I cannot help expressing my disappointment at the recommendation of the Select Committee. When one reads this recommendation it looks as though great concessions are being made here, but when one takes into account the fact that this is really just a deferment of the payment of interest and of repayments on capital, then it looks as though fair consideration has not been given to the position of the Irrigation Board of Somerset East. I want to point out that the irrigators who fall under that Irrigation Board, as they mention in their petition, find themselves in the position, through no fault of their own but through events which are entirely beyond their control, that they have little water at their disposal. I refer here to soil conservation works which have been erected in the catchment area and which have reduced the flow to such an extent that the irrigators can no longer make a proper living there. I would also refer to paragraph 1 (a) (iii) where it is recommended that the board should reduce the scheduled land by 25 per cent. Even this recommendation is impracticable as far as most of the irrigators there are concerned. It is true that not all the land which has been scheduled can be irrigated. The position today is that while one irrigator has placed practically all his scheduled land under irrigation the next irrigator has not done so. Sub-paragraph (ii) reads—

That may also give rise to difficulties because they have no meters. The only way in which they measure there is by noting the time during which water is in fact available in the canal. With the small quantity of water at their disposal there is no justification for the erection of meters at that scheme. We hope and trust that it will also be possible at some time in the future to supply water to this Irrigation Board from the Orange River. If that happens then this recommendation of this Select Committee may be useful to them if their payments can be deferred for ten years but if they do not get water in future either, I want to say here in advance that that board will certainly come to this House again and ask for a write-off which I do feel is justified.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Remaining recommendations put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported.

Report considered and adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I should like your ruling. Clause 1 provides for the rates and says at the end “as set forth in the Schedule to this Act”. I have an amendment to the Schedule; shall I put it now or to the Schedule?

To the Schedule.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

I stated in my Budget speech that the new concession in connection with the writing-off of capital would be applicable to new mines “established after 20 March”. The effect of this amendment is to make it applicable not to mines which were established after 20 March, but to mines which commenced the production of gold after 20 March. It has been found that certain mines, although they were established before that date, have not yet started producing gold and we should like to give those mines the benefit of this concession too.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I move—

To omit paragraph (b) and to substitute the following new paragraph:

(ee) the amount under this paragraph in respect of any new gold mine shall not be calculated in respect of any period occurring before 20 March 1963.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses put and agreed to.

On the schedule,

Yesterday when the hon. the Minister replied to the second-reading debate he gave us additional information with regard to the income-tax collections. He told us that the original estimates amounted to R3 57,000,000, that the revised estimates amounted to R362,000,000 and that the collections amounted to R367,000,000. On the assumption that the Minister’s Budget was drawn up on the basis of the original estimates you will see, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister’s collections are R10,000,000 in excess of his original estimates. But even assuming that his Budget was based on the revised estimates it is apparent that the total collections are over R5,000,000 in excess of the revised estimates. I therefore propose to move—

The effect will be that the proviso in paragraph 1 (a) (ii) will read thus—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has calculated his Budget either on the basis of the original estimates or the revised estimates. This additional amount of R5,000,000 collected, I suggest, should be put in the hands of the taxpayer. The taxpayers are entitled to expect a good Minister of Finance to balance his Budget and not to take this extra amount out of their pockets. I submit that it is the duty of the Minister of Finance, when he finds that an additional amount has been collected, to pass it on to the taxpayers. I suggest all members who vote against my proposal will be in favour of saddling the taxpayers with an additional burden and I hope they will account to their constituents accordingly. As the hon. the Minister has got this windfall and as he has indicated in his Budget speech that he has balanced his Budget, I suggest that this amount can very well be put in the pockets of the taxpayers. I hope the Minister will accept this suggestion and so for once show that he is a Minister of Finance with some heart for the taxpayers in this country.

I support this amendment in order to encourage the Minister. We have heard from every economic source and from financiers that the situation in South Africa has now so improved that the whole economy of this country is just rarin’ to go. I think everybody is agreed that South Africa is now ready for the next step forward. Obviously the best way of encouraging that is to give the consumer an opportunity to spend money. Those people who have been holding back for a period, building a home or waiting to purchase some extra household appliance, will now have the opportunity of doing so. But there is another reason: The Minister has P.A.Y.E. this year and for the first time people will have to pay income-tax who have been successful in avoiding paying it. That will mean a further increase to him. When we speak of 5 per cent and 10 per cent we are not mathematically correct. What the Minister really did last year was to increase what we regard as our normal income-tax by 10 per cent. So instead of 100 it becomes 110. We are now asking him for the restoration of that 10 per cent. [Interjections.] If hon. members cannot follow this they should concentrate and try to follow. It is now 110, and 10 of 110, to restore the balance, will approximately be 9 per cent. The Minister is haggling about 5 per cent or 10 per cent but at this time of our economy in South Africa a brave, courageous Minister will do what they have done in the United States of America. If necessary go for a deficit! That is what South Africa needs at the present time—a courageous Minister, a Minister who will take his courage in both hands and say: “I am going to let South Africa go to it; we are all going to go to it together.” And this is the way in which that can be done.

I wish it were as easy as all that! The hon. member says the collections of inland revenue are R10,000,000 in excess of the original estimates. He forgets that there are such things as supplementary estimates and there will also be additional estimates before the end of this financial year. The supplementary estimates already amount to almost R9,000,000. Some of those items have been provided for in the Budget but not in the case of all. I have to go into the new year with the expectation that, as usual, the additional estimates at the beginning of next session will almost take away any advantage of this kind.

Your revenue will be up too, as usual.

Will it? Unfortunately I cannot accept the infallibility of hon. members on the opposite side. If they were to bring me the message direct from the Angel Gabriel I might be inclined to accept it more readily! Sir, there is a great amount of uncertainty in the new P.A.Y.E. scheme. Hon. members will remember that in the past we estimated our income, as far as income taxation was concerned, on the figures of the previous year. We had a much clearer picture of what the income was. In future it will be based on the income of the new year. We have not got the same certainty. In the past, in spite of the fact that the estimates were based on the income of the previous year, those estimates were often underestimated. Our percentage is one of the lowest in the world as regards underestimating our income. Now we have to estimate on what is going to be the income of companies and of individuals in the year that lies ahead. The uncertainty is therefore much greater.

There is also a third factor. The hon. member for Kensington has said that this wonderful prosperity which we are now enjoying …

Hoping for!

…this era of prosperity, this economic activity, must mean that there is going to be increased income and that I must spur it on further by giving more money to the consumer. That is his argument. Now, if the hon. member had any appreciation of the principles of public finance, he would have known that at a time of rising prosperity it is one of the most dangerous things to give too much money in the hands of the consumer. You can do that when there is a period of recession. It is then that you should put money in his pocket to spend, but if, on the other hand, you give him more money when there is already a glut of money in the country, you are directly encouraging the flames of inflation. There is nothing which is so calculated to bring about inflation than putting more money in the hands of the consumer during times of prosperity

Last year I expected prosperity, but it did not happen, and in any case I was not in a position to put more money in the hands of the consumer. This year the signs are much more auspicious. It looks as if there is an economic revival on a broad and wide front. That means that we shall have to be careful what we do because we do not want to encourage inflation. If there is one thing in this country of which we must be very careful, it is inflation. We have the problem of these marginal mines threatening closure. Any additional rise in the cost structure will mean that so many ounces of gold will be irrecoverably lost, because those mines once they have closed down, cannot be reopened. The mining industry has always played the part of stablizer of our economy and for us to hasten the end of many of these mines, would be a most irresponsible thing to do.

Ask the shareholders what they think of that.

I am a shareholder and that is why I have a sense of responsibility.

What about the advice of the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs to us to go on a spending spree? Is it your view that that time has passed?

The spending spree is on. I do not know what the Minister of Economic Affairs exactly said about a spending spree, but there was a time when it was necessary to encourage people to spend more but …

Is that why you increased taxation last year?

… I do not think there is any longer any need for such encouragement. I think we have achieved what we wanted to achieve. As far as I am concerned, I want to tell hon. members that as long as I am Minister of Finance I am not prepared to gamble with the future of the country.

Question put: That the word “five” in subparagraph (ii), page 20, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Schedule.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—74: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.

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

NOES—44: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin,S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Schedule, as printed, put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

This is the clause which gives Bantu widows the right to claim damages for the unlawful death of their husbands, bringing them into line with the wives of all the other races in this country. I welcome it, of course, but there is one aspect of it on which I wonder whether the Minister will enlighten us, and that is sub-clause (5), which provides that if the deceased partner is survived by more than one wife, the aggregate of the amount of damages to be awarded under no circumstances must exceed the amount which would have been awarded if the deceased had been survived by only one wife. Now the courts will only award such amount of damages as in fact the widows have lost. They cannot award more than the husband was contributing. It may well be that in these circumstances where a Bantu has five wives and he is earning R20 a month, the court in assessing damages will take into account the fact that there were six in the household and that the amount which was spent on him would be less than if, e.g. there were only two living in the household, in which case his share would have been greater. This is what happens when you assess damages where the breadwinner of the family has been killed. Is it the Minister’s intention that the court should award what in fact is proved to have been the support which was given to those wives, or does he want to limit it to the lesser amount of what in fact they have been getting? It seems to me that the court can only award the amount that they prove they have lost because of the husband’s death. In the circumstances it seems to me that this provision is unnecessary, but as it stands now it could limit the amount which the widow should claim. Will the Minister indicate what his intention is?

I wonder whether the Minister would give me some information on this clause, which I also welcome. I wonder whether he can clear up two points for me. Sub-clause (1) has a sentence in line 34 which says “provided that such partner or such other partner is not at the time of such death a party to a subsisting marriage”. I presume by that the Minister means a man who was married by civil or Christian rites and also has a customary union. Does this mean that all customary wives will be excluded? [Interjection.] The Minister says yes. I think that is a bit hard, because we do recognize this practice of customary wives. We are all in favour of the system of monogamy, but in fact South Africa recognizes polygamy for the African races, and just as five wives married by Native custom can share the damages so it seems to me that they should be allowed to share with the wife married by Christian rites.

The other point is this question of the registration certificate. Registration in Natal has of course been practised for many years, but it is not so common in the other provinces. Is it his intention to encourage the registration of customary unions in all the other provinces, and will this be made widely known to the Bantu so that they should register in order to obtain such benefits and for the other good reasons for which registration is made compulsory?

The other thing is that in the other provinces where registration is not compulsory, is it going to be easy for such a widow to get a registration certificate? Will it simply be a matter of going to the Bantu Commissioner and asking for a document of proof, although it is not actually a registration document? Because otherwise I see many difficulties in practise for these widows of a customary union, who have not had their union registered. I will be grateful if the Minister would clear up these points.

I think there is a certain amount of substance in what the hon. member for Durban (North) has said with regard to this matter, but it is still necessary to insert this provision here to make it perfectly clear that the position in fact is as he has interpreted it. He must remember that unless the position is stated clearly here, outsiders, the people who have to pay the damage, may possibly be in a worse position than they would have been otherwise. It is really in order to protect outsiders, since these customary marriage unions are now being recognized for the first time, since recognition is now being given for the first time to Bantu law in our own law, that the position is being stated here in perfectly clear terms. I think these words have been inserted for the sake of clarity.

I think the hon. member for Heilbron has given the reply to the question of the hon. member for Houghton. As far as registrations are concerned I can assure the hon. member that the position is being made easier for the Bantu in the other provinces too; it can be done through the Bantu Affairs Commissioner.

As far as the question of the hon. member for Durban (North) is concerned I realize that there may perhaps be some measure of doubt in this regard. I should say that to a large extent it is a matter which the court will settle but if it does present a problem we can give further attention to it and bring about an improvement in the Other Place. But I do not think there should be any doubt. I think the hon. member will agree that the intention is that the wives of the deceased should not be in a position to sue for a higher amount than the amount for which one wife would have been able to sue if he had had only one wife.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses put and agreed to.

On the First Schedule,

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to Area No. 51, which according to the White Paper is an area which falls in the Shangweni Dam catchment area. It is proposed to add it to an adjoining released area. I think the principle is altogether wrong. I would bring it to the attention of the Deputy Minister, even at this late stage, that there you have the kind of country which drains into that dam, and although the properties are owned by Whites and Indians there are some 13,000 people already living there; anyone who has been to that catchment area and sees what is happening there will realize at once why I regard this proposal with the gravest concern. Those steep hillsides which drain into that area should not be occupied by persons in any case, whether they are White or non-White. Those are the areas which should be protected in the interest of South Africa. I hope that the Minister will yet review the position. The Minister should go to the Department of Water Affairs and see whether his purpose cannot be achieved by some other means. We should withdraw people from that area and save the catchment area, instead of adding to its denudation. I was speaking to a person the other day who said that he thought that the areas around our big dams should be areas for recreation, but he said the trouble v/as that human beings tend to pronounce it “wreck-creation”, be cause that is what they do in the catchment area. They wreck creation. I want to ask the Minister to look at it from this angle.

I agree that it is an important point and the hon. member may rest assured that we will apply our minds to it properly. Of course you will appreciate that if that area becomes a released area there could be better control of the catchment area than at present, when it is not under supervision and control of the Trust. But I agree with the hon. member’s observation.

First and Second Schedules and Title of this Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Committee of Supply.

Eleventh Order read: House to resume in Committee of Supply.

House in Committee:

[Progress reported on 18 June when Revenue Votes Nos. 1 to 31, 35 to 40, 42 to 49, the Estimates of Expenditure from Bantu Education Account and Loan Votes A to H and K to R had been agreed to.]

On Revenue Vote No. 50,—“Information,” R2,780,000,

Could I claim the privilege of the first half-hour? The total Vote of this Department is something like R2,750,000, which is two-thirds of that of the Department of Foreign Affairs, of which until 18 months ago it was a comparatively small section. I emphasize that to indicate how the character of the Department’s activities has changed in recent times. There is no longer any emphasis on what in my opinion should be its major function, and that is to present South Africa to the world. The emphasis of the Department’s activities at present is confined entirely to propaganda on the home front. I think this is admitted in the report of the Department which the Minister recently tabled, where he admits complete failure in regard to the Department’s efforts on the foreign front, the presentation of the point of view of South Africa to the world. It says in this report—

In other words, all the millions that have been spent by the Department of Information and the efforts of the Minister during the past 12 months have resulted in complete and utter failure in correcting the false impression of South Africa abroad. The Minister himself has been brought to a realization of this fact and therefore he has also realized that the task of selling the Government’s race policy, on which South Africa is judged by the rest of the world, is virtually a completely hopeless task. I think that is even admitted in the report, because the report states that publicity for the Transkeian proposals of the Government did not result in the general goodwill that was expected from those steps the Department took. I think the magnitude of the task with which the Minister is faced is emphasized by the recent film, “Sabotage in South Africa”. The entire budget of this Department, and even the expenditure of more millions, cannot counteract the effect of the film which was shown to many millions of people in Europe and America. No wonder that we have had the plaintive plea in this report: What can be done about it? Not all the assistance that the Minister’s Department gave to the people who made this film in any way affected the manner in which the film was made and presented, and nothing the Minister can do will change world opinion. I should like to ask the Minister what are his intentions in regard to stepping up the activities of his Department and to place more emphasis on the foreign aspect. We know that there is a great deal of misinformed and slanted and incorrect and malicious reporting about South Africa, but what we want to know is what the Minister’s constructive ideas are for presenting South Africa correctly to the world.

There is another matter I should like to emphasize in regard to the foreign aspect, because I think we should get some clarity on this issue. I can emphasize it by giving this illustration of the type of thing the Minister’s Department does. Recently a statement was issued by the Department which was widely disseminated overseas that the Government in the past ten years had spent R200,000,000 on Native housing in urban areas. It was described as a social revolution and that there was an emergent Bantu middle class and it meant the creation of 12 new towns. Yet at the same time it is said that there is moral justification for the Government’s racial policy in creating Bantustans and separate areas for the Bantu. The question asked by every thinking person overseas is: Why spend R200,000,000 on the urban areas adjoining the White cities and at the same time create separate Bantustans? The two things do not go hand in hand. I hardly think the Minister can propagate a triumph in regard to the building of these Native townships and at the same time propagate Bantustans. That is criticism which has arisen as the result of the contradictory propaganda presented by the Minister overseas.

Then I want to turn to the activities on the home front. I want to repeat what we have said on these benches before, that we see no necessity for the Department of Information disseminating Government propaganda to the electorate, because we consider it is tantamount to financing Nationalist Party propaganda with the taxpayers’ money, and the latest report of the Department confirms our worst fears in this regard. You will recall, Sir, that the Minister wrote an article recently in a Nationalist Party publication, the Patriot, in which he said that he considered that the Press was probably the biggest obstacle to overcome, and he accused the Press of South Africa of quoting out of context, of inaccurate reporting, of creating headlines that had little or no relation to the subject, and that they were disloyal and unfair to their country, and therefore he wanted to tell the public the truth. When the Minister was challenged on this, that he was using his Department to channel all information from Government Departments through his office, he denied it vehemently. He said there was full access to Government Departments by the Press if they wished to get information. What is the position to-day? It is that nearly all information on policy matters from Government Departments flows through the Department of Information. In other words, those Departments have become a closed shop to the Press. When they come for information they are told to see the Department of Information, and the report states this quite clearly. It describes the Minister’s Department as the active link between the Press and the State Departments. In reply to a question I put to the Minister earlier this Session, he made it quite clear and admitted that his Department had appointed liaison officers for the various Departments to create that link. Then we have this other activity of the calling of Press conferences by various Ministers under the aegis of the Department of Information. Press statements are released by Government Departments virtually only through the Minister of Information. They are polished and they are slanted and they are phrased to present it in the best light possible. You have the most perfect example of this in the abortive Press conference held this year by the Minister himself on the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, where he undoubtedly tried to influence Press and public criticism when he himself admitted later that he had not even read the Bill. In other words, he hoped that the Press of South Africa would accept the Bill, and he wanted to soften the underbelly of Press resistance by presenting it as the Minister of Bantu Administration wished it to be understood. That is the classic example of the attempts that have been made by the Minister’s Department to soften public opinion and to slant the objectionable aspects of Government policy in the best light possible.

But he has gone further than that. We have now reached the stage where the Minister’s Department takes the right to withhold information from a newspaper if the reporting of that newspaper, or the Department’s attitude to the reporters of that newspaper, does not conform to departmental requirements. I put a question on this matter on 15 February and asked the Minister whether he subscribed to that view, and his answer was in the affirmative; he stood by that viewpoint. But what is worse, we are now reaching the position where the Minister does not look upon information about Government activities as the inalienable right of the Press, but regards it as a privilegewhich the Government may grant or withhold, and when granted to the public the Government wishes to present it in the most favourable light through the Department of Information. The position has now reached the stage where even editors of prominent newspapers are writing critical leading articles about the way these matters are dealt with by the Minister’s Department. Time in this debate does not permit me to quote them, but the Minister is well aware of them.

It is our view that once information about Government activities in all spheres is given as a privilege through a propaganda office such as the Department of Information has become, and not as a right on the part of the public, the State and public institutions become the instruments of a privileged few, in this case the Nationalist Party. I think I have said enough to indicate the dangerous policy trend of the Department of Information. We have the admission on the one hand that the existence of this Department for the propagation of information about South Africa to the people of the world has achieved no success, and that the Minister is up against a stone wall. He admits that the policies he has to propagate are unacceptable. As a result, the activities of his Department have become in the main confined to the internal aspect, which has this dangerous trend I have just outlined. Now I want to say to the Minister that on the two former occasions that we discussed his Vote we had a long dissertation from the Minister about all the enemies of South Africa, the Kuandas and the Nkrumahs. We know it all, but what we would like to have from him to-day is a statement about how he views the activities of his Department. We would like to know what is his approach now to the foreign aspect, and is he prepared to curtail the activities of his Department in respect of the use of his Department as nothing but a propaganda machine on the home front, and will he follow a policy of giving free access to information at any time to any newspaper or any other people who want information, and that they will have the right of access to the Government Departments without being told by his Department that if they want information they must first clear it with the Department of Information. I put these issues crisply to the Minister and I hope we will get some clarity from him in his reply.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) must be careful that he does not choke in his own conceitedness. The Minister will certainly not ask him on what subjects he should issue statements and the Minister does not need his assistance.

I rise to object from this side of the House to the statement made by the hon. member for Turffontein that the State Information Department has become an instrument in the hands of the National Party. The trouble with the Opposition in respect of every single issue is that they are no longer able to distinguish between what is of importance to the State and what is of political importance. As far as our policy is concerned we certainly do not need a State Information Service to enlighten people after all these years of policy-making in South Africa. As far as that is concerned the judgment of the electorate is sound enough, and independent. But what we need is a State Information Service which does not play just a defensive role in relation to the outside world, and if it is possible to reform the Department in any way I would ask that it be reformed on these lines, that we should no longer just ward off all the forces of evil and the attacks from UNO, the forces of darkness which are harnessed to condition world opinion against the White authority here, but that the Information Service—and there we need the assistance of the Opposition and of every newspaper in South Africa (not to support the National Party)—should help to present South Africa to the world as she really is. We have no objection to their differing from the policy of the Government of the day, but when it comes to stating the case of our fatherland then I ask that our Information Service should be used, not in the interests of a political party but to state South Africa’s case positively to the world. I want to pay tribute to and express my appreciation of what is being done and, however much the hon. member for Turffontein may belittle it, of the way in which this information is being presented. I rise to protest very strongly against his statement against the Department that news is being distorted and polished and presented in a way which suits this side of the House.

But that is true.

It is not true. It is an absolute untruth. It is a lie, a charge which is devoid of all truth. The hon. member who laughs now had to get up here the other day and admit that he was wrong in his allegations a year ago and I then said to him, “but you are always wrong, right or wrong”. The hon. member for Turffontein, who now makes this sneering remark about the Department of Information, which tries to present South Africa to the world in a true light, must take up his quarrel with the hon. member over there who wants to call in outside forces to kick this Government out of power. It is that sort of thing which makes it necessary for us to spend more money on State Information. It is the sort of statement which the hon. member for Turffontein made to-day and the statements and allegations made by the chronically sick English-language Press and specifically by the Sunday Times which publishes reports which are devoid of all truth and which in fact has sunk to such a low journalistic level that one does not want to touch it with a six-foot pole, which make it necessary for us to vote more money, and I would ask therefore that we should devote more money to State Information, if possible;that we should think bigger in our State Information Service, and that we should tell the world that we have an Information Service which will continue to state South Africa’s case. It is because we are Christians and because we have faith, that we believe that justice will eventually triumph. We appreciate the work which is being done by our Minister and by the Department of Information.

The function of the Department of Information, as I see it, is a twofold one. In the first place it is South Africa’s main publicity agent. In the second place it is the Government’s main propaganda agent. As far as the first function is concerned, I do not think it can do much more than it is doing already within the framework of the funds which it has at its disposal. As a matter of fact, I readily concede that the impression that I have of its general advertising work on behalf of South Africa is a favourable one. The problem in connection with the Department of Information, lies in the second aspect of its activities, namely the political aspect. I am convinced and satisfied that the problem does not lie in the quality of its staff. We all know Mr. Wennie du Plessis and we know Mr. Piet Meiring. They are picked men with a wide experience of the work which they are doing and there is not the slightest doubt that they have under them information officers (many of whom I know personally) who are capable and entirely devoted to their task. I have no fault to find therefore with the staffing of the Department of Information.

Nor with the integrity of the staff?

Not at all. I have no fault to find either with the technical way in which they present their case. I do not think either that the Department of Information can really complain about a shortage of funds. If my view is correct, the attitude of the Government to-day is to make funds available to the Department much more freely than has been the case in the past. The problem of the Department of Information, as I see it, lies in the task which has been entrusted to it. I refer to its political task. The political task of the Department, as we all know, is to sell the Government’s apartheid policy on the world market. In other words, its task is to sell to the modern world a philosophy which is based on two principles, firstly, absolute segregation in all spheres of life on the ground of colour and colour alone, without having regard to the level of civilization and, secondly, that this segregation is enforced by legislation, irrespective of the human suffering which it may cause.

I believe that we should consider this matter soberly. We must not bluff ourselves. Whether we like it or not, and however capable the staff of the Department of Information may be, that philosophy is one which clashes with the outlook of all the big Christian Churches of the world and with the very essence of what we understand by “Christian Western civilization”. In other words, the Information Department has a task which is an impossible one. After all, the hon. the Prime Minister, who is in the best position to state his own policy, attended the Commonwealth Conference personally to explain his policy to this selected audience. The same applies to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Who is better able to state the policy of the Government than the Prime Minister himself or the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Year after year the latter states the Government’s case in the most important international forum in the world. I do not think the hon. the Minister will suggest that his Department is in a better position to state their case than the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. If these two leaders have not been able to achieve results and have had to witness a daily deterioration in the position, then I ask myself what hope even the best men in the Department of Information have to do better than the leaders of the Government? I think therefore that I am being perfectly reasonable and that I am justified in saying that as far as the political task of the Department of Information is concerned, it is unable to achieve results and that in point of fact it has achieved no results worth mentioning. As a matter of fact in its Annual Report, on page six, it says in so many words, “Intensified action must be expected from our enemies”. In spite of everything that it does it is unable to report that there has been any improvement in the situation; it has to report that we must expect intensified action against South Africa. I do not blame the Department of Information. I have no fault to find with its competency. I simply say that the Department has an impossible task. The time has come for us to face the hard fact that the colour segregation which is enforced by law and which forms the basis of the race policy of this Government is unacceptable to the modern world, no matter how much money we spend, no matter how much talent we employ and no matter how many publications we devote to propaganda. That fact is recognized by more and more people in South Africa who do not support the Opposition. Sir, I was interested in the following statement which was made by a political correspondent in a Government newspaper—

Then one gets a journal like Volkshandel, which is the mouthpiece of Afrikaans trade and which wrote as follows—

More and more people on that side are beginning to realize that the Government’s effort to sell its apartheid attitude is not successful and cannot be successful because it is something which is unacceptable everywhere. The question is what are we to do? My honest opinion is that the money which is being spent on the political task of the Department of Information, running into thousands of rand, is so much wasted money. I do not think it is fair to the taxpayer to continue to spend it because it can achieve no results and no results have been achieved. My own solution therefore is this: I feel that there should be a strong Department of Publicity whose task it should be to publicize the many fine features of South Africa. We have sufficient fine, attractive things in South Africa to be able to “sell” this country. But as soon as you link up your publicity service with the political service where inevitably, in the nature of things, you have to put across an ugly image, then you come up against this conflict that on the one hand you put across a fine image which is destroyed by the political image which you put across on the other hand. My proposal is that there should be a strong Publicity Division. I have no objection to the hon. the Minister’s being the head of that division. As a former rugby player he should be successful; but I think the political division should be a division under the Prime Minister, and then the Prime Minister’s Department should try to the best of its ability to sell his political policy to the world, but as things stand to-day the Information Service does not justify the funds supplied to it for political purposes.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has now suggested, with a semblance of objectivity and reasonableness, that the money which is being devoted to the Department is really being wasted as it is being used at present. Towards the end of his speech he came along with a proposal which in the nature of things is so insignificant that I can only come to the conclusion that his whole purpose in making the speech was not to put forward this feeble proposal which he did towards the end of his speech but to make the malicious statements which he made in the course of his speech. The hon. member comes here with a pretence of objectivity and reasonableness and suggests that the image of South Africa is not acceptable to the outside world because the policy of this Government is one which is not acceptable. Surely that is most unrealistic and, after all, if one wants to give an impression of objectivity one should rise above that level. I want to refer the hon. member for Bezuiden hout to what was said recently, as reported in the Cape Argus of 11 May, by a person like Mr. Lief Egeland, who is a member of the South Africa Foundation and who certainly does not subscribe to the policy of this Government. He said—

“No matter what Government was in power.”

He went on to say—

How does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout reconcile that with what he said? Here we have a member of the South Africa Foundation, a man who is not a Government supporter, a man with considerable experience of service abroad, and that is how he sums up the situation, namely that no matter what Government is in power in South Africa, South Africa will be subjected to hostile criticism from abroad. As he puts it, it is due to the appalling ignorance abroad about conditions in South Africa. But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants us to discontinue all the work that is being done to present a true image of South Africa abroad and to do no more than to send out pretty postcards of this country. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout means that seriously, then I want to put this question to him and I hope that he will be honest enough to give an honest reply to it: If his party were to come into power would they follow the course which he proposed here, or is that a recipe which he puts forward only for this Government?

May I reply now?

The hon. member need only say “yes” or “no”.

That recipe is essential under the present set-up.

Precisely; if that is his reply, it simply confirms what I said at the beginning and that is that the whole purpose of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in putting forward this proposal was just to make a lot of malicious statements so as to confirm in the minds of people in the outside world the hostile propaganda that what is being done in South Africa is allegedly immoral, that it does not meet with the approval of any Church in the world and that it is allegedly in conflict with Western Christian civilization.

I welcome the tone adopted by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) in that portion of his speech in which he dealt withthe dissemination of information abroad and the need for it. I am not going to say that I agree with the contents but at any rate he did adopt a moderate tone. We have often seen signs in the course of this year of a greater soberness with regard to this matter and of the role which is played by the Press in South Africa to make our position difficult abroad. We had the statement in the Other Place by a United Party member who said that the greatest confusion was caused here in South Africa recently with regard to a specific matter simply because of the way in which the newspapers had handled it. Well, it is an encouraging sign when we get an admission from that side of the House that that is largely our problem. I want to refer here to an article which appeared in the Burger of 26 April of this year, and which was written by Mr. Blyth Thompson, who was good enough to tell us that he is a cousin of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) and who was even kind enough to tell us that he does not agree with the political views of the hon. member for Pinelands.

He is a lost soul; nobody agrees with him.

He refers here to a lecture which he gave at Stanford University in America where it had been stated that there was a shortage of hospital bandages in South Africa because non-Whites were being beaten up by the police. He then goes on to say this—

This is a South African who resides in Britain where he sees the full effect of these things. He goes on to say—

Mr. Chairman, it will not have a boomerang effect on this Government, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would have us believe; it will have a boomerang effect on the whole country; it will have a boomerang effect on the Opposition whether they remain on the Opposition benches or whether they sit on the Government benches.

Do not forget about the recent defamation actions against the English-language Press.

I am not going to take any notice now of the hon. member for Pinelands; he will have an opportunity to speak. But if he wants to take the trouble I would advise him to read a booklet which he will find here in the library, a booklet written by Mr. A. M. Davey, of the University of South Africa, “The Bondelzwarts Affair”. He made a study of this affair, of the conduct of South African newspapers at the time of that particular episode when General Smuts was in power—not this Government—and his conclusion (not a final conclusion) is that in those days already the Press in South Africa, in handling the Bondelzwarts affair, created a climate abroad which brought the White Government in South Africa under suspicion. It goes back a long way, but that is how the boomerang comes back. To-day a different Government is in power, and the full burden of this problem rests on the shoulders of this Government to-day. Not that we are not prepared to accept it, but in the name of South Africa, cannot the Opposition come to their senses as South Africans and realize that we are dealing here with a hostility which is not due to this Government’s policy; that Southern Rhodesia, which follows a policy diametrically opposed to ours, is faced with the same problem? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that the Prime Minister himself went overseas and that he was unable to put across his policy to the world. Sir Edgar Whitehead personally went to UNO and said, “We shall hand over to a Black Government within 15 years,” and what did he achieve?

They laughed at him.

But that is only half the story.

It is not half the story. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows that it is not half the story; he knows that the Black leaders of Africa will not be satisfied unless there is a Black Government here, not in 15 years’ time but immediately. That is the lesson that we learn from the Addis Ababa Conference. This is a new attempt to internationalize the whole situation in Southern Africa, namely the Portuguese territories, Rhodesia and South Africa. It is the same pattern that was followed at Bandung in 1955. At that time the Algerian issue was pushed into the limelight and Ben Bella also played an important role there. It was the beginning of a campaign to internationalize the whole Algerian issue, and that is why the Department is simply being realistic in saying in its annual report that we can expect our enemies to intensify their efforts. [Time limit.]

The attitude of Government supporters to-day can be described in one word only and that is “despair”. They feel that there is no hope for the future; that whatever we do South Africa is doomed.

That is your attitude.

That is the tone of the speeches that we get from that side. That is the tone of the speeches we get from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In other words, we are told that the task of the Minister of Information is an impossible one.

No, you are quite wrong. That is what your side says.

I should like to discuss how the Minister of Information is attempting to perform this task which so many of his supporters think is impossible, that there is no hope for the future. I think there is hope for the future. Some years ago I suggested to the Minister of Information of those days that we should go and lecture over there. We can now go on TV and put South Africa’s case because we are people who came from there and we know how they think. I asked him to do it but I said that I would not put across the view of this Nationalist Government because I think it will be condemned by everybody as we in this party condemn it.

You should be condemned.

Order!

I do not mind that hon. member’s condemnation, Sir. I should like to deal with one example first of our overseas propaganda, one that was more far-reaching than all these newspaper attempts. I refer to the film “Sabotage in South Africa”. What went wrong there? I think everybody is agreed that something went wrong.

The machine broke down first.

I am not speaking of the machine that broke down; I am speaking of the picture itself which went wrong. I tried to diagnose at the time what was wrong with the picture which was being shown, we were told. to a hundred million people in the world. All these advertisements will never put that right. What went wrong with that film? Why was the effort a failure, a terrible failure? We all condemned it. We all knew that it did not give a good view of South Africa. The first thing that I think was wrong is this: Our South African representatives were unaccustomed to appearing on TV. [Interjections.] I am speaking now of the technique of getting across on TV. Do you know, Sir, that the leading statesmen in Britain were trained before they went on TV. Their elections are fought on TV to-day. It is the most important influence in all their advertising. Now, we have representatives who tried to do their best but they had not been trained to appear on TV. They were unaccustomed to the medium. If a man is unaccustomed to broadcasting and attempts to broadcast, the first mistake he makes in broadcasting—I am not speaking of TV now, I am speaking of sound broadcasting—is that he thinks he is addressing a million people when he is addressing five or even three people sitting in a room comfortably listening to him. We have to learn that; it is part of the technique. Our men were not coached to appear on TV. Had we had TV in this country we would have known the technique. That was the first mistake. The second great fault was this.

Where did you take a course?

Sir, I cannot answer all these questions. I would gladly answer questions which are put to me individually. After all, we want to try to put this thing right together because we certainly went wrong. What was the second thing that went wrong? I think it was this: The representatives of an American broadcasting system, the Columbia Broadcasting System, came to South Africa with the proposition and they pulled the wool over the eyes of this Government. They sent over smart American men who pushed the Government into this thing.

And you are happy about it!

Am I happy about it! I have just said that we are all agreed that the whole thing was a debacle, the “Sabotage” film. They put it across South Africa because they took 90,000 feet of film and showed 5,000. The South African Information Department should have said: “Before your film is shown we want to approve of the film you are going to produce,” instead of allowing them to make the selection….

Do you want censorship?

…instead of allowing the Columbia Broadcasting System to make their selection. If one takes 90,000 feet with Mr. Patrick Duncan and Mr. Tambo and a few others, together with our Ministers, one can so upset the relation that one can put across any kind of picture. And that is what they did. I condemn our Information Department because they were bluffed by sharp American businessmen. That is the position; they were bluffed out of it, and I think the damage done by that film cannot be put right by this fatuous flummery that is going across as advertisements of South Africa in the English Press. By “English Press” I do not mean the English-language Press only, I mean the English Press in England. Sir, I have something here which came out of Punch. It is very appropriate coming out of Punch. It says—

“Several African nations coming of age within our borders!” It goes on to say—

Well, we know that that is not true. That gives a wrong impression. Why put that across? Sir, the people who read this are accustomed to understatement, not overstatement. They will not take that seriously. The hon. the Minister was kind enough to give me some figures. About R50,000 has been spent on this stuff. Here is another one, “Education for Success” which came out of the London Sunday Times which is widely read. Well, well, well! What a story they gave there! The difficulty is that this is not believed. I think if our Prime Minister were to go on television in Britain he could do a great deal to put this right. He did while he was over there. I do not know whether it is realized in South Africa but I was over there shortly after his visit, and one thing they were all agreed upon was that he was telegenic. Mr. Macmillan is telegenic. He goes across on television. It is a most important thing in life to-day to broadcast on television.

What did that help Mr. Macmillan?

How did it help Dr.Verwoerd?

It helped Mr. Macmillan to this extent that his period as Prime Minister is a record period. In a country which generally has a change of government every five years he has been there for 15 years. It has helped him to that extent. Now, Sir, just listen to some of this stuff. This is what was said with regard to our Bantu university colleges—

Well, we know that that is not true. Why do we try to put that across? Everybody in South Africa who knows these university colleges knows that that is not correct. Why try to put that across? It does not help us at all.

You become very annoyed whenever anything good is said about South Africa.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) takes the old, old view that it is a dirty bird that fouls its own nest. It is a much dirtier bird that will not clean the nest when it has been fouled.

Why do you not leave it?

Because I want to try to reform you if there is any hope. Nobody else in the world has any hope for you. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, here we have an example of an hon. member, namely the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), who takes a magnifying glass to search for all the mistakes that he can find in the propaganda made by our Information Service overseas. He refuses to overlook the little mistakes, if in fact they are mistakes. Because the Information Service, in their enthusiasm, add a few embellishments in dealing with certain points, the hon. member does everything in his power to point out those mistakes. The hon. member has never stood up here, however, and referred to the campaign of slander which is being conducted against South Africa by the English-language newspapers. When people besmirch South Africa’s name, when they say bad things about South Africa, when they tell lies about South Africa, one never finds the hon. member for Kensington amongst those who condemn it. But as soon as the Information Service, in their enthusiasm, add a few embellishments which are not to his liking, then suddenly it is a great crime. Mr. Chairman, you will recall the attitude which the hon. member adopted with regard to the film, “Sabotage in South Africa”. He seeks excuses for everybody except for the Government. He now tells us that the Information Department allowed themselves to be bluffed, that they allowed themselves to be deceived. He strenuously attacks them for having allowed themselves to be deceived but we do not hear a single word of condemnation from him about the lies told by the representatives of the C.B.S. in this country or about the deceit that they practised. What does the hon. member for Kensington really want? I wonder whether he realizes what he is asking for? He says that the Government should not have allowed them to take this film out of the country. Let me ask the hon. member this: Does he realize that half of the film “Sabotage in South Africa” was produced long before the C.B.S. representatives arrived in South Africa? Does he know that the Sharpeville riots, which form a great part of the film, were not filmed on the occasion of this visit? Is the hon. member for Kensington serious in saying that when foreigners come here to make films the Government should not allow a single foot of film to leave this country until such time as the Government has approved of it? Is that what he wants? A film called “Zulu” is at present being produced in Natal. Thousands and tens of thousands of feet of film are being taken, much more than they are eventually going to use. We do not know what the ultimate product is going to be. We do not know whether it is going to be favourableor unfavourable to us. Does the hon. member for Kensington want the Minister first to cut out those parts which he does not like before he allows “Zulu” to leave this country? Is that what he is pleading for? If the Government were to do that, the hon. member for Kensington would be the first to say that the Government was applying censorship. He would then tell the outside world that this Government was a Fascist and Nazi Government; that the Government refuses to allow people to film what they want to film. That is his attitude towards South Africa. That is the attitude which has been revealed here to-day by the Opposition towards South Africa. Mr. Chairman, I have come to the conclusion that in this struggle which we are waging against the calumniation of South Africa, against the distortion of the true position in South Africa, against the lies which are being told about South Africa, we have no hope at all of getting any assistance from hon. members on the other side. They have openly declared themselves to be sympathetic towards the enemies and the besmirchers of South Africa.

That is not true.

We shall see whether it is true or not. The hon. member for Kensingtons says that we despair. He says that we say that we cannot sell our policy to the world. No, Mr. Chairman, we do not say that. What we do say is this, that it is extremely difficult, not to sell this Government’s policy, as I shall indicate in a moment, but to sell the policy of the White man in South Africa overseas as long as we are saddled, as we are in South Africa, with fifth columnists and people who sabotage the policy of the White man.

Be careful.

I have yet to hear one of those hon. members condemn the lies which are printed in the Sunday Times and in other English-language newspapers about the true position in South Africa and the false things which are propagated overseas via those channels. I challenge any hon. member on the other side to condemn those things. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) says that we can do what we like but that we will not succeed in selling this policy to the world. Do they think they will be able to sell their policy to the world? Let them tell us which portion of their policy they think they can sell to the world.

Are you convinced that you will be able to sell it?

Mr. Chairman, I say that if we have the co-operation of members on the other side and of patriotic bodies in South Africa we will succeed, possibly not in selling the policy of the Nationalist Party, but we will succeed in selling the White man’s policy. We know that this struggle against South Africa is not against the policy of the Government; it is against all racial discrimination in South Africa. It was General Smuts who said that when he appeared before UNO he was up against a wall of prejudice and that he was unable to sell his policy. A resolution was adopted against him at UNO at a time when UNO was still largely a White man’s organization. Even at that time he had no success in selling his policy. Surely the Opposition know that their policy will be no more acceptable. They know that their policy, much more than ours, is based on blatant colour discrimination. How do they propose to sell that policy to the world? How do they propose to sell to the world a policy in terms of which the Black man will for ever be kept in a subordinate position in South Africa?

Mr. Chairman, what are the hard facts of the situation? The hard facts of the situation are that the world is not interested in the position of the White man in South Africa or for that matter in the whole of Africa. The world is against any form of colour discrimination. That is why they condemn us; that is why they condemn Rhodesia. The Opposition do not realize that if we accede to their demands it will mean the end of the White race in South Africa. The problem which faces us is not that the world refuses to understand the policy of the Nationalist Party or the policy of the United Party or the policy of the Progressive Party; the world refuses to understand that the White man refuses to do anything which will inevitably lead to his ruination. If that is the position, why should the whole burden of selling this policy to the outside world be placed on the Government’s shoulders? Have the Opposition no duty in this matter? Is it not their duty to say to the world, “You do not understand the position”? Is it not their duty to say to the world, “Nobody will be able to handle the situation better than the White man”? We may have our differences, but we are the only people who have had 300 years’ experience of handling this type of problem. Nobody else in the world has that experience. We have to act in a certain way whether the National Party is in power or whether the United Party is in power. It is only by acting in that way that we can safeguard the welfare of the non-Whites and that we can maintain the position of the White man. Why do the Opposition not help us in that regard? Why do they not help us in telling the world that we are saddled here with the biggest problem of human relationships which Providence has seen fit to thrust upon any group of people? Why should they join the outside world in exploiting every possible misunderstanding? Why should they encourage and magnify something which the world does not understand? As the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) has said, this thing will not recoil on the National Party; it will recoil on the White man; it will recoil on the Opposition. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has referred to the fact that the Department of Information says in its annual report that the pressure on South Africa will increase. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has pleaded almost plaintively for the Opposition to help the Government to change the image which the Government itself has helped to create. We are doing that all the time, Mr. Chairman. In every debate on a controversial issue the United Party attempts to help the Government to change the image of South Africa which it itself has created. Had the Government listened to one-quarter of the sound advice from this side of the House it would not have created the image which it now wanted us to help destroy.

I want to deal with a few of the points raised by the hon. member for Vereeniging in regard to this question. I want to say with all seriousness that had it not been for the presence and the strength of the United Party Opposition in South Africa all the information departments in the world would not help this country one iota. It is only the knowledge on the part of the world that there is a responsible Opposition able to take over the government in South Africa that prevents the world from taking even more drastic action against this country of ours. I believe if the hon. the Minister of Information really wanted to do a service to South Africa he would devote a large proportion of his publicity and his publicity efforts to emphasizing the Opposition point of view, which is far more acceptable to the world than the policy of the Government. I am not pretending for one minute that we or anyone else in South Africa with a responsible policy could satisfy the Afro-Asian States, but I do believe that if the Minister of Information emphasized Opposition points of view to a greater extent he would get much more understanding from the responsible countries of the world. The hon. member for Vereeniging, as usual, ranted against the distortions in the English-language Press. He says that in this House, but when that allegation was made by one of his party newspapers and that newspaper was taken to court his party newspaper had to crawl for a settlement. It published on its front page that it accepted that the English-language Press were not misrepresenting the position and lying about South Africa.

That was not what they said.

The hon. member knows the case. His own party newspaper, when challenged in court, when faced with a libel action, had to go crawling for a settlement. He is prepared to attack the Press in this House as a politician but he knows he is making wild political allegations and that when tested against the cold, hard facts of the situation his own party’s Press had to withdraw their allegations. It was an allegation which was tested. Like the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg), the hon. member for Vereeniging seems to believe that the State is the Nationalist Party. He believes that the State of South Africa is the Nationalist Party. They are completely confusing the position of a party and the State. The Nationalist Party seems to believe that if you criticize the Nationalist Party then you criticize the State of South Africa. The Minister of Information seems to believe that as long as you are doing something in the interests of the Nationalist Party then it is in the interest of South Africa. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) referred for instance to the question of the shocking “sabotage film”. The Minister of Information also dealt with it. His Department issued a statement setting out 34 alleged inaccuracies in that film. I want to deal with some of them. This is from the Burger of 24 March of this year and it says—

and then they give the details—

The Minister of Information says that that is untrue. But we had in this House a week ago the statement that over 3,000 people were arrested for Poqo activities aimed at the murder of people and the destruction of the White man in South Africa. A large number were convicted, a large number are in goal. But the Minister says that we are “’n rustige en gelukkige land”. When we asked for the withdrawal of the emergency regulations in the Transkei we were told that they cannot be withdrawn. The Transkei must be governed under emergency powers. But the Minister of Information says in a statement to the world that we are a peaceful and happy country. And they say this is a shocking lie to throw against South Africa. The second “inaccuracy” mentioned is—

I do not believe that that is true. The Minister of Information’s Department gives that as an example of an untruth. But the hon. Minister of Information himself in the Nationalist Party rag The Patriot which they issue to their so-called English-speaking branch …

Why “so-called”?

Because 90 per cent of the members are foreigners who happen to use English as a language. They are not English-speaking by birth, they are foreigners. Just look at the names of the members. They are not English-speaking in the accepted sense of the word. The Minister of Information says that it is untrue that the Whites stand for domination. And the same Minister of Information in an article signed over his name and his wife’s name said the following—

The Minister of Information does not talk of “White South Africa”, but he says “which party will keep the White man the master of South Africa”. In his capacity as a member of the Nationalist Party, writing for votes, he says that the Nationalist Party will keep the White man master.

Is that not your policy?

I am interested in the conflicting views of this Minister who when he deals with what the outside world says, states that it is untrue to allege that the White man wants to be master, but when he wants to get votes for his new party he says that the White man will be master. Then he says this—

All he is interested in is time and votes, not in solving the problems of South Africa’s image in the outside world.

Do you disagree with that statement?

Yes, I disagree, because I believe that the Nationalist Party cannot possibly keep the White man secure in South Africa. I believe their policy will destroy the whole future of the White man. Finally this Minister of Information, who is supposed to create unity, who is supposed to be the symbol of unity, the symbol of English-speaking support for the Nationalist Party, apart from this article being completely ungrammatical—there are at least four sentences without even a verb in them—apart from that sort of presentation by an English-speaking Minister in an English magazine, is the man who appoints as a person to create this unity a Nationalist Party organizer who speaks in a letter, not in the heat of the moment. in a calmly written letter, of the people of Durban as “those half-breed Britons, those Greyville-cultured louts of Natal who have a lot to learn; under the Republic they will learn more quickly”. [Time limit.]

What is the spectacle that we witnessed in this debate here this morning? It is the same spectacle that we have witnessed over the past 15 years and that is that the Opposition have thrown in the towel; they no longer see any hope of unseating this Government; what they want is what was suggested by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) who wants the outside world to exert sufficient pressure upon South Africa to bring about the downfall of this Government. The Opposition cannot do it on their own.

I think we should try to get clarity once and for all as to the meaning of “State” and the meaning of “Government”. The Government of the country cannot be divorced from the State. At the moment the policy of the National Government is the State policy of this country. The National Government’s policy to-day is State policy, a policy which the Government is implementing in terms of a mandate given to it in a number of elections over the past 15 years. Let me ask hon. members opposite this question: Which policy is being defended to-day by the Information Service of Britain? Does it defend the policy of the Labour Party or does it defend the attitude of the Macmillan Government in the outside world? Would the Information Service of the Kennedy Government defend the foreign policy of the Republican Party in the outside world? Most certainly not! The Information Service of every State defends in the outside world the policy which is carried out in terms of the Government’s mandate from the electorate. I think we should have clarity as to the difference between State policy and Government policy. I think we must admit that this Government has the right to use public moneys and to use its Information Service to defend the Government’s policy in the outside world. Now I want to say something else.

But do they have to make propaganda for the Nationalist Party?

We are not trying to catch votes in the outside world. If we used the Information Service in an attempt to persuade the hon. member for Durban (Point) that the Government is right, then I would say that the Information Service was being used for political purposes. But when the Information Service propagates the Government’s policy abroad, then it does not do so in order to catch votes; it does not do so for political purposes. All that it does then is to state the official policy of the Government, and I think every Government has that right, whichever party may be in power, whether it is a democratic country or whether it is not a democratic country.

Hon. members opposite come along here and try to justify everything that is said in the outside world. I say again that we do not mind being criticized in the outside world as long as they give an honest image of South Africa, but we take exception to the criticism in the outside world because it does not give an honest image of South Africa and a true reflection of the policy of the Government, just as no honest image was given of the policy of the previous Government and just as the policy of the United Party is also misrepresented in the outside world. I want to refer here to the film “Sabotage in South Africa” which actually ignored the United Party altogether; in that sense it was not an honest image either. It is true that it sang the praises of the Progressive Party and of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) but the whole of the Opposition party was entirely ignored. Was that an honest image of South Africa?Would they not have liked the people who produced “Sabotage in South Africa” to have made some reference also to the policy of the Opposition? But the people who produced the film ignored them altogether. In spite of that, however, we find that the Opposition defend that image which the producers of the film gave of South Africa. The hon. member for Kensington says that they want to co-operate with us. I want to say that I welcome it if people want to co-operate with us in defending South Africa. I want to refer here to the fact that we did co-operate in placing the Sabotage Bill on the Statute Book. I think that was one of the greatest events in South Africa because for once the official Opposition and the Government stood together to show the world that we can stand together when danger threatens. But when hon. members opposite do as they are doing to-day, then we are not standing together to defend South Africa.

What did you do in 1939?

We are not standing together to-day and the reason is that the Opposition refuse to face the facts. They are deceiving themselves, and it is because they are deceiving themselves that they constantly make the accusation against the Government’s policy that it is the Government’s policy and the Government’s policy only which is responsible for the image which is created of South Africa in the outside world. But the image of South Africa in the world is not attributable to the Government’s policy only; there are many factors which come into the picture. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said a moment ago that the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) was over-simplifying the position. That is precisely the trouble with the Opposition; they try to give the world an oversimplified picture of the struggle which South Africa has to wage in the world to-day, because there are many factors which contribute to our position here. But the main purpose of the false image which is being created in the outside world, as the hon. member for Vereeniging has indicated, is to bring about the downfall of the White man in South Africa. That is the purpose. They want us to abdicate. And if that is their policy, then we ask the Opposition not to try to exploit the little mistakes which may be made but to make a positive contribution to see whether we can do anything to save South Africa for the White man in South Africa and for the other races in South Africa.

It is clear from the debate here this morning, as the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has said, that the Government really sees the writing on the wall, the hopelessness of the situation that you have in this country brought about by Government policy. We have the peculiar situation here that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) was criticizing the English Press for its distortion of the facts, whereas the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Van der Walt) was telling us that the State policy is the policy of the Government, the policy of the Nationalist Party.

Tell us what is the difference.

You have this position that the Government side expects the English-language Press and the Press that does not favour the Government to put forward the Government’s policy and push it to the outside world. Do they expect that? The suggestion made here is that the hon. the Prime Minister is probably the best person in the country to put over the policy of the other side. You also have the spectacle of the Government clutching at straws. Whenever they can get a quotation out of a newspaper from some person of standing who says that this is not a bad country and that the policy of the Government is not too bad, it is quoted with satisfaction. The hon. member for Innesdale quoted Mr. Lief Egeland, and he also quoted the fact that Sir Edgar Whitehead had a very bad time when he went overseas. That is a case of clutching at straws. They are beginning to realize that the policy of this Government is just not getting over, overseas. We have this Ministry of Information that is having its second birthday whose job it is to put over the possibilities of this country, it is also a Ministry of Propaganda when it tries to sell the political policies of this particular Government of ours.

I look upon this Department, the Ministry of Information or of Propaganda, as a selling machine. They have a very fine staff and I think they are very good salesmen. The article they are selling is very well wrapped up. These little information booklets are very well got up, and the Minister of Information is the sales manager. But we know that in any selling you can pack your goods as attractively as possible, but if the product inside is no good the public will not buy it, and the Minister of Information has failed to sell his product, and this report says so. It says—

We know that the background of separate government for the Transkei was the thought of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he came back from UN and said: We must have some article to sell; it is hopeless at UN and we have to do something. Then overnight we heard this wonderful announcement of separate government for the Transkei. Well, we know that has not been accepted by the world; it just has not got across. [Interjections.] It says so here. It says notwithstanding the favourable signs that the development of the Transkei may contribute towards developing a better understanding of the Republic and its problems abroad, the false image of our country which has been built upover the years through ignorance, misunderstanding and distortion remains largely unchanged. That shows that with all the thousands of pounds spent on publicity and the films that have been made, there has been no change. In other words, the sales manager must now report to his chief that he has done his best, he has wrapped the product well but it just will not sell, and it is time to change it. It is all wrong for hon. members opposite to expect us to sell their product for them. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) said the product is the policy of the Government and they would like us to sell it. But we do not like the product and the world does not like it. [Interjections.] Does the Government accept it as a fact that the Nationalists are the only people out of step with world opinion? Why is world opinion against them, both White and Black? Do you think they do not know what is going on in this country? Every country of standing has an ambassador here and they are au fait with the position, and it does not need the Minister of Information to tell them what the position is. [Interjection.]

I want to ask the Minister another question. He is trying to put over propaganda in this country and is having the greatest difficulty. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will not give him television. If you look in this book you will find that we have these little “bioscopes” in the way of trailers which will go trailing round the country showing films. What type of film will be shown? Will it be topical films telling us how good this country is, or will they be propaganda films showing us Government policy, State policy. Nationalist policy? Is that the stuff which will be dished out? I think it will be a waste of time and film. Are these little bioscopes going to our schools to show films of State policy—Nationalist policy? Nationalist policy has now become State policy. These are the things we would like to know from this Minister. *

I have said on previous occasions that other countries are also saddled with Oppositions, but that unfortunately South Africa is the only country that is saddled with a United Party! Take the speech of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney). What did he say? He spoke about “these little bioscopes”. He wanted to belittle the whole Department. He said that when one makes up a parcel, one uses attractive wrapping-paper so as to attract the attention of the public but that if the contents of the parcel are bad one cannot sell it. I want to ask him this: What is in the parcel that South Africa wants to sell and that the world does not want to buy? It is not the policy of the National Party, it is the fact that the White man is part and parcel of that package. Do you know, Sir, why the outside world does not want to buy that parcel? It is because the hon. member for Salt River together with Sir Edgar Whitehead and Sir Roy Welensky forms part and parcel of it. That is why the world does not even want to accept the Federation. But the hon. member says that if they come into power: “We can put the Opposition point of view.” In other words, if they come into power they are going to advocate United Party policy. Why then cannot we advocate the present policy of this Government?

We will put the South African point of view.

I thank the hon. member for that remark. What is the “South African point of view”? The South African point of view is that the Brown man and the Black man and the Yellow man are treated better here than they are treated in any other part of the world.

We agree.

The second South African point of view is that each one of those people must be dealt with separately. Thirdly, we say—and here we differ from the United Party—that in South Africa every Black man is going to get the vote, but in his own area and not in this Parliament. That is what we tell the outside world and that is what they do not want to accept. I would like the next hon. member on that side who participates in the debate—it will probably be the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel)—to tell us what part of the colour policy of the United Party will, in his opinion, be acceptable to the outside world.

Why does the Information Service not rather put the South African point of view instead of the Nationalist point of view?

I ask any hon. member opposite what there is in traditional South African colour policy that will be acceptable to the outside world and that differs from the policy of this Government?

Job reservation.

Is the hon. member prepared to tell the outside world that it is the policy of the United Party to abolish job reservation in the mines in South Africa? [Interjection.]

Order!

In other words, he wants to tell the outside world that the “rate for the job” will be applied only in regard to certain work and not on the mines. That is the type of person whom we have to deal with! I ask the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) whether he has ever said abroad that it is their policy to pay the “rate for the job” in the mines as well? We get no reply. So you see, Sir, what the position is in South Africa? The position is simply that hon. members opposite, together with us, make up the parcel which the world refuses to buy because those hon. members also have White skins, and the world does not want White skins.

Absolute nonsense!

Why was Welensky not accepted by the world? Why was he not even accepted in Britain? Let us confine ourselves to Britain. Britain does not even accept Whitehead and Welensky and she would not vote for them at UNO. South Africa was the only country to vote for them there. [Interjections.] The hon. member says that we are finished abroad, but I say just the opposite. We have had 17 years of Uhuru or freedom. That time is past. There is only one thing now that is going to determine within the next ten years who is going to have any status in Africa; it will be determined by results. Who is going to produce those results? Others may produce them—I hope they do—but I am very sure that the Republic is going to produce results because she is producing them at the moment. We are the only state on the continent of Africa that can produce results which stand out above all other results.

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

Mr. Chairman, …

Hear, hear.

I am grateful for the acclamation from the other side. I could well have wished that when these hon. gentlemen made their speeches this morning, they had given the United Party—not me—the approbation, the genuine approbation that it deserves when it tries to set at least one Department of State on the right course. Instead of that, speaker after speaker on the Government side stood up and alleged that we, the United Party, desire only a bad name for South Africa, and that in fact we were responsible for the fact that South Africa had a bad name. We had words like “saboteur”, etc., flung across the floor of the House. But, of course, they cannot deal with this issue objectively. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

May I put a question to the hon. member? I want to ask the hon. member whether they are prepared to introduce the rate for the job in the mines.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) said this morning that he put that question to me, but when he saw the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) arriving, he decided that he preferred that hon. member to answer the question.

What is your answer?

That is the answer. Sir, he must not take this high-and-mighty attitude. I want to show you, Sir, how seriously that hon. member takes this particular matter, and how seriously he is taken in certain quarters. I have here a testimonial to that hon. member, written by somebody who supports his party rather than mine, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Johan Schoeman of Broederdroom, Transvaal, who said of the hon. member—

except that he spelt the word “abusmal”—

With that kind of testimonial, the hon. member must not come and chivvy me; he must rather let me say what I want to say, and then I will not interfere with him. I do want to say that the fault is not in the United Party; the fault is in the policy of the Government in regard to the information which the Minister of Information has to put out to the world, because it is quite obvious that since nothing is perfect, or all things are not perfect in every country, they are not perfect in South Africa, and it is therefore useless spending an enormous sum of money annually—as we are doing—to try to mislead people in other countries about conditions which exist in South Africa. It is quite a different matter to tell them about our problems, to tell them the facts, and then leave them to judge for themselves. I will give you one example, Sir. When the Prime Minister on 23 January 1962 announced the Transkei independence scheme, the first Bantustan, he spoke at length on this subject of the Transkei Bantustan. That part of his speech covers 20 columns of Hansard. One of the things he said was—

Sir, when we spend the taxpayer’s money ostensibly to give the American public a summary of the speech of the Prime Minister, we do it in quite a different way. We seem to think there is nobody in the United States who ever sees our Hansard, who reads our newspapers, who has been here and seen and heard for himself—and that is the trouble with this Government and with this Department, amongst whom there are some very worthyofficials. I speak particularly of the Director, who enjoys a high standing here and also overseas, and it is not he, but the policy of the Minister and of the Cabinet and of the Government, which creates this difficult position for South Africa. When the statement of the Prime Minister has to be communicated to the American public, at considerable cost, and a full page is taken in a very well-known and responsible journal called the Christian Science Monitor, then in its issue of 24 January 1962 it comes out like this—

And the “substantial scale” was referred to by the hon. the Prime Minister before he got to that point about political development, and when he said that it is difficult to say what the contribution from the Republic should be over and above their own resources. The Prime Minister said—

Sir, if you were to tell the American public that this state will be a fully independent state—that is what this advertisement here, which is based on the Prime Minister’s speech, said—and then you go on to say that in order to build up that independent state you are going to give that state R2,000,000, which is equivalent to some $2,800,000, the Americans know that it is a lot of nonsense because they know immediately that when they compare it with what they spend in assistance to the states of Africa—assistance which runs into thousands of millions of dollars our Government is surely not serious in its plan to set up an independent state which, it says, will become part of a Commonwealth of South Africa! It is this kind of suppression of facts which are relevant that distorts our image, and we finish up looking ugly in the eyes of the outside world. That is the fault of the Minister of Information.

Compared with Alabama it is a bagatelle.

That is right; “compared with Alabama it is a bagatelle”! The next step, of course, is for us to take space in the Christian Science Monitor and remind the people of the United States that they have trouble in Alabama! That, of course, will prove our case completely! That is the hon. member’s reasoning, and that is the reasoning of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It will not help us at all in the outside world to try to tell a story in a way which either gives half the facts or suppresses or gilds the important facts. It is an important matter for us to be able to say to the world: “these are the conditions in our country; we are coping with our special problem (which all of us admit we have), in a certain way, and we are not going to mislead you about it at all,” and then, Sir, when those people who have an interest in South Africa—and people in other countries do not all have an interest in South Africa; there are many people who neither know nor care about what goes on in South Africa—but those people who do know and care and who are particularly well informed, will know that we are giving them factual information, and that when we say that we are doing this, that or the other in order to solve our problems, they can believe that we mean what we say. We are not doing that to-day, and in my submission that is the most serious defect in the whole approach of the Department of Information at this time. Criticism of South Africa is not something which comes from this side of the House; it comes from outside of the country. I have to remind the Minister of Information—and I do not do this in a personal sense at all—that a visitor who was brought here by the South African Foundation, a man with whom his Department had some close relation, a man by the name of Louis Lyons who came here on behalf of the Nieman Foundation of Harvard University, and who is apparently a very important person in his own country in regard to public affairs and public information, was heard to refer to our Information men as “glib and aggressive”. There is a whole article here containing a report of an interview given by him. After having referred to the hospitality of the people here, the “Afrikaner” people particularly, he said—

This is not my criticism, and it is no use complaining about this statement, which has been made here and has been made overseas. Therefore it is time that the Department of Information, if it is going to continue to exist and to operate, should take a look at itself in the mirror, and realize that it creates a certain impression or image not only in this country but outside of it; moreover, to realize that when we on this side of the House try to make constructive suggestions we are not to be attacked as saboteurs—we are rather to be commended as people who have a very natural and considerable interest in the good name of South Africa in the outside world, especially when money is being expended freely in order to re-establish that good name. [Time limit.]

I first of all want to say that I think the atmosphere during this debate has been much calmer than it was on my first Information birthday. I also appreciate the fact that the debate did not carry with it personal attacks which, unfortunately, were the case on the previous occasion. I was a little surprised but not disappointed. I am anxious at all times to try to learn from the debates which take place in this House. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) was good enough to refer to the integrity of the members of the Department of Information. On their behalf I wish to express my appreciation of those remarks.

Let me now get down to the debate itself. My biggest problem is to try to find a general basis of criticism to which to reply. Why I say that is because the criticism has been of a varied nature but in the end there were no real points which one could grasp. For example, the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) started off by saying that the United Party policy was that there should not be a Department of Information in South Africa.

I never said that.

The hon. member said that according to United Party policy there was no need for a Department of Information as a Department of State. He said there should be more activity overseas. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said it was a waste of money. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said we preached the voice of doom about our efforts overseas. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said it was a waste of money even to try to put our case overseas.

Your policy.

There was no consistency. The one member said there should be more activity and the other one said we might just as well cut it out. The hon. member for Turffontein also said that the publicity side of this Department was just used for Nationalist propaganda. What did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say? He accepted the publicity side; he said there was not very much more which the publicity side could do. He referred to the personnel; he found no fault with the personnel. If I heard him correctly, I think he also said that the advertisements were done for the good of South Africa as a whole. So what is it? Is it South Africa as a whole or is it just a Nationalist Party propaganda machine?

I excluded the political side.

I am talking about the publicity side. There was reference to “slanted news”, “attempts to try to direct and polish up statements for the Press there was criticism of the management of news by this Department; and we were accused of always criticizing the English-language Press in South Africa. I want to point out to the hon. member for Turffontein who always takes that line that his colleagues in the Other Place are very sensitive to the criticism of English-language Press. And why? Because once in a while it touched them. And then you should have heard how they carried on! You should have heard how they called the Press all sort of names, Sir. Let me come to this question of slanting. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) read from this report and what did he read? He read this—

He then went on and read another part—

Then he stopped. Why did the hon. member not continue the sentence?

I only had ten minutes.

No, Mr. Chairman. I shall tell you why. The hon. member who accused the Department of Information of slanting left out sections because he was trying to slant what this report said. I shall show the hon. member why I say that. There is a comma and he stopped at that comma. Do you know why he stopped at the comma? Because these words follow—

Of course, what he read was correct, but he left out those portions which he did not want to convey. He stopped at a comma and he left out “influential and responsible Press organs are now beginning to appreciate the importance of what is happening, etc.” In the other instance he left out a portion as well. I shall read it again—

So he says there the Government admits that they have failed; they have given up hope completely. But listen to what he left out—

This is what I call slanting. If you leave out sections you slant the meaning of a whole paragraph. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) also said we regarded ourselvesas doomed. The only people who are doing that is the Opposition; not this side of the House. If the hon. member wanted to give the true picture why did he not read from the very next page? There it says this—

Does that sound like the voice of doom? Then the report goes on—

May I ask a question? Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that his Department is selling his Government’s policy overseas?

Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that this Department is making progress for South Africa. I know when my hon. friend from Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) gets up to ask a question he has the idea at the back of his head to try to direct the attack somewhere else. What I was trying to indicate was that the accusation made by the hon. member for Salt River that we were guilty of slanting news was something of which he himself had made himself guilty. He read out something and stopped at a comma. He did not even finish the sentence. He tried to convey to this House, by stopping at the comma, that this Department was very disturbed about the position overseas; that it had given up hope and that it considered it hopeless to carry on.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Can the Minister tell me what words I left out between “Notwithstanding” and “unchanged”? You said I left out words.

The hon. member did not complete the sentence.

You said I had left out words.

The hon. member is now trying to quibble. Had the hon. member stopped at a fullstop he would have had an excuse but he stopped at a comma to convey a point of view which he wanted to create. The hon. member left out these words—

The hon. member can try to talk himself out of it if he wants to but these are the facts.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also made a feature of the terrible way in which this Department slanted everything in favour of the Government. He said that we should actually quote speeches and statements of policy by the United Party in the South African Digest. We send the South African Digest all over the world. I just took a few copies to see in how many there were reports of statements by leading personalities in that party. I find that Senator Fagan is reported in the Digest of October 1961; Sir de Villiers Graaff is reported on page 4 in the Digest of 30 October as well as Mr. Steytler. Those are policy statements. There is a policy statement by Sir de Villiers Graaff in the Digest of February 1962 on page 10: “Graaff warns Government policy will lead to destruction of White South Africa.” If we only wanted to slant things in favour of the Nationalist Party would we print a thing like that in the Digest? In the Digest of May 1962 Sir de Villiers Graaff and Mr. Steytler are reported. In the Digest of October 1962 Sir de Villiers Graaff is again reported. In the Digest of May 1960 Sir de Villiers Graaff: September 1960 Russell and Graaff; April 1961 Graaff: June 1961 Fagan. So I can go on, Mr. Chairman. If the hon. member for Turffontein says the publicity section of our Department is a Nationalist Party propaganda machine I want to know why these statements of policy appeared in these Digests? Do you know why those statements of policy by the Opposition were published? Because the publicity section is not a Nationalist Party propaganda machine. Practically every country in the world has a Department of Information and I doubt whether any of them sets about it with such integrity as the South African Department. Hon. members always try to find something that they can grab hold of. They do not believe it themselves. The fight of the Department of Information is not a fight for the Nationalist Party; it is a fight for South Africa.

The hon. member for Turffontein considered that I had almost abused the position in the past because I tried to convey to them what the world situation was. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in which he spoke about the overseas position. He said you could not sell “kleurskeiding”. He said the only thing they understood was a civilization test. The hon. member knows that when he was on this side of the House he supported a “kleurskeiding”. Even to-day when he is sitting on that side of the House he supports a colour line and correctly so. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is now condemning his own policy and his own party because his party does not believe in the civilization test. They believe in colour discrimination as the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has pointed out. If you believe in a civilization test why do you oppose a Black professor or doctor coming into the House of Parliament? Because you do not believe in a civilization test; you believe in “kleurskeiding”. [Interjections.] I am not sayingthat the hon. member is not entitled to his opinion. The hon. member belongs to a party whose policy is based on “kleurskeiding” and discrimination. If he does not believe in that, if he believes in the civilization test he must go and sit with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I understand the hon. member for Houghton. I understand the leader of that party, Mr. Steytler, when he states his policy and when he says he believes there should be only one test, namely the civilization test. He says exactly what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said colour discrimination was not acceptable to the world; we should have a civilization test only and no discrimination on the ground of colour.

May I ask the Minister this: Did I not quote “Volkshandel”?

The hon. member quoted “Volkshandel” later on. But he made this definite statement about “kleurskeiding” and “civilization test” before he even tackled “Volkshandel”. I made notes as quickly as I could and he referred to that right at the outset.

Legal “kleurskeiding”.

It is illegal for a Black man to come into Parliament. Does the hon. member approve of the law which his party has agreed with so far that there should not be a non-White person, however civilized he may be, in this House?

We are in favour of Coloureds taking their place in Parliament.

Oh, no. Only if they are elected in competition with the White man.

What about the Bantu?

What about the Bantu? Suppose I concede it in the case of the Coloureds, what about the Bantu?

The principle is the same.

If the principle is accepted, then I would say the principle is that the White man in this House should not represent the Native. The hon. member and his Leader have said that categorically; they accept that. Then we have the Indian community. Does he also accept the same situation there? I say this: hon. members of the Opposition can indulge in the luxury of all sorts of policy statements. They can afford that luxury because they have not got the responsibility of Government. They do not believe in those statements of policy; they will never carry them out but they use them to try to create the impression overseas that their policy is a non-discriminatory policy. They want to take over the policy of the hon. member for Houghton but they do not really want to abide by it.

She is a strong supporter of yours to-day.

Shall I tell the hon. member why? The Nationalist Party is anathema to her but she knows what I am saying is true. The sooner we get that settled, I think the better. The hon. member for Salt River talked about the parcel nicely wrapped up but the goods inside were not so good. Do you know what the goods inside are? The United Party, the Nationalist Party and White South Africa and Black South Africa. If the goods which South Africa is producing at the present moment do not succeed, it is not only the White man who will suffer but the Black man right throughout the country will have to bear the brunt of the chaos and disruption that will follow. That is the position and that is why I say to hon. members: When you criticize these things look into the packet that you refer to, look into the goods particularly well. The hon. member for Turffontein says I must not give him the international view. I do not want to read that lesson out to him. But what is the real issue? The real issue is not the policy of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout or the policy of the hon. member for Houghton. The real issue is what is referred to by Black Nationalism as one man one vote. The Federation aligns itself more to the policy of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout; they have 15 Black Members of Parliament in their Parliament.

Not in Southern Rhodesia.

Yes, they only have a civilization test in Southern Rhodesia. Various countries have tried to appease the demands of Black Nationalism. The Federation has; Southern Rhodesia has. Southern Rhodesia has a partnership. There are 15 Black Members of Parliament in the Parliament of Southern Rhodesia. Mr. Field is Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. He has not got any in his party but Sir Roy Welensky has them in his party. They even went to the extent of going to UNO, as an hon. member mentioned on this side of the House.

It is too late.

With the demands that are made in the world, everybody is too late. You are too late and I am too late. The point is whether you are going to bow down to those demands. The attitude of this side of the House is that with.all these winds blowing, with all this Black Nationalism, with all these demands of one man one vote, with Portugal trying to avoid it by having a civilization test—all these concessions mean nothing. Because the demand is that the Black man must rule in Africa and in South Africa and nobody else. I say to the Opposition that had it not been for the steadfastness of this Government, had it not been for the strength of this Government and the solidity of this Government, South Africa would have been blown about all over the place like a leaf in the wind. When you talk to hon. members opposite and ask them whether we cannot get together on this issue, they say we are afraid and that we want them to help us out of the difficulty. Of course we do not want that; we do not need it but we would like all South Africans to pull together when it comes to South Africa. You get English-speaking people who are so British that they are even more British than the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross). [Interjections.] You are quite right, I am not British, I am South African. Take the people from Rhodesia, they are English-speaking people; take the people from Uganda and from Rhodesia, etc. When they come to South Africa they are not Afrikaners in the true sense of the word; they are Britishers. And what do they all say? They say: You can thank Heaven in this country that you have a Government which is independent and strong and one that can stand up to the demands and the flutterings of the winds of change.

Wait until they hear about the Bantustans.

They know because they have lost the whole of their own country. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that was the parting of the ways when it came to the question of Bantustans. He said that when we dealt with the Transkei Bill. We on this side of the House do not believe that you can integrate politically.

Are we discussing the Bantu Affairs Vote or the Information Vote?

It was the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) who asked me that question across the floor of the House. I want to get back to the issue and say to hon. members that with regard to Foreign Affairs and with regard to our position overseas, South Africans should all stand together against the demands which are made upon her at the present moment. Appeasement was tried in Africa and it failed completely. Our answer to that is independent Bantustans. That is the reply we give to the world with regard to the rights of the Black man and particularly his political rights. We are prepared to stand by that. We shall see it through. Hon. members opposite may not help us, but we shall see it through.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) referred to the C.B.S. television film. Hon. members have all seen that film. I think I should reply to a few criticisms made by the hon. member for Kensington. He said that C.B.S. have pulled the wool over our eyes; the hon. member condemned us because, as he said, we had been bluffed. On the other hand, the hon. member for Point said that we must make all sorts of information available to everybody regardless of their political views. What must we do? Must we close every avenue to South Africa or must we open all avenues? Let me give you the facts about C.B.S., because I think they should be known by hon. members. No. 1: The C.B.S. people went to see our embassy in America and verbally they gave certain assurances to our people that they wanted to make an objective film of South Africa and show it on the television screen. They said it would be a long film of 60 minutes. We never got any favours in the past from C.B.S. We wanted to know what their intentions were and they gave us the assurance that they wanted to produce something which would be objective. I have the letter here which the C.B.S. people sent to our people. This letter is very important because you can always try to lie yourself out of verbal assurances. No wool was pulled over our eyes by C.B.S., we were plainly lied to by them. You can never save yourself from a dishonest person who does that sort of thing. Let me read the letter and those hon. members who have seen the film can judge for themselves. This letter was written on 11 January 1962 and it reads as follows—

This is the letter from C.B.S.—

And we gave them the assistance, which the hon. member says we refused to give them. At the end they sent us a note, when they had finished—

And then they produced this film, not only what they filmed here while they were in South Africa, but 50 per cent, or a large section at least, consisting of stuff that they picked out from old films, got from stringers, got from their own people, possibly, I do not know where, and they framed it into a television show which you could make of any country if you were out to damage that country’s reputation. After all, who could not make a film of America …

We agree with you.

But the hon. member for Kensington said that they pulled the wool over our eyes and we should never have allowed them to do that. Surely when you get letters of that sort from the C.B.S. which has an American coverage, an almost international reputation and coverage, you try and give them facilities.

But then it goes even further, because David Lowe attempted to disown the fact that they had given these verbal assurances and he wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and said—

Then this man goes on—

be presented by the people of South Africa except for the appearance of a narrator.

That is what he said. He said that he did not give a verbal assurance. But he had forgotten one thing. He had forgotten the letter that I read out to the Committee. And all we did was to give him extracts of that letter and we never heard another complaint from him or C.B.S. He thought he could lie himself out of the verbal assurances, but he could not lie himself out of the written assurances. Is that the wool being pulled over one’s eyes, or is that absolute connivance and deceit? I regard it as dishonesty of the worst kind by the C.B.S. And the film they produced did not have one iota of good in it for South Africa, not one. And you can do that to any country. You can do it to America at the present time and say “This is America”. No, the fact is that they would never do it in America, but they are very courageous when they do it to our country overseas. That is why I say to hon. members: Look, there may be very many opportunities for us to have differences, but on matters of this sort, surely you understand and you see what is happening and on this basis surely we should stand together.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) referred to some of the, what we call, lies published in this report. Actually we described them as “the most obvious inaccuracies I think the hon. member will agree that that was a euphemism. But he referred to the fact that we mentioned certain points, such as—

We said that that was an inaccuracy. We say that South Africa is a happy and tranquil country. It is purely relative. You go and read what is happening in the world to-day. You go and read of the misery in the world to-day. Good heavens, I just received the News Week of June 17 this week. This is the heading, “Tear Gas and Daggers”. It says—

And then it goes on—

In the other place, the Sunni reciprocated, and when order was restored 120 martyrs lay dead.

Cannot we say that there is peace and good order in South Africa? But the hon. member says: “What about the Poqo people that were arrested?” It is because we do not allow things to develop. We get down to it and we stop things developing. Is that what the Oppositionis criticizing us about? We take our hat off to the Minister of Justice. Members in the Other House complimented him on the way he ran his Department. But hon. members here moved to reduce his salary by R5,000. But this is this week’s News Week. I read another extract—

Then they give the details. I get no pleasure out of that sort of thing. It does not give me pleasure that that should happen in other parts of the world. But it makes me feel that my country is not as bad as it is slandered by the rest of the world. And that is what I want to convey to hon. members. I say that in this country of ours we must reflect a shop-window in such a way that we can, in a far greater degree, show all the nations, whether it is in Europe, whether it be in any other state of Africa, that here the Black man in this country is well off. And he is well off! The hon. member said that we talk about R200,000,000 for Bantu housing. Of course we are proud of R200,000,000 for Bantu housing over 10 years. And what has it achieved? I have spoken to people who were here in 1948, in 1955. They cannot believe the change that has taken place in the housing conditions of the Bantu. And we are proud of it. I am not a voice of doom! I say that this country of ours, the way it is progressing, the way it is developing economically, the way it is going ahead, is a wonderful country for all of us. But let us at least face up to this fact that it is not the policy of a particular party that is on test at UNO, or from the African states, or at Addis Ababa. It is South Africa that they are after. Now I want to read some of these inaccuracies. The hon. member only got down to two. I appreciate that he, quite rightly, objected to the second one “The tyranny of a minority of 3,000,000 Whites over 12,000,000 non-Whites”. Which is nonsense. If you want tyranny you must see it where I have seen it, in the Far East. Now I come to a third inaccuracy—

I might mention that they did not have the decency to allow the Leader of the Opposition, for whom we arranged the television, in his office—they did not even put him on the programme. To show you how they are prepared to distort, they were not prepared to even show it. Why? Probably because he did not agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), because he says “I believe in White control of South Africa”.

Probably because the Opposition would look too favourable in the eyes of the world.

Oh, no! They included the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and she looked more favourable than the Opposition in the eyes of the world. They put down a Helen Joseph and she looked more favourable in the eyes of the world. No, there is nothing in that one. Then we go on—

These are statements—

And the next one—

And then this one—

A young South African housewife—it may have been the hon. member for Houghton—risked her freedom to say: “I agree that, materially, it is very privileged, climatically and everything else, but I found it absolutely terribly depressing.”

We have heard all that.

No, the hon. member for Durban (Point) started to read two items, and I am going to read a few more—

Not true. All untrue!

What does the hon. member for Houghton say, does she agree?

Listen to this one—

I heard the Opposition to-day in Parliament and I did not find it stilled. And listen to the next one—

There was a ray of light to me, one ray of light. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Capt. Henwood) during a debate got up and said that he reckoned that the film was a disgraceful one. I was only sorry that it was not the voice of the whole Opposition at the time. Because it was a disgraceful film.

We all say so.

May I say this then, that that was not the description given to it by certain members of the English Press in this country. Some of them said that it was quite a true version. But there was another ray of light. This appeared in the Cape Times on 22 April under the caption “Magnate slates television film”—

I would like to thank hon. members who were in their way, however difficult it might have been as members of the Opposition, helpful and who supported the Department of Information. I would like to thank members on this side of the House who so readily came to its defence. We on this side of the House, Sir, are not despondent. There may be a tough road ahead, but we are prepared to go it. But there is a change. I want to read something that I obtained from Canada. And you know, South Africa gets no good reporting in Canada, to a large extent because the news they get over there is obtained from English newspapers, or stringers attached to English newspapers. The hon. member will remember an article written by Mrs. Bertha Solomon.

That is what you told us last year already.

Yes, she wrote an article in which she said “The death penalty shall be applied under the Sabotage Act”.

That was your maiden speech.

I know hon. members over there do not like it. I want to read this quickly—

That was in the Financial Post, Toronto, and Toronto, Mr. Chairman, in Canada, is a place in which South Africa has practically got no support. There is a change. Even in the United States, where integration is their policy, they are having their troubles. May I put it to hon. members here: Segregation, apartheid, is our policy, and that is applied even to universities. But we have non-Whites at our universities, where courses are not available for them at their universities. It does not take an army to get them to those universities. They are there now. But we are such terrible people! We still are able to allow people into our universities.

Try to get one in at Potchefstroom!

I would say this that as far as South Africa is concerned, this Department of Information will carry on the work as it has done in the past. It will support South Africa as is its duty. It is proud to support South Africa. We say: The dogs may bark, but the caravan will still move on.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 32,—“Commerce and Industries”, R11,715,000,

May I have the privilege of the half-hour?

The hon. Minister of Economic Affairs plus many of his adherents are continually talking about a boom in South Africa. I must admit that Government spending, mainly through the Railways and Defence, has taken in most of the slack in regard to White unemployment, but there still remains a very great problem in regard to the Coloureds, the Indians and the Africans. I admit too that the Minister has provided up to R500,000 for the launching and helping of the South African Foreign Trade Association which is to battle for more exports for South Africa. But there are many matters holding back industrial expansions and endangering the export trade, and I hope the hon. Minister will give us a statement later on the various matters which I and other speakers on this side of the House will bring up.

The hon. the Minister has just returned from the G.A.T.T. conference in Geneva and that is no doubt one of the things he will talk about, and I hope he will tell us something about his success or otherwise, and I wonder whether he will give us in this report on the G.A.T.T. meeting his view as to the future of our export trade, which obviously is our economic lifeblood.

Mr. Chairman, when we left the Commonwealth many of our exports were in danger, most of them being products of the soil, farming products, largely from the Western Province. We have just been dealing with a Bill to propagate the sale of more wine, which is obviously tied up with the possible difficulties in regard to export. Goods exported and enjoying imperial preferences a couple of years ago amount to plus-minus R100,000,000 a year, and the preferences were worth R8,000,000 to R10,000,000 a year. Now all these exports obviously will be jeopardized if the preferences go.

The next difficulty which arose was the question of Britain joining the Common Market, where there would be common external tariffs, and obviously every country not in this market would be detrimentally affected. Had Britain joined, our position at that stage would have been parlous. I think people in the Western Province particularly were very worried about that prospect. Most of our exports, for historical reasons, were concentrated on Britain, especially as far as the Western Province is concerned, fruits and wines, and this market overseas is keen and competitive. The imperial preferences we are getting could have represented practically all the profits accruing to the people who sent the stuff overseas. So they would have been in a rather unfortunate position had the preferences been lost.

Then we were fortunate that the negotiations between Britain and the six broke down and our exporters breathed again. But it looks as if this will be a temporary respite only. Five of the six want Britain in and only France wants Britain out. It is anybody’s guess as to how long it will be before Britain joins. The position is now becoming more complicated, as the hon. Minister knows, by this so-called Kennedy round. That conference will take place in the near future and the position as far as we are concerned will become more complicated than it is now. The idea of a partnership between North America and Europe in a low-tariff trading area with common external tariffs is one which must appeal to all men who fear for the peace of the world. The background of the Common Market together with this new development is, as we all know, political, and very great efforts are bound to be made to reach agreement. Out of the recent conferences attended by the hon. Minister in Geneva, obviously great changes will be brought about and I trust the Minister will tell us all about the position. It must in the near future vitally affect our exports and therefore our economy as a whole. There must have been considerable very hard bargaining at Geneva and there is going to be very much more hard bargaining between all the nations in future, and it looks as if the Western world is going to be divided into three kinds of countries: Industrialized countries, underdeveloped countries (or developing countries as they now prefer to call themselves) and thirdly, countries in between, of which we are probably the shining example, being developed in parts and singularly undeveloped in other parts. Australia and New Zealand too might be regarded in the same light as we. Many tariffs are going to be reduced. That we all know. But we must know more from the hon. Minister. Certain countries are going to be favoured and we have very great fear that we might not be one of the most favoured countries. This position for us as the hon. Minister knows is fraught with great difficulties for every exporter and is one of the things holding back expansion in the private sector. Our exporters are worried. Our people who want to expand are worried. An explanation by the hon. Minister in regard to the future as he sees it will be welcomed by all. Under the U.S. Trade Expansion Act, as the Minister knows, President Kennedy is now authorized to cut tariffs by up to 50 per cent across the table in negotiations with other countries and up to 100 per cent on certain products such as tropical farm commodities, and there is no shadow of doubt whateverthat in the northern hemisphere there is going to be a closer and closer getting together by the countries economically, with this political background, and our interests will have to be very, very closely watched indeed if we are not to suffer. I do not like to let my imagination run riot on how much we could suffer if things go wrong.

Tied up with this question of possible reductions of tariffs in favour of other people that might affect our exports is of course this question of boycotts. Mr. Chairman, boycotts are increasing. I admit they are failing in some cases, but they are succeeding in others. Every businessman knows that if he can get the goods onto the shelves of the shops a boycott cannot work. The ordinary public does not worry where things come from. They buy the article they see if it is satisfactory and the price is right. But when boycotts are enforced by Governments, it is a different matter. I have seen it quoted somewhere that about 11 per cent of our exports, non-gold, are affected by boycotts, and if that is true then we are suffering greatly already from these boycotts. I hope the hon. Minister can tell us what the position is. Further, we all know that it is no good keeping Government trade representatives in countries where Government boycotts exist. The removal of the boycott, of course, is not the duty of this Minister: it is a matter for the diplomats. Diplomacy is defined in the dictionary as the management of international affairs by negotiation, or skill or address in the conduct of international intercourse and negotiations. I venture to suggest that diplomacy as so defined is entirely lacking in our Minister of Foreign Affairs, and that this is one of the worst hurdles that the Minister of Economic Affairs has to overcome. The Minister must not play down the danger of these boycotts. More and more reports are coming in of persons being affected and the Government’s attitude in regard to boycotts was given by the Minister in reply to a question earlier in the Session asked by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg. The Minister said: “I repeat what I have stated be fore in this House, that the Government is not prepared to negotiate with any foreign Government or party responsible for boycott movements against the Republic in an attempt to persuade them to abandon such activities, and short of this, I wish to reiterate that my Department is more than willing to consider any reasonable requests from South African importers or exporters for assistance in locating or developing import or export outlets. I do not consider that any further amplification of the Government’s attitude on this matter can be in the public interest or can serve any useful purpose.” I appreciate the Minister’s position. Boycotts come from political causes. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs cannot himself hope to break them down. That is the job of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is responsible for our present so-called diplomacy. When our Prime Minister and Sir Roy Welensky met, they said in their statement—

We all know that the Black states to the north of us are really our natural market, and if we do not break in there in the years to come we shall have trouble. Before Sir Roy got back to Rhodesia, he said—

The Prime Minister says he wants to make friends with the countries on this continent, but this Minister says that the negotiations must start on the other side. I suggest that as the other countries are undeveloped, and possibly backward, although their leaders are not so—let us make no mistake about that—that is not the correct attitude. We should continually try to break down the hostility, whether we do so officially or unofficially. I do not say we should be servile. After this official statement, I read in the paper this morning that the Minister of Foreign Affairs mentioned one or two approaches he had made to non-White countries to the north of us and that he had been rebuffed. I do not know whether those approaches were made before this Minister made his statement, which to all intents and purposes meant that those people knew where they could go to. It is very difficult to reconcile these statements, and I hope the Minister will clear our minds of the fear that we are just going to sit still and make no approaches. Approaches should be made, even on an unofficial level, through men like Mr. Harry Oppenheimer and other businessmen. We must keep in touch because things will change one day, and it would be a great pity if by then we had already burnt our boats.

Will it help us to start crawling?

The old adage that a soft answer turneth away wrath might have some truth in it on occasion. I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will not agree with that. Some people may admire him, but I do not know whether it is good practical politics for us to take that line. Therefore, because of our foreign policy, this Minister finds his hands tied. We have to battle to get into markets in which the competition is so great that unless the products come from underneath our soil, like iron and other unprocessed minerals, and we export that, we will find it very difficult to compete in regard to processed goods.

I would also ask the Minister to tell us what he can about his views about trade with the Federation which is so sorrowfully about to break up. This trade was worth about R100,000,000 a year and it cannot just beallowed to drop because we want to wait for somebody else to come and speak to us. I hope the Minister will tell us what he is doing in regard to maintaining and saving our trade with the Federation.

I have mentioned some of the problems which are worrying people and hampering our industrial growth. As we all know, we are in the position where we have to industrialize rapidly. Gold production is reaching its peak and will start to dwindle in a few years’ time unless other deposits are found. Heads of mining houses are leaving no stone unturned to find other deposits. They also say that to date no great success has attended their efforts. The closing of the mines on the Reef will be severely felt and the creation of new jobs is imperative and can only come about through industrialization. Only industry can fill the gap and provide the employment for the men who will be unemployed when the mines close down, and there are also a great number of new citizens of all colours wanting jobs every year. The Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics of the South African Reserve Bank of March 1963 gives the following very interesting figures with regard to employment in manufacturing and construction. Taking the index figure as 100 in 1953, it was 71 in 1948 and 120 in 1957. So over that period of ten years our jobs went up by roughly 5 per cent per year in the manufacturing industry, and from 78 to 115 in the private construction industry. However, from 1958 until now the position in the private manufacturing sector has been almost static. The figure in 1957 was 120 and the figure in 1962 was 122, an increase of 2 per cent only in the number of employees in the manufacturing industry. In the private construction industry it dropped from 115 to 108 over these five years. I know economists talk about the percentage of growth one needs to fill the slack of new job-seekers and these figures, I suggest, do not help us to claim that this country is in a boom. Certain industries, of course, are prospering. The Railways are doing well now, and defence expenditure helps the position, but the jump from 71 to 120, a big one, was helped by the devaluation of our currency in 1949, and by the Korean War and the vast increase in the mining industry and also by the sale of uranium, which is now bringing in less every year. None of those factors which brought our economy up so greatly can be laid at the door of this Government. They came from our latent wealth. Since 1957 the figures have remained almost static, with a slight increase in manufacturing employment and a substantial drop in construction. I say again that these figures certainly prove that we are not in the middle of a boom, as the Government says.

I want to ask why this slow-down in development has occurred? The Minister must admit that we are not growing fast enough, and the question is why. We blame Government policy. We say that notwithstanding the factors in favour of our growth like devaluation, increased gold production and higher prices for farm products and uranium, this growth has not increased it to anywhere near the extent it should have done, and we say that is due to Government policy. The fact that the Government stopped immigration in 1949, and that it sent the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to challenge the world and to quarrel with everyone, are two of the reasons. Others are the nonsensical policy of border industries. A few years ago the Minister himself said that this policy was entirely foreign to economic laws, but that economic laws had to be broken if the future of a nation was at stake. We say another factor which has held us back is the treatment of the Reef area where the mines are dying, and this question of insisting that they have one White employee for one Black one. Those are the things that are stopping our development, and those are the corner-stones of Government policy. If the Minister says we are wrong in our reading of the position, no doubt he will correct us.

The last thing I want to discuss is the statement by the Prime Minister issued in connection with the meeting of the Economic Advisory Council in Pretoria in August last year. On page 7 of that report the Prime Minister says—

That is a new phrase which is coming into use. On page 9 the Prime Minister says—

On page 11 it says—

Those are very wise words and I hope the Minister will deal with the issues I have raised, and will he also tell us how he sees his Department endeavouring to implement the suggestions contained in this report.

I have never known the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) to adopt such a mild tone as he did in this House this afternoon. It seems to me that the United Party should place a certain amount of responsibility on the shoulders of the hon. member; he may still develop into a good member then. We have never gained that impression before throughout the years that he has been here with us. I would almost go so far as to congratulate the hon. member on the moderate attitude that he adopted here. He made a few statements which I do not think were quite correct and I want to reply to them.

He spoke about the Black states to the north of us and said that those states were our natural market and that we should do everything in our power to develop that market. I agree that our natural market does lie there but anyone who knows the Bantu will know that if you give him an inch he will take an ell. You must never give him the impression that you badly need him. I do not think that under the present circumstances we in South Africa cannot do without the market of the Bantu. If that market develops in a natural way, if their needs force them to trade with us, it will be a good thing, but I do not think that we should break our necks to capture that market.

The hon. member in referring to our industrial expansion over the past five years said that it was virtually static and he blamed the Government for it. Has he lost sight of the great developments which have taken place over the past five years and the fact that the non-White states throughout the whole world have become independent one after another; that they have become a stronger and stronger force at UNO and in the Commonwealth; that they forced us to leave the Commonwealth and that they are trying to harm South Africa as much as they can? But on the other hand we must remember that the countries who really trade with us on any scale at all have all had experience of trade boycotts. We all know that when boycotts were imposed against Italy before the war they were a complete failure. Economic factors simply broke those political boycotts and that is just what is going to happen to the boycotts against South Africa if they are imposed on any appreciable scale. I do not think that the statement which the hon. member made—that 11 per cent of our exports are affected by boycotts—is correct. I think that figure is far too high and I doubt whether we should be very concerned about it at this stage. But the hon. member contradicted himself. He contradicted what his party did this morning. This morning his party suggested that we should reduce income-tax further because there were boom conditions in South Africa, and now the hon. member says that there are no boom conditions here. What are the conditions then? Hon. members must be consistent. But I do not want to devote any more time to what the hon. member said. I want to bring a few matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister.

The first is that I have seen reports in the Press about the policy of manufacturing spare parts for motor-cars in South Africa, and eventually motor-cars. These reports say that that policy is being pushed too quickly by the Government; that industry cannot meet the demands which are being made upon it and that prices are being pushed too high. I would like to know what the true position is. When one looks at the import and export figures and at the number of cars in the country, it looks as though it pays us handsomely. One would like to hear whether this venture is progressing satisfactorily and on an economic basis: whether great industrial expansion has already taken place and whether there is going to be further expansion. I want to say in passing, in connection with what the hon. member said, that if great industrial expansion has in fact taken place in the past year or two there will be no statistics as yet to prove it.

As far as spare parts are concerned, we know that the hon. the Minister’s Department has also instituted an inquiry into the tractor industry. I should like to know whether the inquiry has been completed and whether a decision has been reached in connection with the manufacture of tractors in South Africa. If so, I would like to know on what basis this will be done. We have a tremendous market for tractors here but the difficulty is that we have a vast number of different makes which of course makes the prices of spares so much higher. If one could limit it to a few makes of tractors then spare parts would cost very little.

Then I just want to bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister: Our greatest danger in South Africa, in the event of trouble with the outside world, would be a cutting off of our supplies of power, petrol and oil. What progress is being made in prospecting for these products in South Africa? Of course, there is a great deal of secrecy surrounding these activities; there may perhaps be certain people who have already progressed a long way in this connection but who have neglected to inform the Minister. I hope that things are going well in this connection. There is also the question of the development of atomic energy. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether an inquiry is being instituted into the extent to which we can make use of atomic power for our larger tractive units, such as locomotives and our larger aircraft and so forth, and whether we have progressed to such an extent that in time ofneed, even though it would be uneconomic to do so, we would be able to utilize that power.

There are two further matters that I have read about and I would like to know whether the hon. the Minister or the C.S.I.R. have investigated these matters. I noticed in the Press the other day that someone drove a car using gas. We have sources of gas in South Africa and we manufacture a great deal of gas. This car was driven more than 30 miles on gas and it appears to be very economical. I also notice that someone invented an apparatus which he attached to a motor-car engine and which enabled him to run the car on ordinary water, and it was a great success. These are things that one reads about and then they just seem to disappear from the face of the earth. It will of course pay any oil company or the oil and petrol-producing countries to spend millions of rand to kill an invention of this nature because it could do great damage to their business. What are the possibilities? I would just like to know whether the hon. the Minister knows anything about these things and whether they are being investigated. [Time limit.]

I think the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) should know by now that when one takes part in an economic debate the first thing is to get one’s facts right. When he said that we on this side moved this morning that income-tax should be reduced because there were boom conditions, he was wrong. What we said was that the country was poised for boom conditions, and given a little extra uplift perhaps we would have a boom.

I want to return to the question raised by the hon. member for Benoni, tariff groupings, because I believe that in the immediate future these are the questions with which we will be vitally concerned. It was a pleasant surprise, from many angles, to us when we found that Britain had not been admitted to the European Common Market and there was a sense of relief in many sectors of our economy, but I think it would be foolish for us to believe that that is the end of the story. Whether Britain will eventually be admitted to the E.C.M., I do not know. Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on that, but we know that the status quo will not continue and that the E.C.M. will continue to influence international commercial relationships for many years to come. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what is going to be the position of Dr. Lombard in Brussels, who was originally appointed for one year? Will he remain there to look after our interests?

Britain, now being in the position of not being admitted to the Common Market, will obviously do something about it, and what she does is vital to us. The E.F.T.A. have met to see how trade can be increased between them. Now Britain will protect the Commonwealth countries in relation to E.F.T.A., and we would like to know from the Minister what steps are being taken to protect the interests of South Africa against E.F.T.A. We also know that the Commonwealth Trade Ministers met after Britain was refused entry to the E.C.M. and we would like to know how South Africa stands in that regard. Will we be able to use our position in terms of the Ottawa Agreement to make certain that our position in relation to the Commonwealth countries is taken care of?

The Minister has just come back from the G.A.T.T. Conference and we are anxious to hear what he has to say about it. The hon. member for Benoni has told us that the Americans want to reduce tariffs by 50 per cent. We see in the Press that a broad basis for negotiation has already been agreed upon. We know that the Commonwealth countries are determined to play a constructive role in the Kennedy round of tariff-cutting negotiations, and we know that it is basically under G.A.T.T., but we have to protect our position. But there is one other interesting development which we would like to hear the Minister on. He said last year, and we on this side agreed with him, that there was no question of the Republic becoming an associate member of the Common Market. Since that date we have had some interesting statements. We first of all had a statement from the Deputy President of the French Assembly when he visited this country, in which he said that South Africa and Israel were two countries that would receive special consideration for associate membership of the European Common Market. We also had a statement from the new Consul-General for Germany to the Republic who said: “South Africa can be optimistic about the future of the European Common Market” and then we had the statement by the Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Schroder, as reported in the Bulletin of 9 April 1963 where he discusses the question of the association with African states, the financial help being given to the African states and says that he would have liked to have hastened the agreement to allow the French states particularly to join the Common Market as associate members, and then he goes on to say—

Does this statement and the others to which I have referred indicate that there has been a change in thinking and that there is a possibility of the Republic becoming an associate member of the Common Market? Because where does South Africa stand at the moment in relation to her export trade? On the one hand she has the boycott countries, particularly the countries to the north which have rightly been called our natural markets. We know that the potential for exporting to the north is now barred. We have the United States of America with her Vast potential, negotiating with Europe; we have the European Common Market setting up a common external tariff: we have E.F.T.A. looking after the affairs of those seven countries and we have the Commonwealth standing as another trading bloc. And where do we belong? To none of them. We are outside them all. Our only possible guarantee of being able to move in these tariff organizations which are being set up all around us, is, I think, through the agency of G.A.T.T. or through bilateral trade agreements which we may be able to negotiate with other countries. I doubt if our situation has ever been as tricky—I will not use the word serious—as it is at the moment with all these organizations looking after the affairs of member countries, while we in South Africa in effect belong to none of them. We do not belong to E.F.T.A., we do not belong to the Common Market, we do not belong to G.A.T.T., we do not belong to the Commonwealth, we do not belong to the United States; we cannot trade with the Black countries and we stand almost isolated and alone. Taking that situation into account, I was glad to hear from the hon. the Minister in reply to a question put to him in January of this year that 14 new commercial posts had been set up abroad. Unfortunately at that time the Minister reported that only four had been filled, and I hope he will be able to tell us to-day that all 14 posts have been filled. I had the opportunity last year while abroad to visit many of our consulates and embassies and I was impressed by the work that was being done by our commercial attaches but my own impression is that the strength of our commercial representation abroad requires a great deal of stiffening indeed. The hon. the Minister also told us that he had appointed two people to the commercial service from outside the ranks of the service. I am sure that these gentlemen are capable and adequate for the job: I do not know either of them but I do sincerely hope that this process of appointing people from outside the service to the service will be continued. I am sure that there are available people of calibre who would like to render service to the country and who would be prepared to undertake a short tour on behalf of this country. There is no doubt that if we could persuade people who are well known in South African and international commercial, industrial and banking circles to undertake a tour of duty on behalf of the country, the very connections which they have, which are usually very difficult to establish between normal commercial attaches, would prove of great benefit to this country, and this process should be fostered.

In the first place, so many questions have been put to me that I think that I should clear the decks by answering a number of those questions at this stage. I do not know whether I shall be able to reply to all the questions because it would probably take me a few hours to do so. But I shall try to answer the most important of them as briefly as possible.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) asked a number of very important questions and I want to compliment him on the way in which he asked reasonable questions in a reasonable way. The first question that he asked was in connection with the possibility of finding the export markets in the future for South African products, particularly having regard to the fact that we are now out of the Commonwealth and the fact that arrangements are being made at the moment for important tariff negotiations between the large powers and also the fact that Britain may possibly still join the Common Market at some future date. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) supplemented those questions by asking where we stood at the moment as far as our export markets were concerned. In the first place I just want to repeat what I have previously stated in this House: When we left the Commonwealth—prior to and after our leaving—we stated in this House that we anticipated no adverse effects as a result of South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth. We also stated clearly that we believed that we would continue to enjoy the tariff preferences that we were enjoying on the British market in spite of the fact that we had left the Commonwealth. That prophecy was realized and we know to-day that our trade relationships with Britain, our most important foreign market, are still the same as they were in the past. In other words, we are still enjoying the same preferences and we still have the same access to the British market as we had before, except for certain items in regard to which, at the request of Britain, we have agreed to forfeit our preferences in order to enable Britain to meet her obligations under E.F.T.A. We also said that difficulties might arise if Britain entered the European Common Market, because not only would we then lose all those preferences on the British market but we would also have another tariff to compete against—the general “common external tariff”. This tariff would be set up against us and the members of the European Economic Community would have free access to markets while we would have to pay a tariff in order to obtain access to those markets. Hon. members know what we have done in the meantime to protect South Africa’s position in the event of Britain’s joining the Common Market. We have taken various steps. On 20 November we met the E.E.C. and stated South Africa’s attitude. We have it on record to-day in the minutes of the E.E.C. Commission that South Africa’s attitude was stated there and that they realize that a country like South Africa will be faced with certain problems if Britain does join the Common Market, although it may not be too difficult to overcome those problems. That position has been avoided because Britain has not entered the Market. That is the position as it exists to-day. But I think that the hon. member is right in saying what I have also said on a few occasions—that I do not believe that the present position is permanent.I expect that within a year or so the way will have been paved for Britain’s entry into the Common Market. Even though the representations would not in the first place come directly from Britain, it is my opinion that five of the member countries, excluding France—perhaps even the six of them—will do their best to bring about Britain’s entry into the Common Market. These are questions for the future but I think that we can accept the possibility, perhaps even the probability, that in the years to come we will find that Britain will join the Common Market. If this does happen, we will be faced with certain export problems because it will be difficult for us to gain entry into our most important export market. All that I can say in this regard at the moment is that we are grateful that we are being given a breathing space in which to prepare ourselves and that it is now the task of our industries and of our exporters to do everything in their power, together with the State, in the first instance to find alternative markets for the products that we may perhaps no longer be able to sell in Britain to the same extent, and secondly, to organize our export industries in such a way that we will be able to compete on that market abroad. We may possibly have a few years in which to see what we can do and we cannot do anything but make an appeal to our industrialists, our exporters, to do everything in their power in the breathing space that lies ahead to be prepared in the event of Britain’s entering the Market.

The hon. member for Parktown raised the question of whether it was not possible for South Africa to obtain associate membership of the E.E.C. I once again want to express the opinion that I have already expressed in this House in the past. I do not think that we can be an associate member. Associate membership of the Common Market is in the first place intended for European States which are not yet able to accept full membership. They can enter into an agreement of association with the E.E.C. for a long period in order to prepare themselves for full membership. That is one class of association. The other kind of association is that of the former dependent territories of the members of the Common Market—the French and the Belgian Colonies, the Africa territories. They may become associate members but they do not become full members. South Africa does not fall into any one of those categories. We are not a European State; we are not a formerly dependent and underdeveloped territory. Under those circumstances we do not qualify for association with the Common Market. I may also say that the E.E.C. issued a statement on association during the course of last year. This was in connection with England’s intended entry into the market. They then classified the British territories into various classes—for example, the Rhodesian territories, the High Commission Territories, other territories and the Dominions—and in that classification it was stated that countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand could not qualify for association. If they cannot qualify, then I take it that it will not be possible for South Africa to associate either. As a result of recent developments, in pursuance of the fact that Britain has not become a member of the Common Market, there are possible developments in the international economic sphere. At the beginning of the year when Britain’s application did not succeed, I mentioned certain of the possibilities in the international trade sphere. I referred amongst other things to the fact that Britain would also strive for a large-scale cut in import tariffs, a large-scale reduction in import tariffs between Britain and America and the rest of Europe, particularly the Common Market countries. If she can succeed in lowering import tariffs, she will have achieved part of the purpose that she had in mind in trying to join that market. This attempt to lower import tariffs has been set in motion mainly by the United States. We know that the United States cut certain tariffs by 20 per cent in a few industrial countries last year, and under the rules of G.A.T.T. we also received the benefit of those cuts because they were made on a non-discriminatory basis, on a most-favoured-nation basis for all members of G.A.T.T. At the moment, as the hon. member for Benoni said, we are faced with a completely new position. We are now faced with the possibility of a large-scale cut in import tariffs. As hon. members know, the Trade Expansion Act was passed in America last year. Under that Trade Expansion Act the American Government was given the right to cut tariffs by 50 per cent over a period of five years. This move was one of the points which resulted in a very important discussion at the recent meeting of G.A.T.T. It was perhaps the most important subject discussed. Three main points were raised at that conference. The one was to obtain increased admission for agricultural products to the markets of the world—to render assistance to the less developed or developing countries, to have their products marketed, and the other was to lower tariffs generally with a view to expanding world trade. I do not want to go into detail in regard to this matter again. I just want to state briefly what happened. America made the suggestion of a general linear lowering of tariffs by 50 per cent—“linear across the board”. This means that there will be a reduction of 50 per cent throughout on all tariffs with very few exceptions. The opinion was expressed that the old method of the lowering of tariffs no longer served any purpose to-day, the old method of taking commodity for commodity and in which one country negotiated with another country. It was felt that this method was no longer serviceable; that it operated too slowly and that if we wanted to lower tariffs and promote world trade, we should immediately cut all tariffs by 50 per cent. That was the suggestion made by America. This suggestion was supported by Britain and by quite a number of other States. But this suggestion was not supported by the E.E.C. The E.E.C. said that this linear across the board cut in tariffs would not work, in the first place because the E.E.C.’s tariffs were fairly uniform and not very high-while there were a number of very high tariffs in America. If a country has a tariff of 15 per cent and cuts it by 50 per cent, it then has per cent left and that tariff then has hardly any force and importance. But if a country has a tariff of 80 per cent and it cuts it by 50 per cent, and that tariff falls to 40 per cent, it still remains a high tariff. Because, so they contended, there were a large number of American tariffs that were extremely high, they did not want to accept this general linear cut in tariffs but they proposed a decapitation—that they should start on the very high tariffs; that those tariffs should be brought more or less to a normal level and that once they were all brought to a more or less uniform level, we could go ahead with a linear cut. The conference almost broke up on this point. The two groups, the E.E.C. and America, with other countries as mediators, argued with one another for a long time. We expected that G.A.T.T. conference to break up at any moment and to be a failure, but eventually a compromise was reached. The compromise amounts more or less to the fact that countries decide on a linear general cut without determining whether that cut will be 50 per cent or 40 per cent or 30 per cent. The percentage will then have to be determined. Secondly, that in the case of tariffs in regard to which great differences exist between various countries—for example, the very high tariffs in America that I mentioned—a special formula should be found to trade under those tariffs, and that that formula should then be applied to all countries. In other words, this is a form of concession to the E.E.C. countries; a formula will be found, after the general principle of a linear cut has been adopted, to deal with the tariffs where there is a great difference between the various countries, a formula that will be applied automatically and generally. It was also decided that this reduction in tariffs should also be applicable to agricultural products and also to the non-tariff measures. As hon. members will understand, many countries have not only tariff measures that restrict imports from other countries but particularly the non-tariff measures such as quota and import control and so forth, and it was decided that attention would also be given to them. A Trade Negotiations Committee is being appointed which amongst other things will inquire into the whole procedure to be followed in order to achieve those ends, a Committee which will prepare for a conference to be held in May next year when the actual tariff negotiations will start. Now, where will we stand if this goes through? I still foresee this Trade Negotiations Committee experiencing a great deal of trouble in finding a formula that will satisfy everyone. But where do we come in? We have adopted the attitude in South Africa that we are not a highly industrialized country nor are we an undeveloped country, but that we are somewhere between the two. In other words, we cannot be dealt with in the same way as the highly industrialized countries are dealt with. As far as this point is concerned we pointed out specifically that South Africa was a young developing country in the economic sphere and that South Africa was not able to offer the same reduction in tariffs as the old, highly industrialized countries could. As a young, up and coming industrial country we have specific problems and we are also to a large extent an exporter of agricultural products. We do not see our way clear to accept only a reduction in the tariffs on industrial goods; because we export so many agricultural products and primary products, we may be able to obtain a quid pro quo for ourselves. That is the attitude we have adopted. I may just say—and I think that we can be satisfied with this—that in the resolutions that were eventually formulated and adopted, the fact was taken of into account that there were countries with specific problems and that their problems should be considered; that full reciprocity could perhaps not be expected from them. This holds good particularly for countries like ours concentrating mainly on the export of agricultural and primary products. Our problems were brought to the attention of this body, as were the problems of Australia and New Zealand, which export many agricultural products. These facts were noted and in the resolutions reference was made to countries like ours having these specific problems which will have to be considered when the negotiations take place. I just want to inform the House that we are prepared to co-operate with this Trade Negotiations Committee. We are prepared to participate in that Committee. We can exercise an influence by participating in that Trade Negotiations Committee which has to make preparations for the future but we will not bind ourselves as far as the form of the changes is concerned. We are therefore prepared to go on and to work further along these lines so that we can obtain what is best for ourselves under the circumstances. I just want to point out that if we can obtain what is best for ourselves, if we have the fact acknowledged that we are an export country exporting agricultural and primary products to a large extent; that we are a young and developing industrial country and that this fact should be compensated for, hon. members must remember that the cutting of tariffs will not be discriminatory but will hold good for all countries. If America and Britain lower a tariff between them by 50 per cent, then as a member of G.A.T.T. we will also have the benefit of the lowering of that tariff. G.A.T.T. is established on the principle of most-favoured-nation treatment and we receive the benefit of everything that is effected under G.A.T.T. as a member of G.A.T.T. There are therefore dangers; there are problems as far as this general lowering of tariffs in future is concerned. We admit that; we will have to be on our guard and we will have tomake ourselves heard. We will have to cooperate as far as we can but we will have to ensure that our interests are considered. I think that there is every chance of this being done and if we make the best use of that opportunity then this whole development may still be to the advantage of South Africa. I think that that answers the question of the hon. member.

I come now to the question of boycotts. We in South Africa are not looking for boycotts. We do not believe in boycotts. We believe that the country which boycotts will eventually be more adversely affected than the country which is being boycotted. I believe that many of the States that are officially boycotting South Africa to-day will return to South Africa as they grow older politically and economically, because economic forces will compel them to buy on the market where they can buy cheapest and best. Economic forces will force them to turn to South Africa later. We do not boycott in return. No official State boycott has as yet been proclaimed against any country boycotting us officially. On the contrary, we have always shown friendliness towards all countries. Even at G.A.T.T. where the question of developing countries was discussed, we said that we were sympathetically disposed towards those countries which were in their initial stages of development because we were also partly still at that stage. As a South African Government we have always declared ourselves prepared to give technical and scientific and other assistance to other States in Africa if their Governments asked for that assistance. We have always shown goodwill on our part, a willingness to cooperate, and we are prepared to continue to do so. But we will not humiliate ourselves by crawling to States that are deliberately boycotting us and pleading with them to lift those boycotts. That we will certainly not do. I believe that economic forces will come into operation in this regard. We already have countries—without mentioning names—that have instituted strong boycotting actions against us but those boycotts are now starting to weaken, on the one hand because of the attitude of this Government and on the other hand because of the activities of private enterprise. I think that our exporters can do a great deal in this sphere. The private person can do more; the manufacturer, the representative can do a great deal in those countries, as has been done in certain countries and as we see being done in certain countries which are again starting to buy from us. But the Government will certainly not humiliate itself by crawling to such countries.

A question was asked in connection with our exports to the Federation. I do not want to anticipate anything that may happen. I do not think that it would be right at this stage to say what we will do if the Federation is dissolved. Our biggest trade is of course with Southern Rhodesia. We do not have specific figures that we can analyse in order to show what our trade is with the three different countries making up the Federation. I can only give hon. members the assurance that we are watching the position very carefully and that we will do everything in our power not only to retain the trade that we have with all of those territories—Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland—but to increase it. I do not think that I should say anything more on this point. It is a hypothetical case that is contingent upon political problems. I can only assure hon. members that we are watching the position very carefully.

The hon. member for Benoni asked questions about our industrial growth and he suggested that things were static in this regard. I could devote a great deal of time to proving the opposite simply by quoting figures. But I must point out briefly that everything depends upon the period of comparison and upon the question of whether one’s figures are comparable. There are fluctuations in every economy. One find this in every country. In a country like America one finds it every three or four years. There are fluctuations in the economy of every country. We also have fluctuations in the economy of our country. Unfortunately, there are hon. members opposite—the hon. member of Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) is not here but he is one of the culprits—who, in speaking about the industrial growth of South Africa, are inclined to compare certain periods with other periods that are simply not comparable. It is wrong to compare a period in which there has been a declining conjuncture with a period in which there has been a rising conjuncture. In the years up to 1960 we had a normal declining conjuncture. It is wrong to compare that period with other periods of prosperity. That conjuncture has turned. It has turned very swiftly indeed just recently. If you look at the latest figures, Mr. Chairman, figures that I do not want to give you now, you will see that South Africa is on the crest of a great wave of prosperity. Mr. Harry Oppenheimer spoke a short while ago of the amazing prosperity of South Africa. One cannot compare the figures after 1948 with the figures before 1948. Why not? Because after 1948 there was a change in statistics, a change in the classification of industries. Certain things which prior to 1948 were still included in industrial statistics were omitted after 1948. One of the most important things that I want to mention having been omitted is everything that has to deal with garages; everything that has to deal with the component parts of motor cars and spare parts, such as tyres and so forth. All of these items were included in industrial statistics prior to 1948 but were omitted after 1948. In other words, we have here two completely incomparable sets of figures. Hon. members know about the tremendous progress that we have made recently in the sphere of the manufacture of parts for motor cars. This is one of the spheres in which we have progressed a great deal. I know that the hon. member did not make his comparisons deliberately; I do not resent his having done so; but it is dangerous to compare two sets of figures with one anotherif they are not completely comparable. The hon. member referred to the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement on the Revenue Estimates. I want to repeat briefly what I have said before: We do not want planning in the general socialistic sense of planning. We are opposed to any planning by means of which the industrialist or businessman is forced into some sort of straitjacket and compelled to do things which he would not do of his own volition. We are opposed to socialism which deprives the industrialist of his own free initiative. But this does not mean that the State or the Government is disinterested in regard to the future economic development of the country. We must look ahead. If the industrial growth of the country is not swift enough, hon. members opposite will be the first to attack me under this Vote and say: What is the Government doing to promote industry in the country? They will be the first to criticize us because, quite rightly, they expect the Government to do a certain minimum number of things for the economy of the country. What are those things to which the hon. member referred? We must—and that is what we are doing—make a study of the shortcomings in our economic system and of the possibilities there are. If v/e think that there are possibilities for a motor car industry or a shipping industry, then we must study the position. We must keep a watchful eye on the possibilities of growth in every sphere, whether it is in the chemical industry or the textile industry or the engineering industry. We must see where the possibilities lie. We must see where the points of growth are and then, without any compulsion, we must try to lead development in that direction. We are in fact working in that direction. That is why the Board of Trade and Industry makes inquiries as to the deficiencies in our industrial structure. A report has been brought out on the textile industry; a report has been brought out on the chemical industry; a report will soon be submitted on the steel and engineering industry and so forth. Investigations are made as to the deficiencies in our industrial structure with a view particularly to substituting South African-manufactured articles for imported articles. We are also making a study of the shortcomings and possibilities in other spheres—the export possibilities of certain industries, industries in regard to which we have a certain comparative advantage over other countries because we have the labour, the raw materials and so forth. The hon. member asked whether we were continuing along that path. I want to tell him that it is the work of our Department to keep its eyes open; to look ahead continually and to see where the possibilities lie. It does so itself; it does so through the Industrial Development Corporation; it tries to create certain possibilities for industry to develop, industries which can strengthen and feed other industries.

The hon. member for Parktown asked what our position was. He asked what was becoming of us. He said that the whole world was forming groups, like the Common Market and so forth. Things are really not that bad. There are many countries—like Russia—that are not members of groups and yet things are still going well with them. But we still have the Ottawa Agreement. We are also still a member of G.A.T.T. My personal opinion is that G.A.T.T. is a very important organization as far as we are concerned. I think that we have the friendship of many nations in the economic sphere. I do not want to devote any of my time to discussing the matter but I would have liked to have discussed the attacks about isolation that are always been made against us. The countries that are boycotting us form only a small percentage of our trade. In 1962 they only made up 1.7 per cent of our exports. We are experiencing much goodwill on the part of the large nations, particularly in Europe.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Van den Heever) put a few questions to me in regard to sources of power, uranium, atomic energy, and whether prospecting was being done to discover other sources of power such as gas and so forth. Certain of these items fall under Mines. The Atomic Energy Board is of course giving its continued attention to any peaceful use for uranium. Those investigations are continuing. Gas is already being used in certain countries to-day as a means of propulsion. There is no reason why we should not make further inquiries—if this has not already been done—to see how far we can go in this regard—as long as we have the gas available, although this is something which we are not too sure about. I just want to say in this connection that just about every week the Department receives letters from people who say that they have made wonderful new discoveries. Hon. members cannot imagine the number of “perpetual motion” inventions that we have in South Africa! If we cannot decide on these matters, they are referred to the C.S.I.R. or to some other qualified body which then goes into the matter further in order to discover whether there is anything in it. They have, of course, a subordinate company that can exploit something of this nature if there is really anything in it.

I want to hasten to discuss the last two questions, one of which was about the tractor industry. We asked the Board of Trade and Industries to inquire into the industry. They have made that investigation and the report has been tabled. Hon. members have most probably seen it. The board found that a tractor industry was possible in South Africa. They have found that three factories manufacturing 3,000 units per annum are economically possible. An industry of this nature is possible with a protection of 20 per cent. This will make the tractor slightly more expensive to the farmer but they have suggested that a subsidy should be given that not only should a tariff be forced but that the tractor should be subsidized so that the price to the farmer can be reduced in this way. Those proposals have been discussed with interested parties anddefinite suggestions are now before the board which will in its turn submit those suggestions to the Government for decision. I just want to say that it has been found possible to establish an economic tractor industry in South Africa.

In conclusion I just want to say a few words about the motor car industry. The hon. member asked questions about criticism that appeared in a certain newspaper in connection with the industry manufacturing parts for motor ears. I know of articles that have appeared in certain newspapers to cast suspicion upon the policy of increasing the number of the locally manufactured parts of motor cars in South Africa. I know of certain journalists who have approached certain motor assemblers to provoke complaints from them against Government policy. Some of these assemblers have co-operated with them and others have not. Complaints are made about the quality of the spare parts manufactured in South Africa. I want to say that we are very strict about quality. One of the requirements we set is that if a spare part is to be used in the motor assembly industry in South Africa, it must be approved of technically—it must be good. We also have a suspicion that the tests that are applied to spare parts manufactured in South Africa are often far more stringent than the tests that are applied to the imported parts; that the South African manufactured spare parts are rejected because the test applied is so much stricter than that applied to the imported article. We are, however, very strict on the point that spare parts used by the assemblies must be technically good, otherwise action will be taken against the manufacturers. Objection has been lodged to the price of South African motor parts. In certain cases the part that is made in South Africa is more expensive because the production is smaller. The price is far higher in the case of certain models of which there are few in the country. That is why we are also thinking of standardizing cars. We believe that if we have more standardization, and once our industry has got more into its stride, South Africa will be able to make those parts more cheaply. South Africa is already exporting parts abroad and is competing on the foreign market. So it is not true that everything we manufacture will necessarily be more expensive. But the fact that South African spare parts may be more expensive because of the short series in production is compensated for by the fact that we allow a rebate on the excise duty on cars. As the South African content of a car increases, to that extent there is a rebate of the excise duty that has to be paid in that respect. That rebate therefore compensates for the increase in price. We are criticized particularly because it is said that our South African factories are too slow in delivering spare parts to the assemblers. It is contended that a large number of cars are standing on the assembly line but cannot be completed because our local factories cannot deliver the parts for them. We had an investigation made and we found that in regard to a number of the largest factories, not one single car was being delayed because of a lack of South African parts! There was also a lack of imported parts. In some cases the absence of imported parts was more responsible for the delay in the completion of production! There was a great delay at other factories because the South African spare part industry could not deliver these parts. But we also found out that there were reasons for this. One of the reasons often was that a particular factory did not want to co-operate right from the start; that it adopted a negative attitude towards the manufacture of South African spare parts and that it did not place its orders timeously. When it eventually placed its orders the local industry was of course not able to meet those orders in full. I can give hon. members the assurance that the industry manufacturing parts for motor cars is one that can prove to be of great importance to South Africa. It is still having its teething troubles. It cannot do everything in one year. I have the utmost confidence that in the future we will still be able to look back with pride on the development in this sphere. If all the companies that need car parts for their assembly lines co-operate properly, or rather, if they had co-operated in the past, we would have had far fewer problems to-day.

I think that I have replied to most of the questions that were put to me and I shall now give hon. members another opportunity to raise further points.

I feel sure we are all very glad that the hon. the Minister weathered the storm when he met the economists of the world. He has obviously had a very difficult time. His description of his interviews reminded me of a statement which is attributed to Bernard Shaw: If all the economists in the world were placed end to end they would not reach a conclusion. That apparently was the difficulty when they met in this case.

I do not know whether there is this free trade to which the hon. the Minister has referred. there is one matter that I should like to mention; perhaps he could give us some information. I refer to the fear that exists among us that it will be difficult for South Africa to purchase armaments from the Western nations. That fear has been expressed principally because of statements made in other countries. We cannot produce heavy armament here yet; we can produce light armament. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some information on that.

I should now like to refer to two points in the Estimates. The one appears on page 185 of the Revenue Account, “Financial assistance to local film industry”. I should like the hon. Minister to tell me what was the nature of that assistance? Last year it was R300,000 and this year it is R200,000. It is not a question of reduction; I presume it is some special assistance. I should like him to give us some information on this.

The matter to which I should like to devote time this afternoon is an item on the Loan Account, page 72, Loan Vote J, “Purchase of Shares of the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited”, R21,000,000. That is a very large item. That money is to be distributed as follows according to the usual note at the bottom: “Required for the development of industries in border areas—R5,000,000 and for the synthetic rubber raw material project—R16,000,000.” In discussing this we have to return to a subject which has been before this House on many an occasion. We in South Africa have large sums of money invested in public enterprises, investments over which we have no control in Parliament. There is no accountability to Parliament. I can refer to the Auditor-General’s report on this subject. I want to quote from the Auditor-General’s report for last year. The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is here fortunately and he will be able to confirm what I am saying. I want to quote from page 372. These are the amounts we have invested in these public corporations: the Industrial Development Corporation R122,000,000; the Fisheries Development Corporation R1,753,000; in Iscor R50,000,000; in the Klipfontein Organic Products R4,000,000; altogether R178,000,000. That is the amount we have invested in public development corporations. That is a considerable sum.

My next point is to discuss the dividends that this Government receives from these public enterprises. They are also described in detail, this time on page 373 of Part II of the Auditor-General’s Report, on the opposite page to the one I have already quoted. These are the amounts: Klipfontein Organic Products, there was no dividend last year. Altogether since they were established in 1950, they have paid R129,000 in dividends over those years. Then we come to the money-spinner, Iscor: Last year Iscor paid a dividend of 6 per cent on the A-shares and 7½ per cent on preference shares that we are all familiar with now; altogether they have paid in dividends, over all the years, since 1928, a period of 35 years, about R44,000,000 in dividends. As hon. members know there was considerable development especially during the war years. We come next to the Fisheries Development Corporation: Last year they paid in dividends R85,000—I am taking the A-shares and the B-shares together—which is a fair investment. We then come to the Industrial Development Corporation which has a very large capital invested: R122,000,000 of the R180,000,000 is in the Industrial Development Corporation. What is their dividend record under this Government? Last year they paid no dividend. In the many years since they were established (in 1940, the early stages of the Second World War) they have never paid a single rand in dividends.

They are not supposed to. The profits are ploughed back.

The hon. member says they are not supposed to. Is there any objection to them paying dividends if they are a successful enterprise? Is there any special reason? I hope the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) will come in afterwards and explain the Government’s policy in regard to the Industrial Development Corporation because I am going to offer a suggestion. The Industrial Development Corporation which was started in a modest way to help small industries, has now the following interests—I am quoting from the balance sheet we received last year: The production of oil from coal; Foskor; Fine Wool Products. In addition they have funds invested in Government and public stocks. I hope the Government is not paying them interest for the use of the Government’s own money. In addition the Industrial Development Corporation is now interested in shipping. Hon. members who have read the report will know that. They are interested in export finance, which we regard as the province of banking. And now they are going into the production of rubber. I am not saying that they should not do it. What I do ask and what I have asked for many years is that there should be accountability to Parliament by all these public corporations. The hon. Minister of Transport has a large enterprise. He has a special Select Committee that deals every year with the expenditure of his undertaking. So every Department of State has to appear before our Select Committees and give an account of its expenditure. Hon. Ministers appear before us in Parliament and explain to us how much has been spent—in other words they are accountable to this House and to our Select Committees. Now my proposal is this: Under the new suggestions in regard to rules for the conduct of this Parliament, the two standard Select Committees that we have to-day on Public Accounts and Railways should be reduced in size. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) makes the same suggestions year after year. I do not know why he is dissatisfied with the corporations; they are doing excellent work and I at any rate would not be in favour of their being subjected to that amount of red tape. They are business institutions and I do not think that it would be to the advantage of the country if they were subjected to such an inordinate amount of red tape.

I think that I speak on behalf of all of us in heartily congratulating the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs on the excellent exposition that he has given. I was particularly pleased about what he said in regard to the tractor industry and in regard to the possibility of tractor factories being established in the country. I have no doubt that there is only one place in the whole of South Africa for a tractor factory and that is of course Vereeniging. The hon. the Minister said that the Board of Trade and Industry recommended a maximum of three tractor factories, each of which would have a turnover of more or less 3,000 tractors, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to restricting the number of these factories to two. Our consumption of tractors is about 10,000 per annum. The hon. the Minister added that in order to bring this about, the tractor industry should have a protection of about 20 per cent. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why the number should not be reduced to two factories, each of which could then have a turnover of about 5,000 tractors? This would immediately enable them to produce more cheaply, and the protection of 20 per cent could perhaps be reduced considerably. Then there is another idea that I want to suggest to the Department—I do not know whether this is included in the idea of the three tractor factories—and that is that there should be only one factory for the manufacture of engines—that is to say, engines for lorries as well as stationary engines and engines for tractors. If that factory can then be given the necessary protection to enable it to produce all those engines, then the engines can be made available to a maximum of two tractor factories. I am informed that if this is done very little protection will be required and the farmers will be able to obtain tractors at very much the same price that they are paying for them to-day. I understand that if a plan of this nature is adopted, we will have a tractor factory or two tractor factories in South Africa within a year. We hope that both of them will be at Vereeniging because we have the steel there, we have our largest agricultural machinery factories there and, moreover, they have a very good Member of Parliament!

I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with Sasol. From time to time mention is made of plans to erect another Sasol. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the possibilities in this regard are and whether consideration is being given to this question. I shall be pleased if this is so, because of our vulnerability as far as petrol is concerned. We still do not know what the result will be of research into fresh resources of oil in South Africa, but in any case we now know that we can make cheap petrol from coal in South Africa. Sasol is a paying industry; not only is it profitable but it makes the best and cheapest petrol in South Africa.

But how?

Of course it makes the best and cheapest petrol in South Africa. It is petrol of a high octane quality and one can buy it on the Witwatersrand at the same price as one can buy the low octane petrol. As one who has had experience in this regard, I can say without fear of contradiction that there is no petrol like Sasol petrol. The erection of the Sasol factory did of course require a capital of millions of rand; but this was to a large extent due to the mistakes that were made, the experiments that had to be made. I am informed now that the know ledge that Sasol’s staff have in connection with those two systems and the combination of the two systems that they have there is the best to be found throughout the world with the result that if a new Sasol is erected and if we can somehow obtain the required large quantities of low-grade coal, that factory will cost much less than the original Sasol factory. One does not want to hazard a guess but it is anticipated that the capital amount involved will not be two-thirds of the capital cost of the present Sasol. That is why I would like to know whether the hon. the Minister can give us any information in this connection.

The hon. members for Benoni (Mr. Ross) and Parktown (Mr. Emdin) are apparently not greatly impressed by the economic prosperity that we are at present experiencing in South Africa. They maintain that we are not experiencing a boom. That may be so, but things are going very well indeed with our economy at the moment and if this is not a boom, I would like to know what the position will be when we really do have a boom in South Africa! I have collected a few figures and I find that our exports this year have been considerably higher than they were last year, notwithstanding all the talk of boycotts. As far as our imports are concerned, they have risen from R252,000,000 in 1962 to R301,000,000 in 1963, an increase of about 20 per cent. Our gross national production is now close to R6,000,000,000, which is 7 per cent higher than it was in 1961. Let us consider that important barometer of economic prosperity, employment. Unemployment in February of this year dropped by 34 per cent, compared with February of last year. And the manufacturers throughout the country expect to have an 8 per cent higher turnover this year. But I have a further indication of the tremendous prosperity that our country is experiencing at the moment. In the first three months of this year no fewer than 23,000 new motor cars were purchased, an increase of 25 per cent in comparison with the same period last year. According to the indications they have, the Railways expect an 11.4 per cent increase in the demand for rail transport. Last year when we were here, the general complaint was that we had too much money in the country and that nobody wanted the money. There was too much money and there were too few investments. Well, I think the picture is different to-day. More and more people have plans for expansion; more and more people are coming into the country to establish new factories; there is an ever increasing demand for that money and the position which was certainly very unsound last year has virtually been reversed and is just about as sound as it could possibly be. We have the significant fact that there are 716,000 people employed in our industries to-day, prior to this the highest employment figure that we have ever had in South Africa was in 1958 when 711,000 I people were employed. Let us look at thewage figures. In 1961 the wages of White workers amounted to R33,000,000 and in 1962 they amounted to R35,400,000. But the largest increase has been in regard to non-White wages. In 1961, the wages of non-White workers amounted to R17,300,000 and in 1962, to R19,300,000, an increase of 11.6 per cent in one year which I think is a considerable achievement. This is also in reply to the people who say that we should raise the wages of the Bantu more swiftly than is the case to-day. I think that 11.6 per cent in one year is as much as they can increase their productive capacity.

Let us look at the share market to see how the picture has changed. In a report on the share market, Mr. Taylor has this to say—

This figure is the highest for the past ten years. [Time limit.]

I listened with great interest to the previous speaker to hear how well things are going with the economy of our country. Of course it was conspicuous that he omitted one group which is not faring too well, and that is the farming community.

We discussed that under the Vote “Agriculture”.

That is quite correct, but what I wish to discuss is the problem of fertilizer in South Africa and that of course falls directly under this Minister, the determination of prices, etc. Two years ago the Viljoen Commission submitted a report containing some very important recommendations. That commission was under the chairmanship of Dr. F. P. Viljoen, and included representatives of the Phosphate Development Corporation, Sasol, Palaborwa Mining Company, African Metals Corporation, Fisons, Cape Explosives, Windmeul, the South African Agricultural Union and then the departments, but strangely enough there also was a representative of Federale Volksbeleggings, which at that stage and as far as I know neither was nor is concerned with fertilizer at all, except for a small indirect shareholding they have in Fisons. I have no objection to that, but that commission made certain recommendations, and one of those recommendations which is very interesting, was that as far as phosphate is concerned, South Africa ought to be able to be reasonably self-sufficient if the phosphate is fully exploited at Phalaborwa. We are glad about that, and we wholeheartedly support the Government in building up and making self-sufficient internal industries. But what we do object to is that if Iscor has to manufacture nitrogen for the farmers of South Africa and South Africa as a whole and if Phalaborwa has to deliver the phosphate and it then appears that those undertakings cannot manufacture it economically in South Africa, then the burden ought to be borne by South Africa as a whole and not by the farming community as a whole and in particular. You see it is suggested that we should no longer import further supplies of phosphates. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he is going to apply import control in conflict with the provisions of G.A.T.T. (as I understand it) to protect internal industries? If that is not his intention, and he wants to permit the importation of phosphates, is he then going to impose an extra levy on imported phosphate? Because at present phosphate can be imported much more cheaply than we can purchase it at Phalaborwa. Not only can it be imported more cheaply, but the phosphate of Phalaborwa becomes still dearer than the rock phosphate imported by the addition of costs of transport. As we already have to pay R1.50 more for the local phosphate, we are in the peculiar position, particularly in the Western Province, that we have to pay railage on the manufactured product from Phalaborwa back to the Western Province, if the rock phosphate is imported. Now the position is this. The farmer receives a subsidy of R1.20 per ton, and if I were to give the Minister the comparative position in other countries, he will see that the position is impossible for the farmers and that the farming community should not alone subsidize these undertakings of his. The South African price of superphosphate is R23.41 per ton and on that we receive a subsidy of R2, so that the farmer pays R21.41. Take the United Kingdom. There they pay R26 per ton, but the farmer receives a subsidy of R12.20. Now the hon. the Minister himself can see surely that it is an impossible position. He said that he cannot do much about it, but I should like to ask him to make an arrangement that the assistance being given at the present time to Phalaborwa, to Foscor, to Iscor and to Sasol should be borne by the country as a whole and not by the farming community in particular and alone.

Can the Minister tell us how he fixes the price of nitrogen? And can he tell us that if the price is fixed, it will also be the price for instance of the phosphate presently manufactured by Capex? We know that a great ureum plant has been established in South Africa at the present time, and that within a short while that plant will supply all South Africa’s needs, and I hope it is the Minister’s intention that a lot will be exported also. We are very pleased about that. But now I should like to ask the Minister at what price ureum is being exported to Ceylon to-day? Why are the farmers of Ceylon benefited as against the farmers of South Africa, and we are the taxpayers. I am not complaining about it, but I am merely asking for an opportunity to live. I am not complaining about the exports. I amin favour of an export industry being developed in South Africa, but when the Minister’s Department allows a profit margin of 13½ per cent on capital investment in that industry, I should like to have a little more information. Is it 13½ per cent for the manufacturer alone, or is he again giving an extra 13½ per cent to the person who mixes the fertilizer? What is taken into account in regard to the 131 per cent? I know he will say it is 13½ per cent net, but that does not provide for income-tax. But is the Minister aware how the fertilizer factories are carrying on with advertisements, with selling agents, with publicity, with directors’ fees, with administrative expenses, all of which are deducted before the 131 per cent is calculated? What is the capital on which this basis is calculated? And is it only calculated in respect of the person who manufactures or is it calculated a second time in respect of the person mixing it? How is the price of nitrogen fixed by Sasol and by Iscor? We do not know. My information is that it is done by the Department in consultation with those two undertakings, and the private manufacturers of nitrogen follow and their price is then fixed pro rata in accordance with the strength of that fertilizer. I think these matters are of very great importance. Unfortunately I do not have enough time to go into details, but I think the Minister will appreciate that it is very essential that we should be given a little more information particularly as the Minister of Agricultural Economics a short while ago announced that from 1 April next year he will suspend the Railway rebate. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat asked the hon. the Minister certain questions regarding costing and he will probably receive replies to his questions. But the hon. member for Kensington, who spoke before him, passed certain remarks which I do not think should be allowed to pass just like that. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) spoke reprovingly because the Industrial Development Corporation holds a long portfolio of investments, and he also stated here that the I.D.C. does not pay dividends. The hon. member suggested here that it is the function of the I.D.C. to pay dividends. What the hon. member has done is merely to complain indirectly, as has been done all these years, that the I.D.C. is encroaching upon the preserves of private industry. That is really the implication of his words. The hon. member also mentioned the names of key industries, and I gained the impression that he said reprovingly that the key industries are industries in which the I.D.C. has invested money. Now I should like to tell hon. members opposite they should remember that the reason why the State has entered the spheres of certain industries through the I.D.C. is twofold. In the first place, because the State considered it necessary that certain key industries in South Africa should be developed, as was the case with Iscor at the time, and that private enterprise at the time when the necessity arose either did not have the funds, or was unwilling to take the risk or because they did not have at their disposal the technical knowledge to tackle such an industry at the time. At the time when Sasol was started, there was nobody in South Africa who considered himself strong enough to invest such a gigantic sum in such an industry, and to take the risk. And all the industries—this applies to Sasol and Iscor and Foscor and others too—are industries which were open to Mr. Oppenheimer or whosoever was strong enough, but not one of them tackled the industry at the time when the need arose, and the only way in which it could be established was for the State to tackle it. In tackling such an industry, the State also considers it imperative in the interests of our internal economy that such an industry should be developed, quite apart from the fact that nobody else wants to take the risk. We regard all these industries to a greater or lesser extent as key industries. For that reason the emphasis does not fall upon the profit motive, but the emphasis falls in the first place on the initiation of essential industries for our greater economy, and many of them also have strategic value. It must be viewed from this angle. Therefore, if hon. member opposite come along year after year and make these charges in this debate, then it is quite misplaced and not in the interests of the country that these industries should be left to private enterprise as the hon. members are really suggesting in these debates they start here.

But I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention another matter which in my view is of great importance, and that is in regard to border area development. We now have the pattern in South Africa that in various places points of growth are being developed by the State with a view to the implementation of our policy. This is the case at Rosslyn and also in regard to Hammarsdale and other places. What I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to at this stage is that for many reasons it is essential that many more points of development should now be indicated very soon, although they need not be developed forthwith. We think it is essential that the points be indicated at an early stage because it is to such an extent also interwoven with the pattern of development of private enterprise, of local authorities, etc. I should like to mention an example. We now have the points of development which must serve three Bantu population groups and must also provide the suction power for it. I should like to mention an area in the Northern Transvaal as an example of an area where great developments are to take place and where hundreds of thousands of Bantu will have to be accommodated. There you have the Vendas and the Shangaans who number more than

500,0. But agriculture is also being affected. While this development by the Department is taking place, another question arises which will become increasingly urgent in future, andwhich will probably have to be discussed in the House of Assembly next year, and that is that provision will have to be made for the removal of numbers of Bantu from the White areas. As the Bantu are withdrawn from the cities, provision will also have to be made for their withdrawal from the rural areas. We are mindful also of other legislation in regard to squatters on the platteland. A withdrawal such as this can be accomplished only if land is bought where such people can be accommodated either in agriculture or in industry. But this has to take place within a pattern. They must be accommodated at a place where industrial development can also take place. It is essential for us to know where such points of growth will be situated, so that it will be possible for other Members of Parliament and myself to advise where land should be purchased in future. Apart from this need, it is necessary for the rural towns to know where these points of growth are going to be so that they may know how to provide services. All I am asking now is that the various other points should be announced at an early stage, for the reasons I have already mentioned. I also ask that the permanent committee under Dr. Viljoen should give its attention to this matter. If the Minister cannot reply to-day, I hope he will do so in the near future.

I hope the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him. The matter I want to raise deals with jute products and their importation. As the Minister knows, he has been good enough to supply me with certain information from time to time, and he knows the pattern under which these goods are made available to the users. The system unfortunately is one which entails tremendous costs, as I will endeavour to show later. We have mills operating in the country and for reasons the Minister can best explain to us, these spinning mills have been kept in operation by the Government placing certain contracts with them, but unfortunately the position is this, as was proved by figures supplied by the Minister’s Department, that the cost of the goods manufactured here is in many instances more than double that of the imported article. In regard to grain-bags, the cost is much more. In 1961 imported grain-bags cost 21.2c, whereas at that time the local manufacturers were charging 46.36c. We realize that this is an enormous added cost. I would like the Minister to explain the policy of the Government, and to tell us how long this condition must prevail. It is quite obvious that this added cost is borne by the producers and the industrialists and the consumers. It seems to me that the position should be alleviated and we should set aside jute control and allow free importation, and then we will at least reduce the cost.

To give some added figures, I would like to refer to some information I have taken out, and I must say that in regard to grain-bags it has been extremely difficult to get information from the Minister’s Department. Jute control says that they have no control over the price, and one has to base one’s ideas on the figures supplied for 1961. Over the short period from 1959 to 1963 on wool-packs alone it has cost the wool farmers R1,271,000, and in the case of wool-packs the jute is imported and the packs are manufactured by the factories here and the average cost is about 70c more per pack. There must be some good reason for the Minister to permit this condition to prevail. In regard to grain-bags, over a similar period some 68,000,000 grain-bags were imported and I estimate that the producer, the consumer and the industrialist had to over-pay something in the vicinity of R10,000,000 to R12,000,000. Those are staggering figures and therefore I appeal to the Minister to tell us what his policy is and what the future holds and what relief he can bring about, because this is not satisfactory. We cannot allow our mills to go on producing at such tremendous cost. It may of course be claimed that we have these mills going in anticipation of boycotts. On the other hand, I feel that there would be more justification to subsidize these mills so that when we in this country are able to produce sufficient fibre, these mills may serve us. But the position is that after many years the production of fibre is only 5 per cent of our requirements, and that is not suitable for the manufacture of any jute commodity because jute has to be imported and has to be mixed with the fibre. So we are facing a rather hopeless position. If we have to keep these mills going until such time as we produce enough fibre, it seems that we will continue to lose many millions of rand and it might be far better to buy the mills and close them up. The position is serious. The Ministers of Agriculture have indicated that the responsibility really falls on this Minister’s Department, and it is for that reason that I appeal to him to look into the matter and to tell us what his policy is, and I ask him to abolish jute control as soon as possible. I should like the Minister to make his policy clear.

I should like to make an urgent appeal to the Minister to have a survey made as soon as possible of the possibilities of industrial development in the northern Cape. I am inclined to think that there is not a part of the country which is more suited to industrial development than the northern Cape. I think there are four requirements for industrial development on a large scale. In the first place you must have the electricity, secondly water, thirdly labour, and fourthly, food. The northern Cape is supplied with electricity by Escom and I think all the electricity that is required for industrial development can be supplied by Escom. In regard to water, well, there you have the king of the rivers of the Republic, the Vaal River. I admit it is alleged that the Vaal River is going to be harnessed fully in future by the developments higher up, but in view of this new project the Government has announced, and when the Van der Kloof scheme has been completed, and if one considers further that even the water of the Orange River could be taken over the Vaal River, there will be more than enough water. As to labour, we have the Bantu areas of the northern Cape extending from Kimberley north, and there is unlimited labour available. As regards food, that can be found throughout the country, but I nevertheless say that in the whole of the Republic there is not an area which produces as much food as the northern Cape. We produce wheat, and not too much maize, but there are the closer settlements at Vaal-Hartz which produced food to the value of R6,000,000 last year. The cattle population of the northern Cape is increasing on a colossal scale, while the cattle population of the rest of the Republic remains static at 12,000,000. But the development potential is in the northern Cape. As regards food, one cannot find an area which is more suitable for industrial development than the northern Cape. Accordingly it satisfies the four basic requirements.

Other industries also may be established there. At the present time there is not a part of the country which produces more diamonds than the northern Cape. Has the Minister perhaps considered influencing the industrialists to establish a diamond cutting works at Kimberley or Warrenton? Do not let us export diamonds in the crude state. Let us provide employment for many hundreds of people in this country by cutting them ourselves. The Minister merely has to use his influence and I have no doubt that industrialists will realize the potential of the industry.

Then I do not want to strum on the old string again, but recently I read in the newspapers that an American firm wants to establish a steel industry at Witbank. I grant Witbank its steel factory, but it made me think that America realizes there is not sufficient steel in the world, and they have thought fit to invest capital in South Africa for the purpose of manufacturing more steel. Talking about steel, there is not a part of the country which is more suitable for a steel industry than the northern Cape, particularly at Warrenton, because all the requirements are there, with the exception of one thing, namely coal, but in the new process coal is not so important any longer. When we get nuclear power, coal will be eliminated in the manufacture of steel, and when that happens there is no part of this country to match the northern Cape for the establishment of a steel industry. All the raw materials are there, and you also have the railway communications. Therefore I wish to ask the Minister to give particular attention to that part of the country.

In the northern Cape there has been colossal agricultural development. I cannot describe it otherwise. As there is tremendous expansion in the production of fruit, I predict that that there will be no better opportunity for canning factories than in the northern Cape. The quality of the fruit there is unsurpassable. All those facilities are there, and yet I think it is not brought to the attention of industrialists sufficiently. I could go on in that vein, but I should also like to say a word or two on the border industries. I think that the northern Cape, all along the Vall River, and to some extent away from the Vaal River and along the Hartz River upwards, the country lends itself eminently to border industry development. You have the labour that could be employed in the factories during the daytime and in the evenings they can go and sleep at their homes. [Time limit.]

I should like to say a few words about the remarks of the Minister with reference to the motor industry and the increase of the South African content of cars. As I have said before, this particular policy must not be pressed too hard, and I am not the only one who thinks so. To produce spare parts, one has to do it in volume, and the only way to do that is by increasing your exports. We have to look to his Department for help there. Until we have established a satisfactory export trade in spare parts, we should not press the South African content to a greater degree than at present. It is already fairly substantial and I want to congratulate the industry in this country on what it has done up to now. But they are having their teething troubles, as the Minister has said. There are markets overseas for these parts and I would prevail upon the Minister to do his best to help these industries by seeing that they get a bigger share of the export market. One hon. member spoke about the production of tractors. There again the cost may be too high, but if an export market can be built up the price may be reduced. One of the great tragedies of this country is that we export our raw materials like manganese and iron. We earn considerable foreign currency by exporting these items, but if you stop to think of what those minerals are used for, they are probably items that we import as finished products. The Government should give serious consideration to stepping up the processing of our raw products. It has been said overseas and here that one of the greatest tragedies we have is our exports of raw materials. We should rather process those products. When we think of Japan, it has to import minerals over thousands of miles, and their labour is not cheap any more, but they put their articles on the market in volume, and we should try to do the same. We should try to aim at building up a vast steel industry in this country.

The item I would like to talk about is the fishing industry, which is a very large industry. I am pleased to see that the first census report for 1960-1 has now been produced, and the information given in it makes amazing reading. It gives one an idea of the tremendous growth in this industry, but it is still a Cinderella industry. I do not think the Government really recognizes the tremendous potential of this industry. Other nations like Japan, Russia and Spain have realized it, and quite a number of their boats are fishing off our coasts. The industry in this country is sixth in the world. There are something like 3,477 boats used along our coast, and something like 15,000,000 tons of fish were caught in South Africa and 4,500,000 tons in South West. The cost per ton is about R1, so that means that the catch was worth R15,000,000.

But fishing boats cannot do without harbours and I want to speak particularly about the Cape Town fishing harbour which is now about 15 years overdue. There is a lot of confusion about the type of harbour we want. The Minister has on the Estimates for Harbours something like R362,000, but there is only R100 for the investigation of a fishing harbour at Cape Town. We know that the fishing harbour will eventually be built by the Railways once they decide on the site. I would like to compare the building of the fishing harbour here with the speed of building a harbour for the oil refinery. It took a little time to decide on the site, but within a short time the Minister of Transport was able to announce that a harbour for that refinery would be built. But an industry just as important has lagged behind, and tests are still being carried out as to what type of harbour we should have. We were told this morning that it might be a small harbour. I think it would be foolish to plan a harbour for the next ten years. We should plan one for the next 25 years. The harbour should have cold storage space and it must have rail sidings, and it must have a fish market and ample space for parking vehicles must be provided. We have big fishing industries who want to bring their trawlers to Cape Town, and without a deepsea harbour, as distinct from an inshore harbour, they are naturally not encouraged to come here. The harbour at Hout Bay is suitable for the type of work for which it is used, for inshore pilchard fishing, but there is no rail connection there and there is no depth of water there; the communications are bad and it could never be developed into the first-class harbour that is really required. The nearer the harbour is to the railhead, the better. It has been suggested that harbours should be developed somewhere up the coast. The sites which have been suggested, however, are very far from railheads. It is essential to have cold storage facilities, railage facilities and the usual docking facilities. The steam trawlers require coaling and will have to have those facilities. What is required is not just a small off-shore harbour but a major fishing harbour. The fishing industry not only supplies food for the internal market of South Africa but it also has a terrific potential as far as the export market is concerned. As I have said, South Africa’s fishing industry was sixth on the list last year and earned a considerable amount of foreign currency through the export of frozen fish and other products. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about this particular fishing harbour and where it is going to be situated, be cause this matter cannot be postponed from year to year.

To link up with what the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) has said, I really wish to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention three aspects in regard to the fishing industry, and I wish to do so in view of the importance and the extent of the industry assumed during recent years. The hon. member has already mentioned some figures here to indicate the importance this industry has already assumed. I should like to add to that that thanks to the rich marine life along our coasts and thanks to the initiative of our fishing industrialists, this industry today has become the second largest one in the southern hemisphere. It is an industry that produced approximately R40,000,000 last year in exports of fish products. It is true also that this industry has in recent years grown apace; it has grown phenomenally. The catches in tonnage along our coasts during the past 19 years have risen by more than 13,000 per cent, until last year it assumed the proportions of about 1,000, 000 tons. That includes South West Africa. Everybody who is interested in this industry will agree with me that the industry has not reached its zenith as yet. There are various directions in which new developments can take place and in which progress can be made. I am thinking of the tuna industry in particular. I am thinking of the possibility of the construction of factory ships that may operate even outside our territorial waters if necessary. These are directions in which we can think. Now, seen against the importance and extent of this industry, there are three aspects in connection with it for which I should like to request the sympathetic consideration on the hon. the Minister. The first, to link up with the hon. member for Salt River, is the expansion of our fishing harbours. In view of the extent of this indsutry, it is a fact that along our coast line of approximately 2,000 miles there is generally speaking a very great need for better fishing harbours. In fact, a lack of good harbour facilities has been one of the main features of our fishing industry for years already. To date the State has spent about R3,400,000 on the construction of fishing harbours. Relatively, viewed against the importance of the industry, I think this is much too little. It is furthermore true that if the position is analysed the figures show that during the past five or six years there has been a complete under-utilization of the amounts set aside for the building of fishing harbours along our coast. I notice for instance that about 40 per cent of the amounts voted during the past six years has never been spent. In other words, there has been a complete under-utilization of the amounts voted. I noticed that the hon. the Deputy Minister has announced a programme of harbour development on the West Coast, and I should like, on behalf of those communities, to express my cordial thanks and appreciation to him. He announced new expansions in the vicinity of Saldanha and St. Helena Bay, Veddrift and Laaiplek,and I should like to urge him to go further and also investigate harbours such as Elandsbaai, Donkiesbaai and Doringbaai higher up along the West Coast. But then I want to go further and appeal to the hon. the Minister also to come forward with a programme of expansion on our East Coast. Along our East Coast also there are numerous harbours. The hon. member for Salt River has referred to Hout Bay. It is true that at Hout Bay very much more can be done, particularly in respect of deepsea fishing, fresh fish and line fish. We could really convert Hout Bay, in view of the situation it occupies, into a true paradise harbour for the small fisherman. But apart from Hout Bay there are harbours further along the East Coast, such for instance as Hermanus, Gansbaai, Still Bay, Plettenberg Bay and even a harbour such as Knysna. In this vicinity infinitely more can be done in respect of our fishing industry as regards the development of fishing harbours, and I should like to urge the hon. the Minister to come forward with a project for the East Coast which has been worked out before and on which we could begin to build anew.

The second aspect I should like to raise is the question of the expansion of Fiscor, the Fisheries Development Corporation. This corporation was established in 1944, and it was contemplated that here we would have a powerful and influential body that would provide guidance and enlightenment to the fishing industry. I admit that this body has through the years assumed an important place and has accomplished important work. But if the position is analysed clearly, the conclusion is arrived at that the situation has now arisen that the fishing industry has completely outgrown the organizational structure intended for it. Take the period during which Fiscor has operated. During this period of approximately 18 years the entire industry has undergone a complete change. I think the existing organizational structure to-day no longer keeps pace with the true extent and importance of the industry in our country. I have wondered whether the time has not arrived for Fiscor to be reformed somewhat. Can we not make this organization something bigger? Can we not make it a dynamic, influential body, an authoritative body which will give new guidance and new direction in respect of all facets of our fishing industry? I think that if we were to make it a well equipped body, an authoritative body, it could mean a tremendous lot to our fishing industry in South Africa to-day.

The last aspect in regard to this industry I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention is with reference to a report submitted by Fiscor some time ago. I am referring to the 1947-8 report. Reference was made in this report to an inquiry instituted at the time into some measure of training for our fishermen, a measure of training and education in the fishing industry. In this report, the following was said among other things—

This report then contains particulars of directions in which the matter could possibly be considered, and ultimately this is said—

I should merely like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether people are still thinking in this direction, and what could possibly be done in this connection. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) made important representations in regard to the fishing industry and the provision of facilities for it. I think it can be said that we are thoroughly aware of the possibilities in the fishing industry. It has already grown to one of our important industries. This industry has now outgrown its baby shoes in the course of about 12 years, and at the present time we are sixth on the list, as has been said here already, as far as the world’s exports of fish products are concerned. As regards our fishing harbour facilities. considerable expansion is being planned at the moment. The harbour at Lambert’s Bay has just been completed and a considerable amount has been spent on it. There is only a small portion which is still to be buffered. As regards the Berg River mouth, funds have already been voted for opening up the mouth, but before we could proceed with it, certain tests have had to be made. The University of Stellenbosch has helped with the model tests and it now appears that the mouth can be opened successfully. The engineers of Fiscor are now making the necessary surveys and tenders will be called for soon. It is expected therefore that steps will be taken to complete the harbour there within a short while.

Instructions have also been issued for an inquiry into the breakwater and wharf facilities at St. Helena Bay. There is a great concentration of boats there, and it has become necessary to create more facilities there. Particularly now that boats are becoming bigger and venture further out to sea, it appears that the existing facilities are wholly inadequate.

Now I come to Table Bay. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) created the impression that it is going to be a much smaller harbour now. I want to say at once that what is contemplated is not a small undertaking at all. Preliminary estimates indicate that it will cost about R10,000,000. I have indicated that it may be smaller than the original planning, but the reason for that is that initially provision was made for the entire trawler fleet at present, as well as for future extensions. It now appears that the existing facilities in the old Alfred Basin are being used by one of our greatest undertakings which has a long-term contract there, and the idea is that they may remain there, particularly in view of the fact that the bottom of that part of the harbour is rocky, and so it is not possible to use it for other purposes. So whereas it may now be planned on a smaller scale, it is only because it has appeared that it is not necessary for the entire fishing fleet to be moved from the present facilities. Tests have been made at two places, namely the area in front of the power station in the vicinity of Paarden Island, and at Rietvlei beyond Milnerton. Those two schemes have been investigated, and a model test was called for, particularly for the one site at Paarden Island. Only one test was made, and it appeared that the construction of that mole would be such that it would detrimentally affect the range action in the Table Bay harbour. It was impossible to go further with any other scheme there. We felt that there might be good reasons for making further tests; we had an interview with the Railways and asked them to construct the mole in a different way and to make tests accordingly. Nineteen different tests were made for the provision of the new tanker berth extensions. The Railways have therefore already conducted tests, and I have been informed that the modified test was completed at the end of last week already. The results were to have been handed to the General Manager of Railways this week, the 17th, and thereafter they would be submitted to the Department. I can say therefore that the further tests we asked the Railways to make have already been completed and I hope we shall be able to indicate soon which will be the more suitable spot. The bodies concerned with this, namely the municipalities of Milnerton and Cape Town, are both materially interested in this planning, and therefore we want to come to a final decision soon. But on the other hand we know also that the expansion and the further exploitation of our deepsea fish is hampered by a shortage of wharfage, and because we are anxious to better exploit our deepsea fish along our coasts, particularly because there are other countries which already are entering this field. It is for this reason that we are in a hurry to come to a decision in regard to this matter.

As regards the minor expansions, provision has been made at Kalk Bay and Still Bay. But for the very reason that it has been felt that the fishing industry has to expand, two further major schemes were approved recently. The one is at Hout Bay. Provision has been made for improvements at the Hout Bay harbour at a cost of approximately R1,000,000. It provides for the extension of the existing breakwater on the northern side of the harbour and further jetty—and mooring staging. We know Hout Bay is one of our oldest harbours, but it happens virtually every year that boats there are damaged during the winter storms. It is a harbour which is convenient for the smaller craft, and for that reason it has been decided to further expand this harbour at Hout Bay.

It has also been decided to expand the Gansbaai harbour further, and an amount of more than R1,000,000 has recently been approved for that. A fish meal factory was recently approved and established at Gansbaai. It has appeared that the facilities there are inadequate. Great improvements have been made, but this amount of more than R1,000,000 will be utilized to provide for a new breakwater to supplement the works already approved as well as for a further off-loading jetty.

At Hermanus also there are expansions that will cost approximately R12,000. Representations have also been received from Mossel Bay for an inquiry into the facilities there. The Minister of Railways recently indicated that he was prepared to instruct a departmental committee to investigate it together with the Department of Trade and Industries. The necessary directions have already been given by our Department.

The hon. member also referred to smaller harbours e.g. at Knysna and Plettenberg Bay and even at Port Alfred. Instruction will be given for further inquiries to be made in regard to the possibilities there. The hon. member also made representations that we should expedite the planning. I may inform him that in the past the planning of fishing harbours was entrusted to the Railway Administration. It was decided recently that that task would now be entrusted to Fiscor. Fiscor will therefore be responsible in future for the planning and building and maintenance of these fishing harbours. They have already appointed five engineers who are already engaged on planning certain works. Further appointments are to be made to bring the personnel of that organization up to full strength. A new general manager has also been appointed, and I think the hon. member may take it that Fiscor in future will take a much more active share in the planning and construction of fishing harbours. It will in many spheres have to be accomplished in close co-operation with the Railway Administration. but the fact that Fiscor now has its own engineers will bring about a definite speeding up of this programme.

The hon. member has referred here to a report submitted in 1949. At that stage the fishing industry was still in its infancy. Whereas last year we caught more than 1,000,000 tons of fish we caught only 185,000 tons in 1948. The extent of the fishing industry has therefore more than quintupled. Where there may have been a need felt in that direction at that time, the industry itself took the necessary steps. I think the fishing industry to-day has very skilful crews. As the hon. member perhaps knows, it is proposed to make provision at Granger Bay for the College of the S.A. Mercantile Marine. They will provide there for the training of navigators and engineers. I think that harbour will yet be able to make provision for the training of persons who wish to qualify as skippers particularly since our boats are now becoming bigger and the tendency is to go further out to sea. Good navigation and properly trained skippers have therefore become necessary to fit into this change in the industry itself. I think I have now replied to the questions of the hon members for Moorreesburg and Salt River, as regards the question of harbours.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Mr. Dodds) again inquired what our policy was in regard to the importation of jute and the manufacture of bags. It has been the policy for some time to permit commerce, as regards bags, to import one bag for every bag manufactured and purchased here. As regards wool sacks, the ratio is 55 to 45. He asked how long this was going to continue, because the imported bag is cheaper than ours. He ascribed it particularly to the costs of production, but that is not quite correct. The great cost factor is the importation of the raw jute because Pakistan, from whom we are importing that jute, imposed a heavy duty on it if exported in the unprocessed state. They of course do so to protect their own bag industry, which is one of their most important industries. That of course has the effect that the jute we require is more expensive than would have been the case otherwise The jute is mixed here because we are conducting experiments to find a fibre to replace jute. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) also raised this matter under the Vote of the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, and the Minister replied that he regards it as essential that we should find a substitute here. If we do not continue those experiments, we shall not be able to find a substitute and we will be completely dependent upon Pakistan. Progress has been made in this regard. Plantings of formium tenex have already been made, and other materials are also being experimented with. They are mixed with jute and in this way we are getting a bag in which there are certain quantities of South African raw materials. The fact of the matter is that as long as Pakistan knows that South Africa is conducting experiments, they will perhaps not very readily resort to cutting off the exports of jute completely. We know in what dire straits we can find ourselves if we are unable to obtain those things from overseas, and therefore it is essential that we should continue with this policy in an attempt to manufacture a substitute material. Admittedly the cost is a little higher, but that cost is not borne wholly by the farmer, as has been said here. As regards grain bags the position is that the price of the bag is taken into consideration in the calculation of the price of maize. I concede that this does not apply in regard to wool sacks, but it is in the interests of the farming industry that we should continue these experiments.

I was very interested in the reply by the Deputy Minister to the hon. members for Salt River and Moorreesburg on the harbour developments to assist the fishing industry. I was also interested to hear him refer to the tests which have been made on the east coast, starting at Hout Bay and working up to Mossel Bay and Knysna. He then mentioned another port but he rather stumbled over the name.

Port Alfred.

Well, that is lower down, between Port Elizabeth and East London. Sir, I was waiting for him to go on because as you get past East London you get to another port, Port St. Johns. The Government’s policy is to establish border industries, and I should have thought that the first thing that the Deputy Minister would have done would have been to see what could be done along that coast to establish a real border industry. Port St. Johns is a real border town, with Natives all around it. The Natives would not have to be brought in over a distance of 40 to 50 miles to come and work in a border industry established at Port St. Johns; the Native labour is available on the spot. Sir, the Government also owes a duty to Port St. Johns. The Government’s policy has isolated Port St. Johns. It is a White area surrounded by a Native state which may eventually become a completely independent state. That White community will then be completely isolated. The only development which can take place there will be by means of Government assistance. I have raised this question of a harbour at Port St. Johns on several other occasions. I raised it with the Minister of Transport who said he was prepared to build a harbour there provided the Minister of Economic Affairs gave him the money. I know that the Minister of Railways did send down a commission to investigate the possibility of constructing a harbour there. I would point out that if a harbour was built there it could be used for the fishing industry and also for defence purposes. There is only one road into Port St. Johns and the only approach to Port St. Johns is from the sea if the road is cut off. The Minister must know that the fishing is particularly good along that coast. There are always trawlers out along the wild coast; you see these fishing trawlers from Durban and elsewhere fishing out at sea, and it is quite an annual event now for the whole of South Africa to follow the passage ofsardines up the coast, from Port St. Johns up towards Natal. I want to ask the Minister whether anything has been done in connection with Port St. Johns. Tests have been carried out at all the other small harbours and I want to know whether any tests have been carried out at Port St. Johns. If not, will he give me the assurance now that tests will be carried out at Port St. Johns to see what can be done to help the people there who find themselves in a terrible predicament. The fishing industry is an expanding industry. We are very proud of the fact that we are now sixth on the list of world export countries. We know that the necessary labour is available at Port St. Johns and if a harbour is constructed there we are not only going to help the White people there who are established in Port St. Johns but we are also going to help the Natives living around Port St. Johns. Sir, the Government itself is opposed to the use of White capital and White know-how in the Transkei to establish industries there, but here is a way in which the Government itself can help to establish an industry which will help the economy of the Transkei as a whole.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased indeed to hear the hon. the Minister in his address make the statement that he was paying special attention to the developing of basic industries, that is, the industry which forms the basis for the development of other industries, and also that he was paying attention to industries which had a potential for export. The proposition I want to put forward this evening has a strong bearing on both. I hope, therefore, that the hon. the Minister will give special attention to it because I think it is something which will be of substantial value not only to the eastern side of the Cape but also to the industrial development of South Africa. Last year I drew the Minister’s attention to the great industrial potential of the Border area, particularly the White corridor leading inland from East London. Since then this area. East London in particular, is thankful for small mercies in the form of one substantial industry which it is hoped will get into production some time during the end of this year. We hope that that industry will demonstrate the potential of that area and that it will be a means of attracting others to that area. That area possesses every factor in substantial measure which should create the potential, not only for border industries, but specially for all industries which have an export potential. Not only is there labour in abundance. water in abundance, cheap land, excellent rail facilities, but a modern sea port. The only weak link is power. While we have an excellent power station there which is able to provide all the power that will be needed for quite a long time to come the main difficulty is that there is at present no coal any where in that vicinity. The coal has to be carted or shipped for some substantial distance. It has been known for a long time that there is a substantial coal bed in the vicinity of Indwe in the Eastern Cape. In order to get something reliable on that coalfield which has been under discussion for a very long time the Cape Eastern Public Bodies, representing all the public bodies of the Border area, arranged for a joint investigation of that coalfield to be made by the Natal Navigation Collieries and Federale Mynbou Beperk, both of which are well-known substantial coal-mining houses. I think their report is of great value and I want to read a small section of it this evening. The report states—

The Cape Eastern bodies having discussed this matter thought what was needed now, after this investigation, was an investigation by some authoritative committee which would link up all the required information. They suggested that this might very well be undertaken by the Minister of Economic Affairs to see whether it was not possible to establish a power station right on the spot where the coal was, so that instead of carting the coal away the power would be taken away on a power line. This would save a great deal in cost. As indicated by these companies that power station could be designed in such a way that it would be suitable for that coal. There are ample opportunities for conservation of water in that area for the water requirements of such a power station. In view of the fact that a power station situated there would overcome the one remaining small difficulty I feel this is a matter to which the hon. the Minister might very well pay special attention. Let us have an authoritative body which can say once and for all whether it is possible to make use of that vast area of coal which has been known to exist there for a very long time.

I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a great asset in the border area which has for some time been going to waste. There is now a substantial citrus industry ranging all the way from East London to King William’s Town to Alice, Fort Beaufort and Adelaide. There are many young trees that must still come into full production. Large quantities of cull oranges go to waste in that area every year. The oranges are of a first-class quality but they have to be culled out for blemishes and there appears to be no market for them; they just go to waste. There are factories in other areas in South Africa which are making full use of cull oranges. By processing methods every scrap of the orange can be used—the peel, the juice, the pulp. It is well known that the oranges from that area are held in very high regard at Covent Garden for their juiciness and their luscious flavour. I can speak from my own experience as far as this is concerned. The quality is there; all that is needed is a factory that can make use of that asset which is at present going to waste. I hope the hon. the Minister will look into the matter and see whether something can be done to promote an industry in that area.

I should like to discuss with the Minister the sugar position in South Africa and internationally. As we know, a quota system was introduced some time ago which restricted the planting of sugar cane. After the quota system was introduced, there was a tremendous sugar war as a result of the selling out between two great companies, a sugar war in which several millions of rand were involved. Shortly after this sugar war there was a tremendous rise in the price of sugar internationally. In the meantime our farmers in this country were still in the position that their sugar plantings were subject to a quota. Now I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, firstly, whether the time has not arrived for an inquiry to be made into the whole sugar problem, and secondly, whether after the possible artificial over-production, or poor distribution which apparently indicates an over-production, we cannot, as a result of these circumstances, abolish the quota system so that the farmers can plant 100 per cent again.

I wish to put another matter to the hon. the Minister. Throughout the world the position has been in the past that whenever there has been industrial development there has been a tremendous depopulation of the rural areas. This depopulation of the rural areas is frequently construed wrongly as though the farms are being depopulated. That however is not the problem I am concerned with, because I believe we do not have depopulation of the farms to such an extent that it is detrimental. On the contrary, comparison of the extent of the farms with the number of farmers will show that our problem is really that our farms are too small. Our problem is the depopulation of the towns. This has a very adverse effect upon commerce. Perhaps it is not only industrialization that brings this in its train, but also it may be the greater purchasing power of the rural population. We have the position that when a woman requires a hat she does not go to the local town, because the selection is too small there. She goes to a larger town and then it is not confined to the hat only, but she makes all her purchases there. The result is that rural trade is gradually shrinking. I should like to mention one example which to me is a very important example. Ten years ago there were ten shops in the town of Wakkerstroom; to-day there is only one and the man is finding it difficult to make a living. No, it is not a co-operative shop. The purchasing power of the public there has grown and now people want a wider choice. This brings about a depopulation of commerce, owing to the prosperity of the people. This gives rise to a vicious circle which is going to affect us very adversely in another respect. If we look at the number of voters we see that the rural areas will probably lose a number of seats at the next election. My question now is whether the time has not arrived for this Department to make a greater effort to inquire into the possibility of putting a stop to this process. In terms of our apartheid policy we have border industries, and those border industries are based on the idea that the cities cannot accommodate any more Bantu. We have accordingly taken steps that when a city wishes to begin a new industrial development the Minister may limit or prohibit it according to the labour problems and the circumstances obtaining there. The Minister may e.g. say to the East Rand: “I shall permit further industrial development here because the mines are closing down and there is consequently superfluous labour available here.” We have this position that the rural area is a labour reservoir for the urban areas. The rural area has to carry that labour for the urban areas. I want to mention an example. The taxpayer is subsidizing labour in the urban areas in the form of the transport we provide for labour there. Because in terms of our apartheid policy we are removing the Bantu from the cities, and are accommodating them in their own residential areas, we started to subsidize their transport to the cities. According to the report of the Department of Transport we have subsidized the transport of these Bantu workers in one year to an amount of R1,793,000. Then the urban areas of Benoni, Boksburg, Durban, etc. contribute a further R8,875,000. In other words, Bantu labour in the urban areas is subsidized to the extent of 12½ per cent out of the taxpayer’s pocket. The rural inhabitant and the rural trader are contributing to this subsidy to give the urban areas cheaper transport so that they may have cheaper labour. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) must not talk, because he has converted this debate into one of pleading for Vereeniging only. We should never make a debate one of pleading for only one particular area; we should discuss things on a national basis. If we were to conduct a debate only to plead for a particular area, it becomes a debate of supplication as some other members have also made it.

The rural areas are asked to give accommodation to the families of those Bantu who areemployed in the urban areas. I should like to mention an example. There is a released area at Wakkerstroom, Vlakpoort and Dammekraal, which accommodate a number of Bantu families. All the men work in the urban areas. Why should the rural areas have to carry them? Why cannot the rural area also receive its share of the industrial development of South Africa? Why should it be concentrated in the triangle of Vereeniging, Port Elizabeth …[Time limit.]

It is a long time since we have seen a competition between two members of the Government Party in regard to their constituencies in a commerce and industries debate. I want to deal with the Minister’s extensive reply to the earlier portion of the debate when he referred to the G.A.T.T. agreement and what flowed from that. The Minister indicated that at the G.A.T.T. meeting which he recently attended there was a general tendency to lower tariffs. I think the Minister will agree that in contrast the tendency in this country is to increase tariffs. The Minister indicated that as a result of Great Britain not being admitted to the Common Market he had been placed in a position to gain time. We appreciate the very extensive statement the Minister gave us but it was in general terms and the Minister did not deal with the immediate problems facing South Africa. The Minister indicated in his speech that we had time to negotiate but he did not indicate whether those negotiations were going along the line of bilateral trade agreements or whether he thought that G.A.T.T. might at some future time be replaced by some other organization. I want to put it to the Minister that there is a possibility that in Africa G.A.T.T. might be replaced by a similar organizations comprised of African states, the African states most of which virtually have a single product economy. They will be striving, as Rhodesia has done, to establish their own secondary industries. The tendency will be for them to seek agreements either with the United States of America or with Russia or with Western Germany or with Japan. The Minister will know from his travels in North Africa that the Japanese have been very active. As the Minister will know the Japanese have given some South African companies the right to manufacture Japanese goods under South African licences. The Minister will know that there are overseas countries who are prepared to consider establishing industries in the states to our north so as to change the economic pattern of those states. The whole picture can be changed in the years to come. Southern Rhodesia has industrialized and while Northern Rhodesia has very few secondary industries she had her copper industry which is keeping the economy going. There will be the tendency for industries to be established to the north, particularly industries concerned with the processing of materials. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he does not think there is a possibility of an organization similar to G.A.T.T. being established in Africa. In that case it could affect the African market which we have looked to as an outlet for the products of our secondary industries. Some of these states may fail economically and some may succeed. Some may get a certain amount of aid from countries overseas. If the states in the north establish themselves that will to a certain extent affect the exports from this country. The Minister will then be faced with the problem of finding new export markets or developing South African industries for the internal market.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) has made a plea to the hon. the Minister in connection with tractors and engines for the engineering industry. One of the problems facing the Minister if he intends to develop the engineering industry is the problem of the three shifts. I want to refer to an article which appeared recently in a textile publication where a Swiss engineer said the following—

One of the difficulties in this country, Sir, is that industries as a whole are in the habit of working an eight hour shift for five days a week. Machinery is expensive and we are dependent upon that machinery and cheap industrial labour. That has enabled us to produce goods at a comparatively low cost. As the labour becomes more skilled and as the machines become more complicated the tendency will be for industry to demand machines at a higher cost. That demand is already evident in the textile industry to-day. The Minister will know that there are industries in this country where they are already working three shifts in a five-day week. If there is going to be any further industrial development it is absolutely essential that a long-term view be taken of the engineering industry.

I want to refer the Minister to the report of the Committee of investigation as to the manufacture of railway requirements by private industry. I would refer the Minister particularly to page 42 of that report where it says—

I want to know from the Minister what his attitude is to this report. There was a minority report. That minority report supported the view that the Railways should keep on with the manufacture of its component parts. I submit that if the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) and the Minister and others want the engineering industry to develop it is essential that they face up to the problem of the three shifts for a six-day week because the effect of volume on the operation of these machines will reduce the costs considerably. [Time limit.]

There could certainly be no better testimony to the economic possibilities that lie ahead for South Africa, and to the manner in which the hon. the Minister handles his Department, than the form taken by the discussion in this debate. We have been a Republic for just two years, and about two years ago gloomy prognostications were made in this debate in regard to the economic future of South Africa under the policy of the National Party in the event of our becoming a Republic. We have now already been a Republic for two years and to-day we have had a fruitful debate, as well as positive suggestions from the opposite side, which indicates that the guidance given by this Minister and his Department has encouraged everyone in South Africa to give of their best for this young Republic in the interests of all.

When one has regard to the economic development of South Africa, one realizes that the development of the mining industry in the north was also an incentive to industrial development; that the mining industry actually attracted people to the north. Those who gathered there established the possibilities for industrial development. Now if one surveys the matter in its broad perspective, one is struck by the fact that in this whole process the western Cape did not keep pace at all with the measure of economic development that took place in the north. That is due to the fact that the mining industry there provided the incentive for industrial activity. But it also had the result of seriously affecting the increase in population here. Whereas the population increase between the years 1951 and 1960, as far as the White section of the population was concerned, was 1.7 per cent in the Republic as a whole, it was only 1 per cent here in the western Cape. This indicates that the development here has not been all that we might have hoped for. The Department and the Minister are already well aware of this fact. Last year the Council for the development of Natural Resources was commissioned to investigate the possibilities for economic development in the western Cape. Now I should like to ask the Minister whether he would take this opportunity to tell us what the results of that investigation were. We know, for example, that existing industries here in the western Cape are place-bound, industries which process local agricultural products, and in a few instances process products from elsewhere, such as the textile industry which is also making a start here. What also strikes one is that it is here in the western Cape, in the few places beyond the Cape Peninsula where such industrial development has taken place based upon locally produced agricultural products, where the greatest concentration of population also seems to be. What also strikes one is that here one has water resources available which have just never been utilized fully. What strikes one further is the fact that we also have here a great Coloured labour market which has perhaps not been properly developed to its fullest extent.

Mr. Chairman, it is for this reason that I take this opportunity to ask the hon. the Minister if he could perhaps give us an indication as to what the findings of this investigation were.

I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to two facts that I should like to put before him this evening. The first is South African trade with Japan. We have undoubtedly closer relations with Japan to-day. We have learned from the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we now have a South African Consul General in Tokyo but our relations are very one-sided concerning the imbalance of trade which South Africa has with Japan. We understand that the Japanese Government are becoming perturbed at this ever-increasing trade gap between South Africa and Japan. Japanese goods are coming regularly into this country but Japan takes far more of our South African goods than we take from her. During this last year South Africa bought R51.3 million worth of goods from Japan whereas Japan bought R70.9 million worth of goods from South Africa. It was reported earlier this year that when Japanese industrialists visited South Africa they said in Pretoria that unless South Africa reduced some of the discriminatory tariffs against Japanese goods—notably this was in the textile field—Japanese trade with South Africa was in danger of being cut. The hon. the Minister will recollect that last year I raised this subject of Japanese trade and I asked the hon. the Minister whether he was satisfied that Japan had sufficient volume of foreign exchange balance for all the goods she would be purchasing from us. I would ask the hon. the Minister to-night if he could make a statement regarding our trade with Japan and as to what he envisages for the future.

The second point I want to refer to tonight is the question of scientific and technological bursaries. Many people to-day are of the view that we are losing a large percentage of our brilliant young scientists particularly in the field of nuclear physics because not sufficient financial support is given to the talented youth of South Africa during the period that they are taking their higher degrees and also during the time that they need support for post-graduate research in institutes like the C.S.I.R. I would like to quote from a letter from Professor Sellschop who is the professor of nuclear physics at the University of the Witwatersrand. He says—

We learnt from the hon. the Deputy Minister last year in this House during a debate on technological and scientific education that the bursaries that were awarded from the C.S.I.R. for students totalled R114,000, which was divided in 1961 among 253 students. This totally inadequate sum, if I may describe it as such, together with Government grants of R152,000 was the extent last year of bursaries available to students. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he could give a statement as to what bursaries are to-day available through the C.S.I.R. for research and for study in order to assists those students who wish to make use of them and in order to attract and keep students here in South Africa.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) asked whether we would investigate the possibility developing the harbour of Port St. Johns. I have been informed that the Natural Resources Development Council some years ago investigated the natural resources of that area, as well as the possibility of having a harbour there. From the preliminary investigations it appeared that fish are not found there in economic or exploitable quantities. However, now that we have sufficient engineers to carry on the investigation of fishing harbours, I shall ask that Port St. Johns should also be included when further minor harbours on the East Coast are investigated.

Will it be this year?

I cannot promise that it will be during this year. The engineers are now busy with the major schemes that have been approved, including the one at Stompneus. Further commitments as regards the Cape Town harbour may also possibly be loaded onto their shoulders. Therefore I cannot promise that they will make a thorough investigation there during this year. The hon. member may be assured however, that they will also investigate that one.

The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) has referred to the price of fertilizer. He has asked a number of questions. I should like to refer to those briefly, as our time is limited. As regards the costs inquiry in regard to the price of fertilizer, that is done annually by our accountants. During last year it was done again in respect of the two largest manufacturers of superphosphate. As regards the mixing, packing, granulation and distribution of supers, mixtures and other single fertilizer materials, cost inquiries have also been made in respect of the two largest firms which distribute about 90 per cent of the mixtures. So there has been an inquiry both as regards the mixers and the manufacturers of superphosphates. He asked how the calculation is done. There is a full classification of the various items, the cost of production of sulphuric acid, the landed cost of rock phosphate etc. etc. There are nine categories of them, and it is calculated to the third decimal. Therefore it has been gone into very fully. I may point out that as regards the phosphorite in regard to the production of Foscor, the price has dropped. In 1961-2 the price was R11.25 per ton, but as a result of increased production that price has dropped to R10.89 per ton, and after a request that they should provide for a smaller profit margin, they were able to reduce it to R10.80, and as there is no increase in price this year, the cost of the Foscor product will be still lower. I merely wish to point out that although provision may be made to allow for a profit of 3½ per cent, this is not so in practice at all. It appears that there have been certain increases in the cost of the result or the increased wages of the Bantu labourers, the increase in railage and other factors, such as more sulphuric acid which had to be used and other factors. They have been approached to reduce the price, and there have been negotiations, but the two great producers were not amenable to it, and they pointed out among other things that one of them has already agreed to a 10 cent per ton reduction as regards the cost of supers. The costs of distribution have been reduced arbitrarily by 10 cent per ton. One of the groups’ costs of research was not allowed, because they are connected with an overseas company which is conducting that research already. I wish to point out that provision is made for the calculation of a profit which will amount to a 13 per cent return, but in the case of these two large manufacturers it is not that at all. The return of the one on its appropriated capital is 6.9 per cent, and that of the other is 8.1 per cent. So it is clear therefore that the profit margin is much lower than can be allowed. In the light of that, I may give the assurance that this inquiry is a very thorough one. As you are dealing with a few groups here which may be powerful monopolies, they are watched very carefully by the Department as regards price control.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) has asked what has become of the inquiry which was referred to a special auxiliary committee of the Natural Resources Development Council which was appointed to investigate the possible developments in the western Cape. This Committee has already held two meetings, and among other things a very thorough report on the upper Berg River Valley was submitted; a second one on Worcester and a preliminary one on the South-Western Districts, which was based upon data and a study of the Bureau of Economic Inquiry of Stellenbosch University. A third meeting is being convened shortly, at which a special report in connection with the inquiry in the South-Western Cape will be submitted. Apart from that, a demographic study of the Coloured population has been made which indicates the distribution and activities of these people in the western Cape, and a quantitative survey has also been made at the request of this committee by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and arrangements have been made for an extensive survey of the irrigable land of the upper Berg River Valley. Much data have been accumulated by the Committee as well as the Bureau and a contribution is paid to the University of Stellenbosch as they rendered assistance in analysing all these data. It is proposed then that all these data will be discussed at the next ensuing meeting and that certain inferences will be drawn from it, and as soon as it is ready we shall make it available to the public also.

I was dealing just now with the effect of volume on the engineering industry, and I suggested to the hon. Minister that if engineering industrial costs in South Africa must be reduced, it is essential to get volume. From time to time hon. members on the other side and others have pleaded for the manufacture of tractors in South Africa, car-engines and so forth. The hon. Minister will certainly appreciate that in the engineering industry in particular it is essential to have volume, and I refer the hon. Minister to the Report of the Committee that investigated the manufacture of railway requirements by private industry. That committee brought out a majority recommendation that more of this work should be given to private industry because this would help to spread the cost burden. The hon. Minister will appreciate that in the engineering industry, if we are going to manufacture our own engines at a reasonable cost, it is essential that the engineering industry should get volume to enable it to bring its costs down, and it should be prepared to work on a thee-shift basis. If they are not going to get the volume, Mr. Chairman, they cannot reduce the costs. The opportunities for research into the effect of various metals used for various jobs cannot be done unless they can get sufficient volume, and the whole attitude of the Government to the engineering industry, if it is going to reduce costs, will have to be revised. If the hon. Minister goes to any engineering industry overseas, he will find that in the main the workers are near the industry. You do not send the workers home 15 and 20 miles away. They are near their place of work because of shift work, and whatever the Government policy may be in regard to the non-Europeans, if we are going to use a volume of non-European labour, they have to be close to the work. Whether those works are taken out into the reserves or whether those works are in the centre of a town, the workers will have to be convenient to those works, because with shift-work you are not going to get the volume of work, you are not going to have efficiency if workers have to spend a long time travelling to and from work.

The hon. Minister talks about our export trade. I illustrated earlier on that we have got to face up to the problems of the export trade and the only way we can face up to the problems of the export trade is on the basis of costs, and quality of course. To-day we are sending large quantities of our semi-processed iron to Japan and they are doing the other stages. We should be doing the other stages here, and that can be done if there is long-term planning, and long-term planning does not necessarily involve border industries. I want to refer the hon. Minister to the recent address given by Dr. Norval. I am in sympathy with the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) who was referring to the drift from the farms to the towns. This is what Dr. Norval says—

Here in many cases land has been established for industries on the borders of the reserves, and I fail to see what the economic advantages are. I raised this matter the other day with the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and he intimated that the person responsible was the Minister of Economic Affairs because his committee decided on the development. I hope the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs is going to tell us what economic factors are taken into account to justify the establishment of industries. He has established an industrial area north of Pretoria. What economic factors are taken into account? Or is it just Government policy and he is the clearing station for various services. Does he just provide the technical knowledge, advising on the railway services to be provided, the power services, the water services and the general planning of the area? Or does he establish those industries on economic lines? And if he says that he establishes them on economic lines, I would be very pleased if he would tell me how he justifies the establishment on economic lines of border industries at Hammarsdale, on the top of an escarpment where the whole of the drainage flows down in the Umlaas River and the drainage of the whole area from the septic sewerage, the whole lot drains into the Shongweni Dam, which forms part of Durban’s water supply. Of course it goes through a few strata of sandstone, but it is at the top of the escarpment. The factories were established long before there were any road services, long before there was water. When they had established the factories they found afterwards that they had no water, so they tried to take the water there and the farmers protested because the farmers had riparian rights. Now having established the industries, they have to look for water, and they find that they can only develop the area to a limited extent, because unless they put in vast sewerage works, the whole of the sewerage for that area must have the ordinary sceptic tanks or the ordinary pit system. Perhaps the hon. Minister can tell us when they intend in the Hammarsdale area to have a modern sewerage system? Because they are going to establish a Native township there. Mr. Chairman, the whole question of the establishmentof border industries, established under the aegis of the Minister of Economic Affairs wants clarification. This Minister supplies the funds through the Industrial Development Corporation. I see the hon. Minister has in his hands a very interesting brochure about the Hammarsdale scheme. I have seen that brochure too. I was invited too when that function took place, but I was busy in Parliament. The factories came first, and after the factory effluents befouled the country, the sewerage system came second, and now they are starting with a housing scheme for the workers. I suggest that the hon. Minister should tell us what his plans are for the future when starting these areas. Surely there should be a proper laying-out of these towns, there should be proper planning for the provision of water services, power services, and then transport services and then they should be co-ordinated with the establishment of factories so that when the factory starts the people are properly housed and the various social services are ready. At the present moment it seems, judging by what I have seen at Hammarsdale that the cart has been placed before the horse. I suggest that the hon. Minister should indicate to us what his policy is in regard to border industries, what he intends to do so far as G.A.T.T. is concerned if the African states decide to have a G.A.T.T. of their own, what he proposes to substitute for any possible export markets we may lose up north as a result of developments up north by the various countries who may form one economy and one industrial economy, and what plans the Minister has for the development of the internal market should our external market shrink to a certain extent, because we have a large machine potential which is greater than the present market demand. The Minister will know that the present production potential of the clothing industry, the footwear industry and the furniture industry is greater than the present demand, and if that potential is idle to the extent that it is not fully used in a normal industrial process, then we have either to find export markets or we have to develop the internal market. We would like to hear from the hon. Minister something more specific, apart from the general outline, interesting though it was, we had from him earlier to-day.

I have been requested by hon. members opposite that the debate should be terminated within a certain time. So my time to reply will be very brief, and I think hon. members on both sides of the House will understand that I cannot reply fully to all the questions which have been put, and particularly the questions the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has just asked, because those alone would require a couple of hours to reply to. I shall try to reply very briefly to most of the questions that have been asked.

The hon. member for Kensington once again raised the old question of the ‘accountability” of State corporations to Parliament. The hon. member spoilt his own argument by referring to the Railways and Departments of State which come before Parliament and whose affairs are debated here. I think the hon. member has been in Parliament long enough to know that corporations such as Iscor and Foscor and the I.D.C. are not departments of State. They are not governed as part of the Public Service. Their running expenses are not voted by Parliament. So it is quite wrong to use them as examples and to say that because the Railways are treated in this way, Iscor and I.D.C. and Foscor should be discussed in the House in the same manner. There are many disadvantages attaching to that, which I cannot go into now. However, I should like to mention one thing. Perhaps hon. members will remember that in the early years, about 1927 and in the year 1932 and subsequently, the question was raised. Even in these early years there was correspondence between Parliament and the late Dr. van der Bijl on this self-same matter in respect of Escom and Iscor. Dr. van der Bijl at that time submitted a long memorandum of about 20 pages to the Clerk of the House of Assembly, in which he advanced his reasons why it was impossible for him and his boards to accept this accountability to Parliament through a Select Committee. The Minister of Economic Affairs under the United Party, Mr. Waterson, subsequently, in 1947, also addressed certain correspondence to Dr. van der Bijl in which he also requested what the hon. member for Kensington now insists upon, namely that the State corporations should have to account to Parliament, and Dr. van der Bijl wrote to Mr. Waterson in reply a letter which I cannot read to you now, but which the hon. member for Constantia will remember. At that time the then Government did not take any further action either. In other words, the then Government did not deem it expedient after the advice they had received from men like Dr. van der Bijl and others. I think that for the same reason we do not regard it as desirable either to accept the proposal of the hon. member for Kensington.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) asked whether there will be a second or another Sasol. I can merely tell him that an inquiry in this regard has already taken place. We already have estimates of the cost of another Sasol, and its estimated production, but no decision has been taken by the Government as yet. In this regard I may tell him that if we establish another Sasol, the capital cost in proportion to its production will be much lower than that of the existing Sasol because we have gained so much experience in this regard during recent years. Sasol is to-day the one place in the world that knows most about the production of oil from coal, and the knowledge which Sasol has acquired in the past is invaluable should we in future decide to establish another Sasol.

The hon. member also referred to tractor factories, and asked whether we should not have just one instead of two or three. My reply is that the Board of Trade and Industries raised the possibility of three. It has not asyet been decided what will be done. We are still investigating the whole matter, and a decision will be taken which is most in the economic interest of the country. Attention has also been given to the possibility of one engine plant for all the various tractors and other vehicles.

The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) asked me whether we could not, at this stage already, indicate certain areas along the borders as possible points of growth for future development. I shall go into the matter, but I think I should tell the hon. member that I am not very sympathetically disposed to that. I think it will be inadvisable at this stage to indicate various places as future points for industrial development, before we have had an opportunity of investigating those places from all angles. Every industrial area we have opened up thus far, the one at Rosslyn, for instance, must first of all be thoroughly investigated, and even then problems arise. It will be wrong to indicate such places all over the country before we have had an opportunity to make a thorough investigation. I think that when the need arises we shall first of all make a thorough investigation at the various places and then determine such an industrial area. The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) has referred to the advantages offered by the Northern Cape for industrial development. I should like to tell him that the Department is aware of the features and characteristics of that area and of the advantages it offers, and we shall not withhold from it the factories that will be suited to it. But, of course, it is not within our power to force factories to go to one place or another. As regards a further steel plant, a further extension of Iscor, we cannot say to-day yet where that is likely to be established. When the further expansion of Iscor comes, the locality will be thoroughly investigated from an economic angle, not only as regards the raw materials, the iron ore and the coal and water and labour, but also the question of transport, the possibilities of export and the service area of such a factory—everything will be meticulously inquired into from an economic point of view and the decision will be taken on purely economic merits. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) has referred to the possibility of industrial development in the Ciskei and Transkei border areas.. I should like to tell him briefly that we are interested in the development of border industries in that area because of the availability of labour, but as the hon. member has rightly stated, problems exist. There is the problem of power, the problem of markets, etc. We are also interested in the possibility of finding coal in the area. I cannot make an announcement at the moment on the availability and the quantity and quality of coal found there, but we are investigating the matter and we shall be grateful if there is any possibility at all of coal in sufficient quantities and of sufficient quality for the generation of power.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) has asked whether we cannot now abolish the sugar quotas. I want to tell the hon. member that I do not have the time at my disposal now, but I shall make a statement in the Press on the sugar position tomorrow. During the past few days discussions have taken place between the sugar industry and myself in which we arrived at certain decisions. I would be quite prepared to make an announcement here, but it would take time, and therefore it will be announced in the Press to-morrow.

Why not in Parliament?

All right, if the time is available, I am quite prepared to do so:

Briefly it amounts to this, that the South African Sugar Association exported large quantities of sugar during the past year. They expect to export large quantities of sugar during the next year or two also. But at the moment there are no sugar quotas under an international agreement and nobody knows when sugar quotas will be introduced again. For that reason it was deemed inadvisable to expand the sugar production in this way by the establishment of new canefields, and it was decided that the existing sugar producers may produce to their full capacity during this period. So there will be no restrictions on the production of existing producers on existing canefields during this period, and all of them may now acquire new quotas for themselves.

Will the hon. the Minister reply to one further question? What about the possible new expansion in the Makatini area and the present settlers? Do they receive preference over the established big planters?

I want to repeat that we shall review the whole position in a year or a year and half, when the international sugar position becomes clear to us, and when we know about export possibilities and whether we are going to be pegged down to 200,000 or 300,000 tons of sugar per annum for export or not. We do not know what is going to happen, and until we know that, we cannot make any definite promises and we cannot take any great measures for expansion. For that reason we are pursuing the conservative policy of expanding on the existing sugar fields until we have more information on the whole situation.

The hon. member for Pinetown asked certain questions about a possible G.A.T.T. in Northern Africa. I must admit that I have not noticed any movement in the direction of the formation of a body in Northern Africa similar to G.A.T.T. A possibility is an attempt to form something in Africa similar to the Common Market or to a custom union. That might be considered, but I have not heard of anything in the form of a body similar to G.A.T.T. being started in Africa. But there is another danger, another possibility. We know that on the instigation of the Afro-Asian states the United Nations have decided to hold a world economic conference early next year, and there is just the possibility that if under G.A.T.T. in its present constitution and with the new tariff agreements that are to come, insufficient concessions can be granted to certain states, they might try to break away from G.A.T.T. and form a new world body under the United Nations.

The hon. member has asked me about the question of the volume of production in industry. I think there can be no two ideas on that point. I fully agree with him that if you want to produce cheaply, you must increase the volume of production. That is an axiom in economics, and I fully agree with him. I am sorry that I cannot give him any reply on the Report of the Commission he has referred to. That report was submitted to either the State President or the Minister of Transport, and it has not yet been considered by the Government. So the hon. member will not expect a reply from me on the contents of that report.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) has asked me about our trade with Japan. It is true that we hear voices that Japan is not fully satisfied with the balance of trade between Japan and South Africa, because the balance of trade is largely in favour of South Africa. But I think the Japanese are also very sensible people. I think they will realize that for about 13 or 14 years during the last 17 years, they had a favourable balance, and I also think that if we total the balances we shall find that they still have a favourable over-all balance of nearly R100,000,000 over the whole period. So on balance it is still in their favour over the total period. On the other hand there is also this fact, namely, that it is not customary in world trade that trade between two countries should always balance. That is why we have multi-lateral trade. It is impossible for trade between every two countries to balance. And it should never really be an ideal of any two such countries that between them trade should balance. There is just another point, which I think it also realized by Japan. We sell to Japan food and raw-materials which they require to feed their people and their factories, as well as to provide work for their people. Japan sells to us finished goods that compete with our own factories and take away work from our own people. It is a completely different set of circumstances. We in South Africa are selling foodstuffs and raw-materials to Japan and they sell to us their labour in the form of finished goods. They of course also realize the difference in circumstances between the two countries. But, as far as we can, we shall try to foster an increased trade between Japan and ourselves. We are giving due attention to the matter.

*I merely wish to tell the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) that I do not think I can deal with the whole question of border industries now. I have already replied to that partly. I agree with the hon. member that as we must try to spread out our industries a little more, It should not only be in the form of industries in the border areas, but also industries in our smaller towns. Of course there are all kinds of factors which must be taken into consideration, such as the availability of labour etc. However, I agree with the hon. member that for instance where industries are not suitable for establishment in border areas, we should not concentrate them all in the great metropolitan areas such as Johannesburg and Durban and other places, but that we should devote attention to the distribution of our industries in other parts of the country. In regards to Hammarsdale, I do not want to go into the whole trouble there. There are, however, teething troubles there and I know they have had difficulties. Everything is, however, being done to overcome them. But I should like to point out that those difficulties are not due to the fact that it is a border industry because the same things happen in private industry. The very same things happen there too. Consequently, I do not think the hon. member must blame the policy in regard to border industries for what has happened in a few instances at Hammarsdale.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote J,—“Commerce and Industries”, R21,839,000, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 33—“Bureau of Census and Statistics”, R1,180,000, put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 34—“Mines”, R7,835,000,

Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half-hour?

In recent times we have had another of these unfortunate accidents which, despite very great care, take place from time to time in our mining industry. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the sympathy of hon. members with the bereaved families and with those who were injured. I should also like to take this opportunity of expressing the thanks of this side of the House to the Chamber of Mines for the tours of the various gold mines which were arranged during the last recess. I, being overseas at the time was unfortunately unable to be present but I learnt from those who did have the privilege of accompanying those tours just how valuable and interesting they were. I know that all who had the privilege of taking part considered that these tours were well worthwhile. It is hoped that there might be another opportunity for similar tours on future occasions.

I should now like to come to a report which was published only very recently and laid upon the Table of this House on 30 May this year. I refer to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the question of safety in mines. I should like to refer to the fact that this Report was signed as long ago as 20 December 1960. Now, Sir, if one looks at the Act dealing with the appointment of commissions one will find that provision is made for the appointment of commissions to consider matters causing public concern. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that I believe that the suppression of this particular Report for so long a period and the fact that it was tabled in this House only after a period of 2½ years had elapsed from the time it came into the hands of the hon. the Minister and into the hands of his predecessor, can be regarded only as treating the public with contempt and as treating this House with contempt. I submit to the hon. the Minister that a document of this sort is not the private property of either the Minister himself or of the Government. The inquiry was ordered for the purpose of ensuring safety and for the purpose of allaying the fears of the public. Especially in the case of a report such as this, making as it does, very important recommendations, it should be quite clear that, at the very least, even if the Government is not prepared to take any action in regard to many of the recommendations, this House is entitled to ask that that Report should have been tabled at the earliest possible moment and printed as early as possible.

I do hope that the hon. the Minister is going to give us an explanation in this regard. I know that from a reply to a question which was recently put to the hon. the Minister by the hon. member for Springs it would appear that even at this late stage this Report was only made public as a result of the intervention of the chairman of the Commission who himself had taken exception to the delay which had taken place. Sir, the hon. the Minister owes an explanation to this House for his own dilatoriness and for that of his predecessor in regard to this matter. I know the hon. the Minister is not as blameworthy as his predecessor is in this regard but even he might very well have tabled this Report over a year ago. It is obvious that this is a report which is of tremendous public interest because it concerns the safety of persons who, in large measure, are responsible for the well-being of this country; because where would we be without our mining industry? I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us exactly what steps have already been taken and what steps are being contemplated; how many of the recommendations of the Commission have been accepted and how many have not been accepted. I should like to refer to some of these recommendations. While I do not have the time to refer to all these recommendations I still hope that the hon. the Minister will give us a full reply on them all.

As the hon. the Minister knows there is in the later part of this Report a special section in respect of proposed changes in legislation. These are matters of very great importance and I can only say that I think that the Government has been most dilatory in dealing with this matter, especially in the light of the nature of the Report and the fact that the safety of our workers is the matter which is at stake. I think the Commission should be complimented on having submitted at a very early stage a report on paragraph (4) of the matters which were referred to them. Hon. members will remember that the terms of reference of this Commission were very wide although the present Report only deals with paragraph (4) of those terms of reference. This paragraph reads—

In the time that is available to me I cannot possibly do justice to the whole of this Report. I propose, however to refer to some of the matters therein in the hope that the Minister himself will deal with the others which may have received his attention. In paragraph 6 of the Commission’s Report it is stated that—

The hon. the Minister will know that the Commission was obviously concerned about certain matters as is proved by the large number of recommendations which it made. As a result of the accident at Coalbrook the Commission felt that it should give its undivided attention in the first instance to that occurrence. That they did.

There are certain very serious matters to which reference is made in this Report. In paragraph 11, for instance, reference is made to certain dangers to which the underground workers at a certain gold mine were exposed. Then it is said—

Later in the same paragraph he says—

This is now old history, but a serious matter of this kind should have been put before this House at the very earliest opportunity. The hon. the Minister will undoubtedly know that there has been a certain amount of friction in that Division. This report is largely concerned with some of the results thereof and I want to refer to them. In paragraph 13, for instance, the Commission says—

Now, this was a serious act. We cannot hold the present Minister responsible but I say that it is utterly wrong that a serious matter of this nature should only have been placed before this House for debate nearly three years after the actual occurrence, especially in view of the fact that there was a Report in the hands of the Cabinet for nearly two and a half years of that period.

But the Minister is responsible to the Cabinet.

Yes, the hon. the Minister is responsible in that way, but although he cannot answer personally for the actions of his predecessor, he can indicate what his views are as one of those who shares responsibility for the action of one of his colleagues. At any rate, the paragraph I was quoting from, i.e., paragraph 13, goes on in the following terms—

This is a most serious allegation of neglect on the part of the Government. The paragraph goes on—

All these allegations are very serious allegations by a Commission which is entitled to respect. It had a judge for a chairman and a number of other eminent gentlemen as its members. Later on in the Report we find the following statement—

Paragraph 17 deals with the Coalbrook disaster. It reads—

I think, Sir, that the Government should not allow itself to be placed in a position where it could be coerced. The paragraph reads further—

I want to say at once that the retired Government Mining Engineer was a man who had rendered good services. Another hon. member of this side will deal more fully with the gentlemen concerned and will put further questions to the hon. the Minister. This is a very serious matter indeed and I want to say to the hon. the Minister again that there is a clear duty upon him to take this House into his full confidence and to deal with these matters. Let me also refer to paragraph 21 of the Report, reading as follows—

This Government bears the responsibility for those seven years and must give an account thereof to this House. The Commission’s finding as stated in paragraph 23 of its Report, is as follows—

This, Sir, is a very serious indictment indeed of this Government. It is very serious indeed. The Commission is quite clear on this point that had it not been for the vigilance of the industry itself, things would have been very much more serious. At this point I should like to pay tribute to the great efforts made by the mining industry in this country to preserve the safety, as far as it is humanly possible, of those who are engaged in that industry.

I could go on in this way. Obviously, it is impossible for me to quote the entire report but on page after page there is condemnation of the lack of leadership. I want to go further and say that this Government has treated its responsibilities very lightly as must be evident to anybody reading this Report which is now in our hands. Let me refer to paragraph 74 reading as follows—

I ask what more serious condemnation there could be of a Government which allows things of this sort to happen in a country which is flourishing in the way South Africa is flourishing. Certainly, Sir, we have no justification for not spending the money that is necessary to ensure the safety of the men on whose work, to a large extent, the progress of this country depends. The recommendations contained in this Report are of very great importance indeed. I do not propose to go into them in detail. My time does not permit of that. I do demand of the hon. the Minister, however, that he should make a full statement as to just exactly where the Government stands in this matter and what it has done to deal with the position as exposed in this Report, In particular I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what the decision of the Government is in respect of the position of the Government Mining Engineer himself. In view of the recommendations contained in this Report, Sir, I would have expected that the Government would take very good care to see to it that it treated the officials in this Department as they should be treated. Consequently, I was shocked when I found that whereas in respect of many other heads of Departments, increases of up to R1,500 were granted, in the case of the Government Mining Engineer there has been no increase in salary whatsoever. Let me say in this connection that one of the key positions in the entire public service of this country should be the position of the Government Mining Engineer. We know that engineers are hightly qualified people and it is obvious that if the Government wants the best possible service it must be prepared to pay adequate remuneration to those persons so as to be able to put the best man in that post they can possibly get. I think we are entitled to ask the Government that it should do nothing less than that. I do hope that we are going to have a full and frank statement from the hon. the Minister and I hope that he will be prepared in view of the dilatoriness of the Government, of which he is a member, not only to deal with the lack of action during his own period of office, but also to deal under the previous Minister who was in charge of the Department of Mines at the time this Commission was appointed.

I want to leave the matter here. Let me repeat once more: I do hope that when in future there is again a matter of such great public importance, a matter of life and death and a matter concerning the well-being of the major industry in South Africa and a Commission is appointed which very promptly makes a tremendously important public report, that the Government will regard itself as in honour and duty bound to make that report available to this House and to the public of this country at the earliest possible opportunity.

In the few minutes remaining at my disposal, I should like to refer to one or two other matters. Firstly, I should like to say a few words in regard to a matter which was dealt with by this hon. Minister in this House last year, i.e. the pneumoconiosis legislation which was passed last year. At the time that legislation was before this House, this side of the House protested that a measure of such great importance containing as it did, far-reaching amendments to the existing law, was being placed before us at the end of the session and being rushed through. We were then told that both the industry and the workers agreed to the measure. I should now like to inform the Minister that we later found that that was not in accordance with the facts. For that the hon. the Minister owes this House an explanation.

And an apology.

The hon. member for Rosettenville and the hon. member for Durban (Central) are members who have made a lifetime study of this subject. These two members, although they were very busy, created an opportunity for having discussions with the officials and with others about this measure and although they expressed doubts right throughout whether some of the proposals were desirable, they were told that it was an agreed measure and that there would be no difficulties at all. The question of the lump-sum provision was debated when the matter was before this House. We received assurances to the effect that it was all going to work out well. But all the fears which we on this side of the House had at the time were amply justified as has been amply proved by the facts. The Government, I understand, has now found it necessary, and will have to obtain the approval of this House for that, to incur expenditure over and above that which was provided for in the legislation concerned. I say that it is a sign of incompetence on the part of the hon. the Minister that he should have come here at that stage with a piece of legislation which has caused great concern in the industry …

It was half-baked.

Yes, it was half-baked. I say, Sir, that when dealing with legislation of this importance, the least we are entitled to expect in this House is that assurances which are given to us in accordance with the facts and that the legislation has received the study it requires, especially where it is a matter which has the interests of the workers at heart, particularly workers in an industry such as this, where, as we know from recent tragic events, their lives as well as their health are in danger. A very heavy responsibility rests upon this Minister to justify his action, to justify this Government and the actions of his predecessor. For our part we are entirely dissatisfied with the way in which the hon. the Minister dealt with that legislation last year and we regret very much indeed to have to say to him that the assurances which he gave to us then proved later to be wrong because the legislation which he told us would give complete satisfaction in many respects, caused extremely grave concern amongst the persons who spend their lives working in the mines.

Please be more specific. Give us examples of what you do not like.

The hon. the Minister will reply. It is, therefore, not necessary for the hon. member to put questions to me. But let me ask that hon. member whether he is prepared to stand up in this House and say that he supports that legislation as it stands? No, not for one moment will he be prepared to do so.

I will be more specific when I get up to speak.

It is for the hon. the Minister to be specific in this matter. The responsibility rests upon him.

What about you?

I have told the hon. the Minister of the difficulties which have arisen. The hon. the Minister has full information in that regard and the onus is now on him to justify this piece of legislation to this House. To hon. members who do not know of these difficulties I suggest that they should wait until they have heard what the hon. the Minister has to say.

You do not know. You must not make vague accusations.

I hope hon. members will give me the opportunity of making my own speech. They too will get an opportunity of speaking on this question. I have made a charge against the hon. the Minister and it is up to him to answer that charge to the satisfaction of this House. We on this side of the House are always prepared to co-operate as we did last year, in doing what is in the interests of the miners. We proved that quite clearly last year. What is more, the hon. Minister is aware of that. We are still prepared to do so, but I ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that when legislation of this kind is coming forward in future. it will be made available to the Opposition … I assure him that we shall do it when we take over the Government of this country.

I have referred to the Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the safety of mines. I hope the hon. the Minister will realize that it was impossible for me in the short time at my disposal to deal with all the points in this Report. The hon. the Minister, his Department and his predecessor, have had this Report for nearly 2½ years and, consequently, I am quite sure that he should be able to answer us on all these points. I say to him that in the interests of this great industry he should be perfectly frank with this House and with the public. We, for our part, will be satisfied with nothing less, and I am sure the public will support us in our demands for full information to be given by the Government in respect of the very serious charges against it made in this Report.

The hon. member for Germiston District is quite upset this evening. Nor is he at his best this evening. In fact he is weaker than I have ever seen him before. I thought the hon. member would spend his time properly by discussing this useful and effective report. He quoted from the report here and there at the commencement of his speech, and then he proceeded to discuss the pneumoconiosis legislation. As regards this legislation, I say that he and his colleagues had no comment of importance to make when the legislation was before the House last year, except that they had a couple of objections about certain staff rights in the bureau. As regards the benefits for the mineworkers themselves, however, the hon. gentleman and his colleagues had no comment to offer at all last year. Save as regards certain matters concerning the staff of the bureau, they had nothing to say about the mineworkers as such.

We have this extremely important report here this evening; that is to say the report of the commission of enquiry in regard to safety in mines. Permit me to point out to the hon. member for Germiston (District) that if he had made a thorough study of this report, he would have seen that matters in the mining industry took a wrong turn not under this Minister or his predecessor but in the glorified days of the United Party in the year 1937. Let hon. members in this regard please look at paragraphs 82 and 103 and they will see what the United Party did in 1937. In the first place they then gave the Government Mining Engineer a slap in the face. I say the United Party Minister of Mines of those days caused the Government Mining Engineer to be given a tremendous slap in the face. In fact, the Government Mining Engineer was virtually degraded and an injustice was done to him. Hon. members can understand that when you have a head of a Department to whom such a grave injustice is done as was done to the Government Mining Engineer in 1937, it is to be expected that things in that Department will gradually go wrong. For that reason it does not behove the hon. member for Germiston (District) to-night to shed crocodile tears. I do not believe there is one of the hon. members opposite who can say why the status of the Government Mining Engineer was derogated from in that way in 1937. In any event, if that impairment had not taken place, the Government Mining Engineer would have had adequate control over his department, and in addition we would have had what I have pleaded for throughout the years—even last year when I received no support from the hon. member for Germiston or from any one of his colleagues. Last year, during the discussion of this Vote, I pleaded for the presence of the Government Mining Engineer in the officials’ benches of this House when the Mining Vote was discussed so that he could give us practical information and advice on matters we might raise. But the hon. member for Germiston (District) has never, during all the years I have been pleading for this, supported me. On the contrary, he remained silent then. But now I am grateful to see that all the things I pleaded for here last year are being emphasized in this report, namely that the Government Mining Engineer should be at the disposal of this House when the Mines Vote is discussed. There is the matter of dust samplings, which I have raised in this House for so many years already, but in regard to which I have never received a satisfactory reply. What I asked for in this regard was that positive proof should be given annually that dust samplings are taken regularly so that we could have the comments of the Government Mining Engineer on the question of the health of the underground mineworkers.

But the hon. member for Germiston (District) has never in the past shown any interest in this matter. It is not necessary for me to reprove the hon. the Minister tonight. On the contrary I think he took a very courageous step by putting the interests and the safety of the people employed in the industry first. He realised there was something wrong in the State of Denmark. And when he realised that, he did not hesitate to do the right thing. It is very easy for the hon. member to come here this evening and complain about the Minister having overridden the Government Mining Engineer, but the point is why did he have to do so? He had to do so because there was something radically wrong in the State of Denmark. Is the hon. member for Germiston (District) not thankful tonight that the Minister in fact acted the way he did? As a result of the courageous action of the Minister we have had that appointment and we have had the enquiries. All of us would like to step into the breach for a Government Mining Engineer particularly when he is enabled to carry out his duties properly, if he is in control of the Department himself. But he did not exercise this proper control, with the result that things went wrong. This has been exposed only through the courageous step taken by the Minister in appointing that official although he was a junior. Under normal circumstances it would never have been done, and it cannot be done. If everything had been in order in the department of the Government Mining Engineer, and the Minister nevertheless took steps he in fact took, all of us could have taken him to task this evening and could have accused him of having done the wrong and a foolish thing. But he has now acted in the interests of the people employed in the industry. We may say that the premonition he had has been thoroughly translated into reality. Therefore I think that the hon. member for Germiston (District) should thank the Minister for his courageous action in this regard. He must not come along here and say that the Minister has done the wrong thing, but that it was correct, although it conflicted with the normal procedure in regard to discipline. Nevertheless it was the right thing to do in the interest of the people employed in the mining industry, and therefore also in the interests of the industry itself.

I now come to the summary of the recommendations of the Commission. In this regard I wish to say that I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to-night to give us good news by telling us that he has already given effect to the spirit of the most important recommendations of this Report. As regards the first recommendation, I hope the Minister will be able to give us an indication that he has already implemented it, namely that the Government Mining Engineer will be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to 1937 when the United Party Minister of Mines degraded him and did him an injustice. The second recommendation is that the salary of the Government Mining Engineer, as well as that of his technical officers, should be reviewed. I hope the Minister will give effect to that recommendation without hesitation. I feel very strongly on these matters. The hon. member for Germiston (District) did not discuss this matter. In fact he spoke somewhat at random. As regards the third recommendation, which really embraces three recommendations, I should like to recommend these matters very strongly too. I know that the Geological Survey Branch does not fall under the Government Mining Engineer. It is a great pity it should be so. I would ask the hon. the Minister, if it is possible. to divide the Geological Survey Branch so that that part which performs work in regard to the mines should fall directly under the Government Mining Engineer. The Government Mining Engineer must in any event have the services of the Geological Survey Branch at his disposal. [Time limit.]

I think it will be conceded when reading this Report of the Commission of Inquiry regarding safety in mines that the members of this Commission have certainly not minced matters at all when it came to expressing their findings. This Report is as outspoken a review as ever went into a Blue Book. As a matter of fact, a more scathing report on Government actions and omissions has never before been presented to this House. The criticisms levelled at the Department, the Minister and the Government are couched in such strong terms that one can only draw the inference that the evidence of the witnesses who appeared before the Commission must have been most damning. The hon. member for Krugersdorp said that there must have been “something wrong in the State of Denmark”. In that he is quite correct. What was wrong, as far as the Department of Mines is concerned, and this appears quite clearly from this Report, is that former Ministers of Mines made use of their position to exert undue political pressure on the Government Mining Engineer and his Division. I want to prove this. Let me first of all quote from the statement made by the mining industry before the Commission. The extract I want to make from this statement appears on page 27 of the Report and reads as follows—

In paragraph 17 on page 2 of its Report the Commission came to the following conclusion—

Now, we are aware of the forceful role which was played by the then Secretary of the Mine Workers’ Union, Mr. Ellis. It is quite interesting to realize that Mr. Ellis was also a member of this Commission, and therefore also sat in judgment on the Government Mining Engineer’s Division. It is also interesting to note that the Second Interim Report, which the Minister has had presented to him but which he refuses to present to this House, was nevertheless made public by Mr. Ellis on 22 January 1961. He made a disclosure of certain of the contents of that Report while serving as a member of the Commission, before it was even in the hands of the Minister. It is also known that he was severely reprimanded by the hon. Justice Marais, the Chairman of the Commission for this legal action.

I want to deal with certain aspects of the Minister’s interference in the Department of the Government Mining Engineer. The Report under discussion refers to various aspects of this interference, and I think we can be specific about some of them. In 1953 there was an illegal strike at the St. Helena Mine. The previous Minister of Mines saw fit to bring in a certain District Inspector over the head of the senior inspector of that district. A report was submitted to the Minister direct; the matter was closed, and nothing further has either been heard or has happened. The judgment of the Government Mining Engineer was obviously vindicated. From this time onwards however, the Government Mining Engineer and the staff began to lose prestige as to their authority. In 1959 a similar incident took place. The same inspector was brought in over the heads of the existing inspectorate. He submitted his findings which went to a court of appeal, where his findings were reversed. In 1954 the Government Mining Engineer welcomed the demand by the Mine Workers’ Union for a judicial commission. This, however, was refused by the Government. I maintain that it was refused by the Government because the Government was not prepared at that time to have light thrown on certain matters. Now. what happened in 1956? The Government Mining Engineer recommended that this very same inspector who caused trouble all along the line and has brought about a state of chaos in the Department of the Government Mining Engineer, should be demoted. But the Minister refused to do that, and promoted him instead.

He must have been a “Broederbonder”.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is correct that that same inspector who caused all that dissatisfaction and discontent in the Government Mining Engineer’s Department has not now been suspended from duty? Is it not correct that he is the subject of an inquiry by the Public Service Commission? I am asking for a categorical answer to my question. I should like to know why the hon. the Minister has waited seven years before this action has been taken. I should also like to know whether it is correct that a certain district inspector was sent to London at the request of Mr. Ellis, prompted by the particular gentleman I have just referred to. Is the hon. the Minister of Mines also pursuing the procedure which was followed by one of his predecessors. Dr. Van Rhyn? It had been a long-established custom in the Department of Mines that any fatal accidents on mines involving prosecutions first had to be dealt with by the Government Mining Engineer, so that he can see to it that the matter goes to the Public Prosecutor in a satisfactory manner and that it stands a good chance of succeeding in a court of law. For reasons best known to him the then Minister of Mines vetoed that procedure, with the result that prosecutions were instituted by inspectors on very flimsy evidence and consequently were thrown out. The effect of this was that in the eyes of the mineworkers the Government Mining Engineer was blamed for needless prosecutions! I should like to ask the present Minister what prompted his predecessor to allow this particular inspector to go over the heads of all the other inspectors in the Coal brook area at that time, even over the head of the Government Mining Engineer himself who was on the spot, investigating matters. This individual took it upon himself to submit a report direct to the Minister, i.e. over the head of the Government Mining Engineer. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not a fact that Mr. Ellis, the then Secretary of the Mine Workers’ Union, demanded the instant dismissal of the Government Mining Engineer. Does the Minister not have a telegram in his possession from Mr. Ellis in which he says—

Is it not also a fact that when the Minister did not act with sufficient haste in response to that request, Mr. Ellis interviewed the Minister and indicated that, unless the Government Mining Engineer was dismissed forthwith he would call a strike of all miners in the gold and coal mines in the Transvaal and the Free State? Is it not correct that the Government Mining Engineer was thereupon presented with an ultimatum by the Minister: either he had to resign immediately or, failing that, he would be dismissed forthwith? In this drastic manner, a man of whom it cannot be said that he was incompetent, inefficient or unsatisfactory in his work, was dismissed. If the Minister is going to allege that this man was incompetent, I will quote a letter from the Minister in which he says just the opposite. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, listening to what the hon. member for Springs and the hon. member for Germiston (District) had to say, one gained the impression that everything was in order here save that there was something wrong with the Minister and with the Secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union. Except for that, everything was rosy in this picture. But let us in this connection refer to the report and let us see what the findings of the Commission were in this regard. Then we can see that there was something seriously wrong in the relationship between the Government Mining Engineer and those people whose safety he was in charge of. That was one of his main functions. But let us look at this report, and see what the true relationship of the Government Mining Engineer was to those people for whose safety he was responsible. Let us in this connection just look at paragraph 11 where reference is made to the complaints made about gas and ventilation conditions at a certain mine. The hon. member for Germiston (District) passed over these paragraphs very gently. It is said in this paragraph that the matter was taken up by the trade union of the mineworkers concerned and discussed with the District Inspector of Mines, in whose inspectorate the mine was situated. That was the correct procedure. However, he did not get satisfaction there, and then he went further to the Government Mining Engineer where he did not get any satisfaction either. Here then we have the position that there were complaints about the gas and ventilation systems; an official of the trade union then went to the Government Mining Engineer without getting any satisfaction. What were they to do then? The office of the Government Mining Engineer was surely the highest authority? In the circumstances he had no alternative but to go to the Minister himself. But now the hon. member for Germiston (District) says that by doing so there was political interference on the part of the Minister. But there was no other alternative. But what happened then? I am told that the then Minister then went straight to the office of the Government Mining Engineer. Mr. Ellis was present. There they agreed to send that particular inspector to go and investigate that matter. Who else could be asked to do that? The Government Mining Engineer could not be asked to do so, surely, because he had already shown that he was unable to give satisfaction. The workers no longer had confidence in him. As a result of this action, the threatened strike was called off.

In paragraph 16 a second incident is described when an explosion took place at the President Steyn mine in 1959. There also an impartial inquiry was called for. and there also that person was sent to investigate. The fact of the matter is that at that stage there was no mutual confidence between the Government Mining Engineer and the mineworkers. Subsequently the Coalbrook disaster took place and once again the Minister was approached directly. The fact of the matter is that there was not a good relationship between the Government Mining Engineer and the mineworkers at all. In paragraph 16 we read, for instance, that there was a delay in the inquiry. The Government Mining Engineer is responsible for these investigations. But there was a delay and this caused the mineworkers to be dissatisfied. They were dissatisfied because the investigation was not made immediately. In paragraph 20 of this report we read—

So there must have been something wrong.

Read paragraph 21 also.

Let us look at paragraph 24.

Read paragraph 21.

Wait a bit. You will also get an opportunity to speak. When we read paragraph 24, we see all the things that were wrong. The paragraph reads as follows—

Do you wish to tell me that this is an ideal situation which prevailed in the office of the Government Mining Engineer? Was all the blame on the other side, and was the office of the Government Mining Engineer completely innocent, as the hon. member for Springs apparently wants to pretend?

But who was the Minister?

It is very clear that something was radically wrong in the relationship between the Government Mining Engineer and those people for whose safety he was primarily responsible. Hence this lack of confidence. That is why the mineworkers eventually went to the Minister direct. When they received no satisfaction from the Government Mining Engineer himself, they had no alternative but to go to the Minister direct, and in the circumstances the Minister had no alternative but to do what in fact he did do. It was his duty to act and to have the matter investigated. Therefore it was not political interference, as has been alleged. A very typical paragraph is paragraph 22 which reads as follows—

And now these very significant words—

The mine accident occurred in January 1960. This report was completed in December 1960 already. Then already they had to say that the efficiency of the Division in ensuring safety was to be attributed to the zeal of the staff, and in particular that of the acting incumbent of the Government Mining Engineer’s post. No other great organizational changes were made here. Certain things were done in fact, but none of these recommendations was then given effect to. The only thing that was done was to replace the then Government Mining Engineer, and conditions immediately improved. Then there was evidence that the safety of the mineworkers was being looked after in an efficient manner. This fact must be an indication of where the fault really lay.

Reference has been made to a number of the recommendations of this Commission. In the first part of the report 17 important recommendations are made. As regards the recommendations from No. 5 to No. 16, all of them have been adopted and almost all of them have already been put into operation. I shall first of all deal with these recommendations and thereafter revert to those recommendations which have not been adopted. Recommendation No. 5 reads as follows—

In fact this recommendation has not only been accepted, but it has been extended considerably. Provision has been made for the appointment of a second Deputy Government Mining Engineer and the number of assistants has been increased to four.

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me whether he, in view of what he has already said, is of opinion that the former Government Mining Engineer was incompetent and rendered unsatisfactory service?

Read the report.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must give me an indication whether he proposes to avail himself of the right to speak for an unlimited time.

The hon. the Minister has authorized me to avail myself of that right. As regards the question of the hon. member for Springs, I have already read from the report the findings of the Commission in that connection. Surely that is sufficient. Does he not wish to accept these findings? It does not seem so, for in spite of these recommendations he still finds it necessary to ask that question.

What does paragraph 86 say? Please answer my question.

I started to deal with the recommendations of this Commission just now. I pointed out that as regards Recommendation No. 5 the relevant recommendation has not only been accepted, but that it has been extended further. I should like to point out that these recommendations, i.e., from 5 to 16, were made as a result of the evidence of the Acting Government Mining Engineer, the Secretary of Mines and the Director of the Geological Survey Division. I want to continue dealing with each one of these recommendations separately. Recommendation No. 6 is as follows—

As regards this recommendation, I may say that a permanent safety committee has been established in which the employers as well as the employees are represented. This committee has met on several occasions already. Its terms of reference, inter alia, are as follows—

This Committee has already discussed important legislation as well as amendments of the regulations. These amended regulations have already been framed and will be introduced in the form of legislation next year. The committee in any case holds regular discussions and so it may be said that steps have been taken to restore the relationship between the employers and the employees and the Department of the Government Mining Engineer, and to remedy the defect that formerly existed in this respect. Recommendation No. 7 reads as follows—

In the legislation which has already been drafted, provision is made for giving effect to this recommendation. Recommendation No. 8 reads as follows—

Provision is made for this also in that legislation. Recommendation No. 9 reads as follows—

Such panel has already been appointed, and 14 persons have been nominated for it. Among these persons are the following—

In January, 1961 already, that is to say, shortly after this report was submitted, it was decided to establish this committee. The persons appointed to the committee have been appointed for a period of two years. So their period of service expires for the first time next year already. Recommendation No. 10 reads as follows—

Regulations have already been framed to give effect to this recommendation. Recommendation No. 11 reads as follows—

This recommendation has also been adopted in principle. Recommendation No. 12 reads as follows—

This recommendation also has been adopted and also recommendation No. 13, which is as follows—

Recommendation No. 14 reads a follows—

This recommendation has also been adopted.

When are you going to reply to the question of the hon. member for Springs?

I am now dealing with the recommendations of the Commission. Obviously you are not interested in these recommendations. Recommendation No. 15 reads as follows—

Effect has been given to this also. Recommendation No. 16 reads—

The Public Service Commission has decided to accept this recommendation and effect is therefore being given to it.

Now only the first four recommendations remain, about which I wish to say something. Time does not permit me to do so now, however, and I shall therefore have to deal with them at a later stage. However, permit me to point out that of the 16 recommendations 11 have been adopted and have already been put into operation. In fact, some of them were already put into operation even before the Report was submitted. Where legislation is necessary to give effect to some of the recommendations, that legislation has already been drafted and it will be introduced next year.

At 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.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.