Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to make an announcement. From time to time representations are made to increase the salaries and allowances of hon. members. It is maintained that hon. members are inadequately remunerated, bearing in mind their responsibilities, work and expenses. They are of course placed in the invidious position of having to vote themselves increases. There also appears to be a peculiar attitude adopted by some newspapers and sections of the public. They accept the principle of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work for everybody except Members of Parliament. They remind me of certain religious sects which firmly believe that to be a good worker for the Lord, the preacher must just about starve.

Consequently, after discussions with the Official Opposition, it has been decided to follow the same procedure as was followed in 1961, namely to appoint a special committee of prominent businessmen to inquire into and to make recommendations in regard to members’ salaries and allowances. The committee will consist of Mr. Fred Bamford, Chairman of S.A. Manganese, former Chairman of Safmarine and director of numerous other companies, and Dr. J. G. van der Horst, Managing Director of the Old Mutual. The committee, whose report will be laid before Parliament, will have the following terms of reference:

1. 1. To inquire into and report upon the emoluments and allowances of Cabinet Ministers, Deputy Ministers, office-bearers and Members of Parliament in view of their work and responsibilities and the conditions which apply to their service;
2. 2. to compare such emoluments and allowances with those payable at the time of the foundation of the Union and thereafter; and
3. 3. to establish whether it is necessary or desirable to alter these emoluments and allowances, and, if so, to recommend in each case what these should be.

The meetings of the committee will be held in a room in the House of Assembly portion of the Parliamentary Buildings, and a circular will be issued to hon. members informing them of the procedure to be followed should they desire to give evidence before the committee. The first meeting of the committee will be held on Monday, 8th March. The secretary of the committee will be Mr. McFarlane, the Secretary to the House of Assembly.

Mr Speaker, I move—

Sir, there is a fundamental difference in the approach of the two main parties in this country to the question of relations between the White group and the other race groups. Obviously I am not permitted now to discuss the attitude of the Government towards the Coloureds and the Indians, so I have to deal only with the one group, the Bantu, who are affected by this Bill.

Sir, the Government’s policy, as it has often been stated by Government members including the Prime Minister, is one of self-determination. We differ as to what can be meant by self-determination. I questioned the hon. the Prime Minister last session as to what it meant and pointed out that the words could mean that these different groups would themselves determine what their future is to be. The Prime Minister made it quite clear that the only determination they have is separation; that the Bantu would not be allowed to determine that their way of life is to be part of South Africa: to stay a part of South Africa and to take part in the government of South Africa. I say therefore that when the Government speaks of self-determination it is senseless because the term does not mean what it should mean. It is only self-determination in so far as the Government determines that they will be separated from the rest of the Republic. They can develop only in one way and that is to eventual independence, and on those conditions the Government will allow the Bantu to determine how they are going to develop. As I say, they have no choice, and when the Minister tells us that the different Bantu nations, as he calls them— we say they are not; they are different peoples—the different groups in the different reserves have accepted the measure now before the House, we say that they accept it only because they have no other choice. What other choice have they, Sir? The Minister presents them with this measure and they take it. Naturally. So would I if I were an African; I would take it. Because they have nothing else to take. If they do not take this they get nothing. If they do not accept the Government’s offer to establish Bantu authorities in the first instance, they will get no development, and that has been proved in the case of Zululand compared with the Transkei. It is no secret that when Bantu from other parts of South Africa are taken to the Transkei, they are shown by the Transkeians themselves what they are achieving. They are told that unless you accept separate development you get nothing but if you accept separate development, then look what you will get. These other Bantu races or tribes are therefore compelled to accept this or else they get nothing.

The Minister has read out some letters to show that they are glad to have this Bill and that they accept it. I wonder how much they know about the contents of this Bill. The same thing happened when the Transkei Constitution Bill was presented to us; we were told that the Transkeians themselves had prepared that Bill. We did not accept that: they did it on the advice of the then Prime Minister. I wonder, Sir, if they are satisfied to leave it to the Minister to decide how, for instance their legislative assemblies are to be constituted, and how their executive is going to be constituted. You see. Sir, when the Transkei Constitution Bill was presented to us provision was made in the Act for an elected and representative legislative assembly, with representatives of the chiefs, and also for an elected executive. But in this Bill that we now have before us there is no such provision. The State President, by proclamation, will decide how these legislative assemblies will be constituted and how the executive will be constituted, so I do not know how the Minister can tell us that all these different Territorial Authorities have advised him that this is what they want and that they are so pleased to accept this when they do not even know what type of assembly they are going to have. Perhaps the Minister has told them what he intends doing. If so, I think he should tell this House what he has told them and how he is going to constitute these different bodies.

Then, Sir, I want to know what the position is with regard to money matters. Are they satisfied with the provision made here for contributions to their revenue? In terms of this Bill their Executive will submit estimates to this Minister who, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, will determine how much our Exchequer will contribute towards their administrative expenses.

What is wrong with that?

I say that this is wrong. We criticized this in the Transkei Constitution Bill too when that measure was passed, because everything is being left to the Minister of Finance and this Minister. This Parliament will be allowing them to decide how much to give the different Authorities: they alone will decide how much to give the Transkei, for instance, or Zululand or any other reserve which becomes self-governing. Sir, this may be the cause of friction, because if the Bantu submit their estimates and they decide to embark on a certain programme which does not accord with the political ideas of our Minister of Bantu Administration, he and the Minister of Finance can say: “No, we are not giving you this money; we will not allow you to develop in that way; we will tighten the purse strings.”

Is there any difference between this Bill and the Transkei Constitution Bill?

No, and as far as I know there has been no difference of opinion yet between the Transkeian Government and the present Government; they work in accord. But supposing the Opposition party took over the government of the Transkei and wanted to have White development in the Transkei; supposing they wanted to build extra roads down to the coast, for instance, to allow White entrepreneurs to open up hotels to attract tourists and this did not accord with the policy of the Minister. He will say, “No, I am sorry, I am not going to give you the money to do that; you will have to cut down expenditure; you will have to reduce your estimates; I will only give you so much”. That is going to cause resentment in the mind of the other government and they are going to say to their people, “The Government of the Republic is responsible for our lagging behind in development; it is because they will not agree to our spending money on certain developments which we think are necessary”. That can cause friction between the two Governments, and in fact between the two states. I say it is wrong for us to include a provision of this nature in this Bill and we said so at the time when the Transkei Constitution Act was passed.

I should like to know whether these other authorities who accept this Bill approve of the schedule which sets out the matters they can deal with. Section 2 deals with Bantu education. They can control Bantu education provided that the study and training courses, syllabuses, teaching methods, medium of instruction and public examinations prescribed in terms of any law shall be prescribed in consultation with the Minister. Now we know what is meant by “in consultation with the Minister”, because the Minister told us the other day. It means that he has to concur. Unless he agrees, they cannot take any action they would like under the powers given to them to control education. I want to know whether the other bodies which were consulted, Zululand and the other Territorial Authorities, were agreeable to have this restriction placed on them when the Transkei has no such restriction. You see, in terms of the Transkei Constitution Act the Transkei Government can control education in the area falling under the jurisdiction of the Transkei. The districts are mentioned, but there is no other restriction. There is a feeling, of course, among the Africans that the Government is now taking this step here to restrict them in their administration because of what has happened in the Transkei, because the Transkei Government has taken a resolution that the medium of instruction after a certain standard shall be in either of the official languages, which is decided by the school board. We know the school boards all picked English to be the medium of instruction. Is that why the Government has put this restriction in this Constitution now before us? I want to know what the reason for it is. Has the Transkei disappointed the Government in any way? Has the Transkei acted contrary to the policy of the Government? Why was the Transkei given the wide powers which are now denied to these bodies which will be established under this Bill before us?

I say there will be further causes for dispute, and that is because of the very wide description of the areas to be controlled by these different Assemblies. We pointed out in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage that in terms of this Bill before us now the Minister is embarking on a course of constitutional development which will eventually lead to complete separation and he is embarking on it without defining the areas where this will take place. He says it is defined by the Land and Trust Act of 1936, which lays down the scheduled and released areas, but in terms of clause 26 of the Bill before us now the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette declare an area as defined from time to time.

If the areas are defined, will you vote for this Bill?

No. The areas for the Transkei were defined and we did not vote for that Bill.

Then what is your argument?

I say that members on that side of the House are being foolish to allow the Minister to take powers like this. Those hon. members’ constituents will not be consulted when the Minister embarks on this course and hon. members opposite are now giving this Minister power to include practically any area adjacent to the Reserves in the area which can become self-governing and eventually independent.

But we have faith and trust in the Minister.

I am glad to hear that, because that hon. member, although he does not sit in a front bench, is an important member and he is a member of the Bantu Affairs Select Committee. I am glad to hear him saying that the members on that side are handing over their rights in trust to the Minister; they are abrogating and giving up their rights and abdicating from their duties and responsibilities and giving them over in trust to the Minister. They may trust this Minister, but how do they know that they can trust the next Minister? How do they know who will be the next Minister of Bantu Administration and Development? It might not even be a Nationalist, and in a few years’ time it will not be a Nationalist. What will they say then? They are trusting the electorate because they know that this Government will probably not have time to embark on independence and that this Bill will never be put into effect by a United Party Government. That is the trust they have.

To get back to the boundaries, it is idle for the Minister and the hon. member for Aliwal to try to convince the country that the boundaries were laid down in 1936. The Minister himself knows that there is uncertainty and that there is trouble in the farming areas bordering on the Native Reserves. Only about a month ago the Chairman of the Nationalist Party in Komga moved a resolution before the Farmers’ Association asking the Government to include Komga in the Transkei so that they could buy their farms. That was the Chairman of the Nationalist Party and he knows it can be done under the 1936 Act. Where land is adjacent to Trust land, the Government can buy it and it then becomes Trust land. If the Chairman of the Nationalist Party can make a move like that, surely there must be an impression amongst Nationalists that the Government can go on buying land alongside Trust land.

Sir, what was the dispute between the Progressives and the United Party? Why did the Progressives break away from the United Party? They have forgotten the reason now, but the reason then was the purchase of land for Bantu without the Government telling us where the boundaries of the Reserves would be. The resolution taken by our Congress at Bloemfontein then was that money should not be given for buying any more land to extend the Bantu Reserves unless the Government told us where the boundaries of the Reserves were to be. We were not opposed to buying more land, but we objected to the buying of land without telling the public where the boundaries would be, especially as the Government was embarking on a policy of independence for these various homelands.

How does the Government acquire further land for the Bantu? They can do it, as I pointed out, under the Bantu Trust Act. They can buy in the scheduled areas and they can buy in the released areas, and then they can buy land abutting on land owned by the Trust. When the Transkei Constitution was passed the area was defined, as to which district would fall under the jurisdiction of the Transkeian Government. But even there—and we opposed it—there was provision that the State President could by proclamation add land, and he could add on land referred to in section 25 of the Native Administration Act of 1927, which provides that other land may be acquired by the Trust on approval by this Parliament. It could be acquired by proclamation, but it had to be approved by this Parliament, and we know that is how Mdantsane near East London was acquired. The point is that other land can be acquired, and once it has been acquired by this Government with their majority we know that their members will never disapprove of anything that their Cabinet or that Minister does. What could also be added to the Transkei was land of which the Trust was the registered owner. So the Trust could buy land abutting on to the Transkei and then hand that over to the Transkei. Then there was also provision for adding Native locations as defined in the Natives Taxation Act. That Act has since been repealed, but it was inserted in the Transkei Constitution, and as far as I know this particular section has been retained. So we have all these problems before us and there is this uncertainty about what is going to be done. Hon. member opposite are abdicating their responsibilities by giving unheard of powers to this Minister. No other democracy would allow one Minister to decide which areas of their respective countries were to be dismembered. The hon. the Minister says that he cannot grant independence to a territorial authority or assembly without coming back to this Parliament for the final phase, because although independence is mentioned in the Preamble it is not mentioned in the Bill itself. That is quite true. But then we also have it from him that once he embarks on the course of constitutional development which he now proposes, it would be immoral to go back on it. The hon. the Minister himself said that it could not be stopped and that the point of no return has been reached. When we pass this Bill and give the hon. the Minister the powers to proclaim certain areas for self-government we are embarking on a course which, in his own terms, cannot be stopped and which will end up in independence for these states.

The hon. the Minister in justifying this says that it is the traditional policy of South Africa. We have pointed out that this was not the traditional policy. We pointed out that Gen. Hertzog made a speech in 1913 in which he said that the Bantu would be separated but remain under the control of the Central Government. When the hon. the Minister quoted from a speech made by Gen. Hertzog in 1925, in which he talked of separation but did not deal with independence, the Minister says that they were not thinking in those terms at that time. But because they were not thinking in those terms and did not mention it particularly, the hon. the Minister says that we must now accept it as the traditional policy. Gen. Botha thought of it in 1913. I quoted his remarks which he made in this House in 1913. He then referred to “afsondering” and “afskeiding”. “Afskeiding”, that is segregation, he said would be as foolish as “gelykstelling’ or equality. He supported “afsondering” and made it quite clear that it would be under the control of the Central Government.

Gen. Smuts, after the war, made it clear that in his opinion segregation was dead because of the development that had taken place, you could no longer have segregation. After all segregation means complete separation. We support separation but not this segregation which is now proposed and which was opposed by Generals Botha, Hertzog and Smuts. I again want to remind the people of this country that fragmentation, that is, this form of segregation, which is now proposed was only thought of by Dr. Verwoerd. He was the first leader who offered to carry this out.

The hon. the Minister keeps on asking what our policy will be. We have stated our policy so often before that I am surprised that he still asks for it. I do not know why he does so. But there seems to be some sort of confusion. When we speak about a certain measure of self-government we have made it quite clear what we mean by giving the Africans in the reserves and in the urban areas a certain measure of self-government to control their own affairs. My Leader made that clear. It has often been repeated in this House, namely that they can develop constitutionally towards the powers that are given to provincial councils and even beyond. We made it quite clear. And yet, even in the Press …

What do you mean by “even beyond”?

It may be necessary to manage their own affairs.

Your policy is hanging in the air.

We will decide at the time how far to go. As long as they remain subservient to the Central Parliament, the development will take place gradually. It is for instance our policy to allow them to control their own townships. We are not just going to hand over the townships to them straightaway and tell them that they can administer the townships themselves. We know that that would not be fair. It may be disastrous too. This Minister is now going to take over the townships and administer them himself.

The hon. the Minister has introduced a Bill with which we will probably deal next week, in which he allows the freer movement of Africans in White areas to seek employment. This is a change in their policy. He allows them to move from one area to another and protects their rights under section 10. All this is proof of the fact that they accept that they will never get rid of all the Africans who are living in the White areas. They have to cater for the Africans who are born there every day and who have rights under section 10. These are people who have no connection with the reserves and will never have any connection with them. They are the people who are not catered for in this Bill we have before us now. They are not catered for by the Government’s policy, and that is where we differ. We say that this is no solution because it does not cater for the main problem this Government has, and that is the permanently urbanized African, and the majority of Africans fall into this category. This Government just tries to close its eyes to the fact that they are there.

How can you say that they are the majority?

They are. Just look at the latest census figures. In October, 1962, Dr. Dönges, who was then the Cape Leader of the Nationalist Party, gave a New Year’s address to his followers in the Cape. He said then that the Government was embarking upon a five-year plan for the development of the reserves. With that development, he said, was a move to entice the Africans back from the Western Cape to the reserves. What success have they had in enticing them back, Sir? The only Africans who go back to the reserves are those who are sent back. They are not enticed back on their own. I came across an example recently, where an African had to go back to school in Umtata because he could not get the education he wanted here. To pass his Matric he had to go back to Umtata. Because they go back for a few years and leave the area in which they are born, they lose their protection under section 10. That is the way the Government is getting them back to the reserves. They are not going back of their own accord. I suppose the Minister or the member now sitting behind him, being advised, is going to ask us what we are going to do, seeing that the Government has already embarked upon this policy and has granted the Africans certain authority. I repeat that the development which takes place may be in line with our policy.

Which policy?

Our policy of allowing them to control their own affairs in their own areas. That is our policy. Does the hon. member not know it yet? He is a member of the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs. No wonder they did not make him a Deputy Minister, Sir. No wonder they did not send him to the Transkei as Commissioner-General.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Sir, we cannot be a party to this measure. As I have repeated so often, we are not opposed to giving them a greater degree of self-government in their own areas. What we are opposed to, is the basis of this policy. The hon. the Leader of the House can be excused for not taking part in this debate, because he did not realize at the Committee Stage that in this Bill there was provision for final independence.

Not in the operative clauses. The Preamble does not mean anything at all.

Sir, the Leader of the House is quite right. But if it does not mean anything, why is it there? Why was it necessary to include it? It is a warning …

It is an indication of what the eventual intention of the Government is. It has no legal effect at all. It is not an operative part of the Bill and that is what I said by way of interjection.

Sir, I had better move my amendment before my time runs out. I move—

Now, Sir, to continue with the Leader of the House: He must have been aware that when the Transkei Constitution Bill was passed, there was no mention of independence in the Preamble. That was in 1963. Why has it suddenly become necessary to put in the Preamble, which is now before the House? Is there some doubt amongst the Nationalists or is there some refusal to accept that the eventual policy will be to make them independent states? Is that why it has been found necessary by this Minister to make it quite clear in this Bill that he is ultimately going to give independence to these various African States?

[Inaudible.]

Oh, the Minister says he can talk for himself. I would be glad if he would answer a few questions then.

No, I was telling the hon. member for Witbank to wait until the hon. member for Transkei finished speaking to me.

Is he also coming for advice? Everybody is running around for advice on that side of the House. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Transkei reduced his argument to the one question to which not the National Party but, indeed, the United Party has to provide the answer, i.e. how do they see the further political development of the Bantu living in the peri-urban areas of our cities and who, in terms of the policy of the National Party, will be living in the homeland of the White man? How do they see the development of that individual? I shall come back to this.

First of all I want to congratulate the Progressive Party on having been courageous enough to admit the success of the view the National Party takes of its multinational task. It has succeeded to the extent of having penetrated even to the Progressive Party. To be specific, they have discovered that a population unit called the Afrikaners does exist and they have decided to distribute prizes in the future for the edification of that population unit. We look forward to the happy day when the hon. member for Houghton will make a speech in Afrikaans in this House. The development we have seen up to this day, as far as the policy of the National Party is concerned, is a logical one, one which is in keeping with all legislation which this party has piloted through Parliament since 1948. The United Party, on the other hand, is still engaged in adapting to this development, but they do not want to admit this. The Progressive Party, however, has been realistic enough to realize that this policy is succeeding and that they will never be able to restore the status quo, as it existed before this party came into power. Hence the following, virtually historically drastic resolution which was passed by the Progressive Party—and I think it may be as well for us to place it on record. At their most recently held congress that party resolved—

Let us take cognizance of the words “proposed federal scheme”. These are not unknown words to us. They describe in effect the same basis as that on which the United Party wants to offer a solution to the South African situation. This becomes more evident from what was intimated by Dr. Zac de Beer as well, a leading member of the Progressive Party—

What opportunism are we now finding on the part of the Progressive Party? Up to now our standpoint was diametrically opposed to theirs; we knew exactly where we were standing with them. But here we have opportunism in its purest form—on the one hand they are moving closer to the National Party and at the same time they are also moving in the direction of the United Party with its federal idea.

They, too, are now becoming politically sly.

They pose a political threat. The danger of their thinking is concealed in the words “that we should extend to Bantustans the same principles and values we intend applying in the whole Republic”. These values remain constant and the rest is the bait to the electorate of South Africa. The hook, however, is concealed in the “same values” which remain constant and are concealed in their concept of multi-racialism. This is the sting in the thinking of that party.

Now in the United Party we find the interesting trend that some of its members are thinking along the same lines as the Progressive Party. We must ask ourselves whether this is a matter of chance. And here we should have regard to the fact that the lines along which the hon. member for Kensington was thinking, as is clearly evidenced from the approach he adopted in his newspaper before he became a member of this House, are Progressive and that that newspaper disparages an hon. member for whom this side of the House has high regard, i.e. the hon. member for Zululand, whenever he makes the slightest error in the eyes of the Progressives.

Sinister, isn’t it?

In this we see a pattern of disparaging people on that side of this House who have leadership potential but who advocate ideas which are, in so far as this is still possible, unadulterated and true to their old trend of thought. On the other hand we find the rise of people on that side of this House with leanings towards the Progressive Party. They find the point of contact in their common approach which is made up of their having to maintain the status quo of the National Party and developing from there. That is where the sting is to be found, because their basic approach—absolutely equal rights—integration—still remains the same. I want to indicate how the trend of thought of the United Party has changed and how it is nevertheless assuming a pattern. On 27th May, 1959 (Hansard, column 6687), the Leader of the Opposition said—

He went on to elaborate on this. The standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at that stage was that in the interests of White South Africa alone it was not a good thing to recognize these population units. His objection was to the statutory recognition of that trend of thought. This side of the House, on the other hand, concerned itself with the realities of the situation and acted accordingly. Then the ideas of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were evidently stimulated by an interplay of ideas within the ranks of his own party and they started to realize that by recognizing the factual situation of national units they were going to land themselves in difficulties. Then the next interesting phase of that Party’s approach dawned. This is evident from the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this House (Hansard, 1961, column 7559)—

What about the Coloureds?

Let me silence that hon. member once and for all. The hon. member himself has never reflected on that question he has just put. What was passing through his mind before he put that question? He was thinking this: The solution of the National Party to the situation in the Republic has succeeded. It has succeeded, and he knows that this is so, hence his question, “What about the Coloureds?”

On 24th April, 1962, the hon. member for Durban North said—

In other words, here we see the continuation of the change of mind of the Leader of the Opposition. Now, as we are making rapid progress, so the United Party has to find a solution. They are still thinking; there still is an interplay of ideas in their ranks. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is setting about this task in a creative way, because he realizes that his party is becoming an antiquated party. He is beginning to see the same solution as the one the Progressive Party is seeing—I do not know who has seen it first. In column 2174 of Hansard, 1970, he said—

In this process of the political development of the homelands, in which each national unit is getting its particular place in our country intended for it in terms of the National Party view, words are of the utmost importance. [Interjections.] I am not saying that that party has changed its standpoint; I am merely outlining the trends within the party. The hon. member then continued—

But on the other hand the hon. member for East London City told us in this House at the same time that—

Mr. Speaker, these are not coincidences. At one stage we thought these were coincidences, but they are not; they indicate an interplay of ideas which have not been reconciled within that party.

As regards the view of that side of this House as to how the political development of the Bantu homelands or the reserves should be in contradistinction to the view of the National Party, I should like to quote the following. It is very relevant here for the simple reason that this Bill takes us so far from the point of departure that I want to make the statement that the United Party will not be able to restore the status quo to what it used to be before the National Party commenced its constitutional programme. I want to quote what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said here last year—and I am going to do so with his permission. After I had put a question to him, he invited me to put the question to him in writing (Hansard, col. 5404). I did that and indicated that in my opinion the debate on this Bill was a reasonable opportunity for replying to that question as well as other interesting related questions. The question I wanted to put and which I then forwarded to him in writing, concerned the statement that the United Party would develop the reserves and would give to each one the maximum autonomy which each area could achieve. Sir, I want to tell you that it was a very realistic question at that stage because we were living in the time of an election; the United Party was forming cabinets at that time; they had great expectations, and one would have expected their Bantu policy to have been formulated to such an extent at that stage that if they were to assume the reins of government, that policy could immediately be carried into effect. In other words, they should have been prepared as regards this one major matter with which we occupy ourselves year in and year out. I then put the following question—

In other words, will it be prescribed by the traditional occupation of an area by a specific tribe; will recognition be given to the Venda and Tswana, etc., as population units? I added the following related question—

Sir, the United Party tells us that it is within their power to assure for all times the goodwill of the Bantu. When they now decide that maximum autonomy will go no further than a council equal to a provincial council or a council which will perform certain administrative functions on an agency basis, who is going to determine that—the governing party of that time, the United Party? Sir, the hon. members on the Opposite side who waxed so lyrical about young South Africa must start reflecting on this question and pose the following question to themselves in that process; If the United Party that will be in power at that time and will determine that maximum autonomy, placed that ceiling over the aspirations of that particular area which, and we should remember this, will have an ethnic content, unless they tell me that this will not be the case, will they be able to maintain that situation for all times without creating any dissatisfaction?

By that time Helen would have bought them out.

The second question is this: Is it within the means and the development potential of the Black man in the Republic of South Africa to strive realistically after the achievement of the same political level of development as that which has been achieved by the White man? Sir, I want to suggest that the answer must be “yes”, and if the answer is “yes”, the United Party cannot determine what the maximum content of the autonomy will be which they will grant to an area; they cannot do so. Then the third question—

Sir, you must remember that it is the plan of the United Party to give the Bantu eight White representatives here. When this is coupled to an area which will enjoy autonomy, restricted or unrestricted, or qualified or unqualified, the question is: When will it be taken up into the federal system envisaged by the United Party? Sir, you should always contrast this to the realistic approach of this side of the House, i.e. guiding the peoples to full autonomy, if necessary and if possible for them. The next question is—

In other words, will they, in contrast to what we want to offer here, share out unequal autonomous authority to each area or to the different areas, and how will this be carried into effect? Sir, in replying to this one has to have regard to the fairness and the justness of an approach such as that of the National Party in contrast to what the United Party will do.

You are very interested in United Party government; you are expecting it soon.

Sir, I do not know whether the hon. member has heard my full argument.

He hears but he does not understand.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, on what basis will representation in the federation be obtained if unequal political development of areas exists? Surely they cannot grant area A, the development of which has not been the maximum according to them, the same representation as that granted to an area which has in fact shown no development ability as yet. Surely this cannot happen. In other words, what they are suggesting here as a solution is something which will not work in practice. It simply cannot work; it is impossible; otherwise they are erring in their statement that they will grant maximum autonomy. Surely this is logical.

For the edification of the hon. member for Orange Grove, the premise from which we proceeded was that we had now reached the stage so far removed from the point of departure of the political development in our country that that side of this House was obliged to reorientate itself. My further statement was that reorientation was only possible in the direction of the Progressive Party and my further deduction was that the Progressive Party had already put out its hand towards that reorientation.

I must admit that I have rather lost the trend of thought of the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. I tried my best to follow his somewhat tortuous logic, but halfway through I rather lost the thread. However, he did say one or two things which I feel I should at least contradict, because he clearly misunderstood the whole basis of a federal policy. [Interjection.] As I was saying, the hon. member tried to find some form of unity in the policies of the United Party of race federation and the Progressive Party policy of an ordinary geographic federation. They are completely different. The one visualizes a geographic content of areas linked together as our provinces are linked, but not by a unified Parliament like this one under Union, but under a federal system whereby every individual on a common roll basis who qualifies will have the vote and will therefore have a meaningful say in the political power structure of this country.

What about the Bantustans?

I am coming to Bantustans. I have not forgotten them at all. The United Party race federation plan does not envisage anything of the kind.

Of course we have a geographic content.

What is this geographic content? il do not know how the hon. member can talk about a geographic content when it is all on a system of communal franchise. The race federation as such has nothing to do with geographic areas. There need be no provinces at all. The race federation is a federation of races in a Central Parliament on a communal basis. [Interjection.] I did hear what the hon. member said, but that still does not explain the meaning of race federation. The meaning of race federation is that the races are federated with some say in a Central Parliament on a communal basis, with eight White representatives of the African people, six possible—I use this famous word, “possible”—Coloured representatives for the Coloured people, two representatives, I think it is, for the Indian people, and the rest of the central race federal Parliament will consist of White members. That is the United Party’s plan. There will be provinces in the ordinary way and they will have some autonomy as at present, but the actual running of the country will be done by a Central Parliament with the races represented communally, and therefore the races which are represented communally will in fact have no real say in the political power structure of the country.

And yours?

Ours is completely different. Take the existing provinces, if you like, and add to them, if you like, a Bantustan which in the meantime may have become either independent or developed to the self-governing stage such as the Transkei. That could join our geographic federation, and I might say it is the only one I envisage as even being possible because of the fact that it is the only contiguous land area among all the Bantustans … [Interjection ] … but with political franchise granted to individuals irrespective of race on a qualified basis, so that the election of the Central Federal Parliament will be done by all the races on a common roll for everyone who qualifies for the vote.

What about the geographic content then?

The geographic content comes in the provinces which are given rights of autonomy. [Interjections.] The provinces are ruled by this Parliament, just as they are ruled by this Parliament today, and they are given certain rights in regard to education, hospitals and roads. That is virtually all that they are given rights over.

I should like to ask the hon. member whether Whites would have the right to purchase land on a large or small scale in the present Bantu homelands?

Yes, of course, anybody will be able to buy land, and non-Whites will be able to buy land in the so-called White Republic. [Interjections.] We envisage South Africa as a multi-racial entity controlled by a Central Federal Parliament in which all individuals have the vote on a common roll—that is the important thing—so that they are not limited to eight representatives for the entire race.

The provinces will be allowed autonomy in their own areas in certain fields, and let me tell you it will be wider fields than at present and their rights will be entrenched. Then those people will be able to continue with the normal local government activities. [Interjection.] I know your policy only too well, and while I am on that point I might just mention this to the hon. member for Transkei as regards the resolution which was adopted at that notorious 1959 congress which led to our leaving the U.P., I might say it was the end of the line for us although there had been many other incidents before then, as the hon. member well knows, like the Coloured franchise and other incidents in the past which we managed to swallow. But this was the last straw. It was a thoroughly dishonest resolution which had nothing really to do with the independence or otherwise of the Bantustans because at least two-thirds of the land had already been acquired, and what were they going to do about that land which was going to the independent Bantustans? So it rested on the remaining land which still had to be acquired, and the hon. member for South Coast saw this as a wonderful opportunity to persuade a few farmers in Natal to support the United Party in the forthcoming provincial election by saying, “No more land for the Blacks; no more land for these independent Bantustans.” And I might say that member after member of that party objected to that resolution including the Leader of the Opposition. Since the hon. member has raised it now, I would remind him that his own leader voted against that resolution at the congress. To return to our Federal policy, apparently the hon. member finds it difficult to understand. What is important in the political context is who controls the country ultimately. This Parliament will control it, the Federal Central Parliament, but the people represented here and their representatives in this Parliament will consist of the entire cross-section of the nation and not just small communal groups representing the various races, with minor representation for the largest group and enormous representation for one of the smaller minority groups, the White people. Does the hon. member not understand that you have got to have a proper meaningful say in the political power structure of the country for it to mean anything?

On your definition there is no geographic content in your policy at all.

The provinces, but the hon. member does not understand and I cannot explain it further. He is too dense.

What do you call your geographic units?

It does not matter what you call them. You can even call them states if you like. The United States is a federation with states as components and Australia is a federation with states. What does it matter what you call them? They will be component parts, states or provinces or whatever you want to call them, of a central federation controlled by the broad base of the population. Each state or province will be given its autonomous rights to look after certain things.

Why did you deviate from your previous policy?

But this is no deviation whatever. I can provide the hon. the Minister with the original resolutions adopted 10 years ago. There is no difference whatever. I will provide him with the Molteno Commission’s report, which recommended a federal form of Government. We have never had anything else. Unfortunately, in stressing the racial policy, the federal policy has become somewhat lost. I do, however, think it important that we stress it again and again. This was the original policy of the Progressive Party. The hon. the Minister is looking sceptical. I shall send him documents which were dated many years ago.

I am not looking sceptical.

Then you must accept what I say.

I cannot see why you have a quarrel with the United Party.

Well, then you are just as dense as the hon. member for Pine-lands. Who is to control this structure, if it is not the broad base of the people or if it is not something communal? In the hon. the Minister’s scheme of things, they would of course have no say at all in this Parliament. The hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West and their Press were ecstatic over the fact that the congress had accepted a resolution which said that these Bantustans could be accommodated as states or as provinces, if they have in fact become a fait accompli by the time the Progressive Party comes into power. [Interjections.] Members can laugh, but they have forgotten that it is not so very long ago that the National Party had one member from the Transvaal. Ten years later the National Party was in power. That can happen again. [Interjections.]

Order! Why are hon. members getting so upset? [Interjections.]

Thank you, Sir. You have dealt with those hon. members better than I could have done. The question is: What does one do, should an independent Bantustan have been created? One cannot revoke their independence.

Tell the United Party.

Yes, I am telling the United Party. Their independence cannot be revoked unless the State itself agrees willingly to revoke its own independence and to rejoin what was the Republic of South Africa. I may say that it is very likely that they would do so under our policy, because of the great exchange of rights they would get. They would then get a meaningful say in the Central Parliament, together with mobility and the removal of all racially discriminatory practices. If the hon. the Minister asks Chief Gatsha Buthelezi today whether he would choose an independent Zululand or a Zululand which would be a province of a federal system under a Progressive government, I know very well what he would say, and so does the hon. the Minister. I may say that this would probably apply in the Transkei as well, if a free vote were allowed and proclamation 400 were removed, because the majority vote was cast for a multi-racial South Africa when the first Transkeian Authority was set up.

They did not vote on that basis.

The opposition party …

They did not even have parties at that time.

Nonsense. The Opposition in the Transkei was entirely against the idea of independent Bantu authorities.

That opposition party was formed only after the first election.

They were entirely in favour of remaining a part of the Republic of South Africa. With the removal of race discrimination, what does the hon. the Minister think will be the answer in that regard? Let us assume that an independent Bantustan is given an opportunity of rejoining the Republic. We would then say: Come in if you wish to. If you come in, however, you come in on the same basis as the other provinces, or states, whatever you want to call them. You will be given the right to look after certain local governmental matters. You will vote on a qualified franchise basis. After that, it is up to them to choose. If they do not want to come in, do you send the Army in? That is what I asked the United Party.

Did you not hear what we said?

No, I did not hear what you said about that.

We said that we would have to negotiate with them.

Well, that is not what another member said to me by way of interjection, but I shall accept what the hon. member for Transkei says. He says that they will accept the position. They will have no option but to accept the position and then to invite them to rejoin the Republic. According to our policy, they would then be able to join as another state.

Will you ask Swaziland too?

Yes, we would invite any of those states who wished to join us. We would be delighted to have a greater federation of Southern Africa.

The United Party says the same thing.

Yes, but in terms of our policy everybody, irrespective of colour, would have a vote on a qualified franchise basis in this central federal government.

What will those qualifications for the franchise be?

I shall repeat the qualifications. They are Std. VI and the earning equivalent of a semi-skilled worker for two consecutive years, or it is Std. VIII, the school-leaving qualification. Those are the qualifications. A further qualification would be literacy and the ownership of property to the value of R1,000. There are provisions that have been made 10 years ago for the up-dating of the economic, but not the educational, qualifications, so as to approximate roughly the value of money today. That is all. It is as simple as that.

What will the position be as far as Whites are concerned?

It is an arbitrary test for everyone, even for Whites. Some members may not even qualify. Is that not interesting? If they do not meet the requirements on the educational and/or economic basis, they will not qualify. In fact, we have had compulsory and free education for a long time in South Africa for Whites, and it is very unlikely that Whites would not qualify. By the way, those on the roll would remain on the roll. Are there any other questions?

What would your basis of representation in this House be?

I do not know what you mean by “basis”. Do you mean the constituencies?

Yes, the constituencies.

The constituencies will be based upon people, individuals, human beings, irrespective of colour. That is a terrible concept, is it not? Imagine thinking of people without colour!

Would there be representatives for the areas?

There will be constituencies, yes. South Africa would be divided into constituencies.

On the same basis of delimitation?

We would not have the load-off-load this Government has, except for a small percentage, just to allow for the difficulties of delimitation. We would not have a load-off-load of 30 per cent in order to allow the rural constituencies to have far fewer voters than the urban constituencies. That went out with the dodo as far as we are concerned.

Will those provisions be entrenched?

Everything is entrenched.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member? Will all the voters on the common voters’ roll be entitled to nominate and designate their candidates themselves, irrespective of colour?

Yes, as long as the candidates qualify themselves. You have to qualify before you can become a candidate. Afterwards you can nominate your own candidate, irrespective of colour. Sir, I know that this is a terribly difficult concept for members who are so obsessed with colour …

No, with existence.

What do you mean by that?

We are not just going to hand the country over …

Nonsense. Nobody is handing anything over. Sir, the hon. the Minister is so frightened of non-White people that he cannot imagine living in multi-racial harmony with other South Africans of different colour. This is beyond him, but it could happen. Believe it or not, it could happen. Indeed, we have never tried it in South Africa.

They tried it in Kenya. What happened there?

The hon. the Minister must not tell me about Kenya. First of all, there were only a handful of Whites in Kenya. I might say that those who remained are living in harmony in that country, but then there was never more than a handful of settled Whites in Kenya.

A handful? There were about 100,000 Whites in Kenya.

And how many Africans were there?

So what? [Interjections.]

There were millions of Africans. How silly can you get? Of course it matters. In this country there is a large, settled White population. They cannot just be discarded as readily as the White settlers were in the other territories. That is the first point. Secondly, our Africans are different from Africans elsewhere. They have had decades … [Interjections.]

In terms of your policy, are you going to increase the number of seats in Parliament, or are you going to keep them at 166?

I rather imagine that the numbers would have to be increased, since the broad basis of the electorate would be increased, but I really cannot say for sure. That detail has not yet been worked out. As soon as we have worked it out, I shall let the hon. member know. I do not think that is important now.

It is important.

All right, as the population and the electorate increases, naturally one has to increase the size of the representation in this House. The main point I am trying to make is that our Africans are different. They have had decades of association with White people in a modern industrial economy. They no more want the standards that have been attained to drop than we want our standards to drop. They are fully aware of the fact that White people are not only necessary, they also desire them to stay and work with them in multi-racial harmony. It is as simple as that.

Yes, until it suits them to kick the Whites out.

They might want to kick some of the Whites out, like certain members I could think of, who have expressed nothing but hostility. By and large, despite everything, there is still a remarkable amount of harmonious relations in this country, and there is still remarkable goodwill by non-Whites, who are only yearning for the Whites just to show a change of direction in the way in which they are handling non-White people.

What happened in Zambia?

The hon. the Minister is frightened of non-White people. I am not. That is the difference.

Order! The hon. member may not carry on a dialogue like this.

Well. I wish he would keep quiet then, Mr. Speaker.

Order! Hon members must give the hon. member an opportunity of stating her case.

Thank you. Sir. I say that tradition is a word which is bandied around this House all the time. I want to say one final thing to the hon. the Minister or to the House and that is that I am not frightened of non-White people. The people that frighten me are the people who have grievances. Because, when people have grievances, that is when trouble and violence occur. Those are the people that frighten me and not the non-White people as such at all. In fact, I am more frightened of violent White people in many respects. As I was saying, tradition is a word we often hear bandied around in this House. It is a marvellous excuse for retaining those things which one thinks fit in with one’s current policy and for happily discarding the things which no longer suit one. For example, the Coloured franchise was a tradition in this country, but it was easily thrown over. Now, Sir, we suddenly have the tradition of the development of independent Bantustans. I have never seen in the history of South Africa that I have read, that that is part of the tradition of this country. It became a tradition of the Nationalist Party in latter years when they needed an ethical background to a policy which was not acceptable to the outside world or even to their own thinking intellectuals. Naked “witbaas-skap” was no longer acceptable. Dr. Verwoerd was intellectually superior enough to recognize that in the world of today naked “baasskap” just would not go down. So came the idea of separate development instead of apartheid, even unto independent Bantustans. The whole thing was designed so that the Nationalist Party would have an ethical basis to put against the fact that it is steadily depriving African people of rights in the so-called White Republic of South Africa. That is the whole basis of the policy. It is the whole basis for all the constitutional changes which have been introduced, such as granting self-government, giving concessions, and promising possible independence. This has only been done so that they can say that those Africans, who remain in the White Republic of South Africa, are here as visitors or temporary sojourners only. They have no right to claim any right whatsoever. That is the whole basis. I am right, am I not? “Yes”, says an hon. member, I am right.

Well, Sir this might have an ethical basis if the reserves or homelands could ever be viable, which they never can be. With all the will in the world and all the money in the world, they cannot be viable. There are not the job opportunities that will ever entice people back there. One can push them back. One can “persuade” them to go back. The Minister’s Department is adept at “persuading” them to go back. They are told that they have no jobs or houses in the cities and that they will be arrested and so they are “persuaded” to go back. The hon. the Minister is adept at moving Black spots. The 200, 300 or 500 families involved every time he moves a Black spot, are nothing. However, when I asked him why he does not convert Soweto, where 1 million people live, into a homeland and thus solve all the problems of border industries on the Witwatersrand, just as he did with Mdantsane in East London, he goes white with shock. He goes white with shock at the thought of converting Soweto into a homeland. But it is just an accident of history that there was not a little tribe living outside Johannesburg, which in 1913 could have become a scheduled area or in 1936 could have become a released area. The hon. the Minister is a great empire builder. I suggest that he creates just a small homeland area in Soweto, so that he can swop it for a Black spot somewhere else. I will find a nice one in the Northern Transvaal.

Just to the north of Johannesburg.

Right, even there if he wishes. Let us put one there and let him call Soweto a homeland. That will solve an awful lot of problems for a lot of people, one million people in fact.

As far as I am concerned, this Bill offers no quid pro quo. None of these constitutional bills offer any quid pro quo to the people who have never lived in the reserves and to the people who will not be able to continue living there, because of sheer, grinding poverty. They do not come into town only to see the bright lights, as hon. members think. They come in because there is no employment for them in those reserves, and because they are living at a bare subsistence and below subsistence level. As long as that is the case, no laws will be able to keep those people out and no constitutional status will make any difference to their conditions. The hon. member for Brakpan threw up his hands in horror when the hon. member for Transkei said that there were more Africans living in the urban areas than in the homelands. He is not right in saying that.

There are more out of the homelands.

He is right when he says there are more out of the homelands than in. That, of course, includes the utterly neglected class of African, who is permanently living in the White area, namely the Africans on the White farms. There are at least three million of these and nobody talks very much about them in this House. They are, if anything, probably the worst off of all the Africans.

Ask Wally.

I can show that hon. member some farming wage rates. I am not saying that there are not good farmers. Of course there are good farmers, who look after their labourers and families and pay them a decent wage, but I can show the hon. member areas where farmers pay R3 to R6 per month in a cash wage— and that is considered a very high wage indeed—plus a bag of mealie meal per week for the family. Perhaps they also get some fuel, the use of water and a couple of acres which are generally the worst parts of the farm, and grazing for a few head of cattle.

Look at the other side of the House, not at us.

Well, the hon. member has disputed it. If one adds the 3 million to the 3½ million or 4 million in the urban areas, that means that more than half or approximately 60 per cent of the Africans are outside the reserves.

What do you feel about the mine labour?

I do not like the migratory system of labour on the mines or anywhere else. More than half of those, by the way, come from outside South Africa, which the hon. the Minister probably does not know. Nevertheless, I do not approve of the migratory labour system under any conditions. The hon. the Minister, who was on the United Party benches when this happened, should know that at one stage the mines in the Free State wanted to increase the number of permanently settled mineworkers. That was stopped by Dr. Verwoerd, who would not allow it. He forbade them to take any more than 2 per cent of the total mining forces as stable, settled people. The rest had to be migratory labour. Sir, if the Government would change its mind and allow settled labourers and, most important of all, if they had the courage to do what is being done sub rosa anyway, namely to lift the Mines and Works Act restrictions, we could at least reduce the number of migrants working on those mines. Concerning the Mines and Works Act restrictions, there was a commission of inquiry, which was hastily shelved when the Mineworkers Union raised its angry head, but in fact, these restrictions are being lifted sub rosa because not enough Whites are coming forward to be trained to keep this vital industry going. The lifting of those restrictions would be to everybody’s advantage. It would be to South Africa’s economic advantage, because we would be able to produce more gold economically because at the moment many jobs are classified as skilled, which are not skilled at all. There is a new South African word, namely “de-skilling”. As soon as Black people do these jobs, they are known as a de-skilled occupation. Let us de-skill some of the occupations on the mines. Then we will be able to do what the hon. the Minister for Tourism suggested.

I think I have more or less covered everything I wanted to say.

You mean you have had your chips today?

No, the hon. member has to listen to me again later this afternoon. I want to wind up by saying that the Progressive Party has sensibly accommodated the idea of an independent Bantustan, which may exist when we come to power. We have accepted that this may then have happened. I personally, I must say, have the greatest doubts about this. I do not believe for a moment that the Government is going to give independence. The hon. the Minister was most cagey about answering any of the really relevant questions which were asked him during the Second Reading debate. [Time expired.]

We have been listening to a very interesting speech, that of the hon. member for Houghton—interesting since she has told us more of her policy and of the similarity which exists between the policy of her party and the policy being followed by the United Party.

What is interesting in her policy is that her party wants to deny the existence of the national ties of the Bantu—in other words, she does not want to accept that separate Bantu peoples exist in South Africa; she does not want to admit that the Bantu in South Africa differ amongst one another on the basis of language, descent and culture; she does not want to admit that their aspirations differ and that they can come into conflict amongst themselves. But surely she has been in a position of gaining first hand knowledge of conflict between Bantu peoples. After all, recently she paid a visit to Zambia and had a discussion with Kaunda. He probably told her of his problems, ones arising from the tribal basis. What we are having a manifestation of in Zambia we shall find in South Africa, too, if we deny the existence of the national ties of the Bantu and give all of them the vote on a common voters’ roll. In terms of the policy of the hon. member for Houghton everyone within the borders of South Africa will vote on a common voters’ roll. This means that there will be a preponderance of numbers on the side of the non-Whites. This ratio she wants to upset even further by saying that under their policy Lesotho and the other Bantu states bordering on South Africa will also be invited to share in that common voters’ roll. This will mean a voters’ roll which will be predominantly Black with merely a handful of Whites, to use her own term.

Another interesting aspect of her policy, as it was stated by the new leader of the party, is that they want to gain the support of the Afrikaner, especially of the young Afrikaner, for their party. I can give the hon. member for Houghton the assurance that with their policy they do not have the slightest chance of getting the young Afrikaner to vote for them. The young Afrikaner of today is a person with ideals. He will not allow his people to set out on a course of suicide. It is very clear that the hon. member and her party are completely out of contact with the thinking of the young Afrikaner of today. We, on the other hand, are convinced that the young Afrikaner of today, the leader of the future, is prepared, able and inspired to take our task in the years which lie ahead to its logical consequences on the foundation we are laying here now. The logical consequence thereof is independence for the various Bantu states.

I should like to dwell for another moment on the difference between the United Party and the Progressive Party. The United Party says its policy is one of race federation. The Progressive Party, on the other hand, says its race federation policy has a geographic content. Here it is really difficult for me to see the difference. As I see it, the difference is that the one calls its policy a race federation whereas the other calls it a federation of states. However, to me this seems to be the same thing in practice. Under the policies of both the non-White will have the vote. The Progressive Party says the non-White may vote for whomsoever he wishes—White or non-White; the United Party says the non-White will be represented by Whites, but only for the immediate future—we can have no doubt about that. Are they in earnest in thinking that by giving the Bantu eight representatives they will satisfy the political aspirations of non-White South Africa? On what is the policy of the National Party based if not on a recognition of the human dignity of the non-White peoples of South Africa? What other meaning does it have except that we are admitting that other people are the same as us and consequently also have political aspirations and therefore must have the right to strive after and realize those political aspirations? What opportunities is the United Party creating for the non-White?

What about the Coloureds?

Forget about the Coloureds for the moment. The fact that the hon. member always resorts to the Coloureds is an admission, as was said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, of the fact that our policy with regard to the development of the Bantu is the right one, that we are on the right road. It is because the hon. member for Turffontein feels that we are not following the same road with regard to the Coloureds that he is always throwing the Coloured question in our teeth. At the moment, however, we are dealing with the development of the Bantu homelands and not with the Coloured question. At the moment we are discussing the development of the Bantu homelands; that is what this debate is about. Can we deny for one moment that the Bantu peoples, too, have political aspirations? The hon. member for Transkei must admit this; surely he cannot deny this—the Bantu, too, do have political aspirations and as we make progress in our dispensation for them, so those political aspirations will crystallize more and more. In what way will those political aspirations be fully realized under the policy of the United Party, except in the way that the non-White will have to fight to realize them? Basically the difference between the policy of the United Party and that of the National Party is that under the policy of the United Party each non-White will have to fight for what he wants; under our policy, on the other hand, each non-White can get what he wants when the moment arrives for him to have it.

The urban Bantu as well?

The urban Bantu, too, can definitely get his political rights. Each one of the Bantu in the cities has a tie with a people; through language, descent and culture each one is integrated with his own national group. The Citizenship Act has laid the foundation for the urban Bantu to exercise his rights elsewhere. This is not a new thing in South Africa. What about the Malawians living in South Africa? The hon. member for Turffontein is so concerned about the urban Bantu. What does he say about the Malawians? Many of them are living here; many of them were even born here. Nevertheless, they have citizenship of another country. They exercise their rights at another place. But now, by way of interjection, the hon. member for Pinelands says: “But they are merely a handful.”

A handful of migrant labourers.

The hon. member said they were a handful; now he is adding the words “migrant labourers”. What he is actually telling us today is this: Do not pay any attention to them; they are merely a handful. Sir, this is not how the National Party argues. The National Party is sensitive to the aspirations of each and every one resident in South Africa, whether White or non-White, and we create the channels along which those aspirations may be realized. What is the moral basis of the policy of the United Party and of the remark of the hon. member that they are merely a handful? What test of morality does one want to apply to oneself when one says that they are merely a handful? The hon. member for Pinelands says they are a handful of migrant labourers.

But they come from an independent state.

The hon. member for Pinelands is not aware of the factual situation as it exists in South Africa at the moment. There are of the Malawians who have been in South Africa for many years; some of them have children who were born here. Does the hon. member want to deny that? Does he want to deny that we have Malawians here whose children were born here? They are citizens of Malawi; they are not citizens of the Republic of South Africa.

What about the Basuto?

There is no need for us even to talk of the Malawians; there are the citizens of Swaziland and the citizens of Lesotho, as the hon. the Minister rightly said. There are thousands of these people in South Africa. As regards the morality of the standpoint of the United Party, I just want to quote the words used by one of those hon. members in the previous debate when he said that we were disturbing the “stable labour force”. I should like to know from the hon. member for Pinelands whether this is the standpoint he, too, adopts in this regard. Because it seems to me, if I am interpreting and reading this quotation correctly, that the interest which the United Party is, in fact, showing in the Bantu at this stage is due only to the fact that the Bantu is a source of labour. The United Party sees him merely as a means of making money for them and of making money for South Africa. Sir, the non-White in South Africa, the non-White of the homelands and the non-White of Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland sell their labour here in South Africa. He cannot find a livelihood elsewhere. However, the attitude of the National Party towards him is different to that of the United Party. The attitude of the National Party is to create opportunities for that man as well.

Where?

We afford him the opportunity of realizing his aspirations and ideals as a member of a people.

But then he has to go back to Lesotho.

He may return to Lesotho if he wants to. A citizen of a homeland in South Africa may return to his homeland if he wants to do so. No-one is keeping him here in South Africa.

They want him here.

Why do you not send all the Bantu back?

Order! Why is the hon. member getting so excited?

He has no case.

Sir, when some members of the Opposition are making the most noise one knows their consciences are slowly beginning to bother them.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps a good thing that we are stopping the previous debate for a while so that we can come back to the actualities of our country and so that we can discuss matters that are going to be of great importance to us all in the future.

Sir, I should like to move the motion standing in my name, as follows—

Sir, you will notice that this motion proposes that the Government should take purposeful steps to make the Republic self-sufficient as far as its timber requirements are concerned. Although I am placing the emphasis here on self-sufficiency, I do not for one moment want to forget the value of the large export potential of timber products. I just want to point out that wattle bark earns R8 million and that other products such as pulp, fibreboard, cardboard and processed wood already earns a further R30 million. In looking at the international position of timber we find that the use of timber is increasing tremendously. Figures prove that the world’s use of timber doubles every 20 years. We find this increase in the use of timber despite the use of substitutes such as plastic materials. We can therefore take it that the use of timber will increase. We also find this upward trend in the use of timber in South Africa, and I do not think that this is solely because we are having an upsurge in the building industry. I think we can accept the fact that the upward trend has come to stay. It is therefore necessary for us to take another look at our whole timber industry and at its future here in South Africa.

During 1967 a very important committee of inquiry was appointed, the Committee of Investigation into Private Forestry in South Africa. The committee was under the chairmanship of the present Secretary for Forestry, Mr. Malherbe. Sir, I regard the committee’s report as very important for the timber industry, and I should just like to quote the terms of reference of this committee to the House, because I think that we are still going to refer back a great deal to its work—

This is the point I should like to come back to at a later stage—

I regard the findings of this committee as very important, but I cannot refer to all of them; I just want to mention here that it was concerned with the co-ordination of supply and demand, about which they made very important recommendations; it was concerned with research, marketing, soil conservation, the prices of timber, the grading of timber, the forming of co-operative societies of timber producers and co-operation between timber producers and the Department of Forestry; it was concerned with taxation, and the committee made important recommendations in connection with estate duty on timber plantations; it was concerned with the use of land and also with legislation. In 1968 we obtained the amended Forestry Act in which a considerable number of these recommendations were beneficially included, and which I shall come back to at a later stage. But in paragraph 110 of their recommendations we find a small section that I should like to quote to the House—

In an appendix to the report very definite guiding lines are laid down about further action in respect of this matter, and there was a discussion about the kind and extent of the loans that ought to be granted, the interest and the terms, the administrative assistance that can be given to producers and the necessary supervision, taxes, insurance and, lastly the subsidizing of such loans.

This principle of the subsidizing of plantations is not a new one. It is done in other countries because the long period one has to wait for one’s money and the large capital expenditure do not easily make it profitable for a private owner, particularly if he still has to purchase land on which to establish a plantation. We find examples of this assistance in Finland, for instance, where the State grants loans for the reafforestation of unproductive and devastated land. We find a very good example in France, where the most successful scheme was applied. The Natural Forestry Fund grants a 100 per cent loan on afforestation, on which they pay only a 50 per cent to 80 per cent subsidy, and they give that money to the producer at an interest rate of ¼ per cent to 1 per cent. We also have it in England. There we have the “Approved Woodland Scheme and Dedication Scheme”, in which the government, if the owner binds himself to plant and to tend trees according to a fixed programme, gives him an annual grant and also helps him with the establishment of plantations. We can therefore see the importance with which other countries regard their plantations. If the recommendations of the committee are implemented, there ought to be no danger that misuse will be made of this financial assistance. Such an owner will have to administer his forests according to properly drawn-up plans.

But let us now first look at what the Republic’s timber position is, because it is important for us to conduct a survey. We find that in 1969 there were 1,150,000 hectares of afforested land in the Republic. 190,000 hectares of that was indigenous forest. We are very grateful and proud of the great care the State gives to our indigenous forests, and we are grateful that very great portions of this are in the possession of the State. They take care of its preservation and management, and I am glad the Department of Forestry has converted to a system in which the planned administration of these natural forests can make them more useful and more accessible to the public. We should like to ask that the State continue to administer our indigenous forests in this very sensible way. We must remain true to the slogan “forests must remain forests”.

I also want to make a further appeal for the planting by us of more indigenous trees. Even though an indigenous tree grows much more slowly than a non-indigenous one, it nevertheless has a very great value for us, not only the commercial value of the tree but also the embellishment and the pleasure it can give to man. That is why I want to ask that throughout the country we give much more attention to the planting of more indigenous trees and that we ensure that if necessary research will also be done, so that these trees can come into their own to a greater extent.

The remaining 960,000 hectares are established plantations. We find that 50 per cent of this is pinewood, 30 per cent gum trees and 20 per cent wattle; two-thirds of this timber is privately owned and one-third is owned by the State. In 1969, the latest figures tell us, we obtained the colossal amount of 7,650 million cubic metres of timber from these plantations. For the information of the House, which is not yet metricated to such an extent, I can just say that one cubic metre equals 35 cubic feet. Saw logs represent 28 per cent of the timber, pulp wood 37 per cent, mine timber 29 per cent and other timber 6 per cent.

Now, to what extent does this timber provide for our needs? If we look at construction timber, we see that 85 per cent of our needs are met. In other words, we still have a shortage of 15 per cent. As far as plywood and veneer are concerned we still have a shortage of 38 per cent, 20 per cent in respect of paper pulp and cardboard needs and a tremendous shortage of 82 per cent in respect of timber cross-beams. As far as cross-beams are concerned, I believe that through research we can perhaps, be much more self-sufficient in the future. I understand that the Department is engaged in an intensive programme in that connection. As far as leaf-wood for the manufacture of furniture is concerned, we have a shortage of 70 per cent. There it will perhaps not be so easy to meet all our needs, but we must keep at it and I believe that our natural forests can provide more of this timber. As far as the other uses are concerned, for example poles, mine props, fibre board, soluble pulp, wooden containers, factory timber, firewood and wattle bark, we are already supplying 100 per cent of the needs.

In any case it is very clear that we still have a great shortage at present, and this position is not improving. It is therefore necessary for us to carry out prognosis studies of what the future needs will be, but it is not easy to carry out such studies without the proper figures. It is therefore important that in 1968 the Forest Act provided that data be collected from all producers of timber so that studies could be made for the future. When the then Minister of Forestry moved his policy motion in the Other Place in 1968, he drew a very clear picture. He mentioned there that a study by an independent consultant predicted that at the end of the century there would be an annual timber shortage of 16 million cubic metres. In the Forest Act of 1968 provision was made for proper stocktaking. Section 29 (2) (a) reads as follows—

This was a very sensible provision in the Act, and after just two years we have already obtained very important results. I want to express a word of thanks here to everyone who helped with these surveys. It is thanks to the help of the timber producers and all the other persons and bodies that have given their assistance that we already have results. A preliminary study based on the data we have obtained thus far indicates that in 1972 we shall already have a timber shortage of 1.3 million cubic metres. In the case of saw logs there will be a shortage of half a million cubic metres. We shall have a pulpwood shortage of 444,000 cubic metres. We shall have a mining timber shortage of 375,000 cubic metres and a 7,500 cubic metre shortage in respect of poles. It is only in the case of matchwood that we shall have a small surplus of 10,000 cubic metres. The total net timber shortage will therefore be 1.3 million cubic metres. If we convert this into cubic feet we see that in 1972 the shortage will be 46.7 million cubic feet.

My motion proposes that we take positive steps to make the country self-sufficient in this connection. Now we can rightfully ask ourselves whether it is in the country’s interests that we should specifically be self-sufficient in this sphere, or whether we should not preferably import? There are, for example, our agricultural products that certainly have first claim on our water and our land. These can also be exported, because they can earn us valuable foreign exchange. Then there are also our industries and our cities that must be provided with water. When we have put forward these points, I want to allege that forestry has a rightful claim to all the water and land that can be made available to it.

There are so many pieces of land in the Republic that can still usefully be planted. There are, for example, pieces of waste land on farmlands that is good for nothing else. I am thinking, for example, of the mountain catchment areas that are very frequently needed for water run-offs, but in other cases they can also be very usefully employed for forestry.

I realize that the State has an afforestation policy. But what I am advocating here today is that in the implementation of this policy we must now work out a general afforestation programme for the country as a whole and purposefully pursue it. It appears to me, for example, that when the State purchases land for forestry purposes, it chiefly purchases land that is offered in passing, and that there is not a purposeful plan in the purchase of such land. In addition the State also depends upon the private sector for the planting of trees.

I therefore want to propose for the hon. the Minister’s consideration that the afforestation policy should be more dynamic. At the commencement of such a dynamic afforestation policy there are quite a number of questions that must be answered. There is, for example, the question of where the trees ought to be planted? Thus far this has been done in high rainfall areas. That is probably correct, because the trees grow better there. But I also want to say that we must give attention to the arid parts of the country. Why can only pepper trees and bluegum trees be planted along the streets of the towns in the Karoo and along our national roads? Is there no room perhaps for our other very lovely trees? I now want to appeal to public bodies, the municipalities and divisional councils to plant other trees as well. I believe that there are few places in our country where we cannot get other trees to grow with a little water, patience and effort. The scientists say that one will not easily change the climate of a country by planting trees. But I believe that one can make one’s country much more attractive by planting trees. That is why we must encourage the planting of trees throughout the country wherever we can, and not only in the high rainfall areas. The next question we must ask ourselves is how rapidly the planting must take place and what the needs are? Studies were carried out in this connection, and we are now getting results. I believe that in the future these figures will show us very nicely what we have to do. We shall not only have to make more surveys of the possibilities, but also of the consumption. More guidance must also be given to producers about what they must plant and where it must be planted. We shall perhaps need to have more technical officers in the Department of Forestry that can go round giving people advice.

Who must undertake this afforestation development? I want to say that the State must continue with its policy. It must plant trees in every suitable spot. Last year the Mountain Catchment Areas Act was passed in this House. It is a very important Act that can provide where planting may take place and where it may not. I do not want to go into the provisions of that Act any further at this stage, but I believe that its implementation is also very important in this connection. The State must therefore continue with its afforestation programme. But what I specifically want to advocate here today is that the State should consider giving financial assistance to the private sector. Financial assistance should not only be given to big land owners, but also to the ordinary farmer. I think that we should encourage people to plant more trees.

Today I also want to appeal to the public bodies to continue with the planting of trees, even without State assistance. Here I am thinking, for example, of our municipalities that own large pieces of land where there are water catchment areas, or even commonage that is very suitable for the planting of trees. They must do it without the State’s assistance. But when we come to private initiative I think it is necessary for the State to grant financial assistance. I think that if we continue with this policy we shall make our country a lovelier and pleasanter country for the succeeding generations.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to welcome this motion by the hon. member for Humansdorp. He is a person who has shown in the past his interest in the forest industry. It is a pleasure to be able to support this motion. It carried with it many implications which deal with the rightful use of land and water. I agree with the hon. member that forestry can rightfully demand land and water above the claims above the other sectors of our economy, above the claims of agriculture in certain areas and above the claims of municipalities in certain areas. I believe that this is something which is of the utmost importance to the future of South Africa.

I would be in a very difficult position if I did not support the hon. member’s motion, because he would then be able to quote my own Hansard of last year during the Forestry debate. I want to touch on it, because one of the points which the hon. member mentions in his motion namely encouraging the private sector to undertake planting on a more extensive scale by the granting of financial assistance, was not really fully dealt with by the hon. member. I should like to stress the year during the Forestry debate when I raised the question of allowing the private farmer to maintain his position in the timber growing industry by means of loans which can be made to the farmer at a reasonable rate of interest. I said then and I say again now that I do not regard 7 per cent as a reasonable rate of interest. I think the hon. the Minister indicated at that time that that was also a thought in the back of his mind. It is certainly not a reasonable rate of interest taking into consideration the current cost of timber growing and in view of the very long-term crop which is planted. If the hon. the Minister will make loans available, we should discuss the question of whether this should be done through the co-operative movement which is more and more becoming the centralizing factor in the private industry or whether it should be done through the Department and how it could be carried out. I do not wish to traverse that ground again, because I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us something today of how far he has reached in his negotiations. Because, as the hon. the Minister himself pointed out last year, it was a question of negotiation with the Treasury and with other Government departments. He also pointed out that this could not be done throughout the entire country, but only in areas indicated for such purposes. Obviously, the Department of Forestry is going to have to play a determining role in where this type of afforestation can take place. The idea which was basic to our approach is that of the woodlot farmer, which is common in Europe. I mentioned last year, and I stress again today, that the private farmers’ only stake in the timber industry as it is today is farming on a very large scale. The growing of timber is today becoming a large scale industry. Certainly in my area in Natal, one finds that the small man is going out of timber growing. He has already gone out of wattle growing to a very very large extent and he is now going out of timber growing because of the economies of scale which the larger companies can practise and because of the increasing difficulty of sitting in to his labour requirements, the timber he grows on his farm. If the private, ordinary farmer—I do not mean the farmer with 120,000, 50,000, or even 10,000 acres—with a small stake in the timber industry, is to be maintained it has to be on the basis of what is called in Europe the woodlot. The woodlot in Europe is a central feature to the small farmer. These trees are tended with care, as if they were babies. They realize a tremendous amount of income. Each tree is virtually marketed individually. I do not suggest that we need to go quite as far as that in this country, because the varieties of timber we have do not have the same value. But where a man can plant, say 100 acres of trees, I believe the State must give him assistance for him to become interested and to retain his interest in the timber industry. To my mind, this is the kernel of the motion which the hon. member for Humansdorp has brought before the House today. The hon. member mentioned, in passing, the wattle industry. I was not quite sure whether he intended that the State should enter the wattle industry. In fact. I am quite certain this was not intended. I beg the hon. the Minister not to take that into consideration, because we have enough trouble in the wattle industry as it is. The point surely is that there are other hardwoods, and softwoods particularly, which are peculiarly suited to the purposes of the State.

The use of statistics, which the hon. member for Humansdorp mentioned, must begin to show the trend in the use and production of pulpwood in particular. I mention this, because it seems to me that the licencing of new plants for the processing of pulp and even for the production of paper, is something we must consider. We must consider this actively, became it can be a very important source of foreign exchange. I think we all know the position in the pulpwood industry at the moment. There is a large over-production which has, in fact, been the cause of some discontent, or perhaps disagreement between the Department, private industry and the industrial users. But if timber can be used to benefit the country by bringing in foreign exchange, then I think that active consideration should be given to the balancing up and encouragement of the planting of pulpwood with a view to one or more further pulp plants. I wish to say a bit more about that later on, because it will tie in with the attitude of the Department and the private grower in relation to price negotiations.

I believe the point has been reached where the export of timber is something which the hon. the Minister and his Department are going to have to consider, in that i believe the wattle industry has today signed a contract with Japan interests for the export of wattle chips at a price which will be twice the realization to the private grower of anything paid in this country. There is a significant amount of timber to be exported in terms of that agreement. This must have a profound effect on timber prices, especially wattle prices, because of the take-off of wattle which will not be available in this country. I believe that this again is something which the hon. the Minister’s Department must look at. I know, of course, that they are concerned in the negotiations. This is a matter which nobody could undertake without the closest co-operation of the hon. the Minister and his Department.

A question was raised by the hon. member concerning the afforestation of ground at present in the hands of the hon. the Minister and his department. It is odd that land was often in the past handed over to the Department of Forestry on a rather haphazard basis. The department were really the heirs of all the ground which no one else in the country wanted. Automatically it was given to the Department of Forestry who could administer it and look after it and so on. Land which is held on that basis, is often difficult to plant efficiently, because there are little bits and pieces scattered about the country which do not make for an efficient unit. It is my thought that the scattered areas which today lie in the hands of the Department of Forestry might be better developed by private interests, rather than the State itself, on whatever basis the hon. the Minister and his department may decide upon, whether on the agency basis, or by means of loans or subsidies as we have mentioned.

On a lease basis.

As suggested, it could be done on a lease basis. Certainly it should be on some basis, so that the private grower is given a chance, because I believe it is easier for a small grower to interest himself in such areas than for the department to have a host of small areas planted up here and there.

I think that the question of further planting is, of course, tied up absolutely and completely with the question of water supply. We are told that approximately 5 per cent of the total area of our country is really suitable for afforestation. These are obviously the areas which are the sources of our water. It is the old story. We know that there is a very very great difference of opinion between agricultural users of water and the forest industry, as I have already said. There was the case of the Eastern shores of St. Lucia, where ground was in the possession of the Department of Forestry. It was swampy land and it was planted up, which had the effect of drying up those areas. A report was drawn up for the Natal Parks Board by Ken Tinley which certainly indicated that there was an important source of fresh water flowing into Lake St. Lucia from the eastern shore areas which are being afforested by the Forestry Department. I am not a scientific person and do not intend passing judgment on that report. I mention St. Lucia as an indication of the sort of problem which we are going to have to face if we are now going to afforest virtually all the areas which are suitable for afforestation in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister has the most fortunate dual capacity of being both Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry, and he might well find that he is biting his own tail, if I may put it that way. The interest of his one department will be in conflict with the other. At least it will be easier for him to sort it out than if two different people were involved. I think that this is an important factor in favour of the forest industry, because if there were a Minister of Water Affairs intent on water and a Minister of Forestry intent on Forestry, there would perhaps be a serious conflict. This hon. Minister has himself got both interests at heart. It comes down to the question of priorities—whether the farmers or the department are entitled to use water which falls on their land to their best own advantage. I think we should accept that it is a reasonable proposition that any owner of ground, whether it be the department or a farmer, should be allowed to do that. The hon. the Minister himself has indicated his concern about this matter by the proclamation of certain areas as catchment control areas. I think that it is commonly agreed by all sides of this House that this sort of pattern will have to be extended, if the Minister and his department, as well as the private side of the industry, are going to extend their plantings. If loans are made available to us in order to encourage us to afforest further areas of the country, it is clearly incumbent on the Minister and his department to indicate which areas have to be protected from afforestation. I say, already we have these areas and it so happens that most of them are within my constituency. I think this ought to be the pattern for the future, a direction in which we shall have to move. A plan has to be drawn up. I do not know whether this is going to be one of the functions of the Water Research Commission we were talking about yesterday. In any event, a plan will have to be drawn up, a delimited area in which no afforestation can take place.

I should now like to come to a problem which the hon. member for Humansdorp left out of his motion while it could well have been added with a view to encouraging the private sector to afforest. It concerns the competition between the department and the private grower in the marketing of timber, particularly of pulp-wood. Last year in a debate the hon. the Minister told us that the department was producing only 19 per cent of the pulp-wood produced in South Africa. I think it is common cause that price negotiations between the private industry and the largest user of pulp-wood have virtually reached a deadlock. I am unaware of any agreement having been reached, an agreement which is mutually satisfying. I would have liked to see this motion embracing a request to the Minister to align his department with the private growing sector in any type of negotiation that takes place on prices with the industrial sector. Last year, when I also raised this same matter in a debate, the hon. member for Humansdorp agreed with me that it should be so. So, we have agreement on both sides that we ought to have a position which would guarantee the position of the private grower. If people are going to accept loans, albeit at a low rate of interest, they are committing not only themselves but also their sons and people who may come onto their farms after them to something which they believe would give them a profitable return. But now there is 19 per cent of the pulp-wood production which is not tied to their negotiations. This hangs, as it were, as a cloud over any price negotiations. The private sector is reaching a stage today where they have very accurate price costing. I have never been able to find out on what basis the department costs its production but obviously it has a system which it uses. But are these two bases the same? Should the cost of the private sector not be accepted as the realistic cost of production of the sort of person who is being encouraged to afforest ground? Is it not possible for the hon. the Minister to align his department with the private grower? If there are to be realistic price negotiations —of course, the Minister holds in his own hands the ultimate say about what the price is to be—if the private grower is to be strong enough to negotiate with what is a mighty concern, a tremendously powerful concern, a concern which holds the industrial side of the timber industry in its hands, then we shall have to guarantee the position of the private grower. It is very important indeed that a private grower should realize that if he is to commit himself to loans, which have to be repaid at any rate, he is undertaking a future commitment. And who knows what the price structure will be like when timber going through a 20/30 year cycle is marketed? May I just mention that the interest rate of a quarter per cent is to me a very attractive rate of interest, something we all should like to see in our country! At any rate, as I say, the private grower is undertaking a commitment and consequently he has to have the assurance that there will be the closest possible co-operation and alignment between the department and him. The 19 per cent pulp-wood being produced by the department is not an insignificant figure: on the contrary it is a considerable slice of the production. So. I put this forward for the earnest attention of the hon. the Minister in so far as private interests in timber are concerned.

There is one other question. Do the statistics which have so far come into his department give us any idea of the land available to his department and privately for afforestation? Do they give any indication of the potential production of timber in South Africa? How far are we able to meet what our anticipated demand is likely to be? I think I am fairly safe in saying that we cannot be fully self-supporting in this respect except for certain lines. There are lines where it might be necessary to canalize production. For instance, when giving a loan to a producer it will be for the production of a certain line of timber. This ought to be done in order to satisfy either that line which is in biggest demand or a line which it is expensive to import from overseas. How is the department seeing the future? When the Minister makes available these loans will he use that as a tool to canalize the development of the timber industry in the direction he wishes it to go?

In so far as further afforestation by the State is concerned, the position is that the State is already a tremendously powerful producer. I think this is something where the private industry should be encouraged. I think the Minister himself is interested in maintaining the role of the private grower. If he was not, then obviously he wouldn’t come here and make loans available. I welcome this. The private timber grower is not only a timber grower but also a farmer. It is merely another string to the bow of people who are farmers, certainly throughout the higher rainfall areas. The number of farmers who are merely timber growers is very small. Usually they produce all types of product, including timber. By making it possible for a man to plant perhaps 100 or 200 acres on rocky or out-of-the-way ground, ground not easily accessible for his general farming practice, the hon. Minister would be guaranteeing the survival of the White farmer on an economic basis. In the circumstances I welcome his intention as he announced it in the debate last year, the intention to make loans available and I hope today he will be able to give us some further details and an indication how far he has got with the negotiations that have been taking place.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I had just begun my speech when the adjournment occurred. I just wanted to record my satisfaction at the fact that the State, as far as the motion before the House is concerned, realized the desirability of linking up the Department of Forestry and Water Affairs. The past year was Water Year, and the attention of all the people in the entire Republic was focused on the importance of water and water conservation, and it found its mark. I think it would perhaps not be unfitting to think in similar terms of forestry, perhaps on a slightly smaller scale. Not much is said about forestry, and there is no day-long quibbling about it. And yet it is very important, not only as a money earner, but also as a means for allowing so many farmers to subsist in those parts where forestry is in fact carried out. For that reason I should like to associate myself with the motion. I should also like to congratulate the member who moved the motion, the hon. member for Humansdorp, most heartily on the way in which he did so. In the course of my speech I shall also refer here and there to certain statements made by the hon. member for Mooi River. It is actually interesting to see that he does not differ from us on the question of forestry, and that we, as foresters and farmers, and on behalf of the people we represent, are probably unanimous in feeling that it is a very important matter, and will be a very important matter in the future.

The motion before the House is very clearly divided into two parts. The first part deals with self-sufficiency through State afforestation. I do not want to elaborate much on that, except to say that in the past State afforestation was regarded by the private sector as a rival, and that at one time in the past, for example. State afforestation and the Department of Forestry acted independently in respect of wage increases, and made things very uncomfortable for our farmers. Pursuant to the motion I want to say at this stage, however that the position has changed completely and that we are satisfied that the State is now giving the farmers the closest co-operation. In that respect we want to congratulate the Department and the hon. the Minister on the fact that they now have a greater appreciation of the importance of the individual farmer as against that of the Department.

The second part of the motion deals with the question of financial assistance to the private sector. I think it would be fitting if we put it to the hon. the Minister that there are certain reasons for the fact that we have fallen behind, as the member who moved this motion stated put it to this hon. House, at such a rate that we shall have a tremendous backlog by the year 2,000 as far as supplying ourselves is concerned, and that we shall then to a greater extent be committed to importing our timber and timber needs from abroad. But it is also interesting, and one would like to have it recorded, that we have delved into the reasons why we have fallen behind. The member who moved the motion said that there is a limited portion of our country where we can plant forest. In fact, the committee of inquiry that went into the matter also said that the area where we can apply afforestation is reasonably limited. But there are additional factors.

The private sector, as we all know, and the farmers also know, are themselves divided into two groups. The first group consists of big producers with large capital, who are also the processors of the timber products that are delivered. In those cases we have had a great deal of difficulty in the past; it caused great concern. It led to the legislation that was submitted in 1968, and to the grading of timber. However, this did not entirely solve our problem. The backlog will in reality become greater as our timber requirements in the Republic increase, for the simple reason that the individual farmer cannot manage afforestation in competition with these large undertakings that recently even capitalized or liquidated other interests. In this way the large firms obtain the capital for purchasing even larger tracts of land in order to eventually make themselves self-sufficient in terms of the factories in which they have their interests.

We are falling behind because the individual forester, the ordinary small farmer or the farmer who perhaps goes in for large-scale mixed farming and is only a small forester, but nevertheless has quite a bit of space in which he cannot undertake agricultural activities on an economic basis, cannot produce economically. We consequently find that there are large areas where afforestation can take place, but where it is not done because there are certain problems in respect of marketing, for example. We also find that the small farmer, and when I speak of the small farmer I mean the small farmer as the second leg of the private sector, is left to his own devices. Today we find that even though the small farmer produces, and even if he has the material available, he can hardly get rid of it at economic prices because he cannot tender competitively with the present-day bodies applying for contracts in which those small foresters or small farmers cannot share— these include mining undertakings as well as semi-Government and Government undertakings such as the Electricity Supply Commission. They cannot tender competitively on a basis on which everyone can get a large enough share in the market, and then they are actually committed to becoming sub-contractors of those large companies.

I want to mention an example. The example I want to use is that of an undertaking such as the Electricity Supply Commission that makes use of 30, 35, 40 and 45 foot poles drawn from the forestry industry. They take no notice of a man with 10,000 trees, or 30, 40 or perhaps 150 acres of trees on his farm when they need almost half a million poles. They take no notice of his tender; it is too insignificant for consideration. When their products are marketable these small entrepreneurs are committed to selling them to the large entrepreneurs who can supply 70 per cent of the tender and then rely on the fact that further timber can be purchased.

The result is that the small producer has become afraid of doing any further planting, and consequently we are getting into ever greater difficulties. We are lagging further behind in the provision of the necessary timber supplies. It is therefore necessary for this motion to be before the House today. We trust that the hon. the Minister welcomes such a motion in the House. We must realize once and for all that the small sector of the rural population, the farming community, must not be committed to remaining a mere adjunct to the larger companies who are well endowed with capital, and that consequently sufficient State assistance should be given to the small man. They must be given the assurance that if they produce they will be able to get rid of their products.

In the case of the example I mentioned, we find that the Escom organization pays respectively R5.47. R7.52 and R9.89 per pole for the 30. 35 and 40 foot poles with respectively four to five, five to six and six to seven inch tops. The 35 foot poles with four and five inch, six and seven inch and seven and eight inch tops are purchased by tender for R6.48, R15.53, R11.27 and R18.39 per pole respectively. These poles have a very large market—on the other hand there are, of course, the mines —and offer a very good illustration of what the farmer is actually faced with. Those poles can be creosoted at an average estimate cost of about R1 per pole. To the amount I mentioned R1 per pole is then added. The balance is then profit made by the big forester on the contracts he entered into with the Government or the semi-Government organization.

But the irony of the situation is that the contractor does not have a sufficient supply of those same lengths of poles in stock, or in his plantation, and must purchase them. The offer he then makes to the producer is about R1 per pole. To tell the truth, it is less than R1. The contractor therefore pays R1 for the pole, and to that is added his transport costs and the costs of having the pole treated with creosote. The balance is then profit. As a result he can comply in full with his tender, in fact at the expense of the small farmer who consequently does not have a rightful share in the market that is available for that specific kind of timber. This is not only the case in this particular field. The same applies to the pulp manufacture. The pulp wood that is used at present is soft timber. Consequently the farmers do not plant that timber on a small scale. They cannot plant it on a small scale, because they do not have a rightful share in the market.

For that reason certain of these large factories that manufacture pulp on a contract basis in the Bantu areas on behalf of the Department of Bantu Administration have concluded large contracts for the planting of the relevant timber. Now the small farmer fears that when these plantations come into full production they will land up in the same boat and eventually simply have to accept an arbitrary price for their timber. These plantations will come into production shortly, because they were chiefly planted after 1948. Consequently these farmers are no longer interested in planting such trees, and attention is now chiefly being given to production. Farmers are now establishing plantations in the parts where use cannot normally be made of ordinary agricultural machinery for the growing of various kinds of foodstuffs. They simply plough up the grass, and on that fallow land they then plant forests, and their production costs are therefore low. If a farmer plants enough he can make ends meet because he can lay claim to a share with these large companies.

The point I want to make is that forestry is being handicapped by such practices. The benefits these practices have for our timber industry are questionable. The small forester does not have the necessary capital at his disposal. The problem of providing this small forester with capital was clearly stated in the motion of the hon. member for Humansdorp. The hon. member for Mooi River agreed with him in that connection. He referred to the fact that last year the hon. the Minister held out the prospect that in the course of time such loans would in fact be made available.

In the past month I read a report somewhere to the effect that the Department of Agricultural Credit would be prepared to make loans available at a subsidized interest rate of 5 per cent for the purpose of forestry. What the ordinary forester needs is not that his industry should be linked up with another department, but that he should be able to seek his welfare and protection with the Department of Forestry. He wants to feel if he has furnished his product, be it small or large, that he will have the necessary protection and that he will have a rightful share in the available market pro rata the quantity of trees he has planted. In reality the wattle bark industry has collapsed, because only one-sixth of the mature trees can be marketed today at—this I do concede—a relative high price. There must be about 200 acres of these trees for a basic quota of say 70 tons.

When this is calculated on a 12-year cycle, one finds that the land yield on that basis is only about R10 per year per acre. It is so very little that one can virtually do better with a crop failure on a cash crop basis than with afforestation, particularly with respect to wattle bark. The market is so sensitive that during the 1965 to 1968 period people withdrew themselves from the wattle bark industry. As a result of the problems that developed in the marketing of bark about 97,538 acres were withdrawn from the industry. As we all know there was also an investigation in this connection, and an Act was placed on the Statute Book. Provision was, however, only made for the bark and not for the timber of those wattle bark trees. It is with pleasure that I can mention that during the past year or so a station and three co-operative undertakings were established that handle the timber that constitutes the waste product of the wattle bark industry. The timber furnished by this industry is about three times as much as the bark. This wood can serve a useful purpose.

The hon. member for Mooi River said that we should not consider the timber from these trees as part of a plantation. I have already mentioned that there is now a good market for the sale of wattle bark tree splinters to Japan at very profitable prices. However, things are not yet in order in the wattle bark industry, and I do not want to go into the reasons for that at this stage. We shall probably get an opportunity to do so at a later stage. These facts, however, are contributing to the decline of this industry.

What is interesting is that the timber producer pays a tremendous amount for the transportation of his product. For its weight, this timber is a relatively cheap product to transport. With the recent oppressive drought it was found, however, that the transportation of livestock and fodder to the drought-stricken areas enjoyed precedence. I do not want to complain about that, because I think it should be done again if it is necessary. However, the fact remains that at the time there were many trees that had already been chopped down and were ready for the market. Those trees are marketed with a certain moisture content. As a result of the fact that this product could not be transported immediately, because it does not decay very easily, some of those farmers suffered a loss of up to 70 per cent on the weight of their product in other words the farmer lost this percentage on his total crop. Because something like this could happen again it is absolutely necessary for the State to intervene in granting assistance.

It is not only a problem of rail transportation, it is also one of labour and education. We know that with the approval of the Treasury a small amount is made available in the Revenue Account for timber research. With a view to the future, and with a view to the education of the farmer—which is not inadequate at present, but which could be undertaken on a much larger scale—we should like to see a greater amount voted. We notice that in the Estimates for the year 1970-’71 only R16,690,000 was voted for the entire forestry industry. Sir, an amount larger than R16,690,000 is surely necessary for an industry that saves the State about R30 million per year in foreign exchange. In respect of that amount we therefore want to ask that thought be given in the future to making provision for the farmer so that the loans mentioned by the member who moved the motion can become a reality.

The hon. member for Mooi River made an allegation here that I cannot let pass, i.e. that the Natal Parks Boards had conducted a survey and found that the water in the lakes decreased as a result of afforestation. I just want to say that I cannot altogether accept this as an authentic conclusion based on a very scientific investigation, because the Department of Forestry, which now has the Department of Water Affairs as its sister organization, will surely not devour its sister organization’s food so that it will starve. This survey was done during a period of serious drought, and that is why I believe that that water was not sucked up by the trees, but by the aeration of the soil it had to penetrate in order to reach those lakes. I want to suggest that before one makes such a statement and blames the Department one should first delve into the matter scientifically. As far as I know pine trees are planted in that area, and we know that the pine tree uses very little water. The great consumers of water are the bluegum trees or the saligna species. We also know that there are only certain areas in which they can be planted, and we know that with the co-operation of Water Affairs the planting of those trees next to streams, were these streams would be drained as a result of the greater water consumption of that specific forestry product, would not be allowed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by promising my wholehearted support to this motion, and I want to express the hope that with the competent staff that he has, the Minister will take up the cudgels for us and ensure that, in the first place, we encourage the small foresters by investigating the marketing channels, for example, and by eliminating the doubts that exist for the general producer and the farmer. Whether a Government department is involved or not. I nevertheless think it is still necessary for a comprehensive investigation to be undertaken specifically in relation to the question of marketing, not as a part of a larger whole, but separately. Therefore, Sir, it is a great honour for me to second this motion formally.

The Secretary for Forestry, Mr. H. L. Malherbe, said in his report for 1968-’69—

This is an outstanding achievement, Sir, and I want to congratulate the Department of Forestry and all timber producers on that achievement. In the presidential address to the South African Institute of Forestry in May, 1970, Mr. D. P. Ackerman pointed out that 20 years ago South Africa used 80 million cubic feet of home-produced timber as compared with 285 million cubic feet in 1969, excluding firewood. This represents a growth rate of 6 per cent a year, which is about three times as high as the population increase over the same period. If the annual growth of 6 per cent is projected until the end of the century it would mean a consumption of 1,500 million cubic feet a year, a taxing production figure for South Africa with its limited forestry potential. According to the annual reports of anticipated consumption and requirements of timber sawmills, pulp and paper manufacturers, plywood factories, the mining industry and other important consumers, our demand is increasing by more than the 6 per cent which is used in this projection. The anticipated increase in the consumption of timber will be 8 per cent per year over the next three years and after that even more. This is a tremendous challenge to the timber producers of South Africa to keep up with the country’s timber requirements. Wood has become one of the characteristic world-wide raw materials of civilization. It produces food for man and beast. It has already become the second most important source of textile fibres. Wood clothes a large section of the population with artificial fibres, such as rayon. As a building material it provides a variety of products, such as plywood and plates, plastics and resins which can satisfy countless engineering requirements. Wood provides the tables on which we eat, the chairs on which we sit, the beds on which we sleep and even the coffins in which we are buried. There is a large shortage of wood for furniture in South Africa. We cannot meet a third of our requirements, in spite of the fact that we possess a large variety of indigenous precious woods like white alder, yellowwood, wild olive wood, tamboti, assegaai wood and stinkwood, to mention just a few of our varieties of wood. The prices continue rising and the good, dark, hard, mature wood is virtually unobtainable. Some articles of furniture made of stinkwood have more than doubled in price over the past three years at the furniture manufacturers of George and Knysna, in spite of the fact that they are made of the soft, white, young wood which is not of the best. Fortunately, foreign varieties which do well here, have filled this gap to a certain extent, in that they grow faster, and they also help to satisfy the requirements as the result of the fact that they germinate by themselves in our indigenous forests. In this respect I am thinking especially of blackwood, from Australia, Acacia melanoxylon, which germinates and develops in the natural forests among our indigenous trees. I should like to see us propagating and planting our indigenous precious-wood trees far more actively by means of seeds and cuttings, especially where they occurred previously and have now been destroyed, and also to replace trees which have been chopped down for furniture timber. I realize it is a long-term investment, but we must put back what we have exploited. We owe it to posterity. The problem is, however, that we do not quite know how to propagate our indigenous trees effectively. We do not know whether it is best to propagate them by means of seed, cuttings or young plants. I know germination tests are being done on stinkwood seeds at the University of Stellenbosch. These were only started very recently, but are being carried out on a large scale, also at the experimental nursery at Saasveld. What is required, Sir, is that we carry out research, planning and the application of the necessary programme based on that, far more actively and positively. I realize that a large shortage of staff and workers is having a very restrictive effect on that programme. Everywhere in the 1968-’69 report of the Department of Forestry one reads of staff shortages. It is pointed out that the fixed establishment has shown an annual decrease since 1965. In 1968-’69 78 posts were abolished. It is stated that although there is a great need for professional officers, posts in the professional division are created only as staff becomes available. In other words, almost no expansion can take place. In that year the Department was in the fortunate position that 12 posts could be created in that division. This is quite inadequate for the tremendous expansion which lies ahead and the challenge which we will have to face. In my opinion, more use should be made of non-White and Bantu labour in the Department of Forestry, for example as operators and tractor drivers, especially in these extensive areas. In the interests of the country, I hope the Department of Forestry will be able to solve these problems. I therefore find it a pleasure to support this motion.

I want to join in expressing appreciation towards the hon. member who introduced this motion for the valuable contribution he and other speakers made in connection with a very important facet which I, and I take it all of us, consider it to be a very important facet of our agricultural industry. It is indeed refreshing to find that we have been able to discuss in such a particularly good-natured way, a component part of agriculture, a component part which is of great importance, a facet of this nature in the field of agriculture, a field with so many bottlenecks and problems and with which we have been so closely concerned during the past few years. I am grateful that this is so, because this aspect of agriculture one indeed finds inspiring, it is one of the noble aspects of agriculture and it is a very important component part of agriculture. For the past five years the growth rate in respect of forestry has remained constant at 6 per cent. This indicates that we are dealing with an industry, the growth rate of which is higher today than our national growth rate. The expected growth rate in respect of timber as such for the future is expected to be 4.5 per cent and 7 per cent in respect of paper wood or pulp. This still gives an average growth rate of 5.75 per cent. Furthermore, if one considers the fact that the total yield of the industry amounts to the round sum of R340 million, and that an additional amount of R30 million is earned from the export of timber and by-products, it becomes clear why it is such an important part of our agricultural industry. But this is not only important because of its monetary yield. It is very important for us in South Africa because of our own requirements which exist at present and which are gradually increasing and as they will be at the turn of the century.

Sir, when you look at the map of South Africa—and I have here a map of South Africa on which those parts suitable for forestry are indicated—you will see a number of black spots on this map indicating which parts of the country are suitable for forestry only. And if I show you this map, Sir, you will see that it is not the Bantu homelands which are shown here, but those parts which can be used only for afforestation. The position is that only a very small part of our country, and that includes an area such as Swaziland, approximately .83 per cent of the surface area of South Africa is suitable for afforestation purposes. Let us consider the position as it exists at present. At the end of the year 1969 we had a total area of approximately 2.5 million acres under afforestation, approximately 1.3 million of which consisted of conifers and approximately 1.2 million of other kinds of trees. When comparing this with the fact that approximately 126,000 acres have been under afforestation since the year 1960, it is clear that the area under afforestation remained virtually constant during these years and that hardly any appreciable expansion has taken place during this period. Bearing in mind, also, that our local consumption of timber in the year 2000, at the turn of this century, is expected to amount to approximately 1,000 million cubic feet, which we shall be able to derive from the yield of 4.6 million acres under afforestation, while we only have a surface area of 2.5 million acres under afforestation at present, this is proof that we are heading for an enormous shortage of timber in this country at the turn of the century. In addition, when analysing the existing afforestation, there is this additional fact that we are not going to have a constant supply because there is a discrepancy in these afforestations. They will only be available after a certain number of years and the fact of the matter is that we are not going to have a progressive supply in this connection. In order to be able to cope with this situation, it is obvious that we will have to plant more trees in this country during the next 15 years. If we want to cope with this situation we will have to plant at least 670,000 acres of conifers and 700,000 acres of other kinds of trees in future. We have already fallen behind with this programme to the extent where we have a backlog of 500,000 conifers and 240,000 other trees. Sir, this position can continue until 1980, but after that the position will definitely become chronic. Considering the additional fact that trees will probably have to be cut prematurely, owing to this shortage and expected shortage, it is evident that we will have to do something to cope with the situation. Afforestation will have to be expedited to the extent where we are self-sufficient. To do this, the State will have to act in co-ordination with the private sector. Available land will also have to be acquired for this purpose. It is interesting to note that the afforestation carried out by the State at this stage represents approximately 31 per cent of the total afforestation, while the private sector is responsible for approximately 69 per cent of the afforestation. As previous speakers said, the State and the private sector now have an opportunity, in the interests of this industry and in the interests of our country, to conclude a partnership which can be of great benefit to all of us. Each of these partners will be able to make a great contribution.

It is true that it will not be easy to establish something of this nature. It is also a fact that we are going to experience some bottlenecks in this regard in future, bottlenecks we will have to overcome. The first aspect is something which has already been dealt with in detail, that is the stabilization of the price level, so that when the producer, who is expected to produce on a long-term basis, fells and supplies his product at the end of a period, he will receive a price which is profitable for him. It should be borne in mind that, in order to be able to do this, that price will have to be determined in advance because we expect these producers to tackle a project now in respect of which they will only be able to reap the benefits after a period of 15 to 25 years has elapsed. This is a life-task for the producer. It is this price which is going to determine whether that life-task of the producer is going to be a total failure or not. He must be able to regard the project as an investment, in respect of which he will be able to make a profit at the end of that period. For that reason all these are aspects which will have to be borne in mind.

There is also, for example, the increase in the value of land over such a period of 10, 20 or 25 years, something which will also have to be borne in mind. This is a capital appreciation which will have to be taken into account, because the producer must know to what extent it will be profitable for him to utilize land for this purpose now, in the year 1971. We must remember that the value of land the market price of which is, for example, R60 or R100 per morgen at the present time, will, under normal instances, cost three times as much in 20 years’ time. These are factors which a producer or an entrepreneur entering this industry should bear in mind, and in respect of which some assurance should be given him even at this stage. This assurance must be given not so much in the case of the large entrepreneur, but particularly in the case of the smaller man who has to decide now to whether he wants to stake everything he has on this particular undertaking. One has to bear in mind the question of interest rates. One also has to bear in mind the cost increase which may arise at one stage or other.

For that reason it is essential that there should be constant and systematic contact between the Government, which is also active in this sphere, and the producer. This is essential so that it can be determined in a scientific way what the position is and what the position will be after this period has elapsed. It is a fact that there has recently been a sudden and sharp increase in the price of pulp wood, and I think that the farmer and the producer welcomed this. However, this is already a danger sign, which means that there is a shortage even in this field, particularly because pulp is actually a secondary product. In fact, this also creates a discrepancy, as matters stand at present, between the market prices of the pulp wood and the pulp as it stands and that of other kinds of wood. In fact, the position has degenerated, if one may use that term, to such an extent that the market price of the pulp and of the pulp wood is higher than the accepted price for good quality timber. This creates a discrepancy. For that reason I want to associate myself with the ideas expressed on the fixing and the stabilization of prices and the prevention of opportunistic tendencies. It is essential that the Department consult with the private sector even at this early stage. I agree with the hon. member for Mooi River that it is a sensible idea to consult the private sector because they have also been actively engaged in the industry on a large scale over a period of many years. I also agree that they know what the real position is in this regard.

It is a fact that the major bottleneck is the shortage of available land for this purpose. To my mind this should be attributed to the excessive demand for agricultural land, seen against the background of the drought-afflicted areas of the country. As a result of this, it is only a natural phenomenon that there should be an influx to these areas for agricultural purposes, these areas which have such a great potential for afforestation. This is the reason for the large-scale buying up of land by people who want to use this land for agricultural purposes, for grazing and so forth. This land, is therefore, almost automatically withdrawn from forestry and future afforestation. For that reason I also want to support the idea that, in view of this, certain parts of this land should be made available for afforestation purposes by means of departmental action. Our position is being prejudiced even now. I am thinking particularly of the fact mentioned by the hon. member for Vryheid, which is that there is virtually no market for wattle bark. Where approximately 900,000 acres were available for this purpose previously, approximately only 400,000 acres are available today. Actually, this is not really 400,000 acres, because in my experience when the producer applies for his annual quota, the area he replants is actually less than what he claims to have replanted—I would not say he is making a misrepresentation—bearing in mind the fact that quotas are reduced. At present it amounts to only 64 per cent of the basic quota. In the present season the quota has once again been reduced by 14 per cent. This the producer does in an attempt to retain a consistent quota. I think this is a position we should bear in mind.

In the short time I still have at my disposal, I want to say that we will have to devise ways and means of remedying this position. I want to suggest what has already been proposed, and that is that we should make liberal use of available State-owned land for this purpose. I am aware of the fact that there is still land available in the Eastern Transvaal and other parts of the country. I want to advance a plea that we should incorporate into the ordinary agricultural industry, the areas in the Eastern Transvaal in particular and possibly those in the Natal which are suitable for this type of industry, and where 38 per cent of afforestation takes place. In this connection I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that large consortiums of companies have already purchased enormous stretches of land in these regions, particularly for this purpose. They are undertaking afforestation there. This will not detract from the production of timber, but this is taking the position completely out of the hands of the small producer. If this situation should continue, the entire industry is going to fall into the hands of the large companies at the expense of the small grower, who will have to forgo all advantages in this connection. A rather disturbing factor, particularly in this regard, is the fact that an enormous amount of capital is being spent by overseas companies and that the industry is being taken from us in this way.

In conclusion, I would like to make a suggestion. When assistance is being rendered, it may be considered whether this should not be rendered on the same basis on which some of these companies render this assistance, and that is that a producer is subsidized or assisted to some extent, and that he is paid on a gradual basis over a period as his trees develop. In other words, he is paid on an instalment basis. The system operates in such a way that it becomes progressively more as his trees develop. He then receives the total amount over a period of time. In the meantime he is being profitably compensated.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are discussing a matter which is near to the heart of every nature-lover. Now, we are in the fortunate position that we have a Minister—I am not saying this without any cause, nor is it my intention to give him an uncalled-for pat on the back—who possesses the qualities which can make him a good Minister of Forestry, i.e. those of being attuned to and living with nature, like a person wandering about in a plantation. What is more pleasant than that cool breeze that caresses one’s cheeks in a plantation? It can be likened to the caressing effect on the Gulf Stream which, coming from the Atlantic Ocean, washes up against the European shores. Take away the Gulf Stream, and Europe will rigidify into a desert of ice. The same applies to the cool breeze in a plantation. I know of no moment when, wandering about in a plantation with that cool breeze wafting against one’s face, one is not inspired with a new lust for life. But that is not all. When one wanders about in a plantation and sees the sign and symbol of growth, that sight must have a beneficial effect on one’s mind. It is symbolic of growth. The lifeless plant that cannot talk or reason, is an example to mankind. It grows. These towering trees, each of which is rivalling the others in thrusting up its top so as to catch the rays of the sun, are an incentive to every fallible human being to rise higher and higher, to grow, to reach the top, to practise excelsior in the true sense of the word.

This is not only a symbol of growth, but inherently it also contains one of the components of growth, i.e. competition. Nowhere do I find a finer example of the spirit of good competition on a sound basis than I do whenever I wander about in a plantation and see how those trees compete against one another in order to tower over the others. All of them compete to reach the light above. And when one has wandered about in such a plantation, felt the cool breeze wafting against one’s cheeks, accepted the symbolism of growth and seen the value of competition, one says, “Here something is growing out of the earth which is an asset to our country”. Without words, without fuss, without self-glorification the tree grows as an asset to our country. There is not only money in trees; there is no product and no commodity in the world which is as much of a cultural product as timber is. People hunt after it. The older it gets, the higher the prices they pay for it. It is the true antique. No cultural product manufactured on earth is as precious and desirable as a product manufactured out of wood. It grows out of our earth without words. Silently an asset is growing.

It grows not only as a cultural asset, but also as an economic asset. Just cast an eye over this House in which we are sitting. I have very often asked myself this question: What could have made this House more attractive and dignified than in fact these wooden panels? Nothing on earth. One could get the shiniest stainless steel on earth, one could get the purest gold to replace the wood. Gold only sparkles when it lies there in solitude and in its exclusiveness, like that mace. But mount this chamber with gold, and gold will lose its value. There is only one thing, i.e. wood which grows out of the earth, which gives us this everlasting value when we look at it. And every day it becomes more attractive. Visit a beautiful building, visit a State building, visit a private residence, and the wood used in those buildings, wood which has grown out of the earth, without words, without human hands helping it to grow, holds an eternal value and an eternal message for us. I want to congratulate the proposer of this motion on having proposed this motion by means of which he touched upon one of the products which grows out of our earth and which can be of the greatest value to us as civilized people and to our descendants.

Having said that, I want to deal with what holds good in practice today. This is not the fault of the hon. the Minister, nor is it the fault of the U.P.; it is our people who are to blame. It is the fault of the generations of the past who did not have any appreciation for what was deserving of appreciation and granted us by the Creator. We merely regarded all of it as being secondary. Over the years the Department of Forestry has merely been regarded as a kind of appendix. Now that we see our natural forests being laid waste by the roads, the cities, the towns and the tractors, we are beginning to realize what is happening and to develop a sense of values. When, a short while ago, a farmer in the Northern Cape destroyed 3,000 morgen of natural forest so as to make room for maize, where maize should never have been planted, we saw before our own eyes an act of destruction committed by man. What was the result? A sand desert was created there. Apart from the cultural value of afforestation and the development of our forestry industry, this industry can also be a source of great economic value to us. Where are our bottlenecks on this level of the economic value of our forestry industry? I want to repeat that this is not the fault of the hon. the Minister, but that of previous generations. We did not pay enough attention to this matter. I want to pay the hon. the Minister the compliment that he appreciates the value of our forestry. The proposer of this motion also means it well. I want to deal with these bottlenecks that are to be found on the economic level, and I am going to do so in three parts.

In the first place, I think that we can pay attention to the production of timber. I am thinking of natural and planted forests. The major reason for there being so much neglect and frustration amongst farmers in regard to the planting of trees, is that production is being approached wrongly. People are using millions of gallons of water every year for watering trees which have no economic value. I am thinking, for instance, of a few peach trees, a little apple tree, a pomegranate tree, a cypress tree, a pepper tree or a bluegum tree. In this way millions of gallons of water are going to waste because of the cultivation of uneconomic kinds of trees in South Africa. I am speaking the truth now. As far as the production of timber is concerned, we must necessarily make a re-assessment on that level. In the second place, I think that we should make a re-assessment of the production areas. Now, the technicians and scientists are telling us that we are to determine our production areas according to the rainfall. With all due respect for science, I want to say that there is something else beyond the boundaries of science, i.e. what is possible through practical experience and actual practice. I want to say today that we can, with honest intentions, make a sound re-assessment of areas where we can plant more trees and forests which can be of economic value to South Africa. I honestly think that we need a re-assessment as regards the marketing of our timber. Mr. Speaker, I have here 49 letters written to a small-scale timber producer, 49 letters in which he was asked to quote prices for timber which he produces and markets. He told me that he had sent his price list to each of these 49 people who had applied, and that he had not received any reaction. He subsequently inquired into the matter in order to find out whether his prices were too high or whether his quality was unsatisfactory. It took him months to complete his inquiry, and he found out that the large moneyed enterprises—which these people, as one can appreciate, also asked for prices—completely under-quoted him at prices at which they must have made a loss, merely to oust him from the market. Sir, our marketing system is the greatest handicap to the small-scale producer or the individual producer who wants to concentrate on the part-time planting of forests or kinds of trees for economic purposes. The marketing system causes frustration. I want to appeal to the Minister today that serious attention be given to this marketing problem. I believe—and here I differ with my hon. colleagues—that it will not be necessary to help individual producers financially if each of them obtains a rightful share in the marketing system in South Africa. We have a shortage of timber; there is a major demand for poles and there is a major demand for furniture timber, etc., of which we have a shortage. But the small-scale producer who is already in production, does not have a rightful share, on the grounds of a legion of factors, in the marketing potential in South Africa, and because he does not have that, the prospective producer does not have the courage to enter into the field of timber production. There is a general marketing frustration. Sir, I know the hon. the Minister means it well; I know that we have a good Minister. I want to ask him kindly to eliminate these bottlenecks, for by doing that other channels will be opened up, initiative will be initiated, and every forester in South Africa, no matter how small he may be, will be placed in a position to bargain with the major moneyed forces.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, with reference to this debate up to now, that this year we are going to have a very interesting discussion on the Forestry Vote. In their arguments and representations the hon. members who took part in this debate, concentrated on the important point which is at issue in this motion, i.e. that positive steps should be considered to make the country as self-sufficient as possible as far as its timber requirements are concerned by undertaking State afforestation on a more extensive scale, and that the private sector should be granted financial assistance in this regard. I am grateful that the hon. member for Humansdorp came forward with this motion, because I believe that it is essential for us to face the timber situation of South Africa at some time or other. Hon. members who took part in this debate today, mentioned quite a number of related problems. In the time at my disposal it will unfortunately be impossible for me to touch upon all of these problems. But I believe that we should be afforded an opportunity for considering those problems with which we cannot deal today. Before we come to the Forestry Vote I want to say that, even if hon. members who touched upon certain matters here today were not to raise them again on that occasion. I shall make a point of reading their speeches and replying on that occasion to the points which were mentioned here and which, to my mind, are of great importance. The hon. member who introduced this motion, tried to give an indication of the problem as it developed, and he also quoted figures. The hon. member for Mooi River added a different angle, and I know he also spoke about it previously, i.e. the contribution which the small forester can make in the provision of timber in South Africa. In a moment I shall come back to this and say something about it.

The hon. member for Ermelo made a very valuable contribution. He gave a survey of the situation, expressed in figures, and he also sounded a warning about an equally important matter, which we have also discussed in this House, i.e. the situation in which the small forester is going to land if the development takes place in such a manner that it will become more and more difficult for him to survive. The hon. member for Carletonville also came back again to a point which he has made before, but everything deals with the concern in the minds of all of us, outside this House as well, about what the position is going to be years from now, since we know that the demand for timber is growing at a very high tempo but that it is difficult to visualize how South Africa will be able to keep pace with the provision at such a tempo. For that reason I think that in replying to the hon. members, I should once again present a picture of how this development has taken place and how I consider we should view it at the present moment.

You will know, Sir, that the State has from time to time laid down its policy in regard to afforestation in general, and that it has from time to time made calculations of what the situation should be. The first calculation which was made by the State and on the basis of which it did in fact give an indication of the tempo at which afforestation had to take place in South Africa, was made in the early thirties. At that stage, in the light we had at the time, and in the light of the faith we then had in the future, we thought that it would be more than adequate for South Africa if it were afforested at a tempo of 6,500 hectares a year for the next 25 years as from that moment. But within 10 years after that, it had to review the situation, and at that time it decided that the tempo at which it had to cause afforestation to take place, was not to be 6,500 hectares a year but at least 14,500 hectares for the next 25 years. In the early sixties we took another look at the picture, and at that stage, with the experience we had gained by the time, it was already very clear that certain facts were not at our disposal when we followed the old method of making surveys. But even at that stage people were anxious for us to indicate in our forestry legislation a course along which it would be possible to deal more effectively with the coming situation, and in 1968 that legislation was in fact introduced here and today references were also made to that legislation. This legislation provided that surveys of the situation had to be made on a continuous basis, that they had to be kept up to date, that they had to be at the disposal of the Department of Forestry and that it had to adapt those facts in regard to the situation as it existed and project them into the future so that they might be available to the whole industry and to the whole country and also to the Government, so that we may know in what direction we are moving.

Subsequently the first surveys were made in 1969—the other day. Out of what emerged as a result of those surveys, we now know, in the first place, that we have already landed in a situation where we now have to plan rapidly since we are faced with major shortages in the future. Although we can, with the facts at our disposal, draw such a conclusion and also put it beyond all doubt, it is, in view of the refinement which will be brought about by means of the analysis, still not quite clear at this moment, but it will be clear soon, what these shortages and the nuances thereof will be, within this general situation of shortages. What is involved here, is sites for plantations, quantities, quality and the demand which is going to emerge in the various parts of the processing sector. In other words, in this vast industry we must give these projections to everybody who is involved in the processing of the product, and the State must, on its own and with outside assistance, try to keep up to date. Therefore, we know that we are going to have a major shortage. When the hon. member for Humansdorp made a calculation of the present situation, and also of the future position as he sees it, he was probably making us of figures he had obtained from the private sector, figures relating to the quantities being sold at present as well as the unsold parts of our timber production. On that basis he proceeded to draw the conclusion which he expressed here in figures today.

I want to tell the hon. member that it is dangerous to draw such a conclusion on the basis of a set of figures for one single year. It is also dangerous to add up the sales figures and the figures in respect of the present available supplies and then to draw a conclusion on that basis. We prefer to multiply the area planted by the growth per unit—for instance, the growth per acre or the growth per morgen—and then to obtain a projection for the future. If that is done, the position looks somewhat better than the one he visualizes. However, I must admit that even then it does not look good. We believe that a shortage is going to develop in the next 15 years’ time, and that we shall have to make provision for it, but we also believe that we shall at least be in the position soon to study the matter in greater detail and to plan accordingly.

In talking about a situation which is in the process of developing, we must determine from what direction a rectification is going to be forthcoming. That rectification must be a rectification of possible shortages in the future. That rectification can be forthcoming from either of two directions. It can only come about as a result of the planting of new resources, or as a result of imports. As far as new resources are concerned, we should have regard to the fact that new resources also imply increased competition for the water supplies of South Africa. Therefore, a limiting factor is already implied in that solution. As far as possible imports are concerned, we must have regard to a world situation in which timber is also going to become scarce and expensive. It may also become more difficult for us to obtain supplies. However, the possibility of imports from our neighbouring states may also be kept in mind. Here we are thinking of Swaziland, for instance. Swaziland, with its supplies, is supplementing our supplies, and there is fairly free access to South Africa within certain limits. As far as the future is concerned, we shall therefore have to correlate our own situation with that of Swaziland, the Transkei and other areas as well. I myself do not see anything wrong in our becoming much more closely integrated with each other as far as timber supplies are concerned. To my mind this is a sphere in which it will be possible for us to co-operate very well with each other in the future.

We are dealing here with an industry which, because of certain very important reasons, is of the greatest importance to us. In the first place, we must bear in mind that forestry in South Africa is a strategic industry. It has become absolutely strategic, and it will always remain so. In the second place, we must bear in mind that forestry in South Africa, particularly as regards the development of the allied secondary industries, has become a giant, and that there are a very large number of industries which have been integrated with it. It may interest the House if I pointed out that in forestry the value of the available raw material will have increased tenfold by the time the product eventually appears in its final form. In other words, this is an industry which generates economic development in itself. There are few industries of which it can be said that their raw materials are responsible for a tenfold increase of the contribution to the country’s economy. The industry is, therefore, a very important one. It is also an extremely important industry to us because the timber industry is a self-generating one. Its raw materials and resources cannot be exhausted; they are continuously being replaced. If this is compared with the mining industry, we must bear in mind that investment in forestry does not mean an investment until it has been exhausted, as a mine is exhausted. It is an investment and an industry which will be available for all time to come. It generates itself. It is, therefore, an extremely important industry.

In the specific situation of South Africa forestry is very important because it is so labour-intensive. It is an industry which lends itself so easily to providing many people in South Africa with a means of gaining a livelihood. At the moment hundreds of thousands of people are working in the forestry industry in South Africa. For these reasons it is an industry which is sufficiently important to be treated in the national economy with such respect and importance as are necessary and are its due. But the key question is: Where are those trees, which South Africa will need in the future, to be planted? In a country such as South Africa there is keen competition and various factors making it extremely difficult to take a decision in this regard. For that reason we shall have to consider the factors involved here. In the first place, the physical circumstances of the site itself, i.e. the place where the trees are to grow, are extremely important. I say this because two things are needed in the production of timber, i.e. soil and water. As far as water is concerned, we are already in a position which involves our having to be very careful. We do have at our disposal extensive catchment areas, where there is a high rainfall. We need at least 800 mm or 32 inches of rain per year for our forests to yield a good production. Suitable areas in South Africa, areas with a rainfall higher than this, are not so plentiful. In these high rainfall areas there are parts which are not suitable for forestry. It may be the topography, climate, or soil depth is not suitable. There are, in addition, other factors which may render such areas unsuitable for afforestation. Those areas are the natural water conservation areas. Such areas will be protected and administered by the Department of Forestry as catchment areas for supplying the country with water.

But there are also other areas which have major water supplies and in respect of which the Department of Forestry has to take great care not to allow unrestricted development. These are areas in which large quantities of water are available but in which large, established communities have already developed or in which the water resources are required for sustaining large and important communities. In such cases it is in the national interest that the water supply be given priority over the production of timber. As far as the soil is concerned, there is competition, too. We must produce food. We must also produce raw materials other than food. One of the hon. members, I think it was the hon. member for Mooi River, referred to this aspect. I want to tell him that we can do no other than regard forestry as forming part of the agricultural sector; it occupies a legitimate place in the agricultural sector. As far as our basic supplies are concerned, I believe that all the supplies which are not required for the essential production of food, could be afforested in competition with any other product which could be exported or which could be consumed domestically. We must therefore acknowledge that there has to be a niche for forestry within the limits imposed by soil and water and the right to give, within the broad requirements of the country as a whole, top priority to those production factors which are nearest and most important to it, such as water.

Having looked at the physical circumstances, we may also look at the general circumstances in regard to forestry. It is not so easy to make a projection in regard to the production of timber. This is true, for there are two important requirements for proper forestry. In the first place, a good soil-depth must be available and furthermore it requires all the physical qualities that should be associated with it. Without great prolixity I want to tell the hon. members that if we look at South Africa, it seems to us that the parts to which we are to look in the future for the production of timber, are the foothills of our mountainous areas. The foothills have the soil depth and, what is more, that soil, as far as its chemical composition is concerned, probably lends itself easily to the production of forestry products, much rather than to the production of other agricultural products. I am thinking of the foothills of the Drakensberg mountain range. But we should also take a look at the parts along our coastline where forestry would be the smallest consumer of water. If we look at the map of South Africa, it seems to me as though we should look to the eastern parts of our country, parts situated along the foothills of the mountains, and to the coastal areas of the Eastern Cape, Natal and Zululand for further forestry expansion. It is also likely that there are other areas where we can expand this industry, but I think that these areas are the areas we should consider.

Once we have looked at the natural circumstances, there are still the economic circumstances which have to be assessed by us in looking for new areas for the forestry industry. We should note that it is also possible for the forestry industry to fit into the pattern of our decentralization policy and our border development policy. It is an industry which lends itself to creating permanent growth points in those parts where the people are who have to be employed. In this sense the forestry industry is a key industry in South Africa. Although we are in the future not going to couple our decentralization policy with the forestry development alone, it can play a major part in the development of the future. In the second place, there is another economic factor which has to be considered. This factor is that our large industrial complexes, our existing large factories and all our factories which use timber products, are not always properly situated in South Africa. There are a number of them which are in economic difficulties in view of the fact that in regard to their location in respect of transport, proximity to markets and proximity to raw materials they cannot always compete economically with other factories in the industry. In other words, in future we shall have to take good care that the development takes place where the sound and the obvious growth factors for economic development are available, and where it fits into the broad pattern. In developing the industry, we shall also have to consider the fact that in certain parts of our country there is scattered development of quite a number of smaller farmers, who, by virtue of the fact that their farms are situated wrongly and scattered to that extent, cannot make an economic living either. In other words, if we are looking for development, we shall have to do either of two things. We shall have to consolidate these areas and develop and plan them together with those which are already in existence, or we shall have to remove the existing plantations and establish them where they will comply with the best and primary norms of economic viability. We must, in other words, have regard to all of these factors. Therefore, you can see, Sir, that it is not so easy to talk about the general afforestation policy, for we have to contend with the competition of water, soil and the factors of economic viability, which have already become established. We also have to contend with the factors of economic viability which are going to emerge once we have made a start. In other words, to look at the picture of South Africa as far as afforestation is concerned, implies an intensive study. It means that we have to look at it on a broad, planned basis, so that we may now lay the foundations for the development which has to come and not only prevent the catastrophes foreshadowed by hon. gentlemen who spoke here today, but also ensure that the road leading to the target will be as smooth as possible.

Now I want to tell hon. members that forestry in South Africa has become one of the major industries, one of the giants. I do not wish to repeat figures that were mentioned here earlier on today, but I want to tell hon. members, with reference to what I mentioned to them a moment ago, that forestry is an industry which, from its raw materials, generates a tenfold increase of economic development. I want to add that if we had to be deprived of that development which exists in South Africa at the moment and if, in the place of all those raw materials and what goes hand in hand with them we had to import in order to have in South Africa the same development which is being coupled with the forestry industry today, it would mean, if we were to convert it and project it for the next ten years, that South Africa would from now until ten years from now have to import a minimum of R4,000 million, an amount which would have had to be made available in terms of foreign exchange. Hon. members can therefore see that this industry means a tremendously great deal to the economy of South Africa. If hon. members consider that for the year that lies ahead we would have to raise extra foreign exchange at an average of R400 million a year in order to replace all the products and related products which would not have been there if we did not have the forestry industry, they can make a calculation of what this means for the economy of South Africa. Since I consider it to be of such urgent importance that we should now obtain the picture of development for the future, that we should obtain the co-ordination of all bodies and persons to co-operate in order that that projection may not only be seen, but also to stimulate development into the direction it has to take so that the right steps may be taken in good time, I have decided—and I take pleasure in announcing this—to appoint an inter-departmental committee for the purpose of indicating priority areas for afforestation in South Africa. The terms of reference of this committee are to inquire into and to report and make recommendations on every aspect of the Republic’s present and future timber requirements and how they can be met, with special reference to the following aspects—

1. 1. The available timber resources and the present requirements in respect of timber and timber derivatives;
2. 2. The trend in regard to the future timber requirements of the country, the determination, on this basis, of the surface area which will be required for timber production in order to keep pace with these requirements;
3. 3. The role that can be played by neighbouring states and Bantu homeland areas by way of supplementing the future timber requirements of the Republic, and the desirability of integrating, on a planned basis, the yields from these timber resources with the local timber production;
4. 4. The determination of the areas where afforestation should be allowed and encouraged, having regard to the following: (i) that the natural production factors of climate and soil ought to be such that they will justify afforestation on a commercial scale; (ii) that any recommended area should be extensive enough to meet at least the present norms of economic units for processing industries; and (iii) that the Water Plan Commission’s recommendations relating to priorities in regard to the utilization of water, will serve as a guide;
5. 5. The desirability for the State itself to take the initiative to purchase land and to undertake afforestation within such areas in order to make them economically viable;
6. 6. The prices at which land for afforestation purposes may be purchased, regard being had to the progressive increase in land prices; and
7. 7. Any other matter which the Committee may encounter in carrying out its investigations and to which it may consider it necessary to pay attention.

Having said that, I want to make a few observations in connection with the whole situation regarding marginal land. If we are only going to look for select land in South Africa and to adopt the attitude that land which is not typically ideal for the production of trees, should not be purchased, I am afraid that we shall probably not obtain sufficient land on which the necessary afforestation can be undertaken. I believe that at this stage we should also proceed to purchasing marginal land, provided that such land is not predominantly marginal, but partly marginal. Furthermore, I want to say that if we were to make a projection of a growth rate of 2 per cent per year for the future and if we have regard to the general world shortage of timber that awaits us and the importance of timber for the South African economy, I think that we should not adopt the attitude which is being adopted so easily and may have been adopted in the past when the State was dealing with a situation, i.e. to judge now what it will cost at current prices to purchase land. But I think we should rather consider what such an investment which is self-generating, an investment which is so labour-intensive, an investment which is making such a major contribution towards stimulating the economy of the country in the future, an investment which, above all, saves us so much foreign exchange, will mean to us. I think we should take all of these things into account and purchase land at current prices, for that land will be much more expensive in the future. In the interests of this development we should acquire that land now so that South Africa may own it in the future, should we require it then. That is why I believe that these terms of reference are correct and good ones. We should also take a close look at the question of the cost of land, and in this respect we should have just as much faith in the future as the Government had way back when it decided to undertake afforestation in South Africa for the first time.

Just like the Orange River scheme.

That hon. member was not even in the House when this motion was introduced, and therefore he does not know what it is about.

That is why I say that in calculating the cost of purchasing such land we should not merely calculate it with regard to the situation as it exists at present. We shall have to make a projection for the future. We know that an investment today will be an investment which will gain more and more value in the future. We shall have to have regard to what such an investment today may mean in the total economy for South Africa for the future. That is why I have great confidence in appointing this committee and why it has been a pleasant privilege to me to be able to announce it.

Debate having continued for 2½ hours, motion lapsed in terms of Standing Order No. 32.