With the leave of the House I should like to say in connection with the business for next week, that hon. members will just have to watch the Order Paper.

I move the motion standing in my name—

I want to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that this motion does not ask the House to decide upon or to choose between the keep-left and the keep-right traffic rules; it asks for the appointment of a commission of inquiry and recommends to the Government that an investigation be made into the pros and cons of the matter. I want to start immediately by saying that to create and maintain order in the movements of modern man in our modern state is almost just as important as our foreign policy or our defence policy or any other aspect of our political economy. It is almost as important as peace and war to a modern state. This process of destruction which is in progress on our roads is just as effective as war and almost as expensive. In this connection, the Republic of South Africa has a fairly black record. I want to prove this by figures which were made available to us recently, not to show that it will be better to keep to the right of the road, but to show that one country can learn from another where there are figures which are reasonably comparable.

I want to compare our fatality rate with those of two countries in the Old World which are reasonably comparable, Britain and Germany, the populations of which are more or less the same, where in both cases there is one car for every five people, and where in the one case there are 9,000,000 cars and in the other case 10,000,000. In Western Germany the fatality rate is 265 per million, while in Britain it is 137 per million, almost half that figure. The fatality rate in West Germany is 1 per 710 cars while in Britain it is 1 per 1,300 cars. These two comparable countries give one completely different results. But there is another damning figure. I want to compare the Republic of South Africa with the United States. We only have 1,250,000 cars, while the U.S.A. has 74,000,000. Our fatality rate is 250 per million inhabitants and theirs is 211 per million. These figures do not differ so very much but in the Republic of South Africa we only have 1,250,000 cars and the fatality rate is 1 per 380 vehicles while in the U.S.A. with its 74,000,000 vehicles it is 1 per 2,000 vehicles. I mention these figures not because they form a pattern which proves that it is better to follow the one or the other rule of the road customs but I say that where the figures are at all comparable, one country can learn a great deal from another. Mr. Speaker, you will perhaps know better than I that a custom is something which dies hard. One is often afraid of an inquiry because one thinks that the result of the inquiry will clash with one’s established customs, or that the findings of the inquiry will embarrass one and will require a greater effort from one in the future than is the case to-day. But as a matter of interest I want to show how many of our human customs spring from the fact that we have a left and a right hand and how the left-handedness or right-handedness of a person—or rather, his right-handedness—is directly connected with his habits and that many of these habits are not, as many of us may think, traditions, but merely habits.

If we were to say that men must button their jackets right over left, we would have a revolution, but the present custom merely springs from an old custom in the cloak-and-dagger days when men fastened their jackets in this way so that it was easy for them to draw their daggers. I want to hazard a guess —I am not sure whether this is so—why in the Old World people acquired the custom of driving on the left of a person coming towards them. I think this springs from medieval times—from the days of the knight with his sword. If someone came towards him and there was a fight, he had to ensure that his enemy was on his left, and I also want to hazard a guess that the English idiom, “Keep on the right side of a person”, also has its origin there, because if a man approached another man in peace, he passed him on the right side. That is why I always try to keep on the right side, Mr. Speaker. Even the driver of a team of horses drove to the left of a person coming towards him because it was easier either to chat to him or to greet him, or even to fight him if necessary. I do not know of a country in the world where, for example, a plough throws the soil from right to left. They all throw the soil from left to right because the man holding the plough wants to walk on firm ground. We have too the old expression of “to left and right” (bakboord en stuurboord). The ancient Romans used to use the expression “dexter” and “sinister”. When the soldiers were standing on parade before the pavilion dexter was the side of the shield on the left of the spectator, that is to say, on the right of the soldier. Over the years therefore we have learnt to say that something is sinister if we mean that it is underhand, and we have a word like “dexterity” which means that one is skilful, that one has general ability or skill. The Oxford Dictionary calls it “manual skill, neathandedness, handy or skilful in the use of limbs”, while “sinister” has become synonymous—to quote the Oxford Dictionary once again—with “prompted by malice or ill will; prejudicial; unfavourable; darkly suspicious; unfair; underhand; harmful; unlucky; adverse”. I mention this to prove that left-handedness is the exception and that right-handedness is the rule. If one teaches one’s child when he is small to greet an older person and he puts out his left hand, one thrusts it aside. But when vehicles were slow and very rudimentary, the sphere of man and his vehicle was very small. At first he could not cross mountains or rivers and his area of activity was considerably restricted. But in modern times his sphere of activity has become larger. Barriers are being removed all the time. It is shocking to think that in this country we only succeeded a few years ago in breaking down our provincial barriers. As recently as 1955 we had four different road traffic ordinances in the four provinces and it was only with a great deal of trouble that we remedied that state of affairs and started to become interested in a national pattern only a few years ago. We only obtained uniformity in our own country a few years ago. At the start we only thought provincially, but later we started thinking nationally, and I want to say this morning that the time has come for us to start thinking internationally.

We already have what we can call a continental pattern. I will try to show that the continental countries have adopted one pattern more and more over the years. Parts of the Continent which were a trifle more isolated or which were islands, fitted less into that pattern. But to-day efforts are being made throughout the world through the medium of international conventions to obtain more uniformity throughout the world. For example, the Geneva Convention laid down provisions which are applied by about 120 countries.

May I indicate briefly what the continental pattern looks like to-day. In Europe there are 10 countries which keep to the left as against 35 which keep to the right. Amongst those 10 are Britain, Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, Sweden, Iceland, Cyprus, Malta and other small islands. In the two largest countries of the 10, Sweden and Britain, an inquiry is already in progress, an inquiry which this motion asks the Government to institute. In Africa, 20 countries keep left and 26 keep right. Among the 20 which keep left are South Africa, the Rhodesias, Mozambique, and the existing or former British territories. In West Africa the possibility of a change-over is also being investigated. In Asia we have 17 countries which keep left and 24 which keep right. Among the 17 we have Japan and India and the remainder are also existing or former British territories. In Australasia the picture is reversed. There 15 countries keep left as against 11 which keep right. The Commonwealth of Australia, New Guinea and the other British territories keep left. In America we have 11 countries which keep left as against 28 which keep right. Here we again have the same pattern. It is the connection with Britain which is responsible for this fact. The total is 73 as against 124, a proportion of almost 1 to 2.

But what is interesting is that in the last 25 years, nine countries have changed over from left to right, such as Austria in 1937, Czechoslovakia in 1939, Hungary in 1939, Panama in 1943, the Argentine in 1946, China in 1946, the Philippines in 1946, Uruguay in 1946 and recently the Honduras, whose change-over date I do not have, while as far as I know there has been no change-over from the keep-right rule to the keep-left rule. That is why I come to the conclusion that if one does not take into account islands, small and large, in a certain geographical pattern, one already has a continental pattern. Viewed against the background of first thinking provincially, then nationally and finally internationally, we can already see the tendency in the world—to link up more and more with general usage and thus obtain a convention which will be uniform.

The other point that I want to make is that with the increase in vehicular traffic, interest in international journeys and international roads is increasing. For example, consideration is already being given—and I believe that the plans have already been drawn up—to a road linking Western Europe and Indo-China. A road is already under construction to link North and South America with one another. Strong consideration is being given to the question of linking Britain with the Continent by means of a bridge or a tunnel. The idea of building a trans-Africa road is also receiving more support, a road which will link the Cape with the Mediterranean Sea. My argument is that if the Republic, which is a young and progressive country, has to participate in the future in the building of expensive throughways with everything connected with that, such as modern traffic interchanges, this can only be considered if those structures can be regarded as being of a permanent nature. We cannot afford it if we cannot give the assurance of permanency to that development. We are already building traffic interchanges which fluctuate in price from anything between R500,000 and R1, 700,000 and which cover anything up to 20 morgen of land on which production is taking place, land which is being developed and which is becoming more and more expensive. For that reason the pattern has been indicated to us— that sooner or later we will have to break this deeply ingrained habit, and if that is to be done, it is necessary for it to be done timeously in order to facilitate future planning. It can already be done even though we may decide not to take the plunge as yet. One can already start planning one’s traffic interchanges in such a way as to adjust the proportion between the up and down journeys, to adjust the proportion between the deceleration lanes and the acceleration lanes, and to adjust the cambers from the left side to the right side over mountain passes.

There is another point, namely, the cost of vehicles. We import about 80,000 new motor vehicles per annum. Authoritative sources contend that these cost us R100 more per vehicle if they are manufactured in countries where they are equipped with the left-hand drive and that we can save anything up to R80,000,000 in that way—if we accept the fact that the modification costs us R100 per vehicle. Another point that I want to mention is that we are on the verge of becoming a manufacturing country and I see no reason why we cannot become such a country. People are already starting here, although perhaps on a small scale, but it will make a world of difference to them if they can so set up their factories that they are able to capture the markets of the world in the future. It is perhaps being rather ambitious to say that we can become an exporting country, but one does not think of the past when one plans for the future. Here I also want to emphasize the fact that it is vitally necessary for these people to know what the attitude of the country is going to be in the future in respect of these two highway rules.

May I say a few words about the influence which Britain’s attitude may have in this connection. It is contended that Britain’s intended entry into the Common Market, which has perhaps received a temporary setback, may result in Britain being forced to change over. There is the aspect of the exchange of products which may also perhaps make it attractive to or necessary for Britain to change over. An investigation is already being undertaken in Britain. Therefore we cannot say that because we are thinking of an investigation to-day we are out of fashion. A very important fact that I want to mention in regard to Britain’s attitude is this: All new roads in Britain have already been planned so that either highway rule can be followed. This proves to us how the land lies there.

As far as expense is concerned, if one thinks of a transition period of from 10 to 15 years and that the average life of a vehicle is about 10 years, then this can be planned if one starts soon enough and the transition period can pass without any dislocation. The accident figure may rise in the first few months and the doors of public vehicles will have to be built on the other side, but with proper and timeous planning and education, the Republic will still at this stage be able to meet the shocks and the expenses, while my argument here is that we may find later on that all the other countries change over and that we will be forced by circumstances to change over, but it will then be so late in the day that we will perhaps no longer be able to afford it. Other speakers will have more to say in this regard.

Allow me to say in conclusion that I will not take it amiss if anybody should think that this motion appears to be rather ill-considered or unbalanced. There is nothing as balanced as something which is stationary, and there is nothing as unbalanced as something which moves. We are told that speed tends to lift, and movement, if we analyse it, is a process of losing and regaining balance. In starting to walk from one place to another I lose my balance as I lift my foot but when I put my foot down I regain my balance. And so we have movement. That is why I want to say: Please do not hang the reformer because without him the world would be a very balanced place but it would stand still!

I second. The motion before the House is, of course, a very important motion and its purpose, as the mover stated, is not to persuade this House that we must proceed to institute the keep-right rule. The purpose is to ask for an inquiry, an inquiry to determine whether it is possible and desirable for such a rule to be applied. I think that the mover has convinced the House that the matter is sufficiently important to justify such an inquiry because it must be emphasized that in this motion we do not seek to advocate either of the two rules; that we do not seek to convince the House that the keep-right rule is better than the keep-left rule. The question is so technical and so involved and has so many different aspects, economic, psychological and other aspects, that it will require a board of eminent experts to reach finality on this matter after considering all the possible facts for and against—whether it will be advisable for the Republic of South Africa to effect such a drastic change and to change over to the keep-right traffic rule instead of retaining the keep-left rule. The first question which has to be answered therefore is whether the matter is sufficiently important to justify such an inquiry. I think that in this regard we can say quite definitely and unequivocally that it is sufficiently important. The statistics and information which the mover of this motion has given us have proved one thing to us and that is that there is an increasing world tendency to change from the keep-left to the keep-right rule. He has mentioned the fact that there are 124 countries in the world which are already following the keep-right rule as against 73 which still follow the keep-left rule.

If we study those statistics and the history of the introduction of this rule, we will notice that there is not one single case where a country changed over from the keep-right to the keep-left rule. That is why we can say that there is a very definite tendency towards the keep-right rule. That tendency is so strong and so much pressure is being exerted on countries that in the case of a country like Sweden, for example, a referendum was held on this matter. The vast majority of the people voted for the retention of the keep-left rule but in spite of that fact the Swedish Government nevertheless instituted an inquiry into the desirability of a change-over. The referendum therefore did not do away with that pressure. The pressure which is exerted by world opinion, and the slowly changing consensus of opinion in Sweden, make it desirable in the eyes of the Swedish Government, in spite of the unequivocal decision of the people, that they should nevertheless have this matter investigated. That is why I feel that for that same reason it is of the most vital importance that our Government should investigate this matter. If one looks at the specific population zones which are already following the keep-right rule, one notices that the Continent of Europe, with single exceptions, and North and South America almost exclusively, with individual exceptions, maintain the keep-right rule. We must remember that these are areas which are influential areas in the world; these are people who are calling the tune and who to a large extent are going to determine the future. Influential countries and peoples have adopted that rule and we must take into account the fact that that influence is steadily making itself felt. If we want to keep pace with the development initiated by those countries, we will have to start obeying this rule. One even finds that tendency in Africa. As the mover of the motion has indicated, there are 26 countries altogether which already have the keep-right rule as against 20 which follow the keep-left rule, but we also find that a number of countries in West Africa are at present engaged on this same inquiry. That is why we say that there is a tendency to change over more and more to the keep-right rule and for that reason it is quite clear that this matter is sufficiently important to justify a thorough inquiry. The motion before the House asks that an inquiry be made into the desirability and practicability of the changeover. It may be desirable for a country but not practicable. When we listen to the arguments of persons who view the matter from all angles, we can say that the most important arguments which are advanced to promote this matter—the arguments in favour of this change-over—are in the first instance that we should follow the world tendency which I have just mentioned. The hon. the mover of the motion has pointed out that international roads are being planned to-day. He has referred amongst other things to the fact that an international road will probably be planned in the future which will run from the Cape to the Mediterranean Sea. None of us can overestimate the value of those international roads, from both the economic and cultural points of view. All of us will want to use those international roads to our own advantage. We will want to use them as sources of development for the building up of our nation and our country. But if we have such a road from the Cape to the Mediterranean Sea running through the various countries one can imagine the chaos there will be if one country follows the keep-right rule and another country follows the keep-left rule. One can imagine the danger this would create. This is why we say that having regard to the building of these international roads it is necessary for this matter to be considered because it is desirable that those international roads should be built. Reference has been made, for example, to the question of economic saving—R100 per vehicle of which 80,000 are imported into this country annually. This means a saving therefore of about R8,000,000. There is of course the further fact that a larger number of tourists will be attracted to this country because they will find it safer if they come from those influential countries which I have just mentioned—North and South America and Europe —to tour our country. Those tourists will feel safer on our roads because we will be following the same rule that is followed in those countries. Viewed from that aspect therefore such a change-over can have very important advantages for us. The counter-arguments are, of course, just as weighty. Reference has been made, for example, to the question of the replanning and the reconstruction of our roads which is going to cost a tremendous amount of money. We must realize therefore that it is going to cost a great deal of money to change over our roads which have been constructed with a view to the keep-left rule in order to adapt them to the keep-right rule. Together with the reconstruction of our roads there is the planning of road signs and all that sort of thing which may cost enormous sums of money. The fact is mentioned by persons who are opposed to this change-over that there are 1,113,000 cars which have been equipped for the keep-left rule as far as steering is concerned and that the cost of modifying that large number of cars will amount to a very large sum. Then there is the important argument of road safety. In Great Britain where this matter is being investigated it has been statistically estimated by experts that a tremendous increase in the accident figure must be anticipated during the transition period while people are not yet au fait with this rule. This is one matter of course which we cannot simply ignore. But I do want this House to realize how difficult the position is. There is no one here who can stand up this morning and say that it is better to introduce the keep-right rule or that it is better to retain the keep-left rule. Apart from the desirability there is still the question of the practicability. Are we able to do it? The practicability of the change-over is also a matter which will require expert investigation. There is the question of expense, for example. In reply to the expense argument it is pointed out that the average life of a car is no more than ten years and that if this change-over process takes place gradually, it will mean that the expense argument will not prove to be as important as people suggest.

Furthermore, there is also the question of accidents. It is said: Yes, it is true that on the basis of statistical estimates it appears that there will be more accidents, but everyone who knows anything about human nature knows how unpredictable human beings are. If we had those statistics before us this morning, Mr. Speaker, we would see that the greatest number of accidents do not take place on the most dangerous corners of our roads, because drivers drive carefully around those corners. The greatest number of accidents take place on our national roads through the Karoo and those areas where one can see a long way ahead, because that is when one becomes careless. I want to predict that if we adopt the keep-right rule, that accident figure will not toe as high as people originally estimated because everyone will be careful during that transition period. Everyone will be so much more careful during the transition period and until we are able to follow the new road rule automatically. The result of this will be that the accident figure will not be as high as was initially estimated. This is the case in regard to all changes. When we changed over to the decimal system, it was estimated statistically that the cost of the change-over would amount to a certain figure; that we could expect certain expenditure, and on every occasion that figure has been lower than the statistical estimate. I think that in this case where one has to deal with people whom one educates, and where one has so many means of educating them—by means of the radio and the Press—we will find that the accident figure will not be as high as was originally feared. Indeed, I think the position will be easier if the whole world can adopt one rule, whether it be the keep-right or the keep-left rule, because then a large number of accidents will be prevented. What is happening to-day? We have tourists coming here from America who are acquainted with the keep-right rule there and who follow that rule automatically. They come to this country where we have a different rule; they first have to think before they do anything, and the result of it all is that they are often wrong in their timing and they are more likely to be involved in accidents. I think that the one shortcoming that we experience here to-day is that we do not have uniformity in our own country as far as traffic rules are concerned. Robots differ from place to place and road signs differ from province to province. Here in the Cape Peninsula you will be surprised to see how little uniformity there is and I think that this is one of the reasons why there are so many accidents. If a person is used to doing something automatically and he finds himself in a place like the Peninsula, where he continually has to concentrate and think ahead, one can understand that he will be more vulnerable and more accident-prone. Therefore if we have a uniform rule which is followed by the whole world or most of the countries with which we have dealings, this will largely promote safety in general. I think that it is not only important for us to have this investigation but it is vitally necessary for that inquiry to be held immediately. In the Cape Times of 3 July 1962 the following report appeared—

He tells us that it is essential that this investigation be instituted immediately because he says—

Therefore, because this is a matter of the most vital importance which so deeply affects our country and its future development, and because every new road which is planned may perhaps involve unnecessary expenditure because we may find that it should have been planned differently if we eventually do change over, we feel that this matter cannot be postponed and we ask that a commission of inquiry be appointed immediately to inquire into and report upon these various aspects.

Having listened here this morning to the arguments for and against driving on the right or the left side of the road, I think hon. members realize that there are many facets to this matter. It is interesting to note that the Road Safety Council of the Republic has in fact asked the Government to appoint a commission to go into this matter. Up to now the approach to this subject has been purely academic; various authorities have dabbled with it but there is no really reliable information to go on other than the facts derived from various bodies such as the Automobile Associations, the Road Federation and Societies of Road Engineers. It has been said here this morning that as there are uniform rules for ships meeting at sea and for planes in the air, we should have some measure of uniformity as far as the rule of the road is concerned. Sir, you have also heard various theories here to-day as to how we have come to drive on the left of the road while other people drive on the right. Very interesting theories have been put forward by protagonists of the various rules and it seems reasonable to assume that the rule of the road dates back probably to the seventeenth century or even before, when you had the English driver sitting on a box on the right side driving his cart; he had his whip on his right-hand side, and on the Continent you had his counterpart who preferred to ride one of the horses in the team; he invariably rode the left or the near-side horse and kept his right hand free to use his whip. He would naturally ride on the right-hand side in order to keep clear of traffic. There is also a theory that the Emperor Napoleon when he subjugated Europe adopted the right-hand side for battle tactics. One could go on enumerating various theories.

Since the introduction of the rule of the road a number of countries and territories which originally had the keep-left rule have since changed over to the keep-right rule. Reference has been made here to-day to the fact that Austria changed over in 1937, Argentina in 1946, Czechoslovakia 1939, Hungary in 1939, Panama in 1943, Philippines in 1946 and also Uruguay. In a number of these cases quoted, the dates indicate that the change has often resulted from military occupation by forces accustomed to the opposite rule. It is interesting to note that no country has ever changed from right to left. The most recent convert was the British Colony of Honduras which is adjacent to the Americas, and changed from the left-to the right-hand rule. That confirms the theory that the tendency is for adjacent countries to adopt the same rule of the road. You see that in the Americas and on the Continent of Europe. If we in South Africa considered the question of changing over from left to right, we would naturally have to have consultation with the neighbouring territories because at the present time we get most of our tourist traffic from these countries although the tourist traffic from overseas is growing. This is a serious matter and one which any commission appointed would have to take into consideration. It was said here this morning that Great Britain was at present considering the implications of changing from left to right. Britain is an island; there is no country adjacent to her so she has not been affected to the same extent as other adjacent countries. She has therefore retained her rule of driving on the left, but the Western European Road Safety Council has urged Great Britain to give consideration to this change in the interest of uniformity of traffic regulations. It is expected that a change-over, if done within five years, will cost Britain R40,000,000 and R70,000,000 over a period of 15 years. Sir, Sweden has been mentioned here. It has also been mentioned that in the referendum that was taken 80 per cent of the people affected voted against a change, but notwithstanding this the Swedish Government is going to pass legislation to effect this change in 1966. This will cost Sweden something like R46,000,000. Although cars in Sweden drive on the left, the steering is on the left, so if they were to change over to the system of driving on the right, the steering would naturally be placed on the right side, that is to say, if they follow the present policy. Sweden is one of the cases that I mentioned where you have adjacent territories. With the growth of the European Common Market and the increased traffic in Europe, Sweden has found it necessary to make this change in order to facilitate the growing traffic between these countries. Most vehicles in use throughout the world today are equipped with steering on the left side, and they are built for countries where the traffic keeps to the right of the road. There are numbers of countries which still adopt the rule of driving on the left of the road, although they are not as numerous as the countries which have adopted the rule of driving on the right. As far as the advantages and disadvantages are concerned, the advantages of conversion are not so great. The main advantage would be to bring South Africa into line with the international rules of the road and to facilitate matters for tourists who visit this country. It was also mentioned here by the hon, member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. D. M. Venter) that the overall costs of manufacturing cars with the steering on the left would be lower, because of their numbers. That may be so, but the saving would not be as much as one is inclined to think because it must not be forgotten that in the designing of a motor vehicle provision is made at the design stage for either left-or right-hand steering. The world will not suddenly go over to the rule of driving on the right; and cars would still have to be manufactured for those countries which follow the rule of driving on the left so the design would continue. I think hon. members know that there is no difference between the new price of a car with the steering on the left and the price of the same model with the steering on the right. It is only with a greater volume of production of left-hand drive vehicles that there would be a drop in the prices, but I do not think that it would be sufficient to warrant a change from the left-to the right-hand rule. It has also been suggested here that driving on the right is safer and certain figures have been produced, but if one examines road safety figures throughout the world one cannot find anything really to support the theory that driving on the right would promote road safety. Now let us examine the disadvantages.

The main disadvantage would be the cost factor. The cost would be very high even if the change were introduced over a period of 15 years. There are something like 1,250,000 vehicles on our roads to-day. That is the 1960 figure which is, of course, out of date. Of these vehicles there are 901,515 cars and 16,371 buses. The most costly item would be the replacement of buses. A double-decker bus, for instance, is not easily converted. One cannot convert the platform from the left to the right-hand side or convert the staircase. Buses would virtually have to be written off and replaced or new bodies would have to be built. But there is another difficulty; in some cases the chassis is designed to take the left-hand drive. The single-decker buses could not be converted at all. Then there is the question of the trolley buses, and here you have the same thing. The majority are double-deckers; you would have to convert them but they would virtually be write-offs; then you get the overhead tracks of the trolley buses. You find that the tracks of trolley buses are routed a certain way. Those tracks would have to be dismantled and re-routed. The average cost of a double-decker bus and a single-decker bus is something like R14,000. A double-decker bus costs about R16,000 and a single-decker about R12,000. If you take the average cost of replacement at R14,000 and multiply that figure by the number of buses you have on the road, you will find that it runs into a substantial sum. You cannot delay the changeover in the case of buses; you cannot say, “we will change them in 15 years’ time”. They have to be changed immediately in the interest of road safety otherwise you would have people alighting from buses in the middle of the road, and the possibility of fatalities would be very high. The next important item is the conversion of cars. To convert a car from right-hand drive to left-hand drive, in the case of a medium-sized car, would, it is estimated, be R300 and the cost of conversion of a larger car would be R700. The conversion of the car would entail a complete replacement of the steering, and in the vast majority of cars you would have to change the gear-box and clutch assembly arrangement as well. It could be argued that it would not be necessary to change over the cars. But I think any scheme that you put into effect, any scheme of change-over, must be geared to the lowest intelligence of drivers on the road to-day. You cannot expect people to put up with the fact of having to drive a right-hand drive car on the right-hand side of the road. Their vision would be obscured and not safe. You cannot expect them to sell their cars and buy left-hand drive cars. The loss per unit would be enormous. If one had to convert these cars, the sum total of what the motorist would have to pay out for conversion would be fantastic and it would be completely uneconomical.

There is the question of local authorities. They will be faced with very heavy expenditure in the way of changing traffic signs and robots, etc. Some local authorities run public transport systems and as we all know these transport systems never pay. The local authorities will then, over and above their losses on the system, be involved in great expense to convert their buses. You can imagine the added capital expenditure in having to buy completely new bus fleets. They would have to receive Government assistance in some form to assist them over the change-over period. The private passenger operator would expect Government assistance as well. The private car user should also be compensated. So you see, Sir, it is a very involved and costly business to change over.

There is the other factor which is a very important one and that is the road safety factor. I think that is perhaps one of the most important factors which should be considered very seriously by the commission if it is appointed. You can imagine, Sir, that during the change-over and shortly afterwards, there will be a measure of chaos. You will find drivers who have been accustomed for years to drive in one way, when they reach a traffic island they will subconsciously move over to the wrong side with serious consequences.

Then you have the question of our heterogeneous population. Although I must say that our Bantu and Coloured drivers are exceptionally good on the whole, they would probably pick it up very much quicker than we expect. At the same time, Sir, we have to convey the message to them that the rule of the road has changed and that would be very difficult. In the meantime you would have a rising accident rate. It is interesting to note from a recent survey by the C.S.I.R. the accident rate in this country is very high, one of the highest in the world.

To sum up, Sir, in the face of the evidence which we have in front of us I think it is safe to say that the advantages to be gained are far outweighed by the disadvantages. You have the enormous cost factor but the road safety factor during the conversion period alone is enough to put the whole idea of conversion out of thought. As I have said, the money will have to be found and that will probably have to come from the petrol vehicle user and the diesel-fuel vehicle user in the way of added taxation. At the present moment a portion of that money goes into the road fund for road building purposes. Some of our provincial roads are not up to the standard that we would like to see them and their grants may be cut down to compensate for the changeover. We would not like to see a retardation of our road building programme in order to compensate a change-over. The Minister of Economic Affairs will be in this position that he will have to provide additional permits to import change-over spares. Car owners, in the interests of road safety, will undertake the conversion of their own cars if the State does not assist. The country will be faced with the necessity of having to provide foreign currency for the importation of these spares.

Reference has been made to our changeover to decimalization. I do not think there is any analogy between the change of the rule of the road and the change-over to decimalization. The change to decimals was gradual and the change of the rule of the road will take place overnight. I said in my opening remarks the interest on this particular subject has been one of an academical nature over the past years and in order to obtain all the facts for and against a scheme such as this, we would support the appointment of a commission. I would like to suggest that if any commission is appointed it should consider among other items the road safety factor and the question of the adjacent territories.

I have listened attentively to the arguments advanced by the hon. member, firstly his arguments in favour of the appointment of such a commission and then later on with regard to the difficulties and the problems which may arise. Let me say immediately that I am not blind to the problems and those difficulties which will arise in connection with the change-over from a keep-left rule to a keep-right rule. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) mentioned two important problems, particularly the expense factor, which is of course vitally important, and the road safety factor. We all accept the fact that there is a high expenditure pattern connected with this matter but the longer it is postponed the more money we will be spending uselessly if we continue with our road building programme in the way in which we are doing so now and then decide later to Change over after all. I am pleased that towards the end of his speech the hon. member did come to the important issue and that is when he said that he supported the motion as it appears on the Order Paper—

That is more or less the same wording as that of the terms of reference of a commission in England. They had similar terms of reference in England.

I want to deal first of all with the question of road safety. One can well understand that in the first place road safety organizations will object to the change-over because they are the people who also have to watch over the interests of travellers. One realizes that they will be constructive. I have here a copy of a memorandum drawn up by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in England in connection with this matter when this body was approached to submit reports and to draw up memoranda. In the first paragraph ROSPA— which incidentally is the abbreviation for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—says—

In other words, this body also realized that the accident figure would be higher. It was estimated that it would be 10 per cent higher over the first two or quite possibly three years. I do not want to weary the House with the details but this body does make recommendations under various headings and supports these recommendations. They have various headings and the first heading is “The timing of the change”. In the case of England they recommend that it should be done at the beginning of March, probably because that is just before the heavy tourist season. The second heading is “Educational”, the training and educating of the youth and other people as well as the various bodies and the travelling public long before the time. They have another heading “Propaganda” and further headings “Legal” and “Enforcement”; they also have another heading “Road Engineering and Vehicle Design Changes”. The hon. member for Salt River raised many points in connection with the modifications to be made to vehicles and so forth. The final heading is “Finance”.

I made some inquiries to ascertain the attitude of our road safety people. I wrote a letter to Mr. Mare, the Director of Road Safety in South Africa, and his reply was as follows [translation]—

This body is also prepared when such a commission is appointed to make its contribution.

There have been many references to Sweden where an investigation in connection with this matter is in progress. In the case of Sweden the Prime Minister had confidential discussions with the Leader of the Opposition and leading members of the Opposition there notwithstanding the referendum to which the previous speaker referred. Notwithstanding the expense, the Swedish Government decided to change over to the keep-right rule. It is very difficult to ascertain, or rather, it is impossible to say at this moment, as far as the death rate on our roads is concerned, whether there will be a decrease in the number of fatalities here if we change over to the keep-right rule. Indeed, as the mover explained, it is difficult to obtain comparable figures because the various countries do not always operate on the same basis as far as the fatality rate is concerned. The following is the practice in South Africa. When a person dies even some time after an accident, his death is regarded as being attributable to that accident and his death is then added to the road fatality figure. In other countries they fix a period of three or at most 30 days and if the victim dies after 30 days his death is not regarded as being attributable to the accident. That is why I say that it is very difficult to obtain comparable figures.

I agree with the hon. member who spoke just before me that when a commission is appointed to investigate this matter it will be a good thing for the commission to co-operate with our neighbouring states, that is, the Rhodesias and the Portuguese territories. As far as I know the keep-right rule holds good in Portugal but because Mozambique is so close to us and because so many of our people visit that country, the keep-left rule is practised there. I believe that it is of importance that in connection with this matter these territories should be approached in order to effect the change-over there too.

The question of tourism is a very important matter in connection with the change-over. According to statistics, which I do not want to repeat, 63 per cent of countries observe the keep-right rule and only 37 per cent observe the keep-left rule. I want to hazard a guess and say that 60 per cent of the countries which still observe the keep-left rule had some connection with the United Kingdom at some stage or other or still have that connection. If the international rule of keep right is applied, it will be to the advantage of South Africa as far as tourists are concerned. We know that if anyone goes to America or to any country where the keep-right rule holds good, he has to concentrate very hard in order to become used to the road rule of that particular country. If we apply the international rule, the position here will be easier for tourists.

Strong arguments have been advanced on this side; facts have been given, facts which should convince everybody to support this request for the appointment of a commission, and I want to say in conclusion that this commission should consist of experts in various spheres. This question chiefly affects certain aspects and I think of the following experts who could be appointed to such a commission: The Chief Engineer of National Roads in the Department of Transport; an engineer appointed by the four provinces and South West Africa; a senior official of the Department of Commerce and Industries and a very important person to serve on this commission to look after the interests of the public and to ensure that the anticipated high death rate on our roads is eliminated as far as possible …

Are you referring to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel)?

No, not the hon. member for Hospital, but a senior official of the South African Road Safety Council and a representative of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association of South Africa.

We have heard various arguments that 19 countries have changed over during the past few years from the keep-left rule to the keep-right rule. I take it that those various countries also had their problems in connection with this matter. It will probably be a good thing to obtain information from those countries in connection with the problems that they had to deal with and how they overcame those problems.

It is a privilege for me to support the mover of this motion and to ask that the Government should take steps to ensure that such a commission is appointed.

Mr. Speaker, I accept the promise of the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) not to put me on this commission, so I can speak quite objectively about this matter. I think there are two aspects which are important. The first is. of course, the aspect which affects the motorist as such, and the second is the national aspect. If I may do so, Sir, without being presumptuous, I want to compliment the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. de Villiers) on the thorough study which he appears to have made of the subject, and on the way in which he presented his case to this House. I think he erred in one respect only. I think he said that we imported some 80.000 cars per annum which were made in countries where the keep-to-the-right rule applied and that it cost us R100 per car to convert them to a right-hand steering. He said if we adopted the keep-to-the-right rule—in other words, if we imported those cars from those particular countries in their original form —we would be saving R80,000,000 per annum. That was what he said, Sir. He said “tagtig miljoen rand”, I might be a little befogged as a result of the week’s activities, but if you take 80,000 and multiply that by 100, I think you get 8,000,000, not 80! I had occasion to raise the question of arithmetic earlier this week in a less fortunate context. If the hon. member is correct about his figures, which I believe he is, of the cost per car, then the saving which we will effect by adopting the keep-to-the-right rule in this country will not be R80,000,000 but R8,000,000.

You should learn Afrikaans.

If “tagtig miljoen rand” is not “eighty million rand” then I am prepared to go and learn Afrikaans.

[Inaudible.]

There goes the hon. member for Cradock. I am talking about motorcars, not about sheep. In any case, a saving of R8,000,000 per year, I think, is very small compared with the total cost involved in this contemplated change-over in regard to the existing car population. I do not wish to traverse the figures which have been given; I think there is a slight discrepancy between the one of 1.130.000 vehicles in the country, and the other of 1,250,000. Be that as it may on the analysis of the hon. member for Salt River, there is no doubt that the total cost involved in converting the cars alone, let alone the traffic systems, is far greater than R8,000,000. If we were to adopt this proposal, I do not think we would do so because of the saving on the number of units which are imported in the so-called C.K.D., or completely knocked down, condition of R8,000,000 per year. Much more than that is involved, as far as I can see.

Sweden has also been held up as an example. where by common consent here the Government has ignored a referendum in which 80 per cent of the people voted against change-over to the other system. But the Government despite the decision of the people of Sweden, is apparently pursuing the matter.

With the assistance of the Opposition.

Yes. What I want to say is this. We have not got as much experience of a referendum in this country as the Swedes may have, but I can only say that the Swedes must be a very tolerant people if they allow their Government to go against the wishes of 80 per cent of the people. You can well imagine, Sir, what would have happened in South Africa very recently if, after the referendum when a small majority voted for the Republic, the Government had then said: “Regardless of this majority for a Republic, we refuse to give you a Republic.” You cannot have it both ways. You know what I mean, Sir? That is the expression of the wishes of the people …

Verbal diarrhoea!

You know. Sir, I happen to have heard this last interjection of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). I miss most of them, fortunately, but he has just said that I had vocal diarrhoea. Now, I ask you, Sir, whether that hon. member is entitled to say that to anybody in this House. He is the rudest human being I have ever met.

Order! …

I am sorry, Sir, I did not know you were speaking to me.

I did not say what you said I had said.

I heard what you said.

I said you had verbal diarrhoea.

Verbal diarrhoea; I repeated it. I want to know …

Order! Did the hon. member say the words which are ascribed to him?

Yes, I said them, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw them.

And apologize.

I withdraw them, Sir.

The hon. member may continue.

Thank you, Sir. I prefer not to speak in the company of that gross individual, the hon. member for Cradock.

The hon. member may …

No, Sir, I do not want to go on; as I say, I refuse to speak in the company of a person as gross as the hon. member for Cradock.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir, but my opinion, of course, is my own.

Very, very unsavoury.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that unreservedly.

I withdraw, Sir.

I am neither in favour of the retention of the keep-left rule nor am I in favour of switching over to the keep-right rule. I fully agree with hon. members that there are advantages attaching to a change-over but there are also many disadvantages. I think that both the mover and the seconder of the motion made out a very good case for an inquiry. They put their case well and since there is such complete unanimity in the House as to the desirability of appointing such a commission, I am quite prepared to accept the motion and to appoint a commission of inquiry. If a commission of inquiry is appointed we will then have the facts before us. At the moment we only have ideas and theories. The findings of the commission can be placed before us and then Parliament and the country can judge whether it is in the interests of the country to change over or not. I repeat therefore that under the circumstances I am quite prepared, if Parliament accepts this motion, to appoint such a commission.

I regret the hon. Minister’s statement that he has an open mind, with regard to this question and that the proposer and seconder of the motion have made out a good case and justified the appointment of a commission to make investigations into this question. I would like to say that, although this is a free vote in the House to-day, speaking for the members on this side of the House who belong to the farmers’ group, we are totally opposed to the appointment of a commission to investigate the question of changing from the left-hand system to the right-hand system on our roads. We say that the expenditure on a commission is not justified, and we claim that the findings of a commission would very soon be out of date, and so an absolute waste of money. It has been stated here over the floor of the House that the right-hand system is safer than the left-hand system. Mr. Speaker, that makes one feel inclined to laugh, because there is no proof whatever that the one system is safer than the other system.

Who said that?

It was said here in argument that the right-hand system is safer. The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. de Villiers) said that in Great Britain the accident rate under the left-hand system was increasing. He did not bring figures to show that the accident rate in America, where the right-hand system is in operation, is not also increasing. I think that this motion is motivated by trade interests and the interests of American manufacturers, the influence of American manufacturers who construct the right-hand drive car. We know the influence of American trade all over the world, and I think it is manifested here to-day in this motion for the appointment of a commission to investigate this particular question. Mr. Speaker, we have to face the costs of any conversion to-day. It has been stressed by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) what it would cost to convert our buses and vehicles in this country. It would perhaps not be necessary to convert the ordinary vehicles we have at present in the country, because, at present, we have people with right-hand-drive cars, adhering to the left-hand-drive system in our country, but vehicles like buses would have to be converted and there would be a considerable cost involved. And furthermore think of the cost in respect of our road system. Just think for a moment only of the De Waal Drive, think of the first overhead crossing on the De Waal Drive here, a left-hand crossing. Any member driving on to the De Waal Drive could estimate what it would cost even to convert that one overhead crossing to a right-hand crossing! It would change the whole structure of the road, and it would cost many thousands of pounds. The cost on our road system in general would be colossal. Even the “keep left” signs which would have to be converted would cost an enormous sum. Therefore I say that it seems ridiculous that this question is raised to-day. I myself am surprised that the proposer of this motion was given preference to discuss this matter to-day. I think there are many other subjects on our Order Paper, motions by private members, that are very much more important than this one. I search to find a justification for a motion of this nature. The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe) said that Portugal adheres to the right-hand drive, but he might have said that the Mozambique Territory adheres to the left-hand drive, and that there are no countries in Southern Africa that adhere to the right-hand drive. It has been said here in argument that it would be safer for our tourists. Now what tourists do we have here that come in any numbers with their motorcars? Only the overland tourists, or those from the Rhodesias, countries that adhere to the left-hand drive. The argument in respect of tourists bears no weight at all. How many tourists enter this country with their own motor-cars when they come from overseas by ship? Hardly any at all.

My principal objection and that of the farming group to this motion was not only the cost of conversion of vehicles and the cost of changing our whole road system, of which we are particularly proud, but we object in the interest of road safety. We have an appalling number of accidents in proportion to our White population in this country to-day, but we also have hundreds of thousands of Natives to-day who are drivers of vehicles. They are people who are perhaps not quite so mature as the European. I have no doubt, and our group has no doubt, that conversion brought about any time in the near future would undoubtedly increase the accident rate on our roads. I do not think anybody can argue contrary to that view. We should do everything possible, and, as a matter of fact, we are scratching our heads in an attempt to devise means to reduce the accident rate on our roads, and here we have a motion coming before Parliament promoting a system which for years to come would be inclined to create a greater accident rate on our roads. You see, this “keep left” has become almost something instinctive in the human beings in this country. Even if one walks down our streets, one finds that people pass each other mostly on the left. It is inherent in the general population and we cannot only think of the 3,000,000 Whites in this country, we must think of the 15,000,000 non-Europeans who have to be taken into consideration. Many of our Coloured and Native people are involved in accidents on our roads, and, I have no doubt, that if we converted to the right-hand-drive, for many years to come people would have the legitimate excuse in any court to state “Well, we have not quite acclimatized ourselves”. I am opposed to the appointment of a commission, principally on the grounds of road safety, and I say that the conversion of our vehicles and our roads to the right-hand-system is not justified at all. No argument has been advanced to justify the expenditure, and in the same way no proof has been brought that even the expenditure on a commission is justified. I maintain moreover that any finding of a commission in that regard would be out of date within a few years. It would be a Blue Book that would find its way to the scrap-paper basket. Speaking as secretary of our farmers’ group, I want to register our most sincere protest against the appointment of a commission to investigate the question of the right-hand or left-hand system on our roadways.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

1. (a) to compete internationally as a manufacturing industry and as such to undertake exports itself;
2. (b) to promote, as a research and planning institute, the use of more timber, particularly South African timber, for building and housing purposes; and
3. (c) to run State-owned plantations and to operate both sawmill and timber processing industries on the basis of utility companies.

In moving this motion, it is very interesting for me to see that notice has already been given of an amendment. I do not want to discuss this amendment at a later stage and would like to say a few words in connection with the amendment now. In analysing the amendment I see that paragraph 1 of the amendment contains precisely the same terms as in my motion, namely, to continue, encourage and intensify research in all branches of the timber industry and the promotion of the use of South African timber. I say that I am pleased to see that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) also considers it of so much importance that the task performed by Forestry should be continued. When I come to the second part of this amendment, to leave timber-growing and the operation of sawmills and timber processing as far as is practical to private enterprise, as being in the best interests of the Republic, it is necessary for me to make it very clear at the start that this motion has nothing to do with private enterprise as far as sawmills and timber growing is concerned. On the contrary, this motion takes account of the fact that the hon. the Minister announced earlier that it was not the task of the Department of Forestry to interfere with private undertakings or to compete with private undertakings in any way at all. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister also indicated on a previous occasion that there had been a decrease in the number of sawmills. In other words, it is not my intention in this motion to interfere with the present existing private sawmills or with the further development of private sawmills.

It is, however, also important for us to record that when the State plantations started production in 1938, private undertakings had no confidence in sawmills in South Africa and did not want to make a start in this connection. Now that proof has been given that forestry is a profitable undertaking, people are keen to enter this field, but we must also remember that profits do not lie in the sales of log timber; they lie in the less bulky timber, in the processed timber, and it is very important for this House to record that the taxpayers’ money was used over the years to establish State timber production and to cultivate all the plantations. If one considers this fact, one cannot summarily hand things over to private individuals.

I want to give a few examples in this connection and I take only the period from 19367 to 1961-2. I find then that the total expenditure incurred in cultivating State plantations amounted to the sum of R79,293, 903. The revenue was R64,388, 495. In other words, the revenue over the period from 1937-62 was still nearly R15,000,000 less than the expenditure. But over this period we also built up an asset to the State, an asset to the citizens and taxpayers to an amount of R92,000,000. This is a tremendous asset and one cannot summarily hand over that asset to private sawmills or private undertakings. On the contrary, it is an asset which one has to exploit correctly so that the taxpayer who has incurred this expense over the years will continue to derive benefit from it. I would like to make this final remark in connection with the amendment: If one looks at the various civilized countries, one finds amongst other things the following: England is still cultivating timber; Holland, Western Germany, Austria and America are all countries in which it is State policy to retain at least one-third of the plantations of the timber in those areas as State property and to have it exploited by the State in all its various facets. Perhaps this is so because timber is not an annual crop like maize; its growth is a long-term proposition and because, when we deal with conifers, we find that we go beyond the life-time of one man; in other words the man who plants those trees will not derive any benefit from them; it will be his future generations who derive that benefit, and that is why the State must undertake these projects.

If we look at this motion we find that it is necessary to go back a little into history and I want to say that soil, vegetation and water are the fundamental sources of life of a nation and of a country and in early years our public leaders realized that these assets must be protected and further supplemented. We are very short of indigenous timber resources in our country and that is why a start was made early on in supplementing our natural resources by cultivation. We find for example that in the year 1876, when he was Commissioner of Crown Land and Public Works, John X. Merriman had the following to say when he asked Parliament for a sum of money to start timber cultivation—

And do you know, all that they could afford to spend in that year was an amount of R50 or £25? That was all that they could afford in order to tackle this praiseworthy undertaking. I want to say that because of the faithful service of the various Ministers of State and various officials, this afforestation has progressed so far that we now have a wonderful asset in South Africa. All praise is due to those various officials, not only to the administrative officials, not only to the directors, but to every official, the foresters, the forestry workers and the timber growers. They built up this wonderful asset over the years. In saying this, I want to look at statistics for a moment to see how far this one undertaking has progressed in South Africa.

In 1911 the amount which was spent on forestry totalled R264,408. The revenue from it was far less, namely, R102,942. In 1938-9 the income was still only R408,974 while the expenditure already amounted to R1, 147,698. But let us look at the surface area under plantations. In 1911 it was 48,136 acres, in 1928 it was 168,468 acres and in 1950 it had already reached 444,207 acres. to-day, in 19612 it has already amounted to 675,798 acres. It is interesting to note that it was not only the Department of Forestry which deemed it necessary to promote afforestation in South Africa. We find that from the start, up to 1949-50, the South African Railways also contributed its share in this connection. In 1939 the South African Railways had 5,427 acres under cultivation. The cultivation of the timber was undertaken for them by the Department of Forestry on their land. We also find that this Department has done a tremendous amount of work in this connection with the South African Native Trust. In the Estimates for 1961-2, the expenditure incurred for the growing of timber by the South African Native Trust amounted to R1, 437,940, and 116,405 acres were afforested. In other words, this Department also ensures future security by applying soil conservation and by building up of forest plantations in those areas which will later become Native homelands and Native trust lands, simply because it is one’s level of civilization which requires one to make provision for the future.

I find that in the 1962 Budget there was an amount of R12,186,000 for Forestry and that the State already had 305,000 morgen under plantations. If one thinks back to the years when John X. Merriman asked the Cape Parliament for £25 for afforestation, then we have every reason to be proud of our progress in forestry over the years. But as a result of the fine example set by the State and the continual appeals made by our Ministers of State to the people and the assistance given in this connection in regard to the growing of small trees, in regard to the supplying of seed, in regard to improving the quality of the trees, we find that private bodies already own 745,000 morgen under planted plantations in South Africa. It follows of course that because of this expansion the Department of Forestry as the guardian of the interests of the State in the sphere of forestry has to do more and more in the sphere of forestry for which the present State machinery is not yet adequate. I will show just now how even on the Select Committee we have a problem in connection with this matter. As a result of this expansion the Department is changing at the same time into a sort of commercial organization. These plantations were not planted for their aesthetic value alone. Not at all. The taxpayers could not have afforded it. The trees were also planted for their economic value, their economic value to our future generations assets which the generations after us will have to use in the best interests of South Africa and of the whole population of South Africa, those economic values which must not summarily be handed over to a few individuals, which may well be the effect of this amendment of the hon. member for South Coast. These economic values created by man, the natural resources which have been supplemented there, can only be beneficially exploited to the full in the country’s economy if the Department of Forestry has the necessary freedom of movement, whether within the framework of the State organization or, if necessary, even outside of that framework, because the Department is in a unique position; it is unlike any other Department, This Department is a farmer; it has to prepare the land; it has to do the work of soil conservation and so prepare the land that it will be able to carry the right type of trees. In preparing the land and in its cultivation it has to have freedom of movement in respect of the employment of its forestry officials and its foresters and of non-Whites in the Native trust areas. But this must also be done in such a way that it keeps in mind the future revenue from the undertaking. In order to dispose of these plantation products to the benefit of the private sector as well, it is necessary for Forestry to set the example and for Forestry to give every assistance in the foreign markets and so forth. I want to tell you what became apparent from an inquiry which was made by the Board of Trade and Industries and by other committees. It appeared from this inquiry that they were most emphatic and made it very clear that the activities of the Department of Forestry could not be carried out effectively within the organization of a State Department as it was at present constituted. But apart from those inquiries I also want to show what various persons who have dealt with international forestry have had to say in this connection. I refer for example to T. A. Critchley in his article “The Civil Service To-Day He says this—

In other words, he defends that part, but he goes on to say—

He continues to say—

That is the kneehalter, Treasury control—

Critchley writes that the result of this is that many activities which do not fit in well in the Public Service are handed over to semi State organizations of which there were already more than 200 in England in 1951, England, the example of a democracy! He is not the only one to write in this way. Let us see what P. du Sautoy also has to say in the “Civil Service”—

I want to say again that he states very clearly that it is necessary for a Department or organization to be able to decide quickly, to be able to use its own initiative and act accordingly. And if it wants that, the Frenchman, du Sautoy. says that one cannot kneehalter it with the sort of Treasury control that one has in the usual State Departments. I will show further how this Department, as a result of its development, and without its detracting from the private sector, or coming into competition with it, has so developed that it cannot be kneehaltered any longer because this can only be to the detriment of forestry and of our economy in South Africa. This swift expansion of the Department of Forestry has brought with it a large number of marketing problems. We must remember very well that the conifer type of tree—and this is the type, of tree cultivated in the departmental plantations—as a long cycle. Nowhere do we come into competition with wattle trees or blue-gums or trees used for pitprops. Neither do we compete in regard to the conifer types because the Department is simply there to be of assistance and service to the private sector. During this long cycle the income from forestry is derived from the thinning-out process which has to be done continually, and we cannot allow those trees which are thinned out to rot away. They must be converted into an asset to and revenue for the State. I would like to dwell for a moment on the trees which are thinned out.

We must remember that the processing of these trees determines this sound economic basis. If we look back, we find that this interim timber production was used in the past for boxwood and for pulping. In the past we had a reasonable market for our boxwood because the fruit farmers used it for packing of their fruit. But we must remember that the world is changing over completely to cardboard cartons as far as packing is concerned so we no longer have that great demand for wooden boxes and we have reached the stage where we no longer have a market for boxwood in South Africa. As a result of increased cultivation, the tendency is to thin the trees out more and more and to have more boxwood available but the demand is decreasing as a result of the use of cardboard. We have now to dispose of that boxwood on a disappearing market.

This fact compels me to suggest that the Department should be permitted to export timber internationally as a manufacturing industry and to compete on the international market. When a manufacturing industry competes internationally, it merely prepares the way for the private industrialists to come along and say: Give me that opportunity too. It prepares the market and creates the correct climate there. It is this Department which will have to find a market for the large amount of timber which was previously made into boxwood. This search may perhaps soon be over because the problem is already appreciated in the international sphere. If we look at a report by the Swedish forestry industry, we find that one of the Swedish experts had this to say—

As a result of the increase in population throughout the whole world, he is afraid that our resources will shrink steadily. He says this—

In other words, we are not isolated here in South Africa, we who are in the fortunate position of having a steadily expanding Department of Forestry as well as a considerable amount of land on which to expand. But we are also in the position where we must realize that there is no market in South Africa for those increasing quantities of timber; a market must be found abroad, and where that problem already exists internationally, the time has come for this Department to be able to negotiate abroad in order to be able to sell that timber. It is therefore very clear that it is not only in the interests of the Republic of South Africa but it is also of international importance to market that thinned-out timber, those small logs of wood, as advantageously as possible. These small logs are excellent for the manufacture of paper or paper-pulp or pressed wood or for interior partitions and so forth. If we look at this wonderful Chamber in which we are sitting, I ask where we will find finer wood in all the wonderful buildings in the world than the timber which has been used in this Chamber. And it is not pressed wood—it is much more beautiful and better. That is a problem which gives me cause for great concern. At present large quantities of these smaller logs are not being used. They must be used in the industry. South Africa cannot afford to leave raw material lying idle. We cannot afford to leave this timber at the mercy of wind and weather. It must be used in the industry. We already have various factories in South Africa making paper and pulp out of wood. I think of the wonderful factory at Piet Retief. One had the strange fact there that they had to define their area of operation and had to tell the farmers just outside of that area: We are very sorry; we cannot take your timber; you must simply saw it up into firewood and send it to Johannesburg. That is only one example of all the factories which are working to full capacity but which are not able to absorb all the available timber, and it is our task, we who have taken the taxpayers’ money to lay out the plantations, to ensure that those logs are used. We are faced therefore with this question: Either more factories for paper and pulp will have to be erected in South Africa and we must tell the whole world that there is room here and the potential for more factories, or else we must export our surplus timber to countries where there is a demand for it, and there are many problems connected with this question of the export of timber. The problems are in connection with the handling of those logs of wood and so forth. If this Department undertakes the export of that timber itself, we will very soon experience complaints about the so-called competition between a State Department and the private sector. This amendment may already be an example of the complaints which will be forthcoming that the Department is acting as a competitor. But the foreign pulp interests have asked frankly that the Department of Forestry should handle exports of timber because they deem it desirable that this Department, as the largest producer of timber, should be the exporter and should do the necessary preparatory work in connection with the export of timber. When the Forestry Act was passed in the ’forties it was not realized how our timber production would increase and the proportions it would reach, and that within a short period it would reach such proportions that we would have to export. But we have now reached the stage where we have to export and this law makes no provision for these necessary exports. That is why I feel that it is necessary for the law to be amended in such a way that the Department of Forestry will be able to compete on the international market as a direct exporter of timber products. This means that the Department will also be able to undertake the export of timber for those particular producers profitably, and if there is a lack of confidence, the Department will create a climate of confidence abroad for the interim production, and the outside world will have the assurance that the timber produced in South Africa has been treated properly and is good timber. It is necessary for the envisaged amendment also to make provision for specific provisions with which this timber will have to comply. We know that in the case of the fruit farmers, they have their inspectors who test the sugar-content of the fruit. Poor quality fruit is not exported. We also find that the Wool Board keeps an eye on the quality of its wool and that wool has to be classified before it is exported. This has to be done in order to create confidence abroad that what is purchased from South Africa has been properly treated and prepared, and therefore an amendment of the law will also have to make provision in this regard. I mention this because we have already had private persons who have tried to export timber, but this attempt failed because the timber was not properly treated. The Department of Forestry has since then exported successfully. It was successful because the Department used the correct preparations and treated the timber properly. The result of this action of the Department was that foreign buyers immediately asked the Department of Forestry to control the export of timber and to take responsibility for all the timber exported from South Africa for these pulp interests. All these developments will also be to the advantage of private producers and we have heard how many private plantations there are. The private plantation owners will also have to export and the Department can develop the export market for them.

When we adjourned for lunch I was pointing out that when these various types of timber are offered for sale abroad, this will have to be done at competitive prices. In other words, the Department of Forestry will then be in the position of a dealer or agent who can negotiate and make an offer in loco. The Department will therefore be placed in the position of being freed from the usual Treasury control. It must be in a position to stipulate the best prices for the product on the foreign market in competition with other countries without having to obtain prior approval. It is for this reason and particularly having regard to Resolution No. 4 of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, 1962, that I am moving this motion, namely, that the Forestry Act should be so amended that this Department should not only manage its own plantations and sawmills and do the timber processing, but should also be able to run the industry on the basis of a utility company. I refer to this Resolution No. 4 of 1962, adopted by this House, which states—

I believe that this was the only logical decision which could have been taken to ensure parliamentary control. It was necessary to adopt that resolution for that reason, but if we wish to view the problems and the nature of the activities in this regard and act in the interests of the forestry industry in all its facets, then we must realize that it has become a commercial industry and that cultivation, soil reclamation and soil conservation will have to be undertaken. Because of all these undertakings the Department of Forestry cannot be dealt with in the same way as many of the other Departments, but can possibly operate partly as the Railways do which have their own auditors and are therefore not under Treasury control and possibly partly like the Post Office which is also developing in that direction. In other words, we have a completely different sort of administration to that of the ordinary State Departments. This is a Department which must be able to act like a commercial undertaking on the foreign markets to the benefit of the State and also to the benefit of private plantation owners, without the kneehalter of the Treasury. That is why I believe that we have reached a stage where we must review and amend the whole of our Forestry Act.

Because there are quite a few members who want to speak—and I would like them to have the opportunity to do so—I want to conclude on this note. I think that some of the other members will discuss the aspect of research and the other parts of this motion.

I second. Mr. Speaker, the timber industry is beginning to blossom into one of our most important industries and is at the same time becoming a key industry in the economic development of our country. The production of timber obviously plays such a big part in our every-day life that you do not always realize its value. Wherever you look around you you see necessities of life which are made of wood, and not only necessities of life but ornaments as is obvious when you look around this Chamber. You think of the various forms of timber products. You think in the first place of construction timber which is indispensable in the construction of buildings. You think of furniture timber, timber which is often processed into beautiful forms. You think of box wood which is such an essential part of industry, particularly in the fruit growing industry. You think of the timber used in the mines without which it will be impossible for our mining industry to develop. You think of the sleepers which are made of wood and which lie under thousands of miles of railway line throughout the country. You think of treated poles for telephone and electricity wires, and of the thousands of miles of fencing on farms. You think of pulp which is used to manufacture the paper without which we cannot manage. You think of match wood and fuel timber which provides warmth on many a cold night.

New techniques in connection with the processing of timber have given us the beautifully laminated woodwork which we have to-day. and in a growing economy such as that of South Africa, it cannot be otherwise but for timber to play an increasingly important role. South Africa is a country where there are relatively few places which lend themselves to afforestation because of our low rainfall. It is only along the eastern coastal regions, against the mountain slopes, and in parts of the Northern and Eastern Transvaal where we have natural forest areas. So we have the position that our indigenous varieties of trees only grow in certain areas with a high rainfall. But unfortunately for us those beautiful indigenous varieties of trees were injudiciously chopped down during the first years of our country’s development with the result that they play an insignificant role in our total timber production. It is estimated that in 1959-60 only 186,000 cubic feet of indigenous timber were produced as against 140,000,000 cubic feet in the case of cultivated exotic varieties. Our indigenous forest, because they grow so slowly only produce about 20 cubic feet per morgen per annum, as against 90 feet in the case of the cultivated varieties. That being the position the State had the necessary vision to step in and to protect our remaining indigenous forests and to use our indigenous timber as systematically as possible and to try to restore it. The State has furthermore had the vision systematically to plant exotic trees, particularly soft wood trees, on available State land which is suitable for afforestation but not for agriculture, with a view to the future needs of the country. This far-sighted policy is now beginning to pay dividends in that we can already to a great extent rely on our own supplies of timber. While during the First World War we still experienced an acute shortage of timber here in South Africa and while in the year 1963 we only produced 3 per cent of the necessary construction timber locally, the ratio had improved to something like 39 per cent in the year 1960-1. The far-sighted policy of the Government’s through its Department of Forestry, has now opened up this industry through the cultivation of exotic hard wood and soft wood varieties in a country which lends itself very poorly to the timber industry. A departmental survey which was made in 1960 showed that 1,050,000 morgen had been placed under afforestation of which more than half were under hard wood varieties. Seventy-one per cent of that surface is already privately owned which shows that the Government has merely acted as a pioneer, that it has created the confidence and has paved the way also for the private sector to play a part in the timber industry. The State to-day controls about 60 per cent of the soft wood forests while 40 per cent of our exotic plantations are private wattle plantations. It is estimated that there is only room for some 500,000 morgen still to be placed under exotic varieties of trees. The afforestation programme of the Forestry Department was expanded with great confidence particularly after the Second World War. That is evident moreover from the fact that some three-quarters of our soft wood plantations are younger than 16 years to-day, plantations which will only produce in a number of years’ time because in South Africa soft wood trees are only felled between the ages of 25 and 50 years. As the prospects of the timber industry in South Africa and the circumstances surrounding the industry changed, the State has continually adapted itself to those changes through its Department of Forestry, and the first important development was when the Department of Forestry became a full-fledged Department whereas it was previously grouped together with the Department of Lands. Recently the Department of Forestry has been entrusted to a Minister who is Minister of Lands at the same time, and who also controls other State property. I think it was a wise policy to place the development of our timber industry on a sound basis by means of that co-ordination. I want to pay tribute to the Department to-day and the present Minister. Mr. Sauer, who has adopted a very far-sighted policy in connection with afforestation in South Africa, and also in that he decided that it was not possible for the State alone to utilize all its timber products; that it would concentrate mainly on the large plantations to feed the sawmills and leave the rest to private initiative, as well as his far-sighted policy in connection with the necessity for research, research which could, of course, not keep pace with the terrific extent of the afforestation which had taken place during the years when it was realized that the country should do everything possible to meet its future needs. Mr. Speaker, the figures relating to the scope of the timber industry in South Africa, are impressive. I may tell you that it is estimated that something like R400.000.000 has already been invested in this industry. The annual contribution of this industry to our industrial production is about R80,000,000. Sixty-nine per cent of our private plantations have been planted over the past 15 years and 52 per cent of our soft wood plantations are still under 16 years of age. Now, what about the expected yield of our plantations? This morning here in Cape Town Professor P. P. du T. Deetlefts of the Stellenbosch University gave a lecture to the Economic Institute of the F.A.K. in which he gave these interesting figures in connection with the future of this industry—

In addition I may mention that there are altogether 86 sawmills in the country to-day which are continually processing the products of this industry, of which no fewer than 77 per cent are private undertakings. In view of the increasing tempo of production in this industry, it is expected that by the year 1970 another 18 large sawmills will have been erected by private initiative in order to handle the production of the industry. It is striking to note, Sir, that while the Department of Forestry has developed this industry at such a fast pace here in South Africa, the per capita national consumption of timber in South Africa has decreased since 1937 while it has increased elsewhere in the world. The uses to which timber is put include its use as sleepers. It appears that in South Africa the per capita consumption of timber during the period 1957-9 was 2.61 as against 2.91 ten years ago. In Europe, on the other hand, it has increased from 5.23 in the years 1947-9 to 5.93 in the latest year when a survey was made. In the world as a whole the per capita consumption of timber has increased from 3.35 over the same period to 3.92 in the latest year when a survey was made. That can mainly be attributed to the fact that elsewhere in the world it has become more popular to use timber for the construction of wooden houses whereas we here in South Africa are still very slow to succumb to the idea of wooden houses, and also because of the fact that in many cases municipal regulations prohibit the erection of wooden houses. I think that by making more use of our timber potential we in South Africa can use more timber to ease the housing problem, in so far as there is a great shortage of dwellings amongst the non-Whites. But when we look at the position in regard to the expected utilization of timber in the future, we find that it is estimated that in the year 1970 the sawmills will have used no less than 159,400,000 cubic feet as against only 109,200,000 cubic feet in the year 1959 for construction timber and box wood. When we look at the other practically new industry, the wood pulp industry, we find that the increase will be from 13,300,000 to no less than 55,000,000 in the year 1970; when we look at the consumption of timber for rayon pulp manufacture we find an increase from

10,0,000 in 1959 to no less than 20,000,000 in 1970. When we look at the estimated consumption of fibre and hardboard manufacture we find an increase from 6,200,000 cubic feet in 1959 to 8,000,000 in 1970. As far as timber for the mining industry is concerned there is an increase from 38,300,000 in 1959 to

67.0. 000 in 1970. As far as the use of treated poles for various purposes is concerned. we find an increase from 7.340,000 cubic feet in 1959 to 30.000.000 cubic feet in 1970. As far as fuel timber is concerned, we find an increase from 19,400,000 cubic feet in 1959 to 22,900,000 in 1970. In the matchmaking industry we find an increase from 380,000 in 1959 to 1,300,000 by the year 1970. Seen as a whole it appears that by the year 1970 there will be a shortage of 12,700,000 cubic feet in soft wood varieties as against the production figures given by Professor Deetlefs this morning. As far as hard wood is concerned there will be a shortage of 4,500,000 in the year 1970—demand as against production. In other words, it is clear that a particularly rosy future awaits the timber industry in South Africa, a period in which labour will justly be rewarded for the first time. Whereas we have so far concentrated on cultivation the time has arrived for us to make use of our timber products. And if we also have to think about exporting—I have given you the figures in respect of shortages but they relate to the position as a whole; in the case of certain varieties surpluses are expected—if we also have to think about exporting I think the State should also in this regard play the role of pioneer as it did in the case of the opening up of the forestry industry in South Africa; hence the motion by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom that the Department of Forestry should be equipped in such a way that it will also be able to fulfil the function of the pioneer, even in overseas markets.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity of also asking that more use should be made of the Department of Forestry to advertise our own South African varieties of timber. During the past few years, thanks to discussions in this House and thanks to the efforts made by the Department and by private sawmills in South Africa we have made considerable progress in so far as giving preference locally to South African timber is concerned, whereas not so very long ago building contractors and others had a sort of predilection for exotic timber. It is due to this advertising campaign as well as the assistance rendered by the Bureau of Standards that our own South African timber need not stand back to imported timber for building purposes. I wonder how many hon. members have already seen what can be done with our own South African produced pinewood which has been so neglected? Panelling and shelving are made from that simple pinewood which give the most wonderful appearance to a room and furniture.

In conclusion I wish to say a few words about the special task which awaits the Department of Forestry in the expansion of this timber industry and that is in the direction of research. It appears that a total of approximately R240,000 is spent annually by the Department in various directions on its own timber research institute, on the Wattle Research Institute and on the research section of the C.S.I.R. in regard to timber and the Faculty of Forestry of the Stellenbosch University, and if you add a small amount spent privately on research you arrive at a figure of approximately R300,000 annually. Compared with the annual industrial yield of something like R80,000,000 it means that only .4 per cent of the yield of the timber industry is devoted to research. If you compare this figure of R300,000 with what the State spends on agricultural research, for example, agricultural research only within the winter rainfall area, exclusive of the two research stations, the fruit research station and the wine industry research institute also in this area, you find that agricultural research is subsidized to the tune of R582,000 per annum as against only R300,000 in the case of the entire timber industry in the whole Republic of South Africa. It is clear, therefore, bearing in mind what lies ahead for this big industry, that much more will have to be done in the field of research. Afforestation in South Africa is totally different from what it is overseas. Whereas in South Africa large plantations consisting of one variety only have been planted in order to meet the anticipated shortage of timber in the future, it is customary in overseas countries to plant mixed plantations. We cannot change the existing position. The trees will stand there until they are felled and we will still have to determine what effect such a large plantation without trees of a different variety in between will have on the prevalence of disease. That is only one of the problems which faces the research worker when it comes to afforestation. Thanks to our warmer climate and the nature of our soil the growing period of our forests is faster. It takes a tree 30 to 50 years to reach a size where it can profitably be felled as against 80 to 120 years in overseas countries of production. I mention these facts, Mr. Speaker, just to give you a slight insight into the needs of research which exist as far as this fast developing industry in South Africa is concerned. I am convinced that as production increases in this industry and as the trees reach maturity, we shall be in a so much better position to subsidize research with that income. As I have said research work is being done at various institutions including the research institute of the Department of Forestry itself, but you cannot carry out research and you cannot carry out such a programme of afforestation without trained professional personnel. It is this need which the only Faculty of Forestry in the country, that of the Stellenbosch University, has to meet at the moment. It so happens that sound professional training can only be given if the people concerned are also engaged full-time in research work so that they can convey the benefit of their research work to their students. A great deal has been done—and we are very grateful to the present Minister for that— during the past four to five years by the granting of bursaries for research to this faculty but the position at the moment is that there is a need for about six technical assistants who will be able to take the lesser important burden off the shoulders of the teaching staff so that the latter will have more time for research.

You also have a somewhat anomalous position as far as the salary scales applicable to the training period is concerned. At the agricultural school at Saasveld where matriculants are admitted, they receive a salary after a few years which the person with professional university training only receives after a long period. In other words, that youngster actually has an advantage and where there is a great need and where we shall have a greater need for trained professional personnel, I want to suggest that some of the best students at Saasveld should perhaps be tempted to continue their studies at the Faculty of Forestry by means of bursaries and in that way meet the need of professional personnel. There is a need for information officers, not only for the State’s own undertakings, but particularly for the increasing number of private plantations and also for farmers who want to plant trees and who want guidance; also in this respect trained professional personnel is required. As far as research at this faculty is concerned, there is no danger of overlapping with other research sections of the Department. Each one selects his own particular task, and by means of a control board for co-ordinating research it is ensured that no overlapping takes place.

We are grateful for the opportunity which this motion affords us, of bringing to the notice of the country this important, sometimes forgotten but nevertheless such an important industry in our country, and also this Department and we trust that it will receive the attention of the House and the authorities and that they will do what is necessary to give this wonderful industry a further boost forward.

This is a most important motion which the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) has moved this afternoon. He has said so much in regard to the importance of the timber industry, both on the side of the grower and the manufacturer and given so many figures, as has been done also by the hon. member who has just sat down, that I do not propose to go over those figures. I think they have said quite enough to show the value of the timber industry to South Africa. Let me say at once that on that score we have no objection to what has been said, but the hon. member has a motion on the Order Paper which he has moved and I now formally move the amendment which stands in my name—

1. (a) to continue, encourage and intensify research in all branches of the timber industry and the promotion of the use of South African timber; and
2. (b) to leave timber growing and the operation of sawmills and timber processing as far as is practical to private enterprise, as being in the best interests of the Republic”.

I want to say at once in regard to the motion moved by the hon. member that when he had been speaking for about ten minutes I thought he was moving my amendment. It seems that the points he was making were all in favour of my amendment. I cannot read my amendment as being in line with his motion, but I want to come to the specific points of difference in a moment or two, the points of difference between a policy of maintaining the private industry and private initiative and a policy, as contained in paragraph (c) of his motion, which is practically national Socialism.

I see those two concepts as being poles apart. But let me deal for a moment with one or two aspects of the matter in its wider field. Firstly I want to say that I think this debate could have taken place on a more realistic basis if the Minister had at least the Schoeman Report. We have been waiting for that report. We believe that that report showed conclusively that private enterprise in general in the timber industry operated at a considerably lower cost than State enterprise. We are not surprised to learn that because that is a general feeling but in this particular case the value of that report would have been that we would have had precise figures on which this debate could have taken place. However that may be, it is a fact, as both the mover and the seconder of the motion has said, that there is a great deal of room for research, and that is why in the amendment standing in my name we asked the Government to continue to encourage and intensify research in all branches. Sir, the growth of the timber industry in South Africa is really a triumph of research in many respects. The Forestry Department, State-owned and State-financed, must receive the credit to a very great extent, but private growers were not slow to follow, and we believe on this side of the House that that is the pattern that should be followed for the future; that the State through its Department of Forestry, should not take a lead in trafficking in timber products. It should not as the mover of the motion asked, begin to undertake the export of timber products because that will compete at once with private enterprise in this country and we stand for the maintenance of that private enterprise. Sir, private enterprise was left woefully behind when the State was spending millions of rand in expanding the timber industry, but now that is not the position. Private industry to-day is catching up very fast and it should be allowed to do so.

The State should stay there to run pilot plants and to carry out research in many directions. I want to indicate one or two of the directions in which it could carry out research. It could carry out research in regard to our indigenous timbers. For practical purposes we in this country are simply ignoring all our indigenous timbers. They are simply condemned and swept aside; we are told that they do not come to maturity quickly enough; they cannot stand the competition of these exotic timbers which come to maturity so quickly. Sir, that may well be, but is it in the best interest of the State in the long run that we should throw aside our indigenous timber on a long-term plan, as being of no particular economic value? I submit that there is a lot of room for research with regard to our indigenous timber but there is a lot of room for research in other directions as well. In the timber industry we are now going in for what is really monoculture on an enormous and a growing scale. Do we know what we are doing to the ecology of our country not over a few thousand acres but hundreds of thousands of acres where we are growing one type of tree and all of one species? Have we any idea of what we are doing to the ecology of our country? Nobody has any idea. There may be guess-work by various people who are interested in certain branches of science as to what is happening to the ecology of our country that we do not know. Sir, I would tell you a curious thing about this development of our forestry in this country. To the best of my knowledge we have only one book in South Africa dealing with the cultivation of the species pinus, the pine tree, in its various varieties, and that is written by an Englishman. When I sent somebody to our library to ask them to give me the latest books on the growing of pines in South Africa, they sent me a pamphlet dealing with pineapples! That is what they thought “pines” was. Sir, here we have an industry worth millions of hard currency to South Africa every year and our own parliamentary library thinks that you are talking about pineapples—something to eat— when you talk about pines. Sir, in regard to eucalyptus seligna, which is now coming to the fore as one of the main standby’s for the industrial use of timber, for all sorts of purposes, there is only one good book on that and that was published a matter of 18 months or two years ago by the University of Stellenbosch; anybody could buy it for a few shillings. It is a very, very excellent book indeed but it is very scientific in its approach to the problem. I think the man who wrote it, wrote it for his Master’s thesis. Sir, look at this wonderful field that is open there, in the whole realm of literature in the country, to say nothing about what we have got. You know, Mr. Speaker, recently a Press man said to me, “we will always accept anything dramatic for our paper”. I can tell the Press that there is nothing more dramatic than the story of the dynamic industry which is the timber industry of South Africa to-day. Sir, think of the small beginnings made by one or two people in the Forestry Department, admittedly half a century ago, but what is half a century in the life of a nation? They started with a tree, which is not a thing that you plant to-day and it comes to fruition in a year’s time; it is a crop which takes years and years to come to fruition and which in the short period has produced what the timber industry is producing for South Africa to-day. I say it is a dynamic industry and it is a wonderful state of affairs. Let us take seligna for a moment. Here is a seed which weighs something like a milligramme, and under optimum conditions it will give you half a ton of vegetable cellulose in ten years. Sir, that is the basis to-day of huge industries like Soccor with R8,000,000 invested in it. I think to-day it is about R16,000,000.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom said that he had had bad luck with some of our exports. Sir, that is fair enough but think of the research and think of the background and work and experimentation and the investment of that R16,000,000 in Saiccor to produce a product which does not fail when it goes into the world market; it receives no kind of Government support in the way of special preferential treatment or railway rates. It stands in the labour market in South Africa; it buys its raw materials from growers in South Africa at current rates; it sometimes pays a little higher price than some other concerns do. It is paying its labour which it itself uses—a tremendous number of people— at current rates, and it puts its product into the world market against world competition and it can beat the world. The quality is top, the price is the best, without any artificial backing by means of government measures to support that industry. That is what it is doing to-day. It is no failure; it is no story of partial success; it is a story of complete and utter success as the result of scientific investigation and the hard work and the investment of capital that goes with it. Sir, that is what can be done here in South Africa by private enterprise. I do not want the Government to enter that field. That is why I say that the hon. member should have thought twice before he moved that motion. I put my amendment on the Order Paper so that he could see what it was going to be. I wanted him to see it. I realize that when he read my amendment he realized at once that his motion was wrong. I am not giving any secrets away when I say that the hon. gentleman came to me and said “Thank you very much for putting that on the Order Paper so that I can read it beforehand and see exactly what line you are going to take.” We are not quarrelling over it, Sir, because I am right. And I am not giving away any secrets when I say that I hope the Minister will also agree with me; that he will not quarrel with me either. The Minister now has to try to find a way out of this difficulty. In South Africa we are moving with a dynamic force; the private sector is moving forward in this realm of timber. Research is also now done by private concerns as well as by the Forestry Department but no private concern can have the resources which the Department of Forestry has. The Department has been carrying that research on over the years; it has the people and it should be supported in every way possible by this Parliament. I plead for that support to-day. That is the true realm of the Department of Forestry. It is no good saying we rely upon investigations within the four walls of an institute where research is carried on. It must be done in the field as well.

May I just for a moment or two give an indication of the directions in which I feel such wonderful work could be done. There is the question of indigenous trees, as I have said. There is more to it than that. There are some of our exotic trees that should be tested out. An ordinary grower in South Africa cannot grow Himalaya Cedar. It takes too long. You simply cannot deal with it like you can with some of the pines. It is not used for the purpose for which we are using pines to-day. The ordinary grower cannot afford a 30 or 40 year rotation to-day, it is too long, but the Forestry Department can do that. Only the Forestry Department can grow Cedar and its future use to South Africa is inestimable. Go and look at the teak forests in India. People think that that teak will not grow under South African conditions, in South African soil and with our climatic conditions but it might well be that it would but on long rotation. A 30 year teak tree is a young tree. We will have to grow them over a much longer rotation than that. Our attention has been concentrated on the quick growing, the quick maturing tree, the tree that reaches large dimensions quickly; that is the sole desire of South Africans in this matter. Teak would do well in South Africa in certain positions, in my opinion, and if given a chance, but only the State can do it.

Then we have investigations into seed trees, trees which have a pedigree behind them. Some work has been done. That work can only be done in the field. There is a field for tremendous expansion so that the private sector developing in the forestry field can take advantage of the lessons that are being learnt for us by the Department of Forestry over a long period. Every lesson that you learn in forestry in a year is qualified by what you learn in ten years and that in turn is qualified by what you learn in a hundred years. But your worth while lessons come from those years and years of research and experience which you gather as the years go on.

What about our soils? Are we making the best possible use of our soil to-day? We know nothing about the changes in the ecology of vast areas which are taking place to-day in our soil. We are concentrating on suitable sites: No. 1, No. 2, No. 3. The first class site, the second-class site and the third class site. Why? For the quick maturing tree that rapidly reaches a large size and outside of that we are leaving it alone. We are to-day almost down to three or four varieties of pines in the whole field of pine growing. We are tending to concentrate on two or three varieties of eucalyptus in the vast number of varieties in that field. Outside of that, Sir, some poplar in little bits and pieces and that is all. There is a vast field for experimentation there and I believe that the Department of Forestry should follow it.

What about trees under irrigation? You see, Sir, one of these days our scientists will find the answer to the desalting of water and this history of the world will change. It will change as much as it did when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. It seems to be a simple matter but there is no easy solution yet found for the desalting of water. The day that that is found the history of the world will change as I have said. If we have water to spare under the conditions which we have here in South Africa—we have the land to spare here—have you any idea of the timber we could grow under irrigation which would pay handsomely? That has never been tried out. We take our timber to the rainfall; we do not bring the water to the timber. It is not done, Sir, it is unthinkable. It is almost heresy in certain circumstances to suggest that you should do such a thing. But there are areas where we have the water and there are areas where we have the soil. Is it possible for us to test it? The private grower will not do that, Sir, because he cannot get his returns quickly enough. He cannot invest his money and then wait for eight, nine or ten or twelve years before he gets anything directly from his labour and his capital. When it comes to the utilization of timber products and their by-products, the uses to which, for example, even sawdust can be put, the production of vegetable alcohols and things like that the field is immense. I will not talk too much about vegetable alcohol in the presence of some of my hon. friends so I will pass over that quickly and move on to something else. The Minister should be pricking his ears up and taking notice of what I am saying.

Years ago this portfolio was the Cinderella of the Government and of the estimates and so forth. You know I am not given much to throwing bouquets to Ministers, Sir, but we did get a sympathetic Minister when we got the present Minister of Lands and Forestry to take over this portfolio. It was passed from Minister to Minister; I will not go over all that. But we once had a Minister of Defence who was also Minister of Forestry and so on. But it is now no longer the Cinderella. It is of such importance that it warrants almost special privileged treatment so far as the Government is concerned in the one field in which it should be supreme and remain supreme and that is in the field of research—inside the institute and outside in the field. I am not asking the Government to plant no more timber. I would like it to limit it as far as is practical to fall into the four corners of the Government’s needs to carry on in the field of research. Outside of that let private enterprise go on its way. Private enterprise is on its way. Millions of rands are being spent on various types of sawing plants and so forth. When it comes down to bark processing and the extraction of chemicals and so forth, I say the field is immense; the making of pulp and all those things. The day is not far distant when if a man wants to give his wife a few dozen of silk stockings he will cut down a salinga tree and give it to her and say: “There you are; there are a few dozen pairs of good silk stockings”, When she goes to the factory and hands in the tree they will process those stockings for her in no time, wrapped up nicely in paper and packed in a cardboard box, all made out of the same tree. My hon. friends laugh, but I wish they would go to Saiccor and watch some of the processing plants. Saiccor is not turning out the finished article yet but we have got factories in South Africa where they are turning out the finished article. Take some of these plastic materials that are being turned out. It is incredible to think what progress there has been over the last few years. Sir, that is the field for the Department of Forestry. Leave private enterprise. The moment the Government starts to export, the moment the Government comes into the market with its products it comes in competition with private enterprise. The Government in the Department of Forestry has got the taxpayer behind it. It must have Parliament behind it to protect our investment in the Department in the shape of plantations, machinery and so forth.

I say, no matter how difficult it may be in practice, the Government should draw a clear line between its functions to pave the way, to put up pilot plants, to carry out investigations, to do research, and the part to be played by private enterprise which finds the markets, takes the lessons learnt from the Department of Forestry and puts them into practice and makes the money for South Africa. There is the dividing line, a delicate line, but I think we have a Minister who will be able to find that line and who will be able to follow it. There is room for the Government’s Department of Forestry and private enterprise both to co-exist.

I second this amendment.

I am very pleased because this debate has taken place here to-day. I think the importance of the development of our forestry and timber industry here in South Africa has been emphasized by all the speakers. I think that in emphasizing its importance, everyone realizes that the ordinary public outside do not really appreciate the scope of this new industry in the country. It was quite correctly stated that Forestry has for a long time been treated as the stepchild of State Departments. At first it was not a fully-fledged Department. It was grouped together with other Departments. It became a fully-fledged Department later, but still one of the junior Departments. Now however, as a result of the scope of its activities and its investments and the products which it produces, it has become one of the important factors in the economic life of South Africa. I find, however, that the public outside are to a large extent ignorant of the important role which forestry and its related industries play in our economic life. I make use of the opportunity on meeting Chambers of Commerce and Chambers of Industry and similar bodies to give them a review of the activities and scope of the industry and in no single case are those people not surprised when they hear what has, as it were, grown up amongst them without their realizing it. I hope that this debate which has taken place here will contribute towards the country and also my friend, the hon. the Minister of Finance, realizing how important this industry is and the role which it plays.

Much has been said about what can be done and I agree with those remarks. As I shall show later, this is practically a new industry in South Africa. The Department and its branches are now reaching maturity and the ramifications of its activities are growing daily. There are many new directions which we will have to follow; the field of research requires investigation and also takes time, but the enormous increase in the activities which have arisen as a result of our forestry industry is a proof that both the Department of Forestry and private industries here in South Africa are not standing still and have not wasted the opportunities which have been created for them, particularly by the cultivation of State forest plantations.

South Africa is, as compared with other countries, very poorly endowed with indigenous trees. It is extremely poorly endowed in comparison with other countries. Only about ½ per cent of the surface area of the Republic of South Africa is under natural forest which is of any economic value. If one considers that 30 per cent of the surface area of the United States is under economic forests, 53 per cent of Japan and in Sweden, no less than 57 per cent, it proves that we could never have a timber industry in South Africa unless such timber was cultivated by the people themselves; and not indigenous timber but exotic types which grow more quickly than ours. There is a lot in the argument of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) that we must do research in connection with our indigenous varieties but in order to supply our immediate requirements for from 50 to 100 years it was necessary for us to plant exotic trees here. The first planting was made in the Cape as early as 1884 and in the northern provinces, with the exception of wattle, which was started in 1864, the first large planting was made in 1903. Things moved very slowly. Development did not take place quickly. The timber was used first for railway sleepers and there were other more primitive uses for the various types of timber. The first step forward came during the First World War when we were to a large extent cut off from the rest of the world as far as our timber requirements were concerned. This shortcoming was then realized and a fairly swift cultivation was started during and after the First World War. Plantings were again moving very slowly until the real demand was felt particularly during the Second World War and large-scale plantings took place after the Second World War. At the moment the cultivated forests of the Department alone cover about 320,000 morgen. These forests which were planted by the State and by private enterprise also have a capital value which is far larger than most people realize. I am not speaking now about the money invested in them—that figure was quoted here to-day. I am speaking about the value of those forests as they stand. The value increases as the trees grow. The value of the State plantations with their machinery and buildings is to-day no less that R180,000,000. The value of private plantations in South Africa is nearly R200,000,000. The value of private and State forests together in the Republic of South Africa is nearly R400,000,000. Very few people outside realize this fact. They think in terms of a tree here and a tree there. Many people never visit the forest areas, they have heard of them but I do not think that one of them realizes that we have an asset here in the Republic which has been built up by our own people. We did not find it here; we planted it up ourselves, an asset of about R400,000,000 at the moment which is steadily increasing. It is swiftly increasing from year to year.

Until shortly before the Second World War very little was done in regard to the secondary use of timber. Timber was then used chiefly for sleepers, building purposes and to some extent for fruit packing although we imported many of our fruit boxes from Sweden up to the Second World War. From the Second World War practically only private industry began to realize the other uses to which timber could be put. We now have large industries— and I want to tell the House what the production in this regard amounts to Mr. Speaker; I think it will also surprise hon. members— which have grown up since the war and which now make good use of our timber. As our timber production increases—and it is increasing very swiftly; I have graphs in this regard but unfortunately I cannot show them here; they reflect future production—we find that more and more secondary industries can make use of that timber. Take the case of cardboard which in many respects has taken the place of wood for packing purposes. Every lorry on the streets is fully packed with cardboard boxes. All those cardboard boxes are manufactured here. This is another industry which arose as a result of the timber which was available. I think of plywood and the great use which is made of it. I think of hardboard, large quantities of which are being exported at the moment. I think of telegraph poles and poles for carrying electric cables. Whereas we always used imported steel or cast iron, and later our own timber to some extent, for this purpose, we are now chiefly using our own timber which in many respects is just as effective and as hard-wearing as the iron poles which we had previously. I think particularly in terms of pulp. I do not know whether hon. members know that all the newspapers which they read on the Witwatersrand are made from South African timber. Very few people reading the Star and the Rand Daily Mail to their detriment or the Transvaler or the Vaderland to their advantage, realize that those words of wisdom are printed on South African paper, which fact has in some cases apparently not penetrated through to the editors of those newspapers. This paper on which these Minutes of Proceedings are printed, is made in South Africa. The best writing paper which we use in this House is made in South Africa. These are all secondary industries which arose after the last World War.

Notwithstanding all this we in South Africa are very small consumers of timber in comparison with other countries of the world. The per capita consumption of timber is less than 13 cubic feet per person in the Republic of South Africa. The per capita consumption of timber in the United States is 220 cubic feet per person. The most important reason for this is that in North America many of the houses are built of timber. Here, as the result of regulations framed by municipalities in the days when timber, at least our timber, was not suitable for the building of houses, it is practically impossible to build wooden houses within municipal areas. But other countries have discovered that timber is not only durable but has other excellent features as well. It is cool in summer and warm in winter. It is just as durable as a brick home, just as good and even better. This is one of the matters which I discuss continually with municipalities and the provincial administrations in order to get them to change those regulations. I can take hon. members to wooden homes here in South Africa and they will be surprised at their comfort, their compactness and their beauty and cleanness.

I stated that I would mention the value of the timber processed in South Africa Mr. Speaker, the total value of the timber which we get from our forests, whether it is sold in its raw slate as firewood, in the form of poles, as building timber of in its processed state. In 1960-1 the value of this timber was no less than R60,000,000. This does not include timber used in the manufacture of plywood. I am speaking now about its final value. I think this will surprise hon. members, namely, that timber products to the value of no less than R20,000,000 are exported every year. They will also perhaps be surprised to learn that the timber industry pays no less than R18,000,000 in wages annually. And an industry in South Africa which pays R18,000,000 in wages is not a small industry; it is an important industry. If one confines oneself more the State forests, in order to appreciate the increase in sales and the increase in the value of the timber which is sold directly from the State forests one find that the value prior to the last war was considerably less than R400,000, that is the value of sales. Last year, in 1961-2, timber to the value of R5,000,000 was sold and it is estimated at more than R6,000,000 for this year. If hon. members will look at this graph they will see that the estimate for the future shows an increase of nearly R1,000,000 per annum in the anticipated sales of timber from State plantations. The State plantations have grown in many respects. I will give only the percentage increase and not the figures. The only available figure prior to the war is that for 1936 and this is now compared with the figure for 1962. The surface area has more than doubled—it has increased by 113 per cent and production has increased by nearly 500 per cent. Revenue has increased by 2,260 per cent. This is the revenue of the Department because we are now starting to derive the benefit from the good sense of our predecessors. I think those are the most important figures. I have other figures here, if hon. members are interested, and I shall let them have them on demand, but I do not want to bore the House by quoting too many figures. I merely wanted to mention those three, that our surface area has increased by 113 per cent, that our production has increased by nearly 500 per cent and that our revenue has increased by 2,260 per cent over a period of less than 30 years.

As far as building timber is concerned, we are producing at the moment only 40 per cent of our requirements in South Africa; 60 per cent of our timber for building purposes is still being imported. Hon. members may ask why 60 per cent is being imported. Partly because we do not have sufficient timber available but partly too—and this is an important reason—because there is a prejudice against South African timber. This prejudice arose as a result of historical circumstances. During the war years when it was difficult to import timber, all sorts of people started in the sawmill industry and they put a great deal of timber of a very poor quality on the market. That poor quality timber spoilt the name of South African timber in the building industry. We now have a prejudice against South African timber which we must try to remove. I am continually having discussions with the Bureau of Standards. We drew up standards first and last year we worked out a new code which was approved by the Bureau of Standards. The position is to-day that if timber bears the stamp of the Bureau of Standards it is for all practical purposes as good as the building timber which is imported from other countries, and we must now dispel the prejudice which exists on the part of builders. It is unfortunately a fact that we receive very little support from architects and engineers. These people do have a spirit of enterprise to a certain extent, but it appears to me as though this is disappearing because they are only too inclined, in preparing their specifications, to draw up those specifications just as they learnt to draw them up when they were still students. They write down “Oregon Pine only”, without asking whether there is a South African wood which is good enough. They know that Oregon Pine is good and they write down Oregon Pine because they do not have the necessary imagination or energy to find out whether we have timber here in South Africa which is just as good. I may say that I have waged a campaign against my own colleagues in the Cabinet—I have been very successful in this regard—to persuade them to use our own timber. I may say that there is very close cooperation between the timber industry and my Department, a far closer co-operation than ever before. I have told the timber industry; Every time a State Department orders timber in a contract which is not South African timber, and South African timber is available, you let me know. They do let me know, Mr. Speaker, and I deal with the other State Departments. I now have them where I want them. But I must still persuade the private contractor, I must persuade the engineer and I must also persuade the architect and we can only do this by way of advertising. We now have two institutions doing advertising work in connection with timber. The one is the Timber Advertising Board and the other is a movement called Tanga. We are working well with them and where this year we have an amount of R40,000 on the estimates for advertising, about half of that amount will be going to these two aforementioned organizations for the work which they are doing. But we are not restricted to R40,000. We have an assurance from the Treasury that if we need more than R40,000 for advertising purposes this year, they will be willing to let us have it. But these two bodies are bodies which know their job. They not only advertise by means of newspaper advertisement but they advertise by visiting the large building contractors, by visiting architects, by visiting engineers, and producing practical proof to show that our South African timber is just as good as the imported product. When our future production increases to the extent shown on our graphs, it may be necessary for us to go even further and to obtain protection for our local timber against the importation of foreign timber but if one applies protection in connection with the importation of timber, it may mean that the price of one’s own timber will then rise resulting in increased building costs. A better method may perhaps be to make use of import control as long as it exists by limiting permits for the importation of timber if we have timber available in South Africa. Then the price will not rise but the same result will be achieved.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) and the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) all spoke about research. I want to add to what I have already said that we are very much aware of the necessity for research. Research is being done in three ways. We have first of all the research which private enterprise is doing in connection with the processing of timber; the other is the research being done by the Department, particularly in connection with the growing of timber, the cultivation of better varieties, the improvement of the soil, the question of climate, the question of the improving of trees and so forth. The hon. member for South Coast called it field work. The hon. member once invited me to Natal and he was a wonderful host and I think that I must invite him to the Eastern Transvaal to show him the field work which we are doing there in regard to improving trees in order to find the best varieties. You see, they move around the forests and they may find a certain type of pine tree. The hon. member does not like pines very much, but they might find one particular tree which has grown taller than the rest, and they take young branches from that tree and graft them to small seedlings so that from that one tree they will eventually have hundreds all producing seed and the seed can then be used further, and all this seed is seed from the improved tree.

Grafting.

It is actually “budding”. They are not precisely the same. “Budding” means to insert an eye and “grafting” means that a branch is grafted. We are improving our tree varieties in this way. I want to invite the hon. member to go there during the recess. I think that he will then be convinced of the fact that the field work that we are doing is comprehensive. But we are doing research work in all our plantations. I come now to the third type of research which is being done by our universities, particularly the two which have faculties of Forestry, namely, Natal University and the University of Stellenbosch. When I became Minister of Forestry, the amount made available to these two universities for research was R20,000 per annum and I increased this amount to R60,000. I intend approaching the Treasury next year and convincing them that with a view to the swift development of the timber industry in South Africa this amount should be further increased, and I have no doubt that they will do so. I do not want to boast about the amount. Hon. members may say that the amount should be larger. I am merely indicating the course we are adopting and the fact that the amount has trebled over the past three years— the amount made available to our universities for the very valuable research which they are doing there.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom spoke about the desirability of forming a utility company. I must honestly tell him that I am a bit wary of a utility company. I am a person who in the first place believes in free trade; the Government believes in free trade and it believes that the State must not interfere in private business or private trade except in certain essential cases. It has been justified up to the present and will be necessary for a long while—this is where I differ from the hon. member for South Coast—for the State to continue to plant trees. But as regards the further use of that timber, I think that this must be left more and more in the hands of private enterprise. As a proof of my bona fides in this connection, I want to point out that the sawmill industry in South Africa was started by the State; private enterprise did not want to participate in it; eventually they started participating and then one had a continual bickering between the millers and the State in regard to how much milling work the State should do and how much private enterprise should do. Then my predecessor, the present Minister of Transport, concluded an agreement with them whereby this would be done on a fifty-fifty basis. This satisfied every one for five or six or eight years. When I became Minister those people again approached me and I then said that it was time to go a step further. I said that the State would build no more sawmills and that all further developments would be left to private enterprise. I even went further by saying that certain of our mills which were not paying propositions should be closed down, and quite a few of them were closed. With the development which is now taking place, the State’s share in the milling industry will become smaller and smaller in proportion to the whole. I think that this is the policy which the people and the general public want and it is also in conformity with the policy of the Government.

The hon. member also spoke about the export of timber by the State. We are exporting timber at the moment but it is chiefly timber which is exported for experimental purposes. It is timber which is chiefly being exported at the moment to rayon factories in Italy and we are hoping to build up a good trade in this regard. But they do not want to buy from private undertakings, only from the State. Certain difficulties arose in connection with the export of that timber. At the start the timber which we sent them arrived there blue and was unsuitable for the purpose for which it had been purchased. We were able to send our experts over with a consignment of timber and they conducted tests for dampness in storage, temperature and so forth, to ensure that the timber arrived there in a suitable condition. Now the Italian interests want to buy from us because we render those additional services. But once we have finally worked out the way in which the timber can be sent over from this country, I am convinced that they will start buying from private producers. We have therefore to do pioneering work in this connection.

We have cultivated many forests in South Africa. When I became Minister I realized that no one knew precisely whether we were planting a sufficient number of trees or too few trees, whether we would have a use for all the trees or whether we should plant more or what the position would be in the future. It is very difficult to estimate what the future consumption of timber will be. One can quite easily estimate what one’s production will be, but it is very difficult to estimate what the consumption will be. We know one thing, however, and that is that if we have good timber available, we will find a use for it, and all the other uses for timber such as pulp-making, rayon pulp-making, plywood and hardboard, are all industries which came into being because timber was available. I feel that if we had the timber available we would have more of these industries in South Africa. We must however have a certain measure of security, and I put this problem to the industry. We then decided to appoint a committee of officials of my Department and representatives of the millers and other consumers of timber, and this committee is at the moment correlating all the information to give us a pattern for the future production of timber and the possible consumption of timber. We will never be able to say with any certainty whether we are growing sufficient timber or not, but I think that once we have all this information available, we will in any case have more certainty than we have at the moment. They have collected some very valuable information and there is hearty co-operation between the private sector and my Department in this regard.

The important point was raised that there should be more freedom for the Department of Forestry to conduct its activities. I want to make it clear that the Department of Forestry now has two functions. The one is the production of timber in our forests. In this regard it is practically a business undertaking like our Railways. But the other function is in relation to forestry more or less as agricultural technical services is in relation to agriculture. We have to deal with all the problems, with research, with propaganda, with assistance to private growers, large and small, to supply them with information; we have to deal with the stabilizing of sand dunes along the coast, with the combating of fires and with a hundred and one other things, in connection with which we bear the same relationship towards forestry and the mountain owners as agricultural technical services bear towards the farmers. But at the moment everything is rather confused in this respect. Here you have a State Department which has the usual functions of a State Department and on top of all this it is also a business. But it is still subject to the old Exchequer and Audit Act of 1911, and where the hon. member for Wakkerstroom said that this must certainly hamper our activities, I can give him the assurance that it does aggravate our problems. There is the question of the appropriation of capital; it fluctuates; it does not come from our revenue and it fluctuates according to circumstances and in forestry one must have a consistent pattern as far as possible; we have to deal with the employment of staff and in this regard we have no trouble with the Treasury but with the Public Service Commission. To give an example: We recently had an enormous fire at George. It was necessary to convey timber almost immediately to the State sawmills before it deteriorated. We had however to follow the usual procedure which a State Department follows in connection with the employment of lorry drivers, of mechanics and of other people whom we needed, even in connection with Bantu, and we had to approach the Public Service Commission to obtain approval for the creation of so many new posts. It can easily happen that before all these posts are approved of, a large amount of that timber will have been lost. There is the question of the accommodation of the labourers in the forests. We set up small townships in the mountains, in distant spots. I want to do far more for those people than the State usually does for its people when they live in cities and so forth. I want to build halls for them, swimming baths, perhaps acquire a portable film unit, and get people to give talks there. They are deprived of the usual entertainment and recreation of a town and city and we must give them something in its stead, just as private enterprise does, but under the set-up as we now have it is particularly difficult for us to do so. The only consolation that I can give the hon. member is that we are giving consideration to the matter and as forestry develops as an industry, the need for these services will become greater and greater and I hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will agree with me that they are necessary.

My time has nearly elapsed but I just want to say that the high regard which hon. members on both sides of this House have for the Department of Forestry is not restricted to people in South Africa. We have recently experienced the fact that people have come here from all parts of the world. We are at present expecting a representative of UN, a man from their forestry branch. We have had people here from the United States, and even from Sweden; we have had two or three people here from Australia and people from other African states, and they have all been very pleased with what we are doing here. Without wishing to bore the House I would like to read an excerpt from a letter from Mr. Nelbeck who is manager of sylviculture in an undertaking in Sweden which controls forests equal in size to all the State plantations in South Africa. He writes as follows—

I have many similar letters. I have here a letter from someone in Nyasaland who writes as follows—

Then I have one here from Dr. Lindgren of Madison in the United States, a man who was on a forestry mission to Africa and he states—

These letters are from important people and they echo the sentiments of all of us here that our Department which perhaps does not advertise itself sufficiently and push itself forward, has done wonderful work here in South Africa and that practically without our being aware of the fact, has built up something here of which we can all be proud.

I was very glad to hear the Minister say that there is no question of the Government nationalizing the timber industry and further that he will appoint a commission to find out the requirements for the expansion and the development of that industry.

We have a committee that has been busy for a year or more already.

Will we get the report of that committee in full? And when are we to be given the Schoeman Report so that we can see what that report contains?

It is important that the State should carry on research for the reasons given by my colleague, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). He gave very good reasons why it was so essential and why the Government are the only people who can carry out research into the whole question of timber development and improvement of the industry for the future. Private industry has done a lot in the past with limited capital. The timber industry is only coming into its own now after many years. The wattle industry has brought much exchange to South Africa and was developed entirely by private enterprise; it has been an example of what can be done economically for the good of the country as long as they get help and support in the field of research. It is essential that there should be research into the development of new varieties of timber to be grown in other parts than the very high rainfall area of South Africa. The high rainfall area has been developing the timber industry very successfully in the last few years through private enter-rise, but we still have so much to learn as far as timber is concerned when it comes to the use of timber and the processing of timber. At the South African Timber Growers Association’s meeting last year a very enlightening paper was read by one of our big industrialists in the timber world, and he opened the eyes of many people when he said: “Up to now the standard laid down for timber and the grading of timber has been on the wrong lines. I as an industrialist am never quite sure what I am going to get when I get a first-grade timber log, because we grade on size and not on age.” He said: “When you get to certain types of pine it is more important that it should be 25 years of age, and the smaller log is very much preferable to a bigger log that is perhaps 17 or 18 years of age. Having processed that younger timber it warps and gives trouble because it is not completely mature.”

At 3.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 41 (3) and the debate was adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Orders of the Day.

DIVORCE LAWS AMENDMENT BILL

First Order read: Adjourned debate on motion for second reading, —Divorce Laws Amendment Bill, to be resumed.

[Debate on a motion by Mr. Froneman, upon which an amendment had been moved by Mr. J. A. F. Nel. adjourned on 8 February, resumed.]

Last Friday the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) moved an amendment to this amending Bill which was introduced by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) and the amendment reads as follows—

I support the amendment because if it is adopted, certain difficulties which were mentioned by members on both sides will then be resolved. It was said amongst other things that the Law Revision Committee did not have the opportunity of expressing its opinion on this amending Bill and also that the law societies had no opportunity of expressing themselves in this regard. By referring the Bill to a Select Committee they will have the opportunity of giving evidence if they require any amendment of the Bill.

At the present stage there are only four grounds on which divorce can be obtained in our country. The first is adultery, the second malicious and deliberate desertion, and the third and fourth are set out in Act No. 32 of 1935. I would like to express an opinion as to why changes should be effected in connection with these grounds for divorce. I take first of all the case of adultery. Adultery is the only ground on which the Bible permits a divorce to be obtained. In this connection I want to refer to Matthew, Chapter 18, where the Pharisees put certain questions to Christ in connection with marriage. Amongst other things they asked: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause?” To this Christ answered: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” From these words it is apparent that no other grounds are actually permitted and that these amendments which are being proposed should not be effected. A separation a mensa et thoro is no termination of marriage and therefore the position must remain as it was. But I want to go further in connection with the questions which were put to Christ. The Pharisees again asked Him why Moses commanded that she be given a divorce. The reply to that was: “Because Moses, by reason of the hardness of your heart, permitted you to divorce your wives; but it was not so from the beginning. And I say to you, that whoever divorces his wife except for immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced also commits adultery.” You see therefore that originally there was only one ground for divorce, namely, adultery. Earlier, up to the year 1756, adultery was a crime, but since that time there has been no prosecution in this regard and the practice of considering it a crime has fallen into disuse and no longer exists. I have already wondered whether it would not be desirable to make it an offence punishable by law again. It will probably solve many domestic troubles if adultery is regarded as a crime. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) said that our gaols would become too full. That might be so, but when it is a crime and is punishable, people will take care to see that they do not commit that crime. It is interesting to see what the penalties for adultery were when it was still a crime. I quote here from Green v. Fitzgerald and Others, a case which was decided in the Appeal Court in 1914, and in his obiter dicta the Judge said—

You see therefore that 200 years ago it was still a punishable crime in this country and if one goes back into history one finds that at the time there were very few, if any, divorces, but since we have hardened our hearts and since this change has taken place in our attitude and it is no longer a crime, we have many more divorces. I wonder therefore, if the hon. the Minister deems it desirable to refer this matter to a Select Committee, whether this question could also not be investigated.

What do you think of house arrest?

I come now to the cases which are mentioned under Act 32 of 1935. These provisions state that divorce can be granted besides the other grounds which exist, if a person has been subject for seven years to the provisions of the Mental Disabilities Act and is incurable. It indicates the procedure which has to be followed. Changes can also be effected to this law. Doctors have progressed so far to-day that it is no longer necessary for a person to be detained for seven years under the Mental Disabilities Act. They can very soon say whether a person is incurable and then a divorce can be granted if two doctors sign a certificate to this effect. This will also avoid many difficulties. The hon. member for Heilbron said that where a separation a mensa et thoro exists, there are often cases where the innocent or the guilty party cannot marry again and so lives with some other man or woman and children are born illegitimately who cannot be baptised and he said he was very sorry for the children. That is also the case under this law, and it should also be investigated by the committee to see whether any changes are necessary.

I go further. The fourth is the case where under the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act a person is declared to be an habitual criminal and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of at least five years; that is to say, that if a person has already been in gaol for five years his or her spouse can apply for a divorce. But we know that a habitual criminal is usually imprisoned for longer than five years, usually for ten years, and my opinion is that where such a person is already a criminal and it is not easy for the innocent party to be married to a person who has been declared a habitual criminal, when such person is sentenced as a habitual criminal the spouse should immediately make an application for a divorce and should no longer have to wait for five years.

I do not have very much more to say in connection with this legislation. It has already been discussed on two previous occasions. I support the motion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) and will be pleased if the hon. the Minister will consider referring this matter to a Select Committee which can investigate the whole question and effect changes in all our divorce laws. It has also been said here that in England a commission of inquiry sat for four years on the divorce laws question and could not reach finality. I want to say that the English law was in a hopeless mess. The procedure followed here is good; it should merely be improved and therefore I am pleased that the hon. member has moved this amendment. I ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to it and, if necessary, to accept it.

I will not be long on this matter, but I want to say something about the Bill proposed by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) and also the suggestion made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) that this matter be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading. When the hon. member spoke on this last week, he referred to the fact that in 1953 he had actually made his maiden speech on the subject of the Matrimonial Affairs Bill and that I had followed him in making my maiden speech on the same subject and that I had complimented him on the speech he made. Well, to some limited extent history will repeat itself this afternoon, because I do agree with some of the things the hon. member said last week, one of them being that I, like him, reject the suggestion of the hon. member for Heilbron that we should simply abolish the system of judicial separation, but I do agree with him when he says that there are many anomalies in the existing law and that the matter needs investigation. I had originally intended to support the amendment of the hon. member asking for a Select Committee before the second reading and I said so, as he mentioned in his speech, but I have had second thoughts about it. I have gone into the matter more thoroughly now and it is much more complicated than it appeared at first sight. The other thing which made me change my mind is the fact that the official Opposition is fighting this on party lines, because both the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) and the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) mentioned that they were speaking on behalf of their party, and this puts a different completion on the whole matter. I intend no reflection on Select Committees of this House, but I do not feel that one can get a really impartial inquiry especially into a matter as complicated as this if it is conducted on party lines in the Select Committee. Our past experience of Select Committees has been that if there are party considerations the tendency is for one party to vote one way and the other party to vote the other way. For that reason I think it is necessary to have a judicial commission of inquiry which will be completely impartial and will not be bound by party considerations. Therefore I have had to change my mind because of the attitude of the official Opposition, but I want to say that I am to-day speaking on non-party lines. I am not putting forward the views of my own party, but my own personal views.

Judicial separation used to have a more useful function than it has now. It had at least an additional function before the passing of the Matrimonial Affairs Act of 1953 in that it gave secure financial support to the innocent spouse in the case of judicial separation in so far as no alimony was granted on divorce. Now the situation has been changed and the innocent spouse can get alimony under that Act. So that particular function fulfilled by judicial separation has disappeared. But the other functions it still continues to fulfil, and that is that it still allows a reasonable period for reconciliation to take place before the final divorce order is granted, and I think that is a useful function and therefore I am against the abolition of the system as such. I think it should be retained, but that the Commission should investigate certain aspects of the law which require amendment.

In arguing the case against changes in the existing law, particularly the hon. member for Musgrave, and also the hon. member for Pinelands, mentioned the British Royal Commission on Divorce, which sat for four years, the Morton Commission which had eighteen members on its panel, and which finally came forward with several conclusions. Both hon. members mentioned that the Commission had finally rejected the suggestion to abolish judicial separation and that is correct, but what they did not mention was that there was considerable discussion and considerable disagreement amongst the members about the whole question of judicial separation, and indeed they went so far as to recommend far-reaching changes. For instance, the Morton Commission stated in para. 313 that—

The Commission thereupon recommended that adultery, cruelty, rape, sodomy and bestiality should be retained as existing grounds for judicial separation, but very significantly, they recommended that the other grounds for judicial separation, namely insanity, desertion and failure to comply with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights should be abolished, because they did not consider that there was need for a protective remedy in those cases, in view of the fact that the insane spouse would be locked up and there was no need for physical protection for the remaining spouse in the case of desertion. But in the other cases they thought there was a need to retain it as a protective device. They went on to say—

I think that is a very important argument and it is something which I believe a judicial commission should examine very carefully. I think that would be a positive proposal in regard to any changes which should be introduced in regard to judicial separation.

There are other proposals. I am not recommending them per se, but I put them forward because they are also mentioned in the Morton Report and nobody else has mentioned them. All that has been mentioned is that the Morton Report ruled against the abolition of judicial separation. I think it is important to know that the Commission made further proposals, although it did not recommend them. But there are other possibilities which were examined, and certain members of the Commission were in favour of those proposals. Out of eighteen members nine members voted one way and nine the other way, and the nine in favour of one of these suggestions split up again and four members were in favour of even more far-reaching changes. So there was no unanimity on the whole question. I think a Commission should examine an adaptation of the existing New Zealand system. The adaptation I recommend is a system whereby either spouse may apply for a dissolution of the marriage after a period of not less than three years’ separation by an order of judicial separation or a notarial deed, and the marriage then can be dissolved by the courts—not shall be—unless (a) the other spouse proves to the court that he or she genuinely wishes to resume cohabitation, and does not simply spitefully say, “I am never going to live with you again, but nobody else can marry you either ”. So if a genuine desire to re-establish the marriage can be proved, I think the courts should have the power to decide whether the judicial separation order may then become a final order of divorce. The other alternative suggestion which is also an adaptation of the New Zealand system is that after a period of not less than three years’ separation by either an order of court or a notarial deed, the marriage can be dissolved—not shall be—unless the other spouse objects to the dissolution and the applicant fails to satisfy the court that the separation was in part due to the unreasonable conduct of the respondent. In New Zealand the onus is put on the respondent. I am changing that to make it more difficult for the plaintiff, who will have to prove that the respondent was partly responsible for the original separation. I think that is an improvement on the New Zealand system, but I am not giving this as a firm proposal; I think it could be profitably examined by the Commission.

It seems to me that this sort of proposal might meet with two major objections, the first to the law as it stands, because the hon. member for Heilbron and others have stated here that the law as it stands does lead to cases of hardship and misery where a spouse actuated either by spite or malice has no intention whatever of ever restoring conjugal rights but can continue to condemn the other spouse to a life of eternal celibacy or to the indignity of an illicit union. On the other hand, I think it meets another objection, and that is the major objection to the hon. member’s Bill, namely that it opens the door wide to a guilty spouse profiting by his or her misconduct in order to force an innocent spouse into divorce against his or her will. In other words, if it can be proved in the court that the respondent had no part whatever to play in the original separation, I think that person is entitled to retain the existing situation.

I know there is another difficulty in regard to this whole suggestion, and that is whether or not this should be made retrospective. I think it may validly be said that persons who enter into judicial separation under the existing law should not be put in the position where, if this is made retrospective, they may ultimately be forced into a divorce, even the person who is partly responsible for the original break-up. Being partly responsible is not grounds for divorce at present. So there is possibly a valid objection to retrospectivity, and I know that what I am proposing that the commission should examine does not necessarily meet the case of existing victims of spite under judicial separation. It may be that the commission can come up with a better suggestion, but I think it is difficult to make this retrospective because of the fact that people entered into judicial separation under different circumstances and they should not be penalized now. I also realize that this may not meet the position of future spiteful people, because as Professor Hahlo pointed out in his article, such people can simply sit tight and not take advantage either of a notarial deed of separation or of judicial separation or of divorce, and that leaves the position as it was before. In other words, the man is bound forever and cannot get his freedom to re-marry. Of course I do not speak as a legal expert, but I am told that there has been one case at least where a precedent was set, in the case of Daniels v. Daniels in the Appellate Division in 1958. It is quoted in Professor Hahlo’s book on divorce. I understand a precedent was set whereby an initially guilty spouse who has reformed and is now leading a blameless life can ask for restitution of conjugal rights and if that is unreasonably refused he may then be held to have grounds for divorce. I think this would deal with the retrospective cases in the case of a reformed spouse. If this becomes law, I think it can deal with the purely spiteful person who is for ever condemning the other spouse either to a life of celibacy or living in adultery, simply because of one simple act in the past. I know the hon. member for Musgrave disagrees with me about any additional grounds for divorce, but I believe that certain additional grounds for divorce should be provided in our law, and one is cruelty. I could never understand why habitual cruelty is not a ground for divorce. As far as I can understand, one of the reasons why judicial separation is made use of instead of divorce is because cruelty is in fact a ground for judicial separation.

Constructive desertion covers it.

Yes, but I am talking about physical cruelty, which is a ground for divorce in England. I think that physical cruelty, which actually makes it physically dangerous for the wife to live with her husband and which at the moment is a ground for judicial separation, must be made a ground for divorce also, and I suggest that that be examined very closely by the Commission.

Hon. members may complain that perhaps I am suggesting widening the grounds for divorce, but speaking for myself, I agree with the views put forward by those members of the Morton Commission who said the following—

It is because I agree with these views that I make these proposals, and I suggest that a judicial commission examine the whole question of divorce and perhaps also some of these proposals I have advanced.

Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that there appears to be very little interest displayed in this subject this Friday afternoon I will not speak for very long and want to content myself with one or two remarks only.

I was very grateful to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) for introducing this Bill because it gave us an opportunity of discussing this question. I feel that hon. members will all agree with me that it is a good thing that Parliament should discuss institutions of this nature from time to time and that opinions should be freely expressed without having regard to party affiliations. That is why I welcome the fact that this subject was raised.

I also listened with great attention to the standpoints of various hon. members. I found it rather a sad thing that hon. members on the other side saw fit to make a party matter of it. I would have liked to have seen a free discussion on that side, as was the case on this side, because after all, this subject has no connection with any political view.

An amendment was also moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) and in my humble opinion its weakness lies in the fact—that is why, as the law now stands, I am neither in favour of the amendment nor of the Bill—that if it is adopted, it will mean not only the very wide opening of a door but that additional grounds for divorce will definitely be available, as it were, by means of a back door to our legislation, and I am most definitely not in favour of that. I do not want to hold a long dissertation on marriage, but I think that I would be neglecting my duty were I not to say at this stage that if one studies divorce figures in this country and considers family life in South Africa, one will not seek further grounds for breaking up marriages but rather seek grounds to keep families together! In this connection it never ceases to amaze me that there are a large number of preparations for every marriage that takes place. There are the best things to eat and to drink; the bride’s trousseau costs a great deal of money and no stone is left unturned in this connection to make all the preparations in the best way possible. But it always amazes me how little spiritual preparation there is in respect of the pair who are going to be married. How few people indeed are concerned whether these people are spiritually equipped for marriage. I still remember very well when I was still in practice —and hon. members in the House who are or have been in practice will know that this is true—the trivial matters which people sometimes brought to my office expecting those matters to serve as grounds for divorce. I remember that one young mother wanted to divorce her husband and came to me with her tale of woe. Her reason was that her husband took her to task when the baby cried. She was disillusioned when I informed her that that was the normal thing in any family because husbands expect their wives to see to it that the baby does not cry. She did not take her divorce proceedings any further. One also of course thinks involuntarily of the marriage counsellor who reached the very ripe old age of 80 years. On his 80th birthday he was asked whether he had ever thought of divorce in all the years of his marriage, and his reply was: Never of divorce, but often of murder! I would therefore very definitely not be in favour of additional grounds for divorce being made available. If they must come, they must certainly not come about in this way but that does not mean to say that I take it amiss of the hon. member for Heilbron for having introduced this Bill. I think that he has done us a service by introducing this Bill so that we have been able to exchange opinions freely in this connection.

But before one can go any further with a matter of this nature, even before one can refer it to a Select Committee, I think that because of the importance of the institution of marriage in any organized Christian society, one owes it to everyone who is interested in this matter to be given the opportunity to express their views, that is to say, the Side-Bar, the Bar, the Bench the various social organizations which are closely connected with the matter, churches and marriage guidance officials and organizations. I feel that one has first of all to hear the views of these people, whether by way of a Commission or otherwise, before one can reach any conclusion in connection with a matter of this nature. I can also tell hon. members that the Law Revision Committee discussed this matter in detail in 1951 and came to the conclusion that the time was not ripe to do anything in this connection and that the matter should rest there. I also think that if one wishes to do anything in connection with the matter, before one does so one is compelled to refer the matter to the Law Revision Committee. I want to express the view that we should not proceed with this Bill any further, either as it stands or to continue with it by way of a Select Committee, until such time as this matter has first been referred to the General Law Revision Committee so that their views can be obtained in this regard. I will also undertake to contact some of the bodies that I have mentioned here in order to ascertain whether there is any real need to do anything in this connection and not only in this connection but also in connection with our divorce laws in general. I may say that at the moment I am not aware of any great need existing for a measure of this nature. Public interest in the Bill also appears to be of such a nature that it compels one to believe that no great interest is taken in this matter. But whatever the case may be, I on my part will mention the matter to the Law Revision Committee and I will also have discussion with some of the bodies that I have mentioned here. But I think that we are all in agreement that it is very difficult to discuss one facet of this problem and in my humble opinion this fact has become very clear from the discussion. One has to see the problem as a whole and if one takes action, one has to take action in respect of the whole matter. Because this is so, I want to take the liberty of moving at this stage—

I second.