Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion, that the following address be presented to the State President—

We are gathered here this afternoon on this historic occasion to take our leave, as a House of Assembly, of the first State President of the Republic. Not only to take our leave, but also, in the words of the address, to express our appreciation to the State President and Mrs. Swart and to place it on record in this way. I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that the fact that we are able to do so in the spirit prevailing here this afternoon is in truth the greatest compliment that we can pay the present State President. We have come to know him as a man of many abilities; we have come to know him as a man of wide interests; we have come to know him as a man with a fine sense of humour. We have come to know him as a man who has at all times displayed a sense of the historic and an appreciation of the finer things in life, but we have also known him—and his career of 44 years bears testimony to this—as a man who gave of himself unstintingly and who served unstintingly. During the five years of my term of office as Minister of Justice I very frequently came into personal contact with him on an official level, and subsequently as Prime Minister he and I worked together very intimately for several months. I was always struck by the devotion with which he fulfilled his office and by the meticulous way in which he discharged the duties attaching thereto.

You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the question of becoming a Republic was for many years a contentious, perhaps the most contentious, issue in our national life, and you are aware that the referendum held in regard to that matter decided in favour of the establishment of a Republic by a relatively small majority of just over 70,000. You, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members will agree with me that not only getting the Republic firmly established, but, indeed, getting it accepted by our people, therefore depended in large measure on the way in which the State President and his wife conducted themselves. And the success achieved in that bears testimony to the splendid way in which the State President and Mrs. Swart conducted themselves. It is true that all of us who play a part in public life are exposed to criticism; not only we ourselves, but very often our wives as well. Regarding Mrs. Swart I wish to say that in all the years she played a part in public life I for one never heard anybody say anything about her that was not said in praise, and because she too had a duty to perform and performed it in such a magnificent way, we also wish to convey to her, as is stated in the address, our gratitude and appreciation on this occasion.

†Sir, with the coming of the Republic we were all called upon to play our part to promote national unity. We are gathered here today to pay tribute to the State President and Mrs. Swart for the role they played to unite our people and to make it possible for our people, not only to accept the Republic but also to serve that Republic to the best of their ability. We are extremely sorry that circumstances, sad circumstances of which we are all aware, prevented us from taking proper leave of the State President and Mrs. Swart and to pay our final respects to them. I think I can say in all sincerity on behalf of all of us that we were extremely fortunate in our choice of our first State President. It was, I make bold to say, good to know him; it was good for us and South Africa to have had him. He served our people and our country with great distinction, and in this regard it gives me great pleasure to make the following announcement on behalf of the Government.

With the first State President’s relinquishment of office, attention has naturally been given to some means by which lasting homage can be done to him. Our Republic became a reality in 1961, with the result that when a decimal system of currency was introduced in that year, the effigy of the Queen of England on our coins was replaced by that of Jan van Riebeeck, the founder of white civilization at this southernmost tip of Africa. As the South African coins have such close ties with the Republic’s history and form an integral part of our daily lives, the Government has decided that it will be fitting to do homage to the person of our Republic’s first State President by substituting his effigy for that of Jan van Riebeeck on all coins normally in circulation to be minted in 1968. All coins from one cent to 50 cents issued during 1968 will accordingly bear the effigy of State President C. R. Swart.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely say that it is a great pleasure to associate myself and this side of the House with the motion just moved by the hon. the Prime Minister. I think that we will all warmly support the suggestion that the State President’s effigy should appear on the coins in 1968. I may say that I hope that perhaps stamps will not be forgotten.

I think this is a unique occasion. This is the only time in our history when it will be our privilege to pay tribute to someone who was the representative of the monarchy in South Africa and later the representative of our Republic here in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister made some small mention of the State President’s record before he became Governor-General. Sir, I do not propose to venture into that field. The State President was known to us as a controversial figure before he became State President. He was a tough politician, a hard fighter, but always a man with a most delightful sense of humour. I do not propose to revive the memories of those days. I want to concentrate on his career after 1959 when he became first Governor-General and subsequently the first State President of the Republic of South Africa. I think we all know that that was a difficult transition to make. Loyalties are not like jackets that you can put on and take off at will. There were very deep feelings involved and it was quite clear that much would depend on the first State President in assisting the transition from one type of State to another. I think one can say that it was here that the personality, the dignity and the tact of Mr. and Mrs. Swart played a vital role in making a peaceful and a complete change possible. It required qualities of human understanding, qualities of tact and an innate sense of propriety which very few people are blessed to possess. I think that both Mr. and Mrs. Swart proved themselves to be richly endowed with those remarkable qualities. Here, Sir, I want to associate myself very particularly with the charming tribute which the hon. the Prime Minister paid to Mrs. Swart. I think it was richly deserved and I think she will always be remembered as a First Lady who served with the greatest distinction.

Sir, the services of the State President of South Africa, not only to the Government as such but to many great organizations which are representative of the nation, and also to important constituent groups of the nation, were, I thought, outstanding. I think they were marked at all times by that devotion to duty of which the hon. the Prime Minister spoke, by sincerity and by untiring zeal.

Now that the State President and his wife are going to enjoy a well-deserved rest on his farm in his beloved Free State I think we can say that the good wishes of the whole nation accompany them. We wish him and Mrs. Swart well. We pray that they will enjoy many happy years of retirement together in the loving company of each other. I may say that I believe their association with each other has been an inspiring model to the whole nation. In the years to come I am sure that successors in office will often look back to the precedents established by the first State President and will hope to be worthy successors to one who had that unique distinction of being the last Governor-General and the first State President.

I second the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself, my colleagues and myself, as well as the Coloured people of our Republic, with the motion before the House, and with the well-deserved tributes paid to our retiring State President and Mrs. Swart. This occasion, I am sure, brings mixed feelings to our many hearts—joy and thankfulness that this occasion affords us a public opportunity of expressing our gratitude to one who has devoted almost his entire adult life to the service of his country and his people, and regret that this spells the exit of a lovable character into what, I am sure we all hope, will be a long and happy retirement. It is not given to many men to be permitted to sail through the storm of political strife into the save harbour of a happy, peaceful and honoured age, and to become not only the living symbol, but the actual respected friend, of his countrymen.

Our retiring State President, by the grace of God, has achieved this outstanding gift of fortune, and we are grateful that the nation’s choice should have fallen upon him as the first State President of our young Republic. By his impartiality and tolerance, by his absolute dedication to public service, by his friendliness with all sections of our multi-racial population, Mr. Swart has engraved his name in honoured letters upon the pages of our country’s history. In all his public manifestations, as the Prime Minister has so rightly remarked, he was at all times ably supported by his loyal and devoted wife, who always carried out her multifarious duties with exceeding grace and dignity.

It is our fervent wish that Divine Providence may spare Mr. and Mrs. Swart for many more years in good health and happiness, to enable them to enjoy to the utmost the benefits of a long and well-earned retirement.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party and myself I should like to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid to the State President and Mrs. Swart this afternoon, and to wish them many years of happiness in their retirement.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill repeals an Act which was passed in this House in 1948. That Act of 1948 was introduced into this House in the shadow of the ghastly explosions in Japan in 1945, and naturally with the thoughts and fears which existed at that time, it was a measure which tried to control the use of this powerful force, namely the splitting of the atom. It is understandable that such an Act should contain many restrictions. But many years have passed and many things have happened during those years to change the outlook and the thoughts of humans about this powerful force. Since then the world has learnt to control the use of this force, to some extent at least, it has learnt to make this great force useful to the human race. It is probably the greatest force available, a force which, if properly used, will probably do away with want, poverty and hunger throughout the world. However, by this Bill, instead of creating possibilities, instead of helping this country to use the power which it has in its hands, we have added restrictions to the existing Act, the Act which is now being repealed. I feel that in doing this the Government has taken a wrong step. When one realizes that within the next three years two private American firms will build 20 nuclear reactors and are seeking orders for the construction of other reactors, I think one can realize how much the peaceful use of nuclear power can be utilized without restrictions other than the ordinary restrictions demanded by the health and safety of the population. I am sorry to say that this Bill contains more restrictions than the measure it repeals. The one that is being repealed at least permitted discussion, but in this Bill we find that it is almost impossible for two nuclear physicists working in different laboratories in this country to carry on a conversation. Because if a student or worker in Pelindaba happens to meet a student or worker in the nuclear institute of the Southern Universities, and neither of them knew each other, and they discussed what is happening in their laboratories, it is quite possible that each of them would in their particular sphere feel that it is necessary for them to report to the Atomic Board that somebody was discussing secrets relating to nuclear power in the country. Not only that, but it will be impossible for any laboratory research worker or any worker in an institute supported by the Atomic Board to publish papers without the consent of the Atomic Energy Board. It is unlikely that the Atomic Energy Board would refuse consent, but in the case of scientific papers and discussions at scientific meetings, there is an inevitable delay because of the inevitable red tape. This is not conducive to happy service in those laboratories. Furthermore, the restrictions, particularly in clause 30 (1) (a), interfere with fundamental research. Fundamental research is not concerned greatly with the invention of military weapons or with assistance of industrial development. It is the fundamental investigation of basic knowledge. It is true that such research in the long run frequently leads to practical application, but in the beginning fundamental research should be free. I have no quarrel with the first half of this Bill. That is why this side of the House accepted the Bill. The second half of the Bill deals with the control of science and the control of individuals. If it is not seriously reconsidered, it will drive from the country some of our best brains who work in this field. This is a most interesting subject before the world to-day. This Bill, if not modified in these respects, will increase the brain drain from the country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Central) has taken a great interest not only in this Bill but in all matters relating to atomic energy. I know that for many years he made a study of this particular subject. I also know that he is particularly perturbed about the possibility of our scientists not having the freedom which he feels they ought to have. May I say that I have, since we had the Second Reading debate, had a very long and thorough discussion with the director-general of the Atomic Energy Institute. He has given me the absolute assurance that what we are doing in this Bill, and particularly in clause 30, is in line with what is being done all over the world. Secondly he gave me the assurance, and this does not only come from him, but also from other sources, that the staff at the Atomic Energy Board are very happy indeed. They work in a very happy atmosphere because they have a full opportunity to do their research work. It is not only encouraged, but also financed by the board and by the Government. Furthermore, ample opportunity for both members of the Atomic Board and for its staff is given to take part in international symposiums and discussions. For the safety of the State, however, in respect of such a very dangerous matter as atomic energy, and also to comply with international practice, it is absolutely necessary to take the measures we are taking in this Bill. May I also say to the hon. member that South Africa has, especially for such a small country, made considerable progress in the use of atomic energy for peacetime purposes and for uses which will be to the benefit of the human race, and not to the detriment of the human race. Furthermore I should like to point out to the hon. member that we have a very definite international responsibility in these matters. Where we are making this progress in harnessing atomic energy for peacetime use it is all the more necessary that more and more scientists come to the fore and take part in this particular type of research. It is thus even more necessary to have that check. May I emphasize that it will not in any way debar our scientists from doing research or from the opportunities which exist in other countries. I should like the hon. member to accept this assurance from me as emanating from a very thorough discussion with the director-general of the Atomic Energy Board.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I indicated that I would discuss with the hon. the Minister today the manner in which I think compulsion can be applied in terms of this Bill. I think it is not only a bill which contains provisions of compulsion implicitly, but in addition it makes provision for compulsion being applied in a discriminatory manner. The Bill creates a situation in which the hon. the Minister has absolute power. I should like to direct my remarks especially in regard to the first paragraph of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia, which reads as follows:

1. (1) seeks to place in the hands of the Minister complete and unfettered control of the use of land, labour and industrial development in the country.

In other words, it creates a situation where the hon. the Minister has absolute power. This Bill is a stage in the development of Government policy in introducing legislation, which we have observed in the House now for some time. It is a trend in Government legislation which I can explain by referring to two Bills in which I was interested. The first was a Bill to provide pensions for non-White servants of the Government. Naturally we were pleased to have a Bill of that kind, but when the Bill was introduced, it was not really a pensions bill at all. It gave no details of a pension scheme. What it did do was this: It gave the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions the right to create pension schemes by ordinary regulations issued by his department, and not one pension scheme for all non-White employees, but as many as he wished. He introduced this government by regulation. The hon.The Minister in introducing his Bill and in replying to the debate made his attitude perfectly clear. I want to quote one extract from his speech in reply to the Second Reading debate. He said:

In other words, we now have the situation where a pension scheme can be defined by a regulation of the Minister. That was the first case, where this autocratic power is placed in the hands of the Minister. I come now to the second case. About the first one I should like to add that the number of officers of the Government to whom the Minister could delegate his powers was practically unlimited. I come now to the second Bill with which we are more familiar because we passed it this Session. That was the National Education Policy Bill. I am not going to discuss the terms of the Bill. I want to discuss this trend of handing to the Minister absolute power. Under the National Education Policy Bill the hon. the Minister assumed powers over all White education in South Africa. He assumed the powers which formerly belonged to the Administrator-in-Executive Committee in the provinces. In doing so he has also assumed powers to state that by regulation he could nullify any ordinance passed by a province. In other words, we have there the same situation where he himself assumes all the power that is necessary so that he can control by regulation and it is unnecessary for him to state in the terms of the Bill what he intends to do. We know the answer to this. We have the same situation being created here where the Minister assumes powers to control the location and extension of industry. Of course we have here the same factor of the delegation of the Minister’s power. The Minister’s powers in this case are to be delegated to the Here VII. We used to have the Here XVII in our history of South Africa but now it will go to seven of the senior officers of the Government. The Minister has the power to delegate to them his powers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he regards it as a healthy trend in legislation that he should assume that power. Does he feel that it is the correct method? Should he not state in the Bill in a positive manner what he intends to do and how he intends to make provision for this new establishment of industry? I think that is the obvious thing to do. Of course the Minister said, as his predecessors did in the case of the other two Bills, that there will be provision made for consultation. What does this blessed word “consultation” mean? It is rather like the old woman who said that she gained much support from that blessed word Mesopotamia. It is a fine-sounding word and consultation is also a fine-sounding word. The English actor David Garrick said that a colleague of his, George Whiteside, could make people either laugh or weep by just pronouncing the word Mesopotamia. That is what consultation has come to mean in this House. Hon. members say in any debate, “Ah, but there will be consultation.” The hon. the Minister of Education said that he would have consultation as well. With whom would he consult? He said he would consult with the Administrators. He would also consult, he said, with the Education Advisory Committee. Who were they? They were a body appointed by himself.

Are you against consultation?

My point of view is this. It should not be necessary to have ordinary consultation. The powers should be laid down definitely in the Bill. What does consultation mean? When a Judge has to sentence a criminal, he consults him. He says to the criminal: “Would you like to say anything in mitigation of sentence?” He asks for his opinion. The criminal or his advocate gives good reasons and the Judge, if he is slightly impressed, says: “Well, I shall pass sentence to-morrow.” That is the attitude. The Minister can do the same. Everything depends on the personality of the Minister. Nothing positive is laid down in this Bill. That is our objection to the Bill. It creates an autocracy in government. It is government by decree, and the decree is issued by the hon. the Minister himself.

I want to come to this question of the establishment of industry. What is the driving force in the establishment of industry? Hon. members tell us that if people wish to serve South Africa, or if they are interested in the Government’s policy and wish to support it, they will establish industries on the borders of the reserves or in areas dictated to them by the Government. Men do not establish industries for that reason. There is only one important motive. All the others are subsidiary. The important motive is the profit motive. Men will establish industries where it is going to pay, and pay dividends. The only people who do not do that are the Industrial Development Corporation, which has been established for a different reason, to establish Government industries. But when men have to establish an industry under private enterprise—and we are all agreed that that is our system—they are interested in the profit motive. Is it going to pay? Will it pay dividends? When I say “Will it pay dividends?” another matter comes to my mind. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister was here when we discussed the report of the Industrial Development Corporation. They gave us the story of the Cyril Lord Company. They spoke about, not the failure of the company, but the exceedingly difficult time they have had, establishing their industry on the borders of the reserves. They explained the reasons. That was not very encouraging to the other industries that wished to establish themselves there. The I.D.C. said the situation was almost catastrophic. Perhaps the Government can act in this way. They are spending the public’s money. But when the ordinary entrepreneur establishes an industry, he investigates to see whether there is a profit, whether it will pay.

The next point I wish to deal with is the hon. the Minister’s explanation of what has happened in other countries by way of comparison. The hon. the Minister told us that in Paris provision was made for the zoning of areas for industry, offices, etc. He need not have gone to Paris; he could have gone to Parys, because Parys, like any South African town, makes provision for zoning. They have zoning for industry and for residents just as Johannesburg. Cape Town or any other city in South Africa has. He spoke about the situation in London. There is a county council for London and its area. I think someday, if the Government intends to abolish the provinces, we may have a county council for the whole Witwatersrand. I think that might come. Then the hon. the Minister spoke about the situation in England and pointed out that the Government was bringing pressure upon the industries to decentralize.

The Board of Trade.

The story is different there. In England there are certain areas which were depressed areas. Those areas were in Lancashire, along the Tyne, the Clyde and in South Wales. Those industries, after a long successful period, after they had flourished, found that ship-building, coal-mining and the cotton industries had faded. But they had the infrastructure, about which we hear so much, at their disposal. They have the infrastructure and the Government says industries will go there; you have transport and roads and power and communications and you can establish yourself there. That is the policy in Britain, and it is also a good policy here because we have an area rather like that. We have discussed it here. We had a motion by the hon. member for Benoni in the last Parliament, Mr. Ross, and the hon. member for Brakpan made a valuable contribution to that discussion. The hon. members for Benoni and Springs are interested in this because we have in the East Rand not an area that is depressed but an area where the industry on which it was established is gradually failing. The mines are gradually becoming worked out. Therefore I think the hon. the Minister should indicate what he intends to do there. He should indicate in the Bill what provision he is making. It is no good telling them to do the best they can in the meantime and he will help them when the time comes. They want a positive statement in regard to the concessions that will be made to industry. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the concessions which have already been made to establish industries in the border areas have not been sufficient. Has the Industrial Development Corporation advised that there should be further concessions? Because if that were necessary, we could discuss it in the Bill. We have emphasized here that there should be inducements and not compulsion. We should say to these people that if they go there they will have special concessions, particularly in regard to transport and the establishment of an infrastructure. But here we have a perfect example, on the East Rand, as I mentioned, where you have the infra-structure and where we are anxious to see industries established.

I want to refer to a point which was mentioned by the hon. the Minister. He said that if the situation developed further, in Johannesburg especially, we would have difficulty with Soweto; it would be necessary to provide facilities for education and for residence, etc. But the hon. member for Krugersdorp asked why the companies did not provide housing; why should they leave it all to the Government? Sir, the companies offered to do so. They said they would build houses for their employees, but the Government refused; there could be only one system, sites and services. We also went further. When a Native township was to be transferred to the new area, we said that people who had property rights should retain those rights. But the companies themselves, if approached, I am sure, will make provision, as all industries have done. I think provision can be made for that.

I want to say what I think about this Bill itself. If the intention of the Minister is to persuade industry to decentralize and to go nearer to the Reserves, I think the provisions of the Bill are far too drastic. I do not think this will do. The hon. the Minister now has the right to say to one industry that he will support it, and to say to another industry he will not support it. I think that is unsound. That is not a positive step. I think a member said that it was a negative Bill with a positive result. I think it was the hon. member for Florida who said so. What are we to do with the Bantu who have to be moved? We have been told that in this Bill there is a Bantu in the woodpile, that it is part of the Government’s policy to remove Bantu from the Witwatersrand and other areas. But where are they to go? To the farms? Well, I have worked out from the latest statistics available that the number of Bantu employees compared with Whites on the farms is about 50 to 1. That is for male employees, and for female employees it is over 400 to 1. Where are they to go? To the farms? Should they go back to the Reserves to starve? What is the policy of the Government? These people are employed profitably now in the industrial areas. Why should they not have an opportunity to develop there? We have housing and transport. It will be necessary to improve the transport from time to time, but we have these things. The infrastructure is there. We have the power and everything that the Minister has mentioned, but still the Minister says they should be removed from there. I should like the Minister to tell us what is his policy in regard to the future of these people. They cannot go to the farms. The farmers say they have too many already. When I gave those figures, I was not speaking of casual employees, but of employees who are employed on the farms permanently. Where are these Africans to go from the Witwatersrand and other similar areas? What is the policy? I have never understood what the Government intends to do with these people. We say they should be educated, so that they can go to the Reserves, but the Government will not give them a secondary school in Soweto. They say they must go to the Reserves to be educated. The policy has always been to bring the school to the child, but in this case we say that the child should be sent away from his mother and father and from his home surroundings. He should be sent to the Reserves. Perhaps the hon. member for Heilbron will help me here. He knows it is true that the commercial men in Johannesburg offered to build a commercial school in Soweto and pay for it, but they were refused permission. What is the policy to be?

But Soweto is not their home.

It is the only home they know. Hon. members opposite wish those children to go there to learn the hymn I learned at Sunday school, “There is a happy land far, far away.” This happy land is the Bantustan. But the children do not know where the Bantustan is. It has no meaning for them. They were born and bred in Soweto and their parents were born and bred there, but now they are told that the Bantustan is their homeland. But they belong to Johannesburg, or the East Rand, or the West Rand. I appeal to the Minister to tell us what he will do with these people who are displaced. Now people have to come to the Minister if they wish to employ an extra African in a factory, because that means an extension of the factory. That is the definition. If you employ an extra African, you are extending your industry.

We will not take the children away from their parents.

I have only one concluding remark to make about this Bill. If we continue in this way we will come to the stage where the Minister will introduce a Bill one of these days to say it is unnecessary to have clauses or to have a debate; the Minister shall have absolute power to control all our industries by regulation in any way he wishes.

In characteristic fashion the hon. member for Kensington tried once again to ask a whole series of questions to which he knew the replies as well as anybody else. The fact of the matter is that the United Party as a whole, by the nature of its spirit and constitution, has always been the Party to take the line of least resistance under all circumstances. If one studies the history of that Party, one can understand why they always take the line of least resistance, as they are also doing in the case of this legislation. The Party was originally constituted of irreconcilable elements, and the moment a stand had to be taken on a matter of principle, there was conflict and friction, and rather than to take a stand, they did nothing at all. This became the spirit of the United Party, also during the period when they governed the country, to such an extent that the motto of one of their great leaders was: “Let things develop.” [Interjections.]

Where were you during the war, Marais?

Order! Are we back in the war once again?

That is the spirit of the entire United Party. They take the line of least resistance under all circumstances. They are unable to take a strong and unwavering stand on any issue. They simply have no attitude in principle. Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen any United Party member put his fist into the air and say: “We stand by the Graaff Senate-plan, come what may”? No, they simply refuse to take a stand. Have you ever seen the United Party take an unwavering stand? No. The policy of the United Party is always: “If matters develop in this way, we shall do this, but if matters develop in that way, then we shall do that.” The best description I could have for the United Party is to say that they are in actual fact like lukewarm jelly. The form in which it settles once it cools off depends on the mould in which one pours it. If one pours it into a round bowl it is round, and if one pours it into a square dish it is square. They take no stand. They always first want to see what happens before they adopt their attitude. The National Party, on the other hand, adopts the attitude in respect of this Bill and in respect of all issues that one has to follow the right course, no matter how strong the resistance may be. It does not take the line of least resistance; it follows the right course to achieve the ultimate objective for which it aims deliberately and purposefully, and whether that course is fraught with problems and difficulties, whether it goes uphill or downhill, we follow that course, the right course, because we have an ultimate destination for which we are heading deliberately and purposefully. That is the difference between the two Parties. Do you know. Sir, what the true state of affairs is? It is illustrated by the numbers in this House. The Party which is following the right course and which is following a course which heads for an ultimate objective must naturally always move uphill, because it is always more difficult to reach heights; that is why we are moving uphill and that is why we reach heights in our numbers and in our policy and in our constitution. The United Party, on the contrary, has taken the line of least resistance since it was founded, and what course is the line of least resistance since it was founded, and what course is the line of least resistance? The road downhill, not even the level road. There is less resistance on the downhill road than on the level road. They have consistently moved along that downhill road, until they reached their present position as far as their numbers are concerned—in the swamp—while we are up there on the mountain peak.

Even the hon. member for Durban (Point) is pulling with slack traces.

Yes, with them it is like a donkey cart; all the traces are slack, but the cart follows behind because it is a downhill road.

Mr. Speaker, to come back to the Bill which is before us at present, what is the basic concept in this measure? So much has been said about the Bill, but I should like to state a few basic concepts here. At present industries are established in South Africa, some in the border areas, some in the urban areas and some in the rural areas. This Bill does not contain one provision in terms of which those industries could be shifted somewhere else. Number two: In the years ahead new industries will naturally be established. There will be a need of new industries; the capital and the raw materials will be available and new industries will be established. This Bill provides that when new industries are established, the hon. the Minister will be able to select those new industries. He will be able to say: “I am prepared to allow this industry in this area, and I am not prepared to allow that industry in that area.” The reasons for his selection are set out very clearly in clause 2; they are the question of labour, the question of water, the question of land, and all those things. It is as clear as crystal. The hon. the Minister will be able to select only new industries; he will be able to say: “This one may be established here.” He is not going to tell an industrialist: “You may not establish your industry here; you must go there.” The hon. the Minister merely has the power to tell the industrialist: “You may not establish your industry here,” and then the industrialist can draw his own conclusions.

The third argument is that existing industries would want to expand. This Bill provides: “… an extension of a factory means any increase in the number of employees employed in such factory,” if the proposed amendment of the hon. the Minister is read with the clause. In other words, it simply means: If an industrialist says: “I want to treble my capital.” the hon. the Minister of Planning will tell him: “If you want to do so in Johannesburg, you may do so with the greatest of pleasure.” If the industrialist wants to extend his buildings, the Minister will also tell him that he may do so with the greatest of pleasure. If the industrialist says that he wants to employ 30 or 40 additional Whites, he will be subject to no restrictions, but as soon as he wants to increase his number of Bantu labourers, the hon. The Minister will say:“Let me first look at your application to see whether it is a reasonable or an unreasonable increase.” The Minister then judges and says: “Yes, you may do so” or “No, you may not do this.” This is quite clear. If the industrialist says that he wants to replace his Bantu labour by Coloured labour, then there is no problem. This Bill places no restriction on that. It deals exclusively with the increase of Bantu labour in certain areas to be proclaimed by the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, how will this measure function in practice? Surely that is clear. In terms of clause 9 a committee is to be established comprising seven persons. This committee will consist of men who will serve on it and who by authority of the Minister and of the Cabinet will lay down a certain course of policy for themselves, and if an industrialist wishes to extend his industry he will not first have to go to the trouble of drawing up plans and approaching the City Council; he will very soon learn from experience that right at the outset he should pick up the telephone and contact this committee and say:“Look, this is what I propose to do; this is what I want to do in this specific area; is it in line with the policy prescribed by you at present or is in in conflict with it? These are my needs and this is my situation.” He will then be able to get guidance from that committee immediately. The committee may then perhaps tell him: “In terms of the present policy we cannot allow that, but if you did this or that, it could be done.” Surely that is clear as crystal. The committee will be contacted for advice; that advice will be given in a practical fashion. If people want to be recalcitrant, if their motive is purely personal profit and not the interests of the country, if despite the advice of the committee they persist in their attitudes, their application will be rejected, and should be rejected. Would the United Party not have such applications rejected? So much for the establishment of industries. But this Bill also contains restrictions in respect of land. At present there is industrial land which has already been proclaimed. At the moment there is no statutory power of any nature in terms of which the further planning of that land can be controlled. In other words, if industrialists want to establish industries on that land which will employ an excessive number of Bantu labourers, there is at present no statutory power in terms of which this could be prevented. Here I want to mention one example mentioned by the late Dr. Verwoerd on a previous occasion. He mentioned the example of sawmills in a certain town on the East Rand. The hon. member referred to the East Rand, and I want to ask him whether this is the kind of industry he would recommend for the East Rand. This example of the sawmill was mentioned by the late Dr. Verwoerd while he was still Minister of Native Affairs. There was a sawmill in a certain East Rand town. It belonged to three white proprietors, who employed 200 Bantu. The three white proprietors then quarrelled and each of them went and founded his own sawmill, i.e., three new industries. As a result, three industrial sites were taken up immediately, but the proprietors employed no additional Whites. The Bantu labour establishment in one case was 120, in the other case 200, and in the third case 90. How did the town council of Springs benefit by that? The town council of Springs then had to provide housing for 410 Bantu in its location, instead of 200, while still having only three white taxpayers, whom it had had previously. In the third place three of its most valuable industrial sites in that highly industrialized area were occupied by this kind of industry. How did industry benefit by that; how did the town council of Springs and South Africa benefit by that? That is the kind of thing which this legislation seeks to prohibit. I want to ask the Opposition whether they are not in favour of that kind of thing being prohibited? At the moment we have no legislation in terms of which such extensions to industries can be prohibited. At the moment it is done by appealing to people to cooperate, people who agree in goodwill, but statutorily the Government has no right to prohibit the establishment of such industries, unless this measure is passed. Mr. Speaker, let me state it in practical terms: Precisely what are we going to achieve? There is a certain number of additional industries which are in any event going to be established in South Africa by the year 2000. All this Bill seeks is to be able to ensure that the right type of industry will be established in the right place. All this Bill seeks is to allow those industries which are not Bantu-labour intensive to carry on and to develop in the metropolitan areas or in the rural towns, where we are so anxious to establish points of growth, and to encourage the establishment of Bantu-labour intensive industries in the border areas. They will be assisted and incentives will be provided to induce them to go to the border areas. What is the United Party’s method of dealing with this same problem? They say: “We believe in freedom; the industrialist must be able to go where he pleases.” Do you see, this is once again the line of least resistance. It is in fact the typical United Party policy—the line of least resistance. They want the industrialist to be free to go wherever he likes, and if he wants to establish himself inside Johannesburg with his enormous Bantu labour establishment, then I may not say a word against it; I must simply allow him to go there because he must supposedly be free. The United Party say that they believe in free competition and free movement, in this country: for that reason that industrialist must simply be free. In this era in which we live this concept of individual freedom and this idea of freedom border on licence and recklessness. I do not want to say this in respect of industry, but in fact in respect of the individual. Where is the world heading with its exaggerated yearning for freedom. this yearning for individual freedom? Apparently one may do whatever one pleases, even if it is the silliest thing conceivable. Surely the greatest freedom, by all the rules we know, lies within the law—there we have the greatest freedom. If we allowed this situation, it would simply become impossible.

Now I want to say at once that the factors which are usually taken into consideration in planning such an industry, namely raw materials, a market, water, labour, capital, transport, etc., are generally known. But there is one factor of location which the United Party loses sight of altogether in its opposition to this measure, and which I think industry is losing sight of altogether. It is an extremely important factor in the location of industries. I am referring to the factor of security and stability with a view to the future. If there were no control, if the Bantu could move freely to the urban areas, if the industries in the cities could expand as they please, no matter what congestion it caused, it does not demand a great deal of intelligence to realize and to accept that concomitant with that influx there would be progressive development of the Bantu population in that area. Their standard of living will increase; their educational facilities will be such that in course of time they will attain a higher standard of living. And in course of time they will begin to make demands because they will refuse to reconcile themselves to the prevailing circumstances. I say that they will begin to make demands, and not only economic demands but also political demands. They will be justified in making those demands if they can gain permanence in those areas—and the world will help them to make those demands. This could have only one final result. It will jeopardize the White’s position and the stability that has prevailed through the years, to the detriment of the country, to the detriment of civilization and to the detriment of the industrialist. His entire investment will suffer the same fate as that which we have seen in so many African states to the north of us. Our industrialists are losing sight of that factor in location if they fight this legislation. If we bear that factor in mind, I say that security is more important, and the guarantee of stability is more important, than all these other factors. It would be folly to do anything of that kind. As I have said, the attitude of the National Party is: We want to locate the right industry in the right place; we want points of growth everywhere, and we want matters to develop in this way. The National Party wants industry not only to serve itself selfishly, but also to serve the country like any good taxpayer and loyal South African. That is the task we expect of industry. We must choose to-day. We must choose whether we should allow industries to go where they please, spurred on purely by the motive of money and profit, with the result that the nation and civilization are undermined, or whether we should choose that industry be guided to act wisely for the benefit and security of everybody, and also for their own benefit.

On a previous occasion—it was a rather informal and social occasion and for that reason I am not going to mention the name of the hon. member—a fairly senior member of the Opposition said, “Well, let us be merry—we are the last of the aristocrats.” It was said in a convivial moment, and for decency’s sake I am therefore not going to mention the name of the hon. member. That is the attitude; we are the last of the aristocrats, afterwards the blacks will take over, or it will all be gone. That is why the attitude and the train of thinking of that Party are entirely fatalistic. Their attitude is: We are the last generation to live in this way—after us everything will be gone anyway; let us therefore enjoy it; let us enjoy life; why should we try to solve difficult problems; why should we try to unravel difficult problems? Why should we face problems and seek solutions to difficult situations? Their attitude is: Let us take the line of least resistance. Surely that is the easiest. Meanwhile we enjoy life. As for the generation that follows us, it is a pity, but the factor of time and the era have decreed that we should be the last of the aristocracy to live in this way.

If the Opposition persists in adopting this attitude, the following generations will never forgive them for what they are now doing. I do not want to lecture to the industrialists, but I do want to tell them this. It appears to me as though the approach of the industrialists should simply be the following: When an industrialist has to decide where to locate his industry, he considers his location factors. Now I simply want to say that in these areas which will be reserved by the Minister in terms of this legislation, there will simply be no Bantu labour available to industry. Those who are in fact there are there only temporarily and will in due course be removed to their homelands. There is therefore no more labour available, and why would an industrialist be so foolish as to establish an industry where Bantu labour is not available if he needs it? If no water had been available, surely the industrialist would not have considered locating his industry there. Now this measure tells the industrialist that in certain areas no Bantu labour will be available to him. It would therefore be foolish of him to go and establish his industry there.

I remember very well that quite a few years ago—at the time I was a fairly junior member of this hon. House—Mr. Robinson, at present Sir Albert Robinson, was appointed High Commissioner of the Central African Federation in London. On his way he paid us a visit because he had previously been M.P. for Langlaagte. He addressed us in the old caucus room of the Government Party. On that occasion he defended the policy of his Party in Rhodesia—at the time Sir Roy Welensky was Prime Minister. I do not want to tread on Rhodesia’s toes now; I shall not go into that. What he said I just want to relate briefly to the specific legislation before the House at the moment. He explained to us the policy of “partnership”, etc., and amongst other things he said that in order to generate points of growth and to make the country develop as rapidly as possible in the economic field, they were doing everything in their ability to bring the Bantu from the reserves to the urban areas. He said that they were encouraged to take up training there as labourers, etc., in order that their economy might develop at a tremendously rapid rate. On that occasion the M.P.s were all sitting together, and I remember very well that the hon. member for Kensington, who spoke just before me, was sitting right in front of me. Me immediately brought that to the attention of the hon. member who was sitting next to him, and said that in Rhodesia they were making special attempts to draw the Bantu workers from the reserves to the cities, whereas in South Africa we apply influx control in an attempt to keep our Bantu from the cities. Under the circumstances nobody is trying to level reproaches. But I think we should learn a lesson from what happened there, without leveling reproaches in any way. Let us just learn the lesson and realize that to draw the Bantu to the white cities will merely have the result that they will make demands, demands which will not stop at economic demands or housing.

We are always hearing from the Opposition that economic laws can never bend. They say economic laws are inflexible—they simply transcend everything, and must be obeyed. According to them an economic law is invariable. I quoted a certain instance here on a previous occasion, and I want to quote it again because I think it is apposite. In our history there were two occasions on which certain factors proved conclusive, in one the economic laws were the decisive factor, and in the other practical politics was decisive. The results were widely different, and the result of the application of practical politics was the favourable and advantageous one. Let me illustrate what I mean.

In 1860 the sugar farmers in Natal complained to the then colonial government in Natal that they could not get workers. The Zulu were not willing to work in the sugar cane plantations. Economic laws demanded that they should have labour, and they then insisted on Indian labour from India. Economic laws prevailed, because the Government yielded and Indians were imported in large numbers, without any control, to come and work in the sugar cane plantations of Natal. As a result of that we are facing the situation to-day that the Zulu are working on the plantations while the Indians are one of our problems. In that case economic laws prevailed. I now quote another example. In 1906, shortly after the three years’ war, the Chamber of Mines complained that they could not get labourers for the gold-mines, and they demanded that Chinese be imported to come and work in the mines. Chinese were imported into South Africa on a large scale, and the gold mines continued operating with Chinese labour. But practical politics simply demanded that we did not want those people here, and the reaction on the part of the people was such that they did not want Chinese here. General Botha, as Prime Minister of the Transvaal in those days, i.e. 1906, 1907, had the courage of his convictions and sent the Chinese back to China. And to-day our gold mines are operating just as well, or even better than ever, and we have no Chinese problem. Here we had an example of economic laws versus practical politics.

What are we doing in this legislation under discussion? To me this Bill is one of the small pieces in a large jig-saw puzzle which represents the layout of South Africa—it is an important piece, because as soon as that piece has been put into its place, it will be possible to fit in quite a number of other pieces. For that reason I say that this Bill is a very important piece in this jig-saw puzzle.

The United Party can no longer even fit their pieces together.

No, the pieces of their jig-saw puzzle are scattered far and wide. In the Afrikaans language struggle of former years the question was asked at one stage: “Is dit ons ernst?” This gave rise to the clarion call: "Laat dit ons ernst wezen!” And then Dr. Malan, the politician, came and said: “Dit is ons ernst.” As far as politics is concerned the National Party is saying to the United Party and to the whole world—to the industrialist and all others—that it is a matter of serious concern to us to keep this country white; we are not merely talking—we are serious about it, we are going to do it. That is what we are doing in this Bill. We are honest, we are sincere, we mean it, and no matter how difficult it may be, we are going to carry it through. The ultimate objective the National Party has set itself in its policy of separate development is total separation in all fields. That is our ultimate objective.

But Dr. Malan and Adv. Strijdom denied that.

Let me make this matter very clear On 15th September, 1958 (Hansard, column 3805), the previous Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, put it as follows—

The emphasis is on “to-day”.

That is the attitude of the National Party, and it is still that to-day. This Bill is measured by that yardstick, namely whether it strives towards ever-increasing separation between the races with a view to future total separation. It has passed this test. In fact, it is even more incisive—in this Bill we are already beginning with the territorial separation which is here mentioned as an alternative. The points of growth are being created.

Every generation will have to contribute its share and will have to do its share to promote that ideal. I know that at this stage it is not possible to foresee the entire process. But every generation should do what it can and with due regard to labour, economic and other conditions it should work in that direction. If every generation continues doing its share, there will ultimately be a generation which will be able to cut the final knot and to achieve total separation. But if one generation is too flabby in spirit and too spineless to contribute its share, everything is undone and our people will in future never have an opportunity to cut the knot finally. Once we have pursued this process to its conclusion, to total separation …

Where is the separation in this Bill?

… once we have reached the stage where the Bantu will be in his own area and the white in his and where we will be able to manage without the Bantu and the Bantu without us—I know hon. members on the opposite side may throw up their hands, but I want to tell them that if one has no ideal one will never get anywhere—only then will we as a white nation complete our task as guardian to the ward. Surely the ward does not always remain subservient to the guardian; surely he does not always remain dependent on the guardian. The concept of guardianship means that the ward is trained to the point where he can become free. Otherwise it is not the relationship or a guardian to a ward, but that of a master to a slave. If we carry the concept of guardianship with us, matters have to develop along those lines —independence without the danger of self-destruction. That is how far we have to pursue this matter. This legislation will contribute towards that and the Government is moving strongly, positively and purposefully towards securing the survival of the white, despite the slackness of spirit in the United Party.

The hon. member who has just sat down referred to a speech made by the late Dr. Verwoerd in 1958—ten years ago. But what the hon. member forgot to mention was that Dr. Verwoerd set a period of 20 years in which he intended to accomplish this “magnificent obsession” which he had, that this Nationalist Party has. 1978 was the date and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has staked his reputation on that. Well, they have had half of that time already and what have they accomplished? The answer is that White South Africa, as they like to call it, is more black than it was then. That is all that they have accomplished. The hon. member for Randfontein spoke about the “kragdadigheid” of the Nationalist Party, mentioned that it had a positive approach and was following a definite role. But, I ask you Sir, has anything more negative than this Bill ever been presented to this House? Nothing more negative has ever been presented to this House. It is merely a manifestation of their pathological fear of the Bantu people and until such time as they are prepared to face up to this they will get nowhere in South Africa. They think they can draw a line arbitrarily in South Africa, push the Bantu people to the other side of the line where they will be out of sight and become no longer the responsibility of this Government and then we need worry about them no longer. As I have said, this is the most negative approach we have ever had. I want to go further and say that it is no longer responsible—this Government is no longer being responsible. If we want an example let us take the example given by the hon. member for Randfontein when he spoke about the industrialist who wanted to expand and everything was approved until such time as he wanted more Bantu labour when it was stopped. Later on in my speech I will comment further on what was said by the hon. member in this connection. I shall also refer to some of the comments made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. But let me say now that this example sums up completely the attitude of this Government towards this Bill. This Bill is not what is written in its title. The hon. member for Randfontein admitted as much; the hon. member for Heilbron admitted it.

What is good in this Bill?

The only part that is good in it is what you left alone. There is no intention here to plan or control the national resources of this country. This Bill has one object only and that is the forced removal of the Bantu people from what this Government likes to call White South Africa. The hon. member for Randfontein said this Bill was going to help and assist the Bantu people to progress. Has he read the Bill? Did he read clause 13 where the Bantu areas are specifically excluded? How is this going to help the progress of the Bantu people? I shall refer to that later as well. Of course he displayed the most abysmal ignorance when he referred to the sugar cane lands of Natal. He said that the Indians were introduced to work on the sugar cane lands of Natal because the Zulus would not work there. [Interjections.] I am not disagreeing, Sir. So far I agree, but when the hon. member asked what the position is to-day and says that the Indians are a problem in South Africa and that the Zulus are working in the cane fields …

That is not so.

Thank you. The hon. member agrees with me. It is not so. Of course it is not so, and the hon. member for Randfontein should know so. He should know that to get people to work on the sugar fields, we have to import them from outside the country. When we cannot get Pondos to come to Natal to work, we fetch Shangaans from Portuguese East Africa. With regard to the mines and the Chinese the Government is creating other problems. They are creating a problem in regard to the Malawians who are being imported to work in the mines. No, Sir, I am afraid that I cannot accept the arguments of the hon. member for Randfontein.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Queenstown has left. He was here a minute ago. I wanted to take him to task for what he said yesterday about the number of jobs provided in border industries. It is quite obvious that he, like everybody else in the Government, does not know how many jobs have been provided. [Interjections.] I do not claim to know. I have tried to find out, but nobody can tell me. The hon. member for Queenstown also referred to the fact that for every one person mentioned in certain figures which were quoted, there were two more outside, including one who was the lorry driver. The other one was the packer or the one who closed the gate. Those people are included in the figures which the hon. member for Queenstown quoted.

They are not.

With respect, Sir, the figures in respect of workers in factories include all the workers employed by the factories.

And in the building sector?

What building?

The buildings which are going up, the roads which are being built, etc.

What building? What roads are being made?

The post office.

What post office? Where is it? This is the very answer I am waiting for. There is no infrastructure, and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows it. He knows that it is completely and totally wrong to say that for every one person in employment in a factory, there are two outside. He knows it is entirely wrong to say so. There is no infrastructure. It does not exist in the border areas. [Interjections.] Show me one border industrial area which has this infrastructure which the Government refers to. Show me one with satisfactory, sufficient and adequate services for the industrialists. Not one of them has adequate services, and even Pietermaritzburg.

Just watch Hammarsdale at the end of the year.

Hammarsdale does not have these services. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows it. This is the point. This Minister and his Department should be concerned with the planning of this very infrastructure I am talking about. There must be co-ordination of planning. Instead of having every Minister and his Department running off and empire building and doing as they please, this Minister and his Department should be coordinating these matters, and providing the post offices, the rail facilities, the roads, water, amenities, housing and things like that. He should be coordinating the planning so that everything will be developed together. [Interjection.] I did not hear what the hon. member said. When we come to consider this Bill, we must consider its history, what has gone before and what has occasioned this Bill. What has made the Government introduce this measure? We have had the development of this ideal of border industries. It was first mentioned in 1956 and its implementation started in 1958 but not until 1960-’61 did the Government really get under way with this development. We have had many claims by hon. members opposite as to the fantastic results they have achieved in the short space that this policy has applied. On the 21st June, 1966, we had the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration saying:

On the 28th August, 1966, he said again:

He went on to say:

Little did we know how prophetic that statement was to turn out to be. In November, 1966, we had him again saying:

To prove this he went on to say that there were 300,000 Bantu employed in industry and services in these areas and that meant that nearly 1,000,000 people were making a living there and had been kept out of the metropolitan areas. Surely this must indicate a degree of success in regard to their policy. Was the hon. the Deputy Minister not satisfied? If he honestly believed that a million people have been kept out in five years, surely this would have been a fantastic achievement? Surely he should have been satisfied with the progress if that was correct? But now we find that that is not the case. Other statements, too numerous to mention now, have been made by the same hon. gentleman, hon. Ministers and hon. members on the other side. The question is this: If these statements are correct and if such fantastic results have been achieved, if industry has now accepted this policy and if this development is gathering momentum, as hon. members on that side have claimed, why is this Bill necessary now? If in only five years a million Bantu are making a living, as is claimed—and this has been achieved with voluntary co-operation by industrialists because there was no compulsion at that stage— and it is gathering momentum, as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has claimed, if these fantastic results have been achieved, why is there a necessity now for a Bill to compel industrialists to go to these areas to conform with Nationalist Party ideology? Nobody on that side wants to answer this question. It is because the Government knows that notwithstanding the grandiose plans that have been made, it has failed. This policy has failed dismally. The statements which have been made by hon. members on the other side have been made with the sole object of pulling the wool over the eyes of thinking South Africans. It has failed economically and they know it. The hon. the Deputy Minister told us the other day that it costs R6,000 to provide employment for one Bantu in the Witwatersrand area. The figures which I have been able to find, as I told the House the other day, showed that it costs R9,000 to provide employment for one Bantu in the border areas. That is what it has cost the country to date. Accumulatively it has cost over R400 million. The only authoritative statement concerning the number of employed Bantu is 44,600. Anybody can work it out for himself. It is R9,000 for one job.

[Inaudible].

Which figure applies to which area?

The figure of R9,860 applies to urban areas.

The hon. the Deputy Minister told us it cost R6,000 in the urban areas and R9,000 in the border areas.

Do you know how many Bantu are now working in Hammarsdale? There are 5,000.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is guessing. The Deputy Minister has access to the records and there is a system of labour bureaux. The Deputy Minister should know to the last Bantu how many are working there. [Interjection.]

How many fewer worked there six years ago?

Six years ago there were fewer, of course. I concede that. We know what development has taken place, but if this development has been so fantastic, why this admission of failure by the Government? Now they have to compel them … [Interjection.]

We first of all had to overcome your efforts to sabotage our policy.

I resent that. The Minister knows I fought for this development.

I hoped the Bantu would get some concrete benefit from this development, but I was sadly disappointed. Sociologically also the Bantu have got nothing out of it. Ideologically it has also failed, because firstly this border area development has failed to keep apart the separate Bantu nations. It has failed to keep them separate. Bantu of all the so-called nations are gathering at these so-called growth points, and does the Government think they will ever be able to separate them again? They will never do it. Secondly, this concept is working in reverse, because most of the workers in the border areas are living in the white urban areas and on Fridays they go home to the white urban areas. That is what is happening. [Interjection.]

Thirdly, and this is the biggest failure of all, this Government has failed to sell its ideological concept to the people of South Africa, and particularly to the industrialist. This Bill is the Government’s final admission of the failure of its border industry policy, which is based on its apartheid ideology and not on sound economics. This Bill is merely another manifestation, as I said earlier, of how serious the hon. the Minister of Finance was when he made the statement in this House which was repeated just now by the hon. member for Randfontein, that this Government would bend and, if necessary, would break the economy before it would budge one iota from this ideological policy. It is obvious that the Government has failed to draw industries to the border areas by the inducements it has offered. Secondly, it is obvious that the Government has failed to persuade the Bantu voluntarily to remain in their so-called homelands, let alone to return to them, by the development of border industries and the creation of work opportunities there. In other words, it has failed to sell its ideological concept to the people of South Africa and it has failed to make white South Africa more white, as I said before. Now, after all this and because it has failed, it is resorting to compulsory measures to force its ideologies on the industrialists of South Africa and, through them, on the people. [Interjection.] These measures of compulsion which have now been placed before us in this Bill come after statements which have been made such as the following—

Another one—

And of course there is the one which was quoted earlier: “No compulsory measures will be applied to force intending industrialists to establish themselves in border areas.” All these statements were made by the late Dr. Verwoerd. He was talking in connection with this policy of the development of border industries. Now there seems to have been a shift from this Verwoerd policy of fruitful cooperation between the Government and private enterprise. He is the one who spoke about fruitful co-operation and no compulsory measures. Sir, I do not know who is to blame for it. I think we will call it a “Blaar” policy, because after all it was this hon. gentleman who gave us the first intimation of this Bill. Funnily enough, this followed on a radio talk he gave on 28th August last year, in which he said: “I am sure this can be done without undue, if any, interference with normal economics and industrial development in these areas.” He was referring to the metropolitan areas. [Interjection.] I think we have heard enough evidence in this House during the last two days to doubt what the hon. the Deputy Minister said then. Anyway, after he had made this entirely reasonable statement which everybody accepted, we had the same Deputy Minister saying in this House on 12th October last year in Hansard, Col. 4103, certain things which showed his true colours. He said—

He was talking about the industrialists and he continued—

Then he went further and said—

And this is it.

You need not get so excited. That is the intention of this Bill.

Is it the intention of the Bill to compel industries to go to the border areas?

The intention of this Bill is that industries employing large numbers of Bantu workers will not be allowed to establish themselves in the metropolitan areas.

So they will be compelled to go to the border areas.

I am not saying that.

We have the admission we want. I do not think it is worthwhile going any further with this. [Interjection.] As I have indicated from these quotations, here we have the shift from the honeyed word and the talk of co-operation to the wielding of the big stick—co-operate or else, and this Bill is the “or else”. In addition to this compulsion, this Bill removes all provisions for consultation with commerce, with provincial authorities and with local authorities.

The Chambers of Industry and also the Industrial Councils have made it abundantly clear that they oppose any measure of compulsion and any form of licensing, even this so-called permit system which is being introduced by this Minister, and that they resent any intrusion by this Government into the free competitive enterprise system which has pertained in the past. All democratic people will reject this waving of the big stick by the Government.

The hon. the Minister, in his Second Reading speech, referred to legislation in other countries, but other countries offered suitable inducements and not merely the implementation of an ideological policy. That is the only reason why this Bill is being introduced. We have heard that and we are satisfied on that point. But let me say this: Not one of our cities is even a quarter of the size of one of the metropolises overseas to which the hon. the Minister referred. He said that he had the added problem of the Bantu people. But they are not a problem in the economic sphere. That is something this Government must understand; they are not a problem in the economic sphere. As an hon. gentleman said in the Other Place only the other week, “we lean too much upon the Bantu.” That hon. gentleman is a member of the Government party and I think he hit on the truth when he said that. We are leaning too much upon the Bantu, but this hon. Minister and his followers in this House do not seem to appreciate this. We must accept the Bantu people as part of one integrated economic unit in South Africa.

I do not follow your argument.

I say we must accept them as part of one integrated economic unit, and once we have accepted that, then only will we be able to solve the other problems facing us in this country. I find, Sir, that I am supported by the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard. I find that on the 10th May, he said in East London—

Like Lesotho and Botswana for instance.

The hon. the Deputy Minister therefore accepts that they are part of one integrated economy as we have said all along. Why this compulsion, why this move to separate them? That is what we want to know.

The hon. member for Randfontein says that it is still apartheid.

Sir, that brings me to clause 13 of this Bill. Clause 13—unlucky 13 —excludes the Bantu areas from all the provisions of this Bill. Why are the Bantu areas specifically excluded? Two questions arise: Firstly, does the development in the Bantu areas not need planning? Secondly, is it not planned to develop the Bantu areas? Sir, I would like an answer from the hon. the Minister to that question when he replies. What is the intention behind the insertion of clause 13? Is it that we do not intend planning and developing the Bantu areas, or is it that that development does not need planning? Although it is apparent that the hon. the Deputy Minister was aware of this provision, he still made that statement on the 10th May in East London. [Interjections.] On the same day the hon. the Deputy Minister said—

I call upon the hon. the Deputy Minister now to persuade the hon. the Minister to drop clause 13 of this Bill. Why should this Bill not be applied to the Bantu areas? Or is the hon. the Minister going to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister insisted on the inclusion of this clause? I almost gathered that from what the hon. Minister said. But, Sir, I repeat my plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister to persuade the hon. the Minister to withdraw that clause; it is not necessary. If this measure is to be forced through, which is apparent, then let us see some good come of it and let us see rapid and planned development of the Bantu areas.

I felt sorry for the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) this afternoon. He tried to make out a case, but he struggled a great deal. I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition whether they are concerned about the fact that our cities are gradually being swamped by Blacks, and whether they stand by the statement made by their hon. Leader at De Aar, a statement in which he said that he, too, would like to see a decrease in the number of Bantu in the urban complexes. Do they stand by that?

Of course …

If that is the case, I am asking the hon. member for Simonstown why they are opposing this legislation.

You must listen.

Let that hon. member, who is so courageous, tell us how he is going to reduce the number of Bantu in the urban complexes.

By offering proper inducements at the right places.

Hon. members of the United Party know that they cannot do that if there are no measures empowering them to do so, and that is why these control measures are being introduced, to en sure that our cities are not swamped by more and more Blacks. The hon. member for Kensington said this afternoon that the industrialists were supposedly prepared to provide the Bantu with housing, provided that they could retain the right of ownership in accordance with the policy of the then United Party Government.

No, you are confused.

Did the hon. member not say that they wanted the right of ownership?

[Inaudible.]

Fine, then I shall leave it at that. I want to tell the hon. member for Kensington that the main reason for our having such a struggle in South Africa at present with this problem of our cities being gradually swamped by the Blacks, is the laxity and neglect on the part of the United Party Government to have implemented influx control properly. At present we are still making up that leeway. Mr. Speaker, this is the tragedy of the time in which we are living: The moment this Government introduces legislation—no matter how good it may be, no matter how essential that legislation may be, no matter how conducive it may be to the welfare of our country—it is all of a sudden described by the Opposition as ideological legislation if the words “Bantu” or “non-White” appear in it. Then no arguments, no matter how good they may be, can convince the Opposition; the good qualities of the legislation are ignored, and it is fought tooth and nail by the Opposition. But they do not only fight that legislation; they go even further and they arouse suspicion amongst members of the public outside. They drag in other bodies to fight that legislation along with them. Mr. Speaker, for many years already warnings have been issued against the concentration of industries at a few places in the Republic of South Africa, particularly on the Witwatersrand, in Pretoria, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban. These warnings have not only been issued by the National Party, but even leading economists are warning that the conditions which are developing in those complexes, will become unmanageable later. Over the past few years it has to a certain extent been agreed that this development in the urban complexes is unsound. This problem is not only found here in the Republic of South Africa; it is a problem that is even being experienced in England. In England, where they have the system of free enterprise, the authorities avail themselves of legislative powers to effect the decentralization of industries. However, there is one aspect which is peculiar to South Africa, namely that owing to the composition of our population we in South Africa have an extraordinary problem. In the Republic of South Africa we have four ethnic groups. We have the White ethnic group, the Coloured ethnic group, the Bantu ethnic group and the Indian ethnic group, and because of the composition of our various ethnic groups our industrial problems are of a more serious nature. It is in fact the National Party that has created prosperity in the Republic of South Africa. The National Party is responsible for the development of this industrial giant. The National Party is the one that came with the policy of “South Africa first”. The National Party was the one that started processing our raw materials here in the Republic. The hon. member for Yeoville will remember very well how, in the olden days, our raw materials were shipped, one after the other, to Mother England to be processed there. After that the manufactured articles were shipped back to South Africa in huge crates adorned with the Union Jacks the words “Buy British”. However, those days belong to the past now, and the United Party is supporting the National Party as far as that is concerned. Those days belong to the past. Is the local processing of the raw materials of our own soil not something that was accomplished by this Government? Is it not this Government that introduced sound, effective industrial legislation based on job reservation amongst the various ethnic groups? This gave rise to industrial peace, racial peace and a country free from strikes. At present this industrial giant of ours is being housed on only 3 per cent of our country’s surface area. The fact of the matter is that 80 per cent of the gross production of the private secondary industry is being produced at present on this 3 per cent of our surface area. One of the consequences of this concentration of industries in this small area, is a concentration of the population which implies serious problems and high costs, both for the communities concerned and for the individual. One of the problems which is being created within the metropolitan area, is that of providing the four different ethnic groups in the Republic of South Africa with proper housing. In the years immediately after the Second World War we saw how high the price was the country had to pay for an unhampered influx of people in the form of an enormous housing problem and social evils. The preventive measures that were taken at that time benefited the whole country, also the Bantu and the other ethnic groups in our country. Those bad old days are past, but the danger exists that South Africa will have to pay another high price if its industrialists do not co-operate more enthusiastically in locating their factories in such a way that the industrial pattern is better adjusted to the population pattern.

It has become necessary to-day to bring a group of Bantu from the Transkei so that they may work in the major cities, Johannesburg and Cape Town and others. It may be that this has more immediate advantages than proceeding in a different way. But in the long run the country may benefit much more if that factory which needed those extra Bantu, had moved closer to the Bantu homeland. We must not underestimate the dangers of this desire to enjoy temporary advantages only.

Is the object of this Bill then to assist in creating homelands?

It is, amongst other things, one of the objects of this measure also to take the non-Whites back to the homelands eventually, to create for them the necessary opportunities there. That is one of the objects of this Bill.

Will you enlarge the homelands then?

Why should the homelands be enlarged? Do you know how many people the Transkei can assimilate if it is run properly? It can carry 15 million people. Do you know that the Transkei is one of the most fertile areas of South Africa? I think that you do not know where the Transkei is. But give us an opportunity to develop the Transkei. Everybody who is not blind will know what phenomenal expansion and progress has taken place in the Transkei over the past few years.

Not as far as public servants are concerned.

Yes, we do have public servants there, but what will happen if those white public servants are taken away? Is it not in fact the policy of the National Party that the Bantu should be emancipated? The white official should help the non-White and should not leave him alone. We do not have the position one finds in many other African states, where the Bantu were left to their own devices. We are helping them properly and we shall continue to do so as long as we govern this country.

[Inaudible.]

You are from Texas—keep quiet.

I say thank you very much to the hon. member for Durban (Point). The hon. member is correcting me and I owe him a great debt of gratitude. It happens rather often that we understand each other.

I shall help you any time.

Amongst our industrialists in particular there is the belief that Bantu labour is cheap. That is an impression that has become established very firmly to-day. That is why it is difficult to deny that Bantu labour is cheap. Nevertheless, South Africa should long ago have learnt the lesson that this labour, when it is in the form of a flow of Bantu to our existing cities, is in actual fact expensive labour, particularly if we consider its social and political consequences. To-day it has almost become the fashion amongst all our industrialists that a factory is not a factory in name unless it has been established within the urban complex or within the metropolitan area. We also find this in our Public Service, and I am vehemently opposed to this outlook. Every Government Department feels that it should establish itself in Pretoria. Unfortunately it is the case to-day that a Government Department does not consider itself to be a full-fledged Government Department—and public servants do not consider themselves to be full-blooded public servants—unless the Department has established itself in the heart of Pretoria. The same outlook prevails amongst our industrialists. They feel that if they cannot establish themselves in Johannesburg, Cape Town or Durban, they no longer count. They think that all the other places—be they border areas, be they smaller cities or towns—are of no importance. The time has now arrived for this expensive fashion which the industrialists and the city councils are so fond of following, namely simply to want to accommodate any sort ot factory within the metropolitan complex, to be extirpated root and branch. That fashion must really be stamped out.

If we look back at the past period, we find that our present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has been trying, also in the days when he was the Deputy Minister, on a voluntary basis with the various local authorities, to establish the right industries within specific metropolitan areas. He has been doing everything in his power to have the right industries establish themselves at the right places. To-day I want to express my thanks and appreciation to all those local authorities that have been co-operating in trying to achieve this ultimate object of ours, namely reducing the number of Bantu within the urban complexes. But even where that cooperation existed, the Western Cape was the area which took the lead in realizing this great danger of being swamped by the Blacks. Several years ago the Western Cape started on a voluntary basis to remove the Bantu from its own area. Since the Western Cape has taken the lead, it is imperative at present for the North, where that black stream is flowing with much more force, not to lag behind. In view of the fact that here in the Western Cape a beginning has been made in removing the Bantu, we felt this is a very formidable problem and that we should think about this matter soberly, and that is why plans should be drawn up and that is why everybody’s cooperation is essential in this field. If I call to mind the speeches that were made in this House when the mines on the East and West Rand were closed down, and if I call to mind the speeches the ex-member for Springs and the ex-member for Benoni made here when they accused this side of the House of creating ghost towns on the East Rand and the West Rand by establishing industries in the border areas, then I want to know what has happened to those members. The electorate lost confidence in them. They are no longer here today. Only their ghosts are still haunting this House.

Did ghost towns develop on the East and West Rand? Is it not this very Government that helped those city councils with the development of industries in that area? Was it not this very Minister who allocated industrial land to certain town councils so as to help them to expand further? The National Government is the Government that established those towns. But if we look to-day at the way the urban complexes are being swamped by Blacks, and at the report that was submitted to the City Council of Johannesburg, then we find this. The report deals with the Bantu population and its housing and other Bantu needs, and it recommends—

Further on they say—

It goes further by saying that urgent representations are to be made to the authorities for an inquiry to be made into the provision of additional transport facilities for passengers between Soweto and Johannesburg, and for a start to be made as soon as possible with the construction of a main connecting road between Soweto and Johannesburg.

Who is asking for those things?

The Johannesburg City Council is asking for them. This is a report that was drafted by its officials. Soweto and the entire Johannesburg complex covers 26 square miles, and here an additional six square miles is requested so as to accommodate the natural increase there.

Why do you not close it up?

We do not want to close it up. That is not our intention. Listen to my speech. If we look at that report, we find that more than half a million Bantu have been housed in that complex this year. In 1980 there will be 794,620. Do these hon. members realize what it means for 50,000 new Bantu from the Bantu homelands to house themselves in these enormous metropolitan areas? Do they realize what tremendous adaptability those people have to evince in coming to this large area? Do they realize how those people must feel when they come from their homelands to work in these large areas, to do work of which they have had no previous experience? Is it therefore not of much greater value to take these factories to them? I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow a question, because he has knowledge of mines. Has he ever stood still and looked when those thousands of Bantu who are perfect strangers get off at those mining compounds? Has he seen that fear and that terror in their eyes? Does he realize what it means to them to come and work there as complete strangers? Those hon. members are laughing about it. They know how a white person feels when he takes up employment at a strange place. If we look at Johannesburg and the development that has taken place there, then I want to ask any member here this afternoon whether it is to the advantage of the Republic of South Africa that Johannesburg should become bigger and bigger and that it should become blacker. Then we may talk about a black danger. I want to ask hon. members this afternoon how we may extend road communications or introduce more train services to Soweto. What are we going to do with that whole complex within Johannesburg? To-day it takes an invalid in a wheel-chair less time to travel down Eloff Street than it does an industrialist in a large, black American car. An invalid can do so much faster. Do hon. members of the Opposition realize that we want to bring relief to this large complex? Do they realize what major problems are being created there? Since we are discussing physical planning to-day, I want to ask whether the industrialist has ever thought of contributing his share. I want to ask hon. members on the other side whether they know that in the Witwatersrand complex there is one factory which employs more than 4,000 male Bantu.

Where is that?

It is situated on the East Rand. The hon. member knows what I am referring to. Is that good planning? Is that not poor planning? Will hon. members of the Opposition concede that if that factory had been situated inside or near a homeland …

Inside!

We are not ashamed of that. We shall help them if the raw materials are there. Hon. members need not become excited now. I know the policy of the National Party. I want to ask those hon. members a question. What would the purchasing power of that area have been if that industry had been established there? How happily would those families not have lived together! But what does the industrialist do? Has he ever given a thought to changing his working hours? It has become the fashion amongst all of us that every factory should start at 7 o’clock in the morning, come winter or summer. The Railways must see to it that those people arrive at a certain place at 7 o’clock. Have we ever given thought to staggering the working hours a little so that some start at 5 o’clock, some at 6 o’clock and others at 7 o’clock? Why must a worker rise at 5 o’clock on a winter morning to go to work? What is his productivity on such a winter morning? Nothing. [Interjections.] Do not ask Ben. Ask the industrialists. Why should he have to do that? Why can the industrialists not accommodate us as far as that is concerned? I want to go further. Why can our educational bodies not accommodate us either? Why should the local authorities have to see to it that all the children arrive at all the schools at a given time? I want to put forward this suggestion to the industrialists. I want to say that we should make better use of our hours in the summer. We must work longer in the summer months. In winter we must work shorter hours. In that way fewer man hours will go to waste. In this way this hon. Minister tried to set about these matters on a voluntary basis. He was very successful, but the problem is much more serious than the man in the street realizes. Now the Government has introduced this measure. This legislation will still be described in the future as the legislation of the century. It also brings assistance to the under-developed areas. It brings prosperity to both the Bantu and the Whites. It will bring prosperity to those remote places. [Interjections.] Do you know what, Sir? At the next elections our majorities will be greater and greater. The majorities of the Opposition will shrink and shrink until nothing remains. I want to say that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) will be defeated. [Interjections.] The hon. member for East London (City) will also be gone. This legislation will also eliminate the bottle-necks in our urban complexes. This legislation will enhance the productivity of every factory. The hon. member for Hillbrow must pay attention. The old belief that Bantu labour is cheap, now belongs to the past. Now proper deliberations will take place as to whether another Bantu should be employed and whether something else should be tried instead, because now every industrialist will have to obtain permission before he may employ an additional Bantu. Then the matter will be investigated properly. Those old laissez-faire ideas will vanish into thin air. Proper investigation will be carried out as to whether that additional Bantu is necessary. In that way we shall enhance the productivity in every factory in the Republic of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for Brakpan for having put one of the issues in this Bill before us so clearly. He made the statement during the course of his remarks that Johannesburg was too black and that we should stop it from becoming blacker. I want to submit that Johannesburg proportionately is one of the whitest places in the whole of South Africa, figuratively and literally. It is one of the few spots in South Africa where the Whites are holding their own and more than holding their own in relation to the black people. I shall devote some time to try to establish that in the minds of hon. members like the hon. member for Brakpan. The difficulty is that, having listened to this debate and having read the speeches I could not hear myself, I am astounded at the confusion of thought in the minds of the apologists for the Bill. I was for example interested to listen to the hon. member for Randfontein, who made out that this is really a segregation measure, that it is a major measure on the way to “totale apartheid”, to the achievement of the ideal of total separation in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration of course believes that we have one integral economy in South Africa for all the races. He even pulls independent states into that integral economy, but the hon. member for Randfontein will persist, in spite of the contrary statements of the Deputy Minister, that the ideal is total apartheid, including, if it is total, economic apartheid or economic separation. It must be so, because all of us who have been in this House for a while can remember the eloquence we had from hon. members on the opposite side in trying to establish that economic segregation is vitally necessary for the future. I can remember the eloquence with which the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party used to tell us that if we have economic integration to-day, the next step inevitably must be biological integration, with all the bloody undertones of that suggestion. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, who at the time was a member of our party, will remember that that is the philosophy of the party to which he now belongs, namely that economic integration must lead to complete integration, including biological integration.

You are talking nonsense.

Of course he. knew it was nonsense when he was with us, and he has not unlearnt it yet. If he wants to be a good Nationalist he will have to remember that economic integration is the precursor of biological integration. I am not trying to cross-examine hon. members. They can answer me at their leisure, but I want to pose this question generally: Where does this measure do what the hon. member for Randfontein and so many other speakers from the other side have claimed? Where does it advance economic segregation? To my mind that is the cardinal question. If it is the Government’s policy and the Governments belief that they must have greater and greater separation of the races, then border industry does not advance that policy; for the immediate visible consequence of border industrial development is that one establishes factories with white capital, white skill, white enterprise on the white mans side of the border of the reserve, but one has to draw ones labour from the other side, from the black mans part of South Africa, to come and work in the factory. We shall have the same economic integration at Pietermaritzburg or Rosslyn or Queenstown or King William’s Town or East London, as we have to-day in Johannesburg or in Port Elizabeth or, to a smaller extent, in Cape Town. I cannot see how it advances in any immediate sense of the word the ideal of total apartheid: It shifts the geographic location of economic integration and that is all. It shifts it to an area fraught with greater danger for the peaceful development of South Africa than Johannesburg or the other existing cities of South Africa, as I shall show.

What is it that the Government wants to achieve? Is it greater segregation? Is it a forward march on the road to total apartheid as has been suggested, or is it purely negative, namely that they want to reduce the growth of a city like Johannesburg, in view of the fact that that growth depends to some extent upon black labour? The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration as long ago as 1962, when he was Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, made it perfectly clear that that was the purpose, namely to achieve a more favourable ratio of White to Black in the present white areas of South Africa. For example, he spoke to the 11th Annual Congress of* the Institute of Administrators of Non-European Affairs of South Africa at Mossel Bay on 28th August, 1962, and said this—

Then he went on to give other examples, and then he said—

That is very interesting. But now, what is the position? Let us accept that as the ideal. The ideal should be to establish a ratio of 1 to 1.5, White to Black in the industrial areas, and if possible, we should improve upon that ratio. What is the factual position to-day? If you look at South Africa, there are very few areas where that ratio is achieved, but Johannesburg is one of them. I have here statistics compiled at the time we celebrated the Golden Jubilee of our Union. It is the only statistics where I could find the figures presented in this form, and these figures are very interesting. We find that in 1960—and the ratios could not have worsened since then—the position for the whole of the Witwatersrand of economically active and non-active Whites and non-Whites was that there were 1,018,086 Whites and 1,567,093 Bantu. That is a ratio of just under 1.5. Show me another part of South Africa where you have a ratio so favourable to the Whites. For every 100 Bantu in that area, there were 64.9 Whites. If you look at industry, if you look at the economically employed in that area, it is even more interesting. In Johannesburg, in the manufacturing industry, we then had 41,944 Whites and only 53,231 Bantu. On the whole of the Witwatersrand, for all industries, you had 98,012 Whites employed as compared with 253,113 Blacks. But it is the manufacturing industry against which this Bill is directed! [Interjections.] I want to return to Johannesburg for a moment. You will find, Sir, that in agriculture—there is some agriculture round about Johannesburg—there are 945 Whites employed and 5,049 Blacks, a ratio of almost 1 to 5. In mining and quarrying, which is of course a “plekgebonde” industry, you have 4,889 Whites to 33,000 Blacks. In industry I have given the figures, 41,944 Whites and 53,231 Blacks. In construction you have 10,998 Whites to 16,438 Bantu. In transport and communication there are 12,851 Whites to 8,721 Blacks. Then you come to public utilities, which must exist in any case, and in electricity, gas and water you find 2,080 Whites and 4,929 Blacks. Finally, we come to something which is very interesting. It is called “Government, etc.”. I have tried to find out what the “etc.” is and I find it is local authorities and domestic employees. There we have 40,963 Whites as against 130,098 Blacks. The point is that if you want to reduce the ratio of White to Black workers, employees in secondary industry, with which this Bill deals chiefly, to a ratio of 1 to 1, which surely is the ideal, you only have to remove 11,000 black workers from all the secondary industries of Johannesburg to get a ratio of 1 to 1. But you will not have affected the ratio as a whole in any material sense at all. What you will have done is to create a greater demand for black labour because those 11,000 Blacks will probably be replaced by Whites and you have created a greater demand for Government services and domestic services. What have you solved? I want to suggest that the Government has not done its homework in making this attack upon the industries in our cities.

I want to take it a little bit further. I want to emphasize that the undertakings, the form of enterprise in our cities where the ratio of Black to White is most favourable to the white man and most closely approximates the ideal the Government sets itself, is in the manufacturing industry. Now the Government wants to break down this ratio. It wants to force these industries, which keep our cities proportionately whiter than any other area of South Africa, to the preponderantly black areas on the borders of the reserves. I want to illustrate my argument further by asking the Minister to have a look at the position in the Transvaal, and I want to quote an authority, the only authority who demographically has analyzed the situation in one of our provinces, and fortunately for the purposes of this discussion, the key province, the Transvaal. I want to refer to Dr. J. M. Scheepers, who a year or two ago presented a thesis for his doctorate at the University of South Africa entitled Die Bevolkingsverbreiding van Transvaal, ’n Korrelatiewe Kartografies-geografiese Analise van die Mens-landverhouding. If you read this thoroughly authenticated and substantiated document, which should be compulsory reading for every Member of Parliament, and certainly for the members of the Cabinet, you find that you cannot escape this conclusion, that the Transvaal is predominantly a black province, one of the blackest of the four provinces. But the industrial towns I am speaking of are proportionately the whiter parts of the Transvaal. And, if one adopts the criteria of the Government, they are the healthiest areas of the Transvaal. Let me read what Dr. Scheepers has to say—

He goes on to say—

But that is not Johannesburg. [Interjection.] Yes, I concede that if 16.06 per cent of the Transvaal is pitch black, it is Nat as well. He continues—

Further I should like to read this to you, Sir—

Those are the white areas of the Transvaal, and not one of them is to be a border area under the policy of the Government. I now want to find out what the Government wishes to achieve.

That is an entirely superficial argument.

It is an entirely true argument. It is an argument based on facts. We on this side of the House are concerned with facts, and hon. members opposite are concerned with pipedreams. That is the great difference between us. The point I want to make is this, that according to all authorities who examined this situation, the best prospects for peace and peaceful co-existence—and we have to co-exist in this country whether we like to or not—exist in the urban areas because in those areas, the industrial areas, you have people, Black and White, who have a common purpose. They work in common factories and they form a common urban community and their interests are interrelated and interdependent. They have a common allegiance. They are subjects of a common State and they are obedient to the laws of a common Government. To some extent they have a common interest in maintaining law and order. But what is the position where you have the juxtaposition of black areas developing on separate lines in a separate direction to a separate destiny, next to white areas which are developing again towards a separate destiny of their own, and with no common purpose or common interest and no common allegiance, because if the Government and the hon. member for Randfontein have their way, soon there will be no common allegiance between the black workers in the border industries and the black owners or managers of those industries on the white side of the reserves, and there will be no common interest in maintaining law and order in the same community. Here I again want to quote from Dr. Scheepers, who has made a close study of the matter, based upon the facts. I have no reason to believe that Dr. Scheepers is a supporter of the United Party. I only have reason to believe that he is an independent scientist who has made a study of this situation. Here are his conclusions—

Then he defines these areas and pinpoints them on the map. Then he says—

Where Rosslyn is being developed—

Another border industrial area—

Another border industrial area—

Another border industrial area. Sir, what the Government is doing is that they want to take draconian powers to compel South African industries to move away from relatively safe areas where you have a healthy ratio of white and black inhabitants to areas where the potential of friction is greatest. But, Sir, that is not all. I want hon. members, especially those hon. members who represent workers in this House, to consider what the consequences of this may be to the standard of living of the white workers in South Africa. When we discussed the Labour Vote I took the opportunity of speaking at length, for half an hour, on the danger of making low wages a major inducement to attract industries to the borders of the reserves. I do not want to repeat that; I want to develop another thought in the few minutes left to me. The trade union leaders of this country are concerned that an ever-increasing proportion of the workers of South Africa, because of our labour laws and labour conventions in this country, are not part of the collective bargaining machinery of South Africa. They are unorganized, and this reduces the bargaining powers of the trade unions vis-a-vis their employers. It is theoretically possible, if the border industries develop, where industrial council agreements are not applicable, where job reservation is not applicable, where the conventional colour bar is not applicable, that so many jobs and types of jobs will be done by black people from the reserves that the employers will be powerful enough as a result to ignore the representations of the white trade unions because they will not be representative in any way of the employees of that area. Sir. I say that this is a grave danger to the standards of living of the white workers of this country, and to the bargaining powers of the trade unions of South Africa, upon whom firstly the standard of living of the workers depends and secondly the success of the principle of collective bargaining as applied in South Africa. The more I look at this policy, the more convinced I am that it is a policy conceived in folly.

If I could misquote Milton and apply it to this policy I would say “thy brood of folly in ignorance bred”. It is quite clear that this problem has not been studied and that its consequences have not been studied. If the idea is total apartheid, in every sphere, as my hon. friend the likeable member for Randfontein says, then I assume that we revive the theory that in time these areas will become politically sovereign. Sir, has the Government considered what the consequences for South Africa will be if our major industries are compelled to establish themselves on the white man’s side of the reserves and the labour comes from the black man’s side of the reserves, from sovereign independent countries. Are they going to stop those independent countries from having trade unions operating in the white-owned factories on the other side of the borders of the reserves? How do hon. members opposite think the Governments will react in cases of industrial disputes? Will the white Government go against its own white citizens who own and manage those factories? Will the black Governments go against their own black citizens who work in those factories and who are involved in that dispute? Or will every industrial dispute threaten to become an international dispute which may end heaven knows where? [Laughter.]

No, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education must not laugh. [Interjection.] Yes, he can laugh as much as he likes but I challenge him to get up and to say to me that it is not the policy of this Government to draw the labour for these white factories from the black areas of South Africa. He must tell me that it is not the policy of this Government to permit those areas to develop to full sovereign independence, if they so wish, and. thirdly, he must deny that this Government intends to support its own subjects in disputes. Let him stand up and tell me where I am wrong.

Tell me how many Basuto work here.

Sir, probably hundreds of thousands of visitors work here. The hon. the Deputy Minister, after having made grandiose announcements about dumping the black workers from Cape Town and the Peninsula back into the Transkei, has already had the embarrassment of being rebuked by the Prime Minister of the Transkei, which is not a sovereign independent country, when he protested against this announcement and said: “What must I do with these people when they arrive here?” The hon. the Deputy Minister was embarrassed and he had to soft-pedal. I can imagine what the situation would be if the Transkei were an independent sovereign state. They will simply refuse to accept these workers. He asked me a few moments ago whether any difficulties had arisen because of his policy. Sir, the Transkei is not even an independent state yet and difficulties have already arisen. Where will they end?

There has been no difficulty at all.

There is not the slightest doubt that Kaiser Matanzima put the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education in his place. He has been much more modest and much less frivolous in his approach to this problem ever since then. They are now talking about what will happen to these black workers when they are sent back to the reserves. But, Sir, there is a simple challenge to the Government. If they believe in total apartheid as an ideal, then they should advance it. You do not advance total apartheid as an ideal by trying economically to integrate whole reserves with the economy of the white man through industrial development on the white man’s side of those reserves, in close proximity to the reserves. If you want to advance total apartheid, then you will use all the resources of the South African State, if you really meant it. Where are these young people in the Cabinet who are so determined? If they are so determined, why do they not do everything in their power and employ the resources of the South African State to further total apartheid by encouraging development inside the reserves? Why do they not abandon this self-centred, selfish attitude of theirs that in order to change the ratio of population in the cities, to the advantage of the white man they must establish industries not in the black man’s reserves, but in the white man’s territory, using the labour of the black man from the reserves? Sir, that is the policy of the Government. I accuse the Government of insincerity; I accuse them of frivolity; I accuse them of superficiality; I accuse them of utter shallowness in their approach to these problems.

This afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville used more or less the same arguments the hon. member for Hill-brow used yesterday, only the hon. member for Yeoville made much more use of gestures than the hon. member for Hillbrow did. The hon. member for Yeoville was much more melodramatic than the hon. member for Hill-brow, but basically their arguments were the same. They claim that this legislation and the application thereof are an illogical step, because it is applied to secondary industry but not to agriculture and mining, and then they quote us figures to prove that the ratio of Bantu workers to white workers in the Vaal triangle and in the cities, is better than the ratio in the rural areas. I agree whole-heartedly that if we merely looked at the figures as they were in the year 1960, we would find that in the smaller country towns, in the servicing activities and in factories, the ratio of Bantu workers to white workers was 220 to 100, whereas the ratio in the 14 major industrial areas in South Africa was 183 to 100. But if we compare the employment figure in the mining industry with the employment figure in the manufacturing industry, we find that the ratio of Bantu workers to white workers in the mining industry is two to five times higher than the ratio in the manufacturing industry. But, Mr. Speaker, all these arguments and figures do not impress me. If we look at the development that is going to take place in the future, and if we look at the nature of these various industries—the primary sector (the agricultural, fishing and mining industries) on the one hand, and secondary industries on the other hand—then the first characteristic that strikes us is the fact that one’s primary industries—among which I include mining—are location-orientated industries as against the manufacturing industry which is not necessarily location-orientated. It stands to reason that these location-orientated industries, such as mining and agriculture, cannot so easily be expected to get rid of their Bantu labour or to move to another area. If we look at agriculture, we find that mechanization can only progress up to a certain point, whereas the manufacturing industry is pre-eminently the field of production where mechanization and automation may be applied on a much larger scale than has been the case so far. I also want to point out that if we look at the development that will take place in the future and at what the trend was in the past, we find that there has been a consistent downward trend in the contribution made by mining and agriculture to the gross domestic product in South Africa. The percentage contribution of agriculture to the gross domestic product in 1960 was 12.3 per cent, whereas it was estimated at 9.4 per cent in 1966. The contribution of mining to the gross domestic product in 1960 was 13.8 per cent, whereas it was estimated at only 12.5 per cent in 1966. As against that the contribution made by the manufacturing industry increased from 18.5 per cent in 1960 to 21.9 per cent in 1966. We must accept that the greatest contribution to the total domestic product— which is now being estimated at approximately R7.6 billion for 1966, and which, at current prices, will amount to R44 billion in the year 2000—will be made by the manufacturing industry. If we want to lessen the hold Bantu labour has on the white homeland for the sake of the demographic situation in South Africa in the future, then it is to my mind a logical step for us to turn to the manufacturing industry in the first place.

Having listened to the debate conducted on this Bill over the past few days, one is struck by the fact that a measure such as this one in fact clearly shows up the differences in outlook between the National Party and the United Party. This debate has given us a clear indication of the picture that the National Party holds up to South Africa in the future and of the picture that the United Party holds up to South Africa in the future. Through the mouth of its speakers in this debate, the United Party has made it clear to us that what it sees in South Africa, is one large Bantu population of 12.5 million, and that that 12.5 million Bantu must look to the whole of South Africa for their contribution to the total national economy; that they (the United Party) see the whole of South Africa as the national homeland of the Bantu as well. I am making this statement mainly on the strength of three arguments that were used by Opposition speakers here. In the first instance, the statement was made this this legislation should be fought because it was supposed to be ideological legislation; they do not fight this Bill because they are opposed to the decentralization of industries; they are fighting it on ideological grounds. The second statement they made is that the Government had supposedly introduced this Bill because it was admitting that the policy of border area development pursued so far, was a failure.

The third argument that was advanced by speakers on the Opposition side was that they fought this legislation because the industries were not being persuaded by means of consultation and other inducements to go to the border areas, but force was being used to cause industries to decentralize and go to border areas. In its outlook and also with the introduction of this Bill, the National Party, on the other hand, recognizes the national aspirations of all the various Bantu peoples in South Africa and also of the white people. It sees before it a picture of South Africa in which the national happiness and the development of all its peoples should be promoted positively. That is why I see this Bill as a positive measure which seeks to effect orderly planning and which must lead to the stimulation of development in and around the Bantu homelands, and to the creation of new points of growth, also in the homeland of the Whites. Therefore it is also in accurate to allege that the policy of border area development has been a failure so far. The policy of establishing industries in border areas is a policy which was only given recognition in the second half of the year 1960. But in the subsequent four years, up to 1964, the most important task was the following. In the first place, places had to be selected where points of growth could develop in the border areas. In the second place, the so-called infra-structure, or the provision of basic services, had to be given priority. In the third place, at the proposed points of growth towns had to be established where Whites and non-Whites could be housed. These things had to be done beforehand, so that we cannot really contrast this policy, as an applied policy of border areas development up to the year 1964, to what took place in the rest of South Africa. It is only when we look at the picture from 1964 up to the present time that we can evaluate the results that have been achieved in the field of border area development. If we look at the analyzes that have been made by experts such as Dr. Jooste —who analyzed for the Department of Planning all the figures relating to Bantu who had been taken into employment, for instance, in the Eastern Cape—then one finds that approximately 34 per cent of the natural population increase of the Eastern Cape Bantu were kept in the border areas. If one looks at South Africa as a whole, one will find that almost 40 per cent of the natural population increase of the Bantu have been absorbed in the industries and in new trades that have developed in the border areas. Therefore I want to make the statement that, in view of the fact that this policy has only been applied in practice for approximately three years, we cannot accept the accusation made by the United Party, namely that through this legislation the Government is supposedly admitting that border area development purely by means of inducements has failed so far. We, on the other hand, view this measure only as an additional means for achieving the objects of what we see as the completed picture of South Africa in years to come. The picture we see is one that has at times been depicted excellently by a person Opposition speakers are fond of quoting, especially when it suits them, namely Dr. Anton Rupert. On a certain occasion he addressed industrialists in Britain and informed them about the way he viewed the future industrial pattern and the general pattern of economic development in South Africa. His basic premise was that, just as Britain and its industrialists feared that development in their dominions, and here in South Africa as well, would result in trade between those dominions and Britain taking place on a smaller scale, the opposite was being proved in practice. With the development of South Africa and countries such as Australia and New Zealand, as well as the emergence of their own industries, trade has in actual fact increased and that pattern is still continuing, not only in respect of Britain as an old industrial country, but also in respect of the other old established industrial countries in Western Europe. The basic premise he made was, therefore, that an old industrial country, with the lead it gained at one stage, will never be overtaken by a young industrial country. It is the task of the older country to concentrate more and more on providing other developing industrial countries mainly with machinery and other capital goods. Furthermore, it is its task to make its industries more sophisticated so that the older industrial countries may supply the young industrial country with those things the latter country is not yet able to provide for itself. He elaborated on this idea and made the statement that, just as a pattern of growing trade among Europe, Britain and South Africa took place while the industries in South Africa were still in the development stage, such a pattern of trade would also, in the course of time and with the right climate, develop in South Africa. As progress is made in the industries in South Africa, as we are able to supply more capital goods and our products become more sophisticated, we shall also be able to supply more to our own Bantu home lands by means of the industrial development that will take place within those homelands and on their borders.

With that I also want to reply to the argument that was used by the hon. member for Pinetown. He wanted to know what would happen if we were to permit there to be, without tariff protection, a favourable wage basis for industries in our homelands. He wanted to know what we would do if we were to find that those industries were undermining our industries in the major metropolitan areas in that they could produce goods more cheaply. The answer to that is the answer given by Dr. Anton Rupert—a great industrialist and at the same time an idealist—namely that we need not fear that we shall be undermined by development that will take place in the homelands or in the border areas, because as the Bantu are diverted to those industries in larger numbers, as they succeed in manufacturing elementary manufactured goods, it will be the task of the white homeland to supply those developing industries with capital goods. That is why we can expect the trend to be in the direction of increased trade as and when the standard of living rises in those areas. That is why, unlike the United Party, we as the National Party are not afraid that this policy of developing our homelands, development within those areas as well as on their borders, will constitute a threat to the white homeland —rather that this will be the basis on which we shall be able to maintain our development in years to come.

The statement was made here that this Bill is a coercive measure. Let me point out that in town and city planning schemes there is judicious planning as to where industries may establish themselves in those municipal or urban areas, areas where they fit in best with the scheme. Does the United Party also regard this as coercion or do they regard it as systematic and orderly development? If there is planning on a regional basis and certain industries are not allowed in certain areas—if, for some reason or other, the gases they emit, for instance, they do not fit in with the planning of a region—and they are told to go to other areas, is that coercion or is that orderly planning? If we marked out, on a national scale, certain areas as areas where the climate is the most favourable for certain industrial development and where it is considered to be in the interests of one’s country that certain industries should bring relief to them, especially industries in which the Bantu preponderate, and that they should not be established in white metropolitan areas, does that amount to coercion or is it orderly planning? If that is coercion, then coercion has become a fine-sounding word to me and I am no longer afraid of it. In the picture we have before us, we should be able to see that we are now entering upon a period of relative consolidation. All the steps taken by the State are aimed at ensuring that the development that takes place at this stage is not too rapid. We as the National Party believe that a golden era of development awaits our country, and that after this period of consolidation we shall take leaps ahead such as we have never seen before. If we think of the national aspirations of the Whites and of the various Bantu peoples and admit that inherently each of them has the same aspirations, and if we see ahead of us a 30-year period of unprecedented industrial development, is it not time we came forward with a measure such as this one? Is it not time we asked the industrialist not only to concentrate on the greatest possible profits, but also on the question of where he may establish his industries in the interests of his shareholders and in the interests of his fatherland?

To my mind the greatest advantage this Bill can have for our country and its industrial development is to be found in the fact that thought will once more be given to these matters. With this new thought and with a positive approach, I believe that we shall not agree with what Mr. J. Patten wrote in The Cape Argus of 25th May, namely that regions such as the Western Cape and the Southern Cape will become industrial step-children. Rather than that, I believe that our industrialists themselves, since they will now have a choice as regards their future development, will notice areas they have not yet considered seriously enough in the past. My personal opinion is that this will mean the beginning of new development for the Western Cape and also for the Southern Cape, so that these regions will also be able to render a greater contribution to the gross national product of the future. I believe that if our industrialists paused to consider this matter and saw the picture as a whole, as we see it, that if they saw the enormous opportunities awaiting them, they would agree with a statement that was made several years ago by Mr. Mauer-berger, one of the greatest industrialists the Cape Peninsula has ever produced, the textile king of the Western Cape. After Dr. Verwoerd had made the announcement in connection with the development of border industries, Mr. Mauerberger said that just as the Rand and Kimberley had produced their generation of millionaires in the days of the development of the diamond and gold-mining industries, he saw the border industries as the sphere which would produce the next generation of millionaires in South Africa. If our industrialists were to view the potential we have there in the same spirit as Mr. Mauerberger. I believe that they will not look upon this Bill as a coercive measure but as an opportunity for them to consider this matter properly.

Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House I wish to make an announcement. In terms of Standing Order No. 51, and after considering a request addressed to me by the Opposition, I wish to indicate that I am prepared to make available a further length of time for the continuation of this debate, provided that the de bate shall be limited to 15 hours, excluding my reply.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Vasco will pardon me if I do not follow him in his line of argument. As a matter of fact, Sir, I do not intend following any line of argument. My observations on and my attitude towards this measure before the House are based on conclusions I came to on my own. I unfortunately had to be absent from Cape Town when the hon. the Minister introduced this measure. I can assure the House that I was in no way influenced by what the hon. the Minister had to tell the House. I did not have much opportunity of listening to other members. I simply studied this Bill objectively and dispassionately and I came to my own conclusions, taking into account my duty to the House and to the electorate who put me here and my duty as a citizen of the land of my birth.

It is clear that in certain circles any measure that can be construed as conducive to the development of Bantu homelands will be opposed as a result of party policy. I have come to the conclusion over the years that any such measure is practically regarded with the same spirit as a jihad or holy war. If the Opposition or any political faction in the House are opposed to the Bantu homelands policy, it is their duty to oppose it in the House, and I do not wish to interfere in any way. It is just unfortunate that from time to time measures do come before the House which are linked in some form or another with the Bantu homelands policy, but of which major parts are vitally necessary to the well-being and the progressive development of the country. In many cases it is looked upon as a subterfuge or a decoy for the development of Bantu homelands, and then opposed. What might be vitally necessary or for the good of the country then starts a political wrangle. This is nothing new. I suppose it is politics. My own position, however, is different, and as I owe no allegiance anywhere, I have tried to come to an objective conclusion in regard to the Bill. The people I represent in the House derive no benefit from political wrangles. In any case they have no say in the formulation of party policies. Taking into account what is in the interests of my electorate, the people who put me here, and having studied and gained a great deal of knowledge of what the Coloured people need, I wish to dwell for a few moments on the Bantu homelands policy. I was in the House some years ago when the late Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, launched the so-called Bantu homelands policy. It was clear to me at the time that this policy in regard to the Bantu population, apart from being something completely new, was a brainchild of the late Dr. Verwoerd. It was clear from the outset that the application, development and implementation of this policy would have far-reaching effects in South Africa and on South Africa, and also far-reaching effects beyond the borders of our country. It was a complete departure from the old concept of Native administration, as it was called, or Bantu administration, or the rule of the Bantu within the borders of our country. Immediately questions arose in my mind as to what the end of the road would be in regard to the application of this policy. I wondered what the ultimate form of development would be. Would it end with the creation of independent autonomous states? If so, what would the relations be like between such new states and the Republic? What attitudes would develop in those states and territories towards the Republic? How would they be economically sustained with populations running into millions? I concluded that this was a bold, new policy fraught with problems to which I did not have all the solutions.

To my mind, and according to my way of thinking, the success of the policy depended on the speed of development which would take place and the resolution with which this new policy would be implemented. It would depend on how the dangers which might arise and the seemingly insurmountable problems would be overcome. Because this was an unprecedented policy, an unprecedented form of government which was envisaged for the Bantu population of South Africa; it was easy—as it still is—to conjure up dangers or problems which might, or might not, exist. In my humble opinion many of these dangers that were— and are—foreseen might not exist at all. Certain incontrovertible facts have crystallized since this policy was announced and started to be implemented. I feel that we have arrived at a stage where we cannot but take certain facts into account. The first is that the South African electorate have on various occasions —including a referendum in which this issue played a very important part—endorsed this policy. They have done so in spite of the sacrifices which the white man will have to make to implement this policy and to develop it to its ultimate end. They will have to make financial sacrifices running into many millions of rand for many years. They will have to sacrifice certain land which will be given to the Bantu homelands or incorporated into the Bantu homelands. In spite of all this, the electorate have endorsed the Government’s policy in regard to the future of the Bantu within the borders of the Republic. In the second place, development that has taken place since then has proved that the Bantu—and here I am specially referring to the Transkei—are accepting this policy, and that in spite of the fact that certain organizations with great sums of money played a role, and in spite of the fact that experienced agitators had their opportunities in the Transkei during the elections there. Since the elections there, the Bantu in the Transkei who are in favour of this policy are gaining more and more support in their endorsement and acceptance of this policy. Taking these two factors into account, one arrives at the third fact, and that is this. In the implementation of this policy, when has the point of no return been reached?

Now, this is a very important point. I can best liken it to an aircraft taking off from the ground. The pilot can chart his course. He can chop and change the course, when the engines are warming up and even when he is taxiing out to take up position against the wind. He can change his mind when he guns up his engines. But there is a point of no return somewhere along the line. After a certain point has been reached whilst travelling on the runway, there is no turning back. If due to human failure or mechanical fault something goes wrong with the aircraft, that aircraft must continue with the take-off, and perhaps meet with disaster and destruction. Because it had reached the point of no return. I feel that when dealing with a matter as important as this policy, we must define our attitude thereto. When is the point of no return as far as this policy is concerned, reached? Has it already been reached? If so, what is our attitude going to be to the further implementation of the Bantu homelands policy?

Mr. Speaker, in my humble opinion the point of no return was reached on the day when this policy was officially enunciated by the late Prime Minister in this House. One cannot expect a responsible government, shouldering the responsibilities attendant upon millions of Bantu inside the borders of South Africa, and taking into account the developments in the rest of Africa and the attitude of major powers in the world who do not have our experience of these matters and who will not leave us alone to sort out our own problems. to have the Bantu population in South Africa oscillating between what the Government is busy doing and what a government in five or ten years’ time might do. At some stage we must decide whether we have reached the point of no return—and I say we have reached that point—and, if so, we must decide what our future responsibilities are as regards the Bantu population of South Africa, the white population of South Africa, and the Coloured and Indian populations of the Republic of South Africa.

In considering this matter we may very well ask ourselves—assuming the point of no return has already been reached, what is the alternative to be if the present policy is not the answer, if it is not going to work, and if the inherent dangers of the policy are too great? I regard this question of the utmost importance. If we accept that it is our duty and our right, as members of this hon. House, to criticize the policy, to find fault with it, and to point out the dangers inherent in the policy, we also have a further duty. and that is to tell the House and the country what the alternative policy is if we do not agree with the policy at present being applied.

I do not regard myself as a veteran politician. I do not regard myself as someone who will go down in the political history of this country as the man who came up with the solutions at the right time. I regard myself as a plain South African with a little experience, a second-generation South African only, but with nowhere to go if I had to leave this country. I have come to the conclusion that, whatever our feelings might have been in the past and at the time when this policy was enunciated and put into practice, and whatever we might still be motivated by, I have not been able to find an alternative to this policy at present being implemented. We know what has been happening elsewhere in Africa over the last 20 years. We are aware of the attitudes and the opinions of the rest of the world as regards our country. We know that the U.N., on which we pinned our hopes for peace after World War II, has become a farce. It is perfectly clear that it will not satisfy the Bantu in South Africa, it will not satisfy the non-white states of the world—of which there are many and who predominate at the U.N. —and it will not satisfy those states who sympathize with those states, if we declared that we will give our Bantu eight white representatives in this House. If that is not acceptable, and if we accept that the point of no return as far as this policy is concerned has been reached, then I cannot against my better knowledge condemn everything pertaining to the separate development of the Bantu homelands just because certain legislation which is vitally necessary in many respects for the implementing of that policy comes before this House. Then I, as a member of this House, cannot speak and vote against such a measure.

I regard the principle of planning as imperative and most important for any country, and particularly for our country where we have problems which other countries do not have. I was in the home of a friend in Pretoria in 1964 when it was announced that a Department of Planning was to be established. He asked me What I thought about it. and my spontaneous reply was, “In my opinion this step is 30 or 40 years or more overdue.” I said this, and I say so now, taking into account all forms of development over the last 30 or 40 years, whether it be roads, dams, irrigation works, the development of settlements or cities, or whatever the case may be. There was lack of co-ordination and lack of planning. A certain hon. member here—I cannot remember who it was—suggested that the water of the Vaalharts scheme could be diverted to the Witwatersrand in order to augment the water supply there. I regard that as silly, stupid and senseless. I cannot how you can sacrifice anything from the Witwatersrand in favour of Vaalharts or vice versa, but what I do see is that it remains the responsibility of the powers that be at present to provide for the shortages on both sides, whether of the Rand or of Vaalharts. [Interjection.] Let us not be facetious. I feel that had there been a broader basis of planning in general, with the knowledge that the Government could have mustered 30 or 40 years ago, that scheme could have been planned in such a manner that the supplies of which we are short now could easily have been augmented without planning virtually de novo additional schemes by which to augment it.

The principle of planning is no new principle. I asked a certain gentleman yesterday what his opinion was about this Bill, and he said it amounted to dictatorship. He is entitled to his opinion, but the principle of planning is not new. Anywhere you live, within the jurisdiction of any local authority, if you want to build a house or set up an industry you have to submit plans and you cannot erect that structure unless your plans are approved of. The only difference here is that it is not on a local authority basis or on a provincial basis; here it is on a national basis, which I regard as overdue and very necessary indeed. As I say, the principle is not new, but what is vitally necessary is for that principle to be applied throughout with thoroughness and vigour. Let me give an example. I grew up in the city where the Houses of Parliament stand. I remember very well that as far as Cape Town is concerned, at a very early age I came to the conclusion that Cape Town was never planned; it just came into existence. The principle of planning on a large scale was accepted rather late. How many industrial areas are there in Cape Town? There are Paarden Eiland and Epping. Paarden Eiland came into existence as the result of the fact that Escom built a power station there, and beyond it there was a vlei which was gradually filled up but which at that stage was unsuited for human habitation. Houses could not be built there. But here you find industrial areas and residential areas cheek by jowl. You have a District Six as the result of the lack of planning. One does not want to throw doubts on the abilities of our city fathers of former years, but the time has now come where in this second half of the century no Government. in this country especially, can allow a laissez-faire development.

Planning must be done not only on a provincial authority basis or on a municipal basis, but on a national basis. There are many respects in which one cannot plan only on a provincial basis, such as water schemes where the river is the boundary between two provinces. In that case there has to be coordination on a national basis. What happened in Cape Town? When the depression passed over in 1933 or 1934, there was a boom. Industries developed and factories sprang up. This was perpetuated during the war years, and it was all to the good. I remember walking barefooted in the streets of Cape Town, and I also enjoyed good years when I was able to buy my first bicycle. It was very good and we all appreciated it, but we reaped the bitter fruits of the lack of planning that went with it. The factories went up and labour had to come here, and it streamed into Cape Town, but what a mess there was to be cleared up after the war, and how long did it take to clear it up, at the cost of what bitter suffering to human beings, whether black or brown, and all because at that time there was no coordinated planning! Labour streamed in, but housing was not provided. I take all these factors into account. One of the reasons why this Bill is necessary is because you have various factors involved in the development of industry. Firstly you need labour, and secondly, housing for that labour. You need water and electric power. Transport has to be taken into consideration, especially in South Africa, where we have an abundance of cheap coal. I feel that with my little study of anthropology it is certainly desirable to have your labour housed in such a way that if possible that labour finds itself in its natural habitat. I wish to emphasize this point because the labour concerned here is primarily, except in the Western Province and certain parts of the Cape Province, African labour. When I came from the platteland to Cape Town as a boy of nine, I was intensely unhappy here. It took me years to become acclimatized. What can we expect a Bantu to experience when he comes here at the age of 20? He is brought here from his homeland not because he wants to come but because he has to work, because he has to provide for his relatives over there. He is brought into this environment with no guidance. This is very important. Talk to any sociologist or any person who has knowledge of the African in his homeland and who has knowledge of the sociological problems arising when the Bantu comes here to work. He is not allowed to have female company. He cannot bring his wife and family along. These unnatural circumstances prevail. Hence my argument that it is preferable to see these people in employment at such a distance from their natural habitat that, if not nightly after work, they can go home at least over weekends. We have the areas which can be developed, where you have the necessary factors for the sitting of industries and where these people can be housed in such a manner that they are not deprived of family life. Whatever argument you may bring along, however much you might try to view it from ivory towers, you cannot compare the sociological and human problems of the Bantu in a large city which is completely strange to him, where the way of life is completely strange to him, with the position of a white person. His background is completely different. I wish to make bold to say this, that in allowing this unplanned development of industries and this influx of labour to take place, the white man has done an injustice to the black man, and an unforgivable injustice, and we have allowed the Coloured people to be undercut in their own natural habitat where they have existed all these years, by the African coming in with a much lower standard of living, and with a much greater sense of tribal law and custom, and those customs were superimposed on them. Taking that into account, I also feel that not a single member of this House will get up and pronounce himself as being against influx control. In fact, it was very interesting to learn that in the old Cape House of Representatives before responsible government was granted, in 1857, measures were adopted in the form of influx control. No member here will say influx control must be abolished. If we are not in favour of abolishing influx control, can we reconcile ourselves with this perpetuated system of migrant labour, this system of disrupting the Bantu and superimposing on him laws and customs which he cannot appreciate, which he does not understand, and which invariably lead to problems like the tsotsi problem? The young ones growing up there do not assimilate the good aspects of what Western civilization imposes on them. They are completely helpless; they retrogress: and the result is the sort of sociological problems that we have to-day with our young Bantu in the larger cities.

I think we are all agreed that the hardships which result from the system of migrant labour, under which thousands of people live in cities to which they cannot bring their wives and children and in which they cannot lead a normal family life, must be alleviated. What I cannot understand then is why we do not all welcome the Government’s attempt to develop or to evolve a system under which this injustice to the Bantu, which is inherent in the system of migrant labour, need not be per-petuated but under which, instead of living in bachelor quarters in Langa or elsewhere, he will be able to go home to his family after his day’s work, not necessarily every night, but at least for the week-end where possible, and not every two or three years as is the case at present. It would be to the benefit of the country if we could have the Bantu’s place of employment so situated that this present system can be done away with as far as possible. Sir, after studying this Bill and its ramifications, I have come to the conclusion that, in this matter, as in so many other matters, I cannot allow myself to be guided by the attitude of the Opposition in this House.

To mention one example, when the Bill which provided for Coloured education to be taken over by the Department of Coloured Affairs came before this House, we were warned of the so-called grave dangers of the proposed take-over. To-day we know that the fears which were then expressed have proved to be groundless. I refuse to believe that a responsible government would deliberately come along with a measure such as this, well knowing that if it is put on the Statute Book and applied it will stultify, choke and strangle private initiative and the development of the country. I cannot accept that because it is well known not only to those of us who are not members of the Government but especially to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet and to members on the Government side that the future of South Africa, the solution of our problems and especially this problem, depends on development in every sphere but especially in the industrial sphere. That is why I cannot accept that the Government would bring a measure before the House knowing that its implementation will choke and strangle private initiative and enterprise. There is one appeal, however, that I wish to make to the hon.the Minister. Sir, I have heard the fears expressed from time to time, especially last week in Durban, that it may take a long time, when application is made for permission to site an industry in a certain area, before finality is reached. I wish to appeal to the Minister to allay the fears of the potential industrialist and to stream-line his Department so that there will be no unnecessary delay, because my experience has been that once a company has been formed and it has acquired the necessary capital to start to build or to go into production, time means money. The industrialist cannot afford to wait for months for a reply from the Department as to whether or not he may proceed with his venture. Secondly, I wish to appeal to the Minister to take into account, in conjunction with other Government Departments, the fact that in the Transkei, which is part of my constituency, there are 14,000 Coloured people who will have to be displaced there. Opportunities of employment and development will have to be provided for them in some other area. They are at the moment living in a state of uncertainty. They have no future there. We are dealing here with people who are virtually of our kin, people who are Western in origin, who speak our language, who have adopted the Christian religion, who have taken the Afrikaans language there and have existed there for generations. They will have to get out of an area in which we have held out the possibility of ultimate sovereign independence to the Bantu, and we have a responsibility towards them. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is that in considering any scheme of general planning adequate provision will be made for those 14,000 Coloureds in the Transkei, whom I represent in this House.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity in order to congratulate two people. In the first instance I want to congratulate the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, on a rational, sensible speech in regard to this very important legislation. I think it is the best speech which I have heard him make since I came to this House. I want to congratulate him on it. Then I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this legislation and say to him that we welcome it and that we are glad that he has set out the principles of the legislation so clearly. The resistance of the Opposition to this Bill is based on the fact that they are aware that our policy of apartheid is succeeding. They are accusing the Government and the Minister that this legislation is aimed at destroying the factory industry and, secondly, that the Government is ostensibly going to transfer all industries which have already been established here to other areas and in that way cause chaos. Mr. Speaker, that is a misrepresentation, because those are by no means the objectives of this legislation. What is being envisaged in this Bill is to send future industrial development in a direction which is economic. practical and correct. The hon. the Minister described this Bill as a positive measure, and that is in fact the case. Hon. members have uttered the cry that our apartheid policy had failed. They know very well that that is not the case. Six to seven years ago there were few border industries. However, points of growth were established. The infrastructure already exists, and where it does not already exist it is being established. This Bill now makes provision for control over industrial land. The Government will now be able to determine where industries will in future have to be established. I ask myself what the practical effect of this legislation is going to be. It is clear to me that what will happen is this: If an industrialist wants to establish an industry he will be guided and advised; the committee to be established will perhaps say to him: “Look, you cannot establish this industry in a metropolitan area such as Johannesburg, but there are areas, such as Pietersburg, where you can establish it.” Pietersburg is ready to receive them, and so is any other industrial area. The infrastructure exists. Now they come along and establish their industries there. Suppose a number of them have established themselves there and that between them they employ say 5,000 Bantu. That means that 5,000 less Bantu in the Johannesburg area and 5,000 fewer houses which would have had to be provided there. That will mean 5,000 Bantu living in their own homeland. And precisely the same amenities are being provided for them there as were previously provided. Then they are amongst their own people. That is the practical result, which I foresee in this legislation. But the United Party has once again chosen the road leading to the political downfall in our country. It seems to me they are doing so deliberately. They have once again adopted the attitude, and the whole theme of their attack is. that the economic powers are sacrosanct and that they must not be interfered with. The State, according to the statements made by the Opposition, must be a slave to the law of free economic powers, instead of them being applied to the benefit of itself and to the benefit of the citizens in its country. Despite the predictions of the Opposition, for example that industry is going to be destroyed, these economic powers are now going to be channelized through legislation to bring about increased economic success and greater incomes and a higher standard of living in the country. History teaches us and it has also shown that the industrialist looks for profits. He does not care where his factory is situated, as long as he can make a profit. Does the Opposition now want to suggest, by stating that industry will be destroyed, that the manufacturer will be deprived of his right to make profits? Or that his factories will be closed down? Surely they cannot talk about the destruction of industry. As I said, this legislation will result in the standard of living in the country being raised, and being raised for all race groups. That is the position owing to the fact that decentralization will bring it about. The history of the industrial development in the older countries in the world has shown that this is so. With the development of the industrial countries there was always the problem that it was always necessary to fight against the movement of free economic powers. The arguments quoted here by the Opposition are the same old arguments which were quoted by the advocates of the old laissez-faire politics. Over and against that there was the ideology of the younger countries which had developed and wanted to become economically and industrially independent, and who advocated State intervention. The same struggle then took place which is, to a lesser degree, taking place here. What happened then in the history of the world as far as the old mother countries are concerned, which have changed to-day, and that of the young countries, which became established industrial countries, is a phenomenon which will re-occur. That is what is now happening here. State intervention took the form of protective methods, tariffs, prohibitions on import, and numerous other forms of legislation. The State intervention included methods for encouraging the erection of factories within a rural area …

Order! The hon. member for Prieska cannot sit reading a newspaper now.

… and also to encourage it within specific national borders. Apart from the question as to whether or not it will be economic, according to the cry which the Opposition are raising or not, the countries nevertheless developed. These countries developed and industries developed, precisely because of encouragement by the State and State policy. What the State in fact did was to channelize, formulate and utilize those economic powers and send them in a certain direction. They never allowed economic powers to choose their own course. The advocates of the laissez-faire policy of that time predicted that terrible chaos would arise. But, after all, that did not happen. International trade continued, the standard of living increased, and industries were established everywhere. Now I am asking that if this did in fact happen on an international level, why cannot a country, within its own borders, also use those economic powers to its own advantage by means of various methods of planning? I want to refer to legislation which was passed years ago in this House and which at that time aroused great concern amongst the protagonists of the laissez-faire policy. I am referring now to the Marketing Act. At that time the same argument was used, and it was said that the State was interfering unnecessarily. Strangely enough that legislation was passed by the then United Party Government. It was said that the free powers of the economy were being interfered with. It was asked what costs it would not involve for the country. It was asked what the distribution costs would not amount to. I am certain that not one of those members on the opposite side of the House would want to stand up to-day and say that that Act ought to be repealed. It is precisely the same in the case of this Bill. No Government will allow development in its country to be stifled. Surely it is an unfair accusation on the part of the Opposition to say that the Government will ruin industry completely. According to the commission which the Government has from the nation it is obliged to see to it that development takes place which will be in the interests of the country as well as of all groups and races within its borders. Ours is a young, developing country in the industrial sphere. For us it is absolutely essential to see to it that a foundation of proper planning and control by the State is provided. This legislation is attempting to do just that, and is not attempting to stifle development. It is attempting to channelize development in a certain direction, for which posterity will be grateful to us. The United Party will also thank us for having merely dragged them along with us. I also believe that we will subsequently be thanked, to an equal extent, by the race groups of the country which are going to be benefited by this legislation. This legislation does not arise out of foolishness, pettiness, injudiciousness, and out of a desire to plough democracy under, as has been alleged here. It arises out of a deep conviction of the serious need for the orderly survival of our entire racial community; it arose after serious consideration had been given to the conservation of all our immobile resources and their proper utilization; it has arisen on account of a deficiency which existed for a proper coordinating factor within our general industrial development: it arose out of the need which existed to deal timeously with and prevent the problems which have cropped up in other countries owing to over-population, etc.; it arises out of the danger of injudicious development of industrial land areas by local bodies. I find it a pity that it was not possible to include the development of normal township areas under this legislation as well because I regard it as a very important subdivision of the entire development programme. This legislation also arises out of the seriousness with which this side of the House regards its task and out of a deep love for what is our own and the need to nurture that, to protect it and to deal with it in such a way that it will always remain our own.

The hon. member for Pietersburg has made the same mistake I think as most other hon. members on that side, namely to base his argument on the assumption that this Bill is designed to decentralize industry in the true sense of the word and that it is to enable the hon. the Minister to plan for the future of industry. The hon. member has expressed the sincerity and the honesty of purpose with which they approach this job. But what the hon. member forgets is that after being in government for 20 years and having applied a policy which does not seem to be succeeding, the hon. the Minister has now sincerely come to this House and said that he was going to use this measure to direct industry to the border areas. He said that, but the hon. member apparently did not hear him because not one of his arguments was based on the assumption that this Bill is intended to direct industry to border areas. He happened to mention Pietersburg which is a border industry area. He said everything needed for the infrastructure would be there. But I wonder whether the hon. member has at some time or another made any investigation of any of the areas to which this Government has already directed industry. Let us take Pietermaritzburg. We have seen terrific blowups in the newspapers about how this Government was encouraging industry to go to the Pietermaritzburg area. But what infrastructure exists there? Is there, for instance, sufficient and adequate transport? Are all the other facilities necessary for this boom blowup of Pietermaritzburg available there? Is the infrastructure there? Of course it is not. There may be signs of it coming along but at the present moment it does not exist. What is more, the Pietermaritzburg area is not properly planned for the industries being directed there. So, what makes the hon. member assume that the hon. the Minister can send industries to Pietersburg to-morrow and that the infrastructure would be there?

I want to make this point very strongly, because it does not seem to be properly realized, that we on this side are not opposed to the decentralization of industry and if this hon. Minister had brought a Bill to this House to improve on the development of our natural resources, the Bill which he is now repealing; if he had come to this House and said that he wanted to plan areas better and provide the required infrastructure, i.e. all the necessities, and that he wanted to devote himself to doing an investigation for the better establishment of industry, irrespective of where those areas are—and I admit some of these areas might have been border areas while many of them would not have been such—he would have encountered a totally different approach to this Bill.

That is exactly what I said.

But the evidence is not there. In 20 years we have had no evidence of it. The Minister made certain promises, inter alia that all these powers would be used only sparingly and that he would only retain the right to say “ja” or “nee”.

Only as far as clause 4 is concerned.

The Minister apparently is trying to confuse the issue. I have read the Bill and I know what is in it. The powers he will have under it are absolute powers. As he himself said, he would have the right to say “ja” or “nee”. He was quite frank in stating it as the intention of this Bill to direct industry to the border areas. Let us do some rethinking on that basis and take into consideration the arguments used by hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Vasco asked, whether this was “dwang” or “ordelike beplanning”? Let us see what it is as we go along. It is all very well for him to have asked that about half a dozen times without producing any proof that it was in fact “ordelike beplanning”. Before him the hon. member for Brakpan referred to the developments on the East Rand. Developments there had gone on despite protests. Well, these developments have taken place for the very reason that this Bill did not exist. They went on because the industries concerned were allowed to establish themselves there and were not directed to an area remote from the East Rand. These industries were allowed to establish themselves there to stabilize the area where the mines were dying. We do not have to be super economists to know that. And yet the hon. member for Brakpan comes along and throws that in as an argument in support of this Bill. But if anything, it is an argument against this Bill, because had this Bill already been operative some of those industries would have been directed elsewhere. What would then have been the fate of the East Rand to-day? It would have been something totally different from what it is at the present moment. The Minister can laugh if he wants to laugh but he must listen to the facts of his Bill. We have to analyze it and express our opinions on it. We have to take what is in it and not what the Minister tells us is in it. His assurances do not mean anything because if they had he would have written them into the Bill itself. But he did not do that—he preferred to come to this House to indicate that he was prepared to consider reasonable amendments. I think it is to clause 4 that he said he was prepared to consider reasonable amendments—in other words, he is open to bids; he will accept the highest bid offered and the one which will satisfy objections to it. But, says the Minister, if he does not like it he shall not give it. Why does the Minister come with these suggestions? Why does he not put forward an amendment which he knows will remove objections to it? Because he wants the objections to remain—that is why. It is quite simple.

I want to remind the Minister that industry is the livelihood of a large part of the community. I wish the Minister would realize this. He should realize that it is not a toy to be played with, to be played politics with. South Africa relies upon industry to stabilize us as the mines gradually fade and die. So, if the Minister is now going to direct all our industries to the border areas, what is going to replace the dying mines? Will they not have to direct the total population from those areas to the border areas?

Whoever said “all” industries?

I am asking questions of the hon. the Minister, questions to which he is supposed to reply. I shall quote the hon. member for Heilbron and his philosophy in a moment. As I was saying, we are looking towards industry to stabilize our economy as the gold mines fade out. This is a fact—the entire economy of South Africa looks at it that way. So the Minister must not come and play around with industry, kick it around, inhibit and discourage the establishment of new industries. We need every one we can get. Let me tell him that the powers he is going to have here, he and his officials—because he is going to delegate a lot of his authority to his officials—are so varied and so absolute that no industrialist. I believe, contemplating the establishment of an industry or the extension of an existing one, could possibly make allowance for all the things that might befall him from the Department of Planning. Because they are all negative. Every aspect which is put forward in this Bill, as far as the industrialist is concerned, is a negative one. He is told: You may not do this, you may not do that. Why doesn’t the Minister draft a Bill which means something? Then the industrialist can read it and say, “I can plan the establishment of my industry and these are the factors I have to take into consideration.” Let the Minister tell me how an industrialist can sit down with this Bill in front of him, take all the factors which it contains into consideration, put them down on a piece of paper and work out where he stands at the end of that calculation? Because he cannot do it; this Bill does not allow him to do it—it is a negative Bill with a completely negative approach to the whole problem. It just says that he may not go here or there without the Minister’s permission; he may not increase his employment without the Minister’s permission; he may not do this and he may not do that. This is what the Bill says. How does one calculate those factors? I believe this must have a discouraging effect on industrialists who deal in facts and not in Ministerial fiction. This is the position. Industry is based on facts. Now, how can one extract facts from this Bill? All one can get from this measure is a permit and discussions with officials of the department, and if one is lucky one might be able to get a picture of what is going to happen when one establishes one’s industry. That is what this Bill does. Because the industrialist must get permits and permission for everything that he wants to do. That is what the Bill says. [Interjection.] The hon. member may read the Bill to-night and come back again.

I think the Minister must also allow for the fact that I do not believe any industrialist who wants to establish an industry in this country wants to subject himself to the penalties prescribed in this Bill. It talks of a fine, imprisonment, or both. Of course he does not want to subject himself Jo such penalties. Why should a man be subject to penalties of this nature, to sanctions of this nature, when he is trying to establish an industry for the good of himself, his shareholders and for South Africa? Why should he be subject to these penalties just because a Minister says he may not do this and he may not do that? What I want to ask the Minister is this: Will that encourage industrialists to establish themselves, or will it discourage them? Will it encourage them, will it make them happier to establish their industries because they run the risk of paying a penalty if they do not do everything that they are told to do? I believe that this Bill will have a detrimental effect upon the establishment of industry, an effect which the Minister does not yet realize—and neither does this House.

Therefore I want to support the first leg of this amendment, which says—and I want to remind the House what it says—that the Bill seeks to place in the hands of the Minister complete and unfettered control of land, labour and industrial development of the country.

What makes this Minister and his department all of a sudden more fitted to determine the factors which are vital Jo the establishment of a new industry? What is it that suddenly makes the Minister more qualified than the industry itself? I should like to know, because up to now the Minister has shown that he is quite incapable of planning for the establishment of industries. No planning at all has been done. His department has been used purely and simply to enforce the ideology of the Government, for instance, for group areas declarations. I do not know for what other purpose it has been used. Now all of a sudden it is being used for sending new industries more especially, and possibly some of the older ones, to the border industrial areas. Is that a Planning Department? Is that the function of the Department of Planning? I do not believe that is the function of a department of this nature at all. I believe the Minister should place every possible factor, every possible research facility, at the disposal of industry, and say, “This is what we have to offer in this area and this is what we have to offer in that area.” Surely to goodness, after that industrialists and industry itself are capable of determining which are the best of those offered areas to which they should go and where they should site themselves. But the approach here is different—“You will go there …”

Where is that in the Bill?

The Bill says nobody may determine if land shall be used for industry without the permission of the Minister. It says people may not do anything concerning the establishment of industries, or the enlarging of existing ones, without the permission of this Minister. The Minister has admitted that he intends using this measure, among other things, for directing industries to the border areas. I am not guessing—I am just stating the facts that have emerged from this debate. Where does the industrialist go if the Minister does not give him permission, or if he only gives him permission to go to one area? Does he go to another one, or does he just not establish his industry? That is the choice which he has. He either goes to where the Minister says he can go, or else he does not establish his industry. That is the choice that faces him. That is what the Bill says. It is not what I say. We will prove this to the Minister during the Committee Stage.

No—read the Bill. Surely it is fair to ask you to read it?

We will discuss this during the Committee Stage. I am only stating what the Minister has agreed with in this debate up to now. I am not going to anticipate the Committee stage now. I will go through this with the Minister in the Committee Stage.

As regards this aspect of the complete control of land, labour and industrial development of the country, there is one aspect that I want to raise that has not been raised in this debate yet, and that is the effect this will have on local authorities. In terms of this measure no local authority may any longer establish a new industrial area, plan a new industrial area, or allow a new industry to be established there without the permission of this Minister. The local authorities are now waking up to the dangers which face them under this Bill. I want to refer to Durban in this regard. I have a report here which states that “Durban may be a ‘ghost’ town”. I do not say this, but it is the opinion of two men who up to now have been the main people in planning the land and the industrial future of Durban. I do not say this, no politician on this did says this. This is said by people who are vitally and basically concerned with the planning of the industrial future of a city like Durban. This does not only apply to Durban—it applies also to Bloemfontein, and it will be interesting to see what will happen in the Orange Free State as a result of this Bill, where there are no Bantu areas.

Umlazi is a ‘ghost’ seat.

And a ghost Department of Planning. It shows one that ghosts do exist, and there is no reason why there should not be another one. The city engineer and the town clerk of Durban are perturbed about this aspect of the Bill and the effects it might well have on the city of Durban in the future. Let me read a few extracts of what they say as reported in The Natal Mercury of 27th May, 1967—

The Bill radically affects the town planning functions of local authorities …

I want to make this point again—

Anybody who has had anything at all to do with the organization and the financing of local authorities in the past knows that one of their greatest assets is their industrial land, in many cases land which is of no value and of no use for any other purpose whatsoever. Now. here all of a sudden the Minister comes along and says: “You cannot use that land for industry unless I tell you in writing you can, because the industries that were going to establish themselves in your area, I am telling to establish themselves in an area far removed —maybe in another province, maybe at the other end of the Republic.” Can one therefore wonder why these people are concerned and why it is said that Durban may become a “ghost” town? According to the newspaper, the town clerk and the city engineer say—

Another factor now enters the picture, namely “this further inroad into the autonomy of local government”. Of course, that is exactly what this Bill is doing. It will not only intrude into local government, but it will also intrude up to provincial level, because this measure removes all control which the provinces have over their own affairs as far as industries are concerned. This Minister can now take it a step further. Not only can he say that an industrialist may not establish himself within the area of a specific local authority, but he may well direct the establishment right out of the province and thus over-rule the Administrator, because the Administrator cannot do anything without the Minister’s sanction either. These are facts—I am quoting the facts of the Bill.

I want to continue quoting from the newspaper. As I said, these two Durban officials said that Durban could become a “ghost” town. The city engineer also said the following—

This is good reasoning, it is good thinking. We have had no assurance from this Minister that this will not happen. The engineer goes further, and I want to make this point with the Minister—

Now we see that the powers which the Minister is taking can affect the whole life and the future of a city like Durban, or any other city, and he can turn it into a “ghost” city or a “ghost” town. He can. There is no question about that at all. The city engineer of Durban is quite right. Let me quote further what he said—

I hope the Minister is listening to this. We have had arguments in this House that our cities and towns are growing too big and that we must move the people away. Here we see it is estimated that by the year 1991 Durban will have a population of H million people. The city engineer adds that “it is quite small by big city standards”. What does the Minister want to move the industries away from Durban for?

I read all that on Sunday.

I am glad you did—I hope it had some effect on you. The Minister is now taking power to say to industries that they cannot establish themselves where they wish. What is going to be the position as regards this forecast if the Minister says that? The calculations of every city in South Africa are based on industrial planning: it is the lifeblood of every city in the Republic, of every town of any size at all. The platteland towns are looking for and encouraging industry because their future growth depends upon it. and not only their future growth but their survival. If they do not have industrial development then they become “ghost” towns and “ghost” cities. That is what happens—this is where the word “ghost” comes in. In the hands of the Minister and his officials are being given the powers to create “ghost” towns. That is the fact of the matter. I read further from the Mercury—

Because Durban will probably be fully development in 25 years its size and industrial activity will be automatically limited. Any disturbance of Durban’s economy would have an effect on the whole of Natal …

I want to make this point particularly—

Order! I think the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

With respect. Sir, the facts are these: The Minister under this Bill has power which means that he, in fact, now controls industrial development, and not the local authority. This is why the local authorities become so important. Because with the powers which they are losing to the Minister they are no longer “capable”, if I may say so, to determine their own future. They can no longer be “captains of their own souls or masters of their own fate”. Because this Minister is taking that power from them. I believe this is a most important factor and I am glad that I have had the opportunity of making the point and bringing it to the notice of the House and to the notice of all South Africans, all those people who are going to be affected by this Bill.

In addition to this, what is the effect on the economy as a whole going to be of these powers of the Minister and his ability to direct industries? We have already had one sample. It will tend to split the economy, and already factories, so I am told, are tending to produce either in the higher price-range or the lower price-range. Because the factories which remain, those which remain in the white areas, cannot compete with the factories which are being established by the Minister now in the border areas. So the border area factories are undercutting the other factories in many articles that they manufacture. We have this for example in the case of Hammarsdale, where the other factories which used to produce a grade and quality of goods at a reasonable price can no longer compete. They have now to channel their efforts to other types of production to get into a higher price-range in order to meet the economic factors of the area in which they are established because they cannot compete with the border industries. Therefore I believe that with the powers as a whole which the Minister will have, he is in fact going to tend to direct the white population towards the borders of the Bantu areas. It must have that effect, because I think in many cases the Bantu-intensive industries. of which the Minister has spoken, are also white-intensive. Then what does one do? Does one leave the white people behind and just send the Bantu concerned to the border areas industries? Surely the white people also have to be taken there. Therefore the whole process of moving these factories and directing new ones to the border areas will mean in effect the breaking down of the existing areas and the re-establishment on the borders. I do not want to enter into a discussion as to whether we want all our white population on the perimeters of South Africa adjoining the Bantu areas. I do not want to go into a long discussion about whether we want Johannesburg to develop further or whether we don’t or any of the other cities in South Africa for that matter. But I believe these are vital factors that have to be taken into consideration. So I believe that on the whole this measure is going to tend to disperse the white people to the border areas, and I believe that that will eventually lead to the breaking down of those borders. I do not believe that we can draw a line and let one population group live on one side and the other population group live on the other side, without in fact those borders being disturbed. I am talking about these theoretical borders about which we can get no details.

I think another reason why this Bill is not good is because the thinking behind it is designed to be good for apartheid. I do not believe the thinking behind this Bill is designed to be good for industry or good for South Africa.

I support the second leg of this amendment too, which deplores the fact that the Minister is scrapping the Natural Resources Development Act. I support it for the reason that the approach of that Act was a much better approach than the approach which the Minister has in this Bill. The approach there was one of consultation, of trying to find out where the best areas were to establish an industry, where industries could best thrive, and where they could do the most good for South Africa. Under that scheme, I want to remind the Minister, we have had some very fine regional plans drawn up. We in Natal are very proud of the plans for the Tugela basin. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umlazi did his best to conjure up as many bogies as possible in his speech in order to sir up the industrialists of South Africa against this measure and against the hon. the Minister, and to put a spoke in the wheel of co-operation with the Government in respect of its implementation. Why is the Opposition doing that? It does not surprise one that they act in that way, because it is in accordance with the course of action adopted by them in the past in respect of every effort made and in respect of every measure introduced by this side to ensure the continued existence of the Whites in South Africa and to relieve the population pressure exerted by the non-Whites—pre-eminently by the Bantu—on the Whites in our large metropolitan cities. The Opposition say that they also stand for the preservation of white civilization and the white man and his values in the cities and in the Republic of South Africa. Yet they are always doing the very opposite of what they say, because they have opposed every measure which has been introduced by this Government over the years since it came to power.

That is why they are also opposing this Bill tooth and nail just as they opposed all the other measures. The Opposition believes in only one policy and that is a kind of economic “free and easy” faith, in other words, they are interested only in seeing what profits and dividends can be obtained without the socioeconomic factors, which the hon. the Minister mentioned so clearly when he introduced the Bill, being taken into account. If this laissez-faire policy of the Opposition, in other words, if uncontrolled and unrestrained industrial expansion were to continue in our large cities, it would be the surest way of destroying the Government’s policy of separate development. We who come from the large cities, especially from Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand complex, speak from experience. The hon. member for Yeoville may use as many arguments as he likes, he may make as many quotations as he pleases:—from theses as well— but the fact remains that if preventive action is not taken by means of a measure such as this, we on the Witwatersrand will eventually drown in a black sea. In other words, Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand will eventually become only a white island in a black sea. The Opposition, however, are not concerned about this, because they are opposed to our bringing about more and more segregation in our white areas, especially in our cities. The Opposition knows that this is one of the Government’s greatest milestones on the road to the realization of our policy of separate development, and that is why they are opposing this measure so recklessly and so ruthlessly. Their whole aim is to make the economy of South Africa become even blacker still, because in their inner sanctums, where they hatch their plans, they say that that is the surest way of defeating the Government’s policy of apartheid. I am not saying these things without any grounds. No less a person than one of their former leading front-benchers, a person who is no longer in this House, one of their leading economists, namely the former member for Jeppes, said that straight out in this House in 1964. I want to quote what the former member for Jeppes, Dr. Frans Cronje, said here with reference to an economic boycott speech made by the late Mr. Adlai Stevenson. He said that if he could give any advice to those people who wanted to apply boycotts against South Africa, he could not give them any better advice than the following. I quote from the Hansard of 1964 (vol. 11, column 6189). This is what the then hon. member for Jeppes said:

If the aim of those people who threaten economic sanctions to South Africa is to remove apartheid, the obvious way of doing that is to encourage rapid economic development in this country. If they had any knowledge of what had happened in South Africa over the last 10 or 15 years they would realize that the more rapidly the country developed economically the more of a myth the policy of racial separation had become in South Africa and the policy of apartheid. They should realize that every new factory makes apartheid and the Government policy that more unreal.

Then Dr. Cronje went on and showed his true colours, as well as those of the party to which he belongs, by saying:

There, Mr. Speaker, you have the reason why this hon. Opposition is opposing this measure tooth and nail. It is because they feel that their whole approach to further economic integration is being effectively checked by this legislation.

I want to continue and refer to a speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and which I listened to the other day while the motion of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was under discussion. There the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the Other Place, Senator Oelrich, replied in the affirmative to a question put by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education put, namely whether the Bantu should be allowed to enter the industrial areas without restriction as those areas develop. The hon. the Deputy Minister asked whether they should enter on a single or on a family basis, to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition replied very clearly that it should be on a family basis. If that is the policy of the United Party, we may tell them that we shall use that point of view of theirs against them on one platform after another during the recess, that is to say, the fact that it is their policy that Bantu workers should enter our industrial areas on a family basis without any control being exercised. If that is their policy, what will the position be ten years hence? Ten years hence there will be an additional 750,000 single Bantu employees on the Witwatersrand alone. Calculated at five per family it means that an additional number of three million will enter and come to live in our metropolitan areas on the Witwatersrand within the next ten years.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.

When the debate was adjourned I was indicating how the Opposition, with their vehement opposition to this measure, were doing nothing but trying to stir up the industrialist and businessman in the country against the Government, and that they did not care tuppence whether our large metropolitan areas became blacker and blacker. But little did I realize how accurately my thrust had gone home, because last night I read in a letter from the hon. member for North Rand, published in the Cape Argus in which the Federated Chamber of Industries and the Associated Chambers of Commerce, were unashamedly reproached for not having helped the United Party to come into power last year. That is why, states the hon. member, the National Party is in power to-day and is piloting this measure through the House. If one reads between the lines in that letter it amounts to nothing else than that the hon. member for North Rand was reproaching the industrialists and businessmen for not having contributed funds to the election campaign of the United Party last year, and that that is the reason why they should not bewail the fact that this legislation is being piloted through by the Government. Sir, I have never before in my political career, either inside or outside this House, seen a more blatant example of political horse trading than was revealed in this letter. This side of the House is being accused of piloting through this Bill for political reasons, but I myself have never seen a more blatant example than this attempt of the Opposition to implicate our industrialists and businessmen openly and in public in politics.

What did Blaar do?

I think it is a disgrace, and I think the F.C.I. and Assocom ought to repudiate the hon. member for North Rand in regard to this matter immediately. Now the fig leaf of the United Party has been torn away and they stand revealed not only as a political party which is politically bankrupt, but also as one who wants to shake its empty collection boxes under the noses of the industrialists and businessmen of the country. The industrialists and the businessmen of South Africa ought, in their indignation, to stand up and state boldly to the Opposition that they will not incline their ears to this political scaremongering, because just as the prophecies of doom uttered in the past by the United Party in regard to measures which had been taken by this Government to the effect that the banks would close down and that our apples would lie and rot, so too these prophecies of doom will in due course appear to be nothing else but a damp squib.

Let me dwell for a moment on this argument of the United Party and their accusation that the Government is piloting through this measure for political reasons and that it wants in this way to ruin the industries and the economy of the country. Surely the Opposition is aware that they are distorting the truth, as Langenhoven said. That is. not what the Government intends doing. This Bill does not envisage the removal of a single existing factory or industry in the metropolitan areas. All that is being envisaged is the diversion of new Bantu-intensive factories. But I want to say this, if we were to be faced by an actual choice, a choice between white survival and an ever-increasing economy in South Africa —which is increasing to such an extent that it is becoming quite unmanageable in the large cities—then I say, preferably a little less economic development than that the Whites in those areas should be smothered. All that we are trying to accomplish with this Bill, as has been emphasized time and again here, is industrial decentralization. Now, last Friday the hon. the Minister stated very clearly to the Opposition what was being envisaged in regard to industrial decentralization throughout the world; in Britain, France, Greece and Italy, in all those countries with a homogenous white population, where they do not have those problems, as South Africa does, of cultural and social differences in a heterogeneous population. But when we act in the same way in regard to this matter as other countries in the West are acting, then it is suddenly anathema. I want to say that this is not only being done in the Western countries, but that one finds this kind of action even in the countries behind the Iron Curtain, such as Roumania, Yugoslavia, Poland and Russia. I am aware that in these countries the economy is controlled by the state and that the state can determine precisely where further economic expansion will take place, but in spite of that, these countries are still having second thoughts about the over-concentration of industries and are channeling their industries away to the lesser developed areas. I want to read here a quotation from a report which appeared recently in the Cape Times which came from Associated Press in Moscow. It reads as follows—

Then the report goes on to state that this is being done in Moscow because they want to make Moscow—I quote—“The most beautiful city in the world”. [Interjections.] That hon. member will have an opportunity of making his own speech. Sir, if South Africa wants to decentralize its industry, then it is anathema, then we are accused of wanting to ruin this country economically. It has also been said sneeringly by hon. members of the Opposition here that the Government is introducing this measure for ideological reasons, as if that were a terrible crime against the country. I say “thank the Lord” that we have a Government in power to-day which has a firm ideology, because where would we have been under a Government of that Party which has no ideas and which is politically bankrupt? What is wrong if this Government, in its attempt to establish a proportional industrial pattern and a more even distribution of the population, kills two birds with one stone and also furthers our policy of separate development in this way? The Government is taking the steps for which this measure is making provision because it wants to act in time, because it is not blind to the facts, as the Opposition is. This Government, as in the case of the Governments of other Western countries, is aware that the over-concentration of industries where Bantu and white elements of the population are brought together in an unequal proportion in a highly industrialized area, could create cultural and social evils which could eventually result in chaotic conditions. In every country where industrial decentralization is being applied, it is the general point of departure, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, that the workers should be as happy as possible. In this way this Government has, in all the measures which it has up to now introduced, endeavoured to bring about and further a greater measure of industrial happiness, a greater measure of industrial peace and quiet, but the Opposition takes no heed of that.

Sir, in order to illustrate my statement I want to refer you to a country such as Italy where this policy is being applied. Because the South of Italy is underdeveloped they initially transferred workers from the South to the North to go and work in the automobile factories in places such as Milan and Turin, but it was found that because there were so many cultural and social differences between the southerners and the northerners the southerners going to work in the north could not be assimilated into the community. What did they do then? They reversed the flow. They took the factories to the south and the result has been that there is to-day in those labour plus areas, to which the factories moved, greater productivity and greater industrial peace than ever before. I also want to mention a specific example in this regard. I want to refer to the Olivetti typewriter factory in Italy, of which there is also a major branch in South Africa. They made arrangements there to ensure that the factory workers in the south of Italy who worked in the typewriter factories during the day could also carry on with their farming activities on their farms as part-time farmers. The same procedure is being followed in countries such as Yugoslavia, and Poland. There the governments are granting all kinds of concessions and assistance to the workers in the factories so that they can continue with their farming activities and in this way retain their contact with the rural traditions of the workers. But when we want to follow the same policy in South Africa as far as our Bantu are concerned then the Opposition say that it is anathema. The actual reason why this measure is being opposed to such an extent is that the Opposition does not want us to adopt the same course other countries are adopting. They want us to follow the destructive course of steadily increasing integration of our urban areas. But that road is the road to destruction, it is the road leading to perdition and it is the road leading to the destruction of the white man, because in this way the seeds of a black revolution are being sown, and we will ultimately be sitting on a powder-keg which will blow the white man to shreds.

I want to conclude by saying thank you to the hon. the Minister that he and the Government have had the courage of their convictions to come forward with this legislation and pilot it through here. I want to say thank you to the Government for having come forward with such a strong measure to ward off the black wave washing up against Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand, a black wave which has so upset Johannesburgers that there is already serious talk in National Party circles of the possibility of introducing a curfew in future. Mr. Speaker, it fills our National Party members from the metropolitan areas with renewed hope that we will now, with the aid of this measure, be able to progress further and further and with greater success along the road of separate development.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF: Sir, it has been most interesting to listen to the hon. member for Turffontein and to evaluate the reasons he has given for the acceptance of this legislation. He says that the Opposition is opposing it because they do not want South Africa to follow the road of other countries in respect of the decentralization of industry. Sir, that is just what this side of the House wants. We want South Africa to follow the road of other countries in respect of decentralization of industry for economic and strategic reasons, and not for purely ideological reasons. The hon. member said, “Die Opposisie staan ’n ekonomiese lekker-beleid voor, met geen aandag aan sosiale faktore nie”. Sir, it is all very well to say those things, but surely the hon. member must realize, as must everyone in this House, that racial peace in South Africa depends to a very great extent upon high standards of living for our non-European population, and anything which endangers those high standards of living must be looked at extremely carefully by any responsible Opposition in South Africa. The hon. gentleman has even resorted to extravagance and exaggeration in a manner that surprises me. He speaks of Johannesburg being drowned in a black wave. Well, Sir, as you know, we had from the hon. member for Yeoville figures prepared by Professor Scheepers in his demographic survey of the Transvaal, and what did we find? We found that the Johannesburg area, apart from Pretoria and a small area around Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark, was one of the whitest areas in the whole of the Transvaal, one of the few areas where the ratio of White to non-White was good in comparison with what it was in other parts of the country. It is difficult sometimes to understand the reason ing of hon. members opposite. The hon. member speaks of the dangers of an unequal ratio as between White and non-White. Sir, what are they doing with the border industry development scheme? They are merely moving the location of that ratio from one area to another; they are not improving the ratio in any way. No, I do not think we can accept that reason.

I want to deal more particularly with some of the arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister and the effect which this debate has had upon me, and I am sure, upon most members on this side of the House, but before I do so I would like to put to the Minister a question which I know could be put in Committee Stage. I am sure, however, that if he dealt with this question at the Second Reading, it would make the Committee Stage easier. The hon. the Minister will find this phrase particularly in clause 4: Action can be taken “subject to the provisions of any other law” in force at the present time. Sir, what we want to know is whether this applies not only to new town planning schemes but whether it applies also to those in the course of preparation and awaiting approval, even if they are already in force in terms of the Townships Ordinance. In other words, where there has been a zoning under the Townships Ordinance which is already in force, is that regarded as an approved township which is excluded from the provisions of this Bill, or is it only where the final steps have been taken? I think the hon. the Minister will appreciate why this question is being put to him and what the difficulties are.

Sir, the first thing that struck me in listening to this debate was that it was highly improbable that this Bill was the Minister’s own brain child. It seemed to me that it had probably been prepared before he returned from overseas and that it had been wished on him by the Department and by the enthusiastic Ministers in the Ministry of Bantu Administration and Development, because it emerged from this debate that this legislation is part of a pattern which the Government is seeking to weave for South Africa for ideological purposes. If you have a look, Sir, you will see the various controls which exist already. We know that on mining grounds any conditions can be imposed in granting a licence to persons who trade on such ground. We know that local labour bureaux can exert pressure by reducing or neglecting to supply labour to manufacturers. We know that the Department of Labour operating through the factory inspectors can impose onerous conditions on industrialists in respect of factory registration. We know the powers that local authorities have. We know the manner in which labour and its presence in an area can be controlled. We know the new industries committee of import control and the permanent committee for the location of industries exert pressure on new industries. We know that there is control in respect of the water usage of industries. We know of the powers that the Minister of Community Development has and the building control committee under section 81 of the Housing Act. We know it has become customary to consult the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development on the registration of industrial townships in urban areas. We know it has tended to become the custom for the Administrators concerned to take the advice of the Department in respect of those matters.

But that does not seem to have satisfied this Government, because only recently we had the hon. the Deputy Minister threatening to revise the whole system of subsidies on the transport systems from the Bantu townships to the urban areas. That is a most serious business in respect of industrialists who are already paying a certain sum monthly per employee in respect of site and service and things of that kind. It may lead to a rise in prices, a rise in wages, and a rise in prices to the consumer.

Then we have had this continual talk by members of the Government of the expense of housing Bantu labourers in and around our urban and industrial areas. Of course, the fact has been lost sight of that the industrialist is not in the same position as the farmer when it comes to financing housing for his employees. As the Minister knows, the farmer can deduct what he spends on housing, he can deduct it from income. In the case of a company it is regarded as an investment of capital and only a certain percentage can be written off, and then only under certain exceptional circumstances.

So it seems that what we have here is a piece of legislation fitting into a pattern and that pattern quite clearly is designed to impress upon the country the ideological objectives of the Government. The Minister was quite frank: He described the objectives of the Bill as being “socio-economic”. It is quite clear that the emphasis was on the social and not on the economic side. I say that particularly because it is most significant that while we have an economic advisory council which exists, I believe, for the purpose of advising on planning which, according to the statement made in this House by the Minister of Labour in 1958, was to be as follows—

I repeat: “general economic co-ordination and physical planning”. If that is the function of the economic advisory council then it seems to me that that is the first body that should have been consulted in respect of this Bill. The Minister has told us that despite that body’s existence, it was prejudiced against this Bill— “gekant is teen hierdie wetsontwerp”. But he has not told us what the reasons were for that council being opposed to this Bill. I believe that council was probably opposed to this Bill, if I know anything of the calibre of the men there, because of the element of compulsion, because of the danger of upsetting the normal economic development of the country, and because emphasis was intended to be laid on ideological objectives and not on economic objectives. If the primary object of this Bill is economic, then it is strange that the Federated Chamber of Industries should be so opposed to it for good sound reasons as set out in their memorandum. It is strange also that if the primary object was economic, that the Associated Chambers of Commerce should be opposed to this Bill. Therefore I think that when the Minister says that the primary object is socio-economic, it is a masterly under-statement. The object of this Bill is ideological and socio-but not economic. It also interested me to find the hon. the Minister admitting that the Administrators are against the detail of this Bill, although he claims their support for the general principle. It is common cause that this Bill is an interference in the powers of the Administrators in the various provinces. It is common cause that it is an interference in local government throughout South Africa. It is quite clear that this is an interference in the powers of the provincial councils in respect of town planning in South Africa. Despite that there has been no petition from any province for a Bill of this kind to be brought forward. You will remember that section 114 of our Constitution Act provides that:

There we have this provision. I know that it has been held not to be applicable as a rule which binds Parliament but by the same token it is an indication of the sort of procedure one would have expected this Minister to adopt in introducing legislation of this kind. This is an abridgement of the powers of the provincial councils.

Surely you listened to my Second Reading speech?

I listened very carefully to the Minister’s Second Reading speech. The hon. gentleman told me that he had consulted with the Administrators and that the Administrators had certain objections but has a single provincial council discussed this Bill? Is there a petition from any provincial council? That is what the Act provides for. Has it been before the provincial councils concerned? Only one provincial council has dealt with this matter and that was the Cape Provincial Council on a motion introduced by the Opposition protesting against the reduction of the council’s powers. What is significant also is that nowhere have we been given the reasons for the abolition of the Natural Resources Development Council. We have been told that the Act of 1947 is going to be repealed by this Bill. Nowhere have we been told why the Natural Resources Development Council must be done away with. Has it not done satisfactory work? Has it not done some magnificent regional planning throughout South Africa? Why is it suddenly to be abolished? The hon. the Minister has told us that there is going to be a Planning Council to which he will refer matters of this kind, but there is nothing in the Bill saying that he must do so. Nowhere in this Bill is there reference made to the Planning Council. In the past there was the Natural Resources Development Council which dealt with all these matters and it was given a statutory position. Here we are in the position that that council is abolished, the Minister tells us that he will consult with the Planning Council, but nowhere in this Bill is there a provision forcing him to do so or calling upon him to do so or requiring him to do so before he takes action in terms of this Bill. In fact, what do we have now? What we have at the moment provided for in the Bill is a departmental committee to which the hon. the Minister may delegate certain of his powers. But he says that long-range planning will be determined by him and if necessary by the Cabinet. This will be done with some consultation with that Planning Council. But there is no provision in the Bill for this. He can overlook the Planning Council and go straight ahead. He can act alone. He can delegate his powers and there is no restriction of any kind whatever. The Bill has a provision to the effect that if the members of that departmental committee to which he can delegate power, are not ad idem, then there will be reference to the Minister. I wonder what he means by ad idem. Must their finding be unanimous?

Yes.

Thank you. I wanted to be clear on that point. I do not think that it in any way detracts from my criticism of the Bill because my criticism is that the Natural Resources Development Council has been removed and nothing put in its place as a statutory body to which the Minister must refer and which is responsible for long-term planning.

The other thing that is significant about this Bill is that while the Minister has given us a reference to the results of certain research work done in Italy, he has been unable to produce, or he has so far failed to produce, a single example of comparative sets of figures to indicate that despite the enormous cost of establishing the necessary infrastructures in border areas, it is going to be cheaper to develop new factories in those border areas than in the established industrial townships. Nowhere have we any proof. Nowhere have we seen any research. This Minister does not come to the House and say that he needs these powers because in this way he is going to bring down the costs of production and that he is going to reduce the cost of establishing factories. All we have is a reference to some work done in Italy which may or may not be of application here in South Africa. There is no indication that we have reached the saturation point in certain urban areas, where it is cheaper to move industries out than to establish them in the urban areas concerned. We must never forget that when we move an industry to a border area as the hon. the Minister is intending to do, or to influence, under the powers given him in this Bill, we have to establish two infrastructures, not just one. We have to establish an infrastructure for the factory and the European community attached to that factory, and we also have to establish an infrastructure for the Bantu worker inside the reserve. That may very often not exist. I agree that those two infrastructures will be correlated. Transport will be correlated. Water supplies may or may not be correlated. It is quite clear, however, that on this system the movement of industries into rural areas, with the necessary establishment of two infrastructures because of our South African situation, may be a very much more costly affair than is the case in other countries of the world, to which reference has been made by way of comparison. We see here something rather dangerous and something which is very significant when we evaluate the importance of this Bill and what should be done about it.

The Minister referred continuously to the practice in overseas countries, but it is quite clear that this Bill gives our Minister greater powers than have been taken in any other overseas country in the Western World in peace time. Why does he need those powers? We have been given no reasons why he should have powers greater than those in any of the other countries of the world. Why is this Minister suddenly being clothed with powers of that kind, greater indeed than those in any of the other countries in the Western World at the present time? The hon. the Minister is empowered to ride roughshod over the Administrators, over the provinces and over the local authorities. Although he provides for consultation with the Administrators in two or three events, he has removed from the Act of 1947 the provision that there should be concurrence by the Administrators. In other words, he is the boss. He is going to lay down the law and he is going to determine exactly what should be done. I wonder why he had to take that step? Have the Administrators been so unreasonable? Have they refused to co-operate with the Natural Resources Development Council? Have they refused to assist in regional planning? Why is it that this power must suddenly be taken by the Minister to override what the Administrators want to do? After all, the Administrators are the Government’s nominees. The Government appoints them. Surely if they appoint them, they should be consulted and their concurrence should be obtained, or is the policy changing so fast that the Administrators cannot keep up? Is that really what is at the root of it all? I would say, to summarize my preliminary observations that it appears to me that an unsatisfactory case has been made out for the taking of dictatorial powers which may have a very important effect on the cost structure of industry in this country. What is interesting is that they appear to have been taken contrary to the undertaking given by the previous Prime Minister. In a statement made in this House, he said:

That assurance having been given, we find now that this Minister has taken powers which have been taken in no other country, except perhaps Communist Russia, but certainly no other country in the Western World. How is it that we so differ from those other countries, that this Minister needs those extra powers?I think the reason is that this Government is looking at the problem not with economic motives at all. They are looking at it, not merely as a social problem, but purely as a racial problem, and from ideological points of view. When one looks at this legislation from a point of view of first principles economically, then it is clear that, when one goes into the question of the location of industry, a large number of factors has to be considered. I think that in considering what those factors are, one cannot do better than look at the interim report of the Board of Trade and Industries, which was given on the manufacturing industries in South Africa in 1945. There they state:

Then come these very significant words, further down in the paragraph:

Later on in this report it is indicated again what the duties of the industrialist are:

Then they go into the various factors which the Minister should look at in coming to this conclusion. You see. Sir, one principle underlying the problems as a practical issue is that every prospective manufacturer should make a thorough investigation into all relevant locational factors, and plan the size and the location of his factory accordingly. He should do that, not only in his own interest, but also for the sake of the sound industrial development of the country, for as has been said, wrong location means an uneconomic diversion of productive resources. The report goes on—

In the factors which the hon. the Minister is to take account of in determining whether location of industries is to take place in South Africa, is there mention of the health, the cleanliness or the productivity of the working population? No, Mr. Speaker, they are not mentioned in this Bill. One is inclined to ask: “What is the Government’s concept of decentralization and what are its objectives?” I think that the Government’s concept seems to have been that stated by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education on 21st June, 1966, at Benoni. This is what the hon. member said:

And later on he says:

That is the problem, namely an over concentration of Bantu labour on the Witwatersrand, one of the whitest portions of the whole Transvaal. It is one of the areas where the ratio of White to non-White is the best in the whole Transvaal. The problem he says, is the over concentration of Bantu labour on the Witwatersrand. And then he goes on—

It looks to me that industry could not and the Minister could not and that we now have the Minister of Planning taking exceptional powers in order to find the formula. The hon. the Minister goes on and he says—

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “Hear, hear!” I repeat “… the favourable development of the country as a whole including the Bantu homelands”. What would happen if somebody had to come along and ask to establish an industry in the Bantu homelands with white capital and white initiative?

On an agency basis … [Interjections.]

Is it really aimed at the more effective use of factors of production and a more equitable distribution of income? Is there going to be a more equitable distribution of income if you force up cost of production? This is the sort of nonsense underlying this Bill and the reasons for it. It is quite clear from this that the motivation of the Government policy has very little, if any relationship whatever, to economic interests. It is purely ideological. The Minister has tended to emphasize the factor of the supply of labour. He said little or nothing about markets and distribution of the goods produced. We have heard nothing about supplies of raw materials and their transportation to the factories. And we see nothing about them in the Bill either. The Government seems to be obsessed with the social pattern that is to be created. And it seems that you may very easily find that by creating that social pattern you will so increase costs as to render important industries in South Africa non-competitive in world markets. What provision is there in this Bill for the investigation of matters of that kind? The Minister “may” cause an investigation to be made under clause 4 There is no compulsion. There is provision there, namely for the resources of the Republic to be exploited, developed or utilized. They are permissive and not mandatory. And the test is how may they best be exploited. And what is the criterion going to be? Is it going to be an economic criterion or is it going to be the ideological criterion set up by the Deputy Minister, namely that the big problem is the over-concentration of Bantu labour on the Witwatersrand? Here in South Africa at the present moment we are engaged in the battle against inflation. The hon. the Minister of Finance is only too aware of that. The rise in the cost of living has been felt on all sides. The pressure on the Government to increase wages and to increase salaries are becoming tremendous, as hon. gentlemen will know. The Minister is asking us here to hand over powers to him which may have serious effects upon the whole economy with a very real possibility of their forcing up living costs. This is being done without public debate by the recognized advisory bodies as to the wisdom or otherwise of the actions he proposes to take. He is very charmingly asking for co-operation from all concerned provided they agree with what he wants to do. Provided they agree with what he wants to do, there will be co-operation. But there is no provision anywhere compelling the Minister to co-operate. Everyone else is being compelled to co-operate, but not the Minister. Now he is trying to justify his actions on the basis of strategic and economic advantages attached to the decentralization of industries generally in South Africa. Is he drawing attention to the fact that decentralization in South Africa to the border areas may have certain disadvantages for which we will have to pay very dearly indeed and which do not exist in other parts of the world? Recently a survey was made in connection with this matter by certain sociologists and their findings were very interesting indeed. If I may summarize, the problems arising from decentralization can be set out as follows. Depending upon the size and the complexity of the industrial organization and on the actual location of the factory the factors to consider in relation to the white group are as follows:

1. (1) Are the desired skills those which will be available to the new community? If not, then the managerial and technical echelon need to be imported. They will then be faced with adaptation to semi-rural or rural communities after being urban dwellers. But if the units are not located within an existing white community there will be a considerable degree of isolation.

What report is this?

It is a report by a sociologist, Mrs. Glass. If the unit is not located within an existing white community there will be a considerable degree of isolation. This may be mitigated by the size of the white employee group. If there is a large enough group for inter-action, then the equivalent of a company town may develop. This, too, gives rise to a set of problems. But these are not unique, and there are existing approaches for handling such difficulties. From the white employees angle the locality and the size of the industrial community are two significant aspects. But then you come to the position in respect of the African population. In this respect it says that the problem of social integration will fall away since it is assumed that they will be drawn from existing communities. The crucial industrial problem is associated with the degree of industrial commitment of such a labour force. This commitment is closely related to aspects of motivation and of productivity. So what has the experience been in other parts of Africa and Asia where industries have been established in rural areas? It was found that foreign migrant labour drawn from industrially poorly developed communities in Europe could be trained to a level of proficiency equivalent to that of the local workers with a long industrial history. More important, however, was their level of commitment and motivation which tended to coincide with that of the local population. However, when factories were established in their countries of origin, their work patterns approximated those of an under-developed industrial society. This factor is a key consideration, namely the need to be part of a functioning community to absorb the required work habits and skills which come with industrialization. While the emphasis has been on the problem of decentralization here in South Africa we must appreciate that what is envisaged is decentralization among a rural community not committed to industrial work values. The reason is that a wide range of investigation on industrialization in many areas, Africa, South-East Asia, South America, indicate that an absence of such commitments and motivation seriously affect performance and limit industrial growth. That is the danger of forcing decentralization in South Africa into rural communities. Are we going to get the same standard of efficiency that we get in the big industrial centres? Are our costs of production going to remain the same, or will they be forced up? Is the time taken for training the employees going to be the same, or longer? The arguments we have heard from the other side of the House have been arguments referring to decentralization in industrially mature countries, and not to decentralization in a developing young country like South Africa. These are very real dangers which we have to bear in mind when we have regard to the principle underlying this Bill.

The Minister has made great play of the fact that he is not taking power to compel industry to move from one point to another. Of course that is so, but what he is doing is to take powers to prevent development in certain areas and to permit it only in certain other areas. Industry is the breath of life to any developing country, and what the Minister is saying is: I am not forcing you to draw breath through your mouth, but I am going to close your nose; if you want to go on drawing breath it is up to you, but you need not draw breath if you do not want to. If we have no industry we will not develop. The Minister knows that it is the breath of life to South Africa, but he is preventing one of the channels of development because he is going to close the nose, although he says he is not compelling us to breathe through our mouths. He is involving the old industrialist in a vast amount of red tape if he wants to extend, and he is placing the up and coming man in a position where development in the existing area can be so stultified that he will have to move. Consider a man like William Morris starting a little bicycle shop in a back street in Oxford, and how his factory developed. What would his position have been here if he suddenly finds that he is not going to be able to get the labour that he requires to expand his factory, owing to the activities of these two Ministers? Then he must either be stultified or he has to move, and if he has to move, will his trained team of workers, the skilled people he has trained around him, go out with him to those areas? That is what we are up against. These are the considerations that do not seem to have been seriously considered in regard to this Bill. Look at the beginnings of a man like Henry Ford and his factory. Look at the position of a man like Anton Rupert. What is going to happen if he suddenly finds his labour limited by the activities of these two Ministers? This business of moving expert labour teams into other areas is not an easy one to cope with. It is one which involves not only unsettling factors for the skilled people, but very often it results in the facts that the training period becomes very much longer because there is not an industrial environment in which these people can be taught to do the work that has to be done.

We have been asked to make all these changes by means of the Bill. We have been asked to make these sacrifices to avoid integration. That is what it amounts to; to avoid an undesirable ratio of Bantu to White in certain urban areas. What is going to be the effect of this legislation if it is applied in the way I suspect it will be? It merely means that you are moving integration from certain towns where it exists at the moment to new areas on the borders of the Reserves, because your white workers will have to go there. There is no question about that. [Interjection.] The Minister says there will be a smaller ratio, but how does he know it will be a smaller ratio? How does he know that those industrial complexes will not become bigger than the existing ones? How does he know that when you establish growth points of that kind you may not start hindering the development of the existing growth points? How does he know that the tremendous development and the attraction of capital into those areas will not make them as big as the complexes which exist at present? Is there going to be any different ratio there? What interests me so much, too, is that these border industries are being established in those areas to which Prof. Scheepers referred in the excerpt the hon. member for Yeoville gave to this House, and in which he said there were areas where there were black concentrations and white concentrations against each other, “waar daar kranse was”, as he put it, which were the areas of maximum friction in the iso-ratio of population. I see the hon. the Minister frowning. Perhaps I can help him by reading that excerpt again—

In other words, we are going to establish these border industries in areas where the chances of friction are greatest, in the view of this professor. But we are also establishing them on the borders of what may become independent states, within easy reach of any raiding or striking force that might be established in a state of that kind. In fact, we are placing our industries, or a large number of them, right on our very boundaries, and putting them within easy reach of any enemy wanting to attack South Africa. That is one of the objectives of this Bill.

It seems extraordinary to me that a Bill which the Minister obviously regards as so important and which could have such far-reaching effects should have been made available to the public only about ten days before it came to this House for second reading. Surely this is a Bill essentially on which there should have been opportunities for discussion and debate throughout South Africa, on which we could have had the views of all the various local authorities and of every single provincial council, and on which we should have consultations at every level with important industrialists and industrialists’ organizations in South Africa. What was it? Were they afraid that the public would not support it? Were they afraid that important organized bodies of industry and commerce would not support them in this Bill? Now even the municipalities are beginning to wake up. This matter has never been before the National Municipal Executive. It is a tragedy that we should embark on legislation of this kind in this way. The Minister keeps seeking to justify his Bill by saying that other sections of the community have their labour, etc. controlled by the Government and that the manufacturing industry is not being made a scapegoat. Well, it is perfectly true that other sections of the community do have their labour controlled, but it does seem that he is giving a tremendous amount of attention to the manufacturing industry, despite the fact that it employs so small a percentage of the total Bantu in employment in South Africa. Here are some figures from the 1960 Census. The economically active population is 3,890,000, of which agriculture employed 1,438,000; mining and quarrying 548,000; the manufacturing industries 308,000; Government, business, recreation and personal services 821,000; commerce and finance 188,000; transport, storage and communication 68,000. Sir, all of a sudden attention is directed to industry because that is something that can be moved, and for that reason tremendous attention is being directed towards industry. But what is the result going to be?

What moves with industry?

Workers move with industry. Sometimes the buyers move with industry. I should hope that the Government may move with industry but at the present time it is being left far behind; it is being left so far behind that it may find that what it has done is that it has established growth centres with all the attendant ancillary services in new areas but that it has so impeded the growth of industry in South Africa that there are certain existing growth areas that will lose their momentum. Already what has happened in Cape Town as a result of the activities of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education and people of his kind? How many industries have not been frightened away from this area? What has happened to the municipality’s industrial township at Epping No. 9? Why is it that in a town like Worcester 70 per cent of their industrial lots are unsold? These things have happened as the result of the activities of these gentlemen. Look what has happened to the clothing industry on the Reef as a result of the establishment of clothing factories in other areas. Sir, the odd thing is that this is being done to direct industry away from what as a general rule is the whitest part of South Africa, where the ratio of White to non-White is better than in any other area, because, Sir, if you look at the map you will find that the area where the ratio is best is where you have intensive industrial development, and that is the very area that the hon. the Minister wants to attack; that is the extraordinary part about it. He is going to find that as border areas become highly industrialized, he is going to have a growing white population being established there. Because, Sir, who says that what is a labour-intensive industry to-day is going to remain labour-intensive? Who says that they are not going to find means of mechanizing it on the borders of the reserves? Who says that if it is profitable you will not find so-called labour-intensive industries becoming highly mechanized, automated industries? And what will the result be? You will find that the result will be some of the biggest concentrations of the white population on the borders of the reserves. That will be the result of the performance of this Minister. Inevitably, with the development of mechanization, you will attract a stream of highly skilled technicians to these areas, with their families, and all the ancillary services that must go with it.

You will have influx control against the Whites.

You rather want it the other way.

Sir, the hon. the Minister seems to have forgotten that it is a golden rule in economics never to push the economy but always to try to pull it. You can only pull it by making new areas sufficiently attractive and by exploiting the profit motive. That is positive; this measure is not positive; this measure is negative, because they are seeking to push industry in different directions by prohibiting their development in areas in which industrialists feel that it would be most economic. The danger of this negative approach in what the Minister calls the most positive piece of legislation ever to have been put on the Statute Book, is that when you push you do not know what it is going to cost because you cannot see all the consequences, but when you offer attractions or inducements to industry, you know exactly what it is going to cost. That is why it is so important and so vital that that rule of economics should be observed. Sir, you will find this rule set out very clearly in the report of the commission on the protection of industry. The commission says—

I repeat, ‘"positive measures as long as these do not involve uneconomic considerations”. Sir, if we look at this Bill as a whole, what do we find? We find that it is an admission, a concession, by the Government that the entire border industries policy as it has been applied so far has failed, that the inducements were inadequate, that the threats and the influence of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education have been ineffective, and that now the Government has to come along and take these very wide powers in order to see that the policy is carried out. Sir, let me say straight away that we on this side of the House are not against planning; we have never been against planning; we have never been against the decentralization of industry for economic or strategic purposes; what we are against is the abuse of the decentralization of industry; what we are against is the creation of machinery to abuse that very policy, for ideological purposes. What is the result going to be, Sir? I think the consequences are going to be that in certain areas like the Western Cape industrial development is going to be hindered because of the lack of labour. Development in and around the existing industrial towns will be subject to bureaucratic limitations and very probably frustrating delay. The hon. the Minister says that he anticipates that people will just be able to ring up his committee on the telephone and get an answer. Sir, he has been away too long; he does not realize that State Departments do not work that way.

They cannot get telephones.

The first thing, Sir, is to get a telephone, as the hon. member correctly says. Very often it takes three months before you even get an acknowledgment of your letter to the Department, let alone get a decision. I think industrial expansion will not depend now on private enterprise and the law of supply and demand but on ideological instead of sound economic considerations, and in consequence I believe that productivity will suffer, that the cost of living will rise and that inflation will continue. I believe that the dangers of favoritism and the dangers of corruption are going to be multiplied by a Bill of this kind. We know that the hon. the Minister will fight against it; we know him well enough but, Sir, here is a possibility which cannot be overlooked and which will have to be guarded against very carefully indeed. Then, Sir, I think this Bill represents a further step in the direction of bureaucracy and dictatorial control. I know that we cannot have laissez-faire entirely, but by the same token we are moving in the direction of dictatorial control and bureaucracy, in a dangerous manner.

It is for those reasons that we on this side of the House cannot support this Bill. We believe that we have a very satisfactory instrument in the Act of 1947; we believe that it has worked extremely well, and we believe that it could be made to work well in the future, provided decentralization was sought for economic and strategic reasons and not for an ideological reason, which we believe is the root of the changes sought to be brought about in this new legislation.

The speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is the 14th speech made on that side since last Friday, and each one of those speeches had two characteristics; two characteristics which ran through them, not like a golden thread, but like a worn thread. One is: “Let matters take their course”, and in this respect the Party on that side remains true to the principles of the old United Party, as it was in the days of the late General Smuts, when their policy was also: “Let things develop”. The second characteristic of all the speakers on that side was that it was shadow-boxing from beginning to end. Imaginary situations are simply conjured up here; things are read into this legislation—phantoms of the imagination— which are not in the legislation, and this is done for lack of argument on that side of the House. During the past few days I have seen a puppet show on that side of the House as never before. The sole motive was to escape from the reality of the situation. Let me make it very clear that this is not the only reason why I am disappointed in the Opposition. To me one of the greatest disappointments was the superficiality of the attack by that side. There is no depth in the Opposition in this House of Assembly.

Answer our questions.

I shall make my own speech to-day—I shall reply in all fairness to the hon. member if he asks me questions on mining. Let me say that one’s actions cannot be anything but superficial if one acts not from one’s own convictions, but as the agent of certain other parties. The hon. member for Yeoville, who is not here at the moment, foamed at the mouth—it was not heated foam, because it was superficial—and called out indignantly: “Superficiality … frivolity!” What did he achieve by that? He merely used the words in this House for which he has been known since I came to know him in South Africa’s politics. In the course of this debate I heard nothing from the hon. member for Yeoville—or from the Opposition—which displayed profound thought. This is perhaps one of the alarming things, that we are saddled with an Opposition which adopts a superficial approach to everything.

I have a second problem with the United Party, namely that it is a party that lacks nerve. They do not have the courage of their convictions. What has happened in this debate? I asked: “What is good in this legislation?” and I received the reply: “The only part that is good is the part which you did not touch.” The hon. member for Green Point told me: “Nothing is good in this Bill”.

Except what you included from the 1947 Act.

I am coming to that. If that is the case, and that Party had the courage of its convictions, what would it have done? They would have got up here, as a man would have done, and have moved: “We read this Bill this day six months.” If that had been done, everything taken from the 1947 legislation and included in this measure would still have been on the Statute Book. That legislation is not being repealed. But that Party does not have the courage of its convictions. I was also disappointed in the hon. member for Houghton. They did not adopt an unequivocal attitude and say that they did not want this legislation. No, they came along with arguments

We said we did not want it and we stated the reasons.

According to the procedure of this House there are two ways of saying that one does not want a measure. The first way is to say it unequivocally with the courage of one’s convictions, and the other is to say it in a roundabout manner. In this debate the United Party came in a roundabout manner and said that they did not want this legislation. [Interjections.] I say I am disgusted with people who do not have the courage of their convictions. Now I am not speaking personally, of course, I am speaking of the United Party.

There is also something else, something with which I am not merely disgusted, and that is the following: I have no respect for a person or a thing that lacks the nerve to state his convictions as he sees it. The thing to which I am referring is the United Party. That is the thing which in this debate has not merely shown that it lacks the courage and the nerve of its convictions, but that it is also keeping a back door open. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is in favour of border industry development.

No.

The hon. member said that here in this debate.

I deny that; I said I am for decentralization.

The hon. member said in this debate that he was in favour of border industry development. During the Third Reading debate I shall quote what he said. Hon. members on the opposite side said that they were in favour of decentralization, but that they were opposed to this legislation. Why? Because in certain circumstances they want to speak for people who are opposed to decentralization, and in other circumstances they want to speak for those people who live in the border areas.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said very clearly in the past that he was opposed to border industry development, and that if he came into power he would repeal what is now being done to promote it. I say that my problem is that I am dealing with a party which lacks the courage of its convictions.

There is also another characteristic of this debate, and that is the old characteristic of the United Party, namely that they approach any matter from the angle of opportunism. Their approach is: “Do whatever is most convenient and best suited to a given moment.” Here the United Party acted once again as it has acted in other cases. They adopt this attitude of theirs not only in respect of this measure. What is the attitude of an opportunist? He is a person who is willing to be pushed around, or to trim his sails to the wind. That is the attitude adopted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If pressure from the outside, or from wherever it may be, is strong enough, then he says there should be Bantu in Parliament, but if the pressure lets up, then it is no longer necessary.

Did Dr. Verwoerd not promise independence to the Bantu as a result of pressure from outside? [Interjections.]

What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He says: “The answer to that is very simple. Pressures build up. Pressures at that stage were very bad in the country. I do not believe that those pressures are insurmountable at the present time.” That is the type of approach adopted by the hon. Leader. The hon. member for Yeoville should not sit staring at me like that. I ask him again: Could a black man sit in this Parliament, in terms of the policy of the United Party? [Interjections.] In London I heard what the hon. member for Yeoville said on the B.B.C. That I heard. The fact of the matter is that hon. members on the opposite side took the course of the opportunist. They came here with the most superficial arguments I could imagine. Now in this connection I also want to say the following, and I say this in all seriousness: We have a beautiful, a promising, a virile country.

But a poor Government.

Like all other hon. members, I am proud of our country. But unfortunately there are also certain things in this country which belong to this country, which belong to South Africa, for which it has now become necessary to apologize—with a capital A. I am referring to the Opposition in this country.

No, it is the Government.

To be saddled with such an Opposition is not worthy of South Africa —not with an Opposition which has conducted such a debate. Let me say at once that abroad they do not act in this fashion. When they say something abroad, they are not so weak. Do you know why that is so? It is because over there they take a more national line than we on this side. And that is also fortunate. But here in South Africa we are unfortunately saddled with such an Opposition. May I just ask in passing: I wonder which hon. member is going to be the next one to jump out of the United Party?

Let me say that in the course of this debate certain points were raised which caused me some joy. I want to say that I am grateful for and appreciate the excellent contributions made by all hon. members on this side who spoke during the debate. The speeches showed that they had made a study of the subject. Their speeches carried the stamp of research and of incisive discussion before they spoke. I must say one admires that, because such speeches could only be as good as an Opposition like this allows them to be. [Interjections.] Hon. members on the opposite side are laughing because I express my appreciation. But the fact of the matter is that even Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, of all people, has quite a high regard for this Government and for people on the Government side. Last Thursday he said the following in London—

I want to convey my appreciation to every hon. member on this side of the House.

Let me now say this: It is said that we need a stronger opposition. I do not believe a word of that, and I shall tell you why. Long before this measure was before the House, much more assistance, ideas and suggestions for improvements to the Bill came from this side of the House than ever came across the floor of this House. Our Opposition, which helps us to do the best, is sitting on this side of the House. It is done when we are all together.

There is also another hon. member to whom I should like to address a word. That is the hon. member for Outeniqua. For his part the hon. member for Outeniqua made a sensible contribution. He thought about this matter and he brought his ideas to the House and rendered a service to the people of South Africa. The hon. member asked me two questions to which I should like to reply. He apologized because he would not be here. The hon. member asked: “How long will it take to get a reply to an application?” I just want to say that during my Second Reading speech I dealt with that at considerable length. He then asked a second question. The hon. member referred to the 14,000 Coloureds in the Transkei and he asked that we should provide for them in our planning. I see the hon. member is now returning.

I want to tell him that it is implicit in our policy that we will specifically also plan in such a way that these people are looked after.

I now come to the attack by the Opposition. I began by saying that it had been a puppet show. All they did was to create figments of the imagination. Let me give some examples of this and let me start with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He used this image, that we are putting a clamp on a man’s nose so that he has to breathe through his mouth. In addition he advanced the argument used by so many other hon. members, namely that there is compulsion here. I now want to make it very clear that in this legislation there is no compulsion of any nature whatsoever, and nobody can read that into it. In the second place I want to refer to the measures taken in Britain. I think this is a conclusive reply, also in respect of this charge of so-called compulsion in the Bill. This is what an official brochure of the British Information Service says—

That is also true of this Government and of this Bill—

I think this is conclusive proof of the absolute fiction of the charge that this Bill contains compulsion. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition leveled a further charge. He said: “There is nothing in the Bill providing for the transport of raw materials, etc.”

I think you misunderstood me. I said that in the criteria laid down in the Bill, there was nothing having regard to the transport of raw materials to the factories, marketing and distribution.

That is exactly what I tried to represent. Now I just want to tell the hon. member this. As far as I know the iron ore from Thabazimbi has been transported to Pretoria and to Vanderbijlpark for many years. In what Act is that laid down? Surely one does not lay down such provisions in an Act? This is simply raising an imaginary objection in respect of something which exists in no legislation in South Africa. Here we are supposed to provide for the transportation of raw materials. The hon. the Leader raised another matter as well. He said: “The Witwatersrand is one of the whitest areas of the Transvaal.” That is an argument which was used not only by him but also by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Newton Park started it, and let us give him due credit for that. He explained what was taking place in Port Elizabeth. The argument amounted to this: Hon. members said that as far as industry was concerned, not even 50 per cent of the Bantu were working in the metropolitan areas. The hon. member for Newton Park went further and said that the percentage was 40 per cent. By now it has come down to 38.5 per cent. He asked why industry should be the scapegoat and why industry should be drawn in by legislation while far more Bantu were in other employment. That is true. I am not disputing those figures. But what I do want to say is this: What is the catalyst that induces employment? Let me give a practical example. If Uniewinkels had gone to Vanderbijlpark in 1942, the steel factory would have followed. It is industry which brings other development, and it gives rise to the influx of the Bantu. These hon. members argued that there were more Bantu domestic servants, and as the hon. member for Yeoville said, more Bantu in Government service and in the service of the city councils, etc. Why are the city councils and the Government there? It is because industry is there. It is not the Government and the city council and the domestic servant which get there first. It is industry which is the draw-card. What we mean specifically by growth points is, for example, to take the third Iscor to a place where it can become the growth point causing the influx of Bantu, if it is not a labour-intensive industry. Mr. Speaker, can you see what a superficial analysis those hon. members made?

The point is that proportionally more Whites will go there.

The point is that there is over-concentration. There are one million people on 2 per cent of the land of all South Africa. The hon. member for Yeoville demonstrated here that the White/non-White ratio on the Witwatersrand was approximately 1:1. There it is almost even, whereas in the rest of South Africa it is 1: 4. If a further million Bantu were added to the Witwatersrand in the next year, the ratio would be only 1: 2. Would that satisfy him? [Interjections.] The point is that there is over-concentration in a certain area. It has nothing to do with the percentage in industry. Industry is the point of growth and the catalyst which attracts the others. That is why I made it very clear in my Second Reading Speech. I want this to be taken note of. I said that these measures which are being taken are being taken with regard to industry, but there are other concerns which will also have to contribute their share in future. There are other concerns which will also have to contribute, and we shall have to do more in respect of the development of the border industries.

Let me now come to some other points which have been raised here. In the course of my speech I shall deal with the other points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I say with all respect that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not raise one new point. I shall reply to every point he put to me, except the point he raised in respect of clause 2 (1) (a] and clause 4, because they are matters which will be dealt with at the Committee Stage. We have now come to the end of this debate.

If you could reply to that, it would facilitate the Committee Stage.

I shall deal with that right at the beginning of the Committee Stage.

I could reply to it now, but it is not appropriate at this stage. The hon. member for Constantia took up the battle-axe. Unsmilingly he began to sow dragons’ teeth in this House. He put the United Party on the warpath, but in actual fact he started another puppet show. What did he say? I want to devote some attention to him, because he introduced the debate. He said—

† May I ask the hon. member who took the initial steps in this country to help private enterprise, and especially industry, to get onto its feet to the extent that it is on its feet to-day. [Interjections.] It is the old South African Party which fought the establishment of Iscor tooth and nail and even asked what we were going to do with the steel once it was produced. It was not only the old United Party which did so. Since I have been in this House. I can remember what difficulty we had with this Party to get Sasol going. [Interjections.]

I shall now deal with the question of what has been done for industry since 1948.

What has industry done for itself?

Of course, I am not disputing that fact. But what did the hon. member say? He said: “This is an attempt to bolster Government racial policy”. Mr. Speaker, taking all developments into account, if there was ever a time when we did not need to bolster our racial policy, then it is to-day. The racial policy of South Africa is being accepted not only by Whites, but by non-Whites and the countries around us as never before. Contact with our neighbours and our Black neighbours was made this year and last year as never before. If ever there was a time that we need not bolster our racial policy, it is to-day.

*What did the hon. member say then? After he had tried to scare the people, he said: “This Bill will not attain its objects.” Then why all the opposition, if we are not going to achieve what we seek to achieve by this legislation? There is at least one point on which we are agreed, and that is also the only point.

†I should like to thank the hon. member for reminding me to put on record my sincere appreciation for what the Natural Resources Development Council has done. A long line of eminent men have been active in this council for many years. They have rendered excellent service to South Africa. But the question was posed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: “Why abolish this Natural Resources Development Council?” The answer is very simple. It was a statutory body. The statutory body is now the Department of Planning. Before there was a Department of Planning it was necessary to have a statutory body, but now that the statutory body is the Department of Planning, there is no need to have it any more. Long before this council was abolished the new Natural Resources and Planning Advisory Board was set up and is functioning to-day. I gave full details of it in my Second Reading Speech. That was done two years in advance of the legislation repealing the 1947 Act. There is full consultation with all the bodies which were consulted before.

*May I refer to another matter in this connection. This relates to the origin of the Department of Planning and its development. It comes from the report of their own Social and Economic Planning Council, of 1944. It reads, inter alia, as follows—

Note the following two points—

The recommendation of the 1944 report is brought to reality in this Department of Planning and in this legislation. But what did the hon. member for Constantia say? He said: “Industry was not consulted.” This charge was also leveled by many other hon. members. During my Second Reading Speech I indicated what consultations had taken place. They were warned long beforehand. They were told what would happen. On 17th May last year, more than a year ago. on the occasion of a banque of the Executive Committee of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said the following (translation)—

In June the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration said the following, with reference to this policy—

There is no truth in the statement that they were ignorant of what was coming. There was an invitation. Let me repeat that I am aware of the fact that the principle is not agreed upon. For that reason the Government accepted the responsibility as far as the principle of this Bill is concerned. There has also been some hawking with the name of the late Dr. Verwoerd and with what he had supposedly said, and it was alleged that what we are doing in this legislation could not be inferred from Dr. Verwoerd’s words, and that the late Dr. Verwoerd had in actual fact said: “This will not happen.” What is the truth of the matter? Is the late Dr. Verwoerd not the father of this border industry policy? To what end did he bring about the establishment of the border industries? It was with the specific object of allowing the Bantu to live in his homeland and yet make a reasonable and a decent living, and not to flow to the metropolitan areas. But secondly, was the late Dr. Verwoerd not also the father of legislation such as the “locations in the air” legislation? Was he not the father of legislation to cope with the domestic servant problem, to apply influx control and to bring about the development of the homelands? Was the late Dr. Verwoerd not specifically the father of this Department of Planning? Let me say at once that when the present Prime Minister said, upon assuming office, “We shall go further along the road of H. F. Verwoerd”, he specifically had this legislation in mind, amongst other things. If anybody wants to know how we are going further along the road of H. F. Verwoerd, he should read this legislation. Then he will know what those words mean.

Let me briefly mention some of those other phantoms of the Opposition’s. The hon. member for Pinetown said that this legislation was dynamite. He spoke of an “economic calamity”. He said: “Prospective industrialists will not come to South Africa. It will shake the confidence of overseas investors.” Now the hon. member denies parenthood of that. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, this Party acts differently from ours.

It was the hon. member for Parktown.

I say the hon. member for Parktown said that.

You said it was the hon. member for Pinetown.

Of course I can see the difference. The hon. member for Parktown is not prepared to accept that.

I never said that.

In any event, that is what the hon. member said. Let me just tell hon. members this. These international industrialists are familiar with this kind of control measure. They were not deterred by 19 years of National Party regime. In fact, in this year’s Budget my colleague had to take specific measures to put some curb on the influx of industrialists and their money. Our trouble is that the world has too much confidence in us as far as economic matters are concerned. That is our problem at the moment. The confidence of the overseas industrialists in South Africa centres specifically on the policy of separate development and the measures taken by us to implement apartheid, and I use the word “apartheid”, because this is the word which is used overseas. Let me now ask hon. members a simple question, one which I frequently asked overseas. Tell any industrialist abroad that the Government of South Africa is going to abolish apartheid to-morrow, and what becomes of the confidence of those people in this country? The confidence of world industrialists in South Africa and also of our own industrialists is founded on the fact that they know that this Government applies the policy of separate development consistently and will do so in future.

Another point mentioned here was that there is no place for the small man in the border area. I want to say at once that the small man, the small industrialist in South Africa, will do himself a favour if he goes and sees what there is for him in the border areas. It is an infamous misrepresentation of the truth and of experience in several border areas that there is no place for the small industrialist.

Then the hon. member for Hillbrow said: “Have the effects of this legislation been projected or our real growth rate?” Of course that has been done, and the hon. member knows that. But he conveniently omitted something. When he speaks of our “real growth rate”, surely he knows about the steps that have been taken? They were not steps to increase to 5 per cent. Our problem in this country was the same as that in Japan. Our growth rate was close on 8 per cent, which is too high, and it was reduced to 5½ per cent, and it is intended to keep it at 5½ per cent, and in this process all these factors have very clearly been taken into account.

†The hon. member for Houghton had a lot to say about free enterprise. I do not think I am being unfair in saying that for the most part of the speech it was purely a hypothetical tirade really. For her own convenience, she read her own fears into this Bill, but they are not contained in this Bill. May I say, apropos of what she had to say, that South Africa will remain a Lee enterprise country. We pride ourselves on that. That is the one thing this Government will see to, and moreover, free enterprise will be assured of law and order and protection of their property, and they will also be sure that South Africa will not develop into an inflammable powder-keg by overlooking the social aspects of industrial development in South Africa. They will further be assured of the fruits of co-ordinated physical planning in South Africa.

The hon. member for Houghton raised another point which I should like to deal with. She made the point that if there is a demand for water in the metropolitan area, why not take it away from a scheme like Vaalharts where it is used for agricultural purposes? Why does she not propose that at some later stage?

Will you accept it?

Certainly not, but then at least the country will know what the attitude of her party is, and that she wants to withdraw water from people who need it desperately.

*Sir, in my view this was one of the most shocking suggestions in the entire debate, that water should simply be taken away from people who depend on it for a living, the people who are on 30 morgen of land. [Interjection.] The hon. member asks what is wrong with taking it away from them. It is quite clear to me that the hon. member is the last one of her party who will be here, and that this will be her last term here.

You said that last time as well.

I have mentioned some points to demonstrate that the entire attack of the Opposition was based on imaginary and subtle comparisons just to sow suspicion and raise opposition to this Bill, and furthermore, to present South Africa in an unfavourable light. Someone said here: “The Nationalist Party has always decried the socialist system.” Why does he say that? It is to hang the label of socialism around the neck of this party. If it is not Nazism or “dictatorial powers”, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, then it is insinuated that we are becoming socialists in South Africa. What did the hon. member for Umlazi say? “The intention of this Bill is to direct all our industries to the border areas, and the Minister must reply to that.” Surely the hon. member knows that that is not in the Bill. He also said: “Durban will become a ghost town.” [Interjections.] He said: “Durban will become a ghost town because it cannot compete against the border areas,” and in the same breath he said that the border industries could not be a success. One moment the hon. members say that border industries are uneconomic, and the next moment they say that Durban is going to become a ghost town as a result of border industries.

† I should like to refer the hon. member for Umlazi to his own people in Durban. I would refer him to the report of the Executive Committee of the Natal Chamber of Industries, the people who, according to this hon. member, live in a place which will become a ghost town because of the development of border industries. The Natal Chamber of Industries in its report for 1965-’66 says this—

This is the Natal Chamber of Industries. They go further and say this—

*Then the hon. member for Umlazi also asked me: “What did you attain in the last six years in regard to border industries?” I may tell the hon. member that what we had to do immediately, and what we managed, was to overcome the prejudice and the fear sown by the United Party, and secondly, to put paid to their attempts at sabotage in respect of this development. Let me in this regard refer to just one further matter. Here I have the Daily Dispatch of 10th May, in which this prominent headline appears: “The Case for Border Industries”, and then there is a collection of photographs of “the men making the appeal”. I shall come back to this later; I think it is necessary to make some observations in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, let me just refer to two final points. I think the jewel of this debate came from the hon. member for Kensington, for do you know what he read into this legislation? He read into the Bill “that this legislation will take a Bantu child away from its mother”.

Your proposal; not the Bill.

“This Bill will take the Bantu child away from its mother.” I could almost say: “Dad, it can’t be true!” I quote, Mr. Speaker, to show you what is broadcast to the world on a Bill such as this.

It has nothing to do with the Bill. It refers to the proposal of the Department of Bantu Education. Why are you trying to twist what I said?

Order!

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member allowed to say to the hon. the Minister: “Don’t try to twist what I said?”

He tried, but he did not succeed in doing so.

Order! Did the hon. member accuse the hon. the Minister of twisting his words?

I said he should not try to do so.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Do you officially wish me to withdraw what I said?

Yes.

I withdraw it.

Then I just want to mention a last point. I think this is the greatest untruth produced in this debate, and it came from the hon. member for Green Point, who said that industry would not co-operate. It is a grave allegation which the hon. member made there. The Federated Chamber of Industries repudiates his statement absolutely, and I also repudiate it. Regardless of his influence, the Federated Chamber of Industries and this Government and I personally will cooperate to implement this legislation to the best of our abilities.

I now come to a pamphlet circulated by the Federated Chamber of Industries. Let me say at once that I shall deal with it in detail, because the entire debate on the part of the United Party was conducted on the basis of that pamphlet. At the outset I want to say that I am not seeking a quarrel with the Federated Chamber of Industries; I seek their co-operation, although I am aware of their opposition, but I want to warn them against one thing. I want to warn them against the United Party and against those people who mislead them. I know who supplied the United Party with all the necessary information; I know that the battle waged here was a joint battle. Let us get this very clear. I shall still seek their co-operation, but the time has come for them to search their own hearts and to see where their salvation is to be found in South Africa.

Is that a threat?

I am coming to a specific threat straightaway, if the hon. member will allow me to continue. That threat emanated from the hon. member for North Rand. It was contained in a letter which was published last night in the Cape Argus. In saying this the hon. member uttered a specific threat—

Looking for money—

Like the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. But he did not do it in his capacity as Minister.

The hon. member went on to say—

*Mr. Speaker, this is shameless begging for money on behalf of the United Party. This letter reminds me of the little Egyptians who followed people during the war years and hawked their goods and called out: “Very nice, very nice!” In future members of the Federated Chamber of Industries should please not merely pick the fruits of this Government’s actions, but should also be cautious when it comes to matters such as these. In saying this, Sir, I wish, to Present matters in their full perspective and for the edification of the Federated Chamber of Industry, to bring specifically to the attention of this House what the authorities have done, amongst other things, for the promotion of industry, and here I am referring specifically to the National Party regime. The National Party is the mother of industry in Southern Africa. The National Party nursed, fed and protected industry, and the National Party created the climate for industry to be able to exist and to be able to achieve what it has now achieved. That climate was fostered by the specific policy of this side of the House. Although industry made its contribution to the welfare of the Republic, I want to point out that it also made profits, profits to which it was fully entitled, but I want to point out that on those profits industry in this country is paying less in taxes than in most civilized countries of the world.

Not anymore today.

That the opinion could be expressed in certain quarters in South Africa that the Government of the country is capable of devising measures which are in fact aimed at prejudicing certain sectors, is more amusing than anything else, and does not merit discussion. In fact, the facts make it clear that the Government in power, and in particular the National Party Government, has to a large extent taken the measures which helped to provide and bring about for industry its status, its position and the prosperity it is enjoying at present. Let me mention some of these measures. (1) In 1924 the protective policy for industrial development was introduced by the National Party: the Board of Trade and Industries was established to promote the positive policy of industrial development; (2) the Government, through its Department of Commerce and Industry, is still displaying a sympathetic attitude, and by means of this policy a favourable industrial climate was created through the years, reinforced by customs tariffs and agreements. The validity of this policy is apparent from prevailing conditions. The production of mining, which has a limited lifespan, and of agriculture, which is not adequate to provide all the essentials of life, is augmented by sustained and purposeful industrial development. (3) The fiscal and monetary policy which is pursued provides consistently for a favourable but balanced development climate. In slack times support is given and in times of overheating the brake is applied. Members of the Chamber of Industries will know what I am speaking of now. Sound growth could not be experienced in any country which lacks efficient administration. High-ranking and sound Government and administration are a feature of our country. (4) During the past decade an export credit reinsurance scheme was established in which the Government takes unto itself a considerable risk in the export of industrial products. (5) On export promotion the Government is spending large amounts by way of advice and guidance through its local and overseas officials. (6) Our labour legislation, which is responsible for the exceptionally high degree of peace and order in the country, may be regarded as a model for the world. Does industry appreciate the tremendous labour peace as known in the Republic for so many years? (7) The establishment and maintenance of sound trade relations were promoted and the present standard of trade etiquette with our overseas trade partners is among the highest in the world. (8) Effect is given to the recommendation of the 1958 Viljoen Commission, which provides effective and wider protection to the local industries. (9) Although import control is not designed for the protection of industries, it is applied on such a selective basis in practice that the available scarce foreign exchange is concentrated on those commodities which are not at all or inadequately manufactured in South Africa. In consequence, of course, articles which are manufactured in South Africa do enjoy some protection as a result of this. (10) In the import replacement policy which has been pursued in recent years, valuable advice and basic guidance is provided to industry. (11) Finally, and surely one of the most important and over-arching factors in a sound development climate which inspires confidence and optimism, there is a stable national policy, which includes a definite political defence and industrial policy. If the hon. the Leader therefore wants to call this measure ideological legislation, he may go ahead and do so. I said I wanted to give a fairly detailed reply to the Federated Chamber of Industries. I should like to do so, as I said, because hon. members on that side of the House based their speeches mainly on what is written in this pamphlet.

†Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deal with the paper issued jointly by the F.C.I. and ASSOCOM which formed the basis of the attack by the United Party on this Bill. Before dealing with the issues, however, the first question which comes to mind is whether these organizations in fact represent the private sector as such. In this particular instance I cannot accept that these two organizations can claim to represent the majority viewpoint of the private sector. My predecessor, myself and senior members of my department are continuously in close contact with individuals in the commercial and industrial sectors, not only in the decentralized areas but also with those in the metropolitan areas. For us all it has been encouraging to learn, and we are continuously reminded of the substantial measure of support which the Government’s policy finds within these circles. I will now deal seriatim with the points raised in the paper.

It is worth nothing that although the private sector recognizes the Government’s objective to promote industrial development in border areas, it is, however, most unfortunate that the Government so far has received no support from organized industry in regard to the implementation of this policy. The support which has come forward, and which is welcomed by the Government, has come from individual members and rural branches of organized industry and trade.

It is indeed well known that the Government is employing positive measures to encourage a decentralization programme and to avoid as much as possible any negative steps to achieve this. However, experience in other countries as well as in South Africa over the last years has proved conclusively that all forces operate in favour of a continued centralization of economic development to such an extent that major socio-economic problems are created in over-populated areas. Proof of this undesirable tendency is found in the fact that in other countries the population in urban areas generally increases at the rate of 4 per cent as against an overall increase of 2 per cent. Some critics may hold the view that there is no serious over-concentration in South Africa, but, as I said before, if cognizance is taken of the fact that 81 per cent of the total industrial goods produced, are produced on 2.2 per cent of the country’s geographical area, there is no gainsaying the fact that overconcentration in our country is alarming. The Government is convinced that the problem is already a serious one—so serious, in fact, that the Government is determined and compelled to take steps to speed up its policy of decentralization of economic activities. We are certainly not attempting to spread industries over too wide an area. Economic growth points are carefully selected and where necessary the Government takes steps to create the necessary basic facilities for the location of industry on a sound economic basis. Whilst details of steps taken in the selection and promotion of growth points in certain decentralized areas are fully described in the 1966 report of the permanent committee, it can be summarized as follows, in reply to these particular points.

Areas or points are selected because of the fact that they already offer basic services such as industrial land, water, power, housing, Bantu labour and local administration. If Required, and in consultation with the local authorities, assistance by the Central Government and the provinces are offered to augment such facilities which might militate against location. Examples are low interest rate loans for rail facilities in industrial areas, fox instance at Pietersburg, Newcastle and East London. Furthermore, there are State water schemes in the Pietersburg, East London and Pietermaritzburg areas. We also have power facilities by ESCOM, for instance in the Northern Transvaal and the Northern Natal areas. We have housing loans and tax facilities from Government funds for key personnel in border areas at East London, Rustenburg, Ladysmith and Pietermaritzburg. Where surplus labour from Bantu homelands are offered and other facilities can be provided but where a local authority does not exist or is not financially in a position to develop an industrial area, the Government undertakes it…

The R220 million mentioned in the permanent committee report which was severely criticized under the vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs, for being too much, but now, in this debate, for being too little, to a large extent accounts for investment on infrastructure in decentralized areas. Since its inception the permanent committee is continually giving attention to improving locational conditions in growth points and to suggest new growth points. New growth points are also regularly being considered by the Government. Only three weeks ago the whole question of growth points was considered by a Cabinet committee.

Never before in the South African history has so much research and scientific investigation been concentrated upon the subject of decentralized and regional development. Never before have we had so much co-operation from provincial and local authorities as well as from universities and other organizations from the public and private sector. Our economic and political structure in South Africa is based upon our democratic way of life. This the Government is determined to maintain. The economic growth will continue to be based on the freedom of private initiative, but upon the freedom which must be contained within the framework of general Government political policy.

Finally I wish to mention the following. It is readily conceded that conditions in South Africa, and in fact the Africa we as fellow white Africans know, differ widely from other countries. We can nevertheless learn a lot from more advanced industrial countries and with adaptation to local conditions adapt such measures with great success. In fact it has been done in many spheres in the past. This will also be done in the development of our retarded areas with their peculiar socio-economic problems.

This Bill will be proceeded with and the private sector is invited to be associated with it in the formulation of practical measures to achieve the objects contained therein. The Government has the necessary machinery, such as the permanent committee, and I have the fullest confidence in the existing channels to co-operate with success and goodwill with the private sector to implement the objectives contained in the Bill, in pursuance of the total socio-economic interest of our South Africa.

When are you going to answer the points they make in that memorandum?

Does the hon. member want that now? Then I am going to keep him all day. I will answer them seriatim—one by one.

Then answer them, don’t just talk about it.

I have come to 4 (a), and I am now continuing from 4 (b). Shall I give it to the hon. member?

You have not replied to it.

I replied to it in brief. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member does not understand what is going on.

But you have replied to nothing.

The fact of the matter is that this is my reply to industry, which has picked the fruits of a national policy for many years. But it is also my reply to a party which did not have the courage of its convictions, or which was not prepared to think for itself— other people had to think for it. That party reminds me—and I conclude with this—of a building which is dilapidated, so that people are ashamed of going in through the front door. Now they slip in through the ruins, unseen if possible. That is what that side has done in this debate.

I say again, if they had the courage of their convictions, they would have opposed this Bill as one would have expected of anyone who had the courage of his convictions. I also give this reply to a Party which would not grant the rural areas the opportunity to get their small share of decentralization, a Party which merely pays lip-service to decentralization, but which does not say how far they are prepared to go or where decentralization should take place. It is a Party which not merely seeks to break up border development, with all the good it contains for all the nations in South Africa, but which would even unmake everything that has been done if they came into power. We hear that from the Leader of the Opposition. It is a party which wants to enlist the industrialists to put into effect their integration plans, if possible. This is also my reply to a party which misleads the Bantu in South Africa with their statement of the “rate for the job”, because that party knows, while saying that, that this rate for the job is in fact the reason why the White man is regarded with such hatred in the rest of Africa to-day. It is because they discovered the truth, and because they know that the rate for the job which is advocated by that party is flagrant deceit in respect of the black man. That is also my reply to a party which is, sometimes unknowingly but sometimes deliberately, the grave-diggers of the White nation and the future of the White man at the southern end of Africa.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and P. S. van der Merwe.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr.Speaker, I move—

This measure is of a very far-reaching nature because it makes provision not only for the detention for an unlimited time of persons who are suspected of having committed terroristic activities, but also of persons who are suspected of withholding information in regard to terroristic activities. In appropriate cases the Bill also makes provision for the death penalty, the highest toll. Nevertheless I am not offering the slightest excuse for this measure because it is one which deals with people who want to sow death and destruction in South-West Africa and the Republic.

This Bill is aimed at terrorism. The concept of terrorism is a reasonably modern one, but we have already seen enough of terrorists both within and outside our country’s borders to know precisely who and what they are. If you were to ask me to define who they are, I would say that they are a group of conspirators who did not dispose of the legal or political power to declare war in an honest and open way against their enemy. They are political adventurers and possibly hirelings of our enemies who wage a campaign of terror and who recklessly sow or try to sow murder, arson and terror. All their actions are aimed principally at the overthrow of the rule of law in our country.

Sir, we would like to live at peace with all men—also with those who do not think as we do—but we dare not surrender our heritage if that is the price which we are being asked to pay for peace. This hon. House is aware of the fact that we have already joined battle with the vanguard of the terroristic onslaught. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Police has already informed you about this and will in the subsequent debates furnish you with further details. We warded off the first onslaught successfully, thanks to the quick action of our police. We have warded off the onslaught but not yet dealt with it. We must still, amongst other things, deal with those who fell into our hands. And that, Mr. Speaker, is precisely the difference between our approach and theirs. They want us dead, but we are not seeking to take their lives. Their violent attack on us was met with only as much violence in return as was absolutely necessary to render them harmless. We are not going to reply to their violent assault with machine guns but are going to try them in our courts in accordance with the norms of a civilized community and if they should be condemned we will ask that they be punished according to their merits.

But those who fell into our hands are not the only ones. They are only the vanguard, and we must be prepared to cope with this new evil in all its ramifications and implications. What we cannot allow is for our legal machinery to be insufficiently properly streamlined and adjusted in order to cope with this new phenomenon effectively. It is for that reason that I am coming to this House again to-day with this measure. I come to this House with the firm belief that there is nobody sitting in this hon. House who underestimates the safety of those whom we have been called upon to govern. The maintenance of law and order in our country is worth more than gold. That is why I come to this House in the firm belief that any criticism, of any kind whatsoever, which may be expressed against this measure will attest to an unshakeable loyalty towards South Africa, South-West Africa and its people.

Mr. Speaker, I must warn hon. members against thinking that those who are engaged in terroristic activities and who are planning further onslaughts are all beyond our borders and that all we have to do in order to ensure our safety is to guard our borders. One must form an opinion of this measure against the entire background of the domestic onslaughts which have been made against law and order in our country since 1960. These terrorists who are returning now are to a great extent the fruits of the undermining activities of the A.N.C., the P.A.C., S.W.A.P.O. and the communists. It is for the most part their so-called trained freedom fighters who are now returning. We may as well recall Rivonia, the Bashee Bridge murders, the Paarl riots, etc. The Bashee Bridge murders were a typical example of terroristic activities where unsuspecting, innocent people were suddenly overwhelmed and wiped out. There have been numerous attacks on witnesses and many of them have lost their lives. You see, Mr. Speaker: Everything which helps to sow confusion and anarchy falls within the framework of the planned activities of these people and in that very fact lies the danger that there are people within our borders who are in liaison with them. We have already paid too heavy a toll in human lives since 1960 to allow any further loss to take place. It must cease now and this measure must contribute towards that end and be the last nail in their coffin.

Hon. members are justified in asking whether we cannot merely make use of the already existing measures to combat this new evil, and then I want to admit straight away that existing legislation will to a certain extent meet the needs, but yet not fully.

As you know, there are already provisions in terms of which any person who has received training in the Republic or elsewhere which could be of use in furthering the realization of any of the objects of communism is guilty of an offence. You will also remember that we expanded those provisions last year by providing that training which could be of use in the committing of the offence of sabotage is also deemed to be training which could have been of use in the furthering of the realization of any of the objects of communism. You are also aware that people receiving training contrary to the provisions in question usually receive military training or training in the committing of acts of sabotage. I also believe that you are not unaware of the purpose for which that training is being received. Indeed, it is generally known that people are being trained for the exclusive purpose of destroying law and order in this country. I also want to assume that there is not a single member in this hon. House who expects people who have received such training to remain unpunished.

However, the question which may perhaps be causing hon. members concern is why further legislation is necessary now to make it possible to take steps against these people. In this regard I must say that there is a certain amount of doubt amongst some jurists in regard to whether last year’s expansion of the provisions in question can successfully be applied in the case of people who received training which could be of use in the committing of the offence of sabotage in the territory of South-West Africa before 4th November, 1966, i.e. the date on which sabotage became an offence in that territory. Sabotage, so the argument goes, was not an offence in that territory prior to that date and it cannot therefore be said that the training which they received prior to that date could have been of use in committing the offence of sabotage. You will understand therefore that the argument of those people who have doubts in regard to the efficacy of the relevant provisions cannot be entirely without substance.

You are undoubtedly aware that there are people who received training specifically for the purpose of committing acts of sabotage in South-West Africa before 4th November, 1966. Suppose those who have their doubts in regard to the provisions in question are correct, then it would mean that it would not be possible to take steps against prospective saboteurs in South-West Africa who received their training before 4th November. If we were to apprehend such people we would, in spite of proof to the effect that they wanted to murder and exterminate us, have to let them go and wait until they have first proceeded to act.

Obviously we cannot allow anything like that. But whether or not there is any substance in this view, it is in any case undesirable that there should be even the slightest possibility of a legal uncertainty. We cannot afford to stand and argue in the courts in regard to what the legislator could have meant, or deal with a series of appeals before coming to the heart of the matter, i.e. whether or not the accused wanted to disrupt our law and order.

There is a second reason why we would prefer not to make use of the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act, particularly where it concerns incidents in South-West Africa. In the past our enemies have always seized upon this Act, quite unjustifiably, to accuse us of using it as a means of silencing our political opponents. We prefer now to meet the invaders on their own terms and in terms of their own appellation, namely that of terrorists. In dealing with these people we have passed the stage of the ideological struggle against communism which we chiefly want to oppose by means of that Act. What we are dealing with now is no longer red ideology but red weapons. We are now dealing with the backwash of the tide of rebellion which was set in motion years ago by the organizations I mentioned earlier on and which has continued unabated.

As further background to the provisions of this Bill I should like to point out to hon. members that the form and planning of the onslaught against us is not easy to anticipate. The terrorists do not co-operate with us and inform us of their intentions, and when we do apprehend them they do not overwhelm us with confessions. They conspire against us far beyond our borders where we have no access. The indications are that training outside the Republic often takes place on a joint basis for all members of the various organizations, although in different countries. On their return they sometimes come in groups, sometimes individually. Some of them return to their own organizations and the places where they were recruited, in order to continue their activities there. Sometimes the actions are coordinated, sometimes isolated, and so we are compelled to meet them on their own terms. However, Mr. Speaker, one thing is very clear, and that is that the actions are aimed at the entire Republic and South-West Africa. It would therefore be very foolish of us if, in our planning against them, we were to stare ourselves blind at the customary territorial jurisdiction of our courts or of our various Attorneys-General, or at the normal purview of our process, and so on. In order to be effective we must be able to bring together and try terrorists whom we have apprehended in the Cape and whose deeds we can associate with those of other terrorists in South-West Africa or Natal. It is not Transvaal or Natal or South-West Africa against the terrorists, but the entire Republic and South-West Africa against them.

Mr. Speaker, I have now sketched the background and I should like to present the contents of the Bill briefly. In clause 2 we are creating a new offence, i.e. that of participation in terroristic activities and that includes in general any deed which is committed with the purpose of endangering the maintenance of law and order and also includes training, possession of explosives, ammunition and firearms which could have been of use in participating in terroristic activities. I know that hon. members will maintain that the provision is a very wide one—and that I readily admit —but, Mr. Speaker, if we were to tabulate in the Bill all the possible deeds which could endanger the maintenance of law and order, where would it all end? It is often the small deed at the night time which can result in a great advantage to the terrorists and it would be useless to try to limit the purview. When we were discussing the provisions of the Sabotage Act examples were also quoted of deeds which were being brought within the purview of the measure, deeds which could have had an innocent purpose.

I do not think we must rake up all those old stories again. I do not think that there is one hon. member of this House who can indicate one single instance of where we acted in terms of the Sabotage Act and where those provisions were abused or applied in regard to acts which have not specifically been committed with intent to commit sabotage. Here too, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the terrorist and nobody else, but it is foolish to try and catch him with a net which is full of gaping holes. Hon. members can therefore save themselves the trouble of trying to indicate to me everything and everybody who might be caught in the net of the offence— I am aware of that—but I assure you that it we draw the net closer and in the process happen to catch a little fish which does not belong there, then the Attorney-General will immediately throw it back into the water because I have once again provided in clause 8 that only he or the person acting in his place can order a prosecution in terms of this Act.

And now something about the principles contained in clause 2 (2) which creates certain presumptions. In this clause certain acts or consequences are tabulated and it is those consequences which, in our estimation, the terrorists envisage in order to achieve their objects. But as I have already said earlier on, it is impossible to define all the acts and consequences which they may be aiming at. I want to ask hon. members to study the subsection carefully before they comment on it, and I want to ask them not to jump to the conclusion that it places the entire onus of proof upon the accused. It will be noted that the presumption which is being created by that subsection in regard to the accused’s intentions does not in any way come into effect before the State has first proved two things: Firstly, that the accused was in fact responsible for a specific deed which he is being charged with; and secondly, that that deed which has been proved against him had the effect, or apparently has had some or other, or some or all of the effects mentioned in the subsection.

It is only after the State has adduced evidence to that effect that the accused’s actions justify a judgment to the effect that he wanted for example to further intimidation or dislocation, disturbance or disorder, or wanted to cause serious bodily injury to or endanger the safety of any person that there will be a presumption against him that he had committed that deed or deeds proved against him with the intent of endangering the maintenance of law and order. Sir, this presumption will in my opinion not place any indefensible burden upon the accused. In my opinion it is in fact lighter than is at present the case in terms of the Sabotage Act, and I repeat what I said earlier on, that I do not believe that an hon. member can level an accusation that the provisions of that Act have in any way been abused, or that they have been used against persons other than saboteurs. If no injustice has been done up to now, why should we expect it in the future?

In subsection (3) of clause 2 it is further indicated what documentary evidence will be allowable at prosecutions and under what circumstances. It will probably not be possible to dispute the relevancy of the evidence or its conclusiveness—even less so its reasonableness.

There is also a principle involved in subsection (4) of clause 2 and hon. members will note that provision is also being made for us to try those who have conspired against us outside the Republic. Nevertheless we are making very clear provision to ensure that the citizens of other States are not affected, because after all they owe no loyalty to the Republic. They will only be affected if they were previously resident in the Republic or if they entered our country illegally after having committed terroristic activities against us abroad. Indeed, we are not involved in an international state of war with other countries so that we can detain their citizens who attack us here as prisoners of war. If a citizen of another state crosses our country’s borders illegally during peace time after having been involved outside in a conspiracy against us, then surely he cannot expect us to regard his actions as an innocent visit and dismiss it with a pat on the shoulder. No-one can expect greater fairness.

In clause 3 we are making provision for penalties for any person who harbours, conceals or directly or indirectly renders any assistance to terrorists, but in this case as well only for those persons who had reason to believe that the person in question was a terrorist. I referred earlier on to liaison between local organizations and terrorists, and between individuals and terrorists. The need to make any association between them liable to punishment is obvious.

Mr. Speaker, I said previously that we must not stare ourselves blind at the territorial juris-dication of our courts or of our attorney-generals or of our judicial process when it comes to an onslaught against the Republic and South West Africa as a whole. To bring together what ought to be brought together, the Bill is providing that the Minister of Justice may issue certain instructions in regard to the venue and detention, and so on. It is essential in order to eliminate any uncertainty in regard to which attorney-general should be entrusted with the steps subsequent to detention. That provision is being made in clause 4, whereas clause 5 on the other hand prescribes the procedure at the trial. Clause 7 makes provision for the legal force, service and execution of process in the Republic and South West Africa. I think that it will be possible to discuss clauses 4, 5 and 7 to greater benefit in committee although I doubt whether there can really be any fundamental objections to them.

I come now to clause 6 and with this we are once again entering a zone where feelings are apt to run high, but I want to assure hon. members that the new powers which we are now requesting can be explained and I want to express the hope that once we have reflected soberly and calmly on our problem it will not be the terrible thing which some people might want to blow it up to be. The essence of the matter is simply that we cannot, within the short space of 14 days for which provision is made in section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act 1966, and in terms of which we have up to now had to act, acquire sufficient details in regard to terrorist activities. After all, one cannot go to a judge to request the continued detention of a terrorist if one does not have sufficient information at one’s disposal to at least make out a prima facie case for his detention. However, hon. members must not misunderstand me. The aforementioned provisions, as they stand to-day, have already been applied successfully in numerous cases, nor have we up to now had a case where a judge has refused to grant an order. But we nevertheless have a responsibility towards the judge and cannot expect him to grant a request for the detention of a terrorist merely because the Commissioner of Police requests it. We want at all times to be able to say honestly and sincerely that the further detention of a terrorist is essential for certain reasons which are based on facts, and it takes time to acquire those facts.

Now, Sir, one does not want to mention things here which it is not in the public interest to make universally known. Nor do I want to allow myself to be tempted by newspaper reports into commenting on certain speculations. But I do want to tell you, without creating panic, that there is every reason to believe that we have not seen the last of the terrorists and that I honestly and sincerely believe that this is the appropriate time now to prepare ourselves to deal with any situation which may arise; otherwise it can happen that we are going to be left saddled with a problem which we will not be able to deal with. I have already provided you with a sketch of what the terrorists are envisaging and I do not want to repeat that unnecessarily except to say that they do in fact regard themselves as soldiers who are fighting a war and do not deem themselves to be bound by any law. If you think that I am exaggerating I should like to quote to you from no less a source than a United Nations document on what the terrorists’ claims in regard to events in South West Africa were. It reads—

From their claims therefore you can clearly see that they are not playing the fool with us and if they can hold a machine gun to our head, why must there by objections on our part to merely detaining them for an unspecified time for questioning? Surely our deed does not bear comparison with theirs. Must they then be able to do what they want, and must we merely take it all in good faith?

Those of us who are better acquainted with our borders, know that it is an extensive and difficult territory which has to be guarded and that dense forests, sand dunes and swamps stretching over several thousand square miles bar one’s way and make the tracking down of terrorists an almost impossible task. However, you apparently do not know how extremely difficult it is to acquire the necessary evidence in regard to the activities of a terrorist. It is only after thorough questioning and intensive checking of the details which have been obtained from various terrorists, or which have come into your possession in some other way that one can form any kind of a picture of what is really going on or how a suspect fits into the picture. In addition documents which are found in their possession are usually drawn up in foreign languages and must first be translated and studied before the contents can be evaluated. When one is dealing with a large group of terrorists, one’s problems are accordingly greater. Hon. members will also understand that one cannot wait until one first has a wealth of information at one’s disposal before clamping down on a terrorist. If we were to have done that we would have been in trouble a long time ago and would apparently not have been able to discuss our problems so amicably here. To do what has to be done takes time and patience. It is also in the interests of the accused himself that the police should have sufficient time to trace his movements and if he is innocent the inquiry will reveal that, and it will be to his benefit.

Now, as I have already said, the time at our disposal is far too short. However sincere our intentions originally were when we did not as yet realize the full implications of terrorism, when we thought that we could within the period of 14 days acquire the necessary information to go to a Judge, it has appeared in the light of the experience which we have gained that we miscalculated. We are now trying to do the impossible and are taxing our Police to breaking point. And since we are now already experiencing problems it is going to be far more difficult when a large group of terrorists falls into our hands. Experience has indeed taught us that it is nothing unusual to be in a position where one can more or less determine how a particular terrorist fits into the jig-saw puzzle of terrorism after a long drawn-out and intensive inquiry. We cannot afford to be continually overtaxing the powers of those who guard our outposts. If we continue in this way we will ultimately have to pay the price. In the circumstances I can do nothing else than to alleviate the burden which threatens to become too heavy and relax to a slight extent the tremendous pressure under which the Police are having to work.

Now, Mr. Speaker, all that remains are the principles of clause 9. Hon. members cannot be unaware of the overwhelming evidence which has already been adduced before bur courts of so-called freedom fighters who have left our country and South West Africa to go elsewhere to equip themselves for the struggle against us. The exodus began from approximately the date mentioned here, and they are now returning. The deed directed against us has therefore been an uninterrupted one on their part and it is only fair that we should take stock of their actions over the full period when forming our judgment in regard to their position. But suppose, Sir, that we were, for the sake of a mere show of so-called fairness, to allow this legislation to take effect on the date of its promulgation only, what would the result be? It will mean that if we caught any person in regard to whom we could prove that he had been receiving training since 1962 already we would be restricted to proof which could be adduced after the date of commencement of the Act and we will not be able to prove our case and he will be able to depart unpunished. Surely that cannot be allowed to happen. No, Sir, fairness and justice are fine concepts and we have great appreciation for them, but they only have significance if they are in proportion. If terrorists began an offensive on their party in 1962 which is only now coming into full effect, why should our counter-offensive not also be valid from that date? Should a terrorist who is still active at present be able to lay just claim to the fact that if he, when he began with his activities in 1962, had known that we would be waiting for him in 1967 upon his return with this legislation, he would never have taken the steps which he did in fact take? No, Sir, such an argument does not hold water—it is the argument of a man who has murdered his parents and then pleads mitigating circumstances because he is now an orphan. A terrorist who began in 1962 with his evil intention of disrupting the rule of law here, knew at that time already and is still aware now that he is committing an offence against his fellow citizens. I am making no excuse for the principle in clause 9, and if the terrorist reproaches us for wanting to take into consideration the full picture of his activities, then he is laying the blame at the wrong door. Just think back to what happened the other day when two of our Police officers carried out a routine inspection on a boat. Both of them are to-day lying in hospital with serious bullet wounds. Must we allow their attackers to go scot free because this Act will only come into operation in future? No, Sir, they began this thing, not us.

Mr. Speaker, with this I think that I have given enough of the background for the need for this legislation, and that I have adequately illustrated the principles underlying the clauses.

Sir, it is almost with monotonous regularity that we receive bills dealing with the security and the safety of the State from this Government. Two years after they came into power, in 1950, they introduced the first measure, the Suppression of Communism Act. One would have thought that by now they would have taken all the powers required by them. Successive Ministers of Justice have excused the taking of extraordinary powers by the executive or the giving of arbitrary powers of arrest to peace officers. Sir, all these measures have interfered in one way or another, to a lesser or a greater degree, with the freedom of the citizen. Some of these measures we have opposed—the power of house arrest, for example—and others we have supported where we have been satisfied that there is a necessity for the powers sought and that there is a check against the exercise of arbitrary powers. Sir, so many of the measures seem to be so similar that one wonders why they have been necessary, but there is always some subtle difference. The hon. the Minister himself has indicated that the Bill which is before us at the moment is very similar to other measures and that crimes covered by this Bill could possibly be covered to a certain degree by other measures passed in the past. Sir, this Government certainly believes in taking many bites at the cherry, and it chooses terms that chill the marrow of the ordinary law-abiding citizen. We hear of communists, of saboteurs and now of terrorists. I suppose it has been necessary to change the terminology in describing the crime because the Government always claims that through its energy it has dealt with the threat which it has set out to meet. At first we were told that the back of Communism in this country had been broken by the Government; then we were told about the activities of saboteurs. The Government claim to have dealt with the saboteurs and now we get a Bill to deal with terrorists. Sir, why was the offence of terrorism not dealt with when the General Law Amendment Bill was presented to the House last year? The hon. the Minister has dealt in his speech with the General Law Amendment Act. The word “terrorist” is used there; it is defined as one who favours terroristic activities. It must have been known then what was meant by terroristic activities, and if the existing laws covered those activities, then the Minister has no right to take powers to deal with terrorists. He referred to the Bashee murder and other incidents, but I submit that they all took place before the General Law Amendment Bill was introduced last year. However, in this Bill we are now given another definition of another crime. Clause 2 (1) (a) makes it an offence to do any act with intent to endanger the maintenance of law and order in the Republic. Sir, there are many laws dealing with the maintenance of law and order which could be applied but, of course, the penalties provided under those other laws are not as severe as the penalties provided for in this case. Clause 2 (1) (b) deals with people who undergo, or attempt, consent or take any steps to undergo training which could be of use to any person intending to endanger the maintenance of law and order. I have no sympathy with anybody who undergoes special training for the purpose of committing acts of terrorism and we do not object to the severe penalty for which this clause provides. Paragraph (c) of clause 2 (1) makes it an offence to “possess any explosives, ammunition, firearm or weapon” for anyone who fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not intend using such explosives, ammunition, firearm or weapon to achieve any of the 12 results set out in subsection (2) of clause 2. The hon. the Minister himself has admitted that the definition is very wide; he has said that we can give him many ridiculous examples as to what could happen under the definition as it reads now. But, Sir, I wish to point out to him that this wide definition does have the effect that a person could find himself charged before a Judge and liable to terrible penalties if he is found guilty not necessarily of seeking to carry out acts of terrorism. Under clause 2 (1) (c), if a person in possession of a weapon stopped a police officer from carrying out his duty in the maintenance of law and order, or some other person from assisting a police officer, and if the Attorney-General thought that he did it for some purpose connected with terrorism, then the Attorney-General could bring him before a Judge and even although the Judge found that his act had no connection with terrorism, the mere fact that he possessed a weapon and that he did deter any person from assisting a police officer would render him liable to conviction under para. (c).

May I ask whether or not you are supporting the Second Reading?

Yes. I am dealing now with the penalty. Sir, that is why I say that this wide definition relates to a penalty which is provided for in clause 2 (1). The hon. the Minister wants to know whether we are going to support this measure at its Second Reading. We are going to support it except for the proviso to clause 2 (1), which says—

In other words, this clause provides for a minimum penalty of five years. We intend opposing that proviso in the Committee Stage, and I am giving the hon. the Minister our reasons at this stage for opposing this minimum penalty. The Minister has said quite rightly, as I have pointed out too, that the definition is very wide. If, however, there are terrorists, who by intimidation and terroristic means seek to bring about such a state of fear that people become afraid to help the authorities to maintain law and order or proper government, for fear that they might be singled out for special retaliatory measures, or who by other means endeavour to bring about chaos and anarchy, then we have to consider very carefully whether we must stick to our traditional rules and procedures. As clause 2 reads at the moment, a citizen can be placed in jeopardy and subjected to severe penalties. He may not have intended his action, in respect of which he is charged, to have the terroristic effect which the Attorney-General might think it is likely to have. Sir, although this legislation is framed in wide terms, it is necessary because, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, he has difficulty in defining any action which a terrorist might take to bring about his purpose. I myself have tried to think out a better definition. I think we all know what crime the hon. the Minister wishes to get at but I myself have not been able to think of a better definition. The matter would be much more simple if we could couple the offence with some over-riding intention such as intent to overthrow the Government or to bring about anarchy. However, there are two safeguards for persons who may fall within the scope of the definition without having intended to commit any act of terrorism. That is that only an Attorney-General can give written authority for a prosecution, and that a trial must be before a superior court, that is before a Judge. The mere fact that the Attorney-General himself must consider the matter will ensure that prosecutions are not lightly embarked upon, especially as he knows that the case will be tried by a Judge who is trained in a court with a high reputation for impartiality and where justice is not only done but is also seen to be done. It has been stated here that the rule of law means a person is accused in open court; he is given an opportunity of denying the charge; he is given an opportunity of defending himself, and he is given the choice of legal counsel. An accused will have all these rights. As a conviction also carries with it the death penalty, he will be provided with free counsel to assist him in his defence and to see that he does in fact have a fair trial. If the accused is in fact found guilty, he will have had a trial which he himself would probably not have given to those who are opposed to him. Of course, our worries are not about the guilty, but about the innocent. We want to be sure that an innocent man is not punished. Unfortunately, in any system, no matter how much it is weighted in favour of the accused, there are still miscarriages of justice. That naturally is no reason why we should not take every possible precaution to see that miscarriages of justice are not likely to happen.

The principle of shifting the onus, as is done in this measure, is not a new one. In some offences where revenge or gain is not the reason for the commission of the offence, it is often impossible to prove the intention. So, while the definition is wide, we must bear in mind what the intention of the offence is, although the definition is, as I say, so wide. Therefore, as I said earlier on, we on this side will support this clause with the reservation relating to the question of the minimum penalty.

It may well be asked why, if we agree that terrorism is a serious offence, we are not prepared to approve of a minimum sentence in the measure. I feel the hon. the Minister can quite rightly ask that question. Again my reply will be to refer him to the example which I gave him where the Attorney-General, no matter how bona fide he may act, may be mistaken in laying the charge under that particular clause.

Also the court

No, not the courts, because the courts, I submit, should have the option. However, I think this is a matter which we can argue better during the Committee Stage when dealing with the legal position. We will deal with it more fully in the Committee Stage.

Every case has different facets to it. Whilst talking about this minimum sentence I heard some talk on my left from the Government benches about that aspect. I agree that every case that comes before court has some different facet to it. Although we make this offence, as far as the maximum sentence is concerned, the same as treason—which is the most heinous of all crimes—yet there is no minimum penalty for treason. If one is found guilty of treason there is no minimum penalty prescribed. Treason is, as I say, the worst of all offences. Murder also carries the death penalty, but if there are extenuating circumstances present then the Judge is at liberty to give even a suspended sentence, if he so decides. So much for clause 2.

Clause 3 we on this side will support. Again there is a minimum penalty involved. We will reserve our rights to discuss that in the Committee Stage too. I agree with the Minister that if anybody knowingly harbours a terrorist he should be severely dealt with, and therefore the offence is made similar to treason as far as the penalties are concerned.

The Minister also dealt with clause 6. Last year in October, about eight months ago, we on this side gave our support to a measure— and commended the Minister for introducing it—which, so he said, gave him lesser powers than his predecessors had asked for in their annual sortie for powers to deal with the maintenance of law and order in the country. The law that was passed last year allows the Minister to detain “any person who happens to be at any place as a terrorist or who has committed an offence under section 11 (b)ter of the Suppression of Communism Act …” It specifically mentions a terrorist. When introducing that measure on the 18th October, 1966, the Minister said the following (Hansard, volume 18, column 4641)—

That Bill then under discussion provided that a suspected terrorist could be detained for more than 14 days if the supreme court granted such an order, which had to be applied for by the Commissioner of Police. The Minister continued and said in column 4642—

When the Minister introduced that measure last year he warned us of the seriousness of the position. He said the position was very serious and that we could not sit with our hands folded but had to face up to the threat. In asking us to give him the powers which he sought then, he went further and said the person would only be detained for more than 14 days if a Judge so ordered. He said, according to column 4642 of Hansard—

We on this side had no difficulty in supporting that measure at the time, because of the protection which was given to an innocent detainee. The Minister has now told us that he has found a fortnight is not long enough. Now, I submit when this Bill was prepared last year, the people concerned had the experience, they knew what they intended to deal with, the police knew what they had to deal with. I thought perhaps the Minister has had some trouble with the judges, but the Minister says he has had no trouble with the judges. He says the judges will want a prima facie case to be put up. When we passed the law last year the Minister pointed out that a reasonable case had to be made. I submit that, until the Minister has trouble with the judges, he should proceed under the measure as we passed it last year. Was the Minister wrong when he said that the Commissioner had to put up a reasonable case, which is all that is required, and the Commissioner must then state why he wishes to detain a man for a longer period than 14 days? Now, Sir, I submit that a reasonable case must be put up to the judge. After all, the Commissioner must have some reasonable excuse for detaining the man. He does not just pick up anybody in the street and detain him. He must have some reasonable suspicion which he can state to the judge because those documents are not made public. Only the judge sees them and the Commissioner could say to the judge what his case is about, namely that he cannot at that particular stage allow the man to be released as he is required for some other purpose. I should like to appeal to the Minister to reconsider this particular clause. Maybe the hon. the Minister could extend the period within which a case must be brought before a judge. After all I wish to point out that the detainee does not go before the judge. There is no inconvenience in producing the detainee because the only thing that happens is that the Commissioner himself has to put up his case to the judge in writing. It is only when the judge wishes to hear the detainee that he would indicate that he wishes to hear what the detainee has to say. The detainee then has to apply in writing. Even then he does not come before the judge. The hon. the Minister in stating his case dealt mainly with terrorists who are caught in South-West Africa and who may be armed. The provision of this clause now goes further than just terrorists. It mentions terrorists or anybody else who may have any information on any offence under this Bill. It mentions specially terrorists …

There are only two of them.

Yes, but it could be a terrorist or anybody who can give any information on terrorists or any offence under this Bill. And I submit that you may get somebody who really does know nothing and who cannot give any information. He could be detained and there is no way of that person being brought before the court. He is held incommunicado and nobody is allowed to visit him. And I therefore do think that the previous safeguard which the Minister himself introduced last year—not by way of an amendment moved by this side of the House—which provided that the matter should be placed before a judge, should be retained. In accepting that amendment last year, we indicated that we have a realistic approach to these matters. The United Party has never been afraid to face up to the facts. We have governed and we have had to take drastic action ourselves to safeguard the interests of the country and to maintain law and order. Not only did we have to do so in time of peace but also in time of war when we should have been able to rely on the loyalty of all the citizens. But unfortunately that was not so. So I say we know the problems because we have faced these problems ourselves. We have had statements from the Deputy Minister of Police last year and again this year on the activities of the terrorists in South-West Africa which indicated that they were organized, trained and well-armed. I agree that it would be foolish of the Government to sit by idly while preparations for further raids are planned or internal plotting continues. Because of the nature of our country it is not easy to seal off our boundaries or to keep all suspects under continued surveillance and if the Government is in possession of facts or information which they think necessitates wider powers to deal with a new type of crime endangering the security of the State, then we are prepared to assist, on the understanding of course that if the powers are abused—and the Minister appreciates it —he will be held responsible. If the Minister says he is responsible for maintaining law and order and for the security of the State, but that he is unable to do his duty, unable to guarantee security, unless he is given additional powers, we will have to give him those powers, even if we do not like them. Because, unfortunately, we ourselves are not in a position to undertake the task of assuring the safety of the State. If this Bill is absolutely necessary for our security and if there is a prospect of anarchy without it, then no one can object to its passage. Maybe the measure is too wide in its scope and some other Government could handle the situation differently but, as I have said, unfortunately the Government in power is the only authority which has the power to deal with the position and therefore we are largely in its hands. That there is a threat there can be no doubt. It may be because of the Government’s policies that the threat is there. It may be that with a different Government that the threats would vanish. [Interjections.]

Order!

The fact is, however, that this is the legal government chosen in terms of our Constitution and it is therefore entitled, perhaps even bound, to carry out its policies. We can warn of the dangers but disagreement with the general policies does not justify our objecting to the Government taking the necessary steps to protect the safety of the State. Our duty is not only to help protect the State, but in fact to see that the Government is effective in assuring our safety. It knows very well if it fails in its duty it will certainly have to account to us and the country. It might be said that the terrorists are compelled to take this line because they have no way of changing government policy. That is no answer. Either there is constitutional reform or revolution. We have to see that there is no revolution. We certainly cannot countenance it and in view of what is happening on the African continent to-day where you have revolution after revolution and with the world in a turmoil, it would be the utmost folly if we did not assure that our boundaries are safe and that our people are free from intimidation and fear. Hitler got into power because his scum were allowed to terrify the ordinary citizen. Had steps been taken to control his ruffians, Germany would possibly have been saved the misery brought on her. But, Mr. Speaker, we must be careful too that we do not give authority without redress too widely, that we do not follow the Hitler technique either by giving arbitrary powers to policemen and others who can wield them unchecked, as did Hitler’s police and the S.S. We feel that the people at whom this Bill is intended to hit would not observe the niceties of our traditional systems, that they themselves are bent on anarchy to obtain their ends and so we have to change our rules to meet theirs in order to preserve our system, which may not be democratic in the true sense but does give fair trial and protection to all its law-abiding citizens. We will support the Second Reading of this Bill and in the Committee Stage raise objections to the two matters which I have mentioned, namely the minimum penalty and clause 6.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit right away that I am rather dizzy having listened to the hon. member for Transkei arguing first in favour of the Bill, then against the Bill, then in favour of the Bill and then against the Bill. I must say I am really feeling very dizzy. The only one thing that I am sure of are his last words where he told us that the United Party is going to support this Bill at Second Reading, in other words it is going to support the principle of the Bill and that it is going to vote against certain clauses at the Committee Stage or that it will attempt to move amendments during the Committee Stage. It is interesting to note that the particular clauses singled out for strong criticism by the hon. member for Transkei on behalf of the official Opposition are of course the clauses containing the principle of the Bill, namely clauses 2 and 6. Those are the two main clauses in the Bill and those are the two clauses that came in for his really strong criticism. But despite this fact …

And the penalty clause too.

No, not only the penalty. He complained about this Bill being very wide and about people having to prove that they are not in possession of certain things, about the onus of proof and people having to prove that they were in possession of ammunition and arms for reasons other than terrorism, etc. That is not in the penalty provision. [Interjection.] Perhaps the hon. member will explain the point to me. I certainly did not get it from the hon. member for Transkei. I would be the first to admit that I did not get the point he was trying to make at all. The only thing I understood was that the United Party was going to approve of the principle of this Bill but will oppose in Committee the clauses that contain the principle of the Bill. That is all I could understand of his speech. As far as I am concerned, this Bill is just part of a series of measures that have found their way onto the Statute Book since this Government came into power. It is part of what I call a self-generating series of statutes, a never ending sequence of events. When opposition is shown to Government Acts, tough measures are introduced. Then, of course, tough opposition is shown. I do not mean the official Opposition, of course, but from outside. With that I mean that I am not talking about myself either. I am talking about people who act in opposition to the laws that have been put on the Statute Book. Then, of course, there are repercussions again, and the Government in turn introduces tougher measures to put down these repercussions, and so on. Each time the same explanation is given. “The country is in imminent danger of well poisoners, of saboteurs and of terrorists.” These are some of the reasons given. The only thing that changes, are the people who perpetrate the deeds. But the actions are the same and the Government’s counteractions are exactly the same. We have the same to-day.

They always have had the same friends in South Africa.

Oh yes, I have no doubt. And they have always had the same people who caused them to act the way they do, who take no notice whatsoever of the basic causes of opposition. They do not realize that no constitutional means are ever made available to such people to put forward constitutional changes in South Africa and to object to the laws which have been passed. [Interjections.]

Let me trace the history of this self-generating series of measures that I was talking about. In 1950 we had the Suppression of Communism Act. That was to protect us against the well-poisoners. That Act has had no less than 84 amendments since it was originally passed, and each single amendment introduced tougher and tougher steps against people, for example banning, house arrest and restrictions of all kinds. In 1953 there was a passive resistance movement in this country. That was put down by the Whipping Bills, the so-called “counter to the defiance campaign”. In 1960 the P.A.C. launched its pass burning campaign. Sharpeville followed, as we all know. Then we had a state of emergency. At least in those days the Government went to the length of declaring a state of emergency before they took the sort of measures they have taken to-day without a declared state of emergency. Then, of course, the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. were banned. In 1961 there was sabotage in South Africa. Then we had the 1962 Sabotage Act, which defined sabotage as a definitive crime for the first time and extended the death penalty for this crime. It laid down a minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years. In 1963 one would have thought that sabotage would have been put down, but not at all. In that year Poqo was operating. Then we had the introduction of a further tough measure, namely the 90-day detention law. Then that should have been finished. Our imminent danger should have passed, because the Government had taken the necessary steps, but not at all. Then we had “Spear of the Nation” and the Rivonia trial. In 1964 a provision was introduced whereby a recalcitrant witness could be held for up to a year, when not giving the necessary information. In 1965 the 180-day law was passed. The following year, namely last year, we were told that guerrilla bands were operating in South-West Africa, although we were also reassured then that there was peace and quiet in the territory. Then the little brother to this Act, the Terrorist Act, was passed and the 14 days’ detention without trial was brought in. A person could be held for 14 days over and over again, without being charged, providing a Judge allowed this. The provisions of the 1962 Act were made applicable to South-West Africa. Well, here we are in 1967. What has been solved by all this? Are we not safe yet? At which stage is this country going to consider itself safe? Every single year the Government introduces tougher measures again. One can naturally expect tougher repercussions following.

This particular Bill is now before us. In it the Government is asking for the most far-reaching powers that it has ever asked for. Certainly, they are much more far-reaching than powers that have been asked for before. It is giving powers to the hon. the Minister and to the police to take emergency powers without declaring a state of emergency to a greater extent than ever before. It is a combination of the Sabotage Acts of 1962 and 1963, of the 90-day measure, which has been suspended—it really would not have mattered if it had not been suspended—and the 180-day measure. Only it is worse than all these far-reaching measures. In the words of a Government supporting newspaper. Die Beeld, “the police will now have a free hand to act without legal restraints”. This they certainly will be able to do, as the jurisdiction of the court is completely excluded, as it was in the 90-day and the 180-day measures. However, unlike the 180-day law there is no doubt that people will be detained for purposes of interrogation. The Minister who introduced the 180-day law, was always rather coy in admitting that that particular law was going to be used for purposes of interrogation. There is no coyness in this Bill. It is made quite clear, in clause 6, I think, that interrogation is the main reason for the introduction of this clause. The hon. the Minister agrees with me. Unlike the 90-day law, there is no pretence at all of limiting the period during which a person who is suspected of terrorism, or knowing anything about terrorism. can be held. When the then Minister of Justice introduced the 90-day law, he did give us the original impression that the words “90 days” had been put there for a purpose, to have some limiting effects on the detention of a person. That was the impression one got. In fact, in the event, people were held over and over again under the 90-day measure. But here there is not any attempt at dissimulation. It is quite clear that the period of detention is an indefinite period. What is more, it is also quite clear, since nobody will have any access to this person, that detention can be in solitary confinement. There is no doubt about that either. Nobody can obtain any information about a detainee under this measure. Will the Minister, for instance, tell us that he is going to give the next of kin any information about the whereabouts of these people? At least we got that undertaking from the hon. the Minister’s predecessor when the 90-day law was introduced. That was not in the Bill, but he gave us that undertaking, and by and large, that undertaking was honoured. There is nothing like that in this Bill. Under the 90-day law the then hon. Minister of Justice said that he would, in fact, inform the next of kin. Under the 90-day law, it was Parliament who was entitled to get some information. And indeed, one did get a good deal of information, by way of questions, of the number of people who had been held under the 90-day clause and the periods for which they had been held, and so on. But under this Bill, as I interpret clause 6, even Parliament may be denied in formation about the number of people so held and the conditions under which they are held. There is no necessity for the hon. the Minister to publish, to gazette, any of the conditions under which people are going to be held under this Bill.

Furthermore, the 90-day law had to be re-proclaimed every year. Under this particular Bill, this indefinite period of detention is to be in fact a permanent part of the legislation. Weekly visits by magistrates had to be carried out under the 90-day law. Here there is no such obligation laid on the hon. the Minister. “If circumstances so permit,” says subsection (7) of clause 6, “a detainee shall be visited in private by a magistrate at least once a fortnight.”

There are other features of this Bill which I think are quite familiar to everybody who has been in Parliament over the past 10, 12 or 15 years. Also, of course, there is the retrospectivity of this Bill and the onus of proof being again placed on the accused, to prove “beyond all reasonable doubt”. This is an old and familiar part of the legislation which has been introduced by the Government. It is just a further extension of the almost annual process of altering the law of evidence and procedure to fit the Government’s legal precept that an accused is guilty unless he can prove himself innocent beyond all reasonable doubt. There are a few extensions, I might add, even to the Sabotage Act in this Bill. At least under the 1962 Sabotage Act a person had actually to commit a wrong and Willful act and no person could be convicted of sabotage if he proved that the commission of that act, objectively regarded, was not calculated and that such offence was not committed with the intention of committing certain listed offences. Here, of course, the position is quite different. If one looks at clause 1 (6), one sees that it is quite different. There is no necessity for a person to commit an act at all. It is not essential for a person to commit a Willful deed, and also clause 2 (2) makes this pretty clear as well. It simply says that the act is likely to have had certain results. That is very different from having actually committed a Willful deed, and the same words apply in the earlier section, the definition of “terrorist” in clause 1, which says that “terrorist” means any person who has committed an offence under section 2 or an act which had or was likely to have had any of the results referred to in section 2 (2). In other words, the act need not be committed Willfully and the effects in fact did not have to be felt for a person to be found guilty under this particular law. I do not know what sort of impression hon. members think an Act like this will create. We spend a great deal of money putting out favourable documents in regard to South-West Africa and then we introduce a measure like this and make it specifically applicable to South-West Africa. I rather thought that the police got all the powers they needed last year in order to cope with the terrorists operating in South-West Africa, but now, less than a year later, the House is asked to give these additional powers to the police. One would have thought that those powers were enough to enable the police to cope with the position. Indeed, not long ago we had a report that everything was in order and that the police could cope adequately with any of the difficulties they had encountered there; Now, I have said before in this House; and I dare say I will say it again ad nauseam, that laws like these do go counter to the rule of law, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Transkei has said. He talks about the trial in the ultimate when the person has been finally charged, but as long as you have people detained at the Minister’s pleasure in a police cell or prison, the rule of law has gone by the board because such a person, who may be detained indefinitely, is not told what offence he is alleged to have committed and he is not given an opportunity to defend himself and he does not appear before the court of law before he has been so indefinitely detained. So as far as I am concerned there are none of the safeguards which normally apply under the rule of law, and this is a Bill which I for one will certainly oppose. I say that such laws can be abused, and I say that quite categorically. Whether or not one can trot out instances under the Sabotage Act of abuses is quite irrelevant as far as I am concerned. Such laws lend themselves to abuse, because they are not laws where justice is seen to be done and which are under public scrutiny. These things happen behind closed doors and the proceedings are never revealed. Certainly other laws have been abused. People have been taken into detention under the 90-days’ provision who were never charged subsequently, and people who were charged have been found not guilty. There have been all sorts of abuses. People have been subjected to all the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act and the provisions of that Act have been abused although they were not communists or saboteurs or terrorists. I say that laws like these just lend themselves to that sort of abuse. I maintain that the 180-day detention provision has been abused. People have been detained under that law for things far exceeding the things laid down in section 215bis. I still do not understand why the accused in the passport cases were held under that law. There was never any subsequent trial for anything having to do with Communism. They were charged with fraud, and that is not listed under this Schedule. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would take this opportunity of explaining to me why a man who shot a racehorse was held as a witness under the 180 days’ clause. Can he tell me under what part of the Schedule the man who Shot Sea Cottage was held? Why was he held under section 215bis? Perhaps the hon. the Minister would care to tell me. Was it robbery or sabotage? I have not yet heard from the hon. the Minister any reasonable explanation of that. Now. as I said originally, the fons et origo of all this type of self-generating legislation was the Suppression of Communism Act of 1950, which has been amended over and over again. The Criminal Procedure Act and the Public Safety Act have also been extended over and over again, and every time that happened we have been told by the Government that it was necessary to have these new and vast powers. And of course this Bill is not going to be the last of the Mohicans, because nothing is ever done to counter the causes of disorder. Instead, always the screws are tightened as apartheid is implemented. Of course Government members and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration will tell me that I am giving only one side of the picture and that I do not say anything about the fine opportunities the Government is giving the non-Whites to enjoy their national culture and community spirit, but I say that no choice is given to these people. Whether they want a national identity, or whether they want to enjoy a community spirit, or whether they would rather be free of the pass laws and the Group Areas Act and job reservation and separate amenities and everything else, they are unable to say. That is why I have no doubt that this is not going to be the last measure ol this kind. It is not I who wants bloodshed, but the fact of the matter is that the hon. the Deputy Minister is blind to all the genuine grievances that there are in this country. It was once said that those who do not heed the lesson of history are destined to repeat that lesson, and that is what is going to happen here. [Interjections.] Talking about history, I want to say that I think when historians come to write up the history of this era in this country, they are going to have a very fascinating time following up the vacillations of the official Opposition at this time. I have said all I want to say about the Government and I do not think anyone can have any doubt about what I want to do, and in case my time runs out I want to say that I wish to move an amendment—

But, as I say, historians will have great difficulty in following the vacillations of the official Opposition in regard to legislation like this. The United Party voted against the Suppression of Communism Act in 1950. It voted for the Whipping Bill in 1953. It voted for the banning of the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. in 1960. It voted against the Sabotage Act in 1962, and I must say they used some very good phrases in those days. They moved an amendment which could very well have been moved in this particular Bill. They were against it “because it deprived private citizens of the protection of the courts and put them at the mercy of arbitrary ministerial decisions in such a way as to threaten the freedom of law-abiding people, and it created the new crime of sabotage and defined it so widely that the lives and liberty of people who were innocent of any intention of subverting the State could be endangered; it granted further extensive powers to the Government and ignored the fact that laws already existed which were adequate to deal with any crisis that might arise, and finally that it would damage the Republic by creating the false impression that a permanent state of emergency existed.” The hon. member behind me, the hon. member for Durban (North), had a lot to say in those days. He said it was a most serious matter that anybody could be deprived of his liberty when he had not been convicted of any offence, and that he could be kept in a police cell for 12 days at a time. Well, here a person can be kept in a police cell indefinitely, and not just for 12 days at a time. As I say, it will be difficult to follow the vacillations of the Opposition.

The United Party voted against the Sabotage Act in 1962 and for the 90-day Act in 1963 and against the 180-day Act in 1965, for the Terrorist Act in 1966 and now I gather from the hon. member for Transkei that they are going to vote for the principle of this Bill. As I say, when they voted against those Bills they had lots to say about the rule of law and about the unnecessary powers that were being taken by the Government, and when they vote for these laws then, of course, they turn on somebody like me, who is at least consistent if nothing else, and accuse me of being in favour of terrorism and sabotage and incitement. The words they used could have been exactly the sort of words used by Government members when accusing the official Opposition for its actions when in fact they had the courage to oppose these Bills. It is exactly the same sort of thing, and that is why I am unperturbed by that sort of accusation; it is a lot of nonsense. I believe that this whole thing is being tackled in the wrong way. I believe that if we had a really searching inquiry into the real causes of disorder in this country and did something about that, then we might get somewhere and we might ensure the safety of our own children and our grandchildren. I do not think this is going to help. I do not think that bringing tougher and tougher measures every year is going to help us, and I am quite sure that next year or the year thereafter the hon. the Minister will come back to this House and say, “We did not take enough power last time; these wicked people are finding other means to defy us and to threaten us.” Perhaps the hon. the Minister really thinks that this time he is really taking all-encompassing powers. I say that this measure is not going to stop disorder. The only way in which you can stop disorder is by making a genuine, objective appraisal … [Interjections.] No, I want you to arrest people who commit acts of terrorism; I want you to charge them in the law courts and if they are found guilty I want them to be punished for their acts, but I do not want this sort of measure which gives the police vast powers of interrogation under conditions that no democratic country would tolerate for one moment. I do not want the Government to sit tight and to think that as long as it gets tough, that is all it needs to do. From my point of view it needs to do a great deal more. [Interjections.] You will never have peace and quiet as long as there are unjust laws, and the sooner the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education realizes that, the sooner will we have lasting security in South Africa. Anybody who thinks we are going to solve the problem by taking more drastic powers is living in a fool’s paradise. I believe that the whole history of these self-generating measures which have been put on the Statute Book bears out every word I have said here to-day. Every time we say that we are in imminent danger, we try to cure the trouble by introducing measures of this kind, and then we find that after two or three years the hon. the Minister comes back to this House to ask for further powers because the trouble has not been cured and the problem is still there.

The hon. member for Houghton knows, as so many hon. members of this House know, what happens at a Second Reading. One votes for or against the principle of the Bill. Sir, reasonable men may differ as to what the principle of a Bill is, if it has many clauses. I deliberately do not say “reasonable men and women”, because the hon. member for Houghton has been very unreasonable this afternoon, and the sneering remarks which she saw fit to direct at the United Party …

Well deserved.

… were completely misinformed. But the hon. member actually suggested some things which were not true, as I shall demonstrate.

Such as?

I shall come to them. In the first place, the hon. member, so far as the principle of this Bill is concerned, says that the hon. member for Transkei singled out for the most criticism, those two clauses which contain the principle of the Bill. That is not true. Sir. The hon. member for Transkei indicated that all that he found wrong with clause 2 was the minimum penalty. We agreed that the clause was wide, and the hon. the Minister correctly pointed out that it was widely cast. But then the hon. member for Transkei went on to indicate how the minimum penalty, in relation to clause 2 (1) (c), which deals with the possession of explosives, ammunition, firearms, etc., read with clause 2 (2), affected the question of the minimum sentence. That is a question to which I hope the hon. the Minister will give his attention. Apart from that the hon. member indicated that we were opposed to clause 6 and he indicated why. Apart from that we are not opposed to any other provision of this Bill, barring clause 6.

That is a very important clause.

Yes, it is an important clause, but what we have to decide is what is the principle of the Bill. The hon. member says that the United Party will support the principle of the Bill and then in the Committee Stage we will oppose the clauses containing the principle. I can assure the hon. member that that is not going to happen. Sir, let us examine what this Bill does. Here is a Bill to deal with terrorism. I am very unimpressed with the hon. member’s argument that if you pass tough laws you get tougher repercussions. If the repercussions are in the form of terrorism, in the form of sabotage or in the form of any sort of unlawful behaviour such as we are having at present, then as far as we are concerned we must take the necessary steps to stamp this out root and branch. It makes no difference what the causes are. The fact remains that you have that situation to-day. One might agree that some of the causes and some of the troubles at which some of the laws that we have passed over the years are aimed, could be removed, but that is not what we are dealing with here. We are dealing here with a measure to stamp out a condition which has arisen on our borders, and as far as we are concerned it must be stamped out root and branch and it must be stamped out right now. It is as simple as that. Sir, a lot of things are said about the rule of law. What is the rule of law? I suppose if one were to define the rule of law one would define it as the absence of arbitrary power. The hon. member for Transkei is quite right. The absence of arbitrary power means that people are tried in a court room; that you do not have the executive exercising arbitrary power over the individual. You have the court intervening and the court has a complete discretion as to whether or not, on facts and on the evidence and on the law, the individual shall go free or not. That is why we object to the minimum sentence. Sir. that is what the rule of law means, and that is why, so far as the principle of this Bill is concerned, so far as it is aimed at getting at terrorists, bringing them before the court and having them tried and sentenced by the court, it is not against the rule of law. But there is one clause which does offend against the rule of law, if the definition of absence of arbitrary power is the correct one, and that is clause 6, and we are going to deal with clause 6 as we have indicated. It is no good saying, as the hon. member for Houghton did. that she was watching the vacillations of the United Party …

It makes me giddy.

She says it makes her giddy. Sir, one gets giddy when one gets light-headed perhaps, and one becomes a little irresponsible. This may perhaps explain the hon. members’ attitude. Sir, the hon. member said something here which was untrue; she said that in terms of the United Party’s vacillations in these matters, the United Party voted for the 90-day Act in 1962, by which she meant to convey, as she has done and as her followers have done on all the platforms on which they have appeared in the country, that we voted in favour of the 90-day clause.

So you did.

No, we did not. Surely the hon. member must be very giddy; she must be terribly giddy if she cannot remember that we voted against the 90-day clause. It is true that we voted for the Second Reading of that Bill, and I will tell you why we did so, and I will tell the hon. member for Houghton why we did. Here was a Bill introduced as a result of an interim urgent report by a Judge of the Supreme Court who had investigated the riots at Paarl. The commission had been asked for by us. He told the Government in his urgent interim report that we should have legislation to deal with this organization known as Poqo, which he had found to be rife amongst the Bantu people. That we found was the principle of the Bill. When we dealt with the matter in the Committee Stage, what happened? We voted against the 90-day clause, we argued about it, we fought it—we fought it tooth and nail right through. We fought much harder than the hon. member for Houghton fought it. The debate would not have lasted that long had we not fought it. We also fought it thereafter. It was eventually not repromulgated. The hon. member omitted to say that the United Party in fact voted against the clause when we got to the Committee Stage.

We stand behind nobody when it comes to the protection of the individual’s liberties in this country. We on this side have a very proud record in that regard. But at the same time we have a very proud record so far as our responsibility to our country is concerned, and as far as our attitude towards law and order is concerned. We cannot talk about the rule of law, or anything else, if we do not have law and order. The point on which we will differ at the Committee Stage is not whether terrorism must be made an offence and the harbouring of terrorists an offence. The only question on which we will differ will be on the means one uses to achieve that end. That we will debate.

Why didn’t you oppose the 1962 legislation.

There are other things the hon. member must try and remember in respect of the Sabotage Bill of 1962. One of the things that was contained in that Bill, the hon. member for Houghton might recall—I know she is feeling giddy—was the provision relating to house arrest as well, which we opposed. That may well have been regarded as the principle of that Bill. The hon. member may well go back and see. But I think the hon. member must not try any more, to give the impression that she and she alone, bears the defence of the liberty of the individual on her shoulders. She is quite wrong. She does not bear that defence alone. We know that she fights for them. But the hon. member gave the impression, in one of her snide asides, that you get tougher opposition; she did not mean the official Opposition, she said, she did not even mean herself …

No, I didn’t

Well, the hon. member must have a very good opinion of herself. [Interjections.] I say the hon. member must not make these remarks about the official Opposition and expect that she can just get away with it.

Let us have some decent repartee.

No, this is not a matter of repartee. If the hon. member does not like what I am saying, then I am sorry, but the hon. member must not say the things which she said, because there is a reply to what the hon. member has said.

As far as the principle of this Bill is concerned, we on this side are opposed to one clause of all the clauses in this Bill, and to the minimum sentence in clause 2. Let me make it quite clear that our support for the Second Reading of this Bill cannot be construed and must not be construed as being support for clause 6 of this Bill. Clause 6, as the hon. member for Transkei has indicated, we will fight in the Committee Stage. We should like the provision of last year relating to interrogation to remain. Somehow we seemed last year to have arrived, in our long fight against the 90-days clause and similar clauses, at the beginning of a solution. We seemed to have broken through the absolute arbitrary power of the Executive and the police to the position where the courts came into the picture, and that after a certain period the detention was only at the behest of a judge and on conditions laid down by him. It does seem a great pity that we might move off that path on which we were placed last year. I do hope we will in the Committee Stage be able to settle this matter once and for all in the direction which the hon. the Minister took last year, because this provision relates not only to South West Africa but to the whole country. Also, this provision has no time limit, and it has no requirement at all as to what a court could do.

So, Sir, there is no problem about our support for this Bill. We support the principle that we must stamp out terrorism, that offences must be created which make it easier to stamp out terrorism. We agree that procedures must be adopted which differ from those adopted in respect of other crimes because of the special nature of terrorism, and also that the sentence provided should be the same as that for treason. For that is what this crime is, if it is not worse than treason.

Mr.Speaker, I want to thank the official Opposition for their support of this measure. It speaks volumes that the two sides of the House are in agreement on a measure such as this which is aimed at maintaining law and order, and can give their support to it.

I just want to reply to a few matters. I want to point out that there are in fact only two principles contained in this measure. The first principle is that any act, including the undergoing of any training and the possession of any explosives, ammunition and so forth, which endangers law and order shall be regarded as terrorism. That is the one principle. The second possible principle is that any person who renders any assistance to a terrorist, or who harbours any person whom he has reason to believe to be a terrorist, commits an offence. That is the second principle. For the rest the measure is made up of details only. I fully agree with the hon. members for Transkei and Durban (North) in this respect.

They gave their support to this measure, with certain reservations. They are fully entitled to do that. We can discuss the question of the minimum penalty, as well as that of the indefinite detention of a person, in the Committee Stage to-morrow. At this stage I want to say that as far as the indefinite detention is concerned, I made it clear that the provision which we made last year and which we honestly thought would work well, has not worked properly. I told the House that frankly. It appears that the time is not long enough. Although it is a fact that we have had no difficulties with the courts, I also want to tell hon. members that we have reason to believe that there are persons who were aware of communistic activities and whom we had to release because we could not build up a strong enough case to bring before a judge, or to submit an application to a judge. In other words, we are certain that some persons slipped through the net, persons whom we actually should have been able to bring to book. We do not want to endanger our bench and our judges by coming before them with half-baked cases. In respect of the applications which we brought before them, we obtained detention orders in every case. That is what it means. The reason why we are now resorting to indefinite detention is that we are up against trained, indoctrinated persons here who, as long as they know that a certain period has been laid down, will be taught and indoctrinated to keep their mouths shut and not talk and to wait for that period to expire. We must remember that we are in a state of semi war. These persons attack us with machine guns and we tackle them with the “rule of law”. At any rate, that is what the hon. member for Houghton wants. One simply cannot do that. It is simply out of the question and there is no such thing as that one can do that. We can discuss the matter further in the Commitee Stage, but I am now telling the hon. Opposition exactly what the reason for that is. The hon. member for Houghton’s attack was aimed mainly at the official Opposition, and I think the hon. member for Durban (North) replied adequately to her. I just want to say to her that as far as she is concerned and as far as I am concerned it is a question of “East is East and West is West and ne’er the twain shall meet”. We simply do not see matters in the same light. She has always interceded for elements that seek to bring about the downfall of the white man in this country. She has done that all along. I did not think she would go so far as to intercede even for terrorists. It is no use our arguing and it is no use our giving replies to that. We will never convince her.

You said the same thing to the Opposition when they opposed the Sabotage Bill.

Yes, that is why I expressed my thanks to the official Opposition at the outset that in a case such as this, where one has to do with terrorists, people who attack you with machine guns, I was able to get the support of the Opposition. But I still cannot get the support of the hon. member for Houghton.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division. Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr.Speaker, I move—

In the memorandum that was published along with this Bill, a brief historical survey of the development of the abattoir industry was outlined, and it also furnishes the contributory causes for legislation having become necessary in this regard. You will notice from the memorandum that owing to a variety of factors, inter alia, the lack of the necessary co-ordinated incentive, the abattoir trade has so far been very tardy in following a progressive and modern pattern of development.

Sound economic functioning of the abattoir trade and rationalized unfurlment of further development are not only of particular significance to the abattoir trade as such, but also hold far-reaching benefits for the slaughter animal industry as a whole. The desirability or otherwise of central legislation to counteract the impeding factors with which the abattoir trade has to cope with at present and to bring about the rationalization of the trade on a national basis, should consequently be judged against the background of the adverse effect the present abattoir set-up has on the slaughter animal industry in particular and agriculture in general.

The abattoir trade is regarded as sufficiently extensive and important to merit particular attention. However, to achieve the desired objects, such attention will require thorough and specialized study and action on the basis of objective considerations. As regards the approach to problems, objectivity in particular is considered to be of vital importance. Consequently it was assumed that a separate and expert body, capable of pursuing a consistent and uninterrupted policy and of concentrating purely on abattoir matters, would be best equipped to realize for the trade the objects of co-ordination and rationalization.

The Abattoir Commission Bill seeks to establish a commission to deal with and exercise control over all matters in connection with the sitting, erection, registration, use, alteration, closing, management and conduct of abattoirs, and to bring about the co-ordination and rationalization of matters relating to abattoirs.

The Abattoir Commission will consist of a minimum of three and a maximum of five members. For the above-mentioned reasons it is the intention that the members of the Commission will be appointed by the State President by virtue of their experience in and knowledge of the abattoir trade and the particular problems in that regard. A body which is constituted on the basis of representation of the various bodies concerned with the trade, may hold certain benefits, but in such a case the divided loyalties of the respective members may hamper in particular the required objectivity in the approach to problems.

The proposed control covers the activities of all abattoirs where cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses, mules and donkeys are slaughtered for the purpose of making the meat and other products available for human or animal consumption.

In order to achieve the objects of this Bill in practice, it is contemplated to confer certain powers on the Minister and the Commission. However, the exceptional set-up of the abattoir trade and its closed and protected nature necessitates, in certain respects, an extraordinary approach as regards control— in this respect I am thinking, for instance, of the extensive capital investment—and since some of the proposed measures may perhaps be of a reasonably drastic nature, they should be understood and approached in this sense. Furthermore, the general state of affairs in which the industry finds itself, and the firm and urgent action that will be necessary to put the industry on an economically sound basis and to develop it, should also be borne in mind.

Before I explain the nature and the effect of these measures, I should like to emphasize that the Commission’s policy will be determined with the approval of the Minister. In view of the fact that the Commission will be concerned mainly with matters relating to the abattoir trade as such, it must be possible for actions in this regard to be accommodated in the broader planning and development of agriculture as a whole, and in this respect ministerial guidance is considered to be essential.

The Commission will acquire its funds largely by the imposition and collection of levies on animals slaughtered at abattoirs. Although no maximum is laid down in the Bill, preliminary calculations indicate that levy rates are expected to be in the vicinity of 6c per head in the case of cattle, horses, mules and donkeys, 1.5c in the case of sheep and goats, and 3c in the case of calves and pigs.

One of the most important tasks of the Commission will be to take the lead in connection with matters relating to abattoirs, providing the industry with specialized knowledge and guidance and serving as the necessary incentive—financially as well as otherwise—for the promotion of research and study in this field.

For this purpose the Bill confers the necessary powers on the Commission to require, gain, collect, process and make available the statistical and other data it may need, to advance its funds in respect of research projects, and to grant bursaries and bursary loans to deserving persons in respect of pre-and postgraduate studies.

It is proposed to effect the provision of guidance and advice to the industry in two ways, namely by means of personal contact and by means of the code of instructions for which provision is made in this Bill. What is meant by personal contact, is not only cases where a person voluntarily approaches the Commission for assistance and advice, but also those cases where the initiative is taken by the Commission itself. You will notice that the Bill embodies, for instance, a proposed power authorizing the Commission to issue certain orders relating to the internal functioning of any specific abattoir. What is meant by the code of instructions, is the introduction of a practical document to serve as a guide in the fields of abattoir planning, lay-out and construction, internal functioning, operating methods and standards. The contents of this code will be based on expert considerations based on research, which will also be undertaken in this regard. However, its provisions will not be binding upon any person, except where the Commission specially directs them to be so in respect of a specific abattoir.

In order to enable the Commission to launch an effective rationalization programme and to bring about the co-ordination of abattoir facilities on the basis of an acceptable national pattern, it is necessary for slaughtering to be concentrated as far as possible at approved central points. Consequently it is proposed that as from a date fixed by the State President by proclamation, the slaughter of animals will be prohibited except at abattoirs registered by the Commission. Such a prohibition will at the same time result in increased use being made of registered abattoirs. The extent to which an abattoir is utilized has an important effect on its internal functioning, particularly in regard to productivity and the cost structure. It also determines whether or not capital for the improvement of facilities will be spent.

Sustained utilization at maximum capacity will, for instance, considerably enhance an abattoir’s chances of economic success and will have the result that mechanization and modernization will constantly receive the necessary attention.

On the other hand, it is realized that a total prohibition on the slaughter of animals except at registered abattoirs is, after all, a very drastic step, particularly as far as the farming community is concerned. Consequently all so-called “backyard slaughterings”—whether on farms, agricultural holdings or erven in towns —are exempted from the operation of this legislation, on condition that such slaughterings are intended for the personal household purposes of the occupier of the land on which those animals are slaughtered.

In addition exemption is granted in respect of slaughtering on behalf of the employees of a farmer, provided that such slaughterings do not become so many in number that control may be justified. However, where an occupier of land allows his land to be used for slaughterings for the purposes of third parties, he will contravene the prohibition unless his premises have been registered with the Commission as an “abattoir”. In the latter connection it should be noted that in the Bill “abattoir” is defined as “any place where animals are slaughtered for consumption by human beings or animals”. From the nature of the case the slaughter of karakul lambs for the purpose of obtaining their pelts, is also exempted.

Because at this stage the exact effect and the implications the prohibition will have in practice can hardly be foreseen, it is being provided in the Bill that the State President will have the power to exempt by proclamation certain classes of abattoirs, or certain classes of persons or certain classes or areas determined by him, from compliance with all or some of the provisions of this legislation.

I have already mentioned that slaughterings, except where exemptions are granted, will only be permitted at those abattoirs which have been registered with the Commission. The Bill places the Commission under an obligation to register all abattoirs which will be in use or in the process of being erected on the date of commencement of the proposed legislation. Similarly the Commission has to register all abattoirs, the erection of which it has previously approved. In the latter regard it is provided that a new abattoir may only be erected with the prior permission of the Commission.

Modern abattoirs in densely populated areas have to a large extent outgrown their character as purely local institutions, and it is necessary to adapt their further development to the broader national planning of the country as a whole. That is why it is of vital importance that the coming into being and establishment of new abattoirs should take place rationally, according to present and anticipated future circumstances. The existing pattern of abattoir establishment leaves much to be desired and in general it has not kept pace with these requirements. Although all existing abattoirs will initially be entitled to registration by the Commission, it does not necessarily mean that their right to survival will be prejudiced. If it were to be found that registered abattoirs would subsequently become redundant for the purposes of rationalization, such abattoirs may be closed and the registrations granted in respect thereof may be withdrawn in terms of the powers contained in this Bill. Owing to the drastic nature of such action, it is provided in the Bill that the power to exercise that right must vest in the Minister. In addition specific provision is made for the payment of compensation from the funds of the Commission in respect of the actual financial loss a person may suffer as a result of such withdrawal of registration.

In order to prevent abattoir development from continuing in its present inefficient and unco-ordinated way, it is necessary to peg the industry in its present form so that its further development may take place under the guidance and strict supervision of the Commission —not only as regards the establishment of new abattoirs, but also with reference to the present purposes and the use of existing abattoirs, the internal functioning of each abattoir and the extension or curtailment of existing abattoir and allied facilities. In rationalization, coordination and centralization (where necessary), the efficiency, suitability, capacity, extent, purpose and nature of each abattoir are important. After all, these factors determine rationalization in the broader sense, particularly if it is borne in mind that “abattoir” embraces all places where animals are slaughtered, from the most primitive to the most modern.

In this regard it is proposed, in the first place, to regulate the extent of the functions, the purposes of the use and the nature of each abattoir by way of a system of restrictive registration conditions. A slaughtering place at a zoo. for instance, may be registered as an abattoir provided that the animals slaughtered there may only be used for the purposes of feeding the animals in that particular zoo. This measure is of importance in order to prevent an abattoir that is being used, for instance, for private purposes, from being converted into a public abattoir, or vice versa. However, at the request of an abattoir owner, restrictive conditions will be removed or altered by the Commission, but, and I need hardly mention it, such a request will only be granted on merit and with due regard to the rights of interest groups.

Secondly, it is proposed that the envisaged Act should prohibit any substantial alteration to an abatoir as regards its out-lay or the buildings, structures and fixed equipment that forms part thereof, unless the Commission approves such alteration beforehand. The available facilities determine the capacity of an abattoir, and the extension or curtailment of the capacity of an abattoir, without the knowledge of the Commission, may complicate its task appreciably. Furthermore, as mentioned, it may become necessary to close certain redundant abattoirs (and, at the same time, specific redundant facilities at certain abattoirs), and considering the fact that in taking such action the Commission will be obliged to pay compensation out of its levy revenue, the uncontrolled acquisition of expensive buildings and equipment at such abattoirs will have the effect that financially the industry will be burdened unnecessarily.

Thirdly, it is the task of the Commission to see to the economically effective functioning of each abattoir, the facilities that are or ought to be available at abattoirs, the possible extension or curtailment of the capacity of an abattoir, the possibility of mechanization and the practical realization of the idea of single control by abattoir owners over all physical activities within abattoirs. Provision is therefore being made in the Bill for vesting the Commission with full powers to issue in this regard the orders it may deem necessary. In terms of this measure the Commission may require—

1. (a) specific procedures or methods to be for lowed within a specific abattoir, and the services performed there to be co-ordinated in a specific way (in order to effect enhanced productivity and greater economic utilization);
2. (b) mechanization to be proceeded to, and the necessary equipment for that purpose to be acquired (in order to fall into line with current operating and marketing requirements);
3. (c) certain facilities to be introduced or withdrawn, or certain services to be performed or discontinued (in order to bring about the rationalization and coordination of the industry); and
4. (d) specific persons to perform or not to be permitted to perform certain services (in order to render single control by abattoir owners a possibility).

It is emphasized that the Commission will be an expert body in the field of abattoir planning, out-lay and utilization and. as regards the performance of abattoir services, and it may therefore be assumed that it will exercise its powers in this regard in the best interests of everybody concerned with the industry. It is realized further that the exercise of this power may entail costs and capital obligations, particularly for the owner of an abattoir, but such exercise should be viewed against the background of prior consultation, negotiation and the possible rendering of financial aid by the Commission.

The classes of abattoirs that will be affected by this measure are those that must provide for the public needs of a specific community. Where an order of this nature, an order relating to the withdrawal of specific facilities or the discontinuation of a service, entails actual financial loss for a person, the Commission is obliged to compensate such a person out of its funds.

Furthermore, the Bill prohibits the closing of an abattoir by its owner, unless he has given to the Commission, at least 180 days prior to the date on which he closes such abattoir, a written notice to that effect. Since this provision has virtually no significance as far as the closing of an abattoir used exclusively for private purposes is concerned, provision is being made for granting the Commission the power to permit in specific cases the closing of an abattoir without the required notice being given. The closing of a public abattoir will result in alternative arrangements having to be made by the Commission in good time, so as to ensure continuity in the supply of meat to the community concerned. These “alternative arrangements” may even take the form of the abattoir in question being expropriated by the Commission or a person authorized by it to do so. Traditionally local authorities are the owners of public abattoir facilities, and it is hardly conceivable that this measure will ever be applied in regard to a local authority. However, it should be borne in mind that private undertakings will now also be permitted to become owners of such abattoirs. Justification for this measure is to be found in the fact that a person who, on the one hand, is permitted to have a virtual monopoly for a specific area, must, on the other hand, meet his responsibilities to the community of that specific area. The unproductive utilization of abattoirs has the effect that the slaughter animal industry has to labour under the burden of unrealistic abattoir costs. The simplest method of making an abattoir function economically is. of course, simply to increase tariffs to a level which renders the redemption of debts a possibility. From the nature of the case such an approach to the matter is undesirable. The starting-point should rather be to enhance productivity by reviewing the effectiveness of operating methods and the possibility of mechanizing and co-ordinating the various functions. In order to ensure that tariffs are not increased on the grounds of unjustified factors, it is proposed that current tariffs payable for the use of abattoirs, should be frozen at the rate which obtained at all abattoirs concerned immediately before the commencement of the envisaged Act, and that the Commission should be granted the power to determine tariffs as it may deem fit. Further increases in tariffs will then only be considered and permitted on merit. In the application of this measure the Commission may, of course, make such allowances for such profit margins as it may deem reasonable.

I have now dealt with the envisaged powers of the Commission. The Bill also embodies a number of other principles which are deserving of being explained more fully.

Apart from the consideration of applications for certain registrations and the erection of new abattoirs, in respect of which a system of automatic appeal to the Minister is being suggested, the Bill does not contain any provision for an appeal to the Minister by a person who considers himself to have been aggrieved by a decision taken by the Commission. It is being proposed instead to confer upon the Minister, where necessary, the power to overrule any decision of the Commission, whether of its own accord or at the request of an aggrieved person, without any cumbrous formalities. That does, of course, eliminate the process of appeals.

The exercise by the Commission of its proposed powers will, from the nature of the case, take place mainly with a view to economic factors affecting the abattoir trade as such, but it is realised that such exercise may sometimes have implications which may affect the interests of other bodies. In this respect we are thinking in particular of the Meat Board (which implements a marketing scheme at abattoirs in urban areas), the Department of Agricultural Technical Services (which, according to the. report, will be concerned with the implementation of hygiene control at abattoirs), the Department of Labour (which implements labour legislation at abattoirs) and the Administrators of the respective provinces (who have control over the capital spending of local authorities). Consequently the Bill arranges for consultation by the Commission with certain bodies. Furthermore, the Minister may also direct the Commission to consult with any specific body in a specific case.

The successful realization of the objects of this Bill depends to a large extent on the way the Commission will approach such persons as are concerned in the industry, and consequently it is regarded as essential for the measures of the envisaged Act to be applied in a spirit of mutual consultation, co-operation and the necessary co-ordination in the steps to be taken. What is particularly important here is the position of abattoir owners. It was therefore agreed with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services that the necessary consultation and co-ordination would take place continuously in view of the possibility that the exercise of the powers in terms of this Bill and the powers in terms of the envisaged Act relating to hygiene control at abattoirs, might overlap.

Divided control and the variety of independent interest groups which manage certain functions within certain public abattoirs, are factors which may sometimes have adverse effects on the orderly and economic utilization of an abattoir. This leads, inter alia, to unprofitable utilization of facilities, increased costs—particularly on account of injudicious utilization of labour—ineffective and uncoordinated action, and gives rise to a general feeling of frustration on the part of abattoir owners “who do not have all the say in their own businesses”. Over and above the attempts the Commission will make in regard to the practical realization of the ideal of single control by abattoir owners over all physical activities within abattoirs, the Bill also makes provision for the specific powers and responsibilities of such owners. The general starting-point is to integrate abattoir owners as closely as possible with the Commission in order to bring about effective single control.

However, at the same time the particular position of the Meat Board, which implements a marketing scheme at certain public urban abattoirs, will have to be taken into account. In order to prevent the implementation of the meat scheme from being complicated by the idea of single control, the Bill grants a measure of protection to those persons appointed or authorized by the Meat Board to assist in the implementation of its scheme.

Since certain provisions of the Bill are of virtually no significance as far as certain classes of abattoirs—the smaller private abattoirs, for instance—are concerned, provision is being made in this measure, firstly, for a system whereby the Commission may take different action in regard to different classes of abattoirs, and, secondly, for a power to be conferred upon the State President to exempt certain areas, persons or abattoirs, or classes thereof, from compliance with all or certain provisions of the envisaged legislation. This approach will ensure the necessary elasticity of action in the implementation of this legislation The Bill grants recognition to the principle that private enterprise may be admitted to the public abattoir industry. Traditionally abattoirs providing the public with the meat it requires have always been the property and under the control of the respective local authorities. However, it is not at all the intention now to take away these traditional rights of local authorities. The general approach that local authorities will continue to establish and manage abattoirs, will be maintained; as a matter of fact, the Bill emphatically provides that in introducing new public slaughtering facilities, local authorities must be given first option in respect of the erection and provision thereof. The motive for its being considered necessary to admit private enterprise to the industry, is to intensify, by means of the controlled admission of competitive bodies with financial autonomy the endeavour to effect increased efficiency.

After this Bill had been published early in 1966 for the information of the general public, comment thereon was received from various bodies. This comment was considered carefully and, where possible, the recommendations that resulted from it were embodied in the final draft. In addition the envisaged legislation was formulated in the closest collaboration possible with other Government Departments concerned in the matter, the provincial and local authorities, the Meat Board and other bodies.

In conclusion I must point out that the Bill was drafted with a view to economic considerations. Legislation making provision for the implementation of and control over hygiene at abattoirs, will be dealt with by my colleague the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. This legislation has already been submitted to this House.

In view of the fact that this legislation is considered to be in the general interests of our meat industry, and also of our abattoir industry, I trust that both sides of the House will lend me their support in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House shall not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. Nevertheless I find it necessary to say to the hon. the Minister that, although this measure was already published in draft form in 1966—a year ago— and although the Department consulted various concerns, I feel the time that we on this side have been given for studying this drastic legislation, and moreover, at this late stage of the session, was to a certain extent unfair to the agricultural group of the United Party. We should also like to do justice to legislation that comes before this House. Over and above the fact that the Minister has to hold consultations, I think it is in the interests of good government that the Opposition should also hold consultations with certain outside concerns that have an interest in this measure. Let me tell the Minister that the time available was unfortunately too short to allow adequate and proper consultation.

I want to add to that the Minister accommodated us to a certain extent by, for example, making available to us this very comprehensive explanatory memorandum. In addition to the usual documents which are made available to all hon. members the Minister gave us this memorandum in which each clause is explained individually. We want to thank him for it, because it facilitated the work considerably. Many undertakings are concerned in this legislation. If the Minister goes back to the report of the Abattoir Commission in 1964 he will see how many concerns were consulted and how many of them submitted evidence. But this piece of legislation has not again been submitted to those people and many of the concerns that gave evidence at that time.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.