I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works for the current financial year make provision for an additional amount of R3,330,000.

The largest portion of this amount is required for two new railway lines. In the case of the proposed railway line from Delmas to a point on the farm Middelburg No. 39, the Committee is being asked to vote a sum of altogether R640,000 for the present financial year. As far as the new railway line between Fochville and Houtkop is concerned, it is intended to have it ready for traffic by the middle of 1965, and to that end a total sum of R1,620,000 is being voted this year.

A fairly large amount, namely, R870,000, is also being made available for the deviation, strengthening and electrification of the Potchefstroom-Fochville section.

Provision was made for a sum of R750,000 under Head No. 813 of the Main Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works for 1963-4 in respect of new houses as well as for improvements to and the replacement of houses for White staff. After this amount had been fully allocated it became clear that the housing programme, particularly in the Eastern Transvaal division, would have to be extended to make provision for additional staff who had to be appointed as a result of increased traffic requirements at Komatiepoort, Waterval Boven and Hoedspruit. The existing appropriation is therefore being increased by R300,000 of which R100,000 will be spent in the present financial year.

Hon. members will recall that in my Budget speech earlier on this year I mentioned that it had been decided to erect a grain elevator with a capacity of 60,000 tons at the East London Harbour to cope with the export of maize. Last year, for example, a quantity of nearly 1,000,000 bags of maize was shipped through the East London Harbour during the period 13 May to 7 July.

The total estimated cost of the grain elevator is R4,000,000 and it is the intention to call for tenders in the near future for the erection of this grain elevator so that a start can be made with this work during the present financial year. A cash provision of R100,000 is being made for this purpose for 1963-4.

It will not be necessary to ask for additional loan funds for the works for which provision is now being made. Of the R3,330,000 which is required, R277,I00 will be appropriated from the Betterment Fund while the remaining R3,052,900 will be defrayed by means of savings on amounts made available in respect of approved works. The bulk of these savings is being brought about by an alteration in the proposed improvements in respect of the railway line between Potchefstroom and Midway as a result of the decision to construct the main line over Fochville and Houtkop.

The expenditure on capital works for which approval is sought here was fully discussed by us when the Railway Construction Bill was under discussion, and we therefore support it.

I move—

The construction of a guaranteed railway line from Delmas Station to a terminus on the farm Middelburg No. 39, is recommended in the report of the Railways and Harbours Board, which I tabled on 29 May 1963.

The line will be 16 miles in length, of mainline standard, electrified and will cost approximately R3,100,000. This figure is indicative of the present high cost of constructing railway lines of main-line standard—in this case it amounts to almost R196,000 per mile.

According to available information there are deposits of at least 300,000,000 tons of bituminous coal and 10,000,000 tons of anthracite in the area to be served by this line. The Company concerned, viz. Messrs. Afrikander Proprietary Mines Limited, has already commenced operations and expects production to rise until approximately 3,000,000 tons of coal per annum will be offered for conveyance over the line.

Although it has been calculated that the working results of the line will be favourable, the interests concerned, in conformity with the policy of the Railway Administration, have had to indemnify the Railways against any losses which may be incurred over a period of 30 years in the operation of the line, as well as against certain other contingencies such as claims in respect of losses that may arise as a result of mining activities under or in the vicinity of the railway line being restricted or prohibited. A copy of the agreement forms a schedule to the Bill.

The Minister said this was a guaranteed line, and this Bill contains in its schedule the agreement entered into between the Administration and the guarantor. For the most part the agreement follows the lines of the agreements entered into in regard to other guaranteed lines, but there are one or two points about this agreement which I should like to put to the Minister.

The first point is that if the Minister refers to Clause 6 (2) (b) of the agreement, it provides that if the working of the line shows a loss, the amount of the loss will be repaid by the guarantors. The guarantors in this case are the Afrikander Mines and the General Mining and Finance Corporation. It is therefore clear, according to the wording of this clause, that they will be responsible for the total losses that may accrue through the working of the line, irrespective of the availability of traffic as it may be affected by economic conditions from time to time. This is different from certain other agreements of a similar nature in regard to guaranteed lines, where the maximum loss to be met by the guarantor is set at a certain figure. The Minister knows of these agreements I refer to. The one which is a good example is in regard to the Tuinplaas-Marble Hall line, where the maximum loss that the guarantor had to meet was some-think like R7,000, and any loss in excess of that had to be met by the Railways Administration.

This is more advantageous to the Railways.

I am coming to that. I am merely stating the facts. I make the point for this reason, that any surplus on Revenue Account from the operation of the line will accrue entirely to the Administration, but assuming there is a surplus and after ten years of operation, through economic conditions, there is a loss, is this company then going to be called upon to make good that loss, or will it be averaged out over that period? I would like the Minister to state why he has worded this portion of the agreement in this form, without taking into consideration the previous practice that applied in regard to similar agreements, where a certain figure is set and over and above that the Administration bears the loss. I should be glad if the Minister could indicate in his reply why we have now introduced this type of agreement in regard to this line which affects the development of the mining industry as such.

A further point I should like to make is this, that the report of the Commissioners does not give any indication of the possible traffic expectations along that line which may emanate from other sources. The line will be 16 miles long and it has a double track before branching off to Middelburg, but there is no indication given by the Commissioners in their report as to whether or not there may be any expectation of additional revenue accruing from traffic from other sources. The board does report that a possibility exists that there will be an increase, but as I read the report I think they refer to a possible increase in the output from the mine itself through the expansion of the mines, or a possible increase in the amount of material on receiving traffic that the mine may require. I would be glad if the Minister would give us an indication as to whether the possibility was considered when the line was planned by the engineers.

Then regarding the route of the line, we are obviously in a difficult position here to discuss that, but there is one peculiar aspect of this line, namely, that it will travel for at least 3½ miles along an existing line, and then only will it branch out to its point of destination. No reasons are given in the report at all for the selection of this particular route; it is merely a statement of facts. But when one looks at the railway map it would appear that the mine is sited very much nearer stations like Devon and Endicott, on another well-used line on which there is adequate traffic, and I shall be glad if the Minister could give an indication as to why this particular route was selected, because the report contains nothing in that direction.

Finally, there is one other very important aspect in regard to these guaranteed lines. The Minister knows that they were the subject of discussion and investigation on the Select Committee on Railways, and on one occasion there was a resolution passed by the Select Committee which referred to the manner in which charges were levied by the Administration in regard to the operation of these lines. One example of it was the assessment of terminal charges, where the Administration in the case of one guaranteed line completely had to reinvestigate the whole question of the basis of these charges. We are expected to approve this Bill based on the report of the Commissioners, and the Commissioners state an anticipated revenue and an anticipated surplus, but these are all estimated figures. I would like to ask the Minister on what these figures are based. When he talks about 3,000,000 tons, is it based on an average over a 30-year working period, and when he talks about 27,500 tons of receiving traffic, is that based on an average over a 30-year period, the period of the agreement of the guarantee? It gives a superficial picture in regard to these revenues. The Minister knows that the revenue coming from these guaranteed lines has not always been the same as the picture given to the House when they were originally approved, and the Select Committee has made certain observations in that regard. I should like to hear from the Minister on what these Estimates were based. Were they based on the expectations of the mine’s eventual output and its eventual requirements? We know that they are based on the present rates and tariffs, but the total revenue will depend on what the mine itself produces. It shows a very large surplus here of R428,000, for the operation of this short section of line, which does not compare with the figures for other guaranteed lines, and I would, therefore, be glad if the Minister would give us an indication of what the Commissioners based their estimates of expected traffic on.

I think it will be generally accepted by all the inhabitants of the Far East Rand and the Eastern Transvaal area that the construction of this railway line is a most welcome feature. It shows the confidence that the mining companies have in the future potential of this particular coalfield. Sir, I think it is quite interesting to recollect that at the turn of the century coal-mining activities had taken place in this particular area, and as a matter of fact, a portion of the farm which this railway will transverse is called “Steenkoolspruit”, so in those days already when they named the farm, they foresaw the possibility of coal mining in this area. This is an interesting development in view of the fact that this will now be the nearest coalfields to the Witwatersrand and Johannesburg, and it is also served by road facilities in that regard. The sales will be mainly to the Reef, but it is interesting to note from the report that exports might also go via this line to Lourenço Marques. When considering the routing of this particular line there is one aspect which I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is the fact that this branch line will cross a main tarred road. It is suggested that at this early stage the Minister should proceed with the construction of a railway bridge near that particular point in order to prevent risks as far as road traffic is concerned.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has referred to the routing of this particular line and to the fact that it may have been routed over a shorter course, but I would like to be a little prophetic and say that this line will serve a far richer mineral area than one envisages at the moment. I say that because of the extensive gold prospecting that is going on in that vicinity. One is hopeful that favourable results will be achieved as far as this particular matter is concerned. We are aware of the fact that the Main Reef Leader has been located in that vicinity. No payable values have as yet been disclosed, but one is hopeful that payable values will be found at a later stage. It is also interesting to note that the estimated potential of this one particular mine is 300,000,000 tons of bituminous coal. If it is estimated that 3,000,000 tons per year will be produced, then it means that the estimated life of this mine is possibly 100 years; and that is something that augurs well for that area in the future.

I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what provision is being made at the marshalling yard at Welgedacht in order to cater for this additional traffic which will use that line, especially since we know that the same loads will be carried on the branch line as on the main line. Sir, with those comments I would like to congratulate the Minister on the expeditious manner in which he has negotiated with the parties concerned in bringing this branch line to finality. I can assure him that it has given much stimulus and interest to the population in our particular area.

The hon. member wanted to know why this new provision was being inserted in the guarantee —the provision contained in Clause 6 (2) (b). I said by way of interjection that this was more advantageous to the Railway Administration. It is only as the result of very good business practice that the Railway Administration has managed to obtain more favourable terms than in some of the other guarantees. The provision actually means that all the profits accrue to the Administration, but any loss in any one year is covered by the guarantor. It is in the interests of the Administration that there should be such a provision. I do not know what the reasons were for the different wording and the different provision in the case of the line from Marble Hall to Tuinplaas; that was long before my time; but obviously the Railway Administration endeavours to obtain the best terms possible when a guarantee is given for the building of a certain railway line.

The hon. member stated that no indication is given of any other traffic that will be transported over this line; that is correct. We have no indication at the present time of any other traffic. At the present stage this line will exclusively serve the Afrikander mines and will be exclusively used for the purpose of conveying coal and equipment and requirements for the mine. According to the Report of the Railway Board, paragraph 2, 3,000,000 tons of coal will be the eventual production of the mine. If the hon. member reads paragraph 3 of the Railway Board’s Report he will see that the company has indicated that there are deposits of at least 300,000,000 tons of bituminous coal and 10,000,000 tons of anthracite in the area, in which it holds an interest and which is to be served by the proposed line. The anticipated volume of traffic eventually will be 3,000,000 tons of coal (forwarded traffic) and received traffic 27,500 tons of timber mining material (general traffic). At the beginning, of course, there will probably be a loss on the working of the line. This company would still have to sink shafts and they are producing in a small way now but the production will have to be extended. But the eventual production will be the amount stipulated in the board’s report.

How long will it take?

That depends on the company itself. I cannot say how long they are going to take; they have to find markets and they have to mine the coal. It is entirely up to the company as to when they come into full production, but when they are in full production the hon. member will see that it will be a very profitable line. There will be an estimated surplus of R428,000 per year on the working of the line.

Provided they sell all the coal.

Provided they sell all the coal, but the Railway Administration, of course, is covered by the guarantee for 30 years.

The hon. member wanted to know how the route was decided upon. Well, there are topographical reasons for the route; a certain grade has to be maintained and the shortest route must be adopted because the guarantor also has some say. The longer the route the higher the operating costs. The line will run parallel to the present line for about 3½ miles and it will actually be in the nature of a double line to that extent. It is possible that a junction could have been made between Dryden and Delmas but engineers decided that Delmas should be the junction, for various reasons— topographical and other reasons.

If you are going to use the three-and-a-half-mile section as a double line you will be using it for Witbank traffic as well.

No, it will not be a double line on that basis. If the hon. member looks at the map he will see that it is a line running parallel to the present line. I say it is in the nature of a double line because we will utilize the same electric masts for wiring that line for three-and-a-half miles and that will save costs.

The hon. member wanted to know the way in which terminal charges are raised. There will be very little terminal charges here. The mine is responsible for the loading of the trucks and the traffic will pass through Delmas, probably to the Witwatersrand. Then he wanted to know what the estimate in regard to the amount of coal that will be available is based. It is based on the figures given to us by the mine. They are the only people who know what their eventual production will be and we will have to accept that figure.

. Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

When this Bill was tabled it was originally expected that we would be given a Bill designed to develop the film industry in South Africa and possibly to establish a great film industry in South Africa which we know from our own observations and we are assured by experts is a very suitable country, because of its climatic conditions, for the production of films for entertainment purposes. I fully expected that on a perusal of the Bill we would find that such facilities were being created with the assistance of the Government to promote the development of such an industry. But after closer examination of the Bill and having listened to the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister it is difficult to determine precisely what the principle of the Bill is, because the Minister said nothing at all in his introductory speech about the possible development of the film industry in our country. He did indicate that it was visualized that the board which it is proposed to set up will use private film-producing houses for the production of films required by the State or by the board as a fillip to the development of this industry, but he did not say a single word in regard to the development of this industry as such. Sir, what does the Bill do? It establishes a board but in the first instance no provision is made for this board to be representative of persons with a knowledge of the production and distribution of films. This board will be constituted in the main of State officials and other persons nominated by the Minister who are expected to have certain qualifications, people like the Chairman of the Broadcasting Corporation, a person representing the arts and somebody representing industry. No representation is given at all to our small film industry in this country and to the fairly large film distribution industry. This board will be able to acquire films for distribution and exhibition; it will be able to make films which it can then distribute or exhibit, but, it is a board which will do these things with certain specific objects, the most important of which appears to be to depict the policies of the Government in as favourable a light as possible, not only with a view to doing persuasive work amongst the peoples of other countries but also with a view to the indoctrination—and I use that word advisedly —and education of our own population. Sir, in order to ensure that the board will do this as effectively as possible, and that there will be no conflict of interpretation of the South African scene, the South African scene of our multi-racial society, the South African scene of people’s predetermined pattern of living according to Government policies, this Bill establishes the further principle that all Government activities in regard to the production of films by any one of the State Departments, whether it is the State Information Office whose main object should be to distribute films about South Africa, and is done on television screens abroad and elsewhere, or whether it is the Department of Bantu Affairs which uses films to educate the Native population in regard to soil conservation, etc., whether it is the Department of Agriculture which uses films in certain technical fields to educate farmers in regard to the servicing of their machines, etc., or whether it is the Department of Education which under the provincial authorities produces films for educational purposes, all these activities in regard to the making of films or the taking of photographs will now be channelled through this board which will be the sole arbiter, unless in terms of Clause 11 the Minister gives special permission that an exception may be made. In this regard he has to give his personal permission. I think the wording of Clause 11 is quite clear in that regard; the Minister agrees that that is so. Generally therefore as far as this Bill is concerned nothing is left to chance at all that any wrong interpretation may be placed on Government policy, because all films produced by Government Departments must be channelled through this board. It is interesting to note that the most important members of the board will be those whose responsibility it is to see that Government policy is carried out—the Secretary for Information, the Secretary for Education and so on. The most important people on the board will be the heads of Government Departments and also of course the head of the S.A.B.C. Sir, when I read these objects as set out in Clause 9 of the Bill, I am reminded of these words: “The cinema is the greatest means of mass agitation. If I could control the medium of motion pictures I would need nothing else in order to convert the entire world to Communism.” Those words were spoken by Joseph Stalin. It seems clear therefore that if this Bill is approved in its present form the Government will have completed their task, because they have their Education Advisory Council; they have their Publications and Entertainments Bill; we know the influence of the S.A.B.C., and the last remaining medium of reaching the public mind, that is to say through the medium of films, will now be closed. I do not think it can be disputed, when one looks at the Bill objectively and when one examines the powers of the board in Clause 10, that this Film Board will in fact be a policy board, in the sense that it will promote the production of films which conform 100 per cent to the policies of the Government. In other words, the South African scene, through the medium of films produced by this board, will be viewed entirely through the eyes of the Government.

Before dealing with certain other aspects of the Bill I would like to say a word or two in regard to the possibility of developing a film industry in South Africa. According to Clause 9 (c) one of the objects of the board is the promotion and development of the cinematograph industry and of photography in the Republic. The picture which the Minister gave us was that this was a Bill which was designed entirely to co-ordinate State film activities. I would like to ask the Minister whether that provision was included in the object of the board with a view to developing a film industry in South Africa? Is the object that the board should establish conditions in our country which will attract other film interests with a view to the establishment of a large film industry in South Africa, not only for the production of documentary films but also for the production of films for entertainment purposes? We have at present a very famous studio on location in our country under conditions which are described in Press reports as being most suitable for the production of films of that particular nature. I put that question to the hon. the Minister because he said nothing at all in his introductory speech as to what he envisages in regard to the board’s activities in this regard.

That, Sir, is the impression which this Bill makes on one when its provisions are examined in conjunction with the statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Sir, the Minister has outlined the history of the development of film units in certain Departments which to-day operate in the main as State film units under the Department of Education. The main purpose of the State film unit is undoubtedly to produce films for educational purposes at the request of the various provincial authorities. In the main the Minister justifies the introduction of this Bill on the recommendations of an inter-departmental committee which was established some eight years ago, namely in 1955, under Dr. F. J. de Villers. As far as I am aware no member of this House has been apprised of the contents of the report of this inter-departmental committee on whose findings the Minister bases the introduction of this Bill. I think Parliament can hardly be expected to pass important legislation such as this which envisages something new for the future, without at least being given the findings upon which the de Villiers Committee based its report. I would remind you, Sir, that this committee sat eight years ago, and I need hardly remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that on former occasions when we on this side of the House have asked for the tabling of departmental reports we have always been told that it is a private departmental matter and that it has nothing to do with this House. As far as I am aware that particular report has never been tabled in this House. I think it is hardly fair on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister to ask us to approve of such an important measure, which has such wide implications, without our knowing the reasons on which the de Villers Committee based its conclusions. If it is necessary for the sake of economy to amalgamate the film activities of the respective Government Departments, then I think that could be done administratively without resorting to legislation of this kind. These films could still be produced by a central film unit of a State film unit, with each Department directing the activities in so far as the films required by that Department are concerned. But the Minister made it clear in his speech that the main function of the board will be to act as a channel for the production of films. There can be no doubt therefore that judging by the constitution of the board as provided for in Clause 2, it will direct the policy and decide on the slant and the method of presentation of each film for which it will be responsible. It will ensure that there will be no conflict of viewpoints and that all films produced by the Government will conform to the views of the State Information Office or the views of the Minister of Information or the views of the Government. It will ensure that there will be absolutely no conflict at all.

Then I want to comment on certain other aspects of the Bill. Clause 10 (h) provides that one of the powers of the board will be to provide an information service in regard to films and activities relating thereto. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what is envisaged there. Members of the public are already kept fully informed through the medium of the Press in regard to films produced for entertainment purposes or in the form of documentaries. The Minister of Information goes to great lengths to inform the public of South Africa what films or documentaries he has produced. He goes to great lengths to get them distributed internally. In fact most periodicals and newspapers have a film page. They provide this information not only as a service to their readers but because they know that the readers take a great interest in films. Most of the information which is supplied to the newspapers is supplied by the various distributors, mostly through the production houses. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what sort of additional information this board is expected to make available to the general public. Then in regard to Clause 10 (k) the board is empowered to advise the Minister in regard to any matter affecting films or photographs which the Minister may refer to it or in respect of which the board feels that it is incumbent upon it to advise the Minister. Sir, this appears to me to be an extraordinary provision. We know that already the Minister is a court of appeal as far as the censoring of films is concerned; he is the only court of appeal. We know that if the Censor Board rejects a film an appeal can be lodged to the Minister and he can then exercise his discretion, as he did recently in regard to one particular film, as to whether he is going to allow the film to be exhibited. Are we now to assume from the insertion of this provision that the Film Board is going to be a sort of super board and that when the Minister is in doubt or receives an appeal from a decision of the Censor Board, he will be entitled to take that appeal to this Film Board and say, “Look, I am in doubt; I want you to advise me whether I should uphold the appeal or reject it”? I would like to know from the Deputy Minister what he envisages in that regard. Then, Sir, the powers of the board in Clause 10 refer almost exclusively to the object outlined in Clause 9 (b) and outlined in great detail by the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech. No emphasis has been placed at all on the development of a film industry as envisaged in Clause 9 (c). I repeat, Sir, this is surely one of the most important aspects of the Bill in which the film production industry in this country should be fully consulted.

The hon. the Minister dealt with two other important aspects in his speech. He indicated that great difficulty was experienced in the past to achieve adequate distribution of Government films. He said that this board would not only concern itself with the distribution of Government-produced films internally but that it would also concern itself with the distribution of Government films in other countries. Sir, we know what the existing situation is. We know as regards the development of educational films we have a very effective and wide distribution. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister of Information has consulted with the hon. the Minister. Because as I understand from the report of the hon. the Minister of Information he has apparently very little difficulty in achieving a wide distribution of his films through the medium of television and otherwise. Is this board now going to take over those functions? What methods will be used? I raise all these issues, because it is clear that there are several principles involved in this Bill. Important aspects arise in different directions. It appears from the little evidence given to us in the Minister’s speech that a Bill of this nature certainly needs much more careful consideration and a great deal more investigation. Wide interests are affected; provincial authorities are affected; numbers of statutory boards are affected; different Government Departments are affected; there is the question of the constitution of the board itself; there are the objects and the powers of the board. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter which can hurriedly be passed by this House on the mere summary introduction of a Bill at this late stage of the Session. I submit that a Bill of this nature, involving such wide and important issues, and in view of the importance of the film as a medium of influencing people, without any outside control, but purely under the direction of the Minister, requires far wider investigation. I therefore propose to move—

I second.

It was interesting to listen to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). It was interesting only in this sense that once again we had nothing but a stream of negative criticism and little in the way of constructive criticism from him. Even the fine things which may flow from this Bill were overlooked by him. He could only see one thing and that is the possibility of indoctrination of our own population. I want to ask the hon. member whether he can mention the name of a single film made by a Government Department or by a State-aided organization to which he can object on the ground that it seeks to indoctrinate our people. According to the hon. member the State is to have no share in the process of making South Africa known to the outside world. Any other body, however, as we saw recently, is at liberty to come to South Africa, to make whatever films they like and to represent South Africa in a distorted light. Any other person may do so but the State is not allowed to take an interest in this matter. The hon. member’s complaint is that we want to canalize everything into one stream. Most of this work has been done in the past by different Government Departments. It has always been in the hands of the State. But now that we want to bring about better co-ordination and expand the State’s activities the hon. member sees all sorts of ghosts. I think we should rather leave him in the company of those ghosts and see whether with this Bill we can build up something positive and good for South Africa.

We know that films as media of entertainment, information, guidance, education and training play a very important role in the world to-day. It is only right therefore that at some time or other the State should intervene and give its attention to this important medium. Attention is being given to all other media for the purposes which I have mentioned here, and attention should also be given therefore to the use of films, as a medium. It has been found in most countries that it is necessary for the State to intervene in the film industries of those countries. Where there is a well-established film industry in the country, the State has often made use of the service of the film-producing organizations, with or without monetary support from the State, for the production of the films it requires. In all countries where this matter has received attention provision has been made for the closest co-operation between the trade and the State as far as the production and the distribution of films are concerned. The State sees to it that a large portion of film-producing is undertaken by the trade, and in that way— and this is important—the State contributes to the development of a strong and sound film industry in the country.

The need for a national film organization which is charged with the production and distribution of State films was felt many years ago in many other countries. In countries like Canada and Australia such an organization plays an important role in making the country known to its own population and to the outside world. In Britain, Italy, France and Sweden, ample use is made of films in their information service and in educating all strata of the population. But in those countries which all have a well-developed film industry, the production and distribution of State films are undertaken by the trade. Perhaps we should take some notice of what is being done in a few of these countries, and here I want to refer to Britain. In Britain the production of State films is the responsibility of the Film Division of the Central Office of Information, which is more or less equivalent to our Information Department. The Film Division negotiates with film companies for the production of State films. It occasionally happens that companies manufacture films on their own initiative but those films then become the property of the Central Office of Information; they are bought by this organization together with the rights of distribution. The British Government votes the funds to meet the cost of this service. During 1955-6, for example, a sum of £102,300 was voted for this purpose. The Central Office of Information does not undertake the exhibition of films; the Central Film Library, a branch of the Central Office of Information, leases or sells copies of films for commercial and non-commercial distribution.

In Italy all State films are produced by one of the four large news or documentary film companies. The film then becomes the property of the company which produces it and the company also receives 3 per cent of all moneys earned by the film. The State also makes a considerable contribution to the costs of production. It stands to reason that it is in the interests of the producer to see to it that such a film is widely distributed. Without going into details I also want to mention one point in connection with France for example, where there is a quota system governing the exhibition of French and foreign films. French film programmes have to be exhibited for five weeks in every quarter. The French National Cinema Centre, under whose supervision films are produced, has at its disposal a fund which was set up to provide financial assistance to film producers whose product is of a high quality, whose product will increase the prestige of France in the outside world and through whose product they can perhaps earn good money in the overseas film market.

We find that Canada and Australia have similar film boards. It is interesting to note that the Film Board in Canada is constituted very much on the lines provided for in this Bill. It is also interesting to note that in 1955 there were no fewer than 567 officials in the employ of the National Film Board of Canada, a fact which indicates that this is a large organization to which great importance is attached by these people.

In South Africa the State film production division has expanded and grown over the past few years into a well-equipped film division with modern equipment at its disposal. The demand for films, particularly for internal and overseas exhibition by the various Government Departments and State-aided bodies, has increased to such an extent in recent times that the production facilities have become quite inadequate. As the hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out yesterday, various Government Departments have tended to call into being their own production units, but these separate small units will lead to a waste of manpower, a waste of public funds and unnecessary duplication. The limited production facilities have also given rise already to discord amongst Government Departments. There is little co-ordination between the film-producing activities of the various Government Departments and organizations, and this lack of coordination complicates the exchange of knowledge, of ideas and of film material. These various small units cannot possibly keep pace with technical developments, nor with the changing taste of the public. In the result the quality of the work necessarily suffers.

Up to the present time the distribution of State films through the ordinary channels has really taken place on a sporadic basis, and the Departments have experienced considerable difficulty in connection with the noncommercial exhibition of films which have not been produced by a certain commercial company. The State can only achieve its object as far as publicity and information films are concerned if they are exhibited by the commercial theatres and thus reach the broad masses of the public. Without the hearty co-operation of the production companies and agencies, the theatres would not be available for the exhibition of films which are produced by the State in competition with private undertakings. This co-operation can be obtained by allowing the trade to produce and to use a reasonable quota of the State’s films. Unfortunately the State cannot be entirely dependent on the trade because after all as far as these matters are concerned the State has to control the prices of its films and in many respects it also has to lay down the standard. The State can make use of these channels, and in addition to that it must have a well-equipped production unit at its disposal.

This Bill will now serve as an instrument to achieve these things to which I have just referred. It will now be possible to co-ordinate and to supplement the State’s film-producing activities. Films which cannot be produced economically by the trade can be made by this unit, particularly where it is necessary to lay down standards and to give a lead. The exhibition and distribution should be undertaken as far as possible by the trade and through the existing channels. In that way, by providing good films, we should be able to reach those strata of our population whom we would like to reach.

Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister explained the objects of this Film Board. I do not want to refer to every one of them, but there is one specific object to which I want to give a little attention. I refer to the division which will have to preserve material of cultural and historical value for us. We must remember that the older films particularly consist of material which very easily disintegrates. With every passing minute some of this valuable material is destroyed and becomes irretrievably lost. In view of the fact that a considerable time will still have to elapse before we can make use of the instrument which is being placed in our hands by means of this Bill, it will perhaps be necessary for us to act immediately to obviate the destruction of a great deal of very scarce authentic material, and one wonders whether the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot immediately, in some way or other, cause a survey to be made of all such material. Once we have made a survey of the available material, I wonder whether methods cannot be devised to gather such material immediately for preservation. Furthermore, the Department should immediately perhaps make available funds to restore these films in some way or another. Mr. Speaker, as you know, it will cost a great deal of money to restore some of these very old films, and the longer we wait the more it may cost us to do so. I think we have the machinery in the Department of the hon. the Deputy Minister to have a portion of this work done for us immediately. The State film production division, as well as the audio-visual division of the Department, could perhaps make a start with this sub-division immediately. I regard this work as very important because if weeks and months are still going to elapse before anything is done, we are going to suffer great damage in connection with this material which in fact is very scarce in our country. It is gratifying to see in the newspapers—I think it appeared in this morning’s newspapers —how the public has already reacted; people have already offered and handed over to the Minister material for preservation. If we set to work immediately and do these things which I have suggested might be done by the Department at this stage already, we may be able to arouse the interest of the public further and induce members of the public to let us have such material immediately so that it can be put away for preservation.

As far as I personally am concerned I am very pleased that we have this Bill before us. This Bill contains some excellent provisions. Let us forget what hon. members over there said about indoctrination and so on. We shall be proud to preserve the past of South Africa in this way and to exhibit South Africa and the South African way of life and those fine things which the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned yesterday, to our own people and to the outside world.

I just want to make a few remarks in regard to the motion by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. In the first place I want to express my dissatisfaction that the hon. the Deputy Minister did not publish this Bill some time ago for the information of the public and this House. In the case of most members on this side, in view of the fact that we had a long week-end, this Bill was only brought to our attention yesterday. I do not think that is fair towards this House; it is particularly not fair towards the Opposition to introduce legislation in this House and to expect us to study, discuss and dispose of it within a day or two. I do not think that is the way in which Parliament should be treated and unfortunately this sort of thing is happening only too often these days.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

There was no time whatsoever, for example, to get in touch with those interests which are going to be affected by this Bill. One of the interests, for example, which will be affected are the Provincial Administrations. There was no time to obtain their views. Nor was there any time for the Opposition to study legislation of a similar nature which already exists in overseas countries in order to see whether we could not come forward with the best possible Bill. I think for these reasons alone the hon. the Deputy Minister ought to agree to it that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. From a hurried study of this Bill it appears that the first part deals with the co-ordination, or centralization, of the domestic activities of the State in the field of films and photography. I personally believe that anything that will assist to eliminate wastage of money and duplication in the Civil Service and in improving the standard of production deserves to be supported. I do not think, therefore, that there is any justification to object to this aspect of the Bill. But even so, Mr. Speaker, one would like to go into the question whether the way to deal with this matter, as proposed in this Bill, is the best possible way.

The second part of the Bill deals with the acquisition and the preservation of films on an archival basis. I have no doubt about it that we in South Africa have in the past probably been neglectful as far as the preservation of valuable films of an historical nature is concerned. I had the pleasure of seeing the film festival here in the South African Museum and I must say that the country ought to be grateful to Mr. Pieter Germishuys for the enthusiasm with which he has built up a sort of private archives and for preserving, on his own responsibility as it were, valuable material for the country. I do think this is a matter which the State ought to tackle. They are showing old films of Cape Town, the life in Johannesburg, at the film festival here in Cape Town; there are pictures from the Anglo-Boer War and of President Kruger and of South Africa’s participation in the First and Second World Wars and of the various Prime Ministers of South Africa. Unfortunately many of these films have been damaged because they have never been properly preserved under archival conditions. The feeling with which I left was one of pleasure for having seen it but my main feeling was one of sorrow because of all the valuable material which must certainly have got lost over the years because this matter has been neglected. I am not a technician but as far as I understand the position the material from which films are made perishes very easily and that it eventually assumes a form where it can explode. This has indeed also been the reason for explosions in libraries. This is the reason why various valuable films have already had to be destroyed. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, whether this Bill is passed or not, and he has indicated that it will in any case take a year before the Film Board comes into operation, that the Government should consider taking suitable steps immediately to make the necessary funds available to acquire material which is scattered all over unexpected places in the country and to preserve it under proper conditions.

We had the interesting report in the newspaper this morning that the Minister had come into possession of films about the Graaff family, pictures of the Leader of the Opposition in his young days. We are, of course, pleased that he has realized that that is material from which Prime Ministers are made and that he is timeously preserving what is available.

Order! I think the hon. member is now going a bit too far.

This is perhaps a matter of opinion, Mr. Speaker. I think, as far as this aspect of the Bill is concerned, it is something constructive and that there can be no objection to the Minister taking immediate steps to acquire and preserve that which is of historical value to South Africa.

The third main objective of the Bill is to acquire, produce, exhibit and distribute, both locally and overseas films of a propaganda nature. That will include films to promote tourism, films of an educational nature, films that can be used for recruitment purposes and films which will promote road safety, research, etc. Let me say this, that in so far as attempts are made to encourage a South African film industry it is obvious that we as a young country cannot compete, on the basis of private initiative alone, with the old producing countries like America and Britain. It is obvious that there can be no objection to anything which the State does on its part to promote this industry. Certain aspects of the Bill do, however, give rise to uncertainty. As the Bill reads at the moment, it leaves the door wide open, for example, for the Film Board to be used by the Government in the same way as the Broadcasting Corporation is used. The possibility exists. [Interjections.] If the hon. member feels unhappy about it, he must blame the Government for having converted a body like the Broadcasting Corporation into something which causes doubts in the minds of the public and that for that reason there are certain qualms that it will make precisely the same use of the Film Board as it is making of the Broadcasting Corporation, namely, to use it for propaganda purposes internally. You need only read Clause 9, Sir, to realize that the door is wide open for that to happen. If you read Clause 10 (o) in conjunction with that you realize that the board will be able “to do everything which can be regarded as complementing and promoting the objects of the board even though it is not specifically mentioned herein”, I say, as it stands at the moment, the door is wide open for party political abuses. I must say that I personally have no fears whatsoever that it will be used in that way; I personally am not afraid of that. Recently we have seen the Governments of so many states making use of the film, the radio, etc., for their own purposes, to keep themselves in power, but in the long run it has depended on the quality of their system whether they succeeded or not. I am not afraid, therefore, of the use the Government may make of this board because I am sure its system must eventually fall down even though it resorts to all means at its disposal.

Order! The hon. member must not bring in all sorts of extraneous matters.

I feel that unless the hon. the Deputy Minister can reassure this side of the House, unless he can embody guarantees in the Act, it will be difficult for the Opposition to assist it to do something about which the Opposition has fears. For the few reasons I have mentioned, I think there is sufficient reason why this Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, as well as the speaker before him, adopted the view that this commendable and laudable effort on the part of the Government must once again be made suspect immediately with everyone who will be concerned with it, and that it should be labelled in advance as another propaganda machine of the Government. I think it is disgraceful that the Opposition in their approach to the matter should be so pusillanimous as to see the matter in that light. I want at once to point out to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) the most illogical point in his arguments. He is usually known as a person who argues logically in this House. He started his speech by saying that he had paid a visit to the exhibition of the Institute and that he had come away thinking that there was much interesting material, but that he at the same time felt sad to think how much of this material has already been lost and how much of it is being lost daily. Now that the Minister wants to establish a board to prevent more films being lost, he for his part proposes that the matter be shelved and that it be referred to a Select Committee which could deliberate on it for months, and then legislation will be put before us again next year only. Where is the logic? In other words, his so-called plea that we should act at once is immediately refuted when he tries to make political propaganda by proposing that it be referred to a Select Committee. In the meantime still even more material will be lost, and that shows he is not sincere at all in his concern about the matter.

What is the hurry?

The hurry, according to that hon. member and anybody who knows something about these matters, is because we know that those films can daily deteriorate and perish. Hon. members are apparently concerned about that. That is the impression they want to create outside and in the meantime they are trying to make political capital out of the matter, as they do in connection with so many other things. I think it is a disgrace to use this matter for that purpose.

The second argument of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is that this board could be used for party political purposes. Now I ask the hon. member specifically to read Clause 9, point by point, from top to bottom, and then to show me a single point that will create party political possibilities. But the hon. member immediately infers that the objects of this body are such that it could be used for party political purposes. I reject that with the contempt it deserves. The hon. member was asked to make a speech on the matter and to make political capital out of it, and because he was unable to say anything in this regard, he constantly went off at a tangent, as you, Mr. Speaker, rightly pointed out to him.

I return to the attitude of the hon. member for Turffontein that the board is so constituted and that the co-ordination is achieved in such a manner, as regards the various departmental heads and whosoever may be on it, that there can be no possible conflict—if I construe his words correctly—that there can be no possibility of a misrepresentation of Government policy. That was his argument. Now I ask the hon. member with due respect: Does he want Government policy to be misrepresented? Should there not be co-ordination to eliminate misrepresentations? Does he want the various Departments to contradict one another, that conflicts should ensue? What does he hope to achieve by that? Surely we want to present things in their proper light? Why does he find fault with the efforts that are being made to eliminate misrepresentations? In other words, the argument of the hon. member is that any misrepresentations of the policy of the Government should be spread abroad, because he condemns the methods we now wish to adopt in order to obviate such conflicts. It is a strange phenomenon to me that the Opposition view this whole matter in this light, that party political propaganda can be made out of it.

The main object of the Bill, as I see it, is to establish a National Film Board, as reflected in Clause 2. Then in Clause 3, which I also should like to discuss, we come to the constitution of the board; in Clause 9 we find the objects, and in Clause 10 the powers of the board. Before I deal with the establishment of the board as such, I should just like to point out that State Film Productions have already been in existence for some time under the Department of Education, Arts and Science, but because its funds were limited, that service could not possibly meet the needs of the various Departments of State that required films for various purposes. For that reason it has from the nature of things become necessary and the time has arrived that this Film Board should be established. As it was, Departments of State continued to make films on their own with their own funds, films which suited their own specific requirements because State Film Productions could not provide everything that was required. The result was the automatic duplication one found. That was obviously inevitable. There were separate units that acquired expensive apparatus to enable them to film certain things, and not only was there duplication, but also tremendously high costs as a result, and that consequently led to our not having effective and proper arrangements in this regard. This of course is not a new idea. As long ago as 1947, under the regime of the United Party, this whole matter was inquired into under the chairmanship of John Grierson, and a report was submitted in connection with this whole matter. In 1955 the matter was again referred to an inter-departmental committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr. Frans de Villiers, and the recommendations contained in that report have been incorporated in this Bill. As the Minister has stated, the recommendations contained in that report have more or less been given effect to. It appeared from the report, in the first place, that the film service of the Department of Education, Arts and Science was unable to meet the full needs of the State and the whole machinery of Government, and secondly that the Departments had themselves begun to make films which, in consequence of their individual efforts, proved to be very expensive and sometimes led to waste. Thirdly, it was found that a complete lack of facilities existed for the distribution of State films; and fourthly, it was deemed to be in the interests of the State that some of the films should be made in the private sector. That was more or less the tenor of the de Villiers Commission’s report, and this Bill gives effect to those recommendations.

At the outset I wish to deal with the constitution of the Film Board. In terms of Clause 3, the board will consist of the following members: A chairman appointed by the Minister; the Secretary of Education, Arts and Science, the Secretary of Commerce and Industries, the Secretary of Information, the Secretary of Tourism or the chairman of the S.A. Boradcasting Corporation. I ask hon. members opposite whether they have any objections to any of these persons. They are all persons who are concerned with film production through the Departments of State of which they are the heads, as well as with the distribution of films which they require every day; and who are in all respects concerned in this matter. Then there are five additional members appointed by the Minister, who will also, according to paragraph (c) of the clause, represent specific interests. There is even this provision, that one of them shall have knowledge of and interest in religion and social welfare; one shall have knowledge of and interest in art and culture, and one shall be a person connected with the public Press. It has been put as broadly as possible, and it embraces people who are interested in and are concerned with this matter of the exhibition of films as such. The aim, as far as the constitution of the board was concerned, was obviously to make it as comprehensive as possible and yet to enable it to function effectively so that there might be co-ordination in all respects, and that the board should be in full agreement and that there should not be discord, and so that the misrepresentations referred to by the hon. member for Turffontein might be eliminated, in order that we would be able to send abroad a proper picture and not the false representations the hon. member apparently desires.

I come to the next viewpoint, namely that the object is co-ordination. All films will be made by the Film Board, except those in respect of which other arrangements are specifically made on a ministerial level in terms of Clause 11, that is to say, where Ministers mutually agree that films shall be produced by other Departments or by private enterprise. The idea is that the money (I think this is a very good principle) for each Department will be provided in its own Vote, but that this money will be spent by this joint group and then will be utilized in the interests of the specific Departments.

That applies to all Departments.

With the exception of one or two for which provision is made in the Act. The position clearly is that the financing of this board will for the time being be effected by an initial loan of R100,000 to the board. Now I earnestly and sincerely plead that the board should begin operations as soon as possible. It is envisaged by the Minister that this amount of R100,000 will be available next year only and that the board will only be able to start functioning next year. I should like to make an earnest appeal to the Minister and to this House to see whether it is possible to make available at this stage already a sum of money, even if it is a small nominal sum, to enable this Film Board to be established as soon as possible so that an immediate start can be made with preserving and protecting this valuable national asset for us. I understand the position regarding funds, but I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that from hour to hour valuable film treasures are being lost as a result of the fact that they are not taken care of and preserved in the proper manner. Valuable films are lying around in many places and are being lost to the nation and to posterity. Can we not eliminate this delay of a year by means of a nominal amount to be provided now, so that the Film Board may be appointed as soon as possible and so that they can begin storing and collecting films immediately?

I should like to say something further about the objects of the board as reflected in Clause 9 of the Bill. We firstly find “co-ordination of the activities of the State relating to cinematograph films and photographs”, secondly, “the acquisition, production, exhibition, distribution and making available of cinematograph films and photographs”. In this one object we have already summarized the crux of the matter, as well as interpreted the crux of the recommendations of the de Villiers Commission. In the first place, the acquisition of films which at the present time are spread all over the country, secondly, the making of films, and thirdly, the exhibition and distribution of films. The requisite apparatus will have to be created for distribution, because nothing of that nature has existed before. In other words, in this object clause of the Bill we find a very clear picture of an attempt to give effect to the recommendations of the de Villiers Commission. If we read this list of objects further—I just want to mention a few —then we find under (vi), “recording historical or unique events”. What a wonderful asset it will be for us to be able to record on a film historical events in our national history, and then preserve them for all time and for successive generations. How many valuable opportunities have not passed already that could have been unique if we had only been able to preserve them for posterity in the form of films? For instance, for the first time in many years the opening of Parliament was filmed this year. In a few years it will be history. But the hon. members of the Opposition come forward with all kinds of misgivings and view it as if we want to use it for political purposes. To history teachers, to history research men, to scholars and students of history, these films will be invaluable in giving the people the proper picture, because a visual image educationally also makes a more permanent impression than any auditory image or the written word. The fact that you see it moving, in whatever form it may be, is immediately a much more cogent means of bringing home knowledge. The next item is “which can be utilized as educational aids”. Our entire system of education is developing in the modern direction of films, and towards films being used in the service of education. The Opposition pleads daily that we should introduce television because it has such a tremendous educational value, but when we want to produce films which we can really control, which we can really supervise and ensure that they are good films, and which will definitely be educational, whereby we can achieve something for our children, which could be exhibited on specific occasions by certain organizations or what have you, then it is proposed that the matter be shelved by referring it to a Select Committee. It is said that there is no hurry. But television must be introduced here in South Africa to-morrow, without investigation. I think the whole approach of the Opposition is merely to see whether they cannot make a little party political propaganda out of the issue. I shall not deal further with the objects, because I think they are clear enough.

I come to the powers of this board which is to be established under Clause 10. The powers of the board have been set out very specifically there, and I merely wish to refer to a few. In the first place I should like to mention the fulfilment of the object I have already mentioned, namely to acquire cinematograph films of archival value, and to preserve and adapt them. I was present at the opening night of the exhibition of the Film Institute, at the exhibition at the Museum, and there we saw films of particular interest to us, particularly from the point of view of archival value. I am thinking more particularly of films on the life of President Kruger, for instance, films taken in those days. Personally I was not even aware that there already were films in those days, and it was quite a revelation to me to see those films. Then under (h) we find, “to provide an information service in regard to cinematograph films and photographs and activities in relation thereto”. Now I should like to ask the Opposition whether they have any objection to the films the Information Service annually produces and exhibits here being shown to the outside world so that it can see what South Africa is like. Thus far there has been only the highest praise for those films. By means of those films we are trying to present a true picture of South Africa internally and externally to the world. By means of these films the Government is making an attempt to try to refute the untruths and falsehoods disseminated about South Africa in overseas countries. This must now be co-ordinated and consolidated, and for that reason we have this co-ordinated effort in the Bill. But the Opposition persists in thinking that the matter should be shelved: First a Select Committee, and then may be legislation next year. I should like to say that we are not concerned with a party political matter here, but with presenting South Africa very clearly in overseas countries, and to co-ordinate that which we hold dear.

Why was it not introduced sooner? Why was the matter delayed for so many years if it is so important?

The position is that it can now be established, but now the hon. members are trying to put a spoke in the wheels. In conclusion I should like to express one thought, and ask the Minister to consider it, and that is to give this Film Board the power as well—I am not sure whether it will have this power—to purchase films that have already been made by private persons in connection with certain matters. We frequently find people who are technically skilled and who have taken beautiful films of our fauna and our birds, for instance, or even historical films. Can those films be purchased and preserved in the interests of the country?

I think we are dealing here with a Bill all of us ought to welcome, which every right-minded South African ought to welcome, and it is in the true interests of the country that we should pass it as soon as possible, and that there should be no attempts to apply delaying tactics.

I too am surprised at the unnecessary haste in regard to this Bill, and I support the proposal that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading. During this Session we have already had three instances of Bills being introduced and then being withdrawn. That shows what can happen when there is undue haste in regard to legislation. The same thing may possibly happen with this particular Bill.

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) covered his speech with a smokescreen, and that smokescreen was that one of the main objects of this Bill was to preserve historical cinematograph films for posterity. We on this side of course have not the slightest objection to the preservation of such historical films, but is it necessary to appoint an enormous board of 12 persons which will cost thousands of rand per annum, for the preservation thereof? Why cannot our existing ordinary archives which already have excellent buildings in all parts of the country be entrusted to look after such films? By voting more funds for them, we could enable them to do so. A small amendment to the Archives Act may be necessary so that they may preserve particular films. For the purpose as defined by the hon. member, a Bill such as this is quite unnecessary. There is even the existing Film Institute which could be helped to preserve films of that kind. As has been said, we quite agree that such films should be preserved.

The hon. member for Randfontein argued, as one of the reasons for this Bill, that it will eliminate misrepresentations in films on South Africa. But now I ask the hon. member: This Bill is there to co-ordinate films issued by Departments of State. Would he please tell us where there have been misrepresentations in the past by Departments of State, which have caused him so much concern? Which Department was guilty of such misrepresentations? Or is it only one more instance of a new bureaucracy being created with greater powers for one particular Minister? A third significant expression used by the hon. member for Randfontein was this—and I think there he disclosed one of the objects of the Bill—that we wish to make films for television which we really can control.

I never said that.

I shall appreciate it if I may check the hon. member’s speech in Hansard later. He used the word “kontroleer”.

I come to the Bill itself. My objection to this Bill is that we are here creating a bureaucratic body, a new body with widespread and extensive powers which are in my opinion completely unnecessary under present circumstances. There already are in existence other bodies which can do the most important part of this board’s work. The hon. member for Randfontein gave us an indication of how it is likely to develop when he said that a similar body in Canada already has a staff of nearly 600 members. Can you imagine our having another bureaucratic body with approximately 600 members? Then I should like to add that the Canadian board in no way has the extensive powers this Film Board of ours will have, as will be shown by one of the other speakers.

The hon. the Minister in his speech yesterday emphasized the parts of this Bill that are not contentious. We agree with that. The idea of relics being preserved, the idea of superfluous overlapping being eliminated—we agree with those objects, but I do not agree that we require this Bill and this Film Board for that. That is why it is necessary that many questions should be solved in connection with such a Bill, and it is imperative that it be referred to a special Select Committee before the second reading.

It is said that overlapping will be eliminated by this Bill. It is interesting, however, to note that this Bill specifically excludes the South African Railways. In other words, where the greatest degree of overlapping could have occurred, namely in connection with the Railways and its services in relation to the Tourist Bureau, etc., this Bill provides that overlapping is not eliminated. I do not think it is a good thing that any possible measure of overlapping in this regard should be eliminated. I do not think it is necessary, and I do not think a Bill is necessary for that purpose. However, it is interesting to note that there apparently has been discord and that the hon. the Minister of Transport put his foot down, and that he, as far as the Railways was concerned, wishes to be excluded from this Bill. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister of Transport himself why the Railways has been excluded from this Bill. I am sure it was done at his insistence, and we should like to know why he insisted upon it.

When reference is made to overlapping in regard to the various film services of Departments, surely there is one clear answer as to what could in fact be done. There is at the present time a Department, the Department of information, which has been established to make films of this kind. The Department of Information surely is the proper channel through which the overlapping could be eliminated. Why then a Bill like this, creating this new bureaucracy? I am astonished that the hon. the Minister of Information did not put his foot down too, like the hon. the Minister of Transport, and say that he did not want some of the greatest and most important powers of his Department to fall under a Film Board on which he would have only two representatives, namely the Secretary for Tourism and the Secretary for Information, on a board of 12 persons? I can hardly believe it, but I have heard that this Bill is to some extent also the baby of the hon. the Minister of Information. Then I say it is an even greater disgrace that he is prepared to excise such a large slice of the important work of his Department, and to have it performed by a new body. Overlapping could be eliminated administratively. For instance, Treasury circulars could lay down limits in regard to matters in respect of which film units of the various Departments may act. If necessary, legislation could also be introduced, without this far-reaching legislation we have before us now.

I should like very much to hear from the hon. the Minister of Information why he is prepared to surrender a part of his Department to this new Film Board. This Bill states that not even a print of a negative, a diapositive, a colour slide, may be made by another Department of State without the permission of this Film Board. In other words, the Department of Information, which according to its report is going to make available 500,000 photographs next year, locally and overseas, will have to get permission from this Film Board for virtually every photograph of which it makes a print. I cannot see how this will work. You find this in Clause 11 (1), which I regard as one of the most deplorable clauses. It is provided there that unless the Minister otherwise directs, no Department of State shall make any said film without the approval of the Film Board. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Information where he as the Minister of Tourism stands under this Bill. The Department of Tourism, linked to the Department of Information under him, can surely make good films for our tourist industry. Why surrender those powers to this Film Board?

But I come to another matter. I believe that the main object of this Bill is to streamline unilateral Government propaganda, to make it easy for the Government to spread its propaganda internally and externally. The main principles of this Bill are contained in Clauses 9 and 10. Clause 9 contains the objects for which the board is established and Clause 10 sets forth all the powers of the said board. Let us look at the more important provisions in Clause 9. That clause provides that this board may act in regard to the acquisition of films, the making of particular films, the exhibition of particular films and in regard to their distribution. So this board may buy the type of film mentioned in this Bill, but also (in competition with private enterprise) exhibit and distribute them. I do not wish to deal with the fact as such, but I should like to deal with some of the types of films such a board may make in terms of the provisions of Clause 9.

It may make or sell or distribute films furnishing information on the problems and the social evils in South Africa. I say that is a dangerous provision. Not that anybody wishes to promote social evils, or that anyone on this side of the House is in favour of social evils, but those two words “social evils” are words that may be interpreted in an extremely wide manner by this Government and by any other right-thinking person. The Minister has referred to films on road safety that may be exhibited. Possibly films could be shown in regard to the social evil of drunkenness, but will films be made about what they regard as social evils, such as Sunday sport or television, or will they be prepared to produce a film about a social evil such as undernourishment or migrant labour? Clause 9 lays down that films may be made to publicize the work of Government Departments. If it was merely a question of information, we could still understand it, but I can well imagine films being made to present the activities of the Department of Bantu Administration.

Splendid!

Yes, as the hon. member for Ventersdorp says, how splendid that will be, how one-sided!

Order! I do not think the hon. member should pay attention to such interjections.

This Film Board will be able to make historical films, or rather films about historical events. Again I say there is a great difference in interpretation between that side and this side of the House on what may be a historical event in South Africa. I do not wish to mention examples; I shall do so in the Committee Stage, but that is one of the instances where there may be a difference of opinion.

This Bill empowers the Film Board to make known the activities of statutory bodies. Note, not the activities of State Departments or provincial administrations alone, but also those of statutory bodies. The Minister may tell us quite innocently that by that is meant a film on a body such as Iscor or the Land Bank or the Maize Board, but we say there are other statutory bodies which could in fact demand films as a propaganda medium under this Bill. There is one statutory body mentioned three times in this Bill, namely the S.A.B.C. The S.A.B.C. can come along and ask the Film Board to make films for it. That is laid down in Clause 10. In addition, the S.A.B.C. will be the only statutory body having representation on this board, ex officio. The Chairman of the S.A.B.C. is going to be appointed to this board, and I cannot imagine a more ominous appointment than this. I do not wish to go into the particular qualifications of the Chairman of the S.A.B.C. I shall do that also in the Committee Stage. I can merely say here that the appointment will be an ominous one. Why is it provided in Clause 10 that the S.A.B.C. may go to the Film Board and request the board to make films for it? What is the S.A.B.C. going to do with films.

They will be for television.

Will they be films to glorify themselves, or to indicate the evils of television, or is it going to be, as I believe the hon. member for Randfontein partly indicated, to see to it that films for television are made in South Africa also only according to the dictates of the S.A.B.C.? The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs should also enter this debate. I hope he will do so.

Another object of the Bill which has been lauded is that it will promote the development of the film industry in South Africa. Nobody is opposed to the promotion of such a young and vigorous industry as our film industry. That is good, but why have a Bill of this kind? Dramatic art is being promoted by the Department of Education, Arts and Science other than through a special board like this. Why can the Department not also indirectly promote the film industry in another way? If the local film industry then has to be protected in some way, why not apply methods that will give equal protection to all the local film companies? You might ask: What methods? I say, e.g. by reducing or abolishing taxes and exise on films and the apparatus that is required. Then it promotes all companies. But look what may happen now when Clause 9 (d) and Clause 10 (a) are read together! You will see that the objects for the establishment of the board are the provision of photographic services to the S.A.B.C., and 10 (a) says that the board has the power, at the request of the S.A.B.C., to make any film. I say that those two provisions, read together, confer the most extensive powers on this board, and I particularly want those two clauses to be read with Clause 10 (o), which provides that the board may do anything which can be regarded as complementing and promoting the objects of the board, even though it is not specifically mentioned herein. One of the objects which is mentioned, in other words, is the promotion of the film industry, and under 10 (1) the board is empowered to do everything that can be regarded as complementing and promoting this object. One can imagine how such powers could be wrongly used by such a board—I do not wish to use the word “abuse”—when it can do almost anything to encourage the film industry. It means that it may possibly take steps to encourage undesirable or economically unsound film companies here, at great cost to the taxpayers. I have confidence in our film industry. I believe that if the existing film companies were permitted to compete freely with one another, without having to observe the dictates of such a board in making certain pictures the industry would flourish, and all they would need would be a sympathetic Minister of Finance.

The Bill says that the board also has to give advice and guidance and provide technical and other services in connection with the film industry. Again, that sounds good, but I know this Government.

We know you, too.

The kind of advice and guidance that will be provided in relation to the making of films by a board appointed by that hon. Minister is the kind of advice and guidance in which I do not have much confidence. Other services also are going to be provided. We should like the Minister to tell us what other services. Is a kind of “National Actors’ Studio” to be established, which will teach aspirant film stars a new method, the “Nationalist method” in the film industry. [Interjections.] Perhaps the Minister of Coloured Affairs could give us a few lectures on how we should act.

Order! That is irrelevant.

This Bill goes so far as to say that the Film Board may award prizes for films, of course for particular films of the kind referred to in Clause 9. I can see how a film will possibly be made in South Africa to encourage the population to do without their domestic servants, in which the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark could play the leading roles. The Bill provides that the board may make awards. What kind of award? Surely not an Oscar, or will it be an Ox Cart (Oskar)? This board may hold film festivals. I can imagine what kind of festivals they will be. Certainly no Spring Queen or drum majorette will appear there.

Clause 11 is the worst of the lot. It provides that unless the Minister in consultation with the Administrator has determined otherwise, no provincial administration—I emphasize these two words—may without the approval of the board make any films.

Are you scared of Natal now?

Look how the words roll from the lips of that hon. member! He actually says what I partly wanted to say. There are four provinces in South Africa, and at least two of them are making films for the schools. I know, that Natal, amongst other things, produces films of good quality for the schools. But in terms of this Bill Natal will in future not be able to make such films if the Minister does not approve the nature of those films, for remember that no provincial administration may make such films unless the Minister otherwise determines and it can only be done when there is agreement between the parties. In other words, if the Minister puts his foot down, Natal cannot make any films. It appears from a remark that came from that side that my suspicion was correct: “You perhaps are scared of Natal.” Natal can look after itself, but it is our duty to protect any province when its rights are infringed. I think we have the right to ask the Minister: Has there been consultation with the various provinces? After all, important provincial powers are being taken away here. The autonomy of the provinces is being impaired. Was there such consultation, and if so, when and with whom, and what was the nature of the advice given by all the provinces?

If we really want to see how ominous this Bill will be, we should think of the following. The two greatest media for the distribution of knowledge, information and propaganda are, firstly, the Press by means of the written word, and secondly, films. I ask whether anybody in this House would approve of a board called the National Newspaper Board having powers over the publications of the State similar to those this Film Board will have over films of Government Departments? Will hon. members opposite approve of such censorship? If they see it in that light, they will appreciate how dangerous this proposal is.

I ask why cannot this Bill be referred to a Select Committee or to an outside body of experts such as we have had in the past, in regard to other Bills? It was done before the National Education Council and the Publications Board were established. This Film Board may at any time be an equally important body. Why was expert evidence not called for? Why should the opportunity for submitting such evidence to a Select Committee of this House be refused?

We on this side would like to encourage the film industry, but we first want to be satisfied that the present method is the best way. We maintain, secondly, that there are existing departments, organizations and channels, and here I would particularly mention the Department of Information itself, which can do most of the things this Film Board will have to do. Thirdly, we have misgivings that this Film Board is going to have powers which will make it one of the servile ministerial instruments of national propaganda, and fourthly, we have misgivings that it may possibly become a free film service, and a monopolistic one at that, for the S.A.B.C. In view of all these misgivings we are therefore asking the hon. the Minister not to proceed with the Bill, but that he should accept our proposal that it be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading.

Have you ever seen a political spider who could better emulate the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) in extracting poison from a flower than he himself has just done? Where does he read in this Bill that the Government seeks to establish a one-sided streamlined propaganda machine to serve its party political purposes? Those were his words, were they not? If that is not poison extracted by a political spider then I do not know what it is. But there is an old adage: “Let the dogs bark, the caravan moves on,” and as regards the introduction of this Bill, which now for the first time provides in our Statute Book for the co-ordination of the State film industry, it is the moving on of that caravan which will not be hampered in the least by such speeches.

The hon. member has referred to Clause 9 (b) (3) and he says he objects to the fact that information may be furnished in regard to the problems of and social evils in the Republic. By whom must that information then be distributed and those recordings made? By the film producers of the type that is hostile to our nation, and who besmirch our country with their recordings? Is it not better that it should be done under the control of a control board?

By the Department of Information.

Surely it is better that films should be made in this country with singleness of purpose for use in this country and overseas, as well as for preservation for posterity. What alternative does he wish to propose? How would the hon. member draft the clauses to serve the purpose he has in mind in regard to the establishment of a Film Board? No, it is very clear to me that he has been stampeded by the title of this Bill, namely the National Film Board, because he cannot distinguish between “National” in its wider national sense, and the name of the National Party. That has frightened him. Everything that is called national is construed by him as Nationalist in the narrower sense of the party political significance, whereas it is really meant in the broader sense of a comprehensive South African Film Service.

The establishment of a National Film Board is important to me for various reasons. I was interested in it from the beginning, and advocated it here last year. I did not advocate the Film Board as now formulated in this Bill, but I particularly pleaded for the provision now contained in Clause 9 (e) and to which the hon. member now objects so much. The object of the sub-section in question is “the acquisition, preserving, storing, adapting and making available of cinematograph films of archival value”. That is only one of the subsidiary instructions given to the Film Board, and it has been well argued by speakers on this side, so that I shall not repeat their arguments, but I should like to express my thanks that things have eventually developed to this stage of fulfilment. The hon. member particularly objected to this object, and said that if this is the only reason why we should hurry with the Bill and why it cannot be referred to a Select Committee, he appeals to the Minister not to take notice of the insistence of this side of the House. According to him it is of minor importance. He asks why the State Archives cannot be helped indirectly to look for film material, in the same way in which they occupy themselves with the collection of documentary material? He says they can make room for preservation. But it is very clear that special staff is necessary for this special task. Special strongrooms will also have to be built, because film material must be stored under special conditions. It rapidly deteriorates and perishes when the proper degree of moisture and temperature is not present. I visited the State Archives last year and they assured me that they do not have such safe-deposits or strongrooms. Nor do they have the personnel internally and externally to search for and collect old film material and to administer the work; nor does it fall within the scope of their particular duties. That is why it is so essential that it should be done in the proposed manner. I should like the Film Board to give effect to this object first of all, so that there can be no delay, and so that what is still available in the form of old films may be collected and preserved. We are living in the age of the living, moving image and the sound film. There was a time in history when the only manner in which knowledge could be disseminated and propaganda made, was the spoken word. That was followed by the time when people used symbols such as hieroglyphics and Sanskrit as mediums of writing. It was a slow and primitive method of imparting knowledge. Thereafter we had the written word on parchments and in books, followed by the press and the modern roller press; but now we are living in the age in which events can be reproduced in images and may be filmed. That is why it is so necessary that we should accord to the development of the film its proper place in our social and constitutional development. The coordination of film recordings made by the State for useful purposes as provided for in the Act, particularly in Clause 9, is a real step forward. It brings us into line with what is being done in other countries of the world. In Europe there are more than 40 film institutes which occupy themselves only with the development of the film on a much wider terrain than merely for recreation. The film is being used at the present time for recreational purposes mainly, and we know the power of it. Millions of rands have been invested in the film industry, as is shown from its headquarters in Hollywood, etc. We know the immense power of it. Now we come along and we want to make use of that same industry on a broader level for educational purposes; we want to canalize it to our national life and its history, to record in living images historical events for preservation for posterity, and so not only for tracing historical films. We are also pleading for a concatenation of a South African film industry which will be continuous from year to year, from century to century, without having gaps and breaches occurring in between. Posterity will laud us for preserved films and for purposeful future film recordings, because they will mean so much to posterity. As you know, fine films have been made by State Film Services and other film producers in this country for purposes of education, agriculture and other educational purposes. Mr. Germishuysen, who is very interested in this matter, possesses valuable historical films as well as films made in later years and which could be preserved. The difficulty in the past has been that most of these films were made only for the specific purpose of interesting them, and after being shown, they were set aside and neglected. There was no specific place to which they could be sent for safe custody, and in this way many of the valuable pieces were lost. Nobody was entrusted with the task of search, selection and safe custody. I feel that this Film Board, together with the Film Institute which is to be established as a sub-division of it, will see to it that such records will no longer be neglected but will be preserved for posterity and for research and for historians, as well as in order to give posterity a clear living image of conditions in the times we are living in, just as we enjoy seeing the living image of President Kruger, of historical figures and events. It is striking to us; it exerts an influence on us when we see how those people were dressed, how they acted, for they are living images from history rolling past before our eyes. So it will be in the future too. I heartily welcome this Bill and I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to provide the little nest egg even before the next Estimates, not necessarily now already for giving effect to the other objects of the Film Board, but in the first instance for giving effect to the object of promoting the archival part of it. I am asking him really to make a birthday present for the immediate establishment of a Film Institute by the Film Board during this year already. In other words, I hope he will not wait until the next Budget in 1964, to then only make provision for the necessary funds, but to do so in the additional Estimates already. The hon. the Minister will I am sure know how to do that.

The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) traced the development of means of communication from written word to the film and the screen—through bygone centuries—and then went on to point to the virtues of this Bill in so far as it will confer certain benefits on posterity. I want to say that in my personal opinion the hon. member for Marico is a very well-intentioned honourable gentleman, and while the House may be indebted to him for his historical survey, it is unfortunately completely unrelated to the Bill under discussion—in my opinion— because he cast no light whatsoever on the Bill itself. Had he done so, he could have saved me a great deal of time and breath, but since he did not do so, I propose to shed some light on this Bill, rather than on the historical development of the written word up to the time when we have the spoken word portrayed with pictures on the screen. The first thing I want to say is this: The hon. the Deputy Minister in his second-reading speech yesterday seemed to rely very heavily on what he called the Canadian Film Board. Sir, I do not wish to disturb his conversation with another hon. member, but in the event of his wishing to take cognizance of what I say, I draw his attention to the fact that I propose to deal with what he called the Canadian Film Board. I have here an Act which is called in its short title—The Canadians are very brief —“National Film Act, 1950”. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, at the outset, whether he has read this particular Act.

I have a copy here.

Then I do not have to read the whole Act. I merely wanted to know whether I have to read the Act to him, not the “Riot Act”, but the National Film Act. I want to say to him with great respect, since he has a copy of the Act in another form, I have a whole tome of Canadian Statutes here, revised quite recently—that there are certain fundamental differences between the Bill which the hon. the Deputy Minister presented to us yesterday, and the Canadian National Film Act of 1950. I think in fairness to the House, which I assume the hon. the Deputy Minister asks to judge of the wisdom of his particular version as to how a national film board or any body of that kind should be set up, he should have pointed to those differences, rather than leave it to me to do so. But, again, I have no choice. If the Deputy Minister will not tell us the difference, then I must tell the House the difference. First of all, in regard to the constitution of the board, I draw the attention of the Deputy Minister to Section 4 of the Canadian Act which reads—

Incidentally, another clause makes provision for the appointment of somebody called a Government Film Commissioner who is the executive, as the Canadians and Americans would naturally call it, of this National Film Board—

I therefore draw the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention to the fact that primarily this Film Board dealt very largely and importantly with the activities of the Canadian Armed Forces—an information channel through the medium of the film industry of the activities of the Canadian armed forces. This clause provides that five of the members shall be selected from outside the public service and the Canadian Forces; in other words, private individuals. The interesting thing is that there is no such provision to be found in the Bill before us to-day. under which persons outside of the public service, as it were, are chosen by the Minister for certain experience in commerce and industry, etc.; the interesting thing is that those other persons are chosen in Canada in order to represent, each one of them, one of the five major geographical regions of Canada. If the hon. the Minister doubts that, I want to draw his attention to the report of the National Film Board of Canada for 1961-2, which actually gives the names and photographs of all the members of the board, and shows the “five prominent citizens representing the five major geographical regions of the country.” Thus in the very first clause that I have to deal with in comparing the Minister’s Bill with the Statute of Canada, there are two cardinal differences, which I hope he has observed. Sir, in comparison with Clause 12 of the Canadian Statute, I have to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the funds of the board, in terms of Clause 14 of the Bill before us, shall consist of “(a) loans granted to the board on such conditions as the Minister may in consultation with the Minister of Finance determine out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for that purpose.” There is no limitation whatsoever on the expenditure. Provided Parliament will appropriate the money, which means in effect provided the governing party decides that it shall be appropriated, there is no limitation on the expenditure by the board which this Bill proposes to set up—whereas in the case of Canada, under Clause 12 there is a very definite limitation. Clause 12 reads—

No one contract which this board in Canada may undertake may exceed in value $15,000, which I would say in our currency would be roughly R12,000—a very important limitation. Furthermore, in regard to the expenditure of money generally, there is the question of the salaries of members of the board. These people are paid, of course, as the Minister proposes to pay them in South Africa. Under the Bill which is before us, the Minister will decide how much any one person will be paid, and as one reads the particular clause it appears that A may be paid more than B, and C less than B. The Minister who will give these gifts will decide for himself who will get the largest or the smallest gift.

He will evaluate their propaganda value.

That may well be. I do not say what the yardstick is going to be. I can take a good guess, but I do not want to take up the time of the House.

The hon. member need not take notice of irrelevant interjections.

I will continue, Sir. Clause 13 (4) of the Canadian Statute provides that—

In our currency that would be a limitation of R3,500 a year. No salary exceeding that may be paid by the Minister through the board; he cannot under his own authority, please himself about the salary position. There is also another clause which deals with expenditure in this Statute. Section 18 places a general limitation on expenditure. This section refers to the establishment of a National Film Board operating account. Sub-section (4) provides—

It provides for a maximum expenditure of $700,000. Of course, I realize that that is a great deal of money; in our country it would be about R500,000—but then, Sir, you must bear in mind that Canada is a country with a population larger than ours, all of whom (or most of whom) are Europeans or what we call Europeans; a country in which film-making is a fairly well-established industry, which it is not in South Africa; a country which in terms of the footage of films produced and the general ramifications of that industry, ranks below the American level, of course, but it still ranks as one of the major countries in the world in that field. Then, Sir, having regard to all these limitations on expenditure, I want to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is such a costly thing to operate a National Film Board that the board in Canada expended more than $5,000,000 in excess of its income in the year 1961-2. Therefore, the first over-all consideration to which I have to draw the Deputy Minister’s attention is that he is not starting something here which is going to be a case of spending small money in order to achieve a large objective, for the obvious reason that the film “industry” is not an established industry in South Africa. For my authority, in case anybody doubts it, I refer the Deputy Minister to the report of the Norval Commission dated December 1961. To my knowledge, and I submit, to the knowledge of anybody else in South Africa, the position has not changed since that time, when the Board of Trade and Industries, which investigated certain practices in the film distributing business, said in paragraph 54 on page 23—

Sir, it is not funny, it is sad when one hears hon. members on that side of the House refer to the South African film “industry”as they would to the South African steel industry, or to the South African maize industry, or to something which by normal definition, is an industry.

I want to leave the Canadian Statute with one observation, and that is that for reasons which are clear—and I would say that the reasons are largely to be found in this emphasis which is placed in Canada on the production of films for or in connection with the Armed Forces—every member of their board must take an oath of office and of secrecy—a very important consideration, which shows what their purpose in Canada is, as compared with what our purpose in South Africa is. The oath reads—

Sir, I hope I have said enough, in the time I have assigned to this particular aspect of the matter, to show that when the House is told that we are setting up a Film Board in South Africa in line with the National Film Board of Canada, the Deputy Minister is merely employing his imagination, rather, than the truth, or the facts of the matter.

Sir, the possible reasons for this elaborate structure which the Minister seeks to set up in this Bill, may be found in his statement to us yesterday that one of the great or important objects of this Bill is to improve the distribution of films, and to obtain effective distribution for departmental films. He said that except in a few circumstances, exhibitors were not willing to show State films and that the board will have to develop internal distribution. That is obviously correct; I do not quibble with that statement. I say that that may be, if not the major reason, then one of the reasons of this very elaborate Bill. To-day, when a particular Department of State makes a film purely for educational purposes, it has a very limited channel for release. If that propaganda which the State wishes to put over is going to be at all effective, then it must be able to release those films in the commercial cinemas of South Africa, of which there are several hundred. Sir, whereas these people who exhibit films will take a film—if it is worth showing from their point of view—in order to get playing time, as they call it—they will take it free of charge—it becomes a very different matter for them to take a film for which they have to pay. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has in mind, that he, through the National Film Board will be able to produce films for which the South African exhibitors will pay. I, for one, doubt it; I think he will have to give those films away, so that the exhibitor himself will have the advantage of getting a 20 or 30-minute short feature and in that way be able to save the cost of a commercial short feature which he would otherwise have to schedule in his programme— because, as you know, Sir, in South Africa we must have an interval somewhere, and so they show you a few shorts before the interval. Unless that is the intention, then the Deputy Minister must be aware of the fact that in order to encourage the exhibitor to show the films produced by this board, he will have to give them some very material consideration. The question arises—what sort of encouragement can he give them to give up the playing time? I do not know, but I have an idea that having regard to the fact that in the same Ministry and through the same Minister there is control of the censorship of films, the admission into South Africa of the feature films on which the exhibitors depend —certainly the two major circuits—they are going to be placed in the position where they may have to agree, apparently of their own volition, to show whatever short films are produced by the National Film Board, in order to make quite sure that they are in no way prejudiced when it comes to the consideration of the product which they import from overseas—as to whether it is going to be approved for exhibition or not. I do not want to put it any higher than that, but to me it is an extremely unfortunate thing that this impression has been created—and it has been created by legislation coming from the same source, as it were—that publications and entertainments through one board are controlled by the Minister of the Interior, and now the National Film Board is being set up under the Minister of the Interior, and how can he be anything but the source from which all great blessings flow as far as the film exhibitors are concerned? If that is the position, then I daresay that the films which will be made by the board will in fact reach the screens of the commercial cinemas of South Africa. Whether they will find a willing audience is another matter; it will obviously depend on their theme and on their quality, but I think it is a singularly unfortunate way of dealing with this position if, in effect, the idea is—according to various speakers on that side—mainly to store up valuable old films in the Archives. The hon. member for Marico went into this at great length—as if one would really have to set up a National Film Board in order to store films! The largest stock of old films in the whole world, in the nature of things, is in the United States of America. They came into the field first; they have the biggest output in the world—they always have had and probably will have for many years to come—and more films are lying around in the United States than in any other country in the world; but the odd thing about it is— natural to them but odd to us, in considering this Bill—is that there is no “national film board” in the United States. I ask any hon. members on the other side to challenge that statement. There is no national film board in the United States for the purpose of storing films in archives, or for any other purpose. As regards this important aspect—I think it is being overrated—of storing the very few films that there are in South Africa in which South Africa has an interest—then remember, Sir, that they can put a full-length feature film into a very small can, as they call it, although it is really a round box; it requires no space whatsoever, and all this talk about the archives becomes a little ludicrous… [Interjection.] No, I say this in all seriousness. The stock of old films in South Africa is so small that to talk of the need of a film Board in order to have the authority or the power to store those few films is ludicrous. I point to the fact that in the United States where they really have thousands upon thousands of old films, which may or may not be of historical interest, there is no national film board—but they still keep their old films. Let me quote from one of my favourite books, “The Facts of American Life”—

There are more than 4,000 film libraries and archives which distribute, preserve, collect and exhibit films in the United States to-day. You see, Sir, the emphasis is on libraries, as regards the storing or the preservation of films. Surely, Sir, it is easy enough to demonstrate beyond a doubt to any reasonable person that that purpose which the Deputy Minister and other speakers on that side have tried to tell us is one of the major purposes of this Bill, does not even arise; it is not germane to the consideration.

In the Bill itself, of which I for one, could offer very serious criticism, there is Clause 9 (c) which provides for “the promotion of the development of the cinematograph film industry and photography in the Republic”. Sir, what is meant by “promotion”? How do you promote an industry except by assisting it, and what assistance does the hon. member for Marico think the present producers of films require from anybody? They do not require the technical know-how, because I think it will be conceded that in one or two cases, the private production companies make better films than State Departments have made. Therefore they do not require know-how at this stage; they do not require equipment— they have equipment.

Most of their films we do not need.

They require what most people require in order to succeed in business—and that is money! If I have understood Clause 9 (c), which provides for “the promotion of the development of the cinematograph industry”, correctly—and I certainly believe that I have—then it means the provision of funds to film producers and for that matter, possibly, film distributors. Sir, now I come to the hub of this Bill. If there is no film industry in South Africa—and in case anybody thinks that I have sucked it out of my thumb, I say again that that is the conclusion arrived at by an inquiry specially appointed by the Minister of Commerce and Industries—if there is no film industry in South Africa, who will be helped by this promotion? In other words, if there is nobody to help in the sense that there is no industry who is going to get the money that the State is going to spend on the so-called film industry? I would like hon. members on that side of the House to give me an indication: Who is going to get the financial assistance, which is all that matters? Silence! Well, in the absence of any information on that side, perhaps I can enlighten the hon. members opposite me. I want to point to the fact that some very remarkable things have been happening in what the hon. members on the Government side are pleased to call “the South African film industry”, in the last two or three years. One of them is the fact that from the Board of Trade and Industries there originated an inquiry into the motion picture industry. (Here in the Bill it is called the “cinematograph film industry”; the Board of Trade chooses to call it the motion picture industry, which is the American version.) They sent out a questionnaire about which I, in turn, questioned the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. I asked him some little while ago what replies he had received to this questionnaire; what the nature of the replies was and what conclusions he had arrived at. He replied—very courteously— that he had had so many replies; that all the replies that were expected had not yet come in, and that no conclusion had been arrived at. But, Sir, here is a line of investigation which I would have thought the hon. the Deputy Minister would have been aware of, or, at least, his Minister—namely, the fact that this inquiry was instituted, and was still under way.

Order! The hon. member is wandering away from the Bill now.

Sir, where am I wandering to? I have not moved from Clause 9 (c).

The hon. member can deal with that in the Committee Stage.

May I not deal with it now? It is in the Bill.

The hon. member may deal with it if he is relevant.

Sir, with the best intentions, I will try to remain relevant.

The hon. member must control his intentions.

Sir, I can leave it to you to control me and my intentions—but I want to say this: Here we have an inquiry into the scope for the development of the motion picture industry, the very thing which is provided for in this Bill, except that here in this Bill it is called “the development of the cinematograph film industry”. I would have thought that before we were told that this was a Bill of great national importance, that it had to go through as soon as possible for all sorts of reasons, the facts of the matter in regard to the development of the motion picture industry would have been ascertained. In that case it would have been possible for the Minister to come to the House with a Bill based on facts. It does not seem necessary, in order to promote this particular Bill—this Bill which will in turn promote the film “industry”, as it is called, in South Africa—to have the facts, because the Bill provides that once the Minister has established his Film Board, his nominees (who will have no say in the matter except when he is prepared to give them a say) are going to have the whole wide world open to them, because in terms of Clause 10, they can do everything and anything that can be regarded as “complementing and promoting the objects of the board although it is not specifically mentioned therein”.

Order! That sub-section has been read out by every speaker. The hon. member has not been here all the time.

I did not realize that, Sir,…

The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I was out of the Chamber for a few minutes only, Sir. I want to draw the attention of the hon. Deputy Minister to the fact that he is setting up a board in which he will have placed tremendous powers, without financial limitation, in the hands of the board—powers which, although ostensibly given to the board, will be the powers of the Minister. One wonders why it is necessary to go to that extent when the facts of the case indicate that there should be no such board set up at all. I do not want to repeat those arguments; we have already dealt with the aspect of the co-ordination of the activities of various Departments in regard to the making of films, and the depositing of films of historical value in the archives. The question as to who and what will be helped by this particular board, as far as financial considerations are concerned, is brought into sharp relief by the experience of one company. That company reported that for the year ended 30 June 1962—this is a company which has made what is probably considered as the most successful film made in this country—it had made a net profit of R8,123! They made that tiny profit despite all the tremendous ballyhoo which this particular “industry” is receiving in the Press to-day. You can hardly pick up a week-end paper without reading about tremendous investments by the private sector in the film “industry”. Here I have reference to that in the South African Digest. An unholy game is being played to show, on the one hand, that there is a film industry in South Africa which produces feature films which can sell overseas, whereas the facts show that the most successful company has made a profit of approximately R8,000, and that it has tied up in one other film an amount of R293,000 which it cannot get back at this stage.

Both as a member of this House and as a taxpayer I have reason to be worried about the intention behind this Bill. I have very good reasons to be worried, because one can visualize a position arising in which a Minister well-disposed towards the film “industry” will be able to advance moneys on a very considerable scale to people who have not got the know-how or experience to maintain themselves in ordinary commercial businesses. In case you doubt that, Mr. Speaker, I had occasion quite recently this year to refer the hon. Minister of Commerce and Industries, who also seems to be interested in films, to a loan which had been made by the Industrial Development Corporation to a particular film-producing company. I asked him for the details: I wanted to know, for instance, what the terms of repayment were. If I am not mistaken, the amount outstanding was of the order of R160,000. The reply I got from the Minister was that since this was a transaction between the I.D.C. on the one hand and a private business undertaking on the other, the matter could not be discussed or revealed. I think that sort of situation suggests strongly that there have been certain happenings of late in the film-distributing business which have made it necessary for certain interests to endeavour to lean very heavily on the financial support which the Government can and probably will give if this Bill becomes law. For this reason, we cannot agree to the taxpayers’ money being spent or even loaned haphazardly in order to develop something which is being developed normally to the extent to which circumstances permit without any interference by the State; we on this side of the House require the Deputy Minister to give reasonable consideration to the plea that this particular Bill be sent to a Select Committee. I want to say that in the event of this Bill going to a Select Committee, all the facts about which we on this side of the House and, I think, the Minister has knowledge, can be brought out in evidence before the Select Committee. Let that committee then decide on the facts. We are still unaware of the motivating force behind this Bill. Let the Select Committee decide, firstly, whether a national Film Board is necessary in South Africa; secondly, if it is to be set up, what its composition should be; and thirdly, what powers it should have—and, what is more important, Sir—what powers it should not have, what limitations should be placed upon it. By conceding this request, which is a reasonable one, the hon. Deputy Minister will certainly create a different impression about the purport and intent of this Bill than has up to now, very unfortunately for the South African film “industry” and its future expansion, been created by the way in which this Bill has been presented, the way it has been drafted —I do not say that by way of criticism—and by the way in which it is apparently necessary to rush it through this House as if the films, about which the hon. member for Marico is so concerned, are burning somewhere in a corner, and if we pass this Bill quickly, we will be able to save some of them! I hope, therefore, that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give due regard to our reasonable request for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, for the Opposition to come now, after all the investigations which were instituted throughout the years into the question of the co-ordination of the State’s film activities, with the suggestion that this matter be referred to a Select Committee, reminds me very much of the adage that if Moses had been a committee the Israelites would still have been wandering in the desert. This matter of the co-ordination of film activities has not been investigated on only one occasion, but on various occasions. We have had the investigation by the Mushet Committee, and thereafter we had the Grierson Committee to which I referred in my second-reading speech, and then we had the De Villiers Committee in 1956. These committees, particularly the last-mentioned, had all the available information at their disposal. The De Villiers Committee consisted of the following men: Dr. François de Villiers, chairman; Mr. Piet Meiring, now of the State Information Office; Mr. Chris Prinsloo, of Bantu Administration; Dr. Olckers, of the Department of Education, Arts and Science; Mr. Crous, of the State Film Production Unit, and Mr. Weaver, of Satour. These are efficient people who made a thorough study of this matter. We have every confidence in the work they did. To refer this matter to a Select Committee again is just a waste of time and we cannot give any consideration to that.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is dissatisfied about various matters. We know him as a disgruntled man. He is dissatisfied because not enough is done in terms of this Bill to develop the film industry. In regard to the development of the film industry, that is a task which in the first place will be undertaken by the Department of Commerce and Industry on behalf of the Government. As hon. members will see from the Estimates, there is an amount of R200,000 under the Vote Commerce and Industries for the promotion of our film industry. The assistance given by means of this Bill will be in the form of a stimulation. It is estimated that when this board gets going it will in a few years’ time be able to give work amounting to R600,000 to our own film industry. If this is not regarded as a splendid impetus to our film industry, I do not know what would be. The hon. member for Turffontein raised various objections and expressed different fears. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I always find it difficult to argue with a man who has a fear complex, one who sees a ghost in every corner. I am not able to argue with a man who suffers from fear complexes and phobias. Indoctrination is seen in things which are purely administrative measures. The hon. member will quite probably regard as the indoctrination of the platteland also the exhibition of road safety films and films in regard to nutritional measures which may in future be shown on the platteland. I fear that when a man suffers from such a complex I am not able to argue with him. This measure, as I said in my second-reading speech, is aimed at achieving effective control of our technical and financial production and distribution channels.

Various clauses have been referred to. The hon. member also saw a bogy in Clause 9 (c). Clause 9 (c) reads as follows—

Now that causes the hon. member concern. He also objects to Clause 10 (k), which says that the functions of the board will be to advise the Minister in regard to any matter affecting films or photographs. It is a normal provision in any legislation for the board to advise the Minister. To see something sinister in that means that he is suffering from a disease of which I unfortunately cannot cure him. The fear was also expressed here that this would amount to censorship. Let me assure hon. members opposite that this board has nothing to do with censorship. That will be the task of the Publications Board which will fall under the Department of the Interior. The fact that Interior and Education fall under the same Minister is quite coincidental; it may still be so in future, or it may not. It is therefore quite wrong to argue that the one policy must necessarily influence the other in this regard. It will not be the task of the Film Board to do any censoring.

The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Cruywagen) referred appreciatively to the exhibition of documentary films in Cape Town. Other hon. members also did so. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler), who in the past interested himself in the matter, also expressed his gratification in this regard. I am glad that hon. members who saw it found it interesting. Unfortumately I cannot comply with the request of the hon. member for Germiston that we should make a record of all the available documentary films. We are not aware of what films there are. We shall just have to get them from people who are interested in the matter, as I experienced this morning. Mrs. Graaff this morning offered us certain reels of films and informed me that she still has other reels which are about 40 to 50 years old. I accepted these reels from her with great appreciation. Those are the reels to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) referred. Unfortunately I have one disappointment for him. The hon. member said that there were scenes in those films in which Sir de Villiers Graaff appeared. I am sorry that his present leader for this season is not there depicted as a baby. I would have been glad if that had appeared, but Mrs. Graaff informs me that it does not. I am informed that there are striking scenes of General Louis Botha which will be of great interest to us.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, like the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) referred to the Broadcasting Corporation. Just as difficult as I find it to argue with the hon. member for Turffontein, who suffers from a fear complex, so difficult is it for me to argue with the hon. member for Orange Grove who has now developed a Broadcasting Corporation obsession. The S.A.B.C. must now be dragged in, in season and out of it, even when one is dealing with anything else under the sun in this House. Let me say this: The activities of this Film Board will be recorded in annual reports which will be tabled in this House. Hon. members will have the opportunity to discuss those annual reports. They need have no fear that this Film Board will be abused in any way. The fear expressed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that it will now be used for some political purpose is unfounded. Just let me tell him that if this Government wanted to be so daft as to use a film for party purposes, they should have done so at this very moment, and it should not have established a Film Board. It should have used the film production section which exists at the moment for that purpose, because at the present moment that section is under State control, under the Minister. In future this Film Board will be an autonomous body which will not concern itself much with any political party, whether it is in power or not. Therefore that fear is quite unfounded.

The hon. members for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) and Marico (Mr. Grobler) also asked whether we would be able to purchase films made about South Africa, films made by private persons. Yes, Clause 9 (b) provides for the acquisition of films. That means that we are able to acquire such films. The hon. member for Orange Grove is very concerned about the powers of the the board. Perhaps I should read only one clause from the Canadian Act, Chapter 185, Section 11 (1), to indicate that the powers contained in the Canadian Act, the Act which we have used as a guide for this Bill, reads as follows—

It will be clear from this that the Canadian Act contains greater powers than we are asking for now. Consequently I do not think that the objection raised against the powers we are asking for here is well-founded.

The hon. member for Orange Grove was also concerned about the provinces. He wanted to know whether they were consulted in this regard, and he was afraid that we had curtailed their powers. I may mention just one instance because it came to light by way of interjection. The report of the De Villiers Committee was of course submitted to the State Departments and to the various Provincial Councils for their comment. As far back as 1961 the Natal Provincial Administration already intimated that they had no objection to the proposed Film Board. It is interesting to note that this United Party dominated province of Natal sees fewer dangers in this Bill than the latest recruit to the United Party.

May I put a question to the Minister? Has the Provincial Administration of Natal seen a copy of the draft Bill? Have they seen a copy of the Bill now before us?

Yes, it was submitted to them according to a note I have received from my Department. They received a copy of the report as well as of the draft Bill. This notice is in Afrikaans. Perhaps I should just quote it for purposes of the record [Translated]—

But it was not this specific Bill.

It is only natural that certain amendments were made to it, but the main principles are the same.

May I ask the Minister why the Bill is being introduced at such a late stage?

Legislation is often introduced towards the end of a session. This Bill contains so few contentious aspects; it is a crystal-clear measure which is intended to institute effective control. There is nothing sinister in it.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude, but I just want to say a word to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). I want to tell him this: Personally I am now becoming very tired of his irritating habit of always knowing better in debates. It is not in my nature to say nasty and unfriendly things, but I am afraid I am compelled to do so. I have already experienced it in previous debates, as well as in this one. I want to tell the hon. member that I hope that in time he will succeed in imparting to us this wealth of knowledge of his, of which he is always reminding this House in season and out of it, in such a way that it will not be quite so obnoxious to us, and then we will also feel more inclined to reply to the matters he raises. This measure is intended to be of benefit to South Africa because through the better co-ordination of our film activities we will have a more effective service. This machinery should be put into operation as soon as possible, and therefore we cannot accept the motion to refer it to a Select Committee.

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

Upon which the House divided:

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) has dealt very adequately with the broader aspects of job reservation and it is not my intention to repeat any arguments he has used. However, I want to say that because of the determination to which the hon. member for Peninsula referred in regard to the building industry, this important industry in South Africa will suffer. It will be the death-knell of this important industry and the hon. Minister has done a great disservice to South Africa and to this industry by bringing forward this determination. The hon. Minister as a result of the findings of the Tribunal has brought forward the determination. The hon. Minister indicated yesterday that he had no alternative, and to that extent one might excuse the hon. Minister, but he stated to us last night that as it was an unanimous decision of the main members of the Tribunal, he had no alternative, but he completely ignored the findings of the assessors who took part in the examination of the whole question. I would like to have it on record, Mr. Chairman, that the four assessors who submitted a dissenting report were the representatives of the industry, of the employers (not the employees) and you surely cannot find anything stronger than a rejection by the employers’ representatives of this finding of the Tribunal. But the hon. Minister has gone further in this determination which he has published. He has actually started to ban people from certain areas in regard to their employment. He has restricted certain people from lawfully carrying out their trade throughout South Africa; he has restricted by this determination carpenters who are employed in Cape Town to obtain work in a place like East London. Where in the world do you get such legislation which prevents a citizen of a country from carrying on his lawful occupation in any part of his country? But we have got it here in South Africa. At this stage I want to say to the hon. the Minister, having studied this matter and having had representations from the Coloured people, that the Minister must in the interests of South Africa and in the interest of the industry postpone this determination until he has fully appreciated the disastrous effects which this determination will have on the industry and on the country as a whole.

The hon. Minister had two requests for job reservation, and the one was from the Electrical Wiremen’s Union. This union made an appeal to the Minister to bring in job reservation in respect of their particular industry. We were told that job reservation is necessary for the protection of the Europeans in industry, that it was necessary to stop the Coloured people from infiltrating into an industry to the detriment of the White man. Let me just show the absurdity of the Tribunal’s decision. This Electrical Wiremen’s Union, Mr. Chairman, according to the evidence before the Tribunal had 282 White members in 1958 and 12 Coloureds. No threat by the Coloureds in that industry at all! But in 1960, two years later, the number of White people employed in that industry fell to 160 and there was only an increase of four in the number of Coloureds. Where, I ask the hon. Minister, is there a threat from the Coloured people to the White people in this industry, and what is the reason for the drop in the number of people who are following this particular trade? I want to ask the hon. Minister: If this drop continues, who is going to replace the White people in this particular industry if not the Coloured people?

I want to deal further with the so-called protection and the fear that White people will be ousted by Coloured people. I want to emphasize that the Coloured people have not ousted one single European in any of the trades or callings in the building industry. On the contrary, they have replaced White people because the White youths do not want to follow this particular trade. For some reason or other they do not come forward. I want to read a letter which was addressed to the Secretary of the Industrial Tribunal by the Industrial Council for the Building Industry—

He said that the figure of 3,331 apprentices under contract at the end of 1959, yielded an average intake of 665 apprentices a year, a figure which was totally inadequate to meet the future demands in a fast developing country like South Africa. Then they go on to say—

[Time limit.]

When my time expired yesterday, I was saying that the United Party was objecting to the 25 per cent of White workers who are still in the building industry in the Western Province being protected. The objection of the United Party really amounts to this, that they object to those in the building industry in the Western Province who are still White remaining White. They want to allow, through their actions and the objections they raise against job reservation, that the Whites in the building industry in the Western Province should be squeezed out still further by the Coloureds. Their glasses are coloured to such an extent that they are no longer able to see anything White.

Read the report.

I shall prove it to the hon. member. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) pointed out quite correctly yesterday that the Coloureds’ Representatives raised no objection to the fact that Coloureds were being ousted from their employment by Bantu in the Western Province, and that applies to the Opposition also. What is their attitude? In the first place they have no objection to the Coloured being squeezed out of the building industry in the Western Province by the Bantu, but they in fact object if the possibility exists for a Coloured to be kept out of a job by a White man. Sir, the major portion of the debate on this Vote was in regard to job reservation. Now I want to tell the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) that job reservation has never yet caused any economic disruption, and no factories have ever closed down as a result of it. The continued existence of any undertaking has never been threatened by it. In spite of the job reservation determinations we have had hitherto, the country is still steadily progressing in the economic sphere; our economic growth and our industrial development continue unabated. I want to tell the hon. member that job reservation in the second place has never yet caused unemployment. No worker has ever become unemployed as the result of job reservation, and I challenge the whole of the Opposition to mention a single instance where job reservation resulted in unemployment. No non-White worker has ever yet been deleteriously affected by job reservation. Even in the trades in the building industry which were reserved for Whites here, and which were reserved for Whites elsewhere also, the non-White workers who are employed in those trades are still allowed to work. The hon. member for Boland must admit that even the apprentices in the relevant trades are allowed to complete their apprenticeship and to continue working in those trades.

Only in certain areas.

A further characteristic of job reservation determinations is that it is done judiciously after proper investigation and after all aspects of the matter have been thoroughly considered. The vested rights of everybody are thoroughly considered. Job reservation is only recommended by the Industrial Tribunal if it has been established beyond all doubt that it will have no deleterious economic consequences. All possible opportunities are given to the interested parties to make representations and to state their case before the Industrial Tribunal. The opportunity is even given to these people to remedy the matter themselves before it is investigated. No, the fact is that job reservation is applied cautiously and wisely and that it is fair and just to all races. The hon. member for Boland was very concerned about the Coloureds in the building industry in the Western Province, but the fact is that the Industrial Tribunal fully considered the traditional position existing in the Western Province. The trades which have been practised by Coloureds here for generations were not reserved, but were left as they were, i.e. those which were traditionally the work of the Coloureds. Just think of masonry, carpentry, painting—all those are things which were not reserved. The Opposition and the Coloureds’ Representatives do not say that only trades in which Whites have been employed primarily or exclusively are reserved for Whites, and that where Coloureds in fact infiltrated into those trades they are left unhindered to continue their work, even the apprentices. But the Opposition objects to this fair way of applying job reservation. The truth is that the Opposition no longer wants to grant any protection to the White workers in South Africa. They only use the rate for the job in order to deceive the White workers. They know that the rate for the job is no longer able to protect the White worker in this country. Therefore they are still advocating it and using it as a cloak to cover the nakedness of their own political objects. I want to give them the assurance that the White workers in this country do not believe them any more, and that they can no longer deceive the White workers with the proposition that the rate for the job will protect them. Why does the Opposition devote all their time in the debate on this Labour Vote to making such a great fuss about this? Do hon. members know that job reservation determinations have hitherto affected approximately 80,600 workers, out of a total labour corps of approximately 1,688,700 workers, Whites, Coloureds and Asians? That is, 4.7 per cent of the labour corps in the country fell under job reservation. That is all this fuss is about.

Now the question may fairly be put: If it is such a small percentage of the workers who are affected by job reservation, what is its value and significance? Sir, job reservation is essential in a multi-racial country like South Africa to maintain peace in the sphere of labour relations, and secondly, it is an essential weapon which has to exist to deal with any possible threat to the White workers, even though it is not even applied. One can find unscruplous employers who would be only too eager with an eye to profits, to employ cheap non-White labour and to dismiss the White workers, but now that they know that there is job reservation as an effective protective measure for the White workers they will not dare to dismiss those White workers and to replace them with non-Whites. I want to say that the White workers regard job reservation as an effective weapon to protect their standard of living against the cheaper non-White labour. And that is also true to a lesser degree in the case of the Coloured, where it protects the standard of living of the Coloured against cheap Bantu labour.

I am surprised at the lack of logic on the part of the hon. member who has just sat down. He says that the whole object of job reservation is to preserve those jobs which have been traditionally in the hands of a certain group for that group. I now want to put a question to the hon. member to test that. Take it the other way around; for example, take it that Coloureds traditionally did certain work, are you going to reserve that work only for Coloureds?

Of course.

Let me give you an example. Many members on the Government side are very interested in the fishing industry. Traditionally all the fishermen in the Cape were Coloureds. Do you now maintain that the White man should not fish because that is work which is reserved for the Coloureds? I do not even want to argue about it. The hon. member is as illogical or wrong in that statement of his as he was in regard to his statement that this side of the House and the Coloured Representatives did not want to protect the Coloured against Native infiltration. But which Coloureds have been ousted? No Coloureds have been ousted by Natives in the Western Province and anyone who makes such a wild statement is not speaking the truth; because what is the true position? There is a shortage of Coloured farm labour in the Western Province to-day and many people who should have been farm labourers, although they are not Coloured, are now members of Parliament. However, that is by the way.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. I say there is a shortage of Coloured farm labourers to-day. I should like to know from the Minister whether he has had the position in regard to Coloured farm labourers in the Western Province surveyed? Has his Department made any survey whatsoever? Is there a surplus of Coloured farm labourers in the Western Province? Of course there is not. Not a single Coloured farm labourer is registered as unemployed but the Minister is well aware of the fact that there is a great shortage as far as they are concerned. How big is that shortage? It is so big that in the wine producing industry the largest permanent group of farm labourers consists of prisoners. I have no objection to prisoners being used for that purpose but I maintain that you cannot expect the economy of the Western Province to be dependent on prisoners because there are no Coloured labourers to do the work. What is the labour pattern, the traditional labour pattern of the Western Province? We farmers of the Western Province are proud of the fact that we are treating our Coloured labourers justly and decently, We are proud of the fact that our Coloured families constitute part of the farming unit. When any one of them is sick the master looks after him. The farmer has paid him when he has been off duty sick. He has looked after him in times of prosperity and in times of adversity. It is tradition with us that if you have no work for your labourers you pay your permanent farm labourer in all circumstances. That was how we in the Western Province grew up. But what is happening in the Western Province to-day? The position is that as a result of the scarcity of farm labourers and as a result of the necessity of having seasonal workers the unhealthy practice has developed among people who do not have farm labourers and who have to use prisoners and who no longer have old families who have been traditionally on their farms, to appoint agents in other districts to recruit people for them at 10s. per head. Some of those agents are not always such honourable men and do not always employ such honourable methods to recruit these people.

What has that to do with the Vote?

I am talking about the unhealthy position that temporary farm labour is recruited in districts other than those in which the farmer lives with most unsatisfactory results. Every member who knows the Boland will agree with me. Ask the hon. Minister of Agricultural Economy and Marketing; ask the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) whether that is not true. Those people who recruit labour come and take your labour off your farm and the whole industry in the Western Province is being disrupted in the busy seasons. What is the position to-day? Your employee is taken away. Because of the serious shortage you cannot say to your employee: “You and your entire family must move”. You have to feed the family while that person is paying higher wages for that short period than you can afford to pay throughout the year. He takes him away for that short period and when you need him most you are without him. I hope the hon. the Minister will give serious attention to this matter. I may not ask for legislation but I want to ask him that magistrates who act as the Minister’s agents in the various districts should only allow strangers to come there to recruit labour when it appears that there is a surplus of labour in that district and not when there is a shortage in busy seasons. If the Minister and the Government are not prepared to do that the farmers’ societies will have to do something in which case we shall have to resort to the methods suggested by a certain person to-day, namely, to assault those people who come and take your farm labour away from your farm. Otherwise the Minister must make representations to his colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, to allow Bantu to be imported to come and do the work for which people are not available. The proud tradition in the Boland is to treat your labour in such a way that they practically look up to the master as the father of the farm but we find it impossible to maintain that to-day. We cannot compete with temporary employers at the prices they pay. We cannot compete with industries. Our people are going to the cities and farm labour is getting scarcer. I should like to learn from the Minister what he has in mind to remedy this serious situation.

I rise to discuss and to plead two matters of interest to the workers on the East Rand. The first matter I would like to ask the hon. the Minister is to investigate the establishment of a sheltered employment factory for handicapped persons on the East Rand. I am thinking of the handicapped people of Boksburg, Benoni— yes, I emphasize Benoni—Brakpan, Springs, Nigel and perhaps also Delmas. A survey made towards the end of last year showed that there are about 350 handicapped people living in that area, and then I am not even including the two special schools for handicapped children, where there are about 700 to 800 students, a large number of whom are annually referred to the Labour Office at Benoni to be placed in employment. The facts are that these handicapped people are still able to undertake sheltered labour, but that they cannot find openings for it on the East Rand, but only in Johannesburg. And when they have to go to Johannesburg, they are immediately faced with certain problems. Firstly, there is the nature of their disability, which makes it exceedingly difficult, if not utterly impossible, for them daily to travel to and from Johannesburg. Secondly, there is the meagre commencing salary which make it impossible for them to go and live there, and thirdly, it should be remembered that these handicapped people are so dependent on their parents or relatives that it is difficult for them to manage without their daily assistance. I therefore say, firstly, that a sheltered factory for the East Rand is urgently necessary, and, secondly, that such a factory for the East Rand is quite practicable. Because the fact is that there are mines on the East Rand which are closing down, and some of them have already closed down, and I believe that the necessary accommodation for such a factory, and also for the housing of married and unmarried people can be provided there. I think it can easily be found there, and cheaply, just like the Immigration Centre at Brakpan. So much for this matter. I believe that the establishment of such a protected labour factory on the East Rand will meet an urgent need.

The second matter I want to ask the hon. the Minister to investigate is the possibility of establishing an independent labour inspectorate for the East Rand. There is great dissatisfaction amongst many of the unemployed in my constituency and also in other constituencies on the East Rand in regard to the delays in connection with the payment of unemployment benefits. During the 1962 recess, as also during the former recesses since I have been in Parliament, unemployed people have often come to me to complain that they have had to wait a very long time before the first of these benefits have been paid out to them. I then instituted an investigation at the office of the Assistant Regional Inspector for the East Rand, because I thought the fault lay there. He agreed that in most cases it took at least four weeks before an unemployed person received his first benefits, but he added that the delay was unavoidable as the result of the system which involved all claims first having to go to the Johannesburg Office. After the necessary files are opened in Johannesburg and the claims officer has approved the claims, an official must specially travel from Johannesburg to the East Rand in a GG car to hand over the registers in the various towns, and then two officials must again once a week—I think it is on Wednesdays—drive back from Benoni to hand over the registers to the Johannesburg office, and that causes the delay.

I think the only solution is that the office at Benoni should be converted into an independent inspectorate for the East Rand which can deal with all applications, work out the claims and settle them. That will eliminate much of the unnecessary delay, and not only in regard to the payment of benefits, but also in regard to many other matters. The position now is that documents are sent from Pretoria to Johannesburg, and from Johannesburg to Benoni, and all the way back again, and that leads to delays in regard to many matters. I inspected the offices at Benoni and satisfied myself that the necessary office space for such a labour inspectorate for the East Rand in fact exists there. Perhaps the staff will have to be increased by five or six members, but it is my honest conviction that this will be justified by the greater satisfaction which will be created as the result of the elimination of the delays in paying out benefits.

I want to say, further, that an independent inspectorate for the East Rand is justified in the light of the unemployment statistics, which compare favourably with those of Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth, which places have their own independent inspectorates. I there plead for such an independent inspectorate for the East Rand.

Finally, I just want to come back to the violent attack made by the Opposition last night on job reservation. It was surprising that they made that attack, and further, that they actually suggested that it was an insult to the Coloured man of the Cape Province that such a thing as job reservation existed, and that they were suddenly so concerned about the non-Whites, and again swung completely to the left. These people who so recently in the Transkei debate still posed as the great champions of the Whites yesterday suddenly again posed as the champions of the non-Whites, and it sounded very strange. But if one analyses the matter, it should not surprise one, because they are always riding on one of two horses—we are either negrophilists or the oppressors of the non-Whites, depending on the circumstances prevailing at the moment. And we know what the reason is for their attitude in this debate. One of these days there will be a by-election in the Liberal constituency of Wynberg, and that is why they now suddenly again accuse us of oppression of the non-Whites. [Time limit.]

I do not intend to use much of my time answering the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg). I only want to refer to two points he made. The hon. member said that no Coloured person had lost his or her position as the result of job reservation. The hon. the Minister apparently made the same statement in the Other Place. I have before me a report published in the Cape Argus on Friday 15 February, which reads as follows—

And it goes on to show that as the result of job reservation not only White people but Coloureds and Black people have lost their jobs. That is a challenge to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East), and it is also a reply to the hon. the Minister. It is apparently a fallacy to say that job reservation has not deprived people of their jobs. I am prepared to accept, with due respect to the Government, the statement of a person who is completely able to give a reply on that question, and I therefore accept that Coloureds have lost their jobs.

The second point that the hon. member made was: Why all this fuss about this determination when the Coloured building worker is entitled to pursue his trade within certain areas? But the hon. member has not read the determination. The City of East London is completely closed from now onwards to Coloured artisans. There is complete job reservation in East London. It is partial here. But I repeat and emphasize that in no country in the world is a citizen of that country prevented from carrying on his trade, and I want to make this final appeal to the hon. the Minister If you want to preserve the building industry in South Africa, and if you do not want to have chaos arising in that industry, you must postpone this determination. Everyone is against it. Nobody has asked for it and the Minister was completely wrong in bringing forth job reservation in the building industry when no one who has the interests of that industry at heart asked for it, and in fact everyone opposed it.

I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to one more point before I deal with another matter. Whereas joinery and other matters have been reserved for Whites, there are still Coloured apprentices in the joinery workshops. Under this determination that Coloured youth, when he finishes his apprenticeship, will be refused the right to work in the area where he finishes his apprenticeship. Is that justice? What is he training these Coloured youths for if they are prevented from carrying on their trade after they finish their apprenticeship? The only way to save the industry is to do away with job reservation, and the Minister might be reminded of what happened in regard to the contracts for building the station in Cape Town, where the Government put in a clause saying that 75 per cent of the employees had to be White. The contractors went to the Government and said that this was quite impossible; if they want them to employ 75 per cent of Whites they cannot accept the contract, because there are just not 75 per cent of White people who can do the job. There are not sufficient White people in South Africa to carry on the building industry. Without the help of the Coloured people the building industry will go down. Now I have dealt sufficiently with the question of job reservation. It is vicious and it stinks in the nostrils of every decent citizen, and I hope the Minister will reconsider it.

Now I want to deal with something quite different. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that a certain trade union in Cape Town, an important one which deals with an industry very material to the welfare of South Africa, the fruit and canning industry, has been hampered in its work by the interference of the Special Branch of the police, which comes into their offices and looks through their files and investigates their correspondence and hampers them.

Why not?

They have done nothing wrong.

How do you know?

This is a well-known trade union which looks after the interests of thousands of people who have to keep the canning industry going, but they are continually being hampered. They have written to the Minister and to the Minister of Justice. The people of South Africa should know that this matter is receiving attention, and therefore the Minister should make a public statement to that effect. The Minister should give an undertaking to these people that the work of a genuine trade union will not be hampered by the Special Branch, who have up to now found no evidence of any subversive action on their part. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Prinshof asks how I know that. The point is that the Government thinks that because certain people fight for the rights of the underdog, they are immediately communists or people who should be locked up. [Interjections.] I will not be deterred by any threat in my determination to fight for the underdog whom I believe requires protection. I ask the Minister to give the assurance to these people that their work on behalf of the thousands of people employed in this industry will not be hampered continually by visits of the Special Branch.

Sir, job reservation is unjustified. I oppose the whole principle of it, but if job reservation has to be accepted in the two industries who made the application to the Minister, let him apply it to those industries, but leave the rest alone, because I warn the Minister now that the whole building industry will be found wanting at the time when South Africa needs it. I want to tell the Minister that if there is unemployment in Cape Town and a boom in East London, and the carpenters of Cape Town are required to go to East London, this law makes it impossible for them to go there. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) says there will be chaos in the building industry. I want to assure the hon. member that as long as this Government governs the country he can sleep peacefully. There will not be any chaos. This Government does not only look after the interests of one group because it is its responsibility to see to it that justice is done to all groups. The hon. member further asked the Minister of Labour to ask the Minister of Justice to see to it that his special police do not interfere with the Canning Trade union. I want to tell that trade union that if they exert themselves to obtain improved benefits for their workers they have absolutely nothing to fear from the special branch. As long as they confine themselves to trade union matters they need not fear anything but heaven help them if they engage in subversive activities. In that case they will certainly be annihilated, because we shall not tolerate that from any trade union, particularly not from those trade unions who do not work for the benefit of their workers but who are solely engaged in inciting the workers against the Government and its policy.

I should like to discuss a few matters with the Minister. The one is that I do not know whether the Department of Labour is a Cinderella Department in the eyes of Public Works because when you come across any labour office you find yourself either in a backyard or in an old red brick building which creates a sombre and disconsolate outlook. Even when the unemployed come there they immediately feel discouraged. I maintain that the time has arrived for the Minister to plead with the Minister of Public Works to see to it that he has better offices to house the Department of Labour. The time has arrived for us to erect buildings which are not so sombre.

I also want to speak to the Minister about this subsidized labour. A sum of R680,000 appears on the Estimates for this purpose. That money is made available by the Minister for local authorities, provincial administrations and various departments of the Civil Service to employ a certain type of person. I want to discuss the aspect of the local authorities. As far as the employment of these persons is concerned, the Minister has introduced a quota system and every City Council is entitled to employ a certain number of this subsidized labour, but when those City Councils want to employ those persons it so happens that the means test is applied to them. The subsidy from the Government amounts to R1.20 per day per person. You get a person who has been living for years in a particular municipal area. He was thrifty and built his own home in which he lives and he is a taxpayer. But when there is a vacancy for subsidized labour and that person has no other income the means test is applied to him and the inhabitants look very sceptically at the City Councillors when the appointment is made because usually the person who is appointed to this subsidized post is not a taxpayer but a stranger who has never contributed anything to the revenue of that municipal area. I want to plead with the Minister to see to it that as far as this labour is concerned which is employed by a City Council and which pays the greater part of their wages, they are at liberty to appoint the people they want to appoint and that the means test is not applied.

I also want to bring another case to the notice of the Minister. This is a defect in the Workmen‘s Compensation Act. My experience has been that when an employee is involved in an accident in the factory or in the street, the employer is under the impression that his responsibility ends with the contribution he has paid to the fund. When that person comes out of hospital and returns to his work, we find that the employer does not treat him sympathetically at all. If the person had been a lorry driver and he was involved in a serious accident he should be put on to light work, but the employer wants to return him to the heavy lorry immediately. We feel that that person is in such a mental state because of the accident that he cannot drive a lorry and when he tells the employer that he does not see his way clear to do that work he is immediately dismissed or he is told that there is no work in the business for him to do. I think the time has arrived that employees who have been involved in accidents should be rehabilitated more and that we should see to it that the responsibility of the employer does not end the day he pays his contributions but that he should assist the State in rehabilitating that man so that he will regain his self-confidence and do his work. It is very easy for the employers to dismiss those persons in which case they become a burden on the State. I know of numerous people who have been unemployed for more than six months and who have been a burden on the State and the employer has no responsibility towards them. I want to plead for it that although there is no provision for this in the law, an investigation should be conducted into the rehabilitation of these employees after an accident so that they can once again become useful citizens of the country and that the responsibility should not rest on the shoulders of the State alone. I plead for an investigation into this matter.

I have a number of matters to raise with the hon. the Minister, and I will start with the only one which is probably not contentious. I would like the Minister to apply his attention to what I think is an injustice under the Unemployment Insurance Act whereby certain classes of women are debarred from receiving any benefits because of pregnancy and not having worked for the entire period of their pregnancy. I mentioned this subject to the Minister on a previous occasion and pointed out to him the discretionary rights which the board had enjoyed to grant sickness benefits to women who are prevented during pregnancy from working by virtue of sickness in the early stages of their pregnancy had gone. The Minister pointed out to me that although that discretionary right had gone, such persons could apply for sick benefits under section 39 (10) (c). But the case I am going to raise now does not cover the category of women who are prevented by illness per se from working for the necessary period during their pregnancy in order to be eligible for benefits. It is a small number of people who are concerned but nevertheless I think the matter is worthy of the Minister’s attention. I refer to women radiographers who are a valuable asset in our labour market and who, by virtue of the nature of the employment —and not through any illness they may suffer during pregnancy—are prevented from continuing with their work, even in the early stages of pregnancy. It is known that repeated exposure to X-rays endangers the health of the mother as well as that of the child, and therefore they are not allowed to continue working. I ask the Minister to look into the matter to see whether an exception can be made in the case of these women radiographers who were employed before becoming pregnant and who intend to re-enter the labour market ultimately, and to see whether they cannot receive benefits. That disposes of the only non-contentious issue I wish to raise with the Minister.

Last night the Minister told us that many of the figures used in regard to unemployment were obsolete, and he said he was doubtful of the accuracy of the survey done by the Natal University in regard to unemployed Indians. It seemed to me that he was attributing sinister motives to the university, of cooking figures, but I hope I am mistaken in my impression. He went on to say that he believed that the sample was statistically insufficient, and there of course he might be on good ground, but I would say that he destroyed his own case by going on to quote a single case to support his theory that in fact unemployment amongst Indians in Natal was not serious. He quoted the single case of a person who advertised for Indians to sell sandwiches and had not received a single application. If the figures used by the Natal University are statistically useless, I would say that the Minister’s single example is ludicrous. Every single welfare association in Natal has found itself in difficulties because they are unable to cope with the problems caused by unemployed Indians. I want to put it to the Minister that the unemployment figures are not reliable, and the official figures are not reliable, because registration of the unemployed in fact does not take place to an extent which would give a true reflection of the position. I am not referring now only to the non-registration as far as Indians, Coloureds and Whites are concerned, but to the quite impossible situation as far as Africans are concerned. Apparently Africans unemployed are meant to register, but quite clearly it is impossible to enforce the law in this regard because the vast majority of Africans are precluded from claiming any unemployment benefits. I wonder how the I.L.O. regards the fact that the vast majority of Africans earning below R546 per annum are precluded from obtaining any benefits? The fact is of course that the people who earn the lowest wages are those who are most hard hit during periods of unemployment, because they are the people who are least able to save against a rainy day. I want the Minister to reconsider the whole question of the extension of benefits on a contributory basis, and I want to point out to him that this is an advantage not only to the workers concerned but also to our economy as a whole, because it has been shown that one of the cushioning effects in the recent American recession against a real spiral of depression, was the fact that unemployed workers were still able to use a percentage of their consumer power by virtue of the benefits they derived from the Unemployment Fund. Before leaving the smaller items I want to deal with, I want to say that the hon. the Minister gave an interesting historical survey last night of the development of the trade union movement in South Africa, more particularly in respect of the African trade unions. He omitted, however, to tell us certain important facts about the African trade union movement in South Africa. The most important fact he omitted to tell us is that successive Governments have done their best to stop the development of a proper African trade union movement in this country. In 1947 the Smuts Government, just before it was defeated, was about to bring in a Bill giving official recognition to African trade unions. That Bill, however, was never introduced into this House. In any event, it did not give the right to strike to such trade unions. The hon. the Minister need not check up with his secretary, because I know my facts and my history. The Bill was never introduced—or rather, it was introduced but was not continued with.

Now, as far as trade unions under the present Government is concerned, the hon. member for Boland has mentioned the case of the canning industry trade union and the difficulties under which it is at present suffering because of visits by the Special Branch. This union’s experience is by no means unique because practically every non-European trade union in this country is being honoured by visits from the Special Branch. A number of non-White trade unionists are on the banned list, are being confined to their homes and are suffering all sorts of disabilities. In no case were they brought before the courts and proved to be communists. So they are confined simply by virtue of Ministerial edicts based on reports of the Special Branch which nobody can check on. No one is given the opportunity of defending himself. If these people are brought before the courts and found guilty under the laws of this land, I would have nothing to say. The only attention these trade unions get is the sort of attention which a former Minister of Labour paid them in a deliberate effort to smash them. In fact, the hon. the Minister’s predecessor actually passed the remark that he hoped the African trade unions would die a natural death. So the hon. the Minister must not tell us that the only reason why African trade unions have not flourished in this country, is the inefficiency of trade union leaders among the Africans, their corruption, and so on. These are factors which have played their part, but they are by no means the most important factors. [Time limit.]

I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that the hon. member for Peninsula last night drew attention to the terms of reference of the tribunal. These terms of reference were—

That was its terms of reference. I should like the hon. the Minister to explain—he did not do so fully last night—why, notwithstanding the fact that the tribunal in fact found that there was no White worker needing protection as a result of inter-racial competition, he nevertheless accepted the tribunal‘s findings which, in fact, went far beyond its terms of reference.

I want to tell the hon. member for Brakpan that I doubt whether employers will sleep any more soundly in their beds because of his reassurance that this Government would see to it that there would be no chaos in any industry. In fact, an incredible muddle is going to result from this new job reservation in the building industry in the western Cape and parts of Natal. I want to ask the hon. member for Brakpan: If he were an employer of labour, how would he work his way out of this, namely that shopfitting and electrical wiring are now to be done by Whites: that carpentry is to be done by Whites in Durban, but not in Port Elizabeth. Albany, Queenstown or the western Cape: that plumbing is White in Natal centres, Port Elizabeth, Albany and Queenstown, but not in the eastern Cape; that stone and marble masonry are White in the western Cape only; that joinery is White everywhere except in the western Cape, where it is White when performed in workshops. How any employer can work his way through this when he has a team of experienced skilled workers in the building trade and he has. when taking on contracts in different areas, to substitute one workman for another because, otherwise, he would be infringing this incredibly complicated job reservation in the building industry… how he can do this is beyond me. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us a little more light on this subject. How is he going to ascertain that the law is not being contravened, or is he going to take refuge, as this Government had to do time and again when it tried to apply job reservation, in giving blanket exemptions? I believe that this is how the Government is going to end up here.

The hon. member for Boland and the hon. member for Peninsula have already mentioned in some detail the question of job reservation in the Western Province. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to answer a few specific questions on this subject. Firstly: Is it true that building has virtually been, with the exception perhaps of the teaching and one or two other professions, the only trade open to Coloureds in the Cape, and that, consequently, this determination will mean that another avenue of employment will be closed to Coloured youths? Because no employer is going to take on a Coloured youth if he knows that he cannot thereafter employ that Coloured youth as a journeyman, for instance. After the present lot of apprentices have passed through their training, no new apprentices can be taken on for that trade. Then I also want to know whether it is not true that, in giving evidence before the tribunal, every single organization, with the exception of one small White trade union and one White branch of a national trade union, spoke against job reservation? Is it true that, with these two exceptions, all the other evidence was against the imposition of job reservation in the building industry? Is it not true, as has been said before, that the four employers’ organizations came out dead against job reservation in the building trade in the western Cape—I am referring to the four employers’ assessors actually assisting the tribunal? Is it not true that there already is a serious shortage of skilled labour in the building industry in the western Cane? Is it not true that far too few apprentices are coming forward, and that there are, in fact, only 655 apprentices per annum, which is a totally inadequate number to meet the future demands of the country? In fact, the majority report of the tribunal itself brings out clearly that it realizes that there is a severe shortage of skilled workers in this industry. Now, is it not true that, generally sneaking, there is full employment of Whites in South Africa? In fact, the hon. the Minister is boasting about the fact that South Africa has full employment as far as Whites are concerned, there being only about 1 per cent of Whites unemployed. That is considered as being a state of full employment in any country in the world.

If this is so, then what is the need for introducing this outmoded type of “civilized labour” policy, which applied in South Africa in the 1920s in an effort to cope with the most severe depression the world had ever experienced? In the 1920s a “civilized labour” policy was introduced by the then Government to curb the growing unemployment among Whites who were ruined by the agricultural depression and were as a result coming to the towns. It was in State employment that these people were to be taken on in preference to the other races. Although it is by no means the right cure, something might be said in justification of such a policy in time of severe depression. One can then at least see the motivation behind it, although economically it is quite hopeless to try to cure unemployment in that way. As a matter of fact, it was not the “civilized labour” policy which cured unemployment in the 1920s. What cured it was the absorption of these people in the industrial expansion which took place in South Africa from the beginning of the 1930s when we went off the gold standard. Now, if there was only the slightest justification for a “civilized labour” policy at a time when South Africa was in the throes of a depression, will somebody, and particularly the hon. the Minister, who is supposed to know about this, tell me what justifition there is for the introduction of job reservation, which is simply another name for a “civilized labour” policy (although on a more extensive basis because it goes beyond State employment), in South Africa at a time when there is no depression and at a time when the White population of the country is fully employed? In fact, not only is there full employment, but this country is going to face a severe shortage of labour in the near future in the field of skilled work. I have here a quotation from a speech made by Mr. P. E. Rosseau, the managing director of Sasol, who said that it had become imperative that the Bantu and other non-Whites be trained to do more advanced work. The secretary of the T.U.C. warned against a serious shortage as far as apprentices are concerned. Mr. Stirling, in delivering a paper to a congress of the National Federation of Building Trade Employers, said that the R2,000,000,000 projects visualized for the Orange River development. Iscor. Escom and Sasol, would tax the resources of the building industry, particularly in respect of labour, to the nth degree. He went on to point out that research undertaken indicated that the building industry would require double its present artisan force by 1980 and that the recruitment and training of apprentices and operatives would have to receive priority. Then there is that statement by the president of the Master Builders’ Association in Pretoria in which he too warned against a shortage of labour.

Now, in the teeth of all this evidence of an impending shortage of labour, where is there a possible justification for introducing job reservation in South Africa? In fact, there is more muddled thinking about job reservation than there is about any other subject in the House. Certain members on the Government side, such as the hon. member for Vereeniging, told us last night that job reservation was necessary to protect the White worker against non-White competition. He said job reservation was essential because the rate for the job was not enough, because he said the rate for the job was always a minimum wage, that the normal wages paid were higher than that. Consequently, the rate for the job was no protection at all. The hon. the Minister, or the hon. the Deputy Minister, quoted figures to substantiate the fact that in many occupations where the rate for the job applied White workers were receiving higher wages than non-Whites. Now, can the hon. member for Vereeniging tell me why it is that the White worker is retaining his job under those circumstances? That is so because in the occupations quoted by the hon. the Minister no job reservation is applied! So the very arguments used by the hon. member is nonsense. Here we have a situation where the rate for the job is a minimum wage, where White workers are at present being paid higher wages than non-Whites in those particular occupations, and yet no job reservation is applied to protect the White worker from displacement.

I want, first of all, to reply to the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson). He made certain representations in regard to unemployment among the Coloureds on farms. I want to inform him that my Department has at no time been approached in regard to a shortage of Coloured farm labour—either individually, or through any of the farmers’ unions. So that as far as the Department is concerned, it has no knowledge whatsoever of a shortage of Coloured farm labour. I also want to tell the hon. member that should my Department be approached, I would be prepared to go into the question because my Department has on its registers in Worcester, Stellenbosch and Graaff Reinet numbers of unemployed Coloured farm labourers. If the hon. member will, therefore, approach my Department and give us the information which he says he has, we will go into the matter.

The hon. member for Boland during the several times he spoke asked whether it was not possible for the Minister to postpone or suspend the operation of the determination in respect of the building industry in the Cape. My reply to that is that it is not possible. As the hon. member knows, that determination came into operation on 13 May and it is not proposed, in fact I have no power, to suspend it or to postpone it. The hon. member and the hon. member for Peninsula in duty bound— because they represent Coloured voters—quite rightly raised the whole question of job reservation principally affecting Coloured workers. As a matter of fact, I think they put up an objective case which I think has been so effectively disposed of by members on this side of the House that I really have very little to add. This question has been debated almost ad nauseum on both sides of the House.

But we got no answer!

Let me tell the hon. member who interjects that if he had been here last night he would have heard the answer. Consequently, I feel that enough time of this Committee has been taken up by this question of job reservation. The matter has been repeatedly argued almost ad nauseum and I cannot, really, add anything more. It might be of interest to hon. members, however, to know that when I was in Holland last year, I addressed a Press conference in The Hague. At the Press conference there were representatives of about 20 national newspapers. The first question which was put to me was whether I could tell them whether, if they emigrated to South Africa, as carpenters, builders, plasterers, artisans, etc., they as White Hollanders would be protected in South Africa against competition by non-Whites. They said that before they would consider emigrating to South Africa, they would have to have some assurance that they would be protected from competition by non-Whites in South Africa. They said too that they had the experience in Indonesia of being pushed out of their work by non-Whites As Minister of Labour I was able to give them the assurance that they would be adequately protected in South Africa by means of work reservation.

May I tell the hon. member for Boland that I think his forebodings have been greatly exaggerated. He said, inter alia, that work reservation in the building industry was going to prove a catastrophy, a calamity for South Africa. Well, when work reservation was introduced in South Africa some years ago, we heard similar forebodings. We were told that there would be chaos in industry, that factories would close, that industry would grind to a halt, etc. Those were the forebodings and warnings. But let us just look at what has happened since—not a single one of those forebodings has materialized. I should like the hon. member to come forward next year when this determination will have been in operation for one year, and to tell us fairly and squarely what the result of it has been

I will do that provided the hon. the Minister will tell me how many exemptions he has refused or granted.

The hon. member knows that a few exemptions are given, but these are not many. The hon. member for Houghton talked about “blanket exemptions”; but I know of no such exemption.

Not even in the garment industry?

No, not even in the garment industry.

The hon. member for Boland also raised the question of the canning industry and made the point that there was too much interference by the Security Branch of the police in the activities of the trade union of the food and canning workers. Now, I can tell the hon. member that this matter was brought to my notice by the union concerned. I then investigated it. It appeared that it was really a question for the Minister of Justice to inquire into. I accordingly wrote to the union concerned to the effect that I had made a full inquiry into the matter in the course of which I had received reports from the police from which it became clear to me that any complaints should be addressed to the Department of Justice. I can also inform the Committee that this matter was raised also by the International Labour Organization. In fact, it reached them, but how I do not know. As a result the International Labour Organization asked my Department for an explanation of the allegations which had been made. In due course a reply was sent to the effect that it was clear that interference from the part of the police did not have as object interference with normal trade union rights but was related to suspected subversive activity and contraventions of the law. They were told that that was why those investigations were made. I can tell the hon. member that a full investigation was made which satisfied both me and my colleague, the Minister of Justice, that the police investigated the activities of the union concerned merely with a view to establishing whether or not there was any truth in suspected subversive activities and contraventions of the law.

As I have indicated before, I am not going into the question of job reservation again. I have dealt with it so fully already that I am not prepared to deal with it any further.

The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) pleaded for the establishment of an institution of the East Rand giving sheltered employment to handicapped persons. I can assure the hon. member that this request will be gone into. We will also investigate the possibility of establishing a full labour inspectorate at Benoni. At the moment there is only an assistant labour inspector. These matters then will be investigated and the hon. member will be communicated with in due course.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) raised the question of the building in Brakpan in which the Department of Labour was housed. He asked me to have a word with the Minister of Public Works in this connection. That I shall do and we shall see whether we can bring about any improvement. He also raised the question of the means test being applied to handicapped persons employed by local authorities. I must admit that I was unaware of the fact that a means test was being applied. I shall, consequently, also look into this matter. The hon. member also raised the question of workmen’s compensation. He said that when a claim was paid and the employee taken back into employment, he was treated without any sympathy and was sometimes given work which he was not physically capable of performing. I am afraid that there is nothing that can be done about this. There is no guarantee either by the employer or by the workmen’s compensation commissioner that when a person has been fully compensated for an accident, he will be taken back into employment on the same terms and conditions as obtained before he had the accident. It is one of those problems which is insoluble. If the hon. member can give me a solution, I would be glad to have it.

Then the hon. member asked for the establishment of a rehabilitation centre on the East Rand. The hon. member knows that there is a rehabilitation centre in Johannesburg. As a matter of fact, a new institution is being built now at Auckland Park, Johannesburg, which will, I think, be large enough to serve the entire East Rand.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) raised the question of the pregnancy of women radiographers who perform dangerous work. I think there is a case here to be met and, accordingly, I will give the matter my attention. When the time comes for further amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, I shall see whether the case she has put up can be met. I also want to give the hon. member the assurance that when I dealt with the question of the research which had been conducted by the University of Natal into Indian unemployment, I did not mean to imply that there was anything sinister in connection with the figures they had collected. All I said was that on an analysis of the report it appeared to me that the figures were unreliable —in other words. I had evidence that those figures were, in fact, unreliable and that they did not go into the matter as fully as they should have done. At no stage, however, did I suggest that there was any male fides or sinister motives on the part of the university concerned in giving those figures in its report.

The only other point she raised was that only certain occupations were open to the Coloured community. In this connection she mentioned teaching and perhaps the Civil Service. But the position is that in addition to the building industry as a field of employment for the Coloured, there is the furniture industry in which Coloureds are widely employed; then there is the clothing industry in which 96 per cent of employees are Coloureds; there is also the textile industry right throughout the country which is predominantly non-European. Here I might tell the hon. member that on an application for a work reservation in the textile industry. I refused to give any direction for an inquiry to be set afoot. I did so because I was satisfied that the textile industry to-day did not offer any prospect for White employees. It is, in fact, gradually becoming a Black industry. Consequently, there was no investigation in the textile industry with a view to job reservation. Then there is the leather industry of the country which is also principally manned by Coloured workers.

The hon. member also wanted to know whether there was any serious shortage of labour in the building industry in the Cape. My information is that there is no serious shortage at present. Whatever shortage there may be, is not a serious one. So far we have been able to meet most of the demands of the building industry.

I have now more or less dealt with all points raised by hon. members in the course of this debate. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will now see its way clear to approve of my Vote after having voted on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville to the effect that my entire salary should be taken away from me. It is, of course, too bad that they want to do that, although I hope hon. members will have a heart and spare just a small portion of it for me.

I just want to thank the hon. the Minister for undertaking to investigate the position of women radiographers and for the reassurance on the question of the survey made by the University of Natal. I must just clear up this job reservation question because of the complete confusion which has become apparent during the debate. I mentioned the fact that the hon. member for Vereeniging as well as the hon. Minister stated that the rate for the job was no security to the worker because it was always the minimum rate, while the White worker received a higher rate. Consequently, without job reservation they would be replaced. I, however, showed in the light of the Minister’s own example that this was not the case because White workers were retaining their jobs despite their getting higher wages than those laid down by the rate for the job, and despite the fact that there was no job reservation in those particular occupations I mentioned. I have taken out some further figures from special reports on the engineering and motor industries and the building industry which prove the same thing, namely that whereas there is no job reservation in these particular industries, Whites are retaining their positions despite the fact that they are getting higher wages. The other confusion is this, that every hon. member opposite has told us that iob reservation is essential for the protection of White workers. But the hon. the Minister himself tells us that very few job reservations have in fact been made. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself, when he was speaking at a meeting at Port Elizabeth, when he was addressing the Midlands Chamber of Industry, actually stated on 23 November 1962 that only 4 per cent of the country’s workers were affected by job reservation determinations, which, he said, was proof that the Government was applying the measure in a discreet manner. If job reservation is so essential for the protection and security of the White worker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) or the Deputy Minister could explain to the House, and to the country and to their eager supporters among the White workers, why they are applying this job reservation which is so essential in such a discreet manner. Either it is essential, in which case it should be applied, according to Nationalist thinking, or, as I believe it to be, it is nonessential and it should not be applied at all, not even in the discreet 4 per cent manner. There is a decided conflict. I can tell the hon. Minister why the chaos and disasters predicted when job reservation was first introduced in South Africa in the manufacturing industry field, did not materialize. It is because it has not been applied. Had job reservation been widely applied all these ill-effects would have been felt. Nevertheless, although it is not applied the tragedy is that it hangs like a sword of Damocles over everybody obscuring the whole field of our industrial expansion. It is indeed affecting our position at I.L.O., as the hon. the Minister must know. These things tell against us in international labour relations. Therefore, Sir, if a thing can be applied in such a discreet manner as to have no effect whatsoever, except to satisfy the political yearnings of hon. members who rush about the country and stand on their soap-boxes and assure White workers that not one of them will be without the protection of job reservation, then I say this is simply political hocus-pocus and the sooner it is removed from the whole field of thinking in South Africa the better for industrial development in this country, and for race relations generally.

I must point out that there is also muddled thinking on this question of job reservation on the Opposition side of the House. In all fairness I must point that out. It is absolutely true to say that if theirs is a moral and ethnical objection to job reservation in manufacturing industry precisely that same consideration must surely apply in the mining industry. There can be no exceptions; it is either morally wrong to have job reservation or it is not. If it is morally wrong to have it in manufacturing industry where it is not applied then surely it is even more morally wrong to have it in the mining industry where it is applied.

It was introduced 40 years ago.

That makes it all the worse. Forty years ago, says the hon. member, as if it makes it all the better to have something which is morally indefensible 40 years earlier. Surely that makes it worse.

Did you not support it in the past?

I do think it is morally wrong. I have moved forward since those days; they are moving backwards. That is the difference. I want to tell the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) since he is chipping in, that he tried to justify this nonsense of job reservation in the mines by saying that it did not matter there because it was dangerous to handle explosives and Africans could not be taught to do this. This is nonsense as has been proved by experience on the Northern Rhodesian Copperbelt and in the Katanga copper mines where Africans are trained to do the most skilled jobs on the mines.

How long do they work on those mines? For six months at a time?

No, it is permanent mine labour. We could do the same here and that is exactly what I say should be done. You must stabilize and train your labour. If you do that there is no reason whatsoever why one should not make the maximum use of Native labour on the mines just as one can make the maximum use of such labour in other industries in this country. Incidentally, what is influx control but another form of job reservation? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) says he is against job reservation but he is in favour of influx control because he says it protects the urban African worker against competition from the rural African. It is another form of job reservation and it is just as absurd as protecting Coloured workers against the Black workers and White workers against the Coloured workers. If I may quote the hon. member for Yeoville, Sir, he says work begets work. That is absolutely right: work does beget work. In an expanding economy there is no need for all this nonsense of tier upon tier of protection of one worker against the other. Exactly the same argument which applies in the case of job reservation for Whites to protect them against Coloureds and job reservation for Coloureds to protect them against Blacks applies in the case of the influx control argument where it is used to protect the urban African from the rural African. It is nonsense from beginning to end. There is only one real security for the workers of South Africa and that is to use all our potential labour force to its utmost capacity, be it urban labour or rural labour, White labour or Coloured labour, Indian labour or African labour. We have a vast potential treasure trove in the labour of this country and we do not use it because we are frightened. We do not realize the inter-dependence of the one group upon the other. We do not realize that this is an expanding economy and what benefits one set of workers benefits everybody by increasing the internal market, increasing the consuming power in the whole of South Africa and by providing jobs for our expanding population. That is the only real security that can be offered to any worker in South Africa, irrespective of his colour.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. W. Higgerty.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Revenue Vote No. 42.—“Labour”, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 43.—“Immigration”, R3,444,000,

Looking up the record of the debate last year I noticed that the hon. the Minister was a little non-committal with regard to suggestions from this side of the House that in dealing with immigrants from the territories to the north of us. we should keep them on what we called a favourite nation basis. I am pleased to see that there has been a much more sympathetic approach to that problem since then and that they are in fact getting special treatment from the Department and also as far as South African citizenship is concerned.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to-night precisely what special treatment the immigrants from the North are getting. I know from my own knowledge that immigrants from Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika are being so treated but I should like to know whether the same treatment will be meted out to the folk coming to us from Northern and Southern Rhodesia. I think such a small number is coming from Nyasaland that they will probably just fall into place with others from the Federation. I am really concerned about those coming to us from Northern and Southern Rhodesia. Not necessarily because there is a large number coming at the moment but because I foresee the possibility of a far larger number coming. Precisely the same way as we foresaw that possibility with regard to folk from Kenya and made our plea then, I raise the question of people from the Federation to-night so that they shall not come into a vacuum before a policy has been arrived at to receive them and deal with them.

With regard to people coming from overseas countries there is much in the way of inducement to encourage them to come to South Africa. The positive side is put before them. I wonder whether there are considerations which bar immigrants from countries which will otherwise provide us with acceptable immigrants. I see the side of it where inducements are put to immigrants whom we want very badly in this country. I want to ask the Minister whether there are positive barriers in the way of any of these people coming. Have barriers been placed administratively or in any other fashion in the way of people who would otherwise come to us so that they are in fact prevented from coming? If so, Sir, what are those barriers? I ask that, Sir, because I hope we are going to open our doors very wide indeed. If ever the policy of the Nationalist Government in barring immigrants has been shown up in its weakness to our country it is being shown up to-day.

One last point. I recently had occasion to speak to the Minister with regard to a particular case which had come to my knowledge of somebody who had come to us from the North. People come down to us from Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika etc. as immigrants but they find themselves unable to fit in adequately with the system of our way of life, here; the far greater coverage by Government agencies where we have a relatively large population, both White and non-White, compared with the relatively small number in the countries they came from, the vastness of all this is something which puzzles them; they do not understand our laws in detail and so forth. The Minister has promised to help in the case I have mentioned but I would ask this: Is it not possible for immigrants who come here, both from the North and from other countries, to be furnished with something like a card, let us say, which would permit them to appeal to a Government agency which can act in respect of all these matters associated with the new conditions of life they will find here so that they can find their feet quickly? We have, for example, these various statutory bodies with which they are not acquainted. They do not know where they are with regard to Escom, with regard to various control boards; they do not know what their status is; they do not know how to set about things. They can appeal to a Member of Parliament, but I am not sure whether a Member of Parliament is really the right person to deal with this matter. I would like to see immigrants provided with a card saying to him: The address of the man you must contact is this and that; he will see you through all your difficulties. They will then feel that they have a right to go to that particular official and that he will put them in touch with the realities of the situation in a practical way. They will not then be left groping in the dark not knowing to whom to turn for assistance at a time when they have just arrived. I want to make that suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, when you study the latest immigration figures you are struck by a few interesting facts. I have in mind, for example, the totals in round figures. During 1962 approximately 21,000 immigrants came into this country. Some, of course, left the country but we were nevertheless left with a gain of 12,000 people. I think we are all agreed that this is a very fine and encouraging figure. When we look at the emigration position we find that the emigration figure has dropped. In 1961 14,000 people left the country but in 1962 we lost only 8,900. Another aspect in regard to which we have been severely criticized in the past was that practically most of our immigrants consisted of refugees from Africa and that we were not getting the share from Europe which we ought to get. Although the immigration figure for 1962 from Africa has also increased—there were 9,300 in 1961 and 10,800 in 1962—I find that there has been an increase in the number of immigrants from Europe. In 1961 we received 6,100 from Europe whereas 10,150 entered in 1962. The figure in regard to the professions is very interesting and encouraging. During the year 1962 we experienced a gain of 800 in the professions. That unfortunately does not apply in the case of medical practitioners; a greater number of medical practitioners still leave the country than those coming in.

Another figure which I should like to mention is that from Australia. We have received 231 persons from Australia. If we take the globular figures, excluding the years 1947 and 1948, those two years when special circumstances prevailed, as we know, and when people were practically anxious to leave Europe, we find that since 1924, 1962 was the year during which most immigrants came to our country. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express our gratitude and appreciation towards the hon. the Minister. Hon. members can laugh. I do not think anybody can deny that it is largely due to the personal attention which he has given to this question of immigration that we have these fine figures. He visited various countries overseas and I am convinced that his efforts in this regard are largely responsible for the figures which we have before us this evening. In every newspaper you open, you find some or other testimonial from some or other immigrant, one or other immigrant who expresses his satisfaction to the Government for the very fine scheme which has been placed in operation and towards the Minister concerned and his officials. That reminds me of what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has said. You usually find that these immigrants speak very highly of the officials who assist them. They have the highest praise for this wonderful country, South Africa. A spirit prevails amongst the immigrants which is totally different from the spirit which we sometimes find in this House. I want to refer in particular to a speech made in this House last year by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). In Hansard, col. 7842, he tells us that he is an immigrant and that he can accordingly speak on behalf of immigrants. Instead of praising South Africa he actually does the opposite by telling us that our position is not very rosy. He ridiculed the Department of Immigration. He told us that there was a loss of 2,800 in 1960. He ridiculed the situation and said that that was the purpose for which we had a Department of Immigration. He pointed out that we only gained 1.400 persons in 1961: He complained about our not attracting immigrants. Having heard the figures for this year I am sure he will be sorry that he adopted that mocking attitude in his speech last year. As an expert immigrant he then told us the following—

I am convinced that the hon. member is very sorry this evening that he said those words. South Africa has been very good to him. He must just think for a moment that there are 12,000 persons here of whom a good 5,000 are English-speaking; these 12,000 persons are not concerned about the fact that this is a bilingual country. These people are not concerned about the fact that we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth. According to reports, these people are quite satisfied and pleased with the fact that this is a Republic. Most peculiar of all is this that where he gave preference to Australia over South Africa we find that there were 230 Australians who regarded South Africa good enough to come and live here. I say I am convinced the hon. member is very sorry for having made that speech. It is clear that our country is popular and that it is becoming more and more popular. In spite of the laughter of a moment ago, I once again want to express our appreciation to the Minister and his staff for everything they are doing to make South Africa attractive to the immigrants.

It is very flattering to find the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) devoting most of his speech to criticism of something I said last year. Had he not been so impetuous and had waited a few minutes he could have devoted himself to something I have to say this year, which I think he will find much more interesting. When I discussed our immigration plan last year I said what I thought of it. Countries are like men. You know. Sir—

And the shallows and the miseries in which the hon. the Minister is now struggling have come about because there was a tide in the affairs of this country; there was a tide after World War II and this party took it at the flood, but when this Government came into office they destroyed that great immigration plan. But they did not destroy it in Australia. During the first ten years after World War II Australia got one million immigrants.

And now?

Their target is 100,000 per annum. Of that 100,000 they try to draw 50,000 from the United Kingdom and 50,000 from other countries in Europe. They are succeeding in doing it and immigrants are still pouring into Australia. It is not as if I have anything against South Africa. As I say, I am an immigrant. I am the only immigrant in this House who came to South Africa when he had reached the years of discretion. The hon. the Prime Minister did not come when he had reached the years of discretion. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) also came here as a child. But I decided to come to South Africa. I appreciated the situation and said: “That is the country I want to go to”. And that was the finest thing I ever did in my life. There is no question about that; it is a land flowing with milk and honey. Somebody said to me the only thing that was wrong with it was the Government.

I should like to say that the hon. the Minister has had an opportunity to go overseas. He is now familiar with the work of his Department. He is now able to appreciate the situation of immigration from the point of view of the immigrant. Why does a man leave his home? What is his reason? He hopes to obtain a better livelihood in a new country. If he is a young man he does so out of a love of adventure. He likes to feel that he is going out in the world to see something new. He does not always intend to stay in the country. People once said we wanted immigrants, “the good and the bad”. A bad immigrant is not necessarily a bad man; he is a man who does not adapt himself to the country he has gone to. When he comes to a new country he likes it to be a country with which he has a good deal in common. For examples, the citizens of the northern countries of Europe do not like to go to South America; they do not feel at home there.

Why?

Because when they go there there is a difference in the language to begin with, a difference in race and very often a difference in religion. They like to feel they are going to familiar surroundings. South Africa has great advantages but there is always still the question of language. When they weigh it up they think, perhaps, Australia would be better. We have tried very hard to get immigrants and when I quote figures I am going to quote them from Government statistics. We know when men want to emigrate; it happens after religious disturbances. We got the Huguenots; America got the Mayflower in 1620. It comes after great convulsions such as wars. We received the 1820 Settlers after the Napoleonic Wars. We have had three wars in South Africa. Men came to this country to take part in war, stayed here and became good citizens. We had the first great war and another influx of population. And after the second great war we had our greatest chance of all because South Africa through its magnificent record in the Second World War was known throughout the world. No country in the world had a higher reputation than South Africa. Men had passed through here, they liked the country, they liked the men they met on active service in the desert and they said “I would like to go to that country”. Now, Sir, what success have we had since the Government started this new Department of Immigration? I am going to quote from the figures that are given in the statistics issued by this Government. We will take 1960 first of all. In 1960 it was not a question of immigrants, it was a question of emigrants. More people left the country than came into it. So we won’t dwell on that too long. That was very bad; 2,823 more people left the country than came into it. So we can leave 1960. Now the only year for which we have a complete record at this stage is 1961. For 1962 I have worked out the 11 months that are given in the statistics. Let us have a look at 1961. What is the position? There came into the country 16,309, or to follow the example of the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer), in round figures, 16,300, and 14,900 left the country. There was a gain of 1,400. A gain of 1,400 since the establishment of this great Department of Immigration now spending R3,000,000! But this is the interesting thing when we examine those figures: The United Kingdom, from which we draw most of our immigrants, as the hon. Minister will know, gave us 2,300 but there went out to the United Kingdom 5,000. There was a loss of 2,700 to the United Kingdom. That was the balance sheet in respect of the United Kingdom. I think that is a very serious thing because we have always drawn immigrants from that country. Then we come to the question of Kenya and Rhodesia. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has already referred to that. Kenya and Rhodesia: there came in 7.100 immigrants and 4.700 left South Africa chiefly for the Federation. So there was a gain of 2,400. What is happening? The White men in the territories to the north of us are coming down here, and it is those people coming to South Africa who are keeping up these figures. The biggest number are farmers, well over 1,000 farmers: but surely we have sufficient farmers in South Africa? But these people come here and, as the hon. member for South Coast said, we welcome them. But we cannot say that that was a very successful immigration plan. We would like to see more people go to the north. It is our duty as the greatest nation in Africa to send men to develop these countries to the north, and we were doing that in the past; we were doing that immediately after the second great war. But here we are. The number of immigrants is increasing, but they are immigrants who are coming into the Laager, leaving Kenya, leaving Rhodesia…

Why?

I am not now discussing the reasons. I am discussing immigration. I am discussing the South African Government’s immigration scheme. That is the story. In other words, we lost immigrants excepting for those coming in from the north. We did not get immigrants from Europe as we should have done, and not only are they going back to Europe, but they are going to what they call Oceania, that is Australia and New Zealand. More people are going to New Zealand, more people are leaving South Africa for Australia. [Time limit.]

At the outset of his speech the hon. member who has just sat down called South Africa a country of milk and honey, with only one fly in the ointment and that is that it has the wrong Government. I just want to ask hon. members opposite who is responsible for the “milk and honey” in South Africa, who is responsible for this favourable situation. who gives the milk and who takes out the honey? The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) also spoke about the post-war years and the tremendous influx of immigrants that we had in those years. Sir, I want to read out two quotations to show the hon. member what the attitude of the United Party was in those days. In the first place I want to quote from Hansard of 21 March 1946, what was said by the late General Smuts as Prime Minister on the Foreign Affairs Vote in dealing with immigration. These were his words—

Then follows this significant concluding sentence—

That was in 1946 after the war. But then there was suddenly a change in the attitude of the United Party. They suddenly realized that there was an upsurge of Afrikaner nationalism in South Africa; they suddenly began to realize that the Afrikaner was rising and that the National Party was becoming stronger, and they realized that their only hope of averting a National Party victory was to allow immigrants to come into this country immediately in their thousands. That is why we find that on 14 August 1946, a bare five months after his previous speech, General Smuts again spoke about immigration, as reported in the Cape Argus of 14 August 1946. And what did this same person have to say about immigration, just five months later?—

Hear, hear!

Yes, but what were the conditions immediately afterwards? Let us look at the employment situation. Are hon. members aware of the strikes which took place in those days? Are they aware of the housing conditions, the slum areas, which developed here in South Africa? Are they aware of the conditions which the National Party Government inherited in 1948 and had to rectify? But the attitude of the United Party in respect of this immigration scheme is reflected most clearly in the following quotation from the British African Monthly of March 1949. This was in the nature of a post-mortem. The National Party came into power in 1948 and were governing the country, and in March 1949 the following appeared in a leading article in the British African Monthly—

That was the object of the United Party with their immigration scheme. And the best proof of all is to be found in the figures. In the year 1946, 7,400 immigrants came to this country from Great Britain, just a little over 200 from the Netherlands, 27 from Belgium and one from Germany. In other words, the English-speaking element in this country was supplemented by 7,400 from Great Britain. A total of 228 came from the three other Middle Dutch countries of origin to supplement the Afrikaans-speaking element. Sir, does it not look as though there was some motives behind this immigration scheme? In 1947. 27,004 came from Great Britain. 1.006 from the Netherlands, 119 from Belgium, 28 from Germany, a total of 1,200 as against 27,000. Is that maintaining the balance between the two population groups in South Africa, or was immigration deliberately resorted to in those days by the United Party to disturb the balance between the population groups? I want to mention a third series of figures. In 1948, when the United Party was still in power in the first part of the year, 25,513 immigrants came from Great Britain, and 3,066 from the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany jointly. I deliberately mention these figures because I want to show hon. members opposite that the United Party misused immigration for their own Party purposes.

Racialism.

No, we are not dealing with racialism now. What we are doing is to supplement the South African population with people who are of value to us. We are importing immigrants on a selective basis, people who are of value to our country, and whom we are going to retain here.

I want to refer to just one further matter. The hon. member for Kensington also had a great deal to say about the immigrants who went to Australia. He says that Australia got so many immigrants. I want to quote certain comments on Australia’s State immigration scheme from the Sunday Telegraph of 22 May 1955. What does this paper say? It says—

Are those the people whom they want to import into this country? Is that the attitude of the United Party?

What has become of them to-day?

The hon. member also adopts the attitude that their is such large-scale emigration; that so many people are leaving our country. But that is a general phenomenon in various countries of the world. I have the figures here for five years from 1956 to 1961. During that five-year period the emigration from South Africa was 3.9 per 1,000 immigrants: in the case of Australia it was 4.3 over the same period, as against South Africa’s 3.9; in the case of New Zealand it was 5.2. It was only in Canada that the figure was lower than in our case; there it was 2.5. In other words, the emigration figure is one which cannot be used by the Opposition to support them in their argument that the number of emigrants exceeds the number of immigrants.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member should rather remain silent. Already he is no longer the member for Benoni, according to the hon. the Minister.

I want to mention a further fact. The reason why Australia was able to draw huge numbers of immigrants was, in the first place, that there you have a homogeneous population consisting mainly of one single population group. The problem of disturbing race relations or of upsetting the ratio of population groups does not exist there. The second point is that countries like Australia are able to absorb unskilled immigrants on a huge scale because they have room for them and opportunities for them. South Africa cannot do so. If the Opposition really want to be an Opposition of which we can take notice, and if they want us to listen to their criticism occasionally, then at least they must be honest enough to give credit where credit is due. If the Opposition wished to go up in the estimation of this country and in our estimation, they should have stood up here to-day and told the Minister of Immigration that he has been doing an excellent job lately, because that is a fact which is recognized throughout South Africa. If the Opposition would give credit where credit is due and then come forward with any criticism which they may have, we would attach more value to their criticism.

Are they coming from England?

It does not matter where they come from. As far as the figure of 21,000 for the year 1962 is concerned, I just want to add that a very large percentage came from the Africa states. Sir, the outside world and we here, as well as the Black states to the north, must realize that here in the Republic of South Africa we are forging together a group of Whites who are the most determined people in the world, people who have already made sacrifices up north for their ideals, people who come here to make a last-ditch stand for a final say and to save what can still be saved for them. I just want to say to the outside world that in this country we are forging together Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking Whites who have dug themselves in here, and that anybody who tries to drive them out or tries to take this last fortress of theirs will come up against an undaunted people with a determination and a will to live which is unsurpassed anywhere else in the world. We are building up a nation here which will survive under all circumstances in spite of everything, thanks to immigration and the spirit of our own nation.

After listening to the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) one can realize why we do not get so many immigrants. One of the things that he stood up to do here to-night was to make excuses for the utter and complete failure of his governing party to attract immigrants to this country over the last 14 years, and it is only during the last year that they had to get an English-speaking Minister to try and tackle the job for them. He is making a reasonably good job of it, better than that party could do without him.

Why not admit it?

The hon. member for Randfontein and the hon. member who spoke before him got up here to-night and tried to make excuses to smooth away the fact that for 14 years they turned their faces against any immigrants at all coming into this country.

That is a lie!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that expression.

I withdraw that. It is an absolute untruth.

What is the position to-day? That this hon. Minister in taking office has already got a backlog of 1,000,000 immigrants that he has got to try and catch up with. That is the position in which he finds himself to-day, and he is making an effort. But when one reads the newspapers and the policy that this Government is following, it is obvious that he is fighting an uphill battle and that he is going to have a most difficult task to get those immigrants to come here. Rumour has it that the hon. Minister has set himself a target of 30,000 immigrants a year. It might sound very good to the hon. member for Randfontein, but to me it is shocking, because we are already in arrears in getting White immigrants into South Africa where our population ratio at the moment is something like 3,000,000:15,000,000. We can’t wait 30 years for the hon. Minister to catch up with that backlog of 1,000,000 immigrants. Time is not on our side to that extent. And what this hon. Minister’s task should be at the moment is not 30,000 immigrants, a year, but it should be 30,000 immigrants a week or a month.

Don‘t talk nonsense! Be realistic.

It is not nonsense. If the Minister has to overcome this stupidity of the policy of the Nationalist Party which has kept immigrants out of this country for 14 years, he has got to aim at a figure very much higher indeed than 30,000 immigrants a year. And I think the hon. Minister knows it. Hon. members over there in the kitchen might not know it and might not appreciate it because they are not liking the thought of having immigrants come to this country who might not agree with their particular ideologies. That is their problem. They are divided between two thoughts. They want their cake and they want to eat it too. And of course, they cannot do that. If you are going to have immigrants, you have got to take immigrants who bring their skills, who bring their capital and bring their know-how. That is what we want. But those are not the controlling factors in judging immigrants coming into this country. They only want to know what political inclination those people have.

What utter nonsense!

One of the things I am glad to see in respect of this hon. Minister is that he is trying to attract the right type of immigrants. I think that in his heart of hearts he is in fact trying to attract immigrants that this country so badly needs. But of course he has got a terrible task there, with all of this hanging around his neck. I am going to ask the hon. Minister not to set his target for immigrants at 30,000 a year. Sir, 30,000 a year of White immigrants into South Africa at the moment is a drop in the ocean. I want him to set a very much higher target indeed. There is one aspect I want to put to the hon. Minister. During the discussion on a previous Vote, that of the hon. Minister of the Interior, the question arose of all those people who became aliens whilst they were resident in South Africa. Nobody knows the number of these people. The newspapers put it at 300,000. The number might be 100,000. I do not know. The hon. Minister could not supply the figure. But I want the hon. Minister to make an effort to treat those people as immigrants coming into this country and to make an effort to get those people to assume South African citizenship. Here he has within the country, within South Africa, a group of people numbering possibly between 100,000 and 300,000—I do not know the figures and the Department cannot give the figures, but we do know that we have a considerable number of these people here in South Africa. These are people whom the Minister can treat as immigrants if he wishes to take this view of these tailor-made immigrants; they have lived in our country, most of them have a stake in our country, they have fitted into our way of life, they have accepted the facts of South Africa, good and bad, and I think that here he has a wonderful opportunity to go to these people and induce them to throw in their lot with South Africa permanently. I think he should have done something about that already. I think it should not come as a suggestion from the Opposition side of this House. I think this Minister should have taken steps immediately in May last year, or even before when he knew that the Commonwealth Relations Bill was coming before this House. I think he should have taken steps to provide for this particular class of persons, whom he knew would be available to him as South African citizens. I would like the hon. Minister in his reply to deal particularly with this position and to tell us exactly what he intends to do in regard to these people, or whether he intends to disregard them and go right past them 6,000 miles away to get immigrants from other countries.

I think at this stage I should deal with one or two questions raised. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) asked me several questions, the first of which was what we are doing about immigrants from the north and whether they are getting special treatment.. I want to tell the hon. member that we are giving special treatment to immigrants from the Federation. Provision is made for special customs facilities. There is a long list here, which I do not want to read out, but which the hon. member can see, of goods which they can bring into South Africa customs free: Motor cars, furniture and so on. The hon. member will also see that there is an amount of R560,000 on the Estimates to assist those immigrants from the north by granting customs duty exemption. I make the point that we are encouraging them by means of these concessions, but, as the hon. member knows, our policy is not to actively recruit White immigrants from the Federation, because of our view that they require their White citizens probably as much as we do, and, therefore, we never embarked on an active campaign to recruit immigrants from the Rhodesias. But, as the hon. member said, in view of the changed circumstances, we anticipate that there will be a steady stream of White immigrants from the north, that is, from the Federation to South Africa, and we are doing everything to assist them when they come to South Africa.

The hon. member then raised the question whether there are any inducements held out to immigrants from overseas. Well, there are no particular inducements held out as such, although, as the hon. member knows, there are various pamphlets which are issued by the Department to give immigrants an idea of what they can expect in South Africa— in other words, what a good country it is. I have some of these pamphlets in my hand. I will read their titles: “Assisted immigration to the Republic of South Africa”; in which full details are given of State aid; then there is: “Taxation, licences,” etc., in South Africa, “Educational facilities in the Republic of South Africa”: “Employment prospects in the Republic of South Africa”; “The immigrant housewife in the Republic of South Africa”; “Housing facilities in the Republic of South Africa”; “Land of Sunshine, South Africa”. Those are pamphlets which are issued to all the immigration offices both in the United Kingdom and Europe. So I suppose I can say that the only tangible inducement is that we give each immigrant R120 to assist the immigrant in respect of his transport from an oversea country to South Africa. Then the hon. member raised the question whether there are any barriers to immigrants. Well, apart from the fact that we only take skilled immigrants, there are no other barriers. But, as I say, we only take skilled immigrants. They must satisfy us that they are skilled, that they are technicians, artisans, professional people, and so on. I suppose that is one of the reasons why we are really getting a very high grade of immigrant from overseas countries. But there are no barriers other than the fact that they must be skilled. In other words, we do not accept unskilled immigrants, for reasons which I think are obvious. Then the hon. member raised the question of what facilities are placed at the disposal of immigrants once they settle in South Africa. That is, of course, a question of the after-care of immigrants, and we have special departments dealing with the after-care of immigrants. We have, for instance, officers who assist immigrants with employment. We have officers who assist with their resettlement; we have regional officers in Pretoria, Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban, and we have liaison officers who assist these immigrants with advice and help in the bigger centres, where they usually settle. They are also assisted by the 1820 Settlers Association and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie, which is an organization administered by some of the Dutch Reformed churches. They all assist in the after-care of immigrants, and, as the hon. member will see from the Estimates, we actually give them a subsidy to do so. I might also tell the hon. member that even before they proceed to South Africa immigrants are fully informed of conditions as to what they can expect in South Africa, what their chances are of employment, and so on, in terms of these brochures which I have mentioned. I think that answers the questions put by the hon. member for South Coast.

Might I just say in reply generally to a number of hon. members who have spoken about immigration and emigration that it is quite true that in the years mentioned by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), 1960 and 1961, there was a minus figure, in other words, emigration exceeded immigration.

Not in 1961.

Well, the balance in 1961 was so small that it does not really matter. But in 1962 the position gradually became reversed, and I can tell hon. members that in this year, 1963, the position is as follows: In January there were 2,472 immigrants and 709 emigrants, a total gain of 1,763; in February the total gain was 1,607; in March the total gain was 1,685; in April the gain was over 2,000. So the figures are gradually increasing in our favour. In other words, fewer emigrants are leaving South Africa. I think that is a very healthy state of affairs, and it shows that certain factors which existed in 1960 and 196I have now been overcome and the stream is the other way—the stream is to South Africa. And, as hon. members know, many of the emigrants who left South Africa during the last few years are now returning as fast as they can.

Are they treated as immigrants?

Yes, we treat them as immigrants, and we give them the aid that we give to any immigrant. My attitude is, my policy is that those emigrants who left South Africa and who are anxious to come back, I am prepared to assist them because I think that in view of the experience they have had, they will be good South Africans, much better than they were before.

Much better than many of the members here.

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) said that there was a rumour that the target is 30,000 a year. I have no target. I am prepared to accept immigrants into South Africa provided I can find employment for them in South Africa. I am not prepared to accept more immigrants than I can find employment for. I am not prepared to cause unemployment in South Africa which will worry me as Minister of Labour. Therefore I have no target, but it seems to me at the moment that the figure of 30,000 may be exceeded this year.

Vote put and agreed to.

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