Mr. Speaker, on Monday we shall deal with legislation in the sequence in which it is printed on today’s, Order Paper. On Tuesday the National Education Vote will come up for discussion. If this Vote is not disposed of on Tuesday, the discussion will be continued on Wednesday. The Sport and Recreation Vote will also come up for discussion on Wednesday. On Friday the legislation introduced by the Minister of Labour and of Mines will be discussed.

Mr. Chairman, we listened to many responsible speeches in the House yesterday. I do feel, however, that one speech did not carry the hall-mark of responsibility. It was a speech which to my mind was unfortunately very irresponsible. Unfortunately, the hon. member who made that speech is not in the House this morning. I am referring to the hon. member for Pinetown. I shall be grateful if his hon. colleagues will transmit this message to him.

The hon. member for Pinetown accused the hon. the Minister of “simple economics”. He also accused the Government of “desperate short-sightedness”. He said amongst other things that he was a young member and that many people had asked him whether he was not frustrated here. I want to say to him that I am a young member, too, but nobody has ever asked me whether I was frustrated. I think people know what my answer to that would be.

We have come to know the hon. member for Pinetown as an expert on politics. However, I want to define the kind of “expert” he is today, viz.—

[Interjections]

We are living in a world of complacency, a world in which Rome is already burning. But South Africa will not form a part of that world. We realize what our labour problem is; we realize that the labour situation in South Africa is delicate, but also that the solution to the problem will be found here in this country. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his exceedingly responsible speech yesterday. It was a speech which will have far-reaching effects on the pattern of labour in South Africa. We on this side of the House realize full well that labour peace and labour achievements will be of vital importance to South Africa in the future. As early as last year the hon. the Minister realized the delicacy of the labour situation in South Africa. I want to refer to a report which appeared in Die Burger of 6 May 1976—

As I have already said, the labour situation is delicate. South Africa is experiencing a period in which one has to speak as cautiously about labour matters as about defence. Every South African speaking about labour, will have to ask himself what is in the interest of South Africa, before acting in his own interests or playing politics with the labour situation. We cannot afford such action.

We shall have to face the hard realities of the times squarely and with caution. The time is past to try and prevent sacrifices by way of higher wages and salary demands. In its present condition, and taking into account the problems still to come, the economy simply is not able to absorb wage and salary demands without these ultimately resulting in large-scale unemployment. The action and positive approach of certain trade union leaders who had discussions with the Minister are appreciated. However, I want to ask today: What about the other trade union leaders? What about the other leaders in the commercial and industrial sectors? Are they prepared to cooperate with the Minister?

The hon. the Minister announced yesterday that a commission was to be appointed. We appreciate the step greatly and want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the decision. I also want to congratulate Prof. Wiehahn on his appointment as chairman of the commission. I consider Prof. Wiehahn to be a responsible man, a man who knows the labour situation and who will render great services in this field.

In South Africa we believe in the profit motive. That is one of the basic principles of our economy. I grant every man who does business the profit that he makes, but in that process he should not plough under his labour force, his manpower. It is imperative that every responsible man, every business leader and entrepreneur provide for the needs of each worker, each person whom he employs, whether he be White, Black or Brown. If an interest is taken in the worker, we can be sure that his productivity will be raised in the same measure. I have great appreciation for the private sector, but there are many people who look to the Government rather than doing something about the matter themselves and making a contribution to the South African economy in this way.

With so many forces at work which hamper the real activities of the economy, it is inevitable that everybody will have to adjust their actions and decisions to the demands which these circumstances make on us. South Africa has an inflation problem. The hon. member referred to Japan yesterday and wanted to know why we could not be a second Japan. However, I want to say to him and to the House to go and have a look at the USA, Germany as well as Japan, to see how they solved the inflation problem. They paid a very high price for it, because increased unemployment was created in those countries. As a result of the heterogeneous labour structure in South Africa we cannot apply these drastic measures, because that will bring about our destruction.

We must seek other possible solutions to the problem. We can no longer act capital-intensively. We have to act labour-intensively, not because of what the hon. member for Pinelands said yesterday, but by carefully considering the fact that we absolutely have to be more labour-intensive. Everybody concerned will have to co-operate, however. Labour peace and labour achievements are of fundamental importance to the future of South Africa. Everyone will have to fulfil his function in a disciplined way and not try to shirk his duty by continually looking to the State.

There is a growing need in South Africa for penetrating, scientific research to be done in the whole field of labour relations. In this respect I want to refer to the Institute of Labour Relations at Unisa which plays an excellent role in this field. More of our businessmen, dealers and industrialists should make use of the services of these people. More and better training may result from this for the total labour force as well as the rationalization, employment and utilization of manpower in South Africa. At the same time, all possible means should be put into operation to strengthen the production structure and to promote the use of the most efficient methods of production.

The future will demand wisdom, moral courage and perseverance from us. I know the workers of South Africa; they are among my best friends and I have faith in these people. I am convinced that these people will unite and will strengthen the hand of the hon. the Minister and the Government in the big task which awaits us. In all humility I want to say today: We will achieve success, we will solve our labour problem. A fine and beautiful future for South Africa is in our hands and we will see to it that we make a success of it.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the hon. member for Overvaal has recognized the important priority that any Government must devote its energies to promoting the productivity, economic growth and prosperity of the country. In this way the available employment opportunities are improved, additional employment opportunities are created and the standard living is increased. These benefits serve as encouragement to the entire population. I particularly appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister said that labour was of key importance. Peaceful labour relations are really the key to the preservation of the White civilization in Southern Africa. I regard it as particularly important that there should be sound labour relations in South Africa with its extremely high rate of population growth, because it has been proved in a number of countries that when the standard of living rises, the rate of population growth gradually drops. Yesterday the hon. member spoke about the tremendous problem we in South Africa are faced with as regards our rate of population growth. He said that this caused us many problems. It therefore faces us in this country with the challenge of creating employment opportunities rapidly enough to provide for all those people. However, it seems to me as if at the same time, the NP Government is placing all kinds of restrictions on the maximum economic growth which could give rise to the necessary employment opportunities. For example, there is the compulsory decentralization of industries. This has a disruptive effect on industrial growth. In certain areas there are restrictions on the ownership and development of industries by non-Whites. Non-Whites may not possess land there or purchase it for industrial development. Furthermore, there are restrictions on the ratio between races employed by certain industries and there are restrictions on the employment of non-Whites in types of work reserved for Whites. There is also control of the influx of workers to areas where there is a shortage of labour.

Here I have in mind places like Benoni and the Cape Peninsula, areas in which private individuals often need gardeners and domestic servants but are simply unable to get them. Every year when I return to my constituency I have the problem that I can find no-one to employ. The people are simply unavailable. We know that there are a great many Bantu labourers in in the homelands, but they are not available either.

I think that all these problems have an adverse effect on production. They exist for ideological reasons and have nothing to do with economic growth or the promotion of labour and employment opportunities. It is a policy which is entirely counter-productive. No wonder, then, that we have such large-scale unemployment in South Africa at the moment. We on this side of the House therefore welcome the hon. the Minister’s commission of inquiry which is to investigate these problems. However, I have a problem in this regard. It seems to me that the terms of reference are somewhat limited. I should have liked to have seen the terms of reference being more widely framed and in particular, that the commission should be able to investigate aspects of the Planning Act as well, aspects relating to labour. They could have looked at section 3 in particular, a section which limits Bantu employment to a ratio of 1:2 in the urban areas. We cannot afford to have more such restrictions on our labour under present circumstances particularly if one bears in mind that 31 clothing concerns on the Witwatersrand had to close their factories last year. I see this as the result of restrictions of this type which have been imposed and as the result of the Government’s approach that labour-intensive industries should be decentralized from the cities. In 1968 there were 26 500 workers in the clothing industry on the Witwatersrand. This year the number has dropped to 21 000 workers, according to the figures I was able to obtain. In other words, according to the data at my disposal, there are at the moment 2 000 unemployed people in the clothing industry alone.

I do not even want to talk about places like Kimberley and Cape Town, where clothing factories have had to close. I know that one of Kimberley’s biggest clothing factories had to close last year. One factory had to pay off 300 workers this week due to the recession and restrictions of this nature which have been imposed. I mention the clothing industry specifically because it is particularly suited to exporting our surplus production here in South Africa. They are labour-intensive and particularly Bantu labour-intensive and they are particularly well equipped for countering unemployment in South Africa and stimulation exportation to other countries abroad. In spite of this economic recession the clothing industry would be able to compete abroad as long as it could operate with adequate efficiency. If the footwear industry, which is a highly competitive industry, can export $2 million worth of shoes at this stage, then I think that the clothing industry should be able to do exactly the same. There is a footwear firm here in Cape Town that exports to Canada in the present difficult circumstances. It is an open market, on which they have to compete with all the other countries of the world. If they can do so under these circumstances, the clothing industry ought also to be able to do so. I am of the opinion that the reason for some of these problems is this same unsympathetic attitude of the Government, because they are not doing enough to encourage that high productivity. The Institute of Productivity found that the clothing industry could increase their productivity by 60%. This they can only do by way of sound training, so that they can enter the world markets on a competitive basis. Engineers, cutters, patternmakers, graders, designers and even those in the middle rank and top managerial posts must be given better training. There are definite limitations as far as this training is concerned. It is not being encouraged enough, and once again there are certain limitations on this training due to ideological reasons.

There is a training college in End Street in Johannesburg for the clothing industry in the Transvaal. Every year they have to go to five different departments to obtain permits in order to provide training to Whites, Coloureds and Bantu in the same college. The problem is that they cannot afford to train only Whites and Coloureds there. If they were to do so, the college would not be viable. If they can utilize the teaching staff they employ to train Bantu for the clothing industry as well, they can be viable. Due to these problems in regard to permits, that college is going to have to close in September this year. As far as I know, that college will not be replaced immediately by another college which will train workers in the clothing industry in particular to perform this vital task for South Africa. This is a very serious problem.

Of the 21 000 workers in the clothing industry on the Witwatersrand, only 4 000 are Whites and Coloureds. About 16 000 of them are Bantu. We have the phenomenon that the Bantu are gradually moving upwards to higher levels of work and are supplanting the Coloureds there. The Coloureds in their turn are also moving higher up the ladder and are supplanting the Whites. This is a good phenomenon and we should like to see the necessary facilities being provided whereby to further this natural trend. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was with regret that I noted the announcement by the hon. the Minister yesterday concerning the retirement of the Secretary for Labour. Allow me to say a few words to Mr. Lindeque on this occasion. He lives in my constituency, and besides I can say that he is a voter of mine.

Are you sure?

I have known Mr. Lindeque for many years. We have travelled a long way together over a long period of time. I have learnt to know him in many spheres, particularly in the sphere in which he is an authority, that of labour. I was able to learn a great deal from his vast store of knowledge and experience in this sphere over the period of many years. For my part, I want to thank Mr. Lindeque very sincerely and wish him and his family everything of the best. I wish him a prosperous retirement and I hope that he will enjoy good health and will be spared for many years to come.

The hon. member for Benoni who spoke before I did, made one statement with which I can agree. He said that labour held the key to the preservation of White civilization in this country. Then the hon. member went on to speak about the importance of labour legislation and industrial peace being able to further economic growth in this country. However, the hon. member then said that the NP was placing limitations on maximum economic growth. He mentioned a whole series of limitations, and I do not want to react to them now. However, he said that these limitations were the cause of our not enjoying greater economic growth than we do in fact have. He went on to say that these limitations were the cause of the unemployment we have today. These limitations of which the hon. member spoke, the labour policy which this side of the House has advocated and designed over the years and is still developing and implementing today, are those very measures which ensure that labour remains the key to the preservation of White civilization in this country.

What the hon. member was advocating was the very foundation and point of departure of the labour policy of this side of the House. The hon. member said that everything done under our labour legislation was done for ideological reasons. He said it was a policy that was unproductive and gave rise to unemployment. However, I want to ask the hon. member to stand up here and say what ideological reasons and what unproductive legislation is causing unemployment in Britain, America and Germany, because there the percentage of unemployment is so high that South Africa does not even want to compete with them. Yesterday, while quoting certain figures, the hon. member for Meyerton indicated that the unemployment rate in America was 8% whereas measured by world standards, our unemployment rate is equivalent to full employment. I fear that the hon. member should do his homework better and have better grounds for his criticism. He states that the Government does not encourage productivity. However, I want to tell the hon. member that it is an inherent characteristic of the system we have designed in South Africa that productivity is automatically increased due to the maintenance of good relations between the employer and the employee on the factory floor. A number of measures have been adopted in this regard, and I do not wish to elaborate on this further.

This morning I want to refer to another very important aspect. If we all agree—and this was said repeatedly yesterday in the course of this debate and was repeatedly stressed by the hon. the Minister—that sound labour relations are of cardinal importance for economic growth, we have to add that sound labour relations and a sound labour situation are of cardinal importance for the multinational set-up in South Africa and are of cardinal importance for the furtherance of sound ethnic relations in South Africa. Mr. Chairman, we in South Africa are engaged in a struggle for survival, and this struggle can only be won on the level of sound human relations, on the inter-ethnic level in South Africa. If we fail in that, then we fail in regard to the point which the hon. member for Benoni stated as his preconceived point of departure, namely the preservation of White civilization in South Africa.

I am not aware of any level more suitable for the furtherance of sound human relations than the factory floor where worker and worker—White, Black and Brown—stand working shoulder to shoulder every day and learn to know each other, appreciate each other or come into confrontation with each other. That is why I want to say that this goal should be first and foremost in our ethnic relations policy by means of which we seek to further sound human relations, and should top our list of priorities.

Are you advocating job reservation?

Yes, Sir. It forms part of the legislation which contributed towards the fact that we do not have confrontation in this country and which contributed towards our being able to establish sound labour relations and to develop them together with the employer and the employee in this country to the benefit of all. I say that the various groups in South Africa will find or confront each other on the factory floor. That is why it is in the national interest that all interested parties should further sound human relations at this level in a responsible way. We cannot afford a laissez-fair attitude in respect of human relations in the labour situation. Sound relations in the labour sphere not only promote productivity and consequently economic growth, but inevitably have an effect which makes itself felt throughout our plural society. It eliminates suspicion and unrest, because suspicion and unrest can lead to industrial strife. I want to say that the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act provides the very machinery in accordance with which such relations may be furthered. I do not want to refer to the results achieved. I do not want to repeat what the investigation carried out by the University of the Orange Free State showed. We have the proof that the key to the solution of our labour problems and questions in South Africa lies in this and that in this system we have a unique system, a system in accordance with which South Africa can develop its own pattern, can develop its own labour pattern within its own situation and in accordance with its own circumstances. Proof of this already exists. May I just refer to what an important industrialist, Mr. Willem van Zyl, managing director of Veka, said last year when Otto Krause conducted a discussion with him. I quote from the 30 May 1976 edition of Rapport, in which Mr. Van Zyl states the following—

I therefore say that this is the key, and that is why I thank the hon. the Minister for the commission he is going to appoint. I believe that the commission will lay the foundations for a sound labour policy and pattern in the future which will also contribute towards the furtherance of our ethnic relations policy.

Mr. Chairman, the big news of this debate is obviously the hon. the Minister’s announcement of the commission that has been appointed to review labour legislation. Let me say immediately that we in these benches welcome the hon. the Minister’s announcement. It has been said in the past that one of the major complaints of members on that side of the House is that the Opposition members are always negative and never come up with any real, helpful suggestions to help South Africa face its problems. It is interesting to note, therefore, that the announcement of this commission has come about three years after members in these benches and, if I recall rightly, also the hon. member for Hillbrow called for just such a commission. At that time we suggested almost exactly the sort of composition that is to be used. We also referred to the changing complexion and changing mood of South Africa’s labour force. It is all recorded in Hansard. I simply wish to remind the House that every now and again it may be said that a positive suggestion does come from this side of the House and, what is perhaps a greater miracle, every now and again the other side of the House actually hears this, even if it takes three years. We are glad and grateful that the commission has been appointed and we hope very much indeed that it will be successful in all that it sets out to do. Obviously, when a commission looks at labour legislation, it has a very long and difficult task in front of it. I hope that the hon. the Minister and the chairman of the commission will do everything in their power to expedite the work of the commission and to make its findings and recommendations known at the earliest opportunity, so that we shall soon have legislation before the House which will seek to enshrine some of the new thinking and new recommendations which will undoubtedly come from such a commission. We wish the commission well.

Then, I want to say that I regard as most unfortunate the comments of the hon. the Minister regarding my quotation of the newly appointed chairman of that commission, Prof. Wiehahn. Twice I quoted Prof. Wiehahn’s actual words verbatim. If the hon. the Minister feels that that is “gif’, poison, the blame must be laid not at my door but at the door of the one who first used those words. For my part, I believe that Prof. Wiehahn, in his statements thus far on the labour position in South Africa, has shown a very real insight into the nature of our problems. I am quite convinced he will do an outstanding job as chairman of that commission.

As regards the response of the hon. the Minister to my own comments concerning unemployment in South Africa, I am glad that at last the hon. the Minister is on record as saying, unlike some of his colleagues, that unemployment is not only a present reality, but that it is a very serious one and that it is likely that the position will get worse before it gets better. Let me say in passing that the hon. member for Innesdal suggested that one of the proposals I made to the hon. the Minister regarding the setting up of an employment opportunities commission was stolen—I think that is the word he used—from the USA where similar activities are in progress. I want to direct a challenge to the hon. member: if he can find any reference to an “employment opportunities commission”, which are the words I used, and can produce that reference in writing from some source in the USA, I will make an apology in this House; but, if he cannot do that, I expect him to make a similar apology in the House. As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no reference anywhere to an “employment opportunities commission”—not a “fair employment commission”—the words I used were “employment opportunities commission”.

As for his other insinuations here yesterday, I think it is unworthy of that hon. member to make the kind of insinuation which he did make regarding my involvement in labour and my use, or abuse, of this in respect of various organizations. I regard that kind of insinuation as being the worst possible kind of insinuation. Until such time that he can produce any evidence to back up his sneering insinuation, I suggest he sticks to the facts.

With regard to the unemployment problem I regret to say that whilst the hon. the Minister acknowledged its seriousness he really made no response at all in terms of what he as the hon. the Minister of Labour and his department were going to do about it. He made some reference, it is true, to the fact that they were concerned about it and that they were working on it, but I am sure that he should be able to be much more specific in this connection to this House. We look forward to something a little more specific in his reply. I specifically referred to the Unemployment Insurance Act and said that there were businessmen, particularly in the construction industry, who felt that instead of dismissing staff who had been working with them for years—some of them up to 20 years—there may be a possibility of putting them on short time, so that if the country moves through this recession period they can then put them back on full time as is the normal case. They feel that if they do that, it should be possible to have some arrangement with the Unemployment Insurance Board so that they can be partially compensated. At the moment, if workers are dismissed, they are eligible for benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. If they are put on part time, then, of course, they are not eligible for those benefits. Perhaps the State and private enterprise could try to come to some arrangement without waiting for the long process of bringing about an amendment to present legislation. Perhaps something could be done and I should like some response from the hon. the Minister in that regard.

In respect of the Workmen’s Compensation Act I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he is giving any thought at all to making it possible to extend the benefits of workmen’s compensation. Here I refer to the very tragic event of the death of 13 news vendors in the Peninsula. I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and some of his colleagues the problem surrounding that incident. There is no question that when we look at the employment conditions of these news vendors, they are disgraceful in the extreme. If the newspapers themselves or the agencies which they appoint to do this work are not prepared to protect these youngsters in the work they are doing, then I feel that the Government must introduce legislation which will give them protection and compensation, especially in a case such as this, where 13 youngsters were burnt to death, youngsters who in part were bringing income into their homes. These are youngsters of 12, 13 or 14 years old. Not all of them are part-time. Some of them are dropouts from schools and are taken into these jobs. They start at about 3 o’clock in the morning and after having sold the morning newspapers they immediately begin selling the first edition of the evening newspaper and continue right on, some of them working 14 or 15 hours a day under the most dreadful conditions. There is no way under our present legislation that we can afford this kind of worker—because he is a worker—any sort of protection whatsoever. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will give this matter some consideration.

There are one or two other points I should like to make. I have received some correspondence from the National Council of Women, who have referred to the working of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. They have been corresponding with the Department of Labour for some time. They first raised the matter in 1969 and received a letter from the then Minister of Labour soon after that, also in 1969. The burden of their request was that there was a great deal of human suffering caused by the delays in paying out workmen’s compensation. They asked the hon. Minister of Labour to try to introduce legislation which would expedite the paying of workmen’s compensation, because sometimes there is a great delay. I hope that this matter will also receive the hon. the Minister’s attention. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to hasten to deal with the speech by the hon. member for Pinelands. Before doing so, however, I should like to make a few remarks concerning the two extremely important announcements which the hon. the Minister made here in the House yesterday. In the first place, I refer to the negotiations conducted with the trade unions which resulted in the announcement that at the moment they will not make any wage demands. This is a very praiseworthy attitude. The trade unions have already been praised for the responsible attitude they have adopted with regard to this matter. However I am of the opinion that we must also compliment the hon. the Minister on his contribution to this major decision. It goes without saying that it was he who initiated these negotiations. In the times we are living in, wage demands amounting to R800 million pose a major threat to the economy of South Africa, particularly since we are still engaged in a fight against inflation.

The second very important announcement by the hon. the Minister was that of the commission he is going to appoint with the task of investigating all our labour legislation in detail. The composition of the commission is most illuminating. To be specific, the commission will consist of representatives of the industrial sector, leaders in the most important field of labour in South Africa, and the chairman will be Prof. Wiehahn. What this amounts to is that the investigation will be carried out by employees and by the industry itself. That is to say, the investigation is being done by people who are in practice themselves. This is not, therefore, an investigation carried out by the Government. That is very important.

Now it is very interesting that the hon. member for Pinelands maintains that in fact he advocated the appointment of such a commission. In fact, he derives pleasure from the hon. the Minister eventually having listened to him. The hon. member for Pinelands does not say so, but I think that his problem is that the hon. the Minister took a great deal of political initiative away from him in this way. If from the appointment of this commission the hon. member tries to draw the conclusion that certain principles of the traditional labour policy of South Africa are to disappear, he is making a very big mistake. The hon. the Minister put it very clearly that the proposed investigation did not amount to a change in course. In other words, there are certain principles which will certainly have to be retained, even in the investigation of the envisaged commission.

However, let us take a look at the philosophy of the hon. member for Pinelands as far as labour is concerned.

Job reservation is one of them! [Interjections.]

Job reservation is being investigated. Its implementation is being investigated. However that does not mean that the principles in connection with job reservation will be totally eliminated thereby.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members must please give me a chance to speak. I want to say something in connection with the labour policy, the labour philosophy, of those hon. members, and that of the hon. member for Pinelands in particular. I looked up his previous speeches in Hansard. The standpoint of the hon. member for Pinelands is that we have an integrated economy in South Africa and that it is therefore indivisible.

That is right!

Consequently we have one big total labour force.

That is right!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands is being very troublesome. Let me quote to the hon. member what he said. He said (Hansard, Vol. 63, col. 9089)—

That is right!

The hon. member is therefore saying by implication that divisibility is possible in the political sphere but that it is impossible in the field of labour. In the same speech he goes on to say what the White/Black ratio is in the field of labour. He also quotes certain figures and states that 20% of the industrial sphere is occupied by Whites but that this ratio is weakening. When, at a later stage in the argument, he was asked how he would protect the minority White group in the labour force—viz. in the integrated labour force—he said that there should be negotiation. However, what hope have the Whites to negotiate with a majority of Black workers in South Africa if they do not have a power base? The power base consists of those very White trade unions, section 77 of the Act and so on. If the Whites did not have this power base, its negotiations would be meaningless.

I tend to come to the conclusion that the policy of the hon. members opposite which the hon. member for Houghton, among others, also expounded in America, the so-called policy of Black majority, applies to the field of labour as well. The PRP will apply its policy of a Black majority to the sphere of labour as well, and therefore for the White man there is no hope.

The policy of the NP is in no way discriminatory towards any worker in South Africa. Reference was made yesterday to democracy in the labour policy. What is democracy in the field of labour? In the first place, it is the right to organize, and in the second place, it is the right to negotiate. Those two principles are already contained in our legislation.

We know the UP and we also know the PRP. In its policy the UP in particular recognizes that there are separate identities in South Africa. I do not know what the PRP’s precise standpoint is, because they are exceptionally vague in regard to this matter. However, I ask: Since when has the traditional trade union system been the only method of negotiation? Yesterday the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark made the statement that we had already progressed very far with our system of works committees. The Bantu therefore has the right to organize and negotiate. Examples of this have already been quoted.

Do you want to do away with trade unions?

We did not say so. There is a question I want to put to both the UP and the PRP. Since when does one lose one’s identity when one enters the labour sphere? Since when do one’s values change, and has one’s standard of living nothing to do with one’s labour requirements? If the White worker of South Africa is to be deprived of the right to negotiate according to his needs through his White trade union, then that certainly constitutes the most extreme form of discrimination. Could the hon. member for Pinelands tell me whether his party would permit White trade unions in South Africa in terms of their policy, White trade unions which provide in their constitution that the trade union is only for Whites? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pinelands is shaking his head so much that it is creaking.

That means he says no.

The White worker in South Africa must therefore realize that in terms of the policy of the PRP, he will have no protection because he will not be able to reserve his rights as a White worker exclusively within his own trade union.

Since we live together as separate peoples and identities in South Africa, it is right and good that we should also co-operate on a separate basis in the same economy. There is no question of our wanting to divide the economy. Separate workers’ organizations can work in the same economy and in this connection I should like to refer to an example in practice. One of the biggest projects in South Africa at the moment is being developed in my constituency. I refer of course to Sasol 2. We already know that we shall not have sufficient White semiskilled workers to do all the work at Sasol 2. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate this side of the House with the good wishes that have been expressed by the hon. the Minister and others following the retirement of the Secretary for Labour. It is always sad to see a man who has given so many years of good service to the country, leave. Under these circumstances it is additionally sad because he is leaving as a result of ill-health. We wish him well. We hope that during his retirement he will return to good health and that he will have many years ahead of him. I hope that he will not spend them idly, but that he will always be able to give of his best to this department particularly. I think they need a great deal of help.

I want to come to the hon. member for Bethal. How this hon. member can stand in this House and say that the Black man is not discriminated against in the field of labour, I simply cannot understand. How can he possibly defend job reservation and at the same time say that there is no discrimination? How can he do that?

Job reservation has nothing to do with discrimination.

How can he say that the White man is entitled to have his White union? All I say to him is that if the White man is entitled to have his White union and he does not want discrimination, surely the Black man may have his union as well, a union which will be recognized by the Government? I think his expressions are without foundation and that they are absolute nonsense.

I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister for introducing the hope of a new labour deal for the people of this country. I looked at the various sections he intends investigating, and I, being concerned with the health of the worker, should like him, at the same time, to investigate the position of the Workmen’s Compensation Act with regard to occupational diseases.

It will be covered.

The hon. the Minister has given me the assurance that this will be done. I am very pleased to hear this. Before I go on to anything else, and in case I forget it, there is one point I should like to make now. I should like the hon. the Minister to remember one thing and that is that the ceiling of wages must have nothing at all to do with a worker’s state of health when it comes to compensation. If a man’s wage scale, according to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, is such that he earns more than a certain amount of money, even if he supplements that amount by working overtime, and he should develop an occupational disease, he will not receive compensation for that disease. I should like to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House—and I particularly—say that if a man gets a disease due to his occupation, he must be compensated irrespective of the amount of money that man has been earning during his years of service in that occupation. His salary has nothing to do with his state of health if that deteriorates because of his work.

I want to deal with another matter. I am sure the hon. the Minister is dealing with it at the moment, but I can find no progress in that regard. The Minister of Labour is also the Minister of Mines. Mining operations in the new homelands are developing rapidly. In Bophuthatswana we have an anomaly in that when this homeland gets its independence, we will have a mine which will be partly inside the Republic and partly in the independent homeland. We have a set of circumstances here which I am sure the hon. member for Bethal will be able to explain away. This is a mine in a homeland. It is going to be mined by White people and Black people. The Black people are going to allow White miners to be employed in the homeland. These White miners are essential to the mining operation because they are the people who know how to mine. They are the only people here now who have been trained to mine. The Black man until now has not been allowed to train for this work. There is no training school or college for him. So, Sir, the White man is going to be occupied in mining operations in a homeland. How long can this go on before the Black miner says: “I want to be able to mine, in my own country, in the same way as the White miner?” He will then have to receive training. The Mineworkers’ Union at the moment, as the Minister knows, is not encouraging the training of Black people by White miners. Where is this Black going to be able to receive his training if he is going to be put in a position of working in his own homeland mine? Somebody has got to teach him. If the White man does not teach him to mine who is going to teach him? The hon. member for Bethal says there is no discrimination in labour. Will he then do his best to make sure that White miners are allowed to train Black miners in the Black homelands?

Yes.

The hon. member says “yes”. Therefore the fear of the White miner being deprived of his job in future is groundless. Now I have the matter clear in my mind. I know now that the hon. member for Bethal is in favour of that and that he will use his influence to make sure that the Minister will encourage the Mineworkers’ Union to train Black people to work in their homelands. If there are no facilities in the homelands to train them, he will have to encourage one of two things.

He will either have to encourage the establishment of a training college for the Blacks in the homeland or he will have to allow the Blacks who are working here now to go to White training colleges. This is very important. It is a matter which is going to escalate. It is going to escalate because in KwaZulu we are going to have a similar condition. We have coal mines there which are vast undertakings and the White man alone will not be able to work them. Those mines will be in a Black homeland and the Black man there will have to be taught how to mine. These are the points on which I should like the Minister to elucidate when he replies. I should like to know what his attitude is in this regard as well as what the attitudes of the mineworkers, the Mineworkers’ Union and the chiefs of the homelands are. We must, however, remember that a dog in the manger attitude on the part of the White miners in not teaching the Black miners will be a further blot on this country of ours.

I should like to turn to the question of occupational health. I cannot go into detail to examine what is happening at various mines, because that will take me too long and I only have a minute or so left.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

What, already? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, after the hon. the Minister had spoken in the House yesterday, one of our wellknown political columnists referred to him as “calm Fanie”. Having analysed his speech in depth, I should prefer to call him “creative Fanie”. If one looks carefully at that speech by the Minister and analyses it, it is clear that a new dispensation awaits us as regards the labour pattern in this country in the future. It is an entirely new labour philosophy.

The hon. the Minister made one statement in particular which found great favour with me. He said that in fact, labour legislation was social legislation which had constantly to be reviewed in the light of changing circumstances. This is a very true statement and in certain respects it even displays a new labour philosophy. I want to add that in South Africa’s labour pattern there are still two other basic situations which we in this country will have to take into account. The first is that we in this country are building a divided State structure. We are dividing South Africa territorially and creating territorial freedom. This basic creative work will necessarily have an effect on our labour pattern. I do not wish to elaborate on this now because I do not have the time. The second basic fact which we shall always have to take into account in this country is that virtually three-quarters of the Brown people of our country are to be found in the Western Cape. That is where they live and we shall always have to take this fact into account in our labour pattern in the future.

I have said that if I were to give the hon. the Minister a name I would not talk about calm Fanie but that I would prefer to talk about creative Fanie. For years we fought for and championed the cause of a proper water plan for the Boland and the Western Cape. We went from one meeting to another, but it never happened. Then, however, this hon. Minister became South Africa’s Minister of Water Affairs. It was immediately clear to me that he understood that as far as the Western Cape was concerned, we had no goldmines, copper mines or any other form of revenue. As a matter of fact, our sine qua non in the Boland is our water. The hon. the Minister perceived this fact immediately. What did the hon. the Minister do? After many years of agitation the hon. the Minister came up with a co-ordinated water plan for the Boland which was the product of advance planning. This plan is today unfolding dramatically and will always stand as a monument to the creative work of this hon. Minister in the Western Cape.

Today as a Bolander I approach the hon. the Minister as our new Minister of Labour to ask him the following: As our new Minister of Labour, please establish a whole new labour pattern, too, here in our Boland. In the first place it is the cradle of our Western civilization and of our White people. It is the region in which three-quarters of our country’s Brown people are living today. It is the only geographical region in our country where it is still possible to create a basis without any further form of Black penetration in this region. What my request amounts to is the formation of a core region in which South Africa’s non-Black people will largely supplement each other in the labour sphere. This is the plea with which I wish to approach the new hon. Minister today.

Not a homeland.

No, not a homeland. In certain respects the new pattern of which I speak is already unfolding today. I just want to refer to a few instances. Nowadays, 97,3% of those engaged in the building industry in the Boland are Brown people. You can go today to Adderley Street or Sea Point or wherever and you will find that there is a new generation of Brown people serving us behind the counters, in our business concerns, in the administration of our private sector and in offices. I want to mention a third example to you. No-one can dispute today there is nowhere in the agricultural industry in the Western Gape where one can take the Brown man away from the place he occupies alongside the White man and put him in a homeland somewhere as an hon. friend has just suggested. One cannot put him in a homeland, because he forms part of our overall labour system in the Western Cape. It is true that in the fishing industry in the Western Cape today the Brown man has shown to an increasing extent that he has more of a feeling for the sea than the Black men who are brought here in large numbers from time to time during the season. I do not wish to elaborate on this any further, but I would be able to prove that at this level, too, we are today reducing the number of Black people in the Western Cape in all the facets of the fishing industry.

I first want to dwell on my dilemma before being able to expand further on these positive facets. My dilemma is that it is true that we are still permitting an increasing degree of penetration into the labour pattern of the Western Cape by Blacks who are not indigenous to the area. I maintain that this is in conflict with the policy of the Government in regard to the specific geography of our country.

I just want to refer to a few examples. In the heart of the Cape metropolitan area which contains the largest concentration of Brown people in our country, Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu are to be found. The number of Black people living there increases from time to time. This is a twofold symbiosis the end of which we shall never see. I do not wish to elaborate on this any further. I want to mention a second example. In Atlantis today we are building a project which is developing free of Bantu and which will eventually be one of the finest examples of community development in the Western Cape, but what is being done there? Next to this fine project which is a model of its type, the Koeberg nuclear power station is being developed. I am told that at Koeberg over the next two years, 3 000 Bantu men without their families are to be brought in alongside the Brown community we have established there. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and say that this should not be done. I cannot see how we can continue with this situation and I want to make a very emphatic appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider whether we could not prevent this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Moorreesburg rises here to speak, as he did last time, and he speaks about a geographical formula and a Black/non-Black division in South Africa, viz. a section which is not Black and a section which is Black, then what he says is in direct contrast to what the hon. member for Pinelands said yesterday. What did the hon. member for Pinelands say yesterday? The essence of his argument yesterday was that we should lay down one labour pattern in South Africa, a totally integrated labour pattern. I do not know whether all the hon. members listened carefully to what he said, but he is a dangerous man, Mr. Chairman. He is in contact with many people, including many young people. That hon. member eats, sleeps and drinks pure post-war misplaced liberalism. The most important thing that has emerged in the entire labour debate is that the hon. member for Pinelands has advocated a totally integrated generalized labour pattern. I object to that. My friend, the hon. member for Moorreesburg, is diametrically opposed to the hon. member for Pinelands because the hon. member for Moorreesburg has just said that we should bring about a patterning of labour. He said that we in South Africa should determine patterns in the field of labour. That was what his speech meant. I said to the hon. member by way of an interjection: “You understand apartheid.” Sir, he truly understands it. He is not like other hon. members who speak about change, adaptation and moving away from discrimination and then do not give answers. The hon. member for Moorreesburg has facts under his feet. What he is advocating I, too, advocate, namely that a pattern of labour should be laid down in South Africa.

Whereas our labour pattern—I am referring now to our trade unions—has to a great extent been cast in the mould of a foreign system, more specifically the British system, I want to make the statement today that I am very grateful in this connection that the Minister of Labour announced yesterday that he was to appoint a commission to investigate our entire labour pattern in South Africa. It is very strange and significant, too, how the labourer, the worker in South Africa, is being used and misused right and left. If a politician really wants to improve his image, the tune he sings is a hosanna against the worker. Am I speaking the truth?

Yes.

In the 25 years I have been in this House I have seen how the United Party and the National Party have been battling with each other unceasingly to get the worker on their side. Surely this is the truth. How are the labourer, the worker and the labour organizations being used at the international level? They are being used as a front against our fatherland.

In 1922 they…

Unfortunately I have only 10 minutes to speak and consequently I cannot dwell on the history of the matter. As the drama of inflation is enacted before us, who is on the foreground? Who are the main actors in that drama of inflation? This drama is being enacted in parliament; I sat and listened to it here. Appeals to workers were in the foreground. Yesterday an appeal was made to them to limit their wage claims. We heard yesterday, and I said so myself, that we should work harder. It is the worker who is at the forefront.

If we want to make an appeal to present-day groups, either in this House or on the platform, then we must appeal to the patriotism of the worker. It is on him that we base our proud record of political stability, and it is on him, too, that we base our economic stability because our economic stability forms the basis for our political stability. We give the worker credit for that. These are his achievements. We Nationalists, my colleagues here and I, and hon. members on that side of the House seek our aspirations and our justification and canvass our votes among the workers. We rely on the worker; he is in the foreground. That is a fact. But the liberals on that side of the House also seek assistance from the worker. They draw on the worker.

The hon. member for Pinelands made an extremely important speech here yesterday. He is in direct conflict with me where he said that we should pattern our labour and where he asked for one pattern. What is he trying to achieve thereby? What is his real goal? He wants to use the labourers for South Africa for political purposes. That is the meaning of his speech. It may have passed unnoticed here, but the seed has been planted in the outside world through his Hansard. The people abroad read his Hansard and they can now maintain that there is a man in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa who is asking for that. He is a “klipchristen” and, Mr. Chairman, you cannot call me to order for that, because the word “klipchristen” is one we use in Afrikaans for anyone who is false.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “klipchristen”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. False as he is, the labour front of the PRP is not a front of their true feelings; to them it is only a stratagem. It is stratagem whereby to draw the labourer in South Africa into the political arena in the typical communist pattern. Surely that is the truth, Mr. Chairman. You cannot call me to order for that.

We must not allow ourselves to be misled by statements and undertakings given here to the people. I want to mention a few of them. We must bear in mind that the fundamental fact in South Africa is that we have separate political structures. That is why my party is sitting here. We have separate political structures. As long as this is our structure of political policy, we cannot flinch from the following … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to convey my very sincere thanks to all hon. members who have taken part in the debate since I replied last for their contributions. As hon. members have probably discovered, there are a great many matters that can be discussed under the Labour Vote, matters which never become stale. When I replied to the debate yesterday, I made the statement, as I did last year, that in fact we have reached a watershed as far as the labour situation in South Africa is concerned. In this connection there were two matters on which I dwelt at length. Now there are two other matters which I wish to discuss further on this occasion.

The steadily increasing demands in South Africa’s labour situation are constantly compelling us to think and act afresh. Since I am referring to the demands, there are many of them I could mention. The labour machine is swallowing a growing number of workers, and when we bear in mind that in fact, we are now heading for the end of the century, for a period in which the number of Black, Brown and White people who want to work in South Africa will be many times that of today, we realize to what extent the factor of numbers complicates the situation. Moreover, we must bear in mind that the labour machine and the labour pattern are becoming more and more sophisticated. Indeed, South Africa has been undergoing that process for some time, and that process will unfold further in the future. South Africa is in fact developing into an industrial state. The difference between the situation in which South Africa finds itself and that in which other countries find themselves is that by virtue, too, of its delicate population structure, South Africa will understandably have a labour situation of steadily increasing complexity.

In the third instance, one also has to understand the issue of labour mobility. When I speak of mobility, I do not mean thereby the movement of workers from one geographic area to another, but the upward movement of labourers to higher levels in the labour situation. This, too, is a delicate process which is occurring in South Africa at the moment. If we note further the demands made and the arguments advanced—by hon. members in this House, among others—concerning the training of people, we realize how complicated the problem becomes, and that this applies to South Africa as well. I lack the time to go into the matter in detail. However, hon. members can read up on this matter. There is a great deal of reading matter available. Let me just refer in passing to the latest edition to the aid provided in connection with the training of labourers, the new system which was introduced recently by the Department of Bantu Education. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education made a comprehensive statement on this.

I want to refer to one final aspect in this connection. It is that in recent times South Africa has to an increasing extent been ranging itself on the side of an international labour movement. The labour situation and labour movements in the world have their patterns. They are patterns that are always developing. However in South Africa there is one deficiency. One cannot allow millions of people to enter the labour market without being properly trained in the process of negotiation. Anything of this kind creates tremendous problems. If we do not give attention to the matter, then the wrong people take the lead in providing that training. It is then that the worker is led in the wrong direction. Against this background it may be understood why it was essential to create an additional advisory service outside the structure of the department, outside the administrative organization of the department. This is why I indicated that it was essential that someone be appointed to act as a labour adviser, someone who could also be of assistance to the State in a wider context in the course of his work. I have in mind, for example, the important function which is being performed to an increasing extent by the economic adviser and the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, and is becoming steadily more important. This council is an umbrella body which, as such, integrates all the sectors of the economy. I want to express the hope that the labour division of that council will play a bigger role, because the proper calculation, evaluation and adaptation of the labour situation and the labour economy in the overall structure is becoming more and more important in the case of South Africa. If one round of wages means hundreds of millions of rands in wages, the importance of labour to the economy in general can be imagined.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and other hon. members referred yesterday to the appointment of Prof. Wiehahn. I am pleased that it was possible to appoint Prof. Wiehahn. I have a great deal of confidence in him. Not only does he have the academic knowledge, he is in fact an authority on labour with major achievements to his credit in this sphere. He is one of the leading researchers in the field of labour in South Africa and consequently we are grateful that we were able to have this pairing of disciplines within the department.

I want to elaborate on this point. I want to add a few things and express my view of the future. When I was appointed Minister of Labour, I was deeply impressed—and I am more deeply impressed every day—by the vast scale of the investment of foreign capital in South Africa by hundreds of large companies. These investors are involved in the labour situation and it is understandable that they need to know what the labour situation in South Africa is and perhaps to use that information in their own countries in the right way. This is a matter of very great importance.

The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Affairs are interested in this matter from a financial point of view and the Minister of Labour, too, is an interested party. I have therefore decided—and I think it was the correct decision—that from this time on a special service must be rendered by my department, an information service concerning legislation, policy and developments in South Africa. The purpose of this service will be to prevent misunderstanding among employers whose head offices are outside South Africa and who employ hundreds of thousands of people in our fatherland. In my opinion this is vital. We are dealing with this, and I hope there will be no misunderstanding about this reciprocity, the reciprocity in which I, as the Minister of Labour, will participate personally. I do not think it is desirable that there should be misunderstanding concerning so delicate a matter between the foreign employers who have acquired interests in South Africa, and the Department of Labour. I also believe that this service could be linked to the function of the office of the adviser on labour. In my opinion we should have looked at the possibility of such a step a long time ago.

A second need I want to mention concerns the relationship between the department and the Minister of Labour—in other words the Government—and the employees as far as labour is concerned. In this regard I want to associate myself with the important remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Hercules. He referred to the reciprocal need on the part of employers and employees to take each other into account. This is a very important point. I think that we in South Africa have opposed each other for too long. In future we must endeavour to bring about the fortunate situation in which there is mutual understanding and mutual responsibility.

As far as the employees of South Africa are concerned, I want to say that these people have a need to be taken more into account. It is all very well to have laws and to regulate the labour set-up in South Africa on a statutory basis. However, I think that we should consult with these people and that we should show them warmth and interest. This is of great importance. That is why I am of the opinion that a more thorough-going study of their problems would give rise to a better relationship. That is the task of the labour adviser. Nor will the matter end with the labour adviser; a labour research bureau will also have to be established.

Order! I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that he is standing with his back to the Chair.

I beg your pardon. This morning the hon. member for Overvaal made a remark in this connection and I want to associate myself with it. It is necessary to view this situation as a developing one giving rise to a growing need on the part of the employee. I think it is essential that we should make the workers feel that we do not simply operate in accordance with an existing Act or regulation but that we shall go further than the Act and the regulations and carry out a scientific study, because it is only in this way that the necessary can be done so as to incorporate the necessary understanding—on the part of the Government, too—into our labour situation. There is a third matter, too, to which I wish to refer, viz. the issue of employers. I have gained the impression that we should also take the state of mind of employers into account. I want to refer to a very good example. I took the lead—and I shall expand on this at greater length at a later occasion—in speaking to employers personally, directly and in depth about their problems. I want to say in all honesty that the experience was an eye-opener to me, and I think that goes for them, too. We did not always understand each other entirely, but we never differed with one another either. However, the time has come for the necessary research to be carried out and for discussions in depth to be conducted on an ongoing basis between the Department of Labour and the employers corps of South Africa. Then we can begin to build up the kind of unity on the labour front which will be necessary in the future.

It is true that our universities do concern themselves with this matter. However, this is a recent development. I can remember that when I was a student at Stellenbosch—that was many years ago—this type of specialization in the law relating to labour law did not exist. Today, however, this is developing into a specialized line of study. The fact is that the complicated machinery needed today makes it necessary for us to have labour sociologists, because labour has its social side. It also makes it necessary for us to develop further the law relating to labour and for us to take into account in the future the fact that the labour economy is becoming more and more important. I am referring solely to the issue of the influence of wage increases within the totality of our economic set-up. It is essential that such developments take place. The necessity of developing this side of labour came to the fore some time ago. I believe and trust that this can be done by the new section we are going to establish. I think that we shall see the result of this within the foreseeable future.

There is a second aspect I want to raise, viz. the issue of the relationship between the Government and the labour corps. This relationship is a very important one. In this regard I again associate myself with what the hon. member for Hercules had to say yesterday. I think that as far as our relations are concerned, it is vital that organized labour should know that it will have a share in what is going to take place in future, viz. that they will have a say. That was the reason for the announcement by the commission. The annual rate of increase of our population runs into millions. It is the number of Black and Brown people in particular that is increasing. All these people must work if we are not to have trouble. Employment opportunities must be created for these people and must be made to correlate with each other in the future. At the moment there is a process in operation in which, fortunately, organized labour is also participating, viz. the restructuring of posts. Surely hon. members can understand that if we were to bring about the happy situation in which the labourer, who quite naturally feels himself threatened, could also take part in the process, we should preserve labour peace. Last year I adopted the attitude towards organized labour that my door was open to them and that I would speak to them about whatever I may do in the future. The fact that we were able to discuss matters in this way resulted, inter alia, in wage claims being held back, as we have experienced over the past few days. The attitude which I adopt in connection with the restructuring with labour in the future will amount to an insistence on consultation between the Minister, the department and organized labour. I believe that it would be far better if we were to take a joint decision on who was to work where and when than to do so by way of statute. To associate myself with what has been said about job reservation. I want to say that I believe that in the future the whole situation will develop to the point at which organized labour will also have a say in the matter. That is why I announced yesterday that I would appoint a commission on which the leaders in the field of labour will also have a seat, so that the whole field of labour would be covered. I say this because I want to reassure everyone who is wondering what the relationship between the State and organized labour is going to be in future. In my opinion these two aspects are of importance on an occasion such as this and that is why I have raised them again and tried to explain them to the best of my ability.

I now want to turn to hon. members who took part in the debate. The hon. member for Jeppe raised a number of matters, aspects which in my opinion will in fact be investigated by the commission. He referred, inter alia, to a “co-ordinating manpower policy” concerning the co-ordination of further developments. However, there is at the moment an inter-departmental committee which is devoting attention to this matter. The committee is known as the Committee for the Better Utilization of Manpower. The hon. member for Jeppe can therefore rest assured that attention is in fact being given to the matter and I do not believe we need discuss it further here.

The hon. member for Hercules raised several matters, but I think that I have already furnished the background data relating to the matters he raised. However, I want to come back to one point which the hon. member made at the end of his speech, a point for which I have great appreciation. The hon. member said—and I hope that we can have this happy state of affairs here—that employees should display the attitude that the industries to which they are attached are their industries too—that they are their industries and that they should be proud of them. This is very important; it lies at the heart of sound relations for the future. I hope and trust that a situation will develop in which the necessary pride and interest will be aroused among our workers, too, because I think that there has been a great deal of coldness and aloofness towards the enterprises they have been employed in on the part of many employees in this regard. However, such a feeling is not cultivated overnight; it is something that comes with time and that must accompany pride in one’s work. I hope that a labour tradition will develop enabling the goal to which the hon. member referred to be achieved some day.

The hon. member for South Coast referred yesterday to the apprentice system. The hon. member referred to the high failure rate. As the hon. member knows, there are 32 apprenticeship committees and as many subcommittees. These committees make recommendations to the National Apprenticeship Board and in this way matters also reach the Minister. Although I think that this machinery is good enough, the legislative machinery in this connection could also be looked at by the commission. I am sure that the commission will take note of the remarks made by the hon. member. I do not think, therefore, that he and I need argue the matter further at this point. I shall therefore leave the matter at that.

The hon. member for Meyerton spoke about the revision of our laws. He indicated that he was of the opinion that we should impose a restriction on the claims for shorter working hours and that we should rather try to move people to work longer hours and produce more. In our negotiating machinery the issue of working conditions, wages and salaries and related matters are negotiated on a voluntary basis. This forms part of our legislative machinery and consequently neither he nor I can do much about it. The hon. member also made another remark which I appreciate. He said that the problems we are experiencing in South Africa at the moment, particularly those which people experience in adapting to the new economic conditions, are partly ascribable to the fact that our people have been spoilt to a large extent over the past few years. This is true. Economic development in South Africa gave rise to a seller’s market in the field of labour. People in the labour market could ask their own price. But this entailed a major disadvantage. Labour discipline suffered. Now that an adjustment has to be made, people are finding it difficult to adapt to the demands set by the new circumstances. The demands set by these new circumstances are that people should spend less and tighten their belts. It is true that there is a psychological aspect to the matter, too, viz. the state of mind of the people themselves. I am appreciative of this remark made by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Pinetown made various remarks and in regard to one of them I want to ask him not to make another such remark. I think it was a little uncalled-for. To be specific, the hon. member said that he hoped that the envisaged committee would not exercise political pressure on the Government. I want to ask the hon. member not to say anything of the kind. The commission consists of responsible people who are going to do their best. I do not think we should try to label them in that way.

You misunderstood me.

The hon. member went on to raise the issue of fitters and turners and of people who are recruited overseas to perform certain technical services in South Africa. This happens from time to time. It occurred inter alia when specialized welders were needed when a refinery was being constructed. Since they were not available in South Africa they had to be imported from abroad. The State itself has also had to do something of the kind in the past. Here I have in mind, for example, the construction of the Verwoerd dam and the tunnel. In that case it was necessary to bring people here from overseas to work there. However, it is not the policy to import people so as to oust others from their jobs. But people are brought in from overseas to perform services here as the need arises. However, this is not intended as a threat. As far as the need to train our own people is concerned, this is of course being done and more machinery will be established in the future whereby to train our people in South Africa. We are all aware of the fact that there is a growing need to train people in more and more fields. However, we shall try to keep pace with this. Even though we were to do so, there are still specialized services which cannot be rendered in South Africa. People have to be brought here for that purpose. As long as this need occurs, we shall have to continue doing so, otherwise the work will not get done.

The hon. member for Innesdal also referred to scientific planning and the problem of the increase in the population. I want to tell the hon. member that the task we are set, viz. to employ the millions of additional people who are going to come forward, indeed constitutes a formidable problem for South Africa. His reference to this matter is therefore a very timely one. If the hon. member had listened to what I had said at the start of my speech, he would have found the reply to his speech.

The hon. member for Etosha said that he did not agree with the accusation that was always being hurled at employees that they were unreasonable. I agree with the hon. member. If, then, it is remarked that employees are irresponsible, I regard that as uncalled for. I think people should be careful not to say this in general terms because there are indeed very responsible employees in South Africa.

The hon. member for Benoni referred to a number of factors which affect our economy. I want to tell the hon. member that he should really have raised many of the matters he mentioned under the Planning Vote. In my opinion, that is where they belong. To the extent that he made remarks of a political nature which must be replied to, I think that the hon. member for Koedoespoort and the hon. member for Bethal replied to him conclusively. As far as the hon. member for Koedoespoort is concerned, I just want to refer to the labour relations at the level of the factory floor to which he referred. I want to tell the hon. member that that is in fact so. That is why we have tabled legislation which will enable Black people to negotiate at the level of the factory floor. Of great importance is that the relationships among all employers and employees should remain sound, particularly, too, those between employees within the same factory. In so far as the hon. member for Koedoespoort had this in mind, I want to tell him that he is right and I want to join him in hoping that in the future we shall continue to maintain the right relations between people of different races within the same factory.

I can tell the hon. member that I was very pleasantly surprised when I visited a large factory in Port Elizabeth some time ago, particularly with a view to the labour relations there. The day I walked out of there, I had the impression that this was an industrialist with the right feeling and the right understanding who sought to have the people on his factory floor working in such a way, and to place them alongside each other in such a way, that labour peace would be maintained. I do not want to mention his name. I wish I could. I wish the whole of South Africa could be like this model industrialist, because then we should never have any difficulty. Of importance is that the employer has a direct interest in this. I believe that the sooner employers make it a standing item on the agenda for every meeting to discuss labour relations and how people are to work, the sooner we shall be able to eliminate all the problems that still exist. I believe that the interest shown by the employer himself is of vital importance. The industrialist I have mentioned sets an example worth following. He is not the only one in South Africa. There are many others. It is just that I am referring to a factory which I made a point of visiting.

The hon. member for Pinelands raised several matters. The hon. member is not present at the moment, but I want to refer to one of the points he made, that relating to the problem of the young newspaper vendors. It is an unfortunate situation that due specifically to their status in service it was not possible to assist them in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. However, this is a matter to which we shall give consideration. In fact, we are already considering it. I think that the hon. member has a point in the sense that he is of the opinion that one should consider whether there might not be other spheres to which attention should be given and in regard to which the position should be improved. The hon. member also referred to the delay in payments.

The example he mentioned is unfortunately one dating from 1969. He said that in 1969 there had been delays in unemployment payments. But after all, that was eight years ago. Fortunately, what happened eight years ago does not happen any longer. In the meantime the rate at which payments are made has increased considerably. I can therefore give the assurance that the Department is doing everything in its power, and in fact has done so over the past few years, to speed up payments of this nature.

The hon. member for Bethal made a very good contribution. In fact he made it very easy for me to reply to hon. members’ speeches. He replied to the hon. member for Pinelands and dealt very effectively, in general, with the issue of politicizing in the labour situation. I want to tell the hon. member that I am appreciative of his standpoint, a standpoint which, in general, is also that of the Government and of this side of the House.

The hon. member for Rosettenville asked me about a very delicate matter. To be specific, he asked me what the situation relating to the training of mineworkers would be in regard to the independence of Bophuthatswana. Because this is really a matter which falls under the Mining Vote, I should prefer not to reply to his questions at this point, but to do so in the course of the discussion of that Vote. I think that that is where it belongs.

I now turn to the hon. member for Moorreesburg. This hon. member has a faculty for giving himself and others names; and I think that he should rather stop doing so! He referred to a problem relating to the work situation of Coloureds in the Western Cape. This is a very sensitive matter. We know that there are a great many Coloureds in the Western Cape who do not work. However, we do not know the precise figure. All we know is that when we do offer employment, workers are not available. Although they have not been counted, we know merely from observation and from theoretical calculation that there must be thousands of them. I believe that in the future this problem should not fall solely within the province of the Minister of Labour. It is in fact a socio-economic problem and should be tackled as such on a broad front. The question is how to teach people discipline when they are not used to labour discipline. I think that this is a major problem. In so far as the Department of Labour can do its share, I promise the hon. member that it will do so. However, the hon. member will realize that the problem should not be tackled by us only, but also by the Coloureds themselves.

This is a sphere in which they can begin to look to the upliftment of their own people. If there is any sphere of activity which these people could really become enthusiastic about and in regard to which they could accept a challenge, then it is this sphere. By saying this it is not my intention to pass the buck. It goes without saying that it is still the Department of Labour that deals with labour legislation. Therefore it is this department which is concerned with the training and employment of these people. I want to tell the hon. member that I am very concerned about this matter. I am concerned about the fact that there are many Coloureds who are unemployed and that we are too fond of bringing people here from the Transkei to work.

That is my point.

I am concerned about that. I have told my department in this connection: We should really make it a little more difficult; if the industrialist comes to tell us that he cannot get Coloured workers, then we should not simply issue a certificate merely because he asks for it, stating that because Coloured workers are not available the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development should be asked to bring people in from outside on contract. That is why I have asked my department to make it as difficult as they can. If it is not made more difficult, the industrialists will not show the discipline necessary to ensure that they will play their part. I think that much of the blame can be laid at the door of the industrialists of the Western Cape. I do not think they take enough trouble to try to involve the people in the labour situation. I think that if one were to start putting the screws on a little, they would start thinking and then they, too, would do a little more about this. But as far as sentiment is concerned, namely that we should be concerned about these people, in the labour situation as well, I am in agreement with the hon. member. In so far as I can do anything about it, I shall do my best.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to the case of Koeberg. The hon. member has also discussed this matter with me before. It is true that a major project is being developed not far from here, for which thousands of labourers are required. A number of years ago an agreement was entered into—I think it was in 1971—and when the contracts were concluded, the guarantee was given that it would in fact be possible to bring in Black people. In other words, there is a kind of contractual obligation. This I was able to confirm in the meantime. Unfortunately there is not much we can do about it. However, I think that the hon. member is more concerned about the principle involved, viz. that we should also try to involve Coloured people in these major projects. I think they ought to receive preference and all should co-operate to see whether we will not be able to accommodate the Coloureds in this way.

Then, too, an example was mentioned of what we experienced a short time ago. I think I referred to it yesterday. I referred to the occasion when there was a demand for labour at one of the major projects at Mitchell’s Plain. The Department of Labour received a request for a hundred labourers. I think that the department had 82 labourers available whose services they could offer. When the recruiting took place, a number of them said that they were not interested. When the bus taking them to work stopped at the first robot, a number of them alighted and when the bus arrived at the place of employment, more left. Later, after negotiations with them had taken place, still more left. The next morning about 14 reported for work. I do not know whether any of them are still employed. This is the kind of thing one can do nothing about. It is a socio-economic problem and as such is everyone’s responsibility and I hope that it will enjoy the serious attention of the Coloured leaders as well.

The hon. member for Carletonville, who is not present at the moment, indicated that he thought that labour matters in the overall national structure will show us a new path to be followed in the years that lie ahead, a path along which South Africa will develop, within the context of its overall pattern. I agree with the hon. member. The developments we see will not deviate from the wider pattern of South Africa.

Before I resume my seat, I want to come back to the hon. member for Overvaal. I am aware—because I hear about it from time to time—that there is a pressing need in his constituency for special attention to be given to training in that area. Furthermore there is a particular need for research. I think that I have already replied to the hon. member in this connection.

Before I conclude I want to refer to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. Yesterday the hon. member duly acclaimed the appointment of Prof. Wiehahn, and other hon. members expressed their good wishes to Mr. Lindeque, the Secretary for Labour, and wished him a happy retirement. I want to subscribe to these good whishes and tell Mr. Lindeque we hope he will enjoy a very happy period of retirement. As I have already said, if at any time we wish to approach him in some connection, we should very much like to do so.

Votes agreed to.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Vote No. 10 and S.W.A. Vote No. 5.—“Mines”:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin where I suppose one should begin in discussing a Vote of this kind, by referring to the report of the Department of Mines. That is the document which is before us and which serves as a basis for our discussion. Whereas in the past, about two years ago, there was reason to complain of the lack of information or of the late appearance of the report of the Department of Mines, it gives me particular pleasure on this occasion to be able to congratulate the department on producing a timely and comprehensive report. It is most helpful in a debate of this kind to have a full catalogue of information of an up-to-date nature, and we wish to express our thanks for the service which the department has rendered in this respect.

We also wish to thank the hon. the Minister for his accessibility in matters relating to mining and for his assistance in arranging for a visit to an oil-rig, a visit which gave us, I think, a very clear concept of the nature of the exercise which is being carried out there and of the hazardous elements involved. I think it was of service to hon. members on both sides of the House who are interested in mining. We also enjoyed a visit to the Chamber of Mines, a visit organized by private industry. It was a very instructive visit, and also very helpful to the members on mining groups in forming a view of the current state of the mining industry.

There have been a number of changes taking place in the mining industry. I believe that the report itself gives a very clear image, a decisive picture of the changes that are taking place. Not only, on the more sombre side, is there a continuation of the heavy casualties which mining exacts from the South African population in the form of accidents, injuries and deaths, but there is also a brilliant upturn in production yielded by mining to the economy of South Africa. One has only to look at the graphs to see what enormous contribution mining has made, and more particularly, promises to make in the years which lie ahead as South Africa advances from the present state of recession to meet the enormous new commitments and to find the enormous quantities of money which will be required to deal with the modern South Africa which it is now our task to fulfil.

There are also changes in the style of mining. One of the things we have to look at as a new aspect of mining, is the great growth of open-cast mining. Open-cast mining has many economic advantages and we shall all benefit from the work done by open-cast miners. However, open-cast mining also has very grave consequences for the environment, for our soil and our landscape. These are also things which we need to look at very seriously in view of this new turn in the nature of the mining activities in this country. We are therefore grateful, without foreshadowing a debate which will take place on a particular amending Bill, to see that attention is being given to the need to restore landscapes and the environment after mining companies have carried out the necessary economic activities which are so essential to the future of our country. We shall come to this at a later stage, and possibly again when that particular amending Bill is discussed in the House.

I believe that, in view of all these things, in view of the changing nature of our society, in view of the increasing economic demands being made upon our society, the hon. the Minister of Mines occupies a key position in the whole governmental structure in South Africa. He occupies a most significant position in the social and economic development of a modern South Africa. He is not only the Minister of Mines, he is also the Minister of Labour. There is a very close correlation between the two. For a number of reasons this correlation is very important. One of the most obvious and important reasons is that mining is, in fact, the greatest producer of foreign exchange. It has become a vital industry and it remains vitally important to the maintenance of the solvency of South Africa in its international position. I believe that is important enough, but also linked with that is the fact that the mining industry is a major employer of labour. It is not only a great producer of economic wealth, but also a major employer of labour. When these two things, the enormous economic contribution that mining makes, plus its enormous responsibility in respect of White and Black labour, are taken together and correlated, one finds that the hon. the Minister occupies a position of extreme importance in the modern South African scene. It is in this light that I want to approach the debate, and in this context that I want to speak to the hon. the Minister.

Still in this vein one has, for example, the question of migrant labour. Migrant labour has for many years been a very difficult and important question, one which has served South Africa well in certain respects and has created very severe social problems in other respects. I believe there is now a change in the pattern of mining in South Africa. As the hon. the Minister knows very well there is, for one thing, an increase in the percentage of Black South Africans employed in the mining industry. Until not very long ago the majority of Black mine labour was foreign, immigrant labour from other countries. There has now been an enormous upsurge in the employment of South African Black labour and this has had important social consequences. It has important implications for South Africa.

Another change that is taking place and which is very closely linked to the greater employment of South Africans is that higher wages are being paid. This is both a cause and an effect. Higher wages have the consequence, as was pointed out by the chairman of Anglo American in his address the other day and as has been pointed out by the chairmen of other mining groups, of causing a shortening of the contractual period during which Black men work in the mines. This again involves a change in the social pattern, in that the stability of family life and the hardships of long separation from the areas of origin are all changing in nature and duration in consequence of the higher wages and the greater ability of labour in the mines to become mobile, more short-term and able, I think, to make a better contribution without so much destruction of the domestic and family background. This again is another important change which is taking place.

It brings another implication because if one has short-term contracts, one has to take account of the need of the rapidly expanding mining industry to achieve greater productivity and greater skills, more particularly amongst that very large Black element which forms so important a part of the whole mining scene. If one is going to produce the increased skills which will lead to higher productivity, one also has to have in mind the adjustments which have to be made in our pattern whereby one will allow people who are to occupy skilled positions, to play a more productive part in mining, and to have a greater permanence in the areas where they work and live. The mining companies have pleaded for a long time to be allowed to have a larger percentage of this type of highly skilled labour. The question of what type of labour the workers may be allowed to do brings us to the Mines and Works Act. All I wish to do at this stage is to invite debate with the hon. the Minister and to encourage him to speak on these matters because I believe they are so important and so timely. I would ask the hon. the Minister to look at these questions when he replies to this debate and to deal with this changing scene which I have tried briefly, in the limited time available to me, to indicate. In fact, these changes are changing the fundamental nature of mining and mining employment in South Africa.

There are other matters which need to be looked at again. There is, for example, the question of occupational diseases. For a long time it has been a custom in South Africa to deal with mining occupational diseases as an entirely separate matter under a separate regime from the treatment of occupational diseases in other industries. The same applies to the whole question in relation to workmen’s compensation in South Africa.

As our mining industry becomes more and more sophisticated and as larger numbers of miners move out of the underground mining scene into open-cast operations, into industrial-associated operations, into the various kinds of beneficiation, of enrichment of our mining products, which we all seek and for which we hope, so the whole mining industrial scene widens out into not just a mining scene, but into a broad industrial scene. How does one, for example, distinguish between a man who mines asbestos, and is therefore vulnerable to asbestosis, and another man who works in the textile industry and weaves asbestos fibre? They are both prone to the same damage. Is one to receive a different kind of treatment, both in respect of the occupational disease and in respect of his workmen’s compensation pension, from a man who is working elsewhere in the same kind of industry with the same kind of dangers and difficulties which might arise? I believe that we must look at these things and consider whether in fact, in respect of an industry which is broadening its scope and its industrial nature, it is economic and efficient to have different kinds of workmen’s compensation and different kinds of treatment for occupational diseases with all the envy and dissatisfactions which might arise in consequence of that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not follow up on the hon. member for Von Brandis’ speech. What I agree with him about, however, and what I want to express my thanks for, is the invitation that the parliamentary mining group received from the Chamber of Mines to visit them. On behalf of the parliamentary mining group I want to say thank you very much to the Chamber of Mines. It was a very informative and useful visit. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank our hon. Minister for that visit to the oil rig in Plettenberg Bay which he arranged for us this session. It was a wonderful and pleasant experience. I think it is something that will be remembered by everyone who visited the oil rig that day. Like the hon. the Minister, we hope and trust that in future we will succeed in drilling a good hole that will furnish fine results for this lovely country of ours.

The theme to which I want to devote myself today is that of the mineral potential of South Africa. The total value of all minerals already mined in South Africa is about R45,5 billion. What is informative in that connection, however, is the fact that the said amount, calculated at prevailing prices, is estimated to represent less than 10% of the total value of the mineral sources at present still in the earth. Although it is nevertheless realized that no minerals have any economic value before they are taken out of the earth and disposed of, at a profit, as a processed or refined product, this figure reflects, to a large extent, the tremendous undeveloped mineral wealth that South Africa still has at its disposal. As far as chrome and platinum are concerned, it is well-known that the Republic has more than 80% of the Free World’s known reserves and that these reserves are so extensive that at the present international rate of consumption there will be enough to provide for the total expected or estimated world demand far into the next century. The same also applies to vanadium, manganese and certain other minerals, which are known to be present in South Africa. It must therefore be emphasized that the cardinal role played by the Republic of South Africa as a supplier of strategic minerals to the whole world, and not only to the Free World, can become even more important in the future than it is at present.

It must also be borne in mind that mineral reserves are dynamic and that their quantities continually change, depending amongst other things upon the supply and demand, or in other words, depending on price changes, technological development, different methods of consumption, etc. It is also a fact, however, that in countries where there is not the required political stability to encourage the necessary capital investment, local as well as foreign, where there are not the concomitant suitable labour, electricity and water supplies, or where the necessary infrastructure does not exist, the mineral sources cannot be developed either. It is important for us to take note of that.

The South African Government has traditionally committed itself to encouraging foreign investment in the Republic’s mining industry. A recent example of the implementation of this policy is the establishment of the heavy mineral mining project on the North Coast of Natal where both South African and foreign capital and know-how are employed on the undertaking.

It is not only in our interests, but also in the interests of the whole world, that South Africa’s mineral sources be developed in an orderly and timely fashion in order to provide for the still increasing mineral needs. It must be South Africa’s serious endeavour to develop its promising mineral sources, for example those in the North-Western Cape. From what can be gathered, in the foreseeable future a start will be made on the mining of lead, zinc and copper deposits at Aggeneys and Gamsberg.

In that connection I just want to mention that that announcement was also made some time ago in the Press. It is estimated that the value of these minerals, calculated at the 1976 prices, will eventually be about R220 million per year. The recently completed Sishen-Saldanha railway line will be an important link in the future export of the above-mentioned minerals. To bring about the necessary infrastructure, the AggeneysGamsberg area is being provided with electricity and arrangements are being made to provide water by way of a pipe-line from the Orange River. Negotiations in connection with a gravel road of about 150 km to the Sishen-Saldanha railway line, which will serve both aforementioned areas, are still in progress.

However, it is not only the above-mentioned mineral sources, situated in the remote part of our country, which must remain undeveloped as a result of a shortage of capital—I say a shortage of capital because we know how difficult it is to get capital today—and a lack of infrastructure. Iscor has recently discovered coke in the Northern Transvaal, the deposit being estimated at least 100 million tons, whilst the already known anthracite deposits in KwaZula still have to be mined as well. The Bushveld igneus complex, which includes one of the world’s richest, if not the richest, mineral deposits, is a unique geological structure, covering an area of 66 000 square kilometres and situated about 100 kilometres north-west of Pretoria. This complex is virtually a treasure-house, in which the most valuable of mineral deposits occur, and it contains the world’s largest sources of platinum, chrome, vanadium and fluoride. More than 20 different minerals are already being mind in the complex.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member an opportunity to finish his speech.

Let me say thank you very much for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

The platinum group of minerals, and related copper and nickel, constitute more than 70% of the total value of minerals at present produced by the complex. No less than 80% of the world’s chrome ore occurs in the complex, and this is the basis of South Africa’s large ferro-chrome industry which is expected to earn more than R400 million by 1980, calculated at 1975 prices.

In the coal industry there is a tremendous need for capital investment, not only for the development of the production capacity of existing mines, but also for putting new mines into commission. Not only must provision be made for the foreseen need for energy and reduction agents for our mineral industry, in particular, but it is also of great importance that there should be an increase in the production of coal that can be economically mined. It is important that reserves be utilized to the maximum in future. I appeal to the Geological Survey Division and exploration companies to grant precedence to the search for new mineral sources in order to provide for the continually increasing demand for minerals. The National Institute for Metallurgy, which is already engaged in pioneer work, must be encouraged to continue with the development of new refining processes to keep pace with technical needs. The task of the Minerals Bureau, a branch of the Department of Mines, must be to cover the whole field of the mineral economy, as far as this involves the extension of Government policy, to provide for the optimum utilization of South Africa’s mineral sources.

No country in the world has yet succeeded in achieving greatness with an economy based solely on agriculture. Therefore it is that much more important for South Africa to earnestly and forcefully focus its attention on the development of its mineral sources with which Providence has so richly endowed it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Stilfontein covered the whole wide field of mining, minerals and the beneficiation of minerals in his speech, and he did so in fairly general terms.

However, he did not say anything with which I have any quarrel. I agree with him and we enjoyed his speech. However, I want to proceed with my own representations to the hon. the Minister, which I had to interrupt a short while ago.

†I was referring to the occupational diseases question and the need to overcome a conflict of interests among the workers in order to achieve greater comparability in respect of the benefits to workers in these industries as they tend to overlap to a large extent.

Another field in which I believe there is a need for a new look in the mining industry, is that of trade unions. I know trade unionism is a delicate subject and I do not want to draw what is essentially a labour matter into a debate on mines. However, it is in the mining industry where important break-throughs could be made. One cannot contemplate going on forever with an industry of this enormous importance, this enormous amplitude and assume that one may forever be able to continue without taking into serious account the question of trade union rights for Black people. I believe that there may be a tendency to delay these questions, to put them off, to assume that if we allow sufficient time to go by, time will bring its own solutions. I do not know that we are always right in this assumption. We have learnt in respect of matters such as South West Africa, such as the Cape Coloured people and others that in fact it is better to take time by the forelock, to do what needs to be done when the need to do so has become clear and inevitable. Then we gain advantage and we gain time; we are able to impose our will on the situation instead of being dragged along behind the wheels of something which has already passed us by. I believe it will be wise of the Government to anticipate events which are clearly inevitable in the long run and themselves to take the initiative while yet there is time to do these things in a correct and responsible way. I believe that the hon. the Minister could in these matters play a pioneer part. He could help to lead South Africa into a new social and economic order. The private mining industry did this itself when it led South Africa out of the agricultural era into a new industrial era. I believe the hon. the Minister has a similar responsibility in leading that aspect of the mining industry which falls under Government control and Government policy out of an old era into a new modern era in order that the development of mining may be accompanied by an equal modernization in the laws and administration which relate to mining.

There is also a need to deal with the co-ordination and planning of mining in South Africa. I have dealt on other occasions with the lack of co-ordination in the energy field. I accept that certain attempts are being made to co-ordinate the diverse interests which are spread through a number of departments. My time is limited and I do not want to repeat these arguments today. I believe, in respect of, for example, the Petrick report, which is a most important contribution to the rationalization and modernization of our coal industry, that while there are departmental and inter-departmental committees sitting, we need to look at this thing more radically. It is not just a question of bureaucratic adjustment; it is a question of getting down to the roots of a situation and deciding in what respects the whole mining economic scene should be reconsidered.

There is, closely connected with this, the question of the State corporations with their own autonomous control. I believe that so long as the State corporations operate independently, so long as the State corporations conduct their own economies, so long will it be difficult to co-ordinate those aspects which need to be co-ordinated. Let me mention one further example. There is the case of Bophuthatswana, a very rich mineral area. It will fall under its own Government and its own administration. It may become an independent State. Yet it is integrated inevitably and indivisibly with the economy of South Africa. There again there is the question of training, the question of trades, the question of how to employ certain people in new categories of mining, all of which need to be investigated. I believe these things hang together. They are not separable. We need to develop a new philosophy which will cover the conduct of our mining operations within Southern Africa as a whole.

I have referred to the question of the tendency to use inter-departmental committees to work out these things. This is an easy option, but it does not produce easy answers. They produce no magic formulae. If one looks at the reports of the departments concerned, it is clear that there is a very wide field of endeavour which either overlaps or does not touch sides at all. If we look at the activities of the Departments of Economic Affairs, of Mines, of Statistics, of Planning and the Environment, of Water Affairs and of Labour, we see that they all have interests which impinge on this great industry of mining in South Africa. To attempt to do these things inter-departmentally by mere bureaucratic adjustment will, I believe, be insufficient since we are dealing with a real revolution in the economy of South Africa. We need a fundamental reappraisal of the course and direction of the mining economy of modern South Africa. In saying this, I am however not pleading for greater State control. I believe that in the reduction of overlapping laws, in the removal of obsolete laws and in the simplification of the amount of Government control that is necessary in these matters, we will in fact be reducing the amount of State intervention in private enterprise. By cleaning up the Statute Book in this respect, we shall be introducing greater opportunities for private enterprise in South Africa and less restriction on their ability to use their initiative in the real economic interest of South Africa. I believe the hon. the Minister has the ability to do these things.

Sir, I believe the time has come for certain changes to be effected. In the statutory area which I have been describing, there is, I believe, room and a demand for a Minister who will do for South Africa what many people hope a new Minister will do for the international relations of South Africa. I believe we need a new inspiration and a new vision. I believe we need new ideas. I believe we need to be freed from the shackles of the past and from the outworn customs of the past. We need a new look in order that this enormously expanding, new industry, with the great promise it holds for South Africa, may be set free and may operate in the conditions of economic freedom and economic opportunity which will bring to South Africa those opportunities which not just the mining industry, but South Africa as a whole is badly in need of in the times in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Von Brandis must excuse me if I do not react to his speech. My time is unfortunately too limited to do so. I actually want to speak about a subject which I believe to be of very great importance in our country, i.e. the provision of the necessary trained manpower for the further development of our mineral potential. According to available statistics our mineral sales are still growing. To illustrate this, I just want to quote the following figures: In 1950 our mineral sales totalled R393,3 million; in 1960 the figure was R856,7 million; in 1970 it was R1 563,4 million; and in 1976 it was the gigantic sum of R4 468,6 million.

South Africa still has large reserves of a variety of minerals, including platinum, chrome, manganese, iron ore, phosphate, etc. Our country’s growth will still be dependant on mineral sources for many years to come. There are people who are already talking of the day when we will no longer have the necessary minerals for the maintenance of a satisfactory growth rate. The position, however, is much rosier than those people think. Based on reliable estimates of known reserves, we have enough iron ore to provide for the world’s needs for almost 700 years; enough aluminium in the form of bauxite for 200 years; chrome ore for 270 years; phosphate for 185 years and manganese for 55 years.

The question that now arises is whether South Africa has the necessary trained manpower for the further development of our mineral potential. It is no use at all our having so many mineral reserves at our disposal if we are not able to provide the trained manpower for their further development. Do we have the necessary facilities for the training of the manpower we need for the further development of the mining industry? Our minerals are in demand throughout the world, but are we able to supply them to potential trading partners?

Another aspect is that our production costs are increasing at a tremendous rate, and we shall have to start thinking of developing techniques for the cheaper mining of our minerals. For this we need trained personnel with the necessary know-how and ingenuity. One must add that our minerals must be exported in a refined form, not only so that we can obtain higher prices, but also so that we can create more job opportunities. If we could, in all respects, meet the requirements laid down by potential trading partners in connection with the supplying of minerals, our exports could increase together with our country’s growth rate.

The State Training College for Mineworkers has been, and still is, the chief source supplying White mineworkers for the gold mining industry. The college’s annual enrolment figure is about 1 045 students. Annually about 350 students qualify as mineworkers, an insufficient number to fill all the posts. Divisions of the college were active at 11 different gold mines during 1976. One quarter of the maintenance expenditure is borne by the State whilst the Chamber of Mines is liable for three quarters of the expenditure. At Witbank there is a training college for mineworkers and that college is administered and financed by the Chamber of Mines.

Annually the mining industry spends almost R28 million on the training of mining officials, specialists and workers who want to obtain diplomas or degrees in engineering, metallurgy and certain other fields of study. Young men with the necessary qualifications and ability are given the opportunity to go to university for academic training, the cost being borne by the mining industry. The mining industry also gives considerable financial support to the university departments of mining, engineering, metallurgy, geology, mineralogy and other branches connected with the mining industry.

As far as the provision of metallurgists, physicits, chemists, design engineers, etc., are concerned, the position is not all that rosy, in spite of the ample training facilities and financial support. Our country needs academically trained people in these fields in order to develop our mineral processing industry. Research must be done to find new or improved production methods, new uses for minerals, new mineral compounds with exceptional characteristics and new reduction methods. Those are matters engaging the attention of the National Institute for Metallurgy, and in 1970 the institute took the initiative in stimulating interest in that field. The results were encouraging, but not adequate to provide for our needs. The institute also makes bursaries available to post-graduate students. In 1972 18 postgraduate bursaries were granted, and 29 in 1977. The post-graduate students form an important part of the research potential in the field of extraction metallurgy and related sciences. In 1972—and these are important figures—it was estimated that at a normal rate of growth we would need 46 extra metallurgists in 1977. However, our universities only furnish an average of 18 per year.

As far as chemical engineers are concerned, the estimate is an extra 32 in 1977, and yet an average of only 16 qualify annually. When one gets to mining engineers, the figures are disquieting because in 1977 160 extra are needed for normal growth as against the average of only seven provided annually by our universities. And I have not even mentioned the other professional fields in which a serious manpower shortage is being experienced, for example amongst geologists, geochemists, mineralogists and mineral economists.

In the field of trained manpower for the further development of our mineral potential, the land lies fallow. We shall have to find the people for employment in these fields. There is apparently no lack of funds or training facilities, but interest must be generated. I want to make a serious appeal to our young people to make themselves available for training in these fields. The possibilities for progress are unlimited. The demand for mineral resources is continually increasing, and mineral-rich South Africa will have to embrace this challenge in order to maintain a satisfactory growth rate. If we cannot provide the necessary trained manpower, a great opportunity will be lost to South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be able to speak after the hon. member for Welkom. I think it was Langenhoven who said that one could call a fox a jackall but it still remained a fox. With apologies to Langenhoven, I want to say that one can call a Free Stater whatever one wants to, but he remains a Free Stater. [Interjections.] I am grateful for the fact that that Free Stater realizes the value of the mining of minerals in South Africa. That, of course, is something he learned in the Free State. He learned it in the development of the Free State gold-fields. After development of the Free State gold-fields started, the Free State developed into a province of some stature. [Interjections.]

The mining industry is a very important industry. As far as the economic conditions in South Africa are concerned, we are all aware of the fact that at present we are faced with great economic problems. However, today I want to state very clearly that I believe that in this day and age the mining industry must have absolute precedence because it is the industry which can make the greatest future contribution towards correcting our balance of payments. The mining industry is not a static industry. Neither is it a declining industry. Many people are under the impression that because ore is taken out of the soil of South Africa, it is irreplaceable. That is, in fact, true. However, South Africa has tremendous mineral wealth, geographically so situated that we shall be able to continue mining it for many years to come. At the moment the mining companies are faced with great problems as far as establishment new mines is concerned. This can chiefly be ascribed to the prevailing lack of the formation of capital. It is a tremendously expensive process to start up a mine.

When a mine is started up, it is not only the sinking of a shaft and the accommodation of the workers that are involved. Many of our rich mineral areas are so situated that they are far removed from water sources and railway lines. It therefore involves great capital expenditure to get a new mine going. The mining industry is nevertheless a fine industry, an industry in which, I believe, the young people of South Africa ought to show an interest. At universities, technical colleges and in mining bodies young people are already being given the opportunity to receive training with a view to a career in the mining industry. I want to emphasize that young people who receive training for a future in the mining industry are not entering a declining industry. They are joining an industry which is going to be of great significance to South Africa in the years ahead.

I should like to speak about an area that is well known to me. I am referring to the Bushveld igneous complex. The hon. member for Stilfontein also referred to this area. The area lies 100 km from Pretoria and covers 66 000 km2. I come from the heartland of the Bushveld igneous complex. I am proud of that fact. It is an area that has greater mineral wealth than that which the Witwatersrand complex has produced in the past and will produce in the future. That, of course, presupposes that the Bushveld igneous complex area is developed to its full potential. That, in fact, is an achievement. Geologically it has been proved that the Bushveld igneous complex has greater potential than the Witwatersrand complex. What is relevant here is not only what can happen in the future. The situation, however, is such that the mining of that area’s minerals is already taking place. Some of the biggest mines in the world already exist in the Bushveld igneous complex area. We find the biggest platinum mines in the world in that region. That region furnishes 80% of the world’s platinum and chrome.

For many years I have been in very close touch with the development of that area. It was not an easy task. There were many problems. For example, there were problems relating to the supply of water. Water had to be pumped to that area from the Witwatersrand. Everything possible was done to allow that area to come into its own. Geographically, demographically and historically the Bushveld igneous complex is so situated that it belongs to White South Africa, Bophuthatswana and Lebowa. That is an historical development. I believe that in the years ahead this set-up will have favourable results for both White South Africa and Bophuthatswana because there is economic interdependence between the two states. In its policy, South Africa has always given precedence to economic integrity as the most important means of bringing about sound inter-state relations. Within this framework the Bushveld complex is going to mean a tremendous amount to White South Africa, Bophuthatswana and Lebowa.

At present we have a problem with White mineworkers who are expressing concern about what their position will be, and I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would clarify the position. There must be no doubt about the future of that area.

The world is bowed down by a pressing shortage of minerals. America is the greatest world power, when it comes to money and strength, and they are blazoning it forth loudly. America is the powerful country that can produce so much, but America has a pressing shortage of certain minerals. Many people have the mistaken idea that minerals can only be used for luxury commodities. That is not the case. Man’s survival is dependent on minerals. There are certain minerals without which man cannot exist. That is why the mining industry is not only a material industry, but also a human industry. The mining industry is essential to the sound future, not only of the people of South Africa, but also of all the peoples of the world. That is why I say that the mining industry is engaged in a noble task. Throughout the years South Africa has proved that it has the know-how, scientific ability and initiative to be successful in the mining industry. I believe that in the future the mining industry will be one of the keys to the development of South Africa’s economy, thereby entrenching South Africa’s position in the world.

Mr. Chairman, for just more than a year the hon. the Minister has been responsible for this very important department, and I think it is fitting, on an occasion such as this, to express a few words of particular appreciation to him for the very competent way in which he has handled difficult situations during the past year. His handling of those situations has also helped to make the past year a flourishing year for South Africa in the field of mining. Through the hon. the Minister I also want to express my appreciation to the officials of the department for the handling of tricky situations in the past 12 months.

This afternoon I should like to refer to certification. In other words, I want to deal with the question of occupational diseases. To begin with I want to refer to the fact that the annual report states that the implementation of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act has not given rise to any unusual problems. I want to say at once that that is correct. I do not think there are any problems, though the problems that do arise actually lie on a totally different level. Before I discuss these problems, I also want to take this opportunity to record my personal thanks for the way one is always received by staff of the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases. I am one of those people who has to take some of my constituents there from time to time for examinations, and this afternoon I can very confidently attest to the fact that one gets nothing but the heartiest co-operation from the officials of the Bureau. I should like the hon. the Minister to take note of the fact that the officials’ co-operativeness really puts heart into one. The constituents that I take to the Bureau have also, on more than one occasion, told me that the examinations to which they subjected themselves were amongst the most thorough they have had for many years. I also want to express my particular appreciation for that fact.

Our mineworkers experience certain practical problems as far as certification is concerned. This has nothing to do with the foregoing case. I want to prove this with reference to the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Occupational Health. With reference to the mines, the following is stated on page 9 of the report—

This means that the mining industry as such is very much aware of the necessity for establishing the best possible health services for their workers. There must also be appreciation for that fact. That report also states that the principle that time and money spent on the health and welfare of the productive worker is, in the long run, a sound investment, is generally not sufficiently realized and appreciated at the present time. That statement, however, does not apply to the mining industry as such. It is with great appreciation that we take note of that.

There is, of course, the old problem that people with a long period of service behind them cannot be certificated. In the light of the report I do, however, want to ask the hon. the Minister if a case cannot be made out for having another look at this matter. I quote from page 11 of the report …

As far as I am concerned there is an in-built factor of uncertainty in the sense that there has not yet been adequate investigation for one to be able to say, without more ado, that a person who has been exposed to these conditions for a long time could not perhaps be suffering from some condition which would entitle him to some or other form of compensation.

There is the question of people with a long period of service who cannot be certificated. At present I am involved with five such cases. Some of those people have worked underground for more than 30 years. They worked under the poorest of conditions. When I speak of the poorest of conditions, I am referring to the difficult conditions under which these people work. However, I cannot go into that now. As a result of the weakening of their overall powers and their health, I believe them to be ill. They subject themselves to examinations and are told that they cannot be certificated. As a result they become frustrated. They say they are not being looked after properly. In the light of this report I really wonder—and I know that this matter is receiving attention at the moment—if some or other indication cannot be given at an early stage about whether it is not possible to have some or other form of extra compensation for long service by mineworkers.

The second matter I should like to refer to is the increasing unemployment amongst mineworkers in areas where mines have closed down. In many cases the people affected are mineworkers who have not yet reached retirement age. One of the people concerned told me that at 55 years of age he did not see his way clear to pulling up his roots there and moving to the Free State because in five years’ time he was to retire, in any case, and would then not feel at home in the Free State. He said that by that time he would already have broken the ties he previously had. People say that they cannot do this. They consequently rather decide to leave the mines. At a time when the economic position was sound, the city councils and other bodies were prepared to employ these people. Some of the workers were fairly sickly, but they could nevertheless make a living by working for municipalities and other bodies. Under present circumstances such a situation is no longer possible and that kind of unemployment is now becoming an increasing problem in those areas where mines are closing down. In many cases there are still young children at home who have to be looked after. Those people do not want to become a burden to the State and do not want to be dependent on social pensions or contributions from the State. They merely want an opportunity to do something so that the problem can be overcome. During these debates there have been frequent references to that problem, but some time or other we have to do something about it. Has the time not come to take a penetrating look at the possibility of giving those people the opportunity of being retrained for other work? This need not only be done when they have to leave the mines. For example, when they reach 50 years of age, they can be given the opportunity to be retrained for other work. If this cannot be done, the State and the mining industry will, some time or other, have to get together to launch a type of sheltered employment action in which those people can be incorporated so that they will, at least, have a day’s work to do. Their need is becoming a pressing one. They claim that they have devoted their whole lives to an industry which is of the very greatest importance to South Africa and that now, in old age and poor health, they deserve assistance. They do not merely want to be helped. They propose that the necessary steps be taken to rectify the situation in good time. I really want to lodge a plea with the hon. the Minister to give serious attention to that matter again in order to see whether he cannot also bring those people some peace of mind.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. members for Welkom, Rustenburg and Springs will excuse me if I do not react to all their arguments separately. I shall, however, deal with some of them in the course of my speech. One thing which we are all agreed upon is that the mining industry has always been the backbone of our economy. It has always been difficult to exaggerate its importance for our economic well-being, and that certainly is as true today, if not more so, than it has ever been. It is to our exports of minerals and metals, together with those of agriculture, that everyone is looking for the lead to our economic recovery. We have Hobson’s choice about that, because in the absence of an adequate inflow of foreign capital on reasonable terms and conditions, we have no other choice. Whether we can succeed in attracting such capital in future, turns on the policies of this Government rather than on the potential of our mining industry, which is vast. These are the circumstances in which we find ourselves and it is against that background that I would like to deal with a number of questions relating both to the gold and coal mining industries, industries which are of particular importance to our country at this point in time.

The first question I want to deal with, is that of the five-day working week for the miners as desired by the trade unions. The hon. the Minister will know that both the gold and the coal mines have opted for an 11-shift fortnight, which is described in the interim report of the commission of inquiry as being in the nature of a compromise. As such—I hope the hon. the Minister will agree with me—it sometimes transpires that the combined dissatisfaction of the parties involved in a compromise is sometimes greater than it was before, rather than being the same or less. The parties involved in this issue are not only the mineworkers, both Black and White, nor only the mining companies. Indeed, the economic health of all 26½ million South Africans is involved. It seems to me—and I hope the hon. the Minister will express his view in this regard—that the question of overriding importance at this point in time, certainly in so far as the gold and the coal mining industries are concerned, is production. We simply cannot for long afford a system which results in a lower level of production than could otherwise be achieved.

I naturally appreciate that this is a very complex question on which a whole host of matters impinge. The hon. the Minister may be aware of what the initial evidence is in this regard. I stress the word “initial” both because it is initial in the sense of a beginning and because it is difficult at this point of time to distinguish or define the reasons. The initial evidence is that under the 11-shift fortnight, production has fallen at a number of gold mines in South Africa, at some of them by as much as 3% to 8%. There is also a further indication, which the hon. the Minister may be aware of, that the numbers volunteering to do the incremental shift, namely the 12th shift, have begun to fall with consequent problems for efficiency on those mines. I am sure that this is a matter of concern for the hon. the Minister and no doubt he is watching the position closely. It seems to me, as suggested in the interim report, that it is possible that the best solution for the mining companies, for the mineworkers and for the country, is a seven-day operation of the mines with a five-day roster for those who work in them. This would naturally require a detailed investigation, both of its viability and indeed of its practicability. Furthermore, there should be agreement amongst all concerned as to what changes may be necessary or may be required. Should it be agreed to, subject to the implementation of such changes as may be necessitated, it would meet the main objectives of all the parties concerned, i.e. the not unreasonable desire of the Mineworkers’ Union for a five-day week, the continuous operation of the capital invested in the gold mines, the maintenance of their profitability and a higher level of production than might otherwise have been achieved. I must put a caveat on that; as I have said, it may not be on, but I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us whether a further investigation is going to be conducted into this possible solution.

When one talks about production and agrees that that is the overriding question, there are two other avenues which are open to improve the level of production. The first is obviously the question of productivity of both Black and White who work on the mines. This in essence means the better utilization of the available labour. There would undoubtedly be an immediate advantage to be gained by that but the really substantial benefits would not accrue overnight. I do not know whether the commission which the hon. the Minister referred to in his previous Vote is going to be concerned with labour and its legislation in so far as it applies to the mines, but if one is really going for substantial benefits which might accrue by utilizing the labour on the mines to the best advantage it involves, in the first instance, the removal of the colour bar, either in legal terms or in practice. However, almost more important is the subsequent training, both of White workers and of Black workers. The final and ultimate stage where the real benefits will accrue to South Africa is where we get to the position where one can finally promote on merit both White and Black workers to jobs for which they were not previously equipped.

There is another important point in regard to this question which impinges on production and that is the question of creating a more permanent and stable work force. This is obviously tied in with the question of drawing more and more of it from within South Africa. Here the mining industry has had considerable success in the last year or so, but the question of separation from their families remains a significant deterrent. The reverse side of the coin is the desirability of the provision of more married accommodation for those who are in that state. As I understand it—and I hope the hon. the Minister will tell me whether I am right or wrong—the present position is that foreigners are precluded from that and that the occupation of such housing is restricted to citizens of South Africa and of the homelands. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister firstly whether it is so and, secondly, if it is so, does it apply to citizens of the Transkei? Where do they stand? Are they classified and defined as foreigners? Equally important, what classification or definition will be given to the citizens of Bophuthatswana in the future when they become independent? If that is the case—and that is the definition—it is in fact negating the possibility of reaching the objective of a more stable and permanent work force in so far as they are concerned.

I would like to turn for a moment to the coal-mining industry. The feeling has been expressed in certain quarters that the price increases which have been granted in the last year or so, have unreasonably increased the profits of the coal-mining industry at the expense of its consumers and therefore at the expense of the general public. It is undoubtedly true that the profitability of the coal-mining industry has increased, but it must be borne in mind—and I hope the hon. the Minister will agree with me—that prior to these increases the profitability was so low that in the first place, it was becoming increasingly difficult for the industry to finance capital expenditure or even to maintain the level of production, let alone to modernize and mechanize it, or to achieve more efficient production both in the strict sense and in the sense of taking out a much higher percentage of coal from the ground. In the past large losses or inefficient mining were a direct result of that. In the second place, the profitability was not sufficient for the industry to upgrade or to provide new facilities. This is essential both because it is desirable in itself to provide these facilities for those who work in the coal mines and to avoid them falling even further behind the standard achieved by their competitors in comparison to what is offered by the coal-mining industry. The third, and almost the most important, thing for the coal-mining industry is to be able, because of its profitability, to attract the capital required to expand itself by the establishment of new mines. This is required for two purposes, firstly to increase the production to the levels necessary to meet the increase in domestic demand, and secondly, to take advantage of the opportunities which are available to us in the export market, and thereby to earn much-needed foreign exchange for South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg North touched on a large number of matters, and asked questions to which, I believe, the hon. the Minister will reply in full. I want to turn to a few other matters. When one looks at recent reports, they give rise to the hope that the economic world, which has been weighed down by a prolonged recession, is now starting to move in a direction of noticeable recovery. It is true that the mining industry in South Africa has experienced critical problems during the past two years. These problems were aggravated in particular by the dwindling prices on the world markets, especially for gold, platinum and copper, minerals which are important to South Africa. They were also aggravated by increasing operating costs and in addition to that, the mining industry experienced a serious shortage of Black labour during 1975. Fortunately, however, this position began to improve markedly during 1976, and it has now virtually returned to normal.

Fortunately, the shortage of Black labour that was experienced, resulted in only a marginal drop in the total tonnage that was milled by the gold-mining industry. The quality of the ore that was milled dropped by 6%, however, so that the 751 431 kilogrammes of gold produced in 1974 diminished to 701 204 kilogrammes in 1975. This represents a drop of almost 7%. This drop of 7% in the gold output and the 27% increase in operating costs resulted in a drop of 16% in the operating profit before tax. The consequence of this drop was that the State’s revenue from tax and its share of the profits diminished from R813 million in 1974 to R629 million in 1975. In the same year, however, the Government’s assistance to gold mines amounted to R17,8 million as against only R1 million in 1974. The figures for 1976 are not yet readily available, but the indications are that the picture they present will be even worse. The only ray of light for South Africa in this sombre picture is that in 1975 total mineral exports exceeded R4 000 million for the first time, representing an increase of 5,2% over the exports of the previous year. The lesson South Africa has to learn from this is that in future we should not rely so heavily on our gold-mining industry but should rather encourage and promote the development and production of other minerals which, in the main, are of greater significance than gold.

That brings me to a very important matter which I should like the hon. the Minister to consider, viz. the question of mineral refinement. Much is already being done in South Africa in respect of mineral refinement, particularly as a result of recent incentives by the Government relating to certain levels of refinement. However, I should like to see a general mineral refinement programme put into effect in South Africa as soon as possible.

Just as a specific programme with regard to local content has been drawn up for the motor industry, so a local mineral refinement programme should be drawn up for the mining industry in respect of all minerals resources that are subjected to refinement either here or abroad. A portion of South Africa’s minerals should be exported in a refined form and this percentage should increase progressively over a period to be agreed on by the Government and the mining industry. I am appealing for a local mineral refinement programme for South Africa because the bulk exports of ore requires projects amounting to millions of rands, projects like such as the Sishen-Saldanha railway line, the Saldanha Bay harbour, the Richards Bay harbour, and others in which the Government had to make a capital investment in order to promote the export of minerals.

We could say that those projects were a useful addition to South Africa’s infrastructure, but the same objectives could be achieved in connection with the export of minerals if refined minerals were to be exported in a compact form, as has already been done with gold and certain other minerals. I am making this appeal for a mineral refinement programme because it would solve many of South Africa’s transportation problems. I am thinking, for example, of the recent problems that were experienced with the events in Mozambique when we could not export minerals freely through the harbour of Maputo. Fortunately, the co-operation that arose between the Government of Mozambique and the S.A. Railways and harbours brought about a speedy solution to the problem. However, we have no guarantee that this will not happen again in the future.

One has good cause to become excited about a mineral refinement programme for South Africa. Not only does it have the potential of enhancing South Africa’s stature as an industrial country drastically, but it also affords the possibility of being a method of combating unemployment effectively. It also affords new challenges to science, to the expertise and skill of our people and in times of an economic slump, this could earn valuable foreign exchange for South Africa. Moreover, by-products and secondary industries could also develop such comprehensive mineral refinement programme. In fact, I think the possibilities are endless.

I should like to refer briefly to the two other aspects. Firstly, it is an important and also laudable fact that the mining industry’s development and research programme has increased threefold during the past two years. Particular emphasis has been placed on mechanical stopping methods whereby less dangerous and less exhausting working conditions have been created for miners so that productivity may be increased. It is true that research remains the basis for all developments and all progress in any industrial country. That is why I want to congratulate the mining industry on what has been achieved in this field during the past two years. I am still convinced that an eventual total mineral refinement programme for South Africa is not beyond the ingenuity and capital capacity of our mining industry in South Africa, and that is why I want to appeal to the mining industry as well to devote particular attention to this aspect in co-operation with the Government.

Finally, I should like to say a few words of tribute to the management of the entire mining industry in South Africa as well as to the hundreds and thousands of Black miners who were responsible for the fact that not a single stone was snatched up on the mines during the recent riots, and that nary a finger was lifted to aid unrest and rebellion. This is proof of the fact that it was unrest and rebellion by youths and that the agitators inspired emotional juveniles to initiate murder, arson and larceny. That is why I should like to express a word of praise about this sector of our society, which, in my opinion, deserves it and which has set an example to South Africa, showing us what it is like when industrial peace prevails.

Mr. Chairman, across the floor of this House figures have frequently been quoted in connection with South Africa’s position in regard to minerals, and today we have also been listening to very impressive figures. However, when one looks with a critical eye at such published figures about South Africa, and similar figures about the rest of the world, and when one tries to determine South Africa’s relative position as far as various minerals are concerned, one finds a veritable confusion of tongues with regard to the nature of the figures and the terminology used. For example, one finds the word “sources” and “reserves” used as if they are synonymous. One finds references to reserves that have been found and one is given to understand that they have already been found, but if one digs a little deeper one learns that a very large portion of these reserves have been quantified on the basis of probability studies and statistical prediction methods. I therefore think it is essential that we be very responsible when we start interpreting these figures and this terminology. We must understand that a great deal of work still has to be done in standardizing these figures on an international basis. If we in South Africa make calculations relating to our international position, we must be very sure that the figures for the outside world have indeed been calculated on the same basis and classified in the same way as the figures that we use and we must also be very sure we are using the same terminology.

A source refers solely to an existing ore deposit and to nothing else. When we speak of a reserve, we are speaking about that amount of a source that can be mined economically in accordance with today’s prices and today’s technology. We must therefore never confuse these two terms. It is certainly also quite clear to us all that the concept “reserves” is a dynamic concept and that reserves calculated for a specific date apply only to that date because the whole situation could change within a question of days. When we in South Africa speak about our position, seen from an international point of view, we must know that we must very definitely link up that data to a specific date because those figures and our relative position are linked to the prices and technology available at that specific moment. In that connection it is interesting to note that over the past ten years the USA’s so-called exploitable coal source varied from 20 milliard tons earlier on to 380 milliard tons today, because the whole price structure had meanwhile changed and because the use of various grades of coal had changed so that certain grades of coal can now also be used. This is something that has been made possible technologically.

If we look at South Africa’s position, and because we attach so much value to our mineral position, not only in view of the contribution to our economy—a great deal has already been said about that—but also in view of the strategic importance of the minerals to the Free World, we must take very careful note of this changeability in the position of our reserves locally and the position relative to the international position. That is why one takes appreciative note of the work done by the various sections of the department to broaden our knowledge of what is going on in the field of minerals in South Africa. There are also the commodity studies they did in order to determine our position internationally.

However, these studies are not an end in themselves. All this data is inevitably collected to enable us to ask ourselves a few cardinal questions: Do we have enough of a specific mineral for our own purposes, and if so, do we have enough for export? If so, in what form must we export it? We must also be very sure that we are not in a vulnerable position with regard to those minerals we have to import. We must see whether we can develop substitutes for those strategic commodities that we import at present from a source from which we could possibly be cut off in future.

There are many other aspects involved in this matter. My plea to the hon. the Minister today is therefore for the urgent development of an overall and co-ordinated mineral policy in South Africa which even goes much further than the formulation to be found in the report of the Minerals Bureau contained in the report of the Secretary of the Department. One must formulate several objectives for oneself when one draws up such a policy. One of those concerns our economic objectives with respect to our mineral policy. Another concerns our strategic objectives. There are also our political and social objectives in regard to the exploitation of our mineral wealth. There is unfortunately not enough time to go into each of these in detail. However, I want to illustrate a few aspects of the interaction between the various objectives. One must take note of the local demand and the trends that are manifested in that connection. One must also take note of the international demand, the international pattern and the projected trend of that pattern. A very important matter that also crops up in future demand pattern is, of course, the question of substitutes. In certain technologies shortages of certain minerals have developed. In good time, however, the relevant technology abandons the use of the relevant mineral and concentrates on replacing the scarce mineral with another mineral that is more readily available. In this respect one thinks, for example, of the various grades of coal. If provision is not made in good time for the utilization of the kinds of coal for which there is a demand today, in the long run we are going to find ourselves with masses of coal that has no technological significance whatsoever.

In the process of drawing up a mineral policy it is therefore not only necessary to know what there is, where it is and how much of it exists. It must also be determined what the grade of the deposit is and how adaptable that specific kind of ore is to the existing processing installations and processes. It must also be determined what mining methods have to be used for the efficient mining of the specific ore. What is also of importance is the location of the source in relation to the existing markets and the existing infrastructure. There must also be an answer to the question about what technological development there is with regard to every available type of mineral.

Then there are also other economic, political and social considerations that crop up. The effect on the environment, when minerals are exploited, must not be lost sight of either. That is an aspect about which environmentalists frequently complain and must also be taken into account. There is consequently a mass of information that has to be gathered by a specific person or body, must be processed, formulated and embodied in an overall mineral policy. This is necessary in order to find an answer to the question about when there are adequate supplies of a specific mineral so that one can begin exporting it. Only then can one meaningfully begin selling that mineral.

When one looks at the existing outlets for minerals, when one takes note of certain large industrial countries and the part South Africa plays in the export of ore to those countries, one finds that there are still several countries in which South Africa could still considerably expand its marketing commitment by way of a properly co-ordinated marketing effort. What this could be worth to South Africa in foreign exchange is an aspect that has already been discussed here today. However, we do not dare to begin exporting all kinds of minerals on a large scale, whether in unprocessed or in processed form, unless we have an overall policy in terms of which we can determine what minerals are strategically necessary to us, i.e. what minerals are now absolutely indispensable to us and will be absolutely indispensable in the future. Such a policy already applies, to a large extent, with regard to coal. From the report it is apparent that a similar policy is developing in regard to other minerals. I want to argue, however, that we should handle this aspect in such a way as to bring about spectacular developments in the mining industry in South Africa. One thing is certain, and that is that the export of minerals, in all their various forms, will continue to play a fundamental role in our economic activities. This will be the case in this country, particularly with respect to the provision of employment, but also with regard to export.

There are also further aspects that crop up when one thinks of export. There are, for example, four different ways in which iron can be exported.

It must be decided what combinations of export methods and what combinations of types of iron must be used to furnish the maximum yield. Neither can one simply concentrate on one particular type of mineral for export purposes, because another overseas marketer could undercut one’s prices and cause one’s own market to come crashing down. Apart from all the other benefits that can stem from the refining of metals—the hon. member for Parys referred to that—there are also all these other factors that must be duly taken into account when a policy concerning the exploitation of minerals is formulated. I believe that if we can utilize our mineral wealth in South Africa in this ordered fashion, we could make a tremendous contribution to the economic development of South Africa. Then we could also supply the necessary funds to develop our social pattern in such a way that everyone in this country could obtain his rightful share of the wealth available to us all. However, it is only possible if this is done in a responsible manner and if it is based on proper planning. South Africa already has the necessary know-how. The minerals are there. The technology exists. In many respects South Africa is a pioneer. All that is necessary now, is that all these aspects should be linked up under one overall policy for the benefit of South Africa and all its people.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Florida on his very thorough and brilliant speech. During the past year a ten-week strike occurred in the diamond-cutting industry due to a dispute which arose because Coloured operators also wanted to be allowed to cut small diamonds of up to and including one carat. It was only after South Africa had lost R18 million in foreign exchange and the diamond workers had forfeited Rl,5 million in wages that the cutters and the union came to an agreement. Now a situation has arisen in which non-White cutters may cut diamonds of up to and including 1,19 carats. This arrangement only applies until 19 July 1977.

For many years, the Northern Cape Regional Development Association has been pleading and making representations for the establishment of a diamond cutting industry in Kimberley for cutting diamonds of up to and including one carat, by placing this on the agenda at congress after congress. The association has been unable to succeed in this, but after a strike that cost South Africa millions of rand indirectly, the diamond-cutting industry was in fact opened to both male and female Coloureds and Indians. They are allowed to cut diamonds of up to and including 1,19 carats.

Kimberley is a declared Coloured growth-point. At the time, in 1974, I wanted to advocate in my maiden speech that the diamond industry be established in Kimberley. I did not do so because the then Minister of Mines asked me not to make my speech on that subject. I now want to ask the present hon. the Minister to investigate every possible method of getting the diamondcutting industry established in Kimberley.

Were I to draw up a list of priorities of South Africa’s assets, I would place her human material first and her tremendous mineral riches second on the list. In our present economic and political depression, it seems as if the world wants to flatten us by force. Against this background it is becoming progressively clearer that we cannot convince the world of the importance of the sea route around the Cape for the safe conveyance of oil between East and West. Apparently, we are not succeeding in convincing the world of our strategic military position in respect of the Cape sea route either, nor of the importance of our tremendous mineral resources and the strategic minerals we can supply to the free Western world. Nevertheless, our trump card will remain our mineral wealth.

For this reason, I agree absolutely with the statements made by the hon. member for Parys on the refinement of our mineral wealth. It is in this that I see the solution over the long term. We must commit ourselves to long term planning in an attempt to make ourselves completely independent of the Western world. At present, we are exporting millions of tons of iron ore and other ore to all parts of the world. We possess more than 75% to 80% of the world’s chrome ore supplies. Chromite is produced from chrome ore and this, in turn, is used in the production of ferro-chrome which is processed into stainless steel.

Instead of supplying the world with millions of tons of ore, we should try to reverse the position and supply the world with steel. We must become one of the world’s largest suppliers of stainless steel. Then we would be in a far better bargaining position. In this way, we could create a better future, not only for my children, but for everyone—White, Brown and Black in South Africa. There would be better employment opportunities. There would be a greatly increased income per capita. In general, our standard of living would rise tremendously. We could have industrial happiness to the end of our days.

All these things are possible on one condition only. Just as the first diamond that was picked up in 1867 in the district of Hopetown was the start of tremendous mining and manufacturing development and of an economic explosion during the past 50 years, so the diamond can once again be the key to tremendous development in South Africa in the near future. We must cut the diamond. We could become one of the biggest diamond-cutting countries in the world. There is no reason why South Africa should not become one of them. If we think of Israel, for example, which does not extract a single diamond from its soil but which earns more than $800 million per annum by cutting diamonds which it imports from all over the world—from this country as well—then there is no reason why South Africa should not develop, indeed it must develop. If we move in that direction, then I foresee a bounteous future for all the peoples of South Africa, one in harmony with our aspiration that every people obtain its own independence and maintain its own identity. Then we shall have to be economically independent. We shall have to be less dependent on the West and the West will have to be dependent on South Africa to a far greater extent. We have the manpower, the minerals and the will to survive in South Africa. With this, we can form a bulwark against communism.

Mr. Chairman, before I proceed with the topic I wish to discuss, there are a few words I want to say to the hon. the Minister to remind him not to forget to reply to those questions I put during the discussion of the Labour Vote concerning the labour relationships and the training of the Bantu in the homelands.

I want to say to the hon. member for Springs that I wholeheartedly agree with what he has said about the training of mineworkers. It is something we on this side of the House have spoken about for several years. I have made the suggestion here that mineworkers should be trained for an alternate occupation so that they can be employed when they retire from the mines, but that suggestion has been rejected out of hand. I am pleased that now it has been taken up again and that we are getting the support of people like the hon. member for Springs.

I also wholeheartedly agree with the speech made by the hon. member for Kimberley South in relation to the cutting of diamonds in our country. I think it is most important. It will be good if the hon. the Minister follows this up as soon as possible.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about occupational health and health hazards on the mines. This is something which perturbs me greatly. I have spoken about it previously, but I wish to emphasize today what I have spoken about before. I shall do so as briefly as possible. We notice, from the available figures in reports, and according to the statistics which we have in front of us, that compensation for a disease usually comes about after 25,43 years of service underground or in a dusty atmosphere. In this regard I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is not only one report dealing with health; there is another report which deals with accidents, apart from the ordinary health hazards that we deal with on the mines. We also find that the average age of a person who has spent 25 years underground and who has received compensation for the first time after 25 years, is 55,56 years. In other words, it has taken 25 years for the disease to develop. Such a man is entitled to compensation according to the findings. According to some hon. members who have spoken this afternoon, some people have been working in the mines for more than 30 years without receiving any compensation.

40 years.

Well, these people can consider themselves very lucky that they do not have the disease. On the other hand these people are very disgruntled, because they feel that they are not being treated properly and that they are the unlucky ones when it comes to examinations. This may or may not be true. I know that our medical services try to give every man a very satisfactory examination. Pneumoconiosis is the one occupational disease which many people do not know they are suffering from, until it is found out after their death. These people are usually compensated for the first time after death. What perturbs me more than anything else is that when a man is certified for the first time at 55 years of age, the same statistics show that he will probably die five years later. The average death age for these men is 60,85 years. In other words, a man who has been compensated when he is 55 years of age, cannot expect to live longer than five years. I agree that compensation costs a lot of money, but these people live under a hazard because they have to work in a dusty atmosphere.

There are, however, other hazards as well which they are being subjected to. The term “risk-work” is applied to people who work in a dusty atmosphere, but the risks they are subjected to, are far above that. Every time a man goes underground he takes a risk, as I shall indicate presently. My plea to the hon. the Minister is to give consideration to giving a man who has worked underground for 25 years, the option of going on pension. He must be able to go off on a pension which is at least equivalent to that of those people who are put out because of pneumoconiosis in one degree or another.

I referred to the fact that these men are doing risk-work. Not only does such a man lay himself open to the diseases which are associated with dust, for example pneumoconiosis, asbestosis, etc., but he lays himself open to the risk of getting tuberculosis as well, because of the state of his lungs. What I am very perturbed about is that, even in the enlightened days that we are passing through now in regard to medicine, the prevention by medicine and the ability to combat tuberculosis, I still find that the number of people suffering from tuberculosis has gone up during the past year. There were not many more cases amongst the White persons but a considerable number among the Blacks. I am taking into consideration the large number of Blacks that are working in relation to the smaller number of Whites that are working. If one estimates that there are a maximum of 40 000 White workers, one would expect nearly 400 000 Blacks, which is ten times as much. However, the figures are much higher than that on a percentage basis. The figures for the Black people have gone up from 1 530 to 2 210. That is the risk that the mineworker takes and that is the risk that we have to take notice of. We have to see what we can do to combat it.

On top of this we come to the question of accidents on mines. I spoke about this last year and the year before. Those of us who were fortunate enough to visit these mines to see how they were working were really and truly impressed by the precautions that the mine managements are taking in regard to accidents. They are taking every possible precaution, but in spite of that we find some ridiculous sorts of accidents happening and I want to refer to one in particular, which occurred at Bracken Mines. It is described as follows on page 19 of the report of the Department of Mines—

This means that no precautions were taken in examining that vehicle before this explosion took place. What sort of management allows that to happen?

How can you say that?

There was a fault in the car. It is stated in the report that the strap broke. What does that mean? Does it mean that it was in a good condition? Does it mean that the report is lying and that no friction took place? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has no comprehension of the circumstances prevailing there. If he had gone underground and had seen the method of transporting explosives, he would have understood why that wheel had caused friction. In any undertaking concerned with transport, it is a normal phenomenon for friction to occur between two elements at some time or other and this may cause a spark. One often finds that a wagon on the Railways catches fire when something like this happens, and this may happen even if the wagon has been subjected to a routine inspection beforehand. After all, one cannot predict what is going to happen in the future. In this case, after a routine inspection had been made, everything appeared to be in order on the surface. We have discussed the matter of accidents in the mines with the hon. member before. It is true that people in the mining industry are going deeper and deeper into the earth today and that certain abnormal conditions prevail there. If one is at a level of 15 000 feet in a mine such as Western Deep Levels or the ERPM Mine, one experiences exceptional problems. If one leaves a face unworked for a few days, it is full of cracks when one resumes work there after two or more days. One must work without stopping so as to have solid rock before one at all times, otherwise one encounters problems. Sometimes one cannot carry on working because specific hampering factors arise. Yesterday I described the commission’s report on a five-day working week as a fine one, and in that report, mention is made of certain problems the mining industry is facing. One of the problems to which the hon. member referred, viz. the five-day working week, is in fact dealt with in the report. Hon. members can imagine what would happen if we worked only from Monday to Friday as the Mineworkers’ Union would have it. If one stopped work 15 000 feet underground for two days, it would mean that one could not carry on from where one had stopped that work without taking safety measures as it would be dangerous for the mineworkers to work there. That is why I agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg North as regards five day’s work in a scheduled seven-day working week. It seems to me to be the solution. But now the Mineworkers’ Union wants to work only five days, i.e. from Monday to Friday. In my opinion, this could give us tremendous economic problems, as the report of the commission indicates.

I describe it as a fine report because it gives us a very good indication of the problems the gold-mining industry has. It also refers to problems in the coal-mining industry, but in the main it deals with problems in the gold-mining industry. I find it a pity that the report has not been circulated amongst members. I had to go to the Clerk of the Papers to study this report. I think such a valuable report ought to be printed, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not have it printed for us and circulated amongst us.

Unfortunately, I was absent for a short time during this discussion. I found the refreshing breeze in the speech made by the hon. member for Florida very interesting. I agree with him, but I want to point out that the requests he made are already being complied with by various mining companies. I am thinking, for example, of the tremendous scope of the work which a large mining company, namely Anglo-American, is doing into marketing and research. In that regard, I am thinking of the reasons why that company entered the steel industry and went in for the production of vanadium and so on. This just goes to show that they investigated that matter a long time ago and conducted research into that project. In the same way, I could name various other companies which I am aware of and which keep up to date as far as marketing and world-wide tendencies in the metallurgical and smelting industry are concerned.

The hon. member for Parys referred to the necessity to introduce a refinement programme. We cannot really raise any objection to that, but it does give rise to certain problems. We would, in fact, like to refine the minerals here because, as the hon. member said, we want to create employment opportunities for our people. We have the resources and we will be solving our transportation problems. The problem is, however, that one would first have to investigate marketing and related matters. One would first have to investigate whether the people overseas want that refined product. I am thinking of the problem we recently had with our ferro-chrome. Other countries such as Japan and the USA took it initially, but at one stage they suddenly did not want it any more. This created many problems.

In the same way other facets of our mineral industry may be mentioned. Perhaps hon. members are correct in saying that our mineral attachés abroad ought to investigate these matters. They could obtain valuable information abroad. They could investigate the scientific tendencies in commerce and industry, and the purposes for which elements derived from the minerals are used. There are certain facets of our mineral products, however, certain chemical compounds, which can result in the ore being unacceptable. I am thinking, for example of our chromium which contains a certain quantity of iron. Initially, our chromium in its refined form was unacceptable in the USA. The USA always used Rhodesian chrome because that product did not have that additional iron in its atomic molecular structure. This gave them problems which were subsequently solved through research. To the base metal industry this is an extremely important matter. I think the further solution is to be found in the planned periodic investigations conducted by our mineral bureau. They are occupying themselves chiefly with that matter. If, as the hon. member for Florida said, the necessary coordination could be effected with the private sector in particular and all the information could be gathered, this would help a great deal. This is extremely important, because much of the work which, according to the hon. member, has to be tackled, is already being done by our private mining companies, because they have the necessary capital and staff available for investigations with an eye to a wider field of investment. This was a good opportunity for them to branch out from the mining industry and to develop our base metals. That is why they have already done a lot of the research work to which the hon. member referred.

The hon. member for Kimberley South referred to the question of diamond cutting. Hon. members are always inclined, as the hon. member for Kimberley South is, to ask in this House that the State investigate a certain matter and initiate a certain industry. We want certain projects to be tackled. I think the hon. the Minister will certainly do everything in his power to comply with those requests, but this requires capital. Another consequence of this is that we are accused of introducing socialism in respect of certain industries which are privately owned at the moment. That is the danger inherent in this. The biggest problem in respect of all these matters concerning the mining industry, however, is the availability of development capital. Yesterday, I quoted a passage relating to the question of inflation from the report of the body which conducted an investigation into the five-day working week. The need for capital was once again pointed out in that report. Even if we were to discover a gold-field today that was as large as that of the Witwatersrand, or a chromium deposit as large as that of the Bushveld complex, we simply would not have the capital to exploit it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to the speech of the hon. member because I have a particular matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It concerns modern coal mining in the eastern Highveld of the Transvaal. Hon. members will know that the Petrick Commission was concerned about the exploitation of coal mines in that particular area. The conventional method of coal mining, i.e. the underground shaft method, allows an exploitation of 25% at most while the more modern method, namely the strip mining system, allows an exploitation of much as 95%. Consequently we can exploit this very valuable strategic mineral, coal, which is our most important source of energy, far more beneficially by means of this modern method. Since the eastern Highveld is also a very intensive agricultural area, some of the most valuable agricultural land may be lost in this process. This strip mining takes up tremendously large areas. One has to go down to a depth of 30 metres in order to reach the coal deposit. The various materials which are removed are stored on the sides of the strip. After that, when the coal has been removed, these large amounts of waste material are pushed back into the open rift, but in the process the top-soil and various materials, for example clay and stones are mixed and the result is that the area becomes useless for agricultural purposes. From inquiries addressed to mining concerns who apply this type of mining activity, it seems that it is uneconomic to replace the various layers of ground and that it would entail tremendously high costs. I want to add immediately that in the eastern Highveld area there are some mining concerns who are doing very valuable research work in order to see whether they cannot succeed in some way or other in establishing a type of grass on this soil. These people are doing very valuable work.

We must take note of the fact that a conflict situation is arising. There is the extensive exploitation of the very important mineral, but this also is in conflict with a scarce agricultural resource in the Highveld. It is certainly necessary for us to have this mining and agricultural activity harmonizing with one another as far as possible, no matter how difficult it may be. Firstly, we cannot expect the mining concerns to do all this research work. It is a long-term process. Nor can we expect agriculture to do all the research work. Extremely high costs are involved. That is why we want to ask the hon. the Minister to seek funds in some way or other, on a very broad basis, in order to have intensive research done in the eastern Highveld in this connection. Various countries in the outside world have been considered. In Canada there is a method according to which they replace the various layers, but the formations in South Africa are not the same. We shall have to do special research in South Africa, adopted to the structures of our formations. We ask for very intensive research to be done in this regard in the interests of both agriculture as well as mining.

We should also like to take a look at this problem in the short term. I think it is very important that, since there are large deposits of coal in the eastern Highveld, agriculture together with mining, should see to it that unnecessary strip mining should not be applied on the good Avalon and Hutton soils. In that area of the eastern Highveld there is also poorer agricultural land which has underground layers of coal. Strip-mining processes will not have such a disadvantageous effect upon that ground. Co-operation between agriculture and mining is particularly important in this respect.

In co-operation with these two departments and these two bodies once again, it will also have to be seen that when mining occupies land in that area, it will be limited as far as possible to mining activities, because our experience is that the mining firms occupy unnecessarily large areas of land for many other activities besides purely mining activities. The additional area is taken up by the infrastructure which accompanies the higher development. This must also be limited so that land is not wasted and trampled unnecessarily in this way. We should be pleased if the hon. the Minister could take a very serious look at these few aspects.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bethal made certain comments about strip mining. With regard to the environmental aspects and the efforts to restore the land so that it can be used in the same way as before, mining companies are already under certain regulations. As far as we are concerned, naturally, we would like to achieve the same aim, or as close to it as possible. On the other hand, we have to point out that strip mining as such allows a much higher extraction of the coal which would otherwise be left in the ground. If we look at the whole energy picture for our country until the end of this century and the beginning of the next, it is quite clear that we certainly cannot afford to use the same inefficient coal-mining methods which we followed in the past. I think it is fairly common cause that one can only expect the price of oil to rise over the balance of this century, simply on the grounds that there is, at this point in time, no other known alternative source which can be commercially produced in the quantities which are required for transport in the world. By that I mean aircraft, ships and motor-cars. Therefore, the question of the extraction of coal becomes extremely important.

Before I refer back to my earlier speech, I want to refer to the hon. member for Kimberley South. Let us be quite clear about it. I think it is in the interests of everybody in South Africa that where diamonds can be economically cut and polished in South Africa, that is naturally what should happen. The hon. member is no doubt aware, as indeed the hon. Minister will be, that the local diamond cutting industry already has a measure of protection. Further, there is the fact that they are incapable of dealing with stones of a certain size. That affords some explanation of why the industry in Israel concentrates on particular sizes which the industry in South Africa is still unable to cope with. However, we certainly support the idea that where it can be done competitively, diamonds should be cut and polished in South Africa.

To return to the question of the price of coal in this country, I want to say something about the future of this industry. To my mind it can by no means be assumed that the price has yet reached the level which is necessary to ensure the industry’s ability to reach the objectives which I mentioned in my earlier speech. It is also clear that it cannot be assumed that upward adjustments will not be required, due to the rate of inflation. Let there be no mistake about it. We in this country are extraordinarily well placed in relation to other countries, because it is estimated that of our total energy consumption, some 73% comes from coal. This should be seen in contrast with the rest of the world where, on the average, some 66% of their energy comes from petroleum. Indeed, in our country more than 75% of the consumption of oil is concentrated on refined oil products used in the automotive industry. It is really the rest of the world which has to try to simulate the position in which we happily find ourselves, where oil is reserved predominantly for the use in automobiles, lorries and trucks.

It is therefore absolutely essential that, if we are to maintain this fortunate position in which we find ourselves, the price of coal should from time to time be adjusted to let our coal-mining industry keep us in such a favourable position.

There are only two other points on which I would like to touch. One of them was referred to earlier, I think, by the hon. member for Rustenburg. The hon. member is not here at the moment. He touched on the importance of infrastructure. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the following plea which I would like to put forward. Given our present circumstances, it is really the export revenues which are absolutely vital to lead any economic recovery. I do not want to become involved in the reasons why there is not an adequate capital inflow, because that does not come into this Vote. It is absolutely vital, if at all possible, that we should press ahead with new deposits as and when they are found, and when their viability is established, in terms of capital expenditure, as well as all the other variables which are applicable. As I understand it, in the case of the Aggeneis project, the Black Mountain project and, presumably, also the Gamsberg project, the speed with which they can proceed depends to a very great extent on an agreement being reached with the Government in regard to the appointment of the infrastructure between the mining companies and the Government itself. One of the owners of the properties on which these projects are being developed happens to be a partnership while the other is still predominantly owned by a foreign investor. When one is talking about apportionments one is naturally talking about water, railway lines and, indeed, also housing. I hope the hon. the Minister will confirm that he regards the role of the Government in picking up its share of the infrastructure commitment as one of the highest priorities as we look out into the future, for the economic prosperity of all of us.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North will excuse me if I do not react to what he said in his second speech. I will return to what he said in his first speech, since I also want to talk about the five day mining week. It is well-known and accepted that the mining industry is the backbone of the economy of the country. It is very clear that it is the largest single factor in ensuring a favourable balance of payments. As an example I want to mention the fact that gold provided nearly R2 400 million last year, while the Government will receive approximately R370 million in tax for the past financial year.

It is equally true, however, that the miner as such, together with the mining industry, forms the backbone of the economy. That is why the miner feels unfairly treated because he does not share the advantages which many other workers have. The miners find it difficult to accept that they, who are employed in such an important industry, have to work six or more days a week, while the Public Service works only five days. The miners are not unprepared to play their part as well; indeed, the miners’ union has already declared that they are also prepared to work six days a week if the Public Service will also be prepared to work for a period of 48 hours over six days. Personally, I think that these people have a morally justifiable argument; indeed, I think it would be the ideal state of affairs in the country if all sectors were to work six days a week. It will definitely be the best method of ensuring a higher growth rate as well as combating inflation.

On the other hand, it is also true that the working conditions of various businesses differ. It is very clear to me that an extra half hour of working time per day in the Public Service, for instance, can ensure that the same amount of work is carried out in a five-day working week and that the same level of productivity can be maintained as well, but—and this is important—without an additional capital investment or without expensive machinery standing unused on the sixth day of the week, the Saturday.

In contrast, there are many industries that simply cannot work five days a week, due to the type of work they do, due to certain demands made on that specific industry by society or due to the fact that this business may be forced to work six or even seven days a week in order to keep the costs as low as possible. I am referring to the Police, the Defence Force, the Railways and Harbours, Posts and Telecommunications, hospitals, Sasol and Escom. These are all bodies which work seven days a week.

The Chamber of Mines and the Franzsen Commission accepted a five-day working week in principle. However, the point of difference lies in the fact that they cannot agree with one another on the manner in which the changeover from a six-day working week to a five-day working week should take place. On the one hand, the Miners’ Union maintains that such a changeover need not affect production at all and will cause practically no change. On the other hand, there is the trade union which maintains that the working method that would be necessary for the changeover to a five-day working week, would actually amount to suicide as far as they are concerned. The Chamber of Mines in turn maintains that there will definitely be a loss in production if there is a changeover to a five-day working week. They also allege that this loss of production will be accompanied by additional capital and labour costs.

Having read this report and thought about it a little, I think that there are a few problems which will stem from a changeover from a six-day working week to a five-day working week. I should like to refer to them briefly. Firstly, it is very clear to me that the marginal profit mines will not be able to increase their margin of payability by mining more gold from a smaller tonnage of ore and that they will necessarily have to close down. If production is to be maintained, this will demand more capital and labour costs. Under the present circumstances it is very difficult to obtain capital. If the labour costs should rise, the profit must necessarily fall. Our country cannot afford this either. If, as provided by the Factories Act, 46 hours have to be worked per five-day working week, what this will amount to is that the shifts will have to be nine hours and 12 minutes long. According to medical evidence this is definitely not beneficial to the health of the workers.

At the moment the Reserve Bank set the replacement value of the capital goods in the gold mines at approximately R5 000 million. Now the question arises as to whether that expensive machinery can be allowed to be left unused for any one specific day. On the other hand, Iscor has invested approximately R790 million. Its workers work three shifts in 24 hours for seven days per week. Labour peace is also an important factor in this regard, but time does not allow me to go into this.

Attention must also be paid to the fact that if we only have a five-day working week, larger numbers of non-Whites will move to the White areas where they will have the opportunity, while earning a higher wage, to spend their money. There will therefore be more of these people with their increased buying power in the White areas and this is a situation which could give rise to problems. Moreover, by establishing a compulsory period of idleness for 48 hours by not working on Saturdays and Sundays, we will be creating the opportunity for unrest. I have been told that the Black people are not in favour of a five-day working week. This is also a factor which must be taken into consideration.

As an alternative or compromise, it has been recommended that 11 shifts should be worked per 14 days. According to the report the Mineworkers’ Union is also being requested to extend this trial period to a year instead of six months. I want to associate myself with this and also call on our mining friends to do so.

However, what is to happen after that? I personally believe that the ideal of the miners will remain a working week of 40 hours. This is also the ideal which the report aims at. I believe that we shall have to introduce a new system in the mining industry as well, i.e. a five-day man week on a service roster basis as against a seven-day mining week. This will mean that the workers will work according to a service roster, but they will alternate in shifts and that they will actually work five days a week only. The mining machinery will not, however, stand idle and the mining activities will continue for a full seven days a week.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say very emphatically at the beginning of my speech that, whereas I am talking about the mining industry and mining today, I do not include the highly specialized type of mining industry we apply so successfully in Krugersdorp. [Interjections.] Nor am I going to react to the speech of the hon. member for Virginia, because I think that the Free Staters have been praised enough today. Nor am I going to argue with the UP supporters about the fact that their contribution to the debate is so small today; I shall just accept that this is the case because it is Friday the 13th.

When one discusses a specific subject like mining, the spotlight naturally falls on that specific subject and one gains the impression that the specific subject is very much more important than all other subjects and that the Department of Mining and the mining industry are much more important than other departments and industries. One also gains the impression sometimes that it is in a compartment of its own. Of course this is not the case, and we realize that in our governmental structure and in our whole way of life, all the government departments, the private sector with all its subdivisions and even the efforts of the individual form part of the integral whole, of the great machine of life. Each one is a cog in the great machine of life, but some cogs are large and indispensable. When one makes a study of mining and the mining industry, it becomes clear that mining and the mining industry are a large and indispensable cog in our machine of life and way of life in South Africa today. A certain Prof. Barnetson was lecturing in pathology when I was a student. Pathology is a very important subject as far as mining is concerned and he told us in his first lecture that all the other professors would say that the subjects which they lectured on were the most important, for example that surgery or medicine were the most important, and that he could not understand it, because after all, pathology was the most important. Similarly, I can also say that I cannot understand the standpoint of the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of National Education, because after all, mining is the most important. In order to substantiate my point of view, I should like to refer the House to the following.

†On 18 April, during the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, the hon. the Minister of Finance argued the case that the South African economy was healthy and sound. He said that it was based on correct policies, etc. and he went on to say the following, and I quote (Hansard, 18 April 1977, col. 5410)—

The mining industry is not only the brightest star as far as the economic field is concerned, but it is also the rising star and developing into a bright star as far as international politics is concerned. I think that our mineral wealth and its strategic value in the world of today gives us much stronger bargaining power. It has been said by someone that America can only stop importing manganese when it stops using steel. That is the fact of the matter. I think that we will have to keep a very careful and keen eye on, and will continuously have to make an in-depth study of what we can term international mineral politics since that is becoming more and more important, especially as far as South Africa is concerned.

*There is another aspect which the hon. member for Bethal dealt with and to which I shall only refer briefly. It is the question of the conflict of interests between the agricultural industry and the mining industry. If energy resources like coal are discovered in a wild life reserve, as has in fact happened, the question arises as to whether one should develop it or not. Not only must we make a very intensive study of this matter, but there must also be the fullest co-operation and co-ordination among the various sectors, namely the agricultural mining and environmental conservation sectors, and others with an interest in the matter.

Since mining is the bright star in our world today, we shall simply have to keep up with scientific research in this sphere. I think that the health of the miners, of the human material, is definitely one of the most important aspects as regards scientific research. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into this very deeply. The hon. member for Springs referred to certain aspects concerning long service and health. If we take a look at the annual report of the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases and at the budget, we see that almost R15 million is being spent for the mineworkers, among others, in research on health. We can also look at the annual report of the Medical Research Council. I am not going to discuss this since it actually falls under the Health Vote. I am just mentioning it. On page 24, the activities of the National Research Institute for Occupational Diseases are discussed. On page 39 there is a reference to the activities of the Tuberculosis Research Institute. On page 63 there is a report of the Ischaemic Heart Disease Research Unit. On page 69 there is information about the Lung Metabolism Research Group and on page 87 there is a report of the activities of the Research Group for the Diffuse Obstructive Pulmonary Syndrome.

The hon. member for Rosettenville referred to the Commission of Inquiry into Occupational Health. What all the factors to which I have just referred amount to is that the State spends literally millions of rands every year on research and work in the field of the health of the miner and the health of the people in the mining industry. Just as is the case everywhere else in our country, human material is really the cornerstone and the backbone of the mining industry. As far as the request of the hon. member for Springs is concerned—this is also a question to which the hon. member for Rosettenville referred—I have put it very clearly that those who have served for a long period must not be referred to as if they are cases who have to be certified. If a man is not ill and cannot be certified as having a compensable disease, he is not certifiable. It is as simple as that. I want to associate myself 100% with the fact that we must carry out an intensive inquiry into the question of compensation. We can even call it a gratuity, but we must find ways and means to compensate a man like this. This also applies to people who have become unfit for service due to completely different reasons. We must give those people consideration, but not by means of certification because in point of fact they are not certifiable.

Actually I want to say more today about the National Institute for Metallurgy. At the moment these people have a budget of R7 188 000. I notice that this is unfortunately R1 million less than last year. This institute is doing outstanding, essential and indispensable work in the sphere of the mining industry which forms the backbone of the country. I should like to break a lance for the work being done by the National Institute for Metallurgy and I hope that I shall have the opportunity to go into it in more detail next year.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. members who participated in the debate. I found it instructive to listen to the hon. members. I have great appreciation for the work and the study which preceded the hon. members’ presentations. Every speech, on both sides of the House, contained food for thought. However I shall, in view of the time, have to be careful about what procedure I adopt, for I should like to do justice to everyone in my reply. If hon. members will therefore pardon me I should first, in order to end my speech before this House adjourns, like to reply by dealing with various subjects and subsequently return to what was said individually by hon. members.

Before we go any further I should also like to convey my thanks to the officials of the department and of the various institutes associated with the Department of Mines, for the exceptional work they have done during the past year, and in particular, too, for the very good reports they have produced. This matter has already been raised here today. The quality of the reports is exceptionally high, both that of the department itself as well as that of the various bureaux, such as the Minerals Bureau and the National Institute for Metallurgy. It is true that some of these reports are not very recent after five months have elapsed, reports such as the report of the Atomic Energy Board and the report of the Geological Survey Division. While we are dealing with this, I just want to show hon. members the publication which I now have here in my hand. It is entitled Mineral Resources of the Republic. It is an exceptionally valuable book of which not only we, but the whole of South Africa, may be extremely proud. This publication has appeared several times this year with information that has been brought up to date. This publication can publicize our mineral resources and their importance to the world abroad. I hope that hon. members will have an opportunity to page through it, and I also want to recommend it as an exceptional gift if they wish to offer it as such to anyone, particularly outside South Africa, since it gives an impression of South Africa’s mineral wealth. It is an exceptionally valuable document, and with this I also wish to convey my thanks to the department and particularly to the Geological Survey Division which made it possible for us to receive this document.

I should also like to say a few things which are not mentioned here but to which I feel this House should nevertheless give its attention. I want to convey my thanks to Prof. Franzsen and the commission of which he was the chairman, who on short notice agreed to consider a very thorny matter and under very high pressure, even over the Christmas holiday, to make the appearance of this report possible. I have had many reports in my hands, but I do not think I have ever had a report in my hand which clarifies a complicated problem so precisely, easily and logically as the report of the Franzsen Commission on the five-day working week and related matters. I would therefore like to endorse the sentiments expressed in this regard. In addition I just want to say that it is an interim report. I have, in the meantime, given the commission further terms of reference to investigate the position in respect of negotiation in the mining industry and to see whether we can make use of the existing machinery in the mining industry, as is the case outside the mining industry. I have not yet received that report, but when I do receive it it will complete the report. I look forward to receiving it at some stage or another. I wish to convey my sincere thanks to Prof. Franzsen and to all who helped him.

On this occasion I want to say at once that I felt that we should have a report, particularly in order to establish the facts as we find them in the mining industry. What is involved here is a five-day working week and we can argue about the principles, but if one begins to argue about facts, one encounters a difficulty. The value of this report is that it states the facts to us. The report of the commission refers to the experiment which was conducted in the mining industry, viz. to test 11 shifts per 14 days for six months in order to establish in practice whether or not it is workable and whether or not production will drop under such circumstances. The commission recommends that this experiment should be conducted over a period of 12 months and I am very grateful that the Mineworkers’ Union agreed to do so. However, let me say at once that I do not, at the end of the 12 months, want another dispute on the outcome and its feasibility.

Surely we would then be back to square one. For the sake of protecting the Mineworkers’ Union and its people I intend directing the commission, together with the Government Mining Engineer, and any other bodies which they find necessary to involve in the matter, to keep an eye on the experiment and to test it every month or every two months and to modulate it so that, at the end of the period, we need not quarrel over the outcome of the experiment. I hope the Mineworkers’ Union will co-operate. In fact, I believe that they will do so. On this occasion I also want to tell the Secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union that the Government has taken cognizance of the statement which he made on more than one occasion—he is on record as having done so, and I have appreciation for his standpoint—that they will act in such a manner that they will not, in view of the economic importance of the mining industry to South Africa, cause production to drop and will not harm the industry as such. I accept that. I am pleased that it has been said and that it is now on record. I am going to watch the position. I do not want a dispute in regard to it.

During the past year exceptional achievements have been accomplished by subdivisions of the department. In the first place I want to refer to the Minerals Bureau, as hon. members have already done. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the Minerals Bureau for the exceptional service which has been rendered. I refer readily to the Minerals Bureau because in the short space in which it has been in existence—hon. members will know that it has not been in existence for long—it has already rendered an exceptional service. The Minerals Bureau began by making a study of the importance of our minerals and how they fit into the overall world pattern. We have extensive mineral resources. In this regard I also want to refer with appreciation to the remarks made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp who spoke of “mineral politics”. In fact, the word “mineral politics” will now and in future become ever more important. If one refers to mineral politics, one is referring to South Africa’s important position. The figures which the hon. member for Stilfontein, the hon. member for Parys as well as other hon. members quoted, demonstrated the importance of South Africa in mineral politics.

There has been a great deal of argument over the extent of our mineral resources. To utilize these mineral resources to the full and to enable South Africa to utilize the sale of its minerals effectively—I almost want to say in the international trading and negotiating of these minerals—it is essential that we should know certain fundamental things. We should know precisely what we have and how the various minerals fit into the South African set-up. We should know what the quality of our minerals is so that we may deduce from that how easily they can be recovered and sold. We should establish whether it will be easy to apply the process of refinement. In particular, too, it is important to see how this fits into the world pattern. We must examine how our sources compare with those of other countries and to what extent other countries will be dependent on us. As I have said, the Minerals Bureau has commenced an exceptional study in this regard. They have in fact already disposed of various minerals. I want hon. members to take a look at the report of the Minerals Bureau. The inquiry they are engaged in will be able to furnish replies on how we are in fact going to “fight”—it is perhaps an ugly word—or trade in the world situation with our minerals in future. Before I go any further, I just want to mention that we know what the total extent of the sales is and at what rate these are taking place. What is very important is to know what the picture will be by the end of the century. The USA is already 50% dependent upon imports for its requirements in regard to 20 of the key minerals, and South Africa has these products. The West is already 70% dependent on imports for its requirements in respect of key minerals. In the situation in which we find ourselves at present, hon. members can appreciate, particularly in regard to such key minerals as chrome, vanadium and others, that South Africa will in 15 to 20 years’ time be in the same position with its mineral exports—although it may not perhaps be entirely as strong a position as the one in which the Middle East finds itself today in regard to the provision of oil to the world. To assess it at its true value, and to utilize it correctly in future, it is necessary for a second thing to be done. That is why I have great appreciation for another speech which was made here today, which was right on target in this regard. I am referring to the hon. member for Florida. The hon. member for Florida made a very good speech because—and in this respect the hon. member was correct—we have to develop a policy which will give us an indication of how rapidly we should extract, what we should extract, where we should sell, at what rate we should sell and how this fits into the economy of the world and that of South Africa. In so far as there should therefore be a mineral policy as regards mining and the rate thereof, as well as the utilization and refinement of our minerals, it is essential that we should develop something of this nature. When I say this, I do not mean that we do not have a policy. In general outline we do have a policy, but I think the hon. member’s intention was that since what we have clarity on is perhaps still fragmentary, we should amalgamate this into something which may be regarded as a clear policy. I think that is what the hon. member meant. If that is what he meant, I say it is in order. To that I want to add that if it happens, hon. members will understand why it is essential that we should have such an instrument as the Minerals Bureau. This is the body which will have to furnish the answers so that we shall know what to do in future.

In this regard I want to mention another arm of the department, namely the Geological Survey Division. Hon. members must appreciate that the Geological Survey Division has rendered exceptional services in recent times. I am referring in particular to the fact that the laboratory of the Geological Survey Division has been modernized to enable it to render better services. It is now better able, with the equipment which has recently been put into commission, to provide the universities, companies, the department itself and others, with scientific information. To achieve the goal of a total survey in South Africa, so that we will know what we have at our disposal, and to enable the Geological Survey Division to do this, it is essential that we have developments in a few directions. The geochemical method of assay has become more important in these times. An entire programme of sampling has been finalized, which could be of use in future in this entire process. This has been done by the Geological Survey Division, for which I am very grateful. In addition, I want to point out that there is still an enormous area in regard to which there is discussion and speculation. We do not know what there is in this area but we must in any case know what the possibility is in regard to uranium deposits. Here I am referring to the Karoo basin. We have already commenced a flight programme for the making of geophysical aerial surveys. This will have been completed after three years. It will cover 570 000 square kilometres and will cost a great deal of money, but we shall make the information generally available, as it becomes available, so that it may be utilized. We think that there may be uranium deposits in the Karoo basin as well. Various concessions have already been issued in South Africa. South Africa is an important uranium producing country; let us say this here. In future uranium is going to occupy a very important position.

The extraction of uranium is an expensive process, and to be able to exploit uranium depends entirely on how economically it can be done. In South Africa, and in other parts of the world—but particularly in South Africa—there are large quantities of low-grade uranium ore. Without divulging any secrets now, I could mention that a major breakthrough was made a short while ago—hon. members will hear more about this later—making the extraction of uranium at least 30% cheaper than before. This is going to make all the difference in the world as far as low-grade ore is concerned, and there will probably be a considerable change in future as far as the available volumes are concerned. This breakthrough—which is a South African breakthrough and one in which NIM’s basic research played a part—I consider to be of great importance, particularly because it will also be possible to apply it to the entire field of the occurrence of minerals.

The Bushveld igneous complex, to which the hon. member for Rustenburg referred, is an area which is particularly mineral-rich. That area has the richest mineral conglomerate in the world. There is no other area on earth that even comes close to it. That region has enormous mineral wealth. However, the exploitation of minerals in that area is made difficult by factors such as communication problems and the fact that the processes of extraction are in some cases very problematical. The fact that we were able to make this breakthrough will also mean that entirely new vistas will open up for us in future. I am very pleased to be able to mention on this occasion that, small as we are, we are constantly making further breakthroughs.

The National Institute for Metallurgy serves as the other channel through which research is done for us. It is of no avail knowing how much there is or speculating about the future if we do not have the answers to how the minerals should be extracted from the compounds. That is scientific knowledge which we have to develop ourselves. In the past the National Institute for Metallurgy has rendered exceptional services. The institute is the other channel which will enable us to utilize our resources. However, it is of no avail our having the minerals if we lack the answer as to the processes which should be adopted to extract the minerals. Extraction mineralogy and extraction chemistry in particular are of exceptional importance in this respect.

As an indication of how well things are going and how rapidly matters have developed recently in the National Institute for Metallurgy it is a great pleasure for me to mention a further breakthrough made by the institute. It is in connection with ferrochrome. In order to put the matter in perspective, I just want to say this: South Africa has more than 80% of the world’s supply of chrome ore. In 1980 the refined product from South Africa, i.e. the ferro-chrome alloy, will satisfy 40% of the world demand. Looking further into the future, production will constantly have to be increased. It is possible that by the end of the century, reckoned in terms of today’s prices, we shall be marketing ferro-chrome to the value of R1 000 million, merely in the form of alloys, in the form of refined products. There are various forms of alloy. Ferro-chrome is one of the most important. It is not possible to manufacture stainless steel, nor many other metal products, if one does not have chromium. Chromium is the basis of many metal products. Without chromium all production of stainless steel comes to a halt. That is why chromium is considered to be of so much importance. I can almost state with certainty that in the years which lie ahead chromium will become of so much importance that it may possibly even exceed gold in importance.

The production of ferro-chrome is of course a very expensive process. We have the chromite. The blast-furnace in which it has to be processed costs a tremendous amount of money to construct. An experiment conducted at one of the largest blast-furnaces—in fact it is the largest blast-furnace in the world—led to a further breakthrough by the National Institute for Metallurgy. This was a breakthrough which enabled the institute, in that specific case, to increase the production from 3 000 tons per month to 5 500 tons per month. From that single blast-furnace alone, the added value for the ore amounted to R750 000 per month. This is from one blast-furnace only. If I now mention that we produce 900 000 tons of that metal annually, hon. members can calculate for themselves what this means in aggregate to South Africa. But that is not all. It also ensures that in future we could easily become the world’s most important and largest supplier of this important commodity. This would enable South Africa to be placed in a very strong competitive position for all times. I want to pay tribute to the National Institute for Metallurgy for the good work they have done. In particular I want to congratulate them on the breakthrough they have made. Measured in any terms, this breakthrough is very important news.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North asked a question in regard to Aggeneis. In the Aggeneis-Gamsberg area, an area in the Northern Cape, large concentrates of copper, zinc, lead, iron, as well as the important by-product silver, and also lesser important deposits such as barite, and various other base minerals are found. The question in regard to this area has always been: To what extent will we be able to proceed with the exploitation of these minerals? The problem is that the area does not have an infrastructure, and to expand the infrastructure to these areas will be costly. Mining development is already an expensive process and the provision of water, electricity, roads, railways is also an expensive process. The question on everyone’s lips, one which has also been put to me, is: To what extent is the State going to help in the creation of this infrastructure? The creation of an infrastructure is expensive and if it cannot be done cheaper it will be impossible not only for a project but even for the entire area to begin to develop. Water is already being supplied to this area. I was still the Minister of Water Affairs when the water plan for the area was approved. In addition the Sishen-Saldanha railway line will run past the area, but there is still the question of the road link. There was a long dispute over the question whether the cost of a road link should form part of the development costs. The Treasury has now given its approval to the road link being the responsibility of the State. I hope we shall succeed in having the entire road built by the State. This means that the project will now be able to commence. A few days ago—the newspapers carried reports on this—the South African partners with whom negotiations have been conducted agreed to help production commence. It will now be possible, therefore, to launch one of the projects, the Aggeneis project. The concentrate alone will earn an additional R55 to R60 million per year for South Africa. This is one of the projects which, although it is beginning on a small scale, could develop to a tremendous extent in future.

I come now to the various speeches made by hon. members. The hon. member for Von Brandis referred to the report of the department, and I want to thank him for the kind words he had to say about it. The hon. member also asked certain important questions. He will understand that if I had to reply to them in detail, we would not finish up tonight. Therefore I should just like to react briefly to the most important of those questions. The first dealt with foreign mine labour. It is true that in the past the foreign labour component comprised a far larger portion of the total than it does today. At one stage, not so very long ago, the South African Bantu comprised only 19% to 20% of the labour component; today it is already more than 50%. The hon. member wanted to know whether there was a possibility that this component could be increased further. Such a possibility does exist.

I did not ask that question.

Did you not ask whether the component could be increased?

You misunderstood me. I referred to the changes which had taken place and wanted to know whether it would be possible to institute a thorough investigation.

I was under the impression that the hon. member wanted to know whether the component would remain as it was. In this regard the hon. member put several additional questions to me. He wanted to know, inter alia, whether there could be changes, he also discussed the policy in regard to housing and the possibility of further training. In so far as the labour situation is being dealt with here, I shall not go into those matters any further. The fact of the matter is that a commission has been appointed to consider that aspect.

The hon. member also wanted to know whether there could be greater freedom of action and initiative in the mining industry. The mining industry is in fact based on free enterprise and, as the hon. member knows, in as far as the mining of minerals is concerned, the only exploitation in which the State is directly involved is the diamond industry. Furthermore the State also has an indirect interest by means of State corporations in the mining of coal and related products. It is the policy, however, that we should keep the mining industry as independent as possible. It is in the interests of the country. We should not change this policy, nor do I think that we shall ever do so.

The hon. member also asked questions on uniformity with regard to the compensation for occupational diseases. A commission of inquiry, the Erasmus Commission, was appointed on compensation for occupational diseases and arising from the report of this commission, talks have already been held between the Department of Mines, the Department of Health and other relevant bodies on the need to make a further study of the question of occupational diseases. There is even the possibility that I could cause a further investigation to be instituted into the very matters to which the hon. member referred.

The hon. member also referred to the death rate and the injury rate on the mines. In 1967 the injury and death rate was 50,4 per thousand workers employed. The present figure is 41 per thousand workers employed. In other words, over a period of ten years there was a decrease from 50,4 to 41 in the accident rate. In 1967 the injury and death rate on the gold mines was 65,1 per thousand and in 1976 53 per thousand. On the coal mines the injury and death rate in 1967 was 30,4 per thousand and in 1976, 22,3 per thousand. This represents a downward tendency in the mining industry as a whole. As far as the safety aspect is concerned we may therefore feel assured that working conditions on the mines are becoming much safer. I think the hon. member also remarked that the gold mines today are a model of safety. The costs incurred in improving the safety factor contributed to working conditions on the mines no longer being as dangerous as they were in the past. If one looks at NOSA’s figures, one sees that there are industries which are more dangerous to human beings than the mining industry is today. This redounds greatly to the credit of the mining industry as well as to the Government of South Africa.

The hon. member for Stilfontein referred to the mineral potential of South Africa and asked for geological surveys to be made with a view to the disclosure of new mineral resources. I think that I have already replied adequately in this regard. During the discussion of the labour Vote the hon. member put a question on the training of miners. He wanted to know whether I could say anything about the training of miners. I want to tell him that this is a very delicate matter. At this stage, while negotiations between South Africa and the authorities of Bophuthatswana are in progress, I hesitate to make any comment on it.

The hon. member for Rustenberg, whose constituency is involved in this matter, has experienced many problems during the past few months. His voters asked him what the developments were going to entail. He brought some of his voters to me, and also took them to the mining companies. I intend visiting the Impala mine next week for the very purpose of looking into the matter in loco. I should like the hon. member for Rustenburg to go back and tell his voters that at this stage we should be very careful not to make an issue of the negotiations which the Government is conducting with the people of another country and through which an entirely new dispensation is being created for them. I can assure the hon. member that the Department of Bantu Affairs, in co-operation with the Department of Mines, has already begun to hold exhaustive talks with the authorities of Bophuthatswana. The talks are being taken further at this very moment, while I am standing here talking to you, and I have every reason to expect that the authorities of Bophuthatswana will go out of their way to make the changes as mild as possible and not to effect drastic changes, as far as mining is concerned as well, when the area becomes independent and that they should like to preserve the status quo as much as possible. In fact, the basis of the negotiations is that the status quo should as far as possible be preserved.

The hon. member for Rosettenville asked whether I was of the opinion that there would in future be problems in regard to the training of Blacks by Whites. This is a very delicate matter, and I prefer not to discuss it now. The situation is at present in a stage of negotiation; it is not being requested. I should prefer us to continue with the negotiations and then state next year what happened. The point of departure is—I am saying this for the sake of the hon. member for Rustenburg—that the status quo will be preserved and I have every reason to believe that his voters need not be afraid that considerable and drastic changes will soon take place. I want to request the hon. member therefore to ask his voters to have patience as far as possible.

The hon. member for Rosettenville also asked us to reconsider risk work and the compensation for it. Risk work is a subject which is constantly being discussed, and I can assure the hon. member that the matter is at present receiving attention from my department again and that it will be subjected to a close scrutiny during the next few months.

This reply also applies to the hon. member for Krugersdorp. I want to concede to these two hon. members that we have reached a stage at which we should subject this situation to as close a scrutiny as other situations. I do not want to comment any further on this matter. I am not a medical practitioner, nor am I a professional person who can express an opinion on what risk work entails or whether or not it is sufficiently well covered. All I can tell him is that if I have to judge from the pressure which exists it seems to me as though we shall have to subject this matter to a far closer scrutiny than in the past.

The hon. member for Rosettenville went further and mentioned an example of an accident which occurred at a mine. If we take into consideration that there are 600 000 people associated with the mines, of whom 65 000 to 66 000 are Whites, and that for every White person employed on the mines there are almost 10 non-Whites, and that the hon. member was able to quote only one example, I think that is in fact an indication that this is not a matter on which we can generalize. I think the hon. member meant that as far as accidents at the mines are concerned, we should see whether we cannot reduce the incidence of accidents. I agree with that. However, it is a world-wide phenomenon. There is a type of mine at which the incidence of accidents is greater than at others. We are as far as possible enlisting the aid of technology and science in order to keep the accident rate as low as possible. This is in the interests of everyone, and the mining industry itself is taking care of this matter. I have appreciation for the remarks which the hon. member made, for I know that it is a sore point with all of us that the mines should be made as safe as possible. However, I must say that I think there has been exaggeration, and this applies to South Africa as well, of the danger of working on the mines. The incidence of accidents in South Africa is low, and I consequently think that we are placing too much emphasis on it and are exaggerating it. We ought, to a greater extent, to see these matters in their correct perspective.

The hon. member for Welkom advocated greater training of our manpower. I have already replied to the ideas which he expressed on refinement. In regard to the ideas which he expressed on our manpower, I want to tell him that this does not apply only to the sphere of mining. It applies to virtually the entire spectrum of our economic development, our technological scientific development. Here, too, we are experiencing a shortage of trained people. In fact, one finds it regrettable that a country such as South Africa, with its great possibilities, produces so few technologists and in particular scientists to perform all the future tasks.

I know that our universities are doing their best. I also believe that the times in which we are living arouse greater interest in these subjects and the indications are in fact that the influx of students to the faculties dealing with them has increased considerably in recent times. My department and I will go out of our way to find students who can equip themselves in these directions. I want to mention one example. Recently one of our universities also added a faculty of mineral engineering to its broad spectrum of specialized fields of study. Previously it was not there. This is the kind of thing which is now happening. Universities are making increasing provision for this kind of training, and I want to express the hope that our young people will realize that leadership in these fields will cause us to win through in the end. There are so many possibilities in South Africa that if I could return to the beginning of my university career I would probably have chosen one of these fields of study myself.

The hon. member for Springs referred to unemployment, as well as to the problem which the voters in his constituency have. As a result of the closing down of the mines his voters find themselves in a situation where they have no work. I understand their problem very well. After discussions with the mines it is clear to me that if a mine closes down they try, if there are other mines in the vicinity, to transfer workers to those mines or to offer them the choice of a transfer elsewhere. If they cannot help these people themselves, they try to find positions for the workers in neighbouring mines. If they are unable to do so, they try to find employment for the workers concerned elsewhere. But when a worker is too old to be retrained, he is indeed placed in a difficult position. I have been told that many of the workers do not want to leave the area in which they are living because they have private interests there. Apparently they are very particular too. What can one do if people do not want to move when a mine closes down and they receive an offer of employment elsewhere? When a school, for example, closes down, the teachers go to other schools. If I have to close down my business and go elsewhere, I simply have to do so. I do not really have an answer to this problem. I really do not know what we can do in this regard. When miners are young enough to be retrained, this can of course be done. It seems to me as though retraining is not very popular among miners who are already 50 years or older. Although I do not have a comprehensive answer to the problem which the hon. member raised at the moment, I hope that I might perhaps be able, at a later stage, to furnish him with one.

Next I want to refer to the hon. member for Parys. He said that we should not rely on the gold mines only, but on a wider spectrum of minerals and mineral refinement. I have already replied to that in part. I want to agree with him that we should not rely only on gold. We find ourselves in the fortunate position in South Africa that we are at present mining 71 different kinds of minerals at a rate of approximately R5 milliard—the hon. member quoted that figure himself. In addition, we are on the eve of a major refinement programme. I believe that the graph in this regard will show an upward tendency. I also believe that with our coal and particularly, too, with alloys—I referred a moment ago to certain alloys—we will in future be in the fortunate position of having substitutes so that South Africa will be able to maintain its strong position in the world, a position which it holds at present as a result of its gold.

The hon. member for Parys referred to the labour peace which is at present prevailing on our mines in spite of the problems which are being experienced elsewhere. I want to join him in paying tribute to the mine managements. It is owing to the good management of the mines in South Africa that, in spite of an inflammable situation in the vicinity, no problems were experienced on the mines.

I have already referred to the hon. member for Florida and I think that I have already replied to the important point he made in regard to our future mineral policy. Therefore I shall not go into this matter any further.

I also want to refer to the hon. member for Kimberley South. He asked whether we cannot start a diamond cutting industry in Kimberley. As he said, he raised this matter a few years ago. I can understand that it would be an ideal thing for him. In this regard he also referred to the position in Israel. However, the position of Israel differs radically from that of South Africa. That is my problem. This also applies in respect of the strike last year. Today Israel is cutting diamonds at a rate which earns it 800 million dollars per annum. The head of their diamond cutting industry paid me a visit and said on that occasion that their production which brought in 800 million dollars last year, was going to be increased during the next calendar year to 1 000 million dollars. But in Israel it is a subsidized industry. The diamond cutters there receive much lower wages than are paid here in our country. The hon. member will know what the dispute which caused a strike in our country last year was all about. The cutters proceeded from the standpoint that they should be allowed to cut small diamonds at the same wage that applied to gem stones. That simply cannot happen. In other parts of the world we find that diamonds are being cut at wages which are only 10% to 20% of those which apply in South Africa. Therefore we simply cannot compete. This is in fact where our problem lies. Because diamonds in small packets can be sent everywhere, the industry need not be locality-bound. Whether diamonds are cut in Cape Town or Johannesburg, therefore, does not really make any difference. However, it does make matters very difficult. For example, it is very difficult to say that an industry should specifically be established in Kimberley, for example.

In respect of the other aspect of this matter, I do nevertheless want to tell the hon. member that I should very much like to have an industry for the cutting of small diamonds established in South Africa. However, an industry cannot be overloaded with too many specialists either. The present plus-minus 49 companies engaged in diamond cutting work, cannot simply be increased. It may entail that there will then be no interest in the matter. These people are not working on large profit margins, and consequently we must be very careful. The sector which produces the least profit, is the cutting of small diamonds. Therefore, to establish an industry in Kimberley which will cut only small diamonds, will simply not be viable. But I think the answer—and this will be the policy in future—is that we should consider each application on its merits. It is very difficult to load a diamond cutting industry with more cutting firms competing with one another. In that way the cake will be cut up into too many slices so that eventually there will be nothing left for anyone. However I know what the sentiments of the hon. member are, and I have said myself that if we could only manage to begin cutting a larger percentage of small diamonds in South Africa and in that way expand the industry, we could involve more people. Then, I hope, we will also be able to make use of Coloured labour, which ought to be able to do this part of the cutting work very easily.

I want to thank the hon. member for Etosha for what he said. He asked for a copy of the Franzsen Commission report. The difficulty is that the commission worked at great pressure and that the report had to be finished at a specific juncture and then forwarded immediately to the Minister. Therefore it was just not possible to follow the normal procedure. To make it possible for the Minister to table the report, we made only a few duplicated copies available. In the meantime the work involved in making the report properly available is continuing. We could perhaps furnish the hon. member with a duplicated copy, but I hope to have enough copies available during the present session to be able to give a copy to every hon. member who wants one. It was merely because of a lack of time that we had to adopt this procedure, and it was also to prevent the reproach being made on the part of the Mineworkers’ Union that we had received a report and were now sitting with it while they did not know what was stated in it. I want to keen my slate clean. That is why we tabled the report immediately in this form.

The hon. member for Bethal referred to strip mines. We can discuss this matter further with one another. A code is being drawn up by the Chamber of Mines, the Department of Mines and the Agricultural Union, a code in terms of which strip mining will take place. He is very welcome to discuss the matter with me. I hope that we will be able to accommodate one another in this regard. I am as concerned as he is about this type of mining not destroying our agricultural land permanently. The day we have finished mining, we must be able to return the land to agriculture in a good condition.

The hon. member for Virginia also referred to the Franzsen Commission report. I think that I have already dealt with it.

Mr. Chairman, I have done my best to reply to all the points raised by hon. members before the adjournment of his House.

Votes agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.