightedness, that far-sightedness will be displayed in regard to the planning of this area.

Before referring to a few matters in regard to planning, I want to say that we have reason for concern because this matter has been delayed for quite some time now, while an amount of R6¼ million, I think, has been spent by the Community Development Council in this regard. Sir, throughout this whole period that land has been lying unutilized there. I should like to ask the Minister what progress has been made in the planning of this area and to what the delay may be attributed.

I should like to refer to a few aspects as far as planning is concerned. I want to ask that the garden village character should most definitely not be rejected merely because it will be too expensive, for example. I want to ask that sufficient open spaces be provided. As far as the building sites are concerned, I should like to see them vary in size from 6 000 to 10 000 square feet, but what is important, is that these dwelling sites or building sites should not be long and narrow but square so that the houses are not so close together. As far as the ratio of flats to houses is concerned, I want to plead that we should not construct too many flats. I realize that in this modern times flats have become essential, but I want to advocate that the majority of dwelling units should not be flats. As far as the ratio of sub-economic and economic housing to housing for the middle and upper income groups is concerned, I want to advocate that not too many sub-economic houses be built. I fear that Hercules is already carrying a very heavy burden as far as sub-economic housing is concerned. I think that we should concentrate to a greater extent on distributing the sub-economic groups more evenly over the urban area of Pretoria.

Sir, I also want to ask that no restrictions be placed on the income level of the purchasers and that no speculation be allowed. I feel that people who already own properties, should not have the right to acquire plots there to erect houses, for that would also lead to speculation. In addition I think there should be a provision to the effect that building premises should be developed within a reasonable time after purchase. As far as provision of land is concerned, I feel that, apart from land provided for public buildings and for community buildings, provision should definitely be made for land for the construction of crèches, nursery schools, a youth centre and a home for the aged. I also feel that the plus-minus 40 morgen of ground which is already available there should be utilized for conversion into sports grounds by clearing away the rubbish of Lady Selborne and dumping it in the marshy areas. When these areas have been filled, they could be used for the purposes of sport, since they would not be suitable for anything else. If it should be necessary to develop this area in phases, as Georgetown in the constituency of the hon. member for Germiston District is now being developed, then I think that that should also be considered. Sir, the development of Tygerdal, previously known as the Acres, was announced last week by the Department of Community Development, and according to the description in Die Burger it seems as if this is an area which has been planned in a very scientific and practical way, and I believe that this area will develop successfully, and I want to advocate the same kind of development in Lady Selborne.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to see us develop the area west of the Apies River and see Lady Selborne being developed in such a way that the western area of the Apies River, north west of Pretoria, will also have its rightful share of such development and that notice will be taken of that area, too, in future. I want to express the hope that we in the western part will have reason to be proud of Lady Selborne after it has been planned and developed. I want to wish the hon. the Minister and the department and the City Council of Pretoria, which is the delegate of the Community Development Council, success, and I want to express the hope that they will regard this matter as a challenge and that a proud town will arise to the west of the Apies River.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Hercules, because he was dealing with a subject relating to his own constituency very largely, on which he is far more expert than I am. I do want to congratulate him nevertheless on his realistic approach to the problems of his constituency in relation to the activities of the Department of Community Development. It is a fact, Sir, that this department has become known as one which is quick to expropriate and quick to demolish, but slow to build, and that hon. member has drawn attention to the fact that there is a valuable area of land which has in fact been rendered useless in his constituency and which has waited too long for redevelopment. I must draw attention to the fact that when this happens, the country suffers a double loss. Firstly, there is the investment of money in the purchase of land, and unless some economic return is obtained, that money is in fact idle and useless to the country. Then, if there is any delay in redevelopment, the country also loses the additional revenues or the additional values which are produced by investment, so in a sense there is a double loss through these enormous delays.

However, Sir, I want to go on to another matter which I think is of some significance. It is a rather sad story, a story of frustration and disappointment. I refer to the case of the Johannesburg Triennale Art Exhibition. It was the intention, starting some years ago, to create in Johannesburg a vast international exhibition of art. There are such exhibitions in places like Venice and Sao Paulo, exhibitions which have a world reputation. There was felt to be a great need for South African artists to be brought into the international picture and to bring international art into the South African picture. A great many dedicated people set about this very important task. They travelled round the world and they communicated with other Governments and with everybody who could make a contribution, and over a long period they succeeded in organizing an exhibition which would have had the participation of some of the great art collections from America, Britain, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries. This was organized at great effort and expense and it was to have taken place in Johannesburg about August, 1973. All this effort was put into train and evoked a great deal of enthusiasm not only in South Africa but in many other countries of the world. It was intended, amongst other things, to use the whole of the central area of Johannesburg, i.e. the city hall, the library and the library gardens between them, and to put a large part of it under cover and then to organize in this area, which is quite a large one, an international exhibition under international rules. All the arts would have been represented—the fine arts, the performing arts, the plastic arts. They would all have been concentrated in one place to make this great international exhibition. When all was going well, a small question arose. Since it was an international exhibition, there was the possibility of people of more than one colour possibly having to gather under the same roof. They might even have had to eat together within the same walls and, that hon. Minister being so sensitive about the toilet philosophy of South Africa, there might even have to be special arrangements about toilets. Now, this was put to the Department of Community Development, and a permit was applied for. The answer, Sir, was short and went like this—

The entire project was torpedoed and destroyed for these reasons. Now, it is almost unbelievable, in the year 1973, when we have heard so much about “veelvolkigheid” and about international arrangements which can be made to bring people together peacefully and to eliminate petty apartheid. We have heard about this ad nauseam. We have heard about it from every source. We have even seen the international games organized in Pretoria where all these apartheid signs were taken down for the duration. Now, this was an international exhibition in a defined area, to be defined as an international exhibition area. There would have been a situation, easily circumscribed, in which an international event would have taken place. It would have attracted people, due to the nature of the event, of a highly developed class, intellectual people and people interested in art. It would not have been a motley collection of people from all areas of the country but it would have been most important in establishing South Africa’s prestige and reputation in the international world of art. I have various papers here. One contains an article written by the chairman of the Northern Transvaal section of the S.A. Association of Arts. He said—

It was left at “vrome woorde”; it was never realized and it was not realized because of the unwillingness of the Department of Community Development, of the Minister of Community Development to give them the necessary permit in the event that it should be necessary for people of different colours to meet together and to sit together. This seems to us entirely incredible.

Does the hon. the Minister not communicate with the other members of the Cabinet? They have after all made provision for exactly this thing in international circumstances where it has been possible to enhance South Africa’s good name, reputation and prestige by international participation, by the ability to invite other people from this continent and other continents to come together in South Africa where these things can happen. They have been prepared to make exceptions. They have been prepared to treat international events as international events and not to enforce the rules of local, domestic apartheid upon these events.

Why is it that in this special event, this special case the Department of Community Development, for which the hon. the Minister is responsible, felt that it was unable to treat it as an international event? As it was not prepared to treat this as an international event, the department has brought disappointment, humiliation and shame to many people. It is not only we who know about it; every country, every government which was invited was aware that it was due to participate. These countries made money available, they made arrangements, but the arrangements had to be put off. Why? Because in an international zone, so declared for this purpose, in the middle of our biggest city, it is not possible for people of different colours to drink a cup of coffee together or to sit within the same four walls.

Is this the policy of the Department of Community Development? Is this the policy of the Government in spite of everything we have heard? Is this how we are going to go ahead? The Triennale could be a great contribution to art in South Africa, it could be a great meeting place for artists from across the world, it could be, as the Chairman of the Northern Transvaal Section says—“A meeting place for Africa and the continent of Europe and South Africa could be a great meeting place for artists strands of Africa and Europe could be woven together. This could be a great role for South Africa to play in the world, but no, we cannot do it because it is not possible in an international area, so declared, for a Black man and a White man to drink a cup of coffee together or to sit side by side within the same hall. I beg the hon. the Minister for an explanation. As for me, I simply cannot understand it.

Mr. Chairman, it is a long time since I have last seen an hon. member as wilful as the hon. member for Von Brandis who has just sat down. He came here as the henchman of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to make out a case after the style of the so-called “petty apartheid” which is alleged to be so evil. I say he was wilful as he ought to know full well that the matter to which he referred cannot be over-simplified as though it was no more than a matter of drinking a cup of coffee together or using the same toilet facilities. This whole matter goes completely against the grain of the policy of the National Party and against the standpoint of each sincere White in South Africa.

What about the occurrences in Pretoria? [Interjections.]

The hon. member tried to make out a case that this Government had no sympathy whatsoever for the promotion of art in any form. If there is a Government which has a good record in this regard, it is this very Government. However, this Government certainly cannot allow a few silly members of the United Party to force it to abandon its course. In that regard it has the support of the Whites in this country.

I should like to return to the Department of Community Development and to express a few words of gratitude to it. In the first place, I want to express gratitude and appreciation to the department today, on behalf of my constituency, for what has been done with regard to White housing in Springs during the past 25 years. To my mind it serves a useful purpose to say here today for the sake of the record that during that period 326 economic units were built at a total cost of R12 749 848. In addition to that, 40 sub-economic houses were built for an amount of R103 000. At the moment a scheme for another 157 houses is being developed. They are also building an old-age home and a youth sentrum was built there recently. On behalf of my constituency and on behalf of those more than 10 000 Whites who would otherwise have experienced a great deal of difficulty in finding a house, I say that I want to thank the Department of Community Development. I want to go further than that and not only express thanks, but I want to invite the hon. the Minister, his department and any hon. member of this House to come and see the beautiful suburbs which have been built with the help of the department. These beautiful suburbs house fine young people and this bodes only well for the future of our country. The hon. the Minister and his department must know that we are very grateful for that.

Now there is only a small request which I know does not belong with the department, but which I should nevertheless like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. There are certain officials, especially teachers, who should fall under the subsidy scheme of the Public Service, but who were disqualified because they have not yet taken transfer of their properties. Now, the position is that they have done everything necessary to effect transfer, but that the local authority, as a result of technical problems, is unable to give transfer since the land has not been proclaimed in all cases. What I actually want to say, is that everything possible has been done by the residents to enable them to qualify for the subsidy, but that technical circumstances have prevented them from qualifying. Under these circumstances I want to address a very strong plea to the hon. the Minister to bring this to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance so that these subsidies may be passed.

The second word of thanks I want to express, I want to express to the department for the exceptionally good record they have with regard to, inter alia, the provision of White housing. From April, 1948, to 31st December last year, an amount of more than R406 million was spent on the provision of White housing. During that time 78 328 directing units for Whites were erected. As opposed to that, during the 28 years prior to 1948 and which, for the most part, was under United Party rule, only 2 200 houses were built. I want to repeat that the National Party has an exceptionally fine record with regard to the provision of this housing, and we want to thank them for that.

In the third place I want to express our thanks to the officials of the department for the very sympathetic manner in which they receive representations from time to time and go out of their way to accommodate local authorities. In the case of my constituency, I can refer to this with nothing but praise. I want to tell them that we really appreciate this.

Then I want to bring another matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is with regard to sub-economic housing. Hon. members know that the number of people who qualify for sub-economic housing is decreasing. On the other hand, it is also true that up to now the people who have to avail themselves of sub-economic housing, have to a large extent been grouped together in specific suburbs or communities. We are grateful for the housing which is provided in this way, but we must be realistic. Society attaches a special label to children coming from such homes. I think of those fine children with so much potential and then I wonder whether we should not abandon sub-economic housing, while this no longer involves so many people. Is it not possible to provide these people with housing at a sub-economic rental in the economic schemes? I am not pleading on behalf of the parents, but on behalf of the children, so that in this way they may also ultimately gain a position in life.

Yesterday my hon. colleague for Boksburg referred to the resettlement of Indians on the East Rand. I should also like to contribute my mite and say that as far as the Indians are concerned, Springs is in the position that it still has 199 Indian families comprising a total number of 1 085 people. The space which they occupy at the moment is just more than 8 ha. What is more, conditions in the area in which they are living are very poor, partly because they are not allowed to stay there, but I do not have the time to go into this now. In any event, they will have to be resettled. If they are not resettled soon the local authority will have to spend an amount of R100 000 so as to restore certain essential services to a certain standard. Under these circumstances I also want to address an urgent plea to the hon. the Minister for this question of the resettlement of Indians to have priority in future and for a clear statement to be made soon as to what is to happen to them. To my mind we cannot wait any longer with regard to this matter. I have full confidence in the hon. the Minister and his department that, for as far as they are concerned, they will help us.

Mr. Chairman, this debate is about to end and I wish to begin by dealing at some length with the question of housing, especially housing which falls within the category of economic and sub-economic housing. I am having difficulty in getting across to the hon. the Minister …

I can hear you.

The hon. the Minister is new in this portfolio and I therefore want to say to him that we on this side of the House regard the Department of Community Development as one of the departments which gives the greatest cause for concern as to its ability to cope with the problems which are going to face the country in future. In saying this I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way criticize the Secretary of the department and his senior officials. They have to work within the limits and the restrictions laid down by Government policy. I am referring to the policies of this Government and to previous Ministers of Community Development in this sphere. It is in this context that the criticisms and the suggestions which I am about to make are to be seen.

During the 1950s the Government introduced certain measures which brought about considerable improvements in the field of economic and sub-economic housing and caught up with a great deal of the backlog. Since then, unfortunately, whilst the position has continued to improve in regard to White housing, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Green Point, and the position in regard to subsidized White housing in the country today is reasonably satisfactory, the same cannot be said in regard to economic and sub-economic housing for the other race groups, particularly the two race groups which come within the compass of the department, namely Indian and Coloured housing. The position today is that in the large metropolitan areas, or at any rate in certain of them, conditions are developing which are giving rise to slum conditions, in many cases worse than the slums which existed at the end of the war and about which members on that side of the House like to criticize us from time to time. The hon. the Minister would be foolish if he were to overlook the fact that this is taking place. He need only go to the environs of Cape Town to see the slum conditions that are developing in Coloured housing; he can go to other metropolitan areas and he will see similar, and in some cases possibly even worse, slum conditions developing amongst Coloureds and Indians. The position today, therefore, is that once again one is finding, so far as Indians and Coloureds are concerned, that a situation of gross overcrowding, disruption of family life, a feeling of instability and insecurity are developing together with evidence of frustration and growing bitterness in these townships. This position, apart from creating serious sociological problems, is creating serious problems also from the point of view of catching up with the backlog in housing alone. The hon. the Minister has given us some figures regarding the future. He mentioned what was planned in regard to the future housing of Coloureds in Cape Town and Coloureds and Indians in Durban and various other parts of the country.

I want to spend a little time on visualizing the future. The point I wish to make is that, if within the framework and compass of present Government policy regarding subsidized housing for Coloureds and Indians, his department cannot cope with the demand for housing at the present time, how can it hope to meet the challenge of the future unless changes are made in the policy and different methods of meeting the housing demands are introduced. What is the position in regard to the future? Very briefly the position is that we in South Africa are facing a trend towards urbanization which few countries in the world have had to face. This trend has increased in the last few years, but the experts are unanimous that the trend in the last few years is nothing in comparison with what it is going to be from now until the year 2000. It has been estimated that currently 48% of South Africa’s population lives in the cities; that is, of the total population, including the Bantu obviously, a far greater percentage of Whites, Indians and Coloureds are urbanized, but taking the total population, it is estimated that 48% is currently urbanized and that the figure for the end of the century, the year 2000, is that 80% of the total population will be urbanized. Obviously a large percentage will be the Bantu, Africans, who are not the responsibility of the hon. the Minister. I accept that; they are the responsibility of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Nevertheless, it is clear that between now and the year 2000 there is going to be an increase in the tempo of urbanization of the race groups for which the hon. the Minister’s department is responsible. If his department cannot cope with the position that has developed in the last few years, then it has no hope of coping with what has to take place in the next few years unless there is a change in the policy of the Government, a change in outlook and unless different methods are used. I wish to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the method which has been adopted to cope with economic and sub-economic housing in the past, namely by the use of the department itself as contractors and by the use of local authorities for the construction of this type of housing, is not going to be sufficient to cone with the problem in the years to come. I believe that unless the hon. the Minister looks to private enterprise to assist, there is going to be an aggravation of the problems which we see today. Obviously if private enterprise is to be brought in, the profit motive must be taken into account. No private company, or very few of them, will be prepared to build economic and sub-economic houses unless some form of encouragement is given. This is not something unusual or novel. Throughout most Western countries it has been found that Government agencies and local authority agencies have not been able to cope with the housing needs in these countries. They have had to bring in private enterprise to assist. They have done so by giving to private enterprise various forms of assistance to encourage them to come into this field. I have not got the time in this debate to go into details. The Secretary of the department is well aware of the different methods that have been adopted in the different countries. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree more with the hon. member for Musgrave. The increasing need for housing is very well known. I think he underestimates the need. He referred to a figure of about 88% of the population that will be in our cities by the turn of the century. I think other estimates have it that we shall have about 95% of our people living in the cities by the turn of the century. If one thinks of the immense task which this Government still has to undertake in providing the necessary employment for the ever-increasing Black labour coming onto the labour market, and that all this Black labour has actually to be taken into industrial South Africa and that industrial South Africa can only be accommodated in cities, one has some sort of idea of the type of cities we will have to build before the turn of the century. We shall have about 40 million Black people by the turn of the century and only about 10 million of them will be dependent on agriculture and mining for a livelihood. A good 30 million Black people by the turn of the century will be dependent on industry for a livelihood. Industry can only mean cities where these people must be housed. There is therefore an immense task ahead of us. Together with the building of houses for the Black people, factories, towns, houses for White entrepreneurs, artisans, etc., have to be built. I therefore cannot agree more with the hon. member for Musgrave. Private enterprise is of course playing an enormous part at present in providing accommodation especially for the White sector in South Africa and in an ever-increasing measure also for the Coloureds’ housing sector in South Africa. But it is a fact that mainly Coloured and Black housing will be dependent on Government efforts.

*Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to another phenomenon which also has a bearing on this question of the urbanization of our people. Where there is a tendency for towns to develop into cities, one finds that, as a result of rising rates and rising costs of the services rendered there, it becomes difficult for the older people eventually to live in the older parts of those towns. These rising costs in the older parts make it virtually impossible for the older people to maintain the standard of living there to which they have become accustomed. That is why it is so necessary and so important that we should consider this situation. I want to refer specifically to the town I represent in this House, namely Bellville. There we have the unfortunate position that, because of the rise in the cost of services and rising rates, one of the main parts of our town which is now situated in the central town area, has become virtually untenably expensive for the older people and I can almost say—for the less privileged people who live there. As a result of that one finds that people move out of the area and dilapidation sets in. But these people must also be accommodated somewhere else. They cannot simply disappear into thin air. If they cannot afford to stay there any longer, they have to go somewhere else. Now I must say that the local city council in Bellville has initiated a scheme to provide housing for these White people. They have also initiated a scheme to provide housing for Coloureds, a scheme they have fortunately carried out. But in regard to the scheme for Whites, they have been experiencing difficulty for some time now to get this scheme off the ground, to the extreme irritation of a great many voters of Bellville. Nevertheless I am satisfied that good progress has been made in that regard, and that we shall probably reach the stage where the scheme is approved in the near future. At the moment, I must say, it is a fairly ambitious scheme. It is not an ordinary scheme in which houses are simply built. It is a well-designed scheme consisting of “cluster housing”. I looked at the plans and to me it looks quite interesting. It seems to me as if one would not mind living in such a scheme at all. It will not be in an unattractive way, as is the case with some of the schemes undertaken by authorities. I want to commend the planning in this regard. But as a result of the fact that this is an ambitious scheme which is being tackled, it appears to me as if there are some snags. It seems to me as if it is taking a little longer to obtain approval for the scheme. As a result, people are becoming a little impatient. My information is that it should not take long before the necessary approval is granted and the difficulties ironed out. I only plead that since it has already taken so long to try and obtain approval, the hon. the Minister should please, through his department, earmark the necessary funds for the scheme in this financial year. I regard it as a step in the right direction as far as planning is concerned. I also believe that eventually it will be a great credit for those people of Bellville who will qualify to acquire houses in this particular scheme. I think it would be a very good thing if we could have this scheme ready as soon as possible, since the planning thereof has taken so long. I want to congratulate those who are dealing with this scheme, on the design, and also on the far-sightedness of the design. But on the other hand I regret to say that apparently some difficulty is experienced to have such novel schemes carried out.

To come back to the hon. member for Musgrave, I want to say that I do not think any body other than the State and the municipalities can rightly tackle these schemes for the low-paid section of the population. I think no other body can tackle this as well as these municipalities and the department can, but I do feel that there is a shortcoming, a shortcoming he may also refer to. It seems to me that there is a deficiency in regard to proper liaison between the municipalities and the department in this regard. This is also apparent from the fact that our previous Minister of Community Development had to take steps here on occasion and threaten certain local authorities that if they did not act, he would take steps himself. The Government does everything it can to vote and make available the necessary funds from year to year, but it appears that the municipalities are not always geared to make proper use of these funds, or geared to collaborate properly with the department to ensure that the necessary approval for the schemes and approval of the funds be obtained as soon as possible. Perhaps there could be a little more guidance for the local authorities on the part of the department. Sir, I want to address a plea that if this scheme is approved shortly—and there are indications that this is the case—the hon. the Minister and his department will see their way clear to vote the funds for our scheme this year.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. member for Bellville for his support. We seem to disagree in one respect. The hon. member for Bellville suggested that in his view there were only two bodies, the department itself and the local authorities, that could cope with these developments. Sir, I want to make this clear because perhaps the hon. the Minister may have misunderstood the position as well. I am not suggesting that private enterprise should determine what type of housing, for example, should be built, and that sort of thing. The local authority must obviously retain the control within its local area. What I am suggesting, and what I would like to repeat, is that I am firmly of the view that the department and the local authorities together are not going to be able to cope with the construction of the housing that is going to be required, not with the planning of the townships which will have to be developed and how the local authorities should develop them, but simply with the practical problems of constructing the number of houses which will require to be constructed. Sir, the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, Mr. Blaar Coetzee, was very fond of pointing out in his speeches in this House, and outside this House, what the housing needs for the future are going to be. He mentioned certain figures from time to time, and I think the hon. the Minister himself has done so in some of his speeches. I should perhaps just add one figure, and that is that it is estimated that by the year 2000 there is going to be a need for 10 million houses in South Africa. One does not know how many of those are going to be economic and sub-economic, but it is obvious that with the trend of urbanization a very large proportion of those are going to fall in that category, and the point that I wish to make to the hon. the Minister is that it is one thing to foresee the problem and to tell us that there is going to be this need for housing in the future, but it is not sufficient simply to foresee the problem. What we would like to know from the hon. the Minister is how his department and the Government intend to cope with this enormous problem with which the country is going to be faced increasingly in years to come. I suggest to him, Sir, that if he wishes to rely on the present method of leaving it to his department and to local authorities to construct the economic and sub-economic housing which is required, he is not going to meet the problem, and I suggest to the hon. the Minister that the Government give serious consideration to ways and means of bringing in private enterprise into this field. There is only one way in which this will be possible, in my view, and that is through some form of subsidy, whether it is to private enterprise or to the purchasers of the houses to be constructed by private enterprise. It is being done overseas, Mr. Chairman, and it has been found to be the only way in which Western countries have been able to cope with their housing problems. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that the time has come for him and his department to look seriously at this matter and to tell the House what solutions they foresee for this problem. It is not sufficient, I repeat, merely to foresee the problem; we must also know in what way the Government intends meeting this challenge.

In the short time still available to me I would like to deal with one or two other matters and the first matter I want to deal with is this question of the Johannes Commission into the Rents Act. The Minister has told us that he is still considering this and that he sees no need for tabling the report. He said that this was merely a committee which was appointed to advise him. Now, with great respect, I think the hon. the Minister is wrong. I have in front of me a statement issued by his predecessor at the time on this subject, the Department of Information’s circular, No. 331/71. This is the statement which was made by Mr. Coetzee at the time—

Not he in his capacity as Minister of Community Development—

Not a committee, but a commission of inquiry—

Obviously the words “to furnish me with a report” were put in because that is what is done with every commission of inquiry. The report is handed to the Minister within whose department the inquiry takes place. It is a commission of inquiry. It is true, it is not a commission of inquiry which was appointed by the State President but nevertheless it is a commission of inquiry. It is not an interdepartmental committee. There was not one single departmental member on this commission other than the chairman, who is a member of the Rent Control Board, the chairman of the Rent Board at Durban, and that is all. The other members were private persons. There was the adviser to the S.A. Reserve Bank, Dr. J. S. Jacobs, a private rent consultant from Johannesburg, a representative of the S.A. Property Owners’ Association, the president of the Association of Building Societies of South Africa and the president of the S.A. Confederation of Labour. It was therefore clearly not a departmental inquiry. Quite apart from that, I believe the hon. the Minister would be doing a great disservice to the country if he does not table this report. Whether or not he agrees with the recommendations, whether or not the Government intends implementing these recommendations is another matter. There have been numerous enquiries in respect of which the Government has not been prepared to accept the recommendations, but the Government has tabled at the same time a white paper saying what they do accept and what they intend implementing and what they do not accept and why. I say the hon. the Minister would be doing a great disservice if he does not table the report, for these reasons. Firstly, the persons who were members of this commission, most of whom are busy people, are also well-known people in their own field and it is not going to be possible to get people of that calibre to sit on important commissions of that sort if the Government merely keeps these reports for its own use and does not make them public. That is the first point I make. The second point I make is that there are thousands and thousands of tenants and landlords who are interested in this subject and who are entitled to know what the findings of the report were. I point out, finally, that public funds were used to constitute this commission. This is not a private little arrangement of the hon. the Minister. He has used public funds. He has used moneys contributed by the taxpayers of the country and they are therefore as much entitled to know what the findings of this report are and to study this report, as much as the Minister and the Government are. So I would urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider his decision in this regard. If he feels it would be premature to table the report at this stage, because it may give rise to speculation before the Government is ready with its own recommendations, I can understand, but I would say that when the hon. the Minister is ready to state the Government’s attitude to the report it should at that time as well table the report; and I would again urge the hon. the Minister to come to a decision fairly quickly because people are anxious to know what is happening. [Time expired.]

I should like to start with the hon. member for Durban Central, who spoke about several matters. He started with Lenasia and referred to Reservoir Hill, if I understood him correctly, and the prices there. I do not wish to repeat the argument I had with the hon. member for Jeppes, but what I said in that regard holds true. More townships, in this case where one has to do with the Community Development Board, with the department and the city councils, will not make that difference which, according to the hon. member, one finds within the normal demand and supply situation, for here one has to do with bodies which are not out for gain. As far as Reservoir Hill is concerned, that area is not being handled by the department or by the city council but is a luxury residential area for Indians, where they try to outdo one another with expensive dwellings. The high prices are therefore, more than anything else, attributable to the popularity of the area as a prestige area. This is the answer in that respect.

Then the hon. member said he had gained the impression from my comments in respect of rent control that I was unsympathetic towards the tenants. I suggest that the hon. members opposite, or some of them, would perhaps like to create that impression, because it is expedient to create such an impression. However, they will not be able to quote next week or the week after any paragraph from my speech in Hansard to confirm that impression; on the contrary, they will find my literal words there, namely that my sympathies, like those of any other normal person, are actually with the underdog. There they will find an objective view of both sides.

Who is the underdog?

The underdog in this case is the tenant, and this is so because of an inbalance which prevails and which one would like to eliminate, an inbalance between demand and supply. That is why I say that the impression may be a politically expedient one, but that is in fact all it is.

The hon. member also complained about the department being the biggest property owner. I replied to that when I reacted to the speech made by the hon. member for Green Point, and I really do not think I should cover that ground again. However, I may just as well repeat the question I put before: Should these things which are being done by the board, not be done? Does he not accept that in regard to urban renewal, slum clearance and the development of areas there should, where necessary, be one owner so that things may be done logically and correctly? That one obvious owner is the Community Board.

The hon. member also made the point that municipalities were suffering losses because of rates and taxes that were not being paid when those properties were not occupied; i.e. when they were not being let. However, what the hon. member does not take into account is that after those areas have been developed and made available again, they become rateable again. When that happens those areas are in a much better condition than they were previously, and then the rates are higher. Over the years that follow the municipalities would then be in a position to make good, by way of the increased rates, the losses they suffered previously.

The hon. member also referred to Block AK, on which I may perhaps not be in a position at the moment to give him all the information he would like to have. I can give him the information which I have at my disposal at the moment. Of the 60 cases referred to the court of arbitration 37 were settled, of which number only five cases were brought before the court. Another 23 cases are still to be brought before the court. Furthermore, there are also the particulars which were given to him in reply to question 98. In that regard he found a disparity in numbers. At the moment I cannot explain that disparity. If the hon. member would like to follow this up, an attempt can be made to ascertain how that disparity crept in and the information can be given to him. I am sure that a bona fide error crept in somewhere, or that there is a logical explanation. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I do not have those plots in my pocket. I think that disposes of the points that were raised.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Could the hon. the Minister perhaps say something about the future plans for the development of Block AK?

Unfortunately I do not have that information at my disposal at the moment, but if he really wants to obtain the information, we shall be able to furnish him with it.

The hon. member for Hercules raised the question of Lady Selbourne. There was a delay as a result of planning aspects which had to be cleared up between the city council of Pretoria and my department. In the meantime clarity has been obtained on the matter, but it seems as though the delay in regard to Lady Selbourne is mainly attributable to the fact that slow progress was made by the province in the final routing of an expressway between Pretoria and the Hartbeespoort Dam and a double-carriage connecting road between Mabopane and the Pretoria road. This made for a further delay, but at the moment this, too, is apparently in order. At this stage the indications are that plots will be available for selling purposes in 1975. It is quite possible that scheme plots will, it is hoped, after the principle has been approved by the Townships Board, be made available in 1974. This, then, is the position as far as Selbourne is concerned.

As far as economic and sub-economic houses are concerned, I can tell the hon. member that my department has been trying to strike a balance and to maintain that balance as far as possible. It will not be an easy matter to do away with sub-economic houses, as was suggested by the hon. member for Springs. That will not be an easy matter, for all the population groups will have to be considered for this purpose. In view of the fact that the subsidies already borne by my department at present come to a considerable amount—I think it is in the vicinity of R5 million—that amount would become so considerable as a result of a step of that nature that it is an open question whether serious attention could be given to it at this stage.

The hon. member for Von Brandis mainly devoted his time to the refusal of the permit for the envisaged Trienniale near Johannesburg, which was to be held this year. He described it as a sad story, but I feel like saying what Dr. Malan said on a certain occasion: “I almost laughed.” He said that I was supposedly so sensitive about toilet facilities. Where does he get that from?

You said so last night.

I want to tell the hon. member what I did last night. Last night I scoffed at the immaturity of people, people who come to me to ask for permits for mixed parties which will be attended by men and women of all colours, and who then tell me that separate toilet facilities will be provided. I scoffed at that. If the hon. member would take the trouble to read my speech, he would see exactly what I said and what I meant by that. These people want to give mixed parties where they dance together and have drinks together, and then they want to persuade me to grant a permit on account of their having given me the assurance that there will be separate toilet facilities. I think the hon. member also realizes that this is ridiculous. When one is approached with an application containing absurdities, one is inclined, right from the start, to refuse that application. I think this is an insult. I do not think people associate and mix in that manner. If this is one’s approach, one must accept that one is going to associate all the way. When one walks out …

Surely this absurdity was intended to please the Government.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is also mumbling something …

No, I said that it was after all only for the purpose of pleasing the Government that they made such a suggestion, which they themselves know to be ridiculous.

I have unfortunately not been placed in this position to handle ridiculous situations. The position in respect of this Trienniale is as follows. Firstly, the hon. member puts forward the plea that this would be a multi-national gathering. The hon. member cannot expect my department to start from the assumption that everybody or person in this country that organizes anything which will supposedly be multi-national or multi-racial, may bring a few people from outside and then tell me that it is a multi-national gathering and that I must grant a permit. If this is to be the position, we may as well abolish all forms of permit control in this regard. What was really proposed in respect of this gathering, was that art of all sorts would be exhibited here for, I think, a period of three months. All the principles which are concerned with colour relations and which put this Government into power, would have gone by the board if that were permitted. There would have been mixed intercourse in every respect. I would have been able to take my non-White guest there, irrespective of whether he was a Bantu, a Coloured or an Indian, and there we would have been able to have meals together with all the other people who might have been there, and, of course, vice versa. The principles for which this party stands would have been thrown overboard in all respects. That was why I pointed out last night an absurdity in this very same regard. Those people came along and suggested, after they had thrown overboard all the principles for which my party stands, and promised that as far as the performing arts were concerned, where people would take their seats in a hall, they would separate the colour groups unobstrusively by way of the manner in which tickets would be sold. That is wrong, too. What is right for one’s restaurants should also be right for one’s theatres. I think this would be humiliating to the non-White person who would be able to dine with me in a completely lawful manner but who would see that there is apartheid when, after that meal, he buys a ticket at the hall and takes his seat. Apart from other merits and considerations, the hon. member can understand that I would turn down such applications. The only answer I can give the hon. member to this is that it has never been the intention, and that it cannot be the intention either, that everybody in this country may hold mixed gatherings as he pleases by merely saying that what is being arranged is a multi-national gathering. That has never been the intention of this Government, nor can I see that this will ever be the intention. The hon. member must accept that this Government was put into power on a policy, and that policy is called “separate development” or “apartheid”, or whatever he wants to call it. To get rid of that policy of separate development, he has to get rid of the National Party Government.

And that is impossible.

That answer lies with the voters and he should not come to me for it.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? I am reasonably well acquainted with the policy of the National Party Government, but what I cannot understand is that it nevertheless formed part of that policy that there would be opportunities for international gatherings. Is it not the intention for the future that it should in fact be possible for such international gatherings to take place on a mixed basis?

There will be such occasions, but the point I made was that everybody would not be able to determine on his own when a gathering would be an international gathering. What would have happened here was that a number of artists would have been brought from overseas for South African audiences. Certain works of art would also have been brought from overseas. The hon. member now wants to advance the argument that this constitutes a multi-national gathering in terms of National Party policy. I do not think he should argue on those lines. This would eventually mean that every time an artist, or two or three of them, should come from overseas to give performances here, I would be told that this requires a multi-national gathering in Cape Town or in Pretoria. This is the logical consequence of that hon. member’s argument.

That was not the purpose of it.

For that reason the hon. member can probably understand why I said that I almost laughed.

I do not think that it is ludicrous.

I want to thank the hon. member for Springs—I have already referred to sub-economic housing in another context—for his contribution. I should like to give him the assurance that my department appreciates the gravity of and the necessity for speedy action having to be taken as far as the resettlement of Indians are concerned.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Bellville for his contribution. I want to tell him that his request that funds be made available this year will be considered very seriously. But at this stage I cannot give him the undertaking that it will in fact be possible to make such funds available this year.

Then I want to come to the hon. member for Musgrave. It may be unorthodox to act in this manner, but I nevertheless want to thank the hon. member for the calm and restful contribution made by him to this debate. He posed questions to which I definitely cannot give him all the answers this afternoon; in fact, I think nobody in this country can do so. He tried to project the position for 25 years and more into the future. In so far as one can project the position and the statistics are available, the hon. member drew certain conclusions, with which I have no fault to find. Adjustments will necessarily have to follow. The hon. member must take it from me that one must, in the first place, see to it that here, at the juncture at which we find ourselves present, our house is in order. It is no use keeping one’s eye on the future without seeing where one treads at present. At the moment we have a very urgent task to fulfil, namely to try to make up the backlog, the existence of which nobody is denying—my department does not deny, it, nor do I deny that there is a backlog. We have the position to which the hon. member for Musgrave also referred, namely that the trend is towards the cities. It is only logical that the rural areas, with the means they have at their disposal, are normally capable of supporting a certain population only. The rest of the population must go to the industrial areas. From the development which the hon. member sees, and the needs which this will bring about, there immediately flows quite a number of other considerations as well. As one’s population grows and greater demands are made on the housing, so the population also develops in the economic sphere, in the sphere of manpower potential, and so, consequently, one also finds the capacity developing on the part of the authorities to meet the demands that are made. The hon. member expressed certain thoughts, for instance that the principle be adopted that the assistance of private enterprise be called in. This principle has already been adopted for all practical purposes. I call to mind, for instance, the concessions made to building societies by the hon. the Minister of Finance in order to involve them as private enterprises. The capacity of the community to mobilize forces in this regard will grow and, what is very important in this respect, the capacity of the non-White community will and will have to, in the years ahead, as the picture unfolds itself, also increase in this respect. Here I am thinking in particular of the Coloured population, in respect of which one has the greatest increase in numbers and which is one of our most serious problems at the moment. In other words, possibilities are being opened up.

I do not want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave that I have now given him all the answers. But I can tell the hon. member that as long as I am in this position, I shall accept my responsibilities with an open mind. I accept my responsibilities with that sincerity of endeavour that I should like to see that Whites and non-Whites who cannot help themselves, will in fact be helped. Actually, the majority of the Whites are self-helpers. The largest group that cannot help themselves are, for instance, one’s Coloureds; 60% of them fall within the subeconomic group today. Then we have the Indians, who are in a slightly better position. The position of those people will have to improve gradually, unless they are absolutely lacking in initiative. I do not think that is the case. More and more school and training facilities are being placed at their disposal. I am not referring to the Bantu now. The possibilities which they can mobilize are growing. In those possibilities, together with the light which we shall find as we go along, we shall find the answers.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 35, Loan Vote P and S.W.A. Vote No. 21.—“Mines”:

Mr. Chairman, may I commence by congratulating the hon. the Minister who has now taken over the portfolio of Mines. I want to wish him a pleasant, short stay in his position. At the same time I want to congratulate the officials of his department in producing a report which has come to us before discussion on the mining Vote commences. I want to tell the hon. the Minister—he does not know this—that I think this is the first occasion that we have been able to get the report for the previous year before the actual discussion of this Vote.

Don’t you think I had something to do with it?

I do not think the hon. the Minister had anything to do with it. I think that the officials with their experience over the years have managed to do this. I must say that the report they produced is a very good one.

We in this country have been going through a most wonderful period of prosperity due to the abundance of the treasures that we have here and their increasing market value.

And the National Party’s policies.

I suppose that the hon. member for Carletonville was one of those people who managed over the years to bury all these previous metals and stones that we are now taking out of our ground! What has happened over the years has, I think, come to a climax this year. The gold price has gone up tremendously. We have an opportunity to stockpile uranium, which I am sure is going to be in great demand in the next few years. Platinum, which was in the doldrums for a year or two, has now become a metal greatly in demand due mainly to the activities of those people who are concerning themselves throughout the world with air pollution. The price of diamonds is going up by the day. Base metals, which we are producing in this country, are in demand all over the world. One substance which we have not yet found is oil, and I hope the hon. the Minister will make a statement in regard to the drilling for oil. I am sure that the country will be very interested to know whether there is any possibility at all of our finding oil along the coasts of the country, or inland.

It has been said that the low-grade mines will benefit greatly from the increasing price of gold. I am, however, disturbed to see that some of the low-grade mines which the Government has been helping—it has been spending quite a considerable sum to keep them going—are now finding it more and more difficult to continue mining operations. I refer to those central Johanesburg gold mines like City Deep which are being flooded by water. It will be absolutely impossible to continue mining operations there, and the money which has been spent on them thus far may therefore not have been used to the best possible advantage. These mines do, however, have other valuable assets. I refer particularly to the surface areas above those mines. There are vast areas in the possession of those mines which can be put to good use for residential, business and industrial purposes. I would urge the Minister to consult with those people who control the proclamation of such areas, because if there is undue delay in the proclamation of the ground, those who wish to utilize the ground are naturally held up and values will escalate. The provincial councils in very many cases delay such proclamations, and I would urge the Minister to do something in this regard so that the development can get under way. In most cases this ground is very valuable. It is near the centre of the cities, and it would be ideal for those people who want to live near their work.

Referring again to the increase in the price of gold, people will say: “We are having this wonderful bonanza; what are we going to do with the money?” Well, one is tempted to say: “Give some of it back to the mineworker. Give it here, or give it there.” One is tempted to say these things, but while delicate negotiations are taking place between employer and employee in the mining industry, I do not think it is our place to interfere. We should rather leave these negotiations to the interested parties so that they can come to a settlement which, I hope, will be satisfactory and to the benefit of all of those concerned in the matter.

The Government knows full well that the whole of the mining industry, both in the case of precious metals and in the case of base metals, depends on one thing and one thing only, basically, and that is geographical and geophysical survey. I was very disturbed to read what the Government Mining Engineer says in this regard. On page 32 of the Report of the Secretary for Mines, we find the following—

We are bringing twice as many of these specialists to the country than we produce ourselves. I also see that something like R428 000 is set aside for geographical survey, although no part of that amount is specifically set aside to encourage students at universities to take up this profession. Sir, ours is a country which has a great abundance of treasure. Other countries depend for their prosperity on the skills of their people, on management, marketing, etc. We in South Africa have this abundance of treasure. Why can we not also have these skills? Why is it necessary, for instance, in a country such as this, to have to send our diamonds to be cut elsewhere? Why should that happen? Surely the time has come when we can produce not only the ore, but also the refined product. Surely we can undertake the extraction from the ore ourselves. In this way we can ensure that everything we sell, we can market at the best possible price, and derive the benefit both from what we have under the ground and from what we do above the ground. I appeal to the Minister to look into this matter very carefully, to see whether we should not spend a great deal more on attracting people to the mining profession, and especially to undergo special training in geology and geographical survey.

You mean “geophysical survey”, not “geographical survey”.

Geological survey, Geographical survey, geophysical survey, let us do it all.

Now I want to quote from the report what is said in regard to the diamond industry. On page 11 we read the following—

Sir, I think that is a terrible indictment as regards the Department of Mines. I think it is up to them to see that the diamond-cutting industry receives as much help from the Government as is needed. The time has come for us not to export our diamonds and to bring back into this country diamonds that have been cut in other countries; we must do the cutting ourselves and then export. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, today I am very glad. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member who has just sat down did not mention sinkholes today, and that he was not prepared to hawk the sinkhole problem as has been done by that side in the past, or to attempt to derive political capital from the hazards and the tragedy caused by temporarily unstable geological factors in those areas where we have had to cope with sinkholes during the past few years. Sir, I think it is my duty once again to express my unbiased appreciation and to remind hon. member in this House, as well as those outside this House, of the tenacity, the restraint, the courage and the patience which my people in my constituency displayed during these tragic days when we had to cope with those sinkholes. I want to express my appreciation for the fact that they displayed a sense of responsibility which was exemplary. Mr. Chairman, we have not crumbled under the impact which those geological catastrophes and disasters have inflicted upon our minds, our confidence and our faith. We still do not despair, and I am glad to be able to say today that the same geological forces which were responsible for and which generated those sinkholes have initiated processes of stabilization such as the forces of gravitation.

*I am glad to be able to say here today that a process of stabilization has set in which is encouraging for our future. I think I am speaking on behalf of all of us here today in expressing our most heartfelt appreciation towards the Government, the Minister concerned, the Government’s technical committee, all the geologists, the mining authorities and the officers that were concerned in coping with this problem. Sir, the compartments where the sinkholes occurred cover a large area. The Venterspos compartment covers 44 sq. km; it has 34 km of roads and 6,1 km of railways. The Bank compartment covers 117 sq. km; it has 84 km of roads and 27,7 km of railways, and the Oberholzer compartment, which is mainly situated in my constituency, covers 145 sq. km; it has 48 km of roads and 11 km of railways. Sir, then you have the Turffontein/Boskop compartment, covering 476 sq. km and then you have the Suurbekom/Gemsbokfontein compartment which I think covers 101 sq. km. Sir, a tremendous mass of work has been done during the past number of years. I should like to mention a few interesting figures here. In the Oberholzer/Bank/Venterspos compartment alone, which has been dewatered, 146 000 gravitational observations have been made. The two compartments, i.e. Bank and Venterspos, were covered by a 300 foot grid for gravitational observations. In the Oberholzer compartment the observations are nearly complete. In the Suurbekom/Gemsbokfontein compartment the gravitational observations are not yet quite completed, but I think 41 500 observations have been made.

Sir, the mines and the Department of Water Affairs have 4 750 equalizing points where ground subsidences and ground stabilizations are being measured. A total of 1 125 deep-level boreholes have been made in order to test the ground stability underneath. In the past year alone 23 boreholes at a cost of R54 991 have been made. Water level readings are being done by Water Affairs at 170 boreholes, to check the dropping of the water table. Sir, the Water Association, which was, according to a written constitution, responsible for the purchasing of land with certain building risks has purchased 1 475 properties on which it was risky to build, and in the entire area there were 585 places where the association in conjunction with the State technical committee said that to build there would involve an acceptable risk. I can furnish the figures. I think it is important for me to just mention it here for the various towns, so that hon. members may see that the position was not all that bad.

At Carletonville there were 112 acceptable risks as against 14 unacceptable risks. In Oberholzer it was a question of 69 against 22. In the Westonaria township there were 118 acceptable risks as against 69 unacceptable risks. In Venterspos, where the largest number was found, there were 276 acceptable risks as against 220 unacceptable risks. In Blybank there is one, at Tienmorgeplotte two, and at the Pretorius township near Carletonville there were 15 acceptable risks as against four unacceptable risks. In the West Wits township there were 929 unacceptable risks among all the properties there, and in Bank there were 75 unacceptable risks.

Finally, I just want to say this. I think the problem of subsidences is more or less something of the past. We cannot predict whether any more subsidences will occur, but if we take into account that in that area 20 744,669 ha of land were purchased at R11 091 808—I can also give an analysis of the various compartments—then I say that we have a piece of land here which today is still in a state of uncertainty. We do not know where sinkholes are going to occur in that area in the course of time.

I want to express the thought here today that that whole closely populated area— including Venterspos, Westonaria, Fochville, Potchefstroom, Carletonville, Welverdiend, Blyvooruitzicht, Randfontein—the whole complex with thousands upon thousands of people has no recreation resort. This area which has been purchased in this way lends itself extremely well to the creation of a game reserve. I want to make a plea, or rather, I just want to suggest that we should seriously consider using that area for such a purpose to the benefit of the general public.

Before I comment on what the hon. member for Carletonville has said, I would like the hon. the Minister to note that the hon. member for Rosettenville has this year not under this Vote raised the question of pneumoconiosis, tuberculosis and other diseases due to dusty atmosphere because, as the hon. the Minister knows, there is a Bill now before the House which has been placed on the Order Paper following on a Select Committee which have spent some time on this particular subject, and I am sure that we will have very much more to say on that matter in due course.

I would like to say, if I may, to the hon. member for Carletonville that I sincerely hope that his prayer, which he certainly must feel in his heart as many of us do, will be granted and that sinkholes will no longer be a problem. From this side of the House the matter has constantly been raised and it is necessary to discuss these matters with the hon. the Minister. I think it is an important matter to discuss, and if the Lord is good to our country and we do not suffer from it nor experience the tragedies that flow from it, we will all be grateful. The rest of his address dealt mainly with the mines in his own constituency and one was interested to note the figures he quoted.

I would like to say that this particular debate is being conducted in the euphoria of a fantastic rise in the price of gold and in an atmosphere of considerable jubilancy for our country because of the tremendous increase in profits to our mines and also the tremendous increase in revenue to our Government by reason of the present-day circumstances and the dealings on the free market with regard to gold. I only hope that we will not remain in this atmosphere of euphoria but will rather try to make the best possible use of the advantages which we have gained in the interest of our country, not only in the material sense, but in other senses as well.

The hon. member for Rosettenville dealt, for instance, with the shortage of technical people on the staff of certain of our important departments. There is also some reference in this excellent report to the shortage of junior and other officials and of technical people in training to come to the mines. I sincerely hope that we may take advantage of the opportunity to spend more money on and to give more attention to a new school of training in all aspects of mining in this country. There are indications that our gold-mining industry will make an eminent contribution to the national economy for many years to come. Instead of being in a state where we thought that there would be an early demise of this particular industry, we should be ready, because of the advantages which we have, to ensure the longevity of our mines, the best values that we may extract, particularly in the gold-mining field in order that we may profit in every sense of the term and not only, as I said, materially because of the immediate income which we are receiving, but because of the establishment of stability both technically and otherwise in this great industry in South Africa.

It is interesting to note that nearly 60% of all our minerals, base, precious and other minerals, is gold. Of the R1 942 million which is given as the value of our output, nearly R1 200 million is in respect of gold. I think this is a matter of which we must take very serious cognizance in addition, of course, to dealing with other aspects of the general mining life in this country. We must not neglect an opportunity which has presented itself to us by good fortune and also, perhaps, by the persistence of the standards which we have maintained over many years in this important field of mining activity.

I should like to mention one other matter which is of interest. I refer to the question of deaths and accidents on the mines. I note that the figure is not very much higher than it was in previous years. The rate of injuries, for instance, in the current year increased from 41,50 to 41,79 which is not a great deal. The death rate dropped from 1,14 to 1,11. One must be grateful for the efforts which the mining industry has made to keep this level of injuries and deaths to as low a percentage as possible. Nevertheless I do think it is an aspect which we cannot ignore in dealing with the Vote before the House today. I think it is even more significant if one realizes that even the officials and others who are engaged in mining are constantly aware of the problem. There is a very interesting editorial in the January issue of The Underground Official which deals quite extensively with the question of safety programmes for 1973 in regard to the prevention of accidents in mines. I think in that regard we also must evoke some thought and possibly set aside more funds and through State encouragement ensure that the rate of accidents will be brought very much lower than it is.

We are living in a highly technological era today and I do think that with the cooperation of the mining workers themselves we should be able to improve even the standard which we have attained at this stage. We are well aware of the prizes which are offered from time to time by the Chamber of Mines and the efforts which the Chamber has made in the interests of the industry itself. The importance of attracting additional staff by bringing down this rate has always been appreciated. Nevertheless, we must try to take full advantage, if we can, of every technological means possible to give all the safety that is necessary to the mining world in South Africa.

I would like to say further that the report itself does seem to indicate to us in a very impartial manner the importance of our search for oil. This is an important factor in all our exploratory efforts in the Republic. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give some information to this House in regard to what is taking place. The hon. the Minister is aware that the question of finding oil is becoming a vital and important factor throughout the world because of other factors, like economic and political factors which are beginning to play their part. Because of those factors we ourselves might unfortunately be caught up in the maelstrom of this particular movement. Despite the efforts that we have made it might for that reason be necessary to seek even more expert advice and perhaps more technological assistance in order to extend our field of drilling activity. Alternatively, we can seek other methods which might to some extent provide some protection to the Republic with regard to its oil and fuel requirements. We should also consider the possibility of exploring for oil somewhere within our own territorial sea limits. Should we discover oil we would be able to meet shortages which we may experience in the years to come. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Jeppes on the positive contribution he made in the discussion of this Vote. He referred to the importance of the gold-mining industry and to the rising gold prices on the free market, something for which all of us are very grateful. In the course of my speech I should like to come back briefly to the matter of gold. The fact that we are discussing this Vote in a calm atmosphere is, I believe, because everyone of us who is concerned with this department realizes that the Department of Mining is an extremely important department. When we page through the documents which have been tabled we are struck by the wide field covered by this department and we come to a deep realization that when we are dealing with mining and our mineral wealth in South Africa, we are dealing with one of the major corner stones on which the economy of South Africa is based. To begin with, therefore, I should like to indicate to this House in a nutshell, by means of a few figures, to what extent our mineral wealth has grown in the past few years. In the first instance I want to dwell very briefly on the gold-mining industry in South Africa. I am going to furnish hon. members with some figures, without boring this House with too many figures. However, in my opinion these figures are illuminating.

The increase in the total value of our mineral production, including diamonds, is in itself very illuminating. The total mineral production of South Africa increased from R1 570 million in 1971 to more than R1 942 million in 1972. An increase of 24% in one year, from 1971 to 1972, can only be described as spectacular. This increase is the more impressive if it is borne in mind that while this overall increase in the sale value exceeded that of 1971 by more than R372 million, the figure for 1971 only exceeded the overall value of 1970 by R7 million.

The rather poor results obtained during 1971, however, were due to the temporary decline in the demand for copper, antimony, platinum, diamonds and other metals we experienced in that year. The latest phenomenal increase of about R372 million in the overall sale value of the Republic’s mineral production within the period of a single year, can be ascribed chiefly to the substantial rise in the price of gold, as well as the considerable sales of diamonds, antimony, copper, nickle, platinum and so forth. It therefore goes without saying that when we bring these aspects to the notice of the Committee, the Department of Mining can claim to be setting a new record every year. The target of R2 000 million we set a few years ago for our sales of mineral wealth which we only expected to achieve in a few years’ time, was virtually achieved in 1972. I am convinced that with the ever-increasing price of our mineral products, the figure of R2 000 million will be exceeded in 1973. It is perhaps interesting also to mention some further figures regarding our increased exploitation of mineral wealth in these 25 golden years, if I may use that term, of Nationalist rule. I do not want to talk politics now, because I believe that when dealing with this department, we should try to avoid politics. The fact of the matter is that in 1947 our overall sales of mineral products in South Africa amounted to R251 million. This gradually increased until the year 1955, when it was still only R582 million. In 1970, however, we find that the amount had already exceeded the R1 500 million mark. As I have already indicated, the figure last year was almost R2 000 million. That, then, is briefly the picture of our mineral wealths, and I now want to dwell for a few moments on the question of gold in South Africa.

When we discuss the subject of gold, it is true, as the hon. member for Jeppes correctly said, that everyone of us in South Africa speaks about it with gratitude in our hearts. I am pleased the hon. the Minister of Finance is present here so that I may express our sincere gratitude and appreciation for his immense contribution towards the stabilization of gold. Although the yield in 1972 was 6,8% less than the 1971 production, the average gold price in 1972 was 39.4% higher than was the case the previous year as a result of the higher price of gold. I could quote further figures, but I see my time is running out. Having thought a few years ago that our gold-mining industry was slowly coming to a halt, we can take cognizance with gratitude of the fact that our gold-mining industry is still going to be a source of income for many decades and for many generations. I think the people who were pessimistic about the development of the Free State gold mines, in particular those in and around the city of Welkom, which was expected by some to become a ghost town within 10 to 15 years, are grateful today to see that with the increased price of gold we have entered a “boom” period such as we had ten to 15 years ago. Today a feeling of unparalleled optimism prevails, and I am convinced that this part of the Free State is going to play a major and substantial role in the development of South Africa’s economy for many years to come. That area has been engendered with new life; a great many plots are being sold, and I may just say in passing that I want to give hon. members a good tip. Take your savings and invest them safely in Welkom. In three or four years’ time you will reap good dividends. You will do well to buy a plot at Welkom, an industrial or business plot. I am convinced that in a few years’ time you will make a nice profit.

I should like to bring one other matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. We are rightly celebrating our Green Heritage this year. In this way we are educating people in South Africa to love its soil, to conserve the soil and everything that goes with it. A year or so ago we celebrated a Water Year in South Africa. In the course of that year we emphasized the potential of our water resources and tried to tell our people in South Africa that they should display some care in the use of water, and we wanted to tell our young people in South Africa that a fine future was awaiting them in the Department of Water Affairs. I want to submit for the consideration of the hon. the Minister that we should seriously consider having a mineral year in South Africa, because of the extensive mineral wealth we have in South Africa. We could celebrate such a year. But at this stage I do not want to deal too extensively with the details of a mineral year and everything associated with it. In such a year we could highlight our mineral wealth. I am convinced, and I want to say to the hon. the Minister, that a city such as Welkom would give its cooperation: in fact, the Free State goldfields as a whole, the Chamber of Mines and all mining companies in South Africa will give their co-operation. Secondly, I am convinced that while we have a shortage of people who want to join the mining industry, with such a mineral year we shall create the opportunity to show the young people of South Africa that they have a fine and excellent future in the field of mining. In conclusion, such a mineral year in South Africa would give us the opportunity to praise and pay tribute to those men, Bantu, as well as Whites, who have rendered a tremendous service to South Africa over many years to exploit our minerals under difficult circumstances. We are aware of the fact that from time to time the Government sees to the interests of those people—in this regard there is legislation which is to be dealt with here next week—but South Africa must take cognizance of the contribution that has been made to South Africa by the mineworkers over many years and under difficult circumstances. For that reason I plead that the hon. the Minister should seriously consider declaring a mineral year in South Africa within the foreseeable future.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister for paying a personal underground visit to a gold mine in my constituency, Odendaalsrus, shortly after his appointment as Minister. Merely paying an underground visit to a gold mine is hard work, as the hon. the Minister will be able to testify. We even had to carry a member of our party out of the mine. How difficult, then, must it not be for people to have to work deep down in the mines every day? That is why I am convinced that the personal visit the hon. the Minister paid to a gold mine, will have a beneficial and favourable effect on mining in South Africa and that it augurs well for the future, particularly as far as the mineworkers are concerned. In fact, there is no doubt about it.

Mr. Chairman, on 14th May, 1973, the gold price broke through the $100 barrier and proved thereby that gold does not allow itself to be bound by an official price. Gold is too strong and too precious to be bound by a ridiculous, unrealistic official price; an official price which wants to imply that gold as a standard for monetary purposes is inferior to gold as an everyday commodity. In the past this precious metal has to a very large extent determined South Africa’s position in the world economy and in international politics. With the possibilities created by the high gold price in regard to the development of new gold mines and the extension of the life of existing gold mines, this metal is destined to have an even greater significance in future. I am grateful that we still possess reasonable quantities of gold we are able to mine.

At $100 per fine ounce the total annual production of our gold mines could now amount to approximately R2 000 million per annum and every $5 by which the gold price rises means R100 million in extra revenue for our gold-mining industry. The growth of the gold-mining industry and its significance for the economy of South Africa may be reflected in the fact that our net gold production in 1962 amounted to R632 million. Ten years later this figure virtually doubled. Last year it was R1 162 million. Now, suddenly, instead of this figure I have just mentioned, namely R1 162 million, being doubled in ten years’ time, it is expected to be doubled within a period of ten months. The figure will be doubled over a period of ten months instead of ten years. It is now expected that it could rise to R2 000 million. These are figures absolutely unheard of a few years ago.

I now want to express the hope that the new era which the gold-mining industry has entered, will be of great benefit, in the first place, to those who labour every day in the sweat of their brow in the gold-mining industry, namely our mineworkers. They, too, must remember this year as their golden year, the golden year of their association with the gold-mining industry. I want to express the hope that our mining magnates will celebrate the price of $100 per fine ounce by granting exceptional concessions and compensations to all the mine-workers of this country.

Now it so happens, and this is significant, that in this golden year of the gold-mining industry, the Government has introduced a Bill in the House of Assembly—I do not intend discussing it now—I refer to the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Bill. I am proud to be a member of the Government which has introduced that Bill in this House in the interests of the mine-workers. I am grateful to be a member of the mineworkers’ group of the National Party caucus, which has met regularly over a period of three years in Cape Town and Pretoria to consider this Bill in the interests of the mineworker in this country. What our good friends, the mineworkers, do not know, is that the members of this group, from South-West Africa, the Northern Cape and Natal, from virtually all over the Republic, have on more than one occasion travelled to Pretoria at their own expense to have discussions about this Bill in the interests of the mineworkers. In this golden year of the gold-mining industry the Government proved its good faith and responsibility towards the mineworkers by introducing this Bill. Now I want to express the hope that the mining magnates of South Africa will also make their contribution to the mineworkers.

Mr. Chairman, I know that what I am going to say now, has no specific bearing on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Mines, but it nevertheless arises from it. I want to express the hope that the substantial revenue which the State is now receiving from the higher gold price because of the tax paid on it, will also benefit greatly —and I am pleased the hon. the Minister of Finance is in the House—the general public outside so that they may also become aware of the tremendous asset the gold-mining industry is for South Africa. What I have in mind in particular, is special tax concessions in the near future, inter alia, sales tax. In this way the mineworkers, if the mining magnates also do them a good turn, will enjoy a twofold benefit from the increased gold price. I do not think anyone in this country would begrudge the mineworkers this.

The importance for South Africa of mining in general is not always realized. I therefore want to quote a few figures in order to emphasize this. Salaries and wages paid to all employees in the mining industry in 1972 amounted to approximately R442 million, compared with R419 million in 1971 and R410 million in 1970. I should like to quote more figures, but my time has almost expired. Mining as a whole contributes more than R3 000 million annually to the economy of the country, as against a total Government budget of about R4 000 million. This is truly a colossal achievement. That is why I want to suggest for consideration that this important Vote of the hon. the Minister of Mines should not only enjoy a two-hour debate in this House, but at least twice that amount of time. I shall tell hon. members why. Most of the mining constituencies are represented by members on this side of the House. The result is that every hon. member of the Opposition representing a mining constituency may have a turn to speak under this Vote, while we on this side of the House, because there are so many of us, in the normal course of events only get a turn to speak every three years. Because of that I hope that the hon. gentlemen who are concerned with these matters, will consider the possibility of extending the time allocated to this Vote.

Mr. Speaker, having followed two speakers on that side of the House, I should like to say at the outset that I agree very much with what was said by the hon. member for Welkom. So far as the hon. member for Odendaalsrus is concerned, I would suggest to him that if he gets only one turn in three years, he would do well to check his facts before he speaks. The facts are that neither the price of gold nor the cost of producing gold remain constant. When, for example, the price of gold rises to 100 dollars per fine ounce, this leads the mines to mine gold and to extract gold at levels which would not have been profitable under the old price. This means that the margin of profit recedes, or rather than the working cost increases as the price goes up. In other words, there is not an increasing margin of profit which is consistent with the rise in the price of gold. There are at present, firstly, very heavy inflationary trends in the gold-mining industry which are subtracting from the profits made by the gold-mining companies. Secondly, they are working ore of a much lower grade, and this means that their profits per ounce are that much lower. Therefore it is not possible to do a straight multiplication sum and to assume that all the profits flowing from the increased price of gold are going straight into the mining industry or to the country. The foreign earnings, it is true, are increasing, but the profits are not, or at any rate, not proportionately. The other point, of course—and I am sure the hon. the Minister of Finance who is here will agree with me—is that the simple multiplication done by the hon. member, which is to say that for every increase of five dollars in the price of gold South Africa benefits by so much, would be true if all our gold were being sold in the free market at 100 dollars. But this is by no means the case. A great deal of gold is indeed being sold in the free market at that price, but a certain amount of gold is being retained in South Africa and the gold mines, so far as I know, are being credited at the official price. The hon. the Minister also, when he sells gold for monetary purposes, sells it at the official price. Therefore when one calculates the value of the profits arising in favour of the gold-mining industry, it is not good enough simply to multiply the number of fine ounces produced by 100 dollars or 110 dollars, and to draw conclusions. It is not quite as simple as that.

I should like to deal with two matters affecting the Atomic Energy Board. These will not be of a highly technical nature, I would hasten to reassure the Minister, nor do I expect an immediate reply, but I shall be grateful if he would look into these matters. The first deals with the question of secrecy. In the case of ordinary portfolios where a Minister is exposed to the criticisms of the entire public in matters such as roads or agriculture, he can check his official information against the facts which are widely known to the public, widely criticized and widely disputed, and then arrive at some basis of truth. In the case of atomic energy this is not possible because it is treated as a highly secret subject. The result may be then that the Minister is entirely misled—I do not say this is the case; I am saying he “may be” misled—and that the Minister’s judgment which he brings to bear on this important subject is not as well-informed as it is in the case of subjects which are open to public discussion. In the case of the uranium enrichment project, we have provided, for the pilot plant stage of this project, something of the order of R50 million. The greater part of this amount has already been appropriated for use. So far, so good. The fact is that it is a great deal of money and we would like to have some indication of how this money is being spent and how the economics of this project are working out. There have been a few public statements, Sir, and they are very unsatisfactory. For example, we have had statements made by the previous Minister of Mines and I believe by this hon. Minister to the effect that the value of enriched uranium will be equal to, or better than, that of the diamond industry. Sir, this is a very vague figure; it does not mean anything at all. The value of the diamond industry over the years, since the Big Hole in Kimberley, has been incalculable, and it would obviously take a century to equal that kind of wealth. If the comparison is with the annual output, then the value of diamond sales at the moment is of the order of R90 million. The value of uranium sales at the moment, i.e. uranium oxide, is secret, but it is no secret that it runs between R25 million and R75 million a year. If this uranium were all enriched, it would have the effect of doubling the value. Let us assume that the value of natural uranium oxide reaches the level of R100 million a year, which is the maximum one can foresee in the present price ranges, and that it was doubled; it would then become worth, in foreign currency, R200 million a year, which is small in relation to the gold industry but reasonably large in relation to diamonds. This would not reflect the profit because the cost of enrichment is very high. What we want to know, Sir, is how competitive this enrichment is. We do not ask for any technical secrets at all; we ask only for the economic facts which would enable a comparison to be made, and I would limit these facts to two: The hon. the Minister will know that the separation of uranium isotopes is measured by a certain standard. It is normally measured in terms of tonnes of separative work per annum. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister how many tonnes of separative work per annum is envisaged for the plant when it is finally established, because if this were known we would know what our prospects were on the market and what share of the market we could reasonably expect to compete for. The other one I would like to know—and this is even more important— is what is the projected cost per kilogram of separative work. If we have this, Sir, we will know to what degree we are competitive.

I will leave it at that, Sir, but I do want to emphasize that when one embarks on a large-scale economic project, surrounded by so much secrecy, then if we cannot get the technical facts, which we accept, it is most important that we should at least have some economic facts which enable reasonable comparisons to be made.

Now, Sir, I want to deal very briefly with one other matter. A great many measuring instruments derived from sealed radio-active sources are coming into use in industry today. These isotopic sources come sealed as measuring instruments in order to measure thicknesses in industry, in order to measure impurities in industry, in order to measure a host of qualities automatically. Under our Atomic Energy Act, it is necessary for the Atomic Energy Board to give permission to use these imported instruments. In terms of the Act, which I do not propose to criticize because I think on the whole it is a good Act, provision is nevertheless made that the Atomic Energy Board shall lay down the conditions for the use of these instruments—and they have in fact published 70 conditions, all of which apply in almost every instance—and any person who contravenes these conditions is liable to a fine of R3 000 or seven years’ imprisonment, which means that people have to be extraordinary careful about using these instruments in accordance with the prescriptions of the board. The Board is entirely right in maintaining control, and I believe it is the duty of the Board to maintain control, but there are complaints coming in from our research institutes and from private enterprise that the time taken in clearing these instruments for use is unduly long, that there is too much red tape, that there is too much bureaucracy, that the administration of the whole question of these instruments, which have a very low radio activity and a very short half-life in many cases and are therefore not dangerous to the public, is such that enormous delays and difficulties are imposed and that South Africa is not getting the immediate and the full benefit of these very valuable aids to industry. They reduce time; they increase efficiency; they are becoming most significant in industry today, and I believe that it will be necessary, in admitting these instruments and controlling them in South Africa, that the Board should try to introduce more speed into the administration and the control of these instruments. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Von Brandis has kept silent about one important aspect of the low-grade gold mines, and that is that the low-grade gold mines in South Africa could continue to exist on the steadfast confidence that the price of gold would be increased in the future. For that reason this Government assisted, propped up and supported the low-grade mines in order to have them preserved for the future. Sir, I say that the gold industry in South Africa will still have many years of success as a result of the policy of the Government with its steadfast confidence in gold as a commodity. [Interjections]. Sir, later I shall come to the hon. member for Simonstown who has made a reprehensible interjection here.

We are tired of his fishing stories.

Sir, South Africa’s mineral wealth is the basis upon which we have built our economic viability in the past and on which we shall develop it in future to an ever-increasing extent. Gold as a commodity is of basic importance, but in South Africa we are inclined to forget that we do not have only the commodity gold, but that it has been allotted to us to have mineral wealth comparable to that of the rest of the world. This afternoon I am going to devote myself to the commodities in my constituency and to the commodities in the old Bushveld of the Republic of South Africa, the loveliest part of the Republic, and here I am going to quote from an American journal, Engineering and Mining Journal of the U.S.A.—

Sir, it has a greater potential than the Witwatersrand—

Sir, I am mentioning this to indicate to you that the Americans concede that this Bushveld has a wonderful future. And now, with reference to that reprehensible interjection of the hon. member for Simonstown, I want to say this: Last year, when there was a slump in the demand for platinum, not because of the intrinsic value of platinum, but because of the weak international currency liquidity, because of international economic factors, the United Party joined certain newspapers in discrediting Rustenburg and its environs. There was talk of a “ghost town”; disparaging references were made to the future of that area. Sir, at whose cost? At the cost of people working there. It needed level-headedness. But I just want to tell you that I have unshakeable confidence in my area. I also have an unshakeable confidence in the commodity. The following words of Kipling meant a great deal to me at that time—

That is what I want to tell the hon. member for Simonstown. When a situation or a disaster strikes a country or its economy, one must not take delight in that. Then one is not a loyal citizen of this country. That is the tragedy of the United Party and of people like the hon. member for Simonstown, i.e. that they take part in that kind of thing. I want to be positive and I do not want to have any part in the kind of interjection which he made. [Interjection.] You know what you said. You mentioned the name of a certain person. [Interjections.] I want to quote hon. members a passage to indicate the development that is now taking place. I shall quote from “Extract from Coal, Gold and Base Minerals, 1973” as follows—

The other large mine there, the largest mine in the world, i.e. the Rustenburg platinum mine, has 27 miles of shafts and has concluded a contract with Ford for 500 000 ounces of platinum per year. I am therefore not swaggering when I say that that development is phenomenal. Now I want to lodge a plea with the Minister. I initially want to say that I am grateful that the basic services are there for this gigantic development. When one visits Rustenburg one sees houses mushrooming up in the town and throughout the district. In the lovely Bushveld basic services have already been furnished. Provision has been made for water by pipelines to the very heart of the Bushveld. Electricity services have also been laid on. But with this large-scale development there will also be a tremendous increase in the population figure, and I respectfully want to state to the Minister that with the workers being involved in this large-scale development, he must find a method presenting the importance of this to the department so that priorities can be set in order to have this development take place on an ordered basis. Having development in the heart of the Bushveld, a lovely area to live in, and with workers coming to these new mines, they shall have to be settled in towns in the vicinity of these mines so that their families can live happily. These families must not be given accommodation on the flats and in the bush, but at a central spot where there are post offices, schools and all the other social services. I want to ask the Minister whether it is possible to establish priorities in this gigantic development which will take place and is in the process of taking place. I am not only asking this in the interests of my constituency. I want to state very clearly that I see this as something for the future of South Africa. This industry will be a powerful support for the economic viability of the Republic.

If one takes stock of the past 25 years, one finds landmarks of triumphant achievements accomplished by this National Party Government. Not the least of these achievements is the phenomenal growth which has occurred in our mining and particularly in our gold-mining industry. The figures were mentioned here. In 1948 we earned approximately R268 million through the export of minerals. In 1972 it was almost R2 000 million. Just as the principles for which the National Party stands have become the cornerstone of the political structure of South Africa, so mining, and gold mining in particular, have become the cornerstone of the economic structure of South Africa. The confidence which the National Party Government, and the hon. the Minister of Finance in particular, have consistently shown in gold, has caused the rest of the world, too, to have confidence in gold. As we heard today, and as we so often see in the Press, we are now plucking the fine fruits of the confidence this Government has had in gold.

I cannot omit to mention, in glaring contrast to this, the attitude of the United. Party. I want to mention only one example of this. When the two-tier system was established in 1968, the United Party took it amiss of the Government for not dumping its gold on the New York and London markets and selling it at the prices which were being offered at that stage. Just as in the case of Iscor and Sasol, one can say in this Langenhoven Year that the milestones on the road of the United Party’s past are the gravestones of lost opportunities.

I spoke of achievements. I should like to refer to an Act which the hon. member for Rustenburg also mentioned, namely the Gold Mines Assistance Act, No. 82 of 1968. To what outstanding degree has success not been achieved in extending the life of so many marginal profit mines! In this regard I want to utter a word of warning and put a question. Does the Act cover the case of gold mines which leave the more profitable ore and concentrate on low-grade ore in order to make use of the assistance rendered in this regard? In this respect I want to refer in passing to what Mr. R. C. J. Goode, president of the Chamber of Mines, wrote in Coal, Gold and Base Minerals of October, 1972, about the assistance rendered to gold mines in terms of this Act—

Our marginal profit mines have received the following assistance during the years 1971-’72 and 1972-’73. In the former year it was R16 million and in the latter, R9,2 million. In all an amount of R58,2 million has been spent in the form of assistance in terms of this Act. The total assistance granted to mines, with the exception of the assistance in regard to the pumping of water, from 1st April, 1964 to the present amounts to R71,13 million.

As a representative of an East Rand constituency I want to pay special tribute and convey special thanks to the Government for what has been done in the East Rand areas, particularly in regard to the pumping of water.

If I could be allowed to muse a little on the future with special reference to the increased gold price, I, too, like my hon. friends, the hon. members for Rustenburg and Moorreesburg, could wax lyrical about our various regions and trust that another golden dawn will break for the East Rand. The Rand Daily Mail refers to the East Rand as “The ancient East Rand”, but I want to point out that the only “ancient” thing on the East Rand is the Progressive Party, but I am talking about a new dawn in the “golden East Rand”.

Up to and including 31st March, 1973 the amount made available to mines for the pumping of water amounted to R12,2 million. In this regard the mines to whom assistance was rendered produced R505,6 million in gold from 1968. On average, 10 000 Whites and 110 000 non-Whites were employed on these mines during 1972. Where would they have been employed, if it were not for this?

I should like to say a few words to the hon. the Minister in regard to the refining and processing of raw materials. The hon. the Minister deserves all the support we can muster in his attempts to activate and encourage this development. According to pages 209 and 211 of the Reynders Report it is agreed that the ability of South African industry to refine, and to export the refined products, should be encouraged and speeded up. There is a consensus that we should develop the export of mineral raw materials into the export of processed raw materials, by means of an extractive metallurgical process, in the first instance. We also realize that prospective engineering students must be made aware of the importance and the attractiveness of a career in extractive metallurgical engineering. That is why I think that attention should be given to the possibility of the Minister’s portfolio being known from now on as “Mining and Extractive Metallurgy”. I feel that this encouragement and this development will come to the attention of the general public in this way and that it will be given added momentum. Since the present Minister is such a strong believer in the optimal utilization of mineral resources, it would also be fitting for him to be the first to fill this office with the improved designation.

I want to mention a few figures to indicate the progress made over the past 10 years, from 1961 to 1971. The local processing of mineral resources by means of extractive metallurgy has increased as follows: Chrome ore from 62 000 tons to 412 000 tons and manganese ore from 526 000 tons to 825 000 tons. This is a proud achievement but if one were to look at the following figures one would see that there is much room for improvement. I shall quote a few examples of the increase in unprocessed mineral resources over the same decade: Chrome ore production has risen from 841 000 tons to 1,2 million tons; manganese production has increased from 754 000 tons to 2,75 million tons.

I want to dwell on a few factors restricting the further expansion of the extractive metallurgy industry. The first is the vested interests and the second is the scarcity of students. It is really the metallurgical companies which have their head offices and works overseas which, through their associate companies, mine the mineral resources here and export them in an unprocessed form. This is not dealt with on the international market at the existing prices, but is merely sent to the parent company by means of an accounting transaction. The Railways conveys these raw materials at a virtually uneconomic tariff and consequently it is we who suffer as a result of this. I am not in favour of discouraging international resistance for the development of our country; I am merely asking that there should be rationalization of this participation to prevent one-sided exploitation from eventually taking place. I just want to mention that the Minister entrusted with these aspects in Australia, also announced in February 1973 that Australia was going to control exports of its minerals.

I want to dwell on a second factor, viz. the scarcity of students. Students intending to qualify in metallurgical engineering are not coming forward in sufficient numbers. According to the manpower committee of the “S.A. Manpower Requirements in Extractive Metallurgy”, reference number N.I.M. 1483, dated 20th October, 1972, 46 graduates are required annually for this industry. The combined number of metallurgical engineers graduating from the University of Pretoria as well as the University of the Witwatersrand, is less than 18.

In conclusion, the idea of establishing a State corporation to organize systematically the export of our mineral resources to the overall benefit of South Africa, must receive the wholehearted support of this House and of the voters. We are not under any illusion that this is going to be an easy task; we are aware of the difficult challenges which will be facing us along this road. But this Government does not shrink from challenges.

Mr. Chairman, I think that we actually have a very strange atmosphere in this House in that we can discuss this very important Vote in such a degree of peace and quiet. What I actually find strange is that we have only had three Opposition speakers thus far. We have only had three speakers who could speak about all the important minerals encountered in South Africa, while these minerals are actually the corner-stones of South Africa’s economy. And these are the people who want to rule the country!

I should like to turn my attention to another subject. Quite a measure of publicity has been given recently to the present deadlock in the negotiations between the Western countries and that group of oil-producing countries of the Arab world, a problem which could have unpredictable and even fatal consequences for the West if it cannot be solved in the foreseeable future. The majority of Western countries are completely linked to and dependent upon these sources on the Persian Gulf as far as obtaining crude oil is concerned. They are dependent on that Arab crude oil to such an extent that great Western industrial giants could be paralysed within a few months if those sources were to be closed to them. But even if this present price dispute could be settled, an insoluble problem still lies ahead for the whole world in respect of energy sources because the oil sources of the world—and now I am speaking about the whole world—will be exhausted within the foreseeable future. Even America, which is the largest producer of crude oil in the Western world, can only meet 80% of its own needs and, according to calculations, within ten years America’s supply will have been exhausted completely. What is South Africa’s position in respect of this energy source which has become the corner-stone of Western civilization here in South Africa? A great deal has already been done by the Government in the search for oil in South Africa, not only on land, but also in our territorial waters, without any success thus far. This very morning we saw a report in the newspapers to the effect that the latest results of the borehole completed in the Mossel Bay area show no signs of oil. How seriously and tirelessly this search for oil is being tackled by the Department of Mines, and is still being continued with, speaks for itself if we look at the fact that since 1964, when the search for oil in South Africa was intensively begun, up to the end of 1972, more than R67 million has been spent on the drilling of 66 holes on land and 13 holes in the sea. But I still believe this to have been money well spent. I think I am speaking on behalf of everyone in South Africa when I wish the relevant department everything of the best with the prayer that that search for oil in South Africa will not be in vain. In the midst of that sombre picture about the crude oil problem, as far as South Africa and the world is concerned, we have this ray of light, at least, i.e. that this National Government, in its wisdom and farsightedness, and in the midst of ridicule and opposition from the United Party, established a Sasol for us. In addition, in that sombre picture which we have tion, in that sombre picture which we have in South Africa, we have sufficient Coal, and according to geological reports, deposits which will be sufficient for the next 100 years. But that coal is today used chiefly for heating and power generation, and a reasonable amount of that coal is also exported. I have now wondered whether the time has not come for us to stop exporting our coal and think of the erection of yet more Sasols so that we shall no longer be subject to extortion by those Arab countries when it comes to supplying crude oil, but also so that we shall be independent in respect of our own petrol needs. I am asking whether the export of coal should not be stopped, because when the day comes for us to provide for our own needs by the processing of that coal, it may be that those coal reserves will no longer last 100 years. I believe that the eventual benefits we shall derive from the processing of our coal into oil, will be greater than the present benefits in foreign exchange earnings which we obtain from the export of that coal. It is a fact, as we see the position in the Middle East, with the stranglehold which those Arab countries have on the rest of the world in respect of the provision of crude oil, that one wonders whether the time is not perhaps going to become too short. I trust, however, that this Government will also seek and find a timely solution to that problem which South Africa has.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of my speech I should like to link up with the hon. member for Boksburg who spoke about the export of coal and the necessity for preserving it as a source of energy. Our country is blessed with exceptional mineral wealth. It is very important for us to handle the mining of the minerals with the utmost circumspection. We must mine them in such a way that we do not thereby also adversely affect other natural resources such as water and the soil. The Government must always realize that the long-term mining of minerals is a vanishing asset. In my constituency there are many worked-out mines. Many of these mines are examples of how such mines can be reutilized by pumping mineral oil into them. I can give you the example of the Klippoortjie Mine, which was virtually worked out and which is at present being cemented so that it can hold mineral oil. This is a typical example of how our virtually worked-out mines can be re-utilized by us and made serviceable for our country and the community. In contrast with that, we also have the dilapidated walls of these virtually worked-out mines. We have examples, particularly in respect of coal mines where the surface soil has caved in and the mine has become quite useless to animal and man because it is dangerous to venture onto that terrain. We have many examples of slag dumps that burn and cause pollution, etc. There was a time in South Africa when mining was chiefly used and abused by the fortune hunters in this country. I think those times are past, but today we are still saddled with those problems of injudicious undermining so that township developments, particularly in the Eastern Highveld, have become very problematical.

The second matter I should like to broach concerns the fact that there was also a period in South Africa when we thought that we had large quantities of coal available and that we virtually had an inexhaustible source at our disposal. People said that we had sufficient coal for about 2 000 years. I think that theory has permanently been quashed by a recent investigation conducted under the guidance of the coal advisory board. I have here the latest authoritative publication on this matter. What were these people’s findings? I quote—

This commission also found that the spheres in which coal would chiefly be used in future years would be, in the first place, those of generating electric power. These people calculated that in the year 2000 we would be using 102 million tons of coal solely for the generation of power. This is twice the total coal production in South Africa at present. Allowance has been made for the fact that from 1980 50% of the power generated in South Africa would be done by means of nuclear power and hydro-electric installations. But the second great projection in that connection is Iscor. It has been calculated that Iscor’s needs for coke—which in 1969 was 3,15 million tons —would increase in 1990 to 11,4 million tons. The total demand for coke and coal for metallurgical purposes will be a million tons by the year 2000. As hon. members know, coke is a very scarce type of coal in South Africa. Then there is the production of oil from coal which is very important. The findings of the Atomic Energy Board are that if the oil from coal process must retain its present share in the market we shall, by the year 2000, need 50 million tons of coal for this purpose. If, by the year 2000, we were to be completely dependent upon oil from coal, by virtue of not having been able to discover subterranean oil, we shall have reached the position in which we shall need more than 200 million tons of coal per year to provide for our oil needs.

The comparable position of other countries in respect of the importance of coal is stated in this report as follows—

The present position in South Africa is that our commercial coal mines, which are dependent upon the commercial market, are faced with economic problems. Hence the fact that we have created opportunities and facilities for them to be able to export this coal. This commission found, for example, that over a period of 15 to 16 years the South African Railways would no longer be using coal at all. In other words, there is consequently a decreasing market as far as these commercial coal mines are concerned. They must now be given the opportunity to be able to survive economically. Before we export coal from South Africa to a large extent, we shall definitely have to consider the matter again. This is a very strategic mineral in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to my predecessor, Dr. Carl de Wet, for the competent way in which he managed this post, and for the dedication with which he did so. I am convinced that I am speaking on behalf of us all when I convey to him my good wishes, and wish him a successful stay where he is at the moment. In the second place, I want to thank all the members of this House for the high level on which the debate was conducted this afternoon. In particular I want to single out the speakers on my side, who made really important speeches and who greatly facilitated my task in that they presented solid fare and data to convey to this House the message that this department is an important one, that this department is one which has something to say to the country, and that this department holds out such future possibilities particularly for the young people of this country as, to my knowledge, no other department in the Republic of South Africa does. I shall return to that point again. I also express my gratitude and appreciation to the Opposition speakers for the fine manner in which they conducted this debate.

Sir, I should very much like to take each one of you by the hand and take you with me so that I could show you the jewels of the Department of Mines. I would be able to take you to where the gold is being mined, frequently under very dangerous circumstances for those doing that work. I was there in person and I therefore know what I am talking about when I say this. I would be able to take you to Oranjemund; I would be able to take you to Alexander Bay and to De Beers in Kimberley to show you the spendour of the diamond, with all its facets. It is one of the treasures of our beautiful Republic. To see those diamonds in Kimberley, in their hundreds, the large and the tiny ones, each one glittering with its many facets, is really something wonderful. I would be able to take you to the diggings just outside Kimberley, where one finds people of sterling quality, and where every sifting of the gravel is an act of faith. I would be able to take you to Phalaborwa and to Robbine in South-West Africa, and to Hatozel with its manganese mines, and to so many other mines such as the platinum mines at Rustenburg, where a new future is being opened up. I would be able to take you to many places such as Pelindaba and Velindaba where our uranium enrichment is taking place and where the Atomic Energy Board is performing its functions. I would be able to take you to the Sedeo 135, many miles out to sea, where drilling operations for oil are in progress. I would be able to take you to the National Institute for Metallurgy in its new building just outside Johannesburg, where one of the world’s great men, Dr. Robinson, supported by a team of brilliant people, is extracting valuable compounds from our minerals in the interests of South Africa and its riches. I would be able to take you to our universities where people are being trained in the professions which in mining have become so imperative. I would also be able to indicate to you that the best equipment in the world is there, but the students are lacking. I would then be able to ask you: Why is it that the students are lacking there? I would be able to tell you, having pointed out the jewels of our Department of Mines, that this department will contribute a great deal towards determining where the population of this country will live, work and play during the next 70, 80 or more years, even if the population increases to more than 70 million after the year 2000. Sir, I would be able to take you to our secretary for the department, Mr. Uys. He was already in the Department of Mines when I was bom. This is a brilliant achievement, and one day when I am as old as he is, I will be able to write about him in the Reader’s Digest as “The Most Unforgettable Character I have met”. He also has his brilliant officials who support him in this wonderful department, one of the oldest and best departments in the Republic of South Africa. In this technological era in which our people and our country now find themselves, this is a department which is destined to play a very important and decisive role. But, Mr. Chairman, I would also be able to take you to the jewel and to my mind perhaps the most important jewel of this department, and that is our mineworkers who have been doing all this work there in the bowels of the earth, and I would then be able to say without fear of contradiction that the Government is the friend of the mineworkers, as it is at the same time the friend of all workers in the Republic of South Africa. On the basis of our history the mineworker is close to the heart of our Government and, as one of the hon. members said here, in this golden year of South Africa it is not by chance that the Government is introducing this Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Bill to open up new vistas for our mineworkers. The Government is only too well aware of the fact that the weal and woe of the mineworker is the weal and woe of South Africa and that the mineworker is making an incalculable contribution to our continued welfare and secure existence. Sir, it is quite commonplace to say that our mineral resources are probably South Africa’s greatest asset, apart from its human material, and this asset is in the hands of our mineworker. Last year the mineral production of this country totalled R1 942 million, and together with the salaries and wages Totalling more than R400 million which were paid out, plus the R600 million in respect of stocks, these minerals in South Africa contributed more than R3 000 million to our economy last year. Sir, we have our mineworkers to thank for this; we may not lost sight of this fact, and we owe a vote of thanks to those who are with reality, with dedication and with great responsibility performing this task everyday. I make no apology for having taken up three minutes of the time of this Committee in expressing my appreciation to these people. We owe them a vote of thanks and it is therefore perfectly natural that the Government and I, personally, should feel a particular affection for our mineworkers and should want to ensure that they enjoy the necessary security in their profession, which is frequently a difficult one. When I held talks with the Chamber of Mines, I said to them: “You must remember that those people should be looked after well, and it should be clearly understood that as long as you do that you and I, as the responsible Minister, will be able to co-operate well and understand one another well.” The Government will not allow the White mineworker in the White area to be ousted from his traditional occupations. To me it is a matter of cardinal importance that the White mine-worker should enjoy security in White South Africa, and again I make no apology for saying this here at this first opportunity. For that reason I want to reiterate that my door is always open to our mineworkers under all circumstances. They may feel themselves free to come and discuss their problems with me. They will have a friend in me and my department. Sir, if I and my department do not see to their well-being, then I ask you: Who will?

Certainly not the U.P.

Sir, I want to tell you that as against the amount of R2 425 000 which was paid out in 1948 in compensation to the White mineworkers, an amount of R9 309 000 was paid out last year to mineworkers and their dependants. As far as compensation to White mineworkers is concerned, there has therefore been an increase of more than 384% during the regime of the National Party Government.

Sir, there is one thing which is very close to the hearts of mineworkers, and in this regard I want to make the following announcement. As a result of various and perseverant representations by the Mineworkers’ Union I have instructed the Government Mining Engineer to ensure that his mine inspectors carry out more surprise inspections at mines in order to restrict in this way contraventions of the regulations which could endanger the lives and health of the mineworkers. As hon. members perhaps know, the sub-inspectors of mines have been appointed with the object of serving as liaison between the mineworkers, mine managements and my department. Their function is in fact that of welfare officers, and they have to investigate complaints and grievances of mineworkers and try, together with the trade union representative, to solve these with the mine managements. These officers have all been recruited from among the ranks of the mineworkers. They know and understand the problems of the mineworkers and I have recently issued further instructions that they should perform the functions for which they were appointed with greater zeal and dedication.

†I want to say that it is naturally a source is a matter of extreme importance to me, and that is the exploitation of our minerals in the Republic of South Africa.

I want to say that it is naturally a source of considerable gratification to all South Africans, and to the Government in particular, that several sectors of the country’s mining industry, notably our gold mines, are experiencing what can justifiably be described as boom times and are thus able to reap very substantial benefits for the Republic in the form of foreign exchange. The Government is, however, cognizant of the fact that now more than ever before is the time to look ahead and plan dynamically for the future. I am quite certain that the whole of the country’s private mining sector supports my view that we have everything in our favour to create in the Republic a mining industry of vast magnitude and to establish in its wake beneficiation and manufacturing industries which could lift the whole of the South African economy and the living standard of all its people to heights which a decade or two ago were hardly imaginable.

*In this connection may I say that in the annual report of my Department of Mines you will see that the revenue from our minerals last year was slightly less than R600 million, but it has already been calculated by the scientific advisers of our Prime Minister that within 25 years the proceeds from our mineral products, excluding gold and diamonds, will amount to more than R4 000 million.

†It is undoubtedly true that the private mining sector in this country has throughout the years enjoyed the advantages brought by stable government and has derived great benefits through various forms of assistance rendered by the Department of Mines, which has a long tradition of fair play and co-operation with all sectors of the industry. When I deal later on with uranium and the uranium plant, you will see to what extent there is this very close liaison between the Department of Mines and the mining industry and our other branches of industry and industrial development in South Africa. The Government is nevertheless very appreciative of the fact that our present thriving mining industry is largely the result of initiative and courage by a long line of men, people who have risked large capital investment to find and develop mineral deposits throughout the country. We are looking to the private mining sector, and we do so with confidence, not only to find and develop new mineral deposits in South Africa but to break new ground and to diversify their activities. In this they will receive all possible assistance from the Government. We have vast reserves of a great variety of minerals in our country. Many people hail South Africa as one of the richest mineral countries in the world. It is certainly among the richest in the world. Many of these minerals are being exploited successfully but many of them are of low grade or exist in outlying areas of the country where the provision of transport and water as well as infrastructure may be difficult and costly. Many such resources are not immediately exploitable on a profitable basis but they nevertheless represent considerable potential for long-term benefits to those prepared to risk exploration and development capital. In fact, I am firmly convinced that if we wish to aspire to a much more forceful economy, it is absolutely vital that we exploit all our mineral resources to their maximum possible extent. These long-term objectives will not be achieved without initiative and conserable effort. We have to develop special metallurgical processes to enable to us to extract the valuable constituents in our low-grade deposits economically. We have to develop techniques to convert our mineral products into more highly processed commodities for sale on increasingly competitive world markets and we have to develop special marketing skills to enable us to sell these products. Surely, it is true to say that in South Africa we have the finest laboratory to develop these skills and every incentive to do so. But, and more than one speaker in this debate this afternoon has referred to this fact— I must confess that I do not believe that at the moment we are making full use of our opportunities which are presented to us. This is a very important issue.

In this connection there is especially one aspect which I am viewing with dismay and which merits the attention of all who wish South Africa well. I am referring to the exploitation of our mineral resources, which must surely depend on the quantity and quality of the human resources that we can devote towards this end. This is an aspect to which, inter alia, the hon. member for Rosettenville has referred. Our success will depend on the number of mining engineers, metallurgists, geologists, technical managers, mineral economists, marketing experts and the many other specialists who can contribute towards overcoming all the problems connected with the conversion of the different minerals in the ground into saleable commodities. If I say that the income from these minerals is now less than R600 million, but within 25 years it will rise to over R4 000 million, then obviously somebody in the world, some young people in the world are going to get a cut in and the benefit of it. The fact of the matter at the moment in South Africa is that we have to get people to do precisely that. As a result of the lack on the part of our own people who study in these different directions, we have to get this know-how and we have to get these people from overseas. This is a very serious matter; yet, unbelievably, the output of personnel from our universities and institutes of technology is incredibly small and far from being adequate to meet our existing requirements, let alone the country’s future requirements.

I should like to explain, by way of example, what the position is in Australia. In the report on the natural resources, minerals, forests and energy of Australia which has just come to hand, it is shown that up to 1971 there was a tremendous increase in their output, an increase of 350%, from $363 million to $1 643 million. There was also an increase of 530% in the exports of minerals by Australia. If one analyses the position and asks why that is so, bearing in mind that Australia is only a third as rich as South Africa in this respect, one finds that the reason is really very, very simple. They have realized how important it is to have the human material in order to exploit their mineral resources. Whereas we in South Africa are only getting 15 metallurgists per annum from our universities, they get more than a hundred from theirs, and our richness in minerals is more than twice as high as that of Australia.

I have here a summary of the factual position in South Africa. We cannot exploit our minerals to the fullest extent if these facts are not brought home to our people. If anybody asks the Government what we are doing about this, then my reply is that we are trying to do everything within the limits of our powers, but if we cannot get the message across to our parents, to our young people, of what the opportunities are in the field of mining in South Africa now and in the future, then we shall not get the students. At all our universities in South Africa the position as far as metallurgy was concerned was as follows on 12th March, 1973—there were 28 first-year students, 18 second-year students, 10 third-year students, 15 fourth-year students and 12 post-graduate students. This gives a total of 83 students in the entire South Africa studying metallurgy.

But we have been speaking about these shortages.

A child will be able to tell one that if you do not have the students at the universities and at the institutes of metallurgy, you will not be able to extract from the minerals the richness that is in them.

We have told you that a few years ago.

I do not want to go into the reasons too deeply now, but it is absolutely wrong to accuse the Government of negligence and that is therefore only begging the question. Hon. members must remember that last year the income from mining was nearly R3 000 million whilst the total Budget of the country was ± R4 000 million. On 12th March last year there were 32 first-year mining engineering students at all our universities in South Africa. At the same time there were 12 second-year students in mining engineering, 14 third-year students, 13 fourth-year students and three post-graduate students. This gives a total of 74 students who are at some or other stage of their mining engineering studies. I can also supply the figures of the number of geologists at our universities but I leave this matter there.

The fact that I want to drive home to hon. members in this House, and this I want to make known to the whole country, is that something is wrong here. We must create a climate in this technological age of ours where the parents and the children of South Africa should know that here we have almost unlimited and unbelievable opportunities that should be taken. I can tell hon. members that I have done everything in my power to change this situation. I can tell hon. members that I personally have had long discussions with literally all the institutions connected with minerals and mining in this country. I asked them how this position could be rectified and what could be done about it.

*Hon. members have probably noticed that at twenty past seven in the mornings, before the news, there is a talk on minerals on the Afrikaans service. I had discussions with the SABC concerning programmes which are going to be presented this year in order to make our people aware of the necessity of this matter. I could mention a number of programmes which will deal with this matter. There are the youth programmes, and a programme such as “Line Up”. Then there is a special contribution on metallurgy as a career; and in addition there are various other similar programmes. I am not going to go into the details of these, but I want to mention a few more programmes which deal with this: “Wêreld en Wetenskap,” “Ons Wil Weet” in the report series, “Voice of Science”, “Ons en die Wetenskap”, “Encounter”, “Radio-universiteit”, “University of the Air”, “Portret van die Week” and “Top People”. We are attempting by means of all these SABC programmes to bring about a process of awareness of these matters among our people, matters to which hon. members opposite draw our attention, and to which hon. members on this side of the House also draw our attention. We are therefore tackling this task with conviction and courage. I can say, even at this stage, that the reaction we have received as a result of the newspapers which are publicizing this matter, as a result of the SABC which is publicizing this matter and as a result of our communications media which are publicizing this matter, has been very encouraging. We are sending teams from the National Institute for Metallurgy around to schools, which are making schoolchildren aware of this important field of study.

The public of South Africa is entering the technological era, and I have no doubt whatsoever that our efforts will be crowned with success. I am asking for the support of everyone, the assistance and modest contributions of everyone, to help us meet the urgent needs of this country. Hon. members would have noticed that every speaker who rose to speak in this House spoke with enthusiasm and conviction. Why was that the case? The hon. members on this side of the House realize these things, and I believe that the hon. members opposite do too. We are tackling all these things because we should like to make a success of this in the interests of South Africa.

Hon. members will note, when we discuss the annual proceeds of mining in South Africa, that we are not speaking in terms of R10 or R20 million, but in terms of thousands of millions of rand. It is time South Africa realized that it has entered a technological era and it is time we adapted ourselves to the new circumstances in which our young people will have to carve out a future for themselves in this country. This House must also realize and accept its responsibility in this connection because if Australia can produce hundreds of metallurgists, while it has only a third of South Africa’s mineral wealth, then South Africa must not produce only 10 or 12 metallurgists per annum. If our people know what the position and the facts are, we can also produce a hundred and more metallurgists per annum. I am looking forward eagerly to the day when this will happen.

In reply to the request by the hon. member for Welkom in regard to a metallurgical or a Mineral Year, I can say that we must have such a year. It is necessary for us to have something like this so that we can attract the world’s greatest scientists in this sphere to South Africa. After all South Africa is, thanks to Providence, the country most richly endowed with minerals of all the countries in the world. I maintain that we should first prepare the way so that we will be ready for it when such a year is held. Perhaps such a year can be held in 1975 or 1976, but then we will have to work hard from now on and we will all have to pull together to see whether we cannot make a success of such a project.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, I think the most important question put to me was that of the hon. member for Von Brandis concerning the uranium enrichment process. After that I shall reply to questions put by hon. members opposite in regard to the search for oil. I think it is important on this occasion to say a few words in respect of both these matters. As for the secrecy in regard to the uranium enrichment process, there are many things which could be said about that, but I do not think it is necessary for me to do so now.

I want to cut this short on this occasion and inform the hon. members that I have decided to invite hon. members who are interested in this matter, and this will of course be the mining group, to pay a visit during the recess—a visit which can be arranged in co-operation with the chairmen and secretaries of the various groups —to Pelindaba and Velindaba, so that they may then make themselves fully conversant with and see for themselves what an enormous project Ukor is undertaking there, as the photographs which were released the other day do in fact also indicate. I think that this eminent House could in this way best acquaint itself with what the factual position there is. It will be possible for them to ask as many questions as they like on various matters and aspects of the work.

However, there are other aspects of this matter which I want to deal with on this occasion. It was as a result of the ever-increasing demand for enriched uranium, through which the nuclear power programmes of the world were stimulated, and bearing in mind South Africa’s comprehensive uranium reserves, that the Government was spurred on to making money available to prove the economic viability of the South African process in a pilot plant.

In the light of the latest international development, this decision appears to have been a very wise one. The recently published American conditions for the supply of enriched uranium, of which America has the monopoly in the free world, impose unusual requirements on prospective consumers in the world. In this way, for example, a body wishing to construct a nuclear power station has to order the enriched uranium required for its operation eight years before the time from the United States of America if it wishes to acquire it from the U.S.A., and undertake to purchasing the enriched uranium which it requires for the first ten years of operation of the reactor from the U.S.A. It is important for hon. members to know this, for we do not discuss this very important matter on many other occasions, that the United States has recently made known by resolution that any country in the world wishing to carry on a trade with America in enriched uranium—that commodity which, as certainly as the sun rose this morning, the world is going to require after 1980 as a result of the energy crisis in the Western world and which most hon. members here must surely know something about—is bound, as it were, to America for 18 years.

In addition to that an advance payment of approximately R2,8 million for every 1 000 megawatts of electrical power generating capacity is required. These severe conditions which the United States is imposing on the world have to be seen against the background of an expected shortage of enriched uranium early in the ’eighties, a shortage which will subsequently increase almost exponentially.

What about the self-breeding of reactors?

I shall come to that. These circumstances have caused intense activity on the uranium enrichment front in the free world outside America. The advocates of the various enrichment processes are assiduously seeking partners to participate in major plants, the construction of which have to be announced in time with a view to the concluding of contracts for enriched uranium. Hon. members will understand that I am of course weighing every word I say here about this very important matter, after having given very careful consideration to it. For that reason I now want to say something about a large-scale enrichment plant in South Africa. Fortunately South Africa finds itself in a favourable position owing to its early entry into the field of uranium enrichment as a result of the discovery which was made in South Africa, and the Government is exploiting these circumstances to the full in the interests of the country. From the work done up to now in the field of research as well as on the construction of the pilot plant it is possible to form a clear overall picture of what the construction of a large-scale plant entails. In addition to that the attendant development of a sophisticated technology provided the necessary background and the necessary facts on the basis of which it was possible to carry out comprehensive economic studies. These studies have proved beyond any doubt the viability of a large-scale enrichment plant, based on the South Africa process. I repeat, beyond any doubt! According to the available data such a large-scale South African plant could produce the cheapest enriched uranium in the world. We are convinced that it can be scientifically proved that although there are only a few major countries in the world which can be considered to be nuclear power countries, South Africa, a small country, is able to produce the cheapest enriched uranium in the world. I shall elucidate this in further detail now.

Consequently it is a great pleasure for me to announce that as first step in the direction of a large-scale economic plant the Government has decided to make funds available for the preparatory work in regard to the construction of a full-scale prototype stage for such a major plant. Hon. members should know that this is something different to the pilot plant with which we are busy. Feasibility studies on the establishment of such a large-scale plant, based on such a prototype, indicate that construction could even be completed in South Africa in the early eighties. The following data furnish something of an impression of the possible magnitude of such a South African plant: It will process in the vicinity of 12 000 metric tons of uranium annually, and will cost approximately R550 million to construct. As against this a corresponding gas diffusion plant based on American technology will cost approximately R800 million; it is calculated that ours will cost R550 million. America has the monopoly and the largest in the world; according to their process theirs will cost R800 million. The power consumption will amount to approximately 2 000 megawatts, i.e. approximately 23% of the total present power generating capacity of Escom. Such a plant will produce approximately 2 400 metric tons of enriched uranium per annum, and the value of this commodity at present prices is estimated to be R175 million per annum, of which almost R13 million is calculated as being profit. It is estimated that such a plant will have been fully paid off after ten years, and the profit will increase accordingly. The export product of such a South African enrichment industry may be regarded as the combination of two of the raw materials with which this country is richly endowed, viz. coal, processed into electrical energy, and uranium. In other words, South Africa will be able to produce enriched uranium at a price approximately 30% cheaper than any other process of similar magnitude in the world. I think this is a phenomenal achievement for a small country. In his announcement on 20th July the hon. the Prime Minister made it very clear that South Africa had no intention of withholding from the world community the great benefits presented by this development. He went on as follows (translation)—

All that I wish to add at this stage is that I am satisfied that the entire uranium matter rests on a sound economic basis, and that I am quite satisfied with the sound international relations which have been built up in this regard. Hon. members will understand that this is a matter which I do not want to discuss any further now. It is sufficient to give them the assurance that the Government is handling this matter with the greatest circumspection, earnestness and responsibility. A can give hon. members, and particularly the taxpayers of this country, the assurance that this investment of their money has not only served as a great stimulus to the industrial development of the country, but that it also represents a long-term investment from which everyone will benefit. I am therefore reiterating now what I said on a previous occasion, and what a former Minister of Mines also said, viz. that we are honestly convinced that in regard to the uranium enrichment process we are dealing with a matter which in the years which lie ahead could be of equally great significance, seen in retrospect, as the discovery of diamonds was for this country. To use the words of the hon. member for Von Brandis: We believe that in the same way as we now, looking back, realize that the value of diamonds was virtually incalculable, the value of uranium and enriched uranium to this country will also appear to be immeasurable and incalculable. For that reason. I reiterate and give the assurance that we are dealing here with a very important matter.

Lastly, in regard to the two specific questions put by the hon. member, referring to the pilot plant, it is not in the interests of the country that I mention this, because it is really unnecessary as a result of the fact that it is a pilot plant which was constructed for a specific purpose. I hope that the information which I shall furnish to the hon. member after we have made progress with the prototype and they have made calculations in respect of the large-scale plant, will satisfy him completely. If he is not satisfied, we will, upon invitation, discuss this again when we visit Velindaba and Pelindaba.

Questions were also put to me in regard to the search for oil. In this regard I want to make the following information available:

On land:

During 1972 the search on land was continued in Zululand, where three boreholes were completed during the first half of the year without success. In May, 1972, the rig was transfered to the north-eastern Free State, where a series of six boreholes were planned on the basis of geological and geophysical work done over a long period in this area. Of this planned series of six holes, four have already been completed, i.e. two in the Harrismith district, one on the village common of Ficksburg, and one in the Memel district. I regret to say that no gas or oil was found in these holes. Sublessees of Soekor also drilled several holes in various parts of the country during the year, without succeeding in finding any hydrocarbons. The costs on land, depending on the type of drilling rig, vary between R50 and R90 per metre. At sea the costs amount to approximately R30 000 per day. A total of 66 boreholes were drilled on land: 37 by Soekor, nine by Geological Survey, and 20 by other bodies. To date 13 holes have been drilled at sea, of which one was drilled for Soekor.

Maritime Areas:

Owing to the possibilities presented by the Agulhas Bank, it was decided some considerable time ago to intensify the search along our coastal regions, and owing to greater interest in the deep-sea regions by an international oil exploration company, Soekor was consequently able to succeed in leasing quite large sea regions off the coast of the Republic and South-West Africa for exploration. In some cases the leased regions extend to a water depth of 3 000 metres. As hon. members know, the off-shore drilling platform Sedco 135 was modified and adapted in the Cape Town harbour last year to make it suitable for our waters, and it was possible by the end of last year for an oil company to commence drilling the first borehole south-west of Still Bay. Subsequently this hole was completed at a depth of 2 758 metres as a dry hole, and was subsequently followed by a second and a third borehole which were sunk 70 km south of the Bree River mouth and 65 km south-east of Mossel Bay, respectively, the second hole by Soekor and the third hole by Soekor and a foreign oil company jointly. I regret to say that these two holes were also unsuccessful, although traces of oil and gas were found in the second hole, and traces of oil in the third. The fourth hole is at present being drilled in the vicinity of Mossel Bay, which therefore brings the total up to 13. Owing to the great scarcity of off-shore drilling platforms suitable for South African waters, and the considerable amount of money which had to be spent on adapting and modifying the Sedco off-shore rig for our conditions, this rig will probably be used in our waters up to the end of this year. Therefore, unless Soekor succeeds in finding sublessees for this purpose, this further off-shore drilling work will have to be done mainly by Soekor, for which an additional amount of approximately R6 million will be required over and above the amount of R2,6 million for which provision is being made for the activities of Soekor during the present financial year. However, the Treasury was informed in advance that these could be the circumstances which might develop during the course of the year, and the necessary provision was therefore made in good time, at the end of last year.

It is necessary to face up to the fact that off-shore drilling for oil, in particular, is a very expensive transaction today—it costs in the vicinity of R30 000 per day—and that foreign oil companies have thus far preferred to concentrate their exploration work in areas such as the North Sea and elsewhere, where considerable success has already been achieved. There was a time when people thought there was no oil in the vicinity of the North Sea. Today it is like a jampot which attracts anyone interested in drilling operations to that area. It is not impossible that the same thing could happen here. The South African tax structure, tax concessions in regard to initial discoveries, and general exploration conditions, however, compare more than favourably with those which are being offesed by other countries, and it is reasonably certain that we will be inundated by international oil companies as soon as our search in this country is crowned with success.

Although approximately R36 million has up to now been spent on land exploration, primarily by Soekor, and approximately R31½ million on off-shore exploration, primarily by sublessees of Soekor, our expenditure is in fact modest if compared with what countries like Australia and others are spending on their searches. We would therefore like to carry on for a long time to come with the present search until we are successful, particularly when seen against the background of the so-called energy crisis which could occur in years to come in the Western world. I do not think there is any informed person in the Republic of South Africa who would really differ with us about the need to do everything in our power to continue with the search for oil as long as our geologists—as in the case of the Agulhas Bank—state that their seismographic and other methods which they are utilizing in an effort to make the necessary observations, indicate that the desirable formation is in fact present there. The drilling work which has been done so far also emphasizes this, as a result of the traces which have in fact been found. There is only one way of establishing empirically, if the formations are there, whether those formations are filled with gas or oil, or whether they are empty, and that is to sink a borehole. For that reason it would be very sensible to continue and to believe that, if there is oil, it will without the least doubt be found as a result of our human efforts and abilities.

Sir, I have been discussing only the search for oil on land and the search for oil at sea along the Agulhas Bank. It follows that as a result of the findings of the Woodshole Institution along the west coast, there are possibilities there which will have to be explored, and that these will have to be explored as soon as circumstances permit. This could perhaps be in the relatively near future; it could perhaps be in the more distant future; it will depend on the practical circumstances with which we are confronted. I hope that I have with this furnished an adequate reply to hon. members in regard to the question of the search for oil.

Sir, I have already stated that I have a great deal of appreciation for the contributions which were made by hon. members to this debate.

†I just want to say to the hon. member for Rosettenville with regard to the proclamation of townships on mining ground that the fact is that the land is often undermined and subject to shocks and subsidences. A detailed investigation is necessary before the department can agree to the establishment of townships, and this takes time. The department is aware of the fact that delays on its part result in losses and inconvenience to the township developer and it deals with these matters as expeditiously as possible. I can give him the assurance that I will personally look into it to expedite matters as far as is humanly possible.

*Sir, I want to say to the hon. member for Carletonville, in regard to the idea which he raised concerning the game reserve on the far East Rand …

The far West Rand.

… that that land has been bought up by the Dolomitic Water Association, with money provided by the mines in question. Large areas of the land are quite safe. These were bought up because the water resources required for agriculture have dried up. Other areas of the land bought up cannot as yet be regarded as safe for development. The idea expressed by the hon. member for Carletonville was a fine idea, but before we will be able to give attention to it in future it will be necessary to negotiate with the Association, as the land-owner, and as soon the department is satisfied that stabilization has set in, there will be no objection on the part of the department to utilizing, for recreational purposes, land which is not required for mining. We shall therefore give attention to this matter again when stabilization, in the opinion of the department, has in fact set in in that area.

Thank you.

Sir, then I just want to reply very briefly to the hon. member for Jeppes, who discussed the matter of accidents. I want to inform him that the success which has been achieved in respect of accidents in our mining industry is really impressive. In 1972, for example, more than a million successive shifts were worked at nine major gold mines without any fatal accidents; this is a brilliant achievement. At two coal mines, over a period of 2 000 successive production shifts, no workers were fatally injured, and at four other coal mines there was not a single fatal accident during at least 1 000 successive production shifts. But in spite of this brilliant record I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we will do everything in our power to be of assistance, where possible, in making our mines even more accident-free than they already are.

†Mr. Chairman, I have already replied to the hon. member for Von Brandis. I just want to say to him, with regard to the complaints in regard to the delays in clearing these isotopic sources instruments, that we will go into this matter.

*I shall take up this matter personally with the council and try to eliminate the so-called red tape and other things which cause delays.

Then the hon. member for Rustenburg addressed a request to me to the effect that preference should be given to platinum. I just want to say that the indications are that by 1975, as a result of the major orders for platinum placed in the Republic, it seems as though from that year onwards platinum to the value of between R300 million and R375 million per annum will have to be produced in this country. I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that a small bar of platinum, by weight, has a greater value in rand than even a corresponding small bar of gold. To be able to meet these enormous orders for platinum to the value of R300 million or R400 million, letters have been sent from the office of the Prime Minister himself to all the departments and provinces concerned, at the request of the Department of Mines and myself, to give priority treatment to the platinum mines so that we will in fact be able to meet these contracts for the supply of platinum.

As regards the question of changing the name, which was raised by the hon. member for Brakpan, I want to say that we will go into this, and if it appears that it is worthwhile doing so, then we will most certainly consider this very sympathetically.

The hon. members for Boksburg and Bethal both discussed the importance of coal. Sir, we have a commission consisting of brilliant people investigating the entire coal position. A provisional report has been submitted to me, and I may just inform hon. members that that provisional report unmistakably indicates one thing, which is that we should no longer be so certain that our coal reserves are as unlimited as we assumed them to be at one stage, and that this entire matter will have to be watched very carefully, as this expert commission is in fact doing at present. With this I have replied to the most important points raised here, and I thank hon. members for their patience.

Sir, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? A few years ago a committee was appointed to inquire into the diamond-cutting industry of South Africa. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether they have completed their work, and whether the report will be laid on the Table?

The fact of the matter is that this Diamond Commission has handed its report to me. That report is being forwarded to the State President, and the department and I are considering whether it should be laid on the Table of the House. We will give our verdict in that regard as soon as possible. The report only came to hand last week.

May I ask the hon. the Minister what the influence will be of the development of the atomic breeder reactions, where your supply of uranium is apparently self-perpetuating, on our uranium market in the future? Has the hon. the Minister considered that yet?

Table the question.

I think the request made by the hon. member for Carletonville, i.e. that that question should be laid upon the Table, is a very reasonable one. No, I am very sorry; I am honestly unable to answer that question.

It is a basic problem facing the uranium industry.

Yes, I know that it is a basic problem, but I cannot answer that question.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 36.—“Immigration”.

Mr. Chairman, I should like at the outset to welcome the hon. the Minister to this new department and to express to him our congratulations on his promotion to Minister and the fact that the Department of Immigration is one of the departments for which he is now responsible. You know, Sir, the hon. gentleman previously held a Deputy Ministership in charge of Bantu Affairs relating to the urban areas, and in a sense he was then also in charge of immigration, but whereas that immigration was of a type which he was at pains to suppress and prevent, it is a pleasant change to see him now in a position in regard to immigration where, as I understand it, he is out to encourage it. Indeed, when one sees the advance which has been made by this hon. Minister, and also the hon. the Minister of National Education, there is no knowing to what heights ex-secretaries of the Broederbond might rise.

“Boerehater”!

How far do Freemasons rise?

Not having ever been a member of the Freemasons or the Sons of England I would not be able to answer the hon. the Minister’s question. Now, Sir, as I may need a minute or two beyond the ten minutes which I propose to speak, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour?

I am aware that one and a half hours have been agreed to by both parties. Is it advisable to ask for 30 minutes?

Then I will take the ten minutes; perhaps there will be a few minutes left over at the end.

Sir, we have been favoured by a report of the Department of Immigration, as is the custom of that department, for the two-year period running from 1970 to 1972. I wonder whether the Minister can give us up-to-date information relating to the immigration figures for the full Calendar year of 1972, and I wonder whether he could deal in greater detail with the advice which the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council has given in regard to the desirable rate of immigration because that is not dealt with in this report. But if one has regard to the previous report, for 1968-’70, and indeed to the current report, it will be seen that the rate of immigration into South Africa is determined in relation to the number of skilled persons needed to maintain an economic growth rate according to that which is advised by the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. Previously the growth rate required was of the order of 5½% which meant that we needed 13 000 to 14 000 economically active immigrants per annum flowing into the country to maintain that economic growth rate, which meant an annual intake of immigrants of all kinds of the order of 40 000 per annum. In the latest reports the growth rate and the rate of immigration required to support it are not detailed but we have preliminary figures for the first half of 1972 which show quite a substantial drop below the figure of 40 000 all told. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether we are maintaining a flow of immigrants sufficient to maintain that growth rate and, if not, what we are doing about it.

Then one comes to the question which is also dealt with in this report and which has been a matter of some concern, and that is what is being done to make the immigrant, when he gets here, feel at home. Indeed, if one reads reports which appear in the Press and if one reads reports such as the useful one which has been put up by the Company for European Immigration, one realizes that one of the most difficult things for the immigrant today is the question of assimilating him when he gets here, making him feel at home so that you do not have within a short period of time a substantial flow of emigrants from the country, from amongst those who have quite recently come into the country. The report of the Company for European Immigration makes quite interesting reading in this regard because that report, together with reports that have appeared in the Press, make it quite clear that it is the wife of the immigrant family who is the key figure in this regard. If she can be made to feel at home in South Africa the likelihood is that that family will stay here. I think one must give a great deal of attention to the position of the wife who does not go out to work, who does not have the gregarious life which the working man does and who probably has to stay at home in a new suburb which lacks most amenities relating to shopping and public transport. She comes from a country where she was not used to having a car and she probably cannot drive even if she could afford a car. She is dealing with people in a strange environment, people who very often do not even speak her language, and if she can afford servants, she is dealing with people she neither understands nor can communicate with. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister what is taking place in this regard to make the immigrant wife feel at home in the place where she is living.

A further interesting factor which emerges from the report of the Company for European Immigration is the necessity for immigrants, in order to maintain the ratio between White and Black in the population of South Africa. Reading this report in the light of 1973 it could come word for word from the utterances of Gen. Smuts in 1946 and 1947 when he advocated large-scale immigration for South Africa, which of course has been subsequently condemned by the Nationalist Party.

Is that the good and the bad?

No, not the good and the bad. That is not what Gen. Smuts said; he spoke about the necessity for bringing in immigrants in order to maintain the numerical proportion between White and Black in South Africa, in order to reduce the tension which exists between those racial groups. You will find, if you have read it, almost the same words on page 2 of this report.

There is another factor which is of importance and that has been said so often by my hon. Leader which you will find on page 5 of this report, and that is in regard to the necessity to maintain a growth rate in this country, for a variety of reasons. I need only read the headings of this section of the report to make the point I am trying to make. It is this—

Then he set out the details of how woefully South Africa was falling behind the growth rate of even the poorest countries of Europe with a per capita income of at least the equivalent of what we have here; how far behind we are, and the necessity for bringing in immigrants in order to increase it to a desirable level. That is why I have said that I should be grateful if the hon. the Minister in the course of his reply could give us the figures relating both to the growth rate which he seeks to meet or the extent to which he has failed to meet it, in order to maintain that ratio.

Finally, the most tragic aspect of the whole thing as far as I am concerned is the very small number of immigrants who take out South African citizenship, having got to this country. You know, Sir, when you see the figures, we are carrying in South Africa an enormous number of political passengers, if you realize that for the last ten years, you might say, we have had a rate of immigration in this country of the order of 30 000 to 40 000 per annum and you find in 1969, 1970 and 1971 between 2 000 and 3 000 only have taken out South African citizenship. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment as Minister of Immigration. I am also grateful to be able to say that he and his department are continuing the good work done by his predecessors, the hon. Dr. Connie Mulder and ex-senator Trollip. They are not simply allowing anyone from Europe to settle here, they are still selective as far as immigrants are concerned.

When we look at the annual report by the department, we see that the number of immigrants gained during the respective two-year periods, from 1968 to 1970, and from 1970 to 1972, were approximately the same. In the former period, it was 56 000 and in the latter 51 900. The most important aspect of this, is that the economically active people who came to South Africa during the period 1968 to 1970, numbered 21 680 and during the period 1970 to 1972, 23 866. When I speak of economically active people, I can say that, as far as they are concerned, we had a greater increase during the period 1970 to 1972 than during the period 1968 to 1970.

There is not much one can say about the countries of origin of these immigrants, for the distribution with regard to the countries of origin was approximately the same for both of these two-year periods. Approximately 50% of the immigrants came to South Africa from the United Kingdom, and the rest came from the other mother countries.

Still, it is important to see which type of immigrants were brought here by the department. When we consider the category “economically active people”, we find that there were 8 809 breadwinners who came to pre-arranged employers in South Africa, while 9 209 breadwinners were placed in employment by the department under the open scheme. These 9 209 people were recruited in overseas countries because they were immigrants who were acceptable to the department. The fact that they were acceptable and desired immigrants, is reflected by the fact that the department was able to place 75% of them in employment within the first ten days, while approximately 98% of them were placed in employment within the first month. We should bear in mind that no work was found for these people beforehand. I therefore maintain that these were excellent immigrants who were brought here by the hon. the Minister and his department.

The population census of 1970 brought a few important facts to our attention. According to the census statistics, the annual growth rate among the various population groups during the period 1950 to 1970 was as follows: For the Whites it was 1,8%, for the Coloureds 3,2%, for the Asiatics 2,8% and for the Bantu 3,0%. The census indicates that the rate of increase of the White group was almost half that of the other population groups. Furthermore it appears that while the growth rate of the White group is put at 1,8%, the natural population expansion is put at 1,35%. The difference between 1,35% and 1,8% is explained by the number of immigrants gained.

It is also important to note that the census statistics indicate that the average age of the White population is increasing. The age given as the average age in 1970 is higher than that for 1950.

The importance of immigration to our economic growth is also reflected in the following statistics. According to the census statistics for 1970, the economically active White population increased by 346 409, or by approximately 34 640 people per annum during the period 1960 to 1970. Of this number, immigration produced approximately 13 000 or 38%. Therefore it is clear that immigration is of the utmost importance in enabling us to maintain our economic growth.

I do not want to go into finer detail as to labour needs and the provision of manpower, for it will take too long and I do not have that much time at my disposal. Nevertheless, I want to quote briefly what Dr. J. C. van Wyk, Secretary for National Education, said. He said that in spite of the increase in tertiary education, our country still has a shortage of high level manpower. It can only be supplied if each individual is developed to his maximum potential. The hon. the Minister of Labour, Minister Marais Viljoen, also made a plea at the annual meeting of the National Development and Management Foundation in Durban recently, when he said the following (translation)—

During October, 1971, the Acting Secretary for Labour, Mr. Lindeque, said that the Department of Labour provides numerous opportunities for adult Whites to be trained as artisans within a short period. This is of the utmost importance, for during the same census, it became clear that only 851 380 of the 3 726 540 Whites in South Africa were in possession of a matriculation certificate or higher qualifications. It also became clear that there were 534 710 Whites who had had no school training to speak of. Therefore it is essential that our people be provided with adult education and that the vocational schools be expanded as far as possible so that every young man and woman in this country may be afforded the opportunity of qualifying themselves as best they can for the labour market. Recently our hon. Prime Minister also asked his Economical Advisory Board to work very seriously in the direction of an intensified policy of immigration in order to supply the country’s shortage of skilled labour. We accept that we cannot supply those numbers ourselves, but we do not want to throw the doors wide open to any person from Europe either. It is important that we should get the right people here. The department recruits the people, brings them here and places them in employment and, if possible, houses are found for them. Then we come to the important point which the hon. member for Zululand also mentioned and this is the process of naturalization. In this regard there are two bodies which are financed by the department, namely the 1820 Settlers and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie. They try their best to make these immigrants feel at home in South Africa. However, they cannot do the work alone and we, as the citizens of this country, should lend a hand and help to make these people feel at home in our country. We should realize that the appeal made by the previous hon. Minister, Dr. Connie Mulder, that each of us should act as a guide to one or more immigrant families, is an excellent idea, if we would only do it. I think there are too few of us who are interested in doing this, but I feel that we should. We should realize that these immigrants do come here, in the first place, to create a better life for themselves, but, in the second place, they also come here to help us economically. We must not allow them to get the idea that we only let them come here because we wanted their manpower. We should help them to understand our language, our customs, our religion, our way of life and even to understand our politics. We should do it for the people coming from abroad do not know the circumstances, and it is our duty to supply this information. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think that when we discuss the necessity for attracting immigrants, we all in this House are agreed that it is essential for the development of South Africa and that it would not hinder the economic advancement of our non-Whites.

†I believe that there is nothing more important than to know that they, the immigrants to South Africa, are welcome here, as the hon. member who has just sat down said. However, I certainly have grave doubts about the question of indoctrination, particularly if it is done with the motives that the hon. member mentioned. I believe that what is probably more important is the fact that the non-Whites in South Africa must not see in immigration a danger or a treat to their own economic advancement. I believe that this is most important, because the non-Whites must rather see in immigration the fact that we are importing the skilled workers who will assist them in their own advancement, the skilled workers we need in this multiracial society. Our immigration scheme can never succeed if it is embarked upon with the idea of trying to balance the various race groups. I, too, would like to say to the hon. Minister that I know that the report comes out every two years, but this means that if we look at a report issued by his department at a stage like this, the figures in the report are in fact already one year out of date. I do believe that the hon. the Minister should give serious consideration to ensure that, when we consider figures that his department furnishes, that at least they are not one year out of date as they are now.

Looking at this report, I would like to draw attention to a particular fact, namely that it would appear that private organizations recruiting immigrants overseas have spent a great deal of money. But when one looks at the amount of money spent and the number of immigrants they have succeeded in bringing to South Africa, it would seem that it costs them R2 500 for every immigrant they bring. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this aspect certainly bears consideration, because it would seem to me that the matter of advertising and of interviewing immigrants is rather an expensive operation.

The next aspect I would like to deal with is one which has caused a great deal of concern amongst immigrants, namely that when they are recruited overseas, either by his department or by private organizations, these organizations must ensure that the degrees and qualifications they have will at least be valid in South Africa. I know of an instance in Natal where a man with a university degree was recruited overseas. He was given an appointment in South Africa, but after two months in South Africa they discovered that his degree was not acceptable in South Africa. They immediately dismissed him from his position and are in fact now in the process of suing him for his passage money which they supplied in bringing him to South Africa.

They also cancelled his contract.

Yes, and they cancelled his contract. I do believe that the hon. the Minister must ensure and insist that in addition to his department, private organizations recruiting immigrants overseas must give a guarantee to the person they recruit that the degree or qualification that he has obtained overseas is one that is also acceptable in South Africa.

The next aspect I would like to deal with is the question of visas for people brought into South Africa. Reading through last year’s debates, I noticed that the previous Minister, now the Minister of the Interior, said that the department objected to people coming to South Africa on visitors’ permits and while here applying to become immigrants. In fact, I know of people who have come to South Africa as visitors, and who later applied to be accepted as immigrants but who then had their visas withdrawn and have been sent out of the country. I know the hon. the Minister’s attitude to that was that he felt that at least they should be examined as immigrants before they come to South Africa, but what I think the department and the Minister overlook is that many people would prefer to come to South Africa as visitors to have a look around before they decide to become immigrants. I believe it is a very shortsighted policy on behalf of the department to take up this attitude. I would like the hon. the Minister to look again at this aspect.

The next question I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister is that of religious workers. This question has been raised from time to time, and previous Ministers have taken attitudes about these religious workers. In fact, religious workers are not allowed into South Africa today as immigrants at all. They are only allowed here on temporary permits, which are renewed from time to time. In many cases these temporary permits are never renewed, and after three or four years the permits are withdrawn and these people are sent back overseas. Religious workers, for instance, are essential to the Christian concept in South Africa, a concept which we hear so much about from members on the other side of the House; they are essential to the Christian development in South Africa, yet everything is put in their way when they want to become immigrants. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that while it may be true that certain of these workers have not conducted themselves in a manner which the Government approves of, the number that have acted in this way is so small that to take blanket exception to these people is in fact a disgrace and a loss to the society of South Africa because they, too, have the skills we need for South Africa’s development.

The final point I would like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention is a question which raised a good deal of heat earlier this year, namely my belief that the department and the Government itself are doing precious little to foster bilingualism amongst immigrants. I do believe the Government should do a great deal more than it has done in the past. I know that it does offer free English lessons to immigrants for a limited period, but I believe that that period is far too short. As regards anybody on the other side of the House who has felt free to criticize me on the question of language in the past, I would like just to remind them that I have never yet heard them get up and make the same plea that the Government should spend a good deal more time and money to make it possible for immigrants to become as bilingual as they would wish.

Mr. Chairman, in contrast to a very responsible speech by the hon. member for Zululand, we have this evening again had an extremely irresponsible speech here from the hon. member for Port Natal.

Remarks!

Yes, one can hardly call it a speech. I agree with my hon. friend that it was, at most, only a few irresponsible remarks. At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Port Natal referred to the so-called indoctrination which he is afraid of, indoctrination to which immigrants coming to South Africa are supposedly being subjected. He surely knows that it is untrue that this Government is, in any way, making attempts to indoctrinate immigrants. He actual nullified his own argument when, at the end of his speech, he blamed the Government for not doing enough to make the people more bilingual—in other words, they must also be taught Afrikaans.

What has that got to do with it?

He comes along here and fires a few blank salvos without there being any substance in that kind of accusation, in a debate which should actually be conducted in a very responsible way, as the hon. member for Zululand was doing, even though I do not agree with everything he said. The most irresponsible utterance from the hon. member for Port Natal was, however, his questioning of the attitude of the non-Whites to the immigrants coming to South Africa. He says that they could be made to feel that their position here could be placed in danger. On whose behalf is he acting as the mouthpiece here to be saying such things? Is he trying, by these means, to make the non-Whites believe that the Government of the day is going to make things so difficult for them with its immigrantion policy that it could lead to frustration and later perhaps to confrontation as far as they are concerned? I say that this is extremely irresponsible, and I hope the United Party’s next speaker is going to repudiate the hon. member as far as that is concerned.

You did not understand what he spoke about; that is your trouble.

Sir, I want to come back to one remark which the hon. member for Zululand made. In many respects the hon. member acted with great responsibility, but he referred, inter alia, to the number of immigrants. I do not want to blame him for having referred to that, but as a member of the Government Party I cannot, this evening, help quoting something by a complete outsider. The person, a certain Dr. Venter, said the following during a lecture (translation)—

I say that this is proof of the very proud record which the Government has in respect of this matter.

What is the figure for the last two years?

Unfortunately I do not have time to quote the latest figures.

But in another respect I think the hon. member made a very excellent contribution when he spoke about the question of becoming naturalized, and referred in the process to the woman’s role. I cannot agree more with the hon. member than specifically about that remark. We have a specific role to play in that connection. With respect to becoming naturalized, I want to say that we have a very good friend in the hon. the Minister of Immigration. For example, last year at the opening of the National Congress on Immigration in Johannesburg he said that the recruitment, placement and, in particular, the eventual assimilation of new immigrants in South African community life, is a complicated task. In connection with that he dropped the following hint (translation)—

I think that is what the hon. member for Zululand has in mind, and I wholeheartedly want to support him in that Now in this connection I want to refer to the very splendid work which a cultural organization is doing in connection with the question of integrating immigrants and getting them naturalized. I want to refer to the Kultuurakademie. The hon. the Minister would surely not blame me if I put a feather in his cap this evening for the excellent work which he began, as the father of the Academy, with a view to having immigrants become naturalized. At the moment I shall not have the chance to tell hon. members all that much about the Kultuurakademie, but in case my time runs out, I want to take up the cudgels, at this stage already, and ask the hon. the Minister to make more money available for that institution, in view of the excellent work they are doing. For example, from October, 1965 to 31st January, 1970, they helped a total of 301 immigrants to become naturalized, naturalized not only in the sense of being integrated in the community, but they also accepted South African citizenship. In 1970 the number was 131, in 1971 130, in 1972 126, and thus far 40 this year. A further number will become naturalized, which will bring the total to more than 700. It is interesting to see along what lines they do their work. There are folk games, folk dances, folk music and folk singing which they participate in, and this evening I can attest to that with great confidence. I have visited them on occasion, and I have seen how happily the immigrants and the local young people joined in. It was a fine thing to see. One has reason to wax lyrical about that. Their contributions not only enrich our everyday lives, but also our culture. I am thinking, for example, of the national dishes which they prepare with great dedication, the children who go on holiday together, and the language classes to which reference has already been made. There are Afrikaans and English language classes which are presented with a very great deal of success. The various language groups celebrate their national days. Others are arranged for them, and not only in Johannesburg, but at various places, during naturalization ceremonies. They eat, play, dance and sing together. The Swiss male choir, which is Well known, practises regularly at the Kultuurakademie and today forms a part of the academy. They have started a youth orchestra there at the academy. Various courses are presented in sport and recreation. They arrange chess evenings, bridge evenings, table tennis, fencing, football, etc., and there are international days. There is also golf, bowls, tennis, folk dances, etc., which are arranged. There, Sir, is the record of this exceptional institution, and I really hope that I can soften the hon. the Minister’s heart this evening so that in future he will look with more affection at this work which is being done, and perhaps obtain a little more money for this purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I also just want to refer to the national congress which was arranged last year by the NIU in Johannesburg, a national congress which contributed a great deal towards creating favourable attitudes amongst the local people so as to have them receive the immigrants, the new citizens of South Africa, with open arms here. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Springs attacked the hon. member for Port Natal for referring to the attitude of the non-Whites towards immigration. He appealed to us to refute those statements by the hon. member. Sir, we shall not, nor can we do so, for the hon. member was telling the truth. I just want to remind the hon. member for Springs of what was said two or three years ago by the predecessor of this hon. Minister, Dr. Connie Mulder, the leader of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal. In replying to this very debate he said that we in this House should not expect all the technical positions in our industries to be taken by immigrants, because we have our own non-Whites who have to be trained.

†Mr. Chairman, I also wish to add my congratulations to those of other speakers, to the hon. the Minister for having got shot of his short pants. I also want to congratulate the Minister on his integrity in never denying the fact that he was the secretary of the Broederbond at one time. Apropos of what the hon. member for Zululand had said, he asked: “How far does a Freemason go?” Well, I can be as honest with him. I can tell him that I am a Freemason, and a fairly senior one. I can tell him that a Freemason can become the Master of his Lodge. He can possibly become a District Grand Master, or he can become a Grand Master. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that if he would like to join my Lodge, I would be quite happy to recommend him, because you see, Sir, Masonry, as opposed to “Broederbondcy”, is universal. It is spread over the world. We do not ask anything of a man other than that he be a moral person and that he believe in God.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. gentleman as Minister of Immigration that if he selects Freemasons as immigrants to South Africa, he will have a far greater South Africa than the Broederbond would ever build. And they would assimilate and become South Africans. Sir, do you know when the greatest number of Freemasons were imported into the country? It was with the 1820 Settlers.

Sir, I should like to thank the department, and particularly the Secretary, for the assistance and co-operation which I and every member on this side of the House have received in some difficult cases which have arisen over the years. I want to express my appreciation also for the department’s report, which covers the last two years, and which makes most interesting reading. I was grateful, apropos of my reply to the hon. member for Springs, to note the following remarks in paragraph 7 of chapter I of the report—

I believe this to be of the utmost importance, and having heard the Minister’s great plea for metallurgists and geologists during the discussion of his previous Vote, I think he should import a few Welsh miners to help us get back on to the rugby map; perhaps that will also help him during his next Vote.

You have nothing to say; you had better sit down.

I have much more to say than that hon. member has said during this debate. I am still waiting to hear him speak.

Mr. Chairman, there is one thing I want to check on very carefully. This matter was also raised by the hon. member for Port Natal. I refer to the problems that arise in the case of immigrants who arrive here and then have their applications for permanent residence permits turned down. This is mainly due to the fact that they have not been properly examined by our officials overseas. As a member of the regional committee of the 1820 Settlers Organization, I am a little worried as to whether there is sufficient liaison—and I cannot blame the department for this—between the London office of the 1820 Settlers Association and the officials in South Africa House. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister will be aware of this, but his staff will be aware of the fact that I have had cases where there has been no contact overseas. Consequently people have come to South Africa on the off-chance that, having come here, they will receive permanent residence permits. We have seen the amounts which have been spent on publicity. I do not know whether this is done in conjunction with the Department of Information and whether it is done independently. I think it would perhaps be a good thing and that a wider coverage would be obtained if this were done in conjunction with them. Many people are misinformed both in this country and overseas, I have, for instance, come across magistrates who do not have the vaguest idea about what is required of an immigrant, and what particulars, etc., have to be included with applications for permanent residence permits. I would appreciate it if the Minister and his department could spread this information as far and as wide as is humanly possible, both inside and outside the country.

Mr. Chairman, I heard a remark from the hon. member for Welkom that I have nothing to say, but I always have something to say in this debate, because I represent a seat in which the 1820 Settlers established themselves. The 1820 Settlers— and I think their blood runs in veins on both sides of this House—contributed a great deal to South Africa. They, I suppose, were the largest consignment, in proportion to the number of people that were in South Africa at the time, ever to come to this country in one year. They became South Africans in the very true sense of the word. They contributed to our parliamentary system, to our education system, to the establishment of our commerce and industries, to the establishment of our permanent churches, to the freedom of the Press, and they defended our borders and became true South Africans. Sir, the point is this: When one speaks of assimilation in South Africa, it is not just a question of what we as South African citizens do to make these people feel at home; it is what our Government must do to make them feel at home as well. It is the policies, the approaches and the attitudes of the Government of a country that make immigrants feel at home. In this regard the Government can do much more than the citizens of South Africa themselves. Sir, it is absolutely alarming to me to see the number of people who live in South Africa who qualify for South African citizenship, who are still intent on holding the passport of their motherland, whichever it may be, because this is an open sesame to the world. Sir, I believe that the hon. the Minister of Immigration has a very great responsibility in the Cabinet. He must appeal to his colleagues. He must work in close liaison with the hon. the Minister of Information and see that the right information is disseminated. He must work in close liaison with that department in which he was the Deputy Minister and where he sometimes got tears in his eyes when he saw that things were going wrong. He must see that these things are put right so that the impression that the immigrant gains of our people is one of a happy nation, of happy people, and when I speak of a nation, I do not speak of a “yolk”; I speak of the peoples of South Africa as one nation. That is an important point, Sir, That is where the difference lies between that side of the House and this side of the House. We must see that our immigrants see it this way. Many of these people come from countries which are very different from ours. Take a Swiss, for example, who comes from a country where three languages are spoken. A Swiss does not quite understand what goes on in South Africa when he looks at the position here. The only thing that he appreciates about South Africa is the fact that it is a Republic, because Switzerland is one, but he does not understand the fact that we all have to be subdivided and that some people have to sleep far away. Sir, this is part of the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Immigration. I am one of those foster-parents of immigrants who was appointed under the last Minister and I have done my best, but some of these people just do not understand us. We do very little to get these things through to them and to make them realize that this country is one economic unit aiming for a greater South Africa and with a meaningful Christian background to all of us. [Time expired.]

I should briefly like to refer, with great appreciation, to the important task being performed by the Northern Transvaal and Pretoria regional committee of the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie. This committee was previously known as Pretoria’s immigration committee. Its executive is doing outstanding work, and here I should like to single out a one person, i.e. the regional secretary of that committee, Mrs. C. J. van Wyk, who devotes herself with animation, zeal and unquenchable enthusiasm to the task of the aftercare and naturalization of immigrants in Pretoria and its environs. Sir, last year in August the annual meeting of this committee was held. It was very well attended, by ex-immigrants as well, and on that occasion the present Secretary for Immigration, Mr. Ellis, took part. Sir, inter alia, via their report, which is contained in this fine booklet called Rekenskap one becomes acquainted with the tremendous service which the regional committee performs as far as new South Africans are concerned and thereby also with respect to South Africa as such. Apart from the after-care work with individual families, it is extremely interesting and informative to see what the regional committee has done by way of a large variety of naturalization projects by involving primary school children and high school children as well as families as such. The immigrants are frequently included in the receptions and functions where they themselves furnish a part of the programme. These people have a very great appreciation for the work being done by this Committee and letters and telephone calls are continually reaching the committee’s office. Even the embassies of the countries from which these people come have a great appreciation for the work that is being done.

The ordinary cross-section of immigrants can adapt themselves in various ways, firstly in relation to the country and its natural scenery and everything this entails, and, secondly, in relation to the people, i.e. the established citizens, and thirdly by means of culture and religion. The naturalization projects of the Pretoria regional committee are specifically based on these ways of adaption.

The hon. member for Zululand made a remark here in connection with “political passengers”, in connection with immigrants who do not want to become naturalized. I agree with him. These people ought to become naturalized. But what is the National Party’s standpoint in this connection. We believe that the immigrants should become naturalized, but South African citizenship must not be forced down these people’s throats because the National Party places a very high premium on South African citizenship and does not want to cheapen it by forcing it upon them. We allow the immigrants to find his own political home in the course of time. We would not like to do what the United Party does, i.e. influence the immigrants by means of political indoctrination. [Interjections.] I am glad that hon. members are laughing at that, because I shall prove it. The hon. member says they did not do it, but the English Press and members of the United Party in very high positions accuse the Government of making it difficult for immigrants to obtain citizenship. The Natal Witness had a leader on 3rd June, 1972, in which the matter was mentioned, i.e. the fact that the Government is making it difficult for these people to obtain citizenship. But a person who is held in very good repute in the United Party, Major J. D. Opperman, M.P.C., organizing secretary of the United Party in the Transvaal, also referred to the immigrants who did not want to apply for citizenship, according to The Star of 22nd July last year. One has no objection to that, but the report reads as follows—

That is stated in the Daily News of 25th July, 1972. If there are any persons who will still doubt the motives of the United Party, as expressed by Major Opperman, one should just listen for a moment to what took place at their congresses. Last year the matter of citizenship and immigrants came up at the United Party congress in Pietermaritzburg. I quote from the Rand Daily Mail of 13th December, 1972, where the Government was again accused, inter alia, of systematically discouraging the people to accept South African citizenship. The report went on to state—

He then mentions that there are many people who could, in fact, qualify, but who did not want to make use of that. It continues by stating—

That is already sufficient proof of what the United Party envisages as far as citizenship is concerned. I shall quote one final passage, and that is from the Sunday Times of 10th December, 1972—

This refers to the article in the Sunday Times of the previous week—

I want to ask whether the United Party has already done this. It is stated in one of their regular newspapers—I do not know whether it is still a regular newspaper.

Here we have irrefutable proof of the motives of the United Party, but then this hon. member for Port Natal can accuse us of wanting to indoctrinate people, in fact by means of the way in which we welcome immigrants into South Africa and allow them to take root here.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Koedoespoort made all kinds of allegations …

It was not an accusation, it was the truth. It was in the newspapers, was it not? [Interjections.]

If it is a fact that immigrants, who come to South Africa and become naturalized, decide to support the United Party rather than that side of the House, it is surely not our fault. Our party makes it possible for any person, whether of Afrikaans, English, Portuguese or Jewish descent, to join the party. [Interjections.] It is because there are members like that hon. member in the Nationalist Party who are so sectionally orientated that the immigrants do not want to support that side of the House.

But you are surely talking rubbish now.

This evening I want to express my serious concern at the small number of immigrants who are becoming naturalized South African citizens. The hon. member may now make of that whatever he wants to, but it is a problem because, in the first place, I think that it is not a healthy state of affairs that only 50 000 of the 500 000 immigrants who came to South Africa between 1949 and 1969— in other words, 10%—have actually applied for naturalization.

And now you are going to launch a campaign.

Of course we are going to “launch a campaign” and we are helping the immigrants where we can to get them naturalized. If the hon. member were also to do so, it would perhaps be a favour he would be doing them. [Interjections.] In the second place one must bear in mind that the ordinary electorate in South Africa is developing an antipathy towards immigrants who do not become naturalized. I can attest to that fact in my constituency. People come and complain to me and ask why the immigrants coming to South Africa do not apply for naturalization here. It is an antipathy which we must accept is developing amongst the general South African electorate. If people are coming to light with these complaints, the question one must ask oneself is this: What is the problem? Why do immigrants not become naturalized?

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member may say I am talking nonsense, but why is he not speaking in this debate?

Because I do not want to speak nonsense as well.

Immigrants furnish certain reasons. They say that South African passports can get them nowhere in the rest of the world. Some do not want to relinquish their British passports. I believe, and it has been my experience, that one can persuade that type of person to relinquish his British passport by convincing him that he can, in fact, get to most places in the world with a South African passport. I believe that the solution is to have an approach whereby we give immigrants in South Africa a South African orientation. We must try to prevent any feeling of isolation developing amongst them. We must let these new South Africans feel that we appreciate their value to South Africa, that we appreciate their contributions to the South African economy, even their contribution to South African culture. I want to tell hon. members that in my constituency there are thousands of Portuguese. It is quite wonderful to see what those Portuguese immigrants have done in an old part of Johannesburg like Turffontein in respect of houses. They buy old houses which they renovate, with the result that quite a newly designed suburb is developing in the southern parts of Johannesburg. This is being done by immigrants. I say that in many respects we must take off our hats to immigrants for the very good contributions they are making to South Africa.

I want to broach another matter, and that is the argument raised by the hon. member for Springs in connection with a matter which the hon. member for Port Natal broached, i.e. the attitude of non-Whites to immigrants. I would be the first to acknowledge that that is a very sensitive matter. It is nevertheless essential that we take note of that attitude. There is a feeling amongst non-White communities, particularly the Coloured community in South Africa, that South Africa has enough people and that the job opportunities should be made available to them. To a certain extent they probably have a good argument …

But that is for skilled work.

The hon. member must not try to distract me from the point. He must allow me to make my speech, because he has already spoken. By the year 2000 there will be 60 million people in South Africa. If one bears that in mind, one feels that those people perhaps have a case. A Coloured leader said to me on occasion: “Why must immigrants come to South Africa to come and teach us to sell bananas?” Right or wrong, but that is the feeling of the non-Whites in South Africa. I think it is perhaps the task we have, as the White community and as the more civilized community in South Africa, to convince the non-Whites that at this stage in its development South Africa is one of the young countries of the world and therefore needs trained manpower and new people with new initiative for strengthening our economy. We must convince these people that we are bringing people to South Africa to fill the leadership positions in the economy in order to create more job opportunities for the less developed individuals in South Africa.

If one looks at the Government’s success in respect of immigration, it is interesting to note that only in one or two years has this Nationalist Party achieved the success which the Smuts Government achieved in one year, i.e. 1948. [Interjections.] In the first two years of his immigration scheme Gen. Smuts brought 64 000 immigrants to South Africa. We can then look at the Nationalist Party’s average and we shall see that they have brought an average of between 30 000 and 32 000 immigrants to South Africa per year. I see that the hon. member for Welkom is going to speak. The hon. member for Welkom and the hon. Chief Whip speak of “the good and the bad”. The problem of that side of the House is that from 1948 to 1961 they did not even bring “the good” in. They brought no immigrants whatsoever to South Africa. The first figures which this report mentions relate to the fact that in 1961 1 415 immigrants came to South Africa. In that year there were almost as many emigrants as immigrants.

The attitude of the existing stabilized communities in South Africa is very important. One should perhaps refer to a remark which Gen. Smuts made in 1947. He said—

I think that is perhaps the attitude we must have towards immigrants who do not want to have themselves naturalized. This frank and sincere attitude is essential to provide every immigrant in South Africa and every new South African with a new home in this country.

The hon. member for Zululand spoke about the Broederbond. I want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will throw the philosophy of the Broederbond overboard now that he is Minister of this department, because one has to issue a warning against any impression, where immigrants are concerned, of a “Herrenvolk” philosophy in South Africa. We must guard against that, because it contributes to the isolation of immigrants in South Africa. I find it strange that it comes from that side of the House. When the hon. member for Port Natal tried to speak Afrikaans this evening; in all sincerity, the hon. member for Randburg sat and laughed about his pronunciation. If that is the attitude towards people who come to South Africa from other countries, I want to tell hon. members that this will not get us anywhere. I am mentioning these matters specifically because they possibly contribute to the non-naturalization of immigrants in South Africa. The mere fact that over a period of 20 years in South Africa only 10% of the immigrants have, in fact, obtained naturalization and become South African citizens, is a serious matter as far as I am concerned. I believe that if one expresses concern about this in this House, the hon. the Minister should give attention to it. There are countries in the world like Australia and America which compel people to become naturalized after a certain period or else they must return to where they came from. That is a thought, and perhaps not something one considers implementing at this stage, but I believe it has become necessary, under this hon. Minister and his department, for a thorough investigation to be instituted amongst immigrants in South Africa to determine the reasons why they do not want to become naturalized. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pity that the hon. member for Turffontein has tried to drag politics into the discussion of the Immigration Vote in these twilight hours of the debate. If we on this side of the House wanted to drag politics into this matter we could do so very easily. I can tell the hon. member for Turffontein, who is a relatively young man, that I can quote here what the late Gen. Smuts said on certain occasions, and how he said, inter alia, that we must bring “the good and bad” into South Africa. I want to say something else and content myself with that. This Vote is a delicate matter, and in discussing it we must try to keep from petty politicking. I could bring it in and say that the late Gen. Smuts did so with one specific aim, i.e. to open South Africa’s sluice gates for all and sundry to come to South Africa and thereby to get the better of the Afrikaans nation … [Interjections.]

Order!

This evening I want to give the hon. member for Turffontein some good advice. As I have said, he is a relatively young man. He is a person —and I am saying this to him in all decency and honesty—who is still relatively young. However, he must try not to have himself indoctrinated, if I may use the word which has been used so freely here this evening, by people sitting in this House, people like the hon. member for Port Natal. If he tries to follow that hon. member’s example he will also be doomed. Take this advice now from a person who has been in representative, active politics for almost 21 years. It has always been my point of departure, in every aspect of my public life, to act in such a way, in such a responsible way—and I am saying this in all humility—that I have tried to compel the esteem and respect of those people who perhaps even think differently to what I do. I also want to give the hon. member for Port Natal some good advice, and I am also going to mention another hon. member’s name, i.e. the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. If a cup were ever to be awarded in this House for the most unpopular member on that side, I wonder which of those two would win the cup.

I now rather want to turn my attention to the hon. member for Zululand, who made a very responsible speech this evening in the discussion of this Vote. I want to tell the hon. member for Zululand that although he expressed doubts, inter alia, about the fact that there is a considerable decrease in the number of immigrants that have come to South Africa, according to the annual report of the past year, this side of the House and the Government finds it exceptionally difficult, because of many circumstances, to have immigrants come to South Africa. I want to state that the Minister cannot just press a button and have immigrants throughout the world standing in rows waiting to come to South Africa, because there are many bodies in the world trying to cast suspicion on South Africa. I have in mind, for example, the UN, the Anti-Apartheid Movement in England which distributes pamphlets and makes people suspicious of coming to South Africa as a result of our policy of separate development, etc. I believe that hon. members on that side of the House who are well-intentioned about having immigrants come to South Africa, because we need them in South Africa to develop this fine country of ours still further, can also furnish a positive contribution. I am referring to what the hon. member for Albany and other hon. members also referred to this evening. In speaking about that, I do so with the utmost seriousness and responsibility at my command, because the place I come from, i.e. Welkom, is a cosmopolitan city to a large extent. From day to day I come into contact with immigrants who are settled there in the community. Let me just tell the hon. member for Turffontein in passing that the National Party does not have any intention of making Nationalists of those people coming to South Africa. We want to leave it to their own sound judgment, and if we leave it to them I am convinced that, as a result of their sound judgment, they will eventually become Nationalists in any case.

I want to speak about a matter in connection with which I think all of us in South Africa can furnish a great contribution. In this connection I cannot but very sincerely thank the Department of Immigration and the Immigrants’ Selection Board for the great job they are doing. When immigrants come to South Africa and step ashore, it is their task to make those immigrants feel at home in South Africa. I believe that to make prospective immigrants coming to South Africa, feel at home, is a great responsibility that rests with us on this side of the House, with hon. members on that side of the House and with every citizen here in South Africa. From the nature of the case it is a difficult decision for any prospective immigrant to go to a strange country, to pull up roots and to resettle himself again in a new country. I think the Department of Immigration has made wonderful progress in the past in its attempts to properly naturalize immigrants who want to settle in South Africa. We have achieved a great deal, but there is still a tremendous challenge awaiting us, and I want to repeat that I honestly believe that our attitude, as South Africans, towards immigrants will have to undergo a drastic change. It goes without saying that during the first few months in their new fatherland, while they are still feeling unsure of themselves, immigrants hanker after intercourse with former fellow countrymen and those who speak the same language so that the old traditions can be recalled and so that they can find familiar roots to bring more security into their lives. This could result in closed communities being formed in which they only associate with their own people. Therefore I am saying that the necessity for the South African population to do everything in its power to make the newcomers feel at home in all spheres, cannot be over-emphasized. This tendency towards insulation can be combated if the newcomers can depend on the goodwill, friendliness and positive help of the South African community. We must cultivate greater tolerance towards the immigrants. It is, according to my sincere and honest opinion, vital for immigrants to respect our ways of life and traditions and to gain knowledge of our history, culture, ways of life and national problems. If we are not prepared to convey this to them, how on earth must they understand it?

I see that my time is almost up. I think this is the biggest task we must take upon ourselves in the discussion of this Vote, i.e. to let those people feel at home who come to settle in this fine, wonderful country, South Africa. Let us bear in mind, in the discussion of this Vote next year, that we should preferably withhold ourselves from playing a petty political game as we had this evening from hon. members opposite. Let that be the challenge this evening from hon. members opposite. Let that be the challenge this evening which the hon. members for Turffontein, Port Natal and Albany take upon themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by saying that I think that in general one can give this Committee the assurance that in regard to immigrants and matters concerning immigration, things are going well in South Africa. I think that things are going well generally for various reasons, as I shall try to indicate. One of the reasons is that my predecessor, the hon. Dr. Connie Mulder, did an outstanding job of work with exceptional dedication. In my opinion he has laid very firm foundations and this has made it very easy, and truly a privilege and a pleasure, too, for me to be able to follow him as his successor. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the House when I convey thanks and appreciation to him.

Sir, for other reasons, too, things are going well. I think that we have a very fine secretary in the person of Mr. Ellis, together with the officials who assist him with great dedication. I want to address a word of thanks and appreciation to him and to the officials who assist him, and tell them that this is appreciated.

But there is a third reason, too, why things in general are going well as far as immigration matters are concerned. To be specific, we have an outstanding Immigrants Selection Board, which performs its task with great dedication. One can feel that due to these factors, there is confidence in this country in the way in which this whole matter is being handled.

All that we are short of is a good Minister.

Now I want to sound an immediate word of warning, humbly, but from the depths of my heart, with regard to this matter. For many long years I have had an intense, warm, honest and sincere interest in immigration matters, and this goes back to a long time before I came to this House. At that time, already, I realized how difficult it is for an immigrant to make a home in a new country. I as a South African only felt that I should like to make it easy for them. I felt that it was one’s duty to do so. But as a result of the fact that I studied overseas for a long time, I also had a very good idea of what it means to be in a strange country and how one appreciates being shown ordinary friendship. That is why I have been interested in this matter for a long time. I have followed the debates in this House through the years with great and more than passing interest. But in the course of time something has crept into the discussion of this Vote which, in future, I shall really try to keep out of it. I want to ask all hon. members to help me to do so. What I want to warn against, is that we should not allow the immigrant to become a political football in this country. I want to make an earnest plea that we should exercise great care in that respect. We must not do this. It is easy to do it. One falls into temptation very easily. If one includes the Progressives, there are three parties in this House, and more in the country. If each were to stake his claim in order to try to catch votes among the immigrants, and in the process also made a political football in this House of the immigrant, who is averse to politics, an untenable situation would arise. I know them, the immigrants. [Interjection.] No, I am talking seriously now and I am not accusing anybody. But I know that an immigrant is averse to politics. That is then one matter in which he does not want to become involved, the one field he does not want to enter. I plead fervently that on both sides we should try to keep politics out of this Vote, and not make a political football of the immigrants in this country. I am serious in making this plea. I ask hon. members for their co-operation in this. There are many positive aspects to this whole question of immigration. The late President Kennedy wrote a book which was published posthumously, A Nation of Immigrants, which is a brilliant book. Ours, too, is a “nation of immigrants”. Immigration is not just a minor little subject, even though only 1½ hours are set aside for its discussion in this Committee. We are dealing with people, people who come to seek a home in a new country and for whom things are not always so easy. I would be able to relate to this House many interesting and important stories which would tug at the heart-strings, because here one is dealing with people. That is why one must reflect and work on this matter with great circumspection.

Sir, I should now like to begin by replying to hon. members who have made speeches here. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the hon. member for Zululand for the fine way in which he opened this debate and also for the good wishes he conveyed to me. I can give him the assurance that I appreciate them. He asked me what the latest figures were as far as immigration to South Africa was concerned. The position is that there was a drop of 3 069 in the gross number of immigrants, from 35 845 in 1971 to 32 776 in 1972. As far as the net number is concerned, namely immigrants less emigrants, the drop was 2 581, from 27 554 in 1971 to 24 973 in 1972. In other words, just to put it very clearly again: While the gross number of immigrants was 32 776 in 1972, the net number was 24 973. Sir, we must be realistic and accept that the fact is simply that there are fewer people in the world who want to emigrate from those countries on which we concentrate our recruiting endeavours. Sir, I want to say in reply to the question by the hon. member for Zululand, that it is not only South Africa which is affected by this. Australia, which is by far the most important immigration country, which has a very liberal immigration policy, which includes the recruitment of skilled and semi-skilled people, while we recruit skilled people only, attracted 37 000 fewer immigrants in 1972 than in the previous year; there was a drop of 21,93% in 1972, while the drop in South Africa was only 3 069 or 8,56% in comparison with 1971. There is therefore a very great difference. Sir, this has also been the experience of the Inter-governmental Committee for European Migration, or ICEM, as it is known in English. The primary aim of this international organization is “to promote the increase of the volume of migration from Europe”, and for years we have been a greatly honoured and I think a valued member of this organization. This organization has well-trained and very experienced staff in all the European member countries and in 1972 they were able to move only 16 372 subjects of those countries to overseas immigration countries, as against 23 732 in 1971, in other words, virtually 7 000 fewer, in round figures, and this is a select group of people who are there for that purpose only. If one analyses the facts, and I have done this very carefully, then one sees that in spite of the fact that we have had to endure a great deal of criticism abroad, South Africa’s immigration effort, seen against the background of the world situation, has really been an outstanding achievement in 1972. It is not necessary to look far for the reasons for the drop; it is to be found in the overall prosperity prevailing throughout Europe at the moment. The monetary crisis has benefited Europe even further in the past year, and the adjustments which have had to be made in the rates of exchange, were to the benefit of most of the European countries, and this has discouraged emigration from those countries. Sir, I wrote my thesis on “The Drift from the Reserves among the South African Bantu”, and in it it is very clearly indicated —and this is an internationally accepted scientific fact—that people move from one place to another as a result of a combination of two factors, or one of those two factors, namely a factor of pressure from the country the person is leaving and a factor of attraction to the country to which the person moves, or a combination of the two factors. The position is simply this: As a result of the monetary conditions which have come about in the world, the present position is that there is no longer such a strong factor in those countries exerting pressure on immigrants, and at the present time, as a result of the rates of exchange which have become effective, there is also no longer such a strong attraction factor in South Africa as there used to be. And for that reason, because boom conditions are consequently prevailing in general in the large countries from, which we draw our immigrants, and ICEM and Australia and all the countries are finding that there are simply fewer people who are prepared to leave their countries of origin to go to any other country in the world, we, too, are getting fewer immigrants. But I say that South Africa has done very well in this regard in spite of the more difficult circumstances which have arisen. It can rightly be maintained that the numbers for 1972—this is the second question put to me by the hon. member for Zululand—have in all respects met the demands of our country’s industries. I refer to the net number of just over 24 000 who entered the country last year. I am now dealing with the second aspect of the question put to me by the hon. member. One is justified in the making this statement since labour conditions are still fairly open in South Africa and particularly since the manufacturing industry still has a considerable amount of unutilized production capacity. Sir, I study this situation very carefully and as I shall indicate to the hon. member shortly, I think that I have my finger on the pulse as far as this situation is concerned and at this stage there is really no reason for concern about this. But that these facts which I have just stated, that there has been a smaller demand for labour in the Republic, are in fact true, is confirmed by the small number of employers who have applied to my Department of Immigration for special recruiting attempts to be made. The department renders this service to the employers who are prepared to carry the additional advertising costs associated with such a campaign. Only 15 employers availed themselves of the services of the department, more than 50% fewer than did so in 1971, and fewer than a third of those who, the year before, felt it was necessary to obtain staff in this way. One of the things I find most astonishing is that whereas at an earlier stage, when I was still Deputy Minister of Immigration, I found that the department was flooded by applications from bodies and persons, industrialists, etc., who wanted to undertake recruiting campaigns and did undertake them, the present position is that there are virtually none. Why? The reason is to be found in the facts I have just mentioned. With the prosperity in Europe and the virtually unsurpassable social security enjoyed by workers there, there is little reason for them to emigrate to another country with the threat of their families becoming disintegrated. This fact is clearly reflected in the figures at my disposal. In 1963, the Republic—and this is the important fact—obtained 14 026 economically active people by way of immigration. To achieve this, it was necessary to attract 37 964 immigrants to the country; 37 964 were required to yield an economic, active number of 14 000. In 1972, 10 years later, we brought 5 188 immigrants fewer into the country, but the economically active still numbered 14 118, which is a very important phenomenon. Therefore, what this amounts to is that while the overall number of immigrants in previous years was much bigger, for example, 40 000, of whom 15 000 were economically active we have found in subsequent years, particularly in 1972, that although the overall number of immigrants has been substantially fewer, the level of economically active units has been maintained. This is the important fact which is really at the centre of things. This is the reason why things are going well with our immigration campaign and the economic situation in the country and why there is no need for any uncertainty to exist or for pressure to be exercised from any quarter. I believe that we have a finger on the pulse as far as this matter is concerned. As far as the overall picture is concerned, the average annual percentage of economically active immigrants from 1961 to 1971 was 41,08, but in 1972, in spite of a substantial drop in the overall number of immigrants—i.e. in the gross as well as the net numbers—the percentage of economically active immigrants was 43,07. This is a very significant phenomenon which I myself find very interesting and it is really a pleasure for me to be able to inform hon. members about it. I think that I have now replied to the hon. member’s questions in this regard.

The hon. member also spoke about the matter of assimilation. That is one of my pet subjects and I could really wax lyrical about it. It is something which is very close to my heart. Other hon. members have also discussed the matter of assimilation, and I shall touch on the matter very briefly. There is a very simple recipe for the assimilation of immigrants. The hon. member quite rightly said that the wife of the immigrant was a very important figure in the whole set-up.

Switch on the charm, Piet!

She is, after all the corner stone of the family and if she is not happy, then in most cases the family is not happy either. If she is happy, then on the whole the family is well-established. Her circumstances are perhaps the most difficult of all. It is a very good thing that our people should take cognizance afresh that the wife of the immigrant, in particular, must really be made to feel at home here. Of course, this also applies to the husband and the children. I have said that the recipe for assimilation is a very, very simple one. All it amounts to, is that things should be made pleasant for the new South Africans. That is how simple it is. All that this requires, is our traditional South African hospitality. The assimilation of immigrants is not a difficult or an impossible task which is expected of us. All we must do, is to make things pleasant for our immigrants. They must feel that they are at home here. This can easily be done merely by being friendly towards them.

My experience has been that new South Africans do not like excessive interest and so on. This can so easily create the impression of interference in their private affairs. One then has precisely the opposite effect to what one would have liked. What is required, is real, warm, human interest. Everyone, from a child to an aged person, can instinctively tell when one is really sincere and genuine towards them. It is only a genuine friendliness, a genuine and sincere appreciation for the human being in the new South African, which constitutes the recipe. If we want to use this recipe, we shall have to carry out what the late Pres. Paul Kruger said so strikingly about assimilation, “I place you, the new South Africans, in the care of the present citizens”. To my way of thinking, the duty of the present citizens is perfectly simple and easy. All it means, is that they should be friendly and that they should make things pleasant for our new South Africans.

The hon. member for Port Natal asked certain questions about our report. In reply I want to say that we do have problems to contend with, because we get the figures with regard to immigrants, three months later. That is why it is very difficult to table a report containing up-to-date figures. However, we shall go into the matter again in order to determine whether it is possible to do something in this regard.

I want to say a few words about the question of citizenship, about which various members put questions. Before I come to that, however, I want to say that I think that I have replied to the matter raised by the hon. member for Zululand, the matter of the economic growth rate. I could just add that the economic growth rate on which we are operating, is 5,75% per annum over a period of five years. The position in that regard is basically sound as a result of the economically active immigrants entering the country. If we calculate the growth rate over the five-year period, I do not think we have reason for concern.

Various hon. members raised the question of citizenship. Our point of view on citizenship for immigrants is very simple. Let me say at once that over the years it has been asked at various congresses of the National Party whether it would not be possible to make citizenship compulsory for our immigrants. The Government’s reply has consistently been that citizenship is a privilege, that citizenship is something of which one must be proud, that its acceptance is an achievement of honour which must be striven for and not stuffed down a man’s throat, that it is something which will only be appreciated if the desire to acquire it springs from the immigrant’s own convictions. I should have to ignore my conscience, I should have to override the good policy of my party and my Government—and that I am not prepared to do—if I were to say to hon. members this evening that I was giving any consideration whatsoever to making South African citizenship compulsory for our immigrants. I say this in spite of figures and statistics mentioned by the hon. member for Turffontein by means of which he tried to indicate that the immigrant was unwilling to accept South African citizenship. I am not prepared to do this because I do not believe that it is right and fair to do so.

Nobody wanted that.

The hon. member asked that the reason for their refusal to take out citizenship should be investigated. I should have no objection if an inquiry were to be conducted into the matter, and I shall go so far as to say in advance that I shall give attention to the matter. However, the taking out of citizenship is not such a simple matter. How many hon. members have been present when immigrants have accepted South African citizenship? I am not ashamed to say this, but every time I have been present on such an occasion, I have had a lump in my throat. I get a lump in my throat when I see a man and a woman who are prepared to renounce, often at an advanced age, the allegiance which they have sworn to the country of their birth. I get a lump in my throat when I hear them say that they renounce before God their allegiance to the country of their birth and that they accept a new country as their fatherland. Every time I attend one of these functions, I get a lump in my throat. Many immigrants I have seen, have been deeply moved, because it is a great and important moment in the life of such a person, that is if they are worthy of being a citizen of a country. That is why I am not so concerned about the small number of immigrants who take out citizenship. I am convinced that those who do take it out, become good citizens of the Republic of South Africa from the day they swear their allegiance before God to the flag and the Republic of South Africa. As a result of the Government’s policy on citizenship, one may rest assured that 99,9% of those people will become good citizens of this country. One may rest assured that they will become good citizens of the country, because for them it is cause for pride to accept that citizenship. I want to tell hon. members that I have had a lot to do with immigrant children and I have learned and seen something in this regard which hon. members who talk so freely about citizenship, would do well to bear in mind. I have seen that one must think twice or three times before believing the kind of person to whom it is an easy matter to come to you after he has been in South Africa for one week and tell you what a good South African he is. My experience has often been that the person who finds it difficult to break his ties with the country of his birth and who finds it difficult to really accept South Africa as his new fatherland, often becomes a good South African when he takes root in South Africa. This is usually also the case with his children, who also become good South Africans. In this way we are building a nation of immigrants in South Africa, a fine and a worthy nation. That is why I say that our Government’s approach in this regard is the right one. That is why I repeat that this question of citizenship is not as simple as it would appear. Let me repeat the appeal I have just made, namely: Let us be careful not to use citizenship as a political football, and perhaps lose the person in the process. I do not want to make political capital out of this matter, but I want to tell hon. members opposite that they should listen to their own leader, Mr. Harry Schwarz. He says:

I must say in all honesty that I very seldom find myself agreeing with Mr. Harry Schwarz, but if hon. members opposite do want to support him, I think they should support him in regard to this matter.

The hon. member for Port Natal referred to the high costs in regard to the “private recruiting” of immigrants overseas.

†He maintained that it costs something like R2 500 per immigrant.

That’s what it looks like.

But it is not true. As far as I can make out, the hon. member divided the amount spent on advertisements with the number of immigrants and then arrived at the conclusion that it would possibly cost R2 500 to bring one to South Africa. But I can assure the hon. member that that is not the case. We believe that it costs much less than that. He also said that we must make sure that the qualifications of immigrants will be acceptable in South Africa. The position is that when an employer offers a person with an overseas degree a contract, my department accepts that he is satisfied that the man is qualified for the job. We are therefore doing everything in our endeavour to make it as easy for the new South African as possible. The fact of importance here is that the prospective immigrant and the new employer must make sure that the person coming to South Africa holds a qualification that will be acceptable. I have already replied to the hon. member’s remarks in regard to the report. We will go into this whole matter. The hon. member also made reference to the question of language. The Department of Immigration naturally does not deal with the different languages in regard to new immigrants. We have specific immigration organizations which were instituted for that specific purpose, namely to assimilate those immigrants. We subsidize those institutions very heavily. I am now talking about organizations like the 1820 Settlers Organization and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie. These organizations are doing a tremendous job of work in trying to make new immigrants as fully bilingual as possible. My department is therefore doing everything in its power to accomplish this, but we use other organizations to handle this aspect. This has been found to be the proper and the best way of going about it. If the hon. member accuses us of not doing anything or very little, I am afraid that is not true. The Department of National Education is really the department to handle this sort of thing and that department is, indeed, doing a momentous job in getting new South Africans to become bilingual.

*May I just add that it is very important to us that our immigrants should be truly bilingual. While this is not a matter which belongs with my Department of Immigration, but indeed with the Department of National Education, I can assure this Committee that serious attempts are in fact being made in this connection and that the Government is at present considering measures on the highest level to further and encourage this process.

†The hon. member for Port Natal also referred to religious workers. There was a time when they were considered for permanent residence and in many cases this privilege was granted. A tendency however developed amongst some of them to enter the political arena while shielding behind their religious office and it was found necessary to resort to deportation in a few instances. The bad publicity following these actions is well known. Unfortunately innocent people, religious workers, suffer in the process. I am sorry that that is so, but it is true. In the light of this experience and the fact that a permanent residence permit can only be withdrawn on the limited grounds provided for in the Act, it was decided some years ago not to grant permanent residence to religious workers, irrespective of the denomination of the churches they represent. There were, however, religious workers who devoted themselves exclusively to their religious duties and who rendered good services to their communities. In order to accommodate these individuals it was later decided to allow them to apply for permanent residence permits after a period of four years’ temporary residence. This arrangement has worked well in the past and has been acceptable to all because it has not caused any hardship to anyone. During the past two years 47 clergy and 98 other religious workers were granted permanent residence on this basis. Practice enables us to ensure that we are dealing with a bona fide religious worker and not a political person shielding behind his very high religious office. If there is evidence of this concession being abused, it will be withdrawn forthwith and the innocent will have to suffer, as in the past, for the actions of the guilty. It must be emphasized that there has never been any discrimination against a particular church or denomination. I again want to give the assurance here that there will not be any discrimination in the future either.

*Now I want to conclude. I just want to say that I have much appreciation for all the members who have spoken here on my side. The hon. member for Geduld made a very important contribution. I also want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Springs and the hon. member for Welkom.

No, he did not contribute anything.

Now I want to say in all honesty that I greatly appreciated the reference to the Suid-Afrikaanse Kultuurakademie by the hon. member for Springs. I was the founder of the Suid-Afrikaanse Kultuurakademie in 1965; I am saying this in all humility. I must say that it has become a wonderful organization. Hardly a single night of the week goes by for which they have not arranged something for new South Africans, for Afrikaans-speaking people as well as English-speaking people. I see that the hon. member for Koedoespoort wants to leave the Chamber. I am now going to reply to him in regard to Mrs. Van Wyk. I want to say that the Suid-Afrikaanse Kultuurakademie is doing a fine job of work. I want to make mention here tonight of the fact that it is people, English-speaking people and new South Africans to find one another on a cultural level and to learn to appreciate and understand one another. This was also the objective of the Suid-Afrikaanse Kultuurakademie when we established it in 1965. I believe that if this could be made to happen on the cultural level, we would be rendering a major service to this country.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort has spoken about this matter with great responsibility over a period of many years. I have the greatest appreciation for the hon. member and that is why I have left him till last. I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that Mrs. Van Wyk and that organization in Pretoria are really doing some of the most brilliant work in the field of assimilation that I know of. I also want to express by personal appreciation to that organization and wish it everything of the best for the future.

With these few thoughts, I think I have replied to all questions. I want to say thank you very much to all the gentlemen for a good debate and I hope we shall have an even better debate next year. I just want to repeat that we must not make a political football of the immigrant in any respect, but that we should assimilate him to become an asset to this country, whch we should so very much like him to be and which, in the final analysis, we need so much.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 37.—“Sport and Recreation”:

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? We now have the opportunity to review one further year’s work and activity of the Department of Sport and Recreation. I think that at the outset one can say that three matters have dominated the work of the year. First of all, there was the departure of the hon. Frankie Waring from the post of Minister and the advent of the present hon. Minister. Secondly, the department’s activities were dominated by the fact that the Government’s sport policy has again, I believe, been shown to be quite inadequate to deal with our situation and, indeed, highly harmful, as was further illustrated by the calling off of the Springbok rugby tour to New Zealand. The third main event was the South African Games held during April of this year.

Before proceeding to these matters, I wish to say that the department has done much good work in the course of the year, and that this work is very well reflected in the department’s report for the calendar year 1972. When members have only two and a half hours for a debate of this kind, there is not much time to dwell at any length upon many of the items set out there. But I do particularly want to say that the National Fitness Scheme is a truly fine achievement of the department, in particular “Spring Walk”, the “Run for your Life” and “Swim for your Life” development. In the report itself, and in a speech of the hon. the Minister, including the hon. the State President’s address at the start of the session, mention was made of the number of South African sportsmen who have been overseas and sportsmen from overseas who have come to South Africa; it represents a fair number. I want to say that if those figures are designed to show that Government policy is not so inadequate, or if they are designed to show that our position in world sport is not so precarious, then indeed the hon. the Minister and the Government are greatly deceiving themselves, if they rely on those figures for that purpose. Because I want to say that I know of no other country in the world which suffers the same degree of enforced isolation in sport as we do. In the main sports our teams are unfortunately still not able to compete in the forums of the world. This goes for cricket, soccer, Olympics, boxing, and rugby as of this year, not to mention a great number of others.

I have mentioned that we have a new hon. Minister this year, and I would like to welcome him in this portfolio. He previously was the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, and in that capacity he and I had many debates across the floor of this House. These were always pleasant and I feel hopeful that the debates on sport will be pleasant as well. But, Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question tonight in regard to his attitude to an aspect vital to sport. Depending upon his attitude, our relations as a matter of policy are going to be very much more or less cordial. I refer to the whole question of his attitude to allowing in or keeping out politics from local sport. I want to say here at once that there was a report in the Press—I will tell everybody what report it is in due course—which convinced me completely that there was in the year 1970, and certainly in 1971, a well-organized plan by the Broederbond to infiltrate into sport for political purposes.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.