Mr. Speaker, last year during the discussion of the Interior Vote in the House of Assembly, my predecessor announced that the Public Service Commission had been directed to take another serious look at the possibility of either decreasing the number of Government departments or amalgamating them with a view to establishing a more effective, smaller, organized Public Service. In the course of the debate the possibility was raised of the Departments of Immigration and the Interior being amalgamated into a single department.

At that stage the amalgamation of these departments was not possible for various valid reasons. However, the matter was not left at that and, as a matter of fact, it has progressed so far that I am able to announce today that the Cabinet has decided in principle to amalgamate these two departments, i.e. the Department of the Interior and Immigration, into a single department as from a current date. The new department will be known as the Department of the Interior and of Immigration and the Public Service Commission will give its attention forthwith to the organization and staff implications caused by such amalgamation.

As the Minister responsible for the Department of Immigration, I should like to give the assurance that the decision to amalgamate the departments, will not detract in any way from the Government’s endeavours to recruit the very best immigrants for the Republic.

To decrease the number of Government departments is a weighty decision for any Government to take, but members may rest assured that this step has not been taken without thorough consideration and consultation and that it will ultimately be to the advantage of the State.

In the meantime the Public Service Commission is continuing to give attention to its directive to examine the possibilities of effecting further rationalization in the Public Service.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House I should like to announce the business of the House for the coming week. Today the House will continue the discussion of the Labour and Mines Votes. Tomorrow, on Friday and on Monday the Indian Affairs, Community Development and Tourism Votes will be discussed. The remainder of the available time on Monday, as well as Tuesday and Wednesday, will be devoted to the discussion of the Plural Relations and Development Vote as well as the Finance Vote.

On Monday, 8 May, the House will deal with legislation. On Tuesday, 9 May, the Information Vote will be considered, followed by the Economic Affairs, Justice, Police and Prisons Votes.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

10h30 to 12h45

14h15 to 18h00.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister participated in the debate yesterday afternoon, he made an announcement which generated a great deal of interest. If I understood him correctly, he said that he intends establishing a full-time liaison section on foreign labour relations in his department. In pursuance of that and of the visit which the hon. the Minister and Prof. Wiehahn, inter alia, recently paid to Europe and other countries abroad, and also with a view to the interest which this announcement has generated, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us further details on this announcement. I think it is necessary at the present moment for us to have a very close liaison as regards these matters.

I want to return to the debate which was held yesterday and I want to refer in particular to the speech by the hon. member for Pinelands, who participated in the debate as chief speaker for the Official Opposition on labour affairs. I listened to him attentively. The hon. member spoke about the so-called labour codes. Allow me to say at once that the hon. member said many positive things. However, one can put the finest things in a code, but if one cannot implement that code on the factory floor in the spirit in which it was drawn up and if one does not bear in mind the realities of our South African set-up, it is not worth the paper on which it is written. The hon. member is nodding his head. I think he agrees. Furthermore, I received the impression from the hon. member’s speech that he is looking forward eagerly to the Wiehahn Commission report. Of course, we on this side of the House are also looking forward to that report with a great deal of expectation, but while the hon. member was speaking, I could not but get the impression that they had come to the end of the road as far as their labour policy is concerned. I could not but get the impression that the hon. member was looking forward so eagerly to the report of the Wiehahn Commission in the delusion and the hope that the Wiehahn Commission would give them another policy for a change. If one wants to know how erratically those hon. members talk about labour affairs, one had only to listen to the things which the hon. member for Parktown said. I am very pleased the hon. member for Parktown is in the House this afternoon. He was not here yesterday. I want to quote from the publication Labour Mirror of November 1977. On page 2 there is a report under the heading “Anglo Blacks’ Integrated Unions”. I do not want to talk about Black trade unions and similar matters this afternoon, but I want to quote this passage just to indicate along what lines those who are sitting over there are thinking. The report reads—

This is nothing new to us. It is an old matter which that party has been advocating. I quote further—

Then they quote the hon. member for Parktown as having said the following, inter alia—

It is obvious that they will form organizations but he went on to say—

He went on—

Very well, we can argue with the hon. member that this is the standpoint. However, he then made the following statement—

No matter from which angle one looks at it—

However, if this is the standpoint, I want to ask those hon. members why they are so halfhearted about liaison committees. Why can they not on the basis of that standpoint, which experience has taught them, throw in their full weight with us on the matter of liaison committees and what these have achieved for our people in the labour sphere. After all, we have seen the results of this. However, the hon. member then went on to say in this article—

In other words, we should rather establish mixed trade unions. Then the following remarkable statement is made—

Then they quote him verbatim—

What next! Surely this is a complete contradictio in terminis of the hon. member’s own standpoint, because the hon. member’s standpoint is that these trade unions should be thrown open and that those people should all be together. Then, however, he says these things are going to cause great problems for us. His own experience has taught him that the best results can be obtained when one has people on a level of competition within the same factory or firm. This is the standpoint which we applied successfully in our situation. We have proof of it too. Is our situation not that, no matter what labour code we may adopt, we must have as a basic premise the fact that we find ourselves in a particular situation in South Africa and that we cannot simply transplant the labour legislation or labour patterns of other countries here. The hon. member must agree with me in this respect.

I agree with that.

I want to concede that we can learn a great deal from other countries. We can learn from their mistakes as well as from their achievements. However, one thing is sure, and that is that we cannot simply transfer what other countries have established in a homogeneous situation in the labour sphere, to a heterogeneous South African community which is composed not only of different population groups, but of groups which, according to Rostow’s theory, are at least five different levels of development in the economic sphere alone. This is a situation which we have to take into consideration in the labour sphere. We took it into consideration too in the Bantu Labour Relations Regulation Act of 1973. This was the basis of our system and on that basis we achieved our results.

We find ourselves in the situation that we have a unique labour pattern in this country due to our population structure. That is why our legislation must also be sui generis. It cannot be otherwise. I want to quote a very interesting point of view on this matter from Volkshandel of February this year. There one reads that—

That system proved that we can achieve results on this basis. Figures which have been quoted, have indicated that in 1973, when this Act came into operation, there were 246 strikes in South Africa involving 67 000 Black workers which resulted in a loss of 1 390 000 man-hours. In 1976 there were 105 strikes involving 15 700 Black workers which resulted in a loss of 130 000 man-hours. Last year we had the further result that there were only 38 strikes involving only 7 800 Black workers with a loss of 69 000 man-hours. This is a unique achievement, and on the basis of this achievement we can definitely continue to develop in the direction which we have followed so far and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on this achievement. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, during the course of my speech I want to pick a few arguments with the PFP in connection with statements on labour matters made by speakers on that side of the House during this as well as other debates. I find it a pity that the members of the PFP thought fit once again in this debate, which the hon. the Minister and all of us wanted to conduct in a calm atmosphere, to come up with concepts like discrimination, the wage gap, and the one to which the hon. member for Houghton referred. She even came to the hysterical point of talking about malnutrition as a result of unemployment in the homelands. I should like to tell hon. members of the PFP that we in South Africa do not have a perfect solution which we can apply in connection with labour affairs either. I wish they could get this into their heads. I think the hon. member for Pinelands would be doing himself a big favour if he would ask the hon. member for Parktown, who is extensively involved in the industrial world, whether he agrees with that. There is no perfect, complete solution for any single facet of South Africa’s involved, complex problems. The best we can do, in the field of labour as well, is to strive for those solutions which will give us the fewest problems and, in this sphere, cause the least friction, the least tension and ensure every individual worker of the greatest degree of fairness and justness. If hon. members could only ascertain that great truth in South Africa for themselves, i.e. that there is no perfect solution! There is no perfect solution. Once they have ascertained that great truth for themselves, they will move away from the irresponsible statements which they make in the attempts they are always making to accuse us of committing all sorts of unholy deeds and adopting all kinds of discriminatory measures in regard to the non-Whites.

Just in passing I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that they are not only part of the realities of South Africa in the labour sphere; they are also part of history, not only the history which has been made already, but they are also part of the history which is still being made in the sphere of labour today. There are certain realities in that history which we must consider. I should like to ask our people in South Africa to strive towards a common labour patriotism. Labour patriotism must be cultivated amongst all workers in South Africa and I by that mean White, Black and Coloured—all of us. There must be a common labour patriotism which will ensure that we in South Africa will be able to achieve the economic progress which we need in the future.

Hon. members of the Opposition are always talking about a common loyalty, but pre-eminently in the economic sphere in South Africa there is such a thing as a common Southern Africanism, if one may describe it in those terms. It means that every worker in the economy, every worker who has a share in the sphere of operations in which he finds himself in this greater Southern Africa where everyone, the various peoples and individuals, is interdependent, shares with every other worker a common Southern Africanism. All of us must benefit from this in the interests of peace, order, progress and harmony.

The problem with hon. members is that when we talk about our common share in an economy in South Africa, they always want to relate it to their own concept of a unitary set-up which means that one must ultimately have one political institution.

This is their problem. However, I am not at all sure that the hon. member for Pinelands— I deduced this from his speech too—does not in fact have the idea at the back of his mind that we should ultimately marshall the total labour force, the workers’ corps in South Africa, behind their ideology so that we can use those people as a pressure group to bring about the political objectives which they are striving to achieve. I tell them it is dangerous, recklessly dangerous. [Interjections.]

If we tell the Official Opposition that in many respects, we in South Africa have an integrated economy of nations and the people of those nations, if we say that we want to continue to exist on the basis of stability, with sound economic growth, we must tell every worker in South Africa that there are a few things which we must incorporate in his labour patriotism. Every worker in South Africa should orientate himself with a knowledge of the realities. The hon. the Minister pointed out one of the important aspects of knowledge yesterday. This is the question of what role wages play in the inflation spiral. I am amazed at the ignorance among workers. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that if there is one thing in South Africa to which we should give dramatic attention, it is that we must educate our young people, our children at school, on the role of the worker and the price which he asks for his labour.

We can argue as we wish, but at the moment in South Africa we are saddled with more people who want to live off others than people who want to produce. This is what we must tell the workers corps: The worker will have to see himself in the overall economic picture. We are talking of the components of economic growth: Labour, capital, enterprise and natural resources. However, the essence, the centre of everything is the worker. The worker is the one who must receive the wage and if he receives a wage which is out of context with his labour, we are heading for adversity. I want to charge the Official Opposition, with their requests for higher wages and for narrowing the wage gap, with already having contributed to there being thousands of unemployed people in South Africa about whom we and they are concerned. I want to quote the words which the political bank manager of the PFP, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, uttered in 1974. His words are very illuminating—

This is a very important aspect and it brings me to one leg of what I want to describe as labour patriotism, i.e. that we should all move away from the concept of humanism when we discuss the role of the worker. The moment we allow ourselves to be carried away by this concept, we arrive at the situation where we begin to suggest that the wage gap should be narrowed out of proportion to production. This tendency ultimately reaches a point where developments in the sphere of wages have no connection with the economic realities in South Africa.

The hon. member for Parktown himself will be able to point out to the hon. member for Pinelands in this regard that one of the big problems which the mines are experiencing at the moment in their attempts to show a good profit, is the very fact that the wages of the non-White workers have increased so tremendously while they have not been able to achieve a corresponding level of productivity. However, this does not hold good for the mines alone, but for enterprises in all the economic sectors of South Africa as well. Therefore, if we take a look at the economic realities in South Africa, we should rather get away from humanist concepts like equality.

I have often tried to point out to the hon. member for Pinelands and the PFP that if we want to carry the equality line all the way through in South Africa—after all, this would be logical if things have to be equalized—we would within a few weeks be heading for a situation where South Africa’s economy will be brought completely to its knees.

We are dealing with historical realities and I am convinced that, within the framework of the Government’s policy, we can also succeed in the sphere of labour in ensuring justness and fairness for all workers. At the moment we have to take a special look at the short-term realities which we are dealing with such as unemployment. I want to agree with the hon. member for Houghton in this regard—although it is not pleasant to do so— that unemployment in South Africa is actually a very dangerous phenomenon. If one takes into consideration the racial component of the entire economic situation, then unemployment, no matter how marginal it may be, is very dangerous.

I want to ask those hon. members to display this patriotism towards South Africa in the international world and to put in a good word for South Africa concerning the realities with which we are struggling in the Press and in their circles of friends throughout the world—they have many friends in the economic world, internationally speaking. I also want to ask them not to make representations of the wrong things that happen in the sphere of labour in South Africa, merely as though it is all the Government’s fault.

If I had the time at my disposal, I could have quoted figures to prove to the Opposition that the Government had actually done more than its share in the labour sphere as regards remuneration of workers. The Government has actually done more than it could, according to what South Africa can afford. At the moment we are struggling with problems over which we have no control. If we take a look at the economy as a whole, I should like to make a request of the Opposition so that we can all display this patriotism in the labour sphere in order to try and remove race and colour from our discussions—I should like to see them in the forefront because in many respects they are in leading positions in the economic world. Nor should we try and represent everything which the Government does as unfair, as discrimination, and as all the other unfair deeds which they ascribe to us.

Mr. Chairman, my one difficulty at the moment is to find enough time to answer the many ludicrous comments that we have received during this debate, but I shall try at least. In the first place I agree with the hon. member for Innesdal that we ought to strive for patriotic fervour in labour relations as everywhere else. The hon. member forgets one fundamental point, however, and that is that if we are going to expect the people to be patriotic, we have to treat them as human beings and as workers and not discriminate against them.

You are irresponsible.

Unfortunately, the hon. member has become very sensitive about the word “discrimination”. It is a great pity that the Government, and that the hon. member in particular, did not learn the lesson a long time ago.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort raised a number of issues and I must say it is refreshing to being a debate here on the labour Vote rather than a series of platitudes which have been repeated year after year. I am interested in his comments, but nevertheless I want to tell him that as one moves from one approach to another, one is going to experience problems. In this regard the hon. member for Parktown is absolutely right to warn against that. Any one who foresaw the movement from very low wages to high wages, could have predicted problems. Therefore one anticipates and prepares for these problems. As one moves towards decent labour representation for our total work force, one is going to experience problems. One is going to experience far greater problems, however, if one does not make that movement. That is the point. The best possible way to do this is to regard a worker as a worker. Therefore, if one is going to give him representation, if one is going to treat him as a worker, one cannot put him on one side and expect him to watch other people enjoying a far greater advantage without him complaining. I therefore say the sooner we move towards a firm, enlightened programme of labour representation, the better it would be for South Africa.

I have a number of things about which I want to address the hon. the Minister. First of all I want to refer to the 1976 annual report of the Department of Labour, especially to what is said under the heading “Sheltered employment”. In this regard I want to raise with the hon. the Minister one specific matter, a matter which has been brought to my attention.

I have here a letter from a father who writes to me about a matter concerning his daughter who has been working under the system of sheltered employment at the Service Products Factory in Springfield, Johannesburg, for the last 19 years. Her major problem is dyslexia, a serious problem for people, and as a result of it she is working under sheltered employment. Whilst I appreciate that this type of employment is a subsidized effort, the fact of the matter is that she now receives a princely sum of R23 per week. It sounds to me to be woefully low. If she did not have her parents with her to give her shelter and care for her she could not possibly come out on a salary like that in these modern times. I should ask the hon. the Minister if he would look into this matter through his department. If he is not able to reply immediately today I will understand.

One other thing with regard to this which I should like to mention is that the father expresses his appreciation for the fact that there is such a thing as sheltered employment. However, he does go on to say that according to his daughter, amenities at the factory are almost non-existent. There are no private locker facilities or coat-hook or rail on which to hang their coats and handbags. Then there is the rate of pay she receives as a result of a drawback which is no fault of her own and with which she has to live with all her life. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he could, through his department, make some inquiries about the rate of pay and the facilities which are available to those who are working under sheltered employment.

I now want to come back to the comments of the hon. the Minister yesterday when he replied to the debate. The one thing which I tried to avoid in my own approach was the approach of: “I told you so”. I think it is regrettable that the hon. the Minister has suggested that now that the Department of Labour has made some movement into the future and is working towards the prospects of a complete revamping, if you like, of labour legislation, that I am more or less trying to get onto the bandwagon. I should like to remind the hon. the Minister and the House that in 1974, before I even came to Parliament, I made a speech, which is on record and was published, which referred to the labour legislation, particularly to labour representation. In this instance as well as in 1975, 1976 and 1977 in the House—the references are in Hansard—I called upon the Minister to appoint a commission of inquiry to look into the labour legislation with specific reference to doing away with the discrimination inherent in our legislation. Therefore I say that the record can speak for itself. I should remind the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that if he looks at the record of the debates which have taken place only in the last few years, he will see again, if he looks objectively, the almost hysterical outburst on that side of the House when any suggestion was made for changes to be made in the labour legislation. I also recall the hon. the Minister standing up last year almost turning his back on the rest of the House while announcing the appointment of the commission and addressed the hon. members over there, and quite rightly so, because they were the ones who needed to be converted. [Interjections.] The people who are nervous about the reports of the Wiehahn Commission are not people on this side. [Interjections.] They are so nervous, they are so terrified out of their minds, that all the shibboleths and ideals that they have been worshipping over the years are going to be cast aside. [Interjections.] I say to that side: “Take courage.” They should be courageous and accept what is going to happen in this country, i.e. that our labour policies are going to be based on enlightenment and on the needs of the economy and not on the needs of their ideology.

I finally want to refer to another matter. The hon. member for Krugersdorp is unfortunately not here, but perhaps his hon. colleagues will tell him what I have said. He is not a bad squash player, but in regard to matters relating to labour legislation, he is seriously wanting in knowledge. [Interjections.] It is absolutely true. I shall show hon. members why he has been talking nonsense. He talked about the labour code and said there was nothing new in it. He also said that the so-called “Sullivan Code”, the terms of which the then hon. Minister of the Interior said he accepted, did not introduce anything new. Yet the very first point in that labour code is quite contrary to the law of the land as it is today.

The Sullivan Manifesto—and this is what the hon. member for Krugersdorp has to learn, because he has not looked at our legislation—advocates “non-segregation of the races in all eating, comfort and work facilities throughout the land”. We know that does not happen because of custom and also because of legislation. That is why there is a code. I want to say to the hon. member for Koedoespoort that he is absolutely right. Of course, no labour code, unless it takes effect and has an impact on the factory floor, is worth the paper it is written on. That is why—perhaps this is what he has missed— the labour code, which we ourselves in this country, and not the EEC, Sullivan or the Urban Foundation must have, ought to be enshrined in law so that it can be implemented. Whether one has a labour code as emerging out of one’s legislation or whether one has a separate labour code which summarizes that, makes no difference as long as it has teeth. The hon. member is quite right. Does he agree that one needs an enlightened labour code enshrined in law and which can be implemented throughout the land? That is what we need.

Why do you want to jump the gun?

Who wants to jump the gun? We have no time at all to waste. The final point I want to make concerns the speech of the hon. member for Moorreesburg and the whole debate which is continuing in the Nationalist ranks. It is very interesting to see all the division which begins to show up in that group. One only has to read Die Burger to realize what incredible nightmare is surrounding the western Cape. The hon. member for Moorreesburg has said that the Government is the biggest sinner of all. I am referring to his exact words as quoted in Die Burger.

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

Mr. Chairman, I cannot stop now.

If the hon. member does not stop, the Government will not be the only sinner.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands implied that hon. members on this side of the House were afraid of the findings of the Wiehahn Commission and the consequences which would emanate from it. His allegation is devoid of all truth, because the changes which have been made in this country, in the labour situation too, have been made by the Government party. In the course of my speech I shall refer to certain other matters which the hon. member for Pinelands raised.

I should like to express a few views on job reservation and to illustrate once again how this party is prepared to make certain changes. Over the years, job reservation has played a very important role in the development of Government policy as far as labour matters are concerned. A law pertaining to job reservation was put on the Statute Book about 20 years ago in order to maintain labour peace. At that time, there was a danger that workers from minority groups could be ousted by workers from other groups. The Government has always placed a very high premium on labour peace and a happy labour force and that is why job reservation was aimed at ensuring the orderly co-existence of the various racial groups in their working situations, in order to avoid racial friction and to ensure a rapidly growing economy.

But we are living in a changing world and the South African labour sphere is not exempt from this change. We are the first to admit it. It is not the PFP alone who realize that change is sometimes necessary. We also understand that change in itself is a good thing and in many respects essential, but the Government has always imposed this condition—that change should take place in an orderly, purposeful manner. That is why it is Government policy, as regards our labour situation too, that the changes which are required, will be made in an evolutionary, orderly way.

It is true that in course of time specific factors have come to the fore that have raised the question whether the job reservations provisions which were placed on the Statute Book 22 years ago, are still justified today. One of these factors is that as South Africa developed economically, White and Coloured workers in general have moved up over the past few years to higher paid positions of a better standard.

For instance, an investigation by the Industrial Tribunal revealed that the White and Coloured workers who are employed in the reserved classes of work, are no longer in any danger of being ousted from their work. Indeed, it was discovered that there is actually a serious shortage of Coloured and White workers in these categories of work. Therefore, the provisions of job reservation have actually lost their primary function, viz. the protection of minority groups.

But it has also become clear that, since industrial councils took the necessary precautions in their agreements against ousting workers, some of these job reservation provisions actually exist in theory only, while they in fact no longer apply in reality.

It is also true that the then Minister of Finance declared as long ago as 1960 that job reservation would not be used to freeze the existing pattern of labour, because if this should happen, it would have a rigidifying effect on our industrial development. It is also interesting to note that projections made in the office of the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister as regards the period from 1975 to 1981, indicate that an increasing percentage of the White labour force is moving towards the professional and management professions, while a decreasing percentage of Whites is being employed as production workers. It is also apparent from this that the ousting of workers in these working classes is no longer a real danger.

But then there is also another very important factor which must be taken into consideration when we ask whether job reservation provisions are still necessary today. Saccola drew up a labour code recently and it was accepted in this code that a constant effort should be made within the developing South African framework to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of race and colour. The hon. the Minister of Labour also accepted this code in broad outline as a manifestation of the Government’s labour policy. It is my conviction that it is an undeniable fact that the establishment of a middle income group amongst other races is of the utmost importance for the future of our country. I feel the establishment of a middle income group will result in eliminating many frustrations. It will lead to a greater feeling of solidarity amongst the people of South Africa. That is why a happy middle income group amongst other races too will be a powerful counteraction to unfavourable influences and agitation from beyond the borders of our country. That is why I believe that the establishment of middle income group like this is possible, by assimilating people of other races in the labour structure. After all, Black workers also have their aspirations and ideals. That is why it is simply morally right to grant those Black workers who deserve it, the opportunity to fulfil their aspirations in this regard. When I talk about opportunities, I mean the opportunity to achieve in particular, the opportunity to achieve stated objectives. After all, achieving stated objectives creates labour pride. In its turn, labour pride forms the basis of labour happiness. It cannot but result in a rapidly growing economy.

By implication, assimilating people of other races in the labour structure will therefore also offer the White artisan a greater opportunity for development, for self-fulfilment and the achievement of a higher standard of living. Since employees associations and trade unions have, on industrial level, already allowed Black workers into those categories of work which were not open to them a few years ago, there is already evidence of the fact that the consequence have been extremely favourable. This has not had a disruptive effect on labour relations between the racial groups. Nor has the position of the White man in the economy has not been adversely affected. The demand for semi-skilled workers and workers in the higher categories has been relieved. The position of the White workers has improved in general because he has moved up to higher and better paid categories.

That is why the Government has confidence in the ability of the White worker of South Africa to maintain himself. The Government has confidence in the ability of the White worker to maintain his position of leadership in the labour sphere so that the economic growth of our country will be ensured.

The hon. the Minister of Labour recently announced that the Government has committed itself to the promotion of growth in the widest sense of the word—growth in the economy, growth in diligence, growth in the improvement of human relations. That is why I believe that, by doing away with certain job reservation determinations, the hon. the Minister and his department have already made a powerful, positive contribution towards fulfilling this grand ideal.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to congratulate the hon. member for Geduld on the speech he made. Twice or three times while he was speaking, I had to make sure that it was actually a member of the NP who was speaking. Now I can understand why the hon. the Leader of the NRP told us that there may perhaps be hon. members of the NP who see the light now and again, and sometimes act in a fairly enlightened way. I want to congratulate the hon. member whole-heartedly on his line of reasoning. The hon. member must bear in mind that dogged does it. We agree with him when he asks the hon. the Minister to continue with the good work which is being done by him and his department, especially when it concerns the abolition of some legislation pertaining to job reservation.

You will come to see the light too. Then you will also come and sit on the NP side.

We in the NRP are enlightened enough. We welcome people who want to join us. Unfortunately, there are other hon. members on the Government side who do not argue as clearly as some of their colleagues. I am referring in particular to yesterday’s remark by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, who told us that the unemployment figure shot up during the months of January and February due to the fact that matriculants and others who have left school enter the market.

I said it was one of the reasons.

It is an incorrect reason, Sir. He is probably not aware of the fact that those people cannot be registered as unemployed unless they have been employed for at least six months. I therefore suggest that the hon. member should think it over again.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort also used an incorrect argument here. It seems to me it is becoming a custom to use figures only when they suit certain ideologies, but to overlook the meaning of those figures. The real, deeper reasons for what is reflected in the figures is overlooked. For instance, the hon. member for Koedoespoort told us that we had obtained very good results after having established liaison committees. I shall be the first to admit that we have had good results, but what the hon. member for Koedoespoort tried to tell us was that the large number of strikes which we had in 1973, viz. 276, dropped to 38 in 1977 as a result of the fact that we had these liaison committees. This is a specious argument. There are other reasons why that number of strikes dropped. The first is the one which we discussed very thoroughly yesterday, viz. unemployment itself. When there is unemployment, one can understand that a man will not be so prepared to risk the work which he has by going on strike. In addition, trade and industry have granted large increases to non-Whites over the past three years. Therefore, it is not only due to the fact that we have liaison committees. I say this with a fair degree of experience which I have gained in respect of liaison committees, because I was fortunate enough a few years ago to be able to undertake an investigation into a subsidiary of the Anglo-American organization, in order to determine whether these liaison committees were really working successfully. Unfortunately, I must inform the hon. the Minister that the ignorance and lack of knowledge which one finds amongst the ordinary Black workers can scarcely be believed. They do not know what is happening. Now and again there is a non-White leader who has some idea of the purpose of the liaison committees. [Interjections.] They want to find out what is going on, at least. They do not simply accept that everything is running smoothly and going well. They at least want to find out whether those liaison committees are working.

Unfortunately I have to report—and I am sure that that company will make their report available to the hon. the Minister—that the people involved do not understand how the liaison committees work. There is an educational factor which must be taken care of before we can say that this measure has worked and that the number of strikes has dropped as a result of it.

There is another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Yesterday he said that the South African labour force—and I accept that he is referring more to Black people than to Whites in this regard—does not have the discipline which labour forces in Europe have. We accept this, but we cannot simply say that because they do not have that self-discipline, we cannot do certain things, and that for instance we cannot increase productivity. We must take a look at what underlies that problem. We must find out what the basic problems are and what prevents us from increasing that productivity. We accept that the labour force does not yet have the discipline, but we must do something about it. We accept that we have a problem, and we want to know what the hon. the Minister’s department is going to do to rectify that problem. This is what we are interested in, because we know it is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister’s department to give guidance and to show the way in this regard. The industrialists in particular must be assisted in solving this problem. Simply to say that our labour force does not have the discipline does not help us to solve our problems.

Sir, I should like to express my support in respect of the matters raised by the hon. member for Geduld and I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that we are highly satisfied with the pattern which was followed by the department last year when more examples of job reservation were eliminated. We hope he is going to do the same in the motor industry too. When we come to the Mines Vote, we may perhaps be able to talk about mining, because that is where our one impediment to an increase in productivity in South Africa lies, and we hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to laying down further guidelines for these people in order to indicate which direction they should take in that sphere.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North attacked the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark about the statement that the unemployment figure is usually higher in January/February because the school leavers enter the labour market. However, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark did not say at any stage that these people were registered as unemployed. The hon. member for Durban North made a great fuss about sound reasoning. I therefore just want to say that it is logical that when these people enter the labour market, some employment opportunities will be removed from the market as a whole. Naturally, more unemployment will then follow. However, I do not want to go on investigating what is illogical about the so-called lack of logic. I want to point out a few other aspects.

I want to refer to the speech by the hon. member for Pinelands, who crossed swords furiously here with the hon. member for Krugersdorp. The impression which one gains here in the House is that he was beaten on the squash court and that he was actually trying to score a point here in connection with something which the hon. member for Krugersdorp did not say. If I remember correctly—and I think the hon. member for Pinelands must go and read the speech—the statement that was made was that there was no portion of these labour codes which we must necessarily leave unanswered, in other words that we had answers to them all. He went on to say that there were many good things in this code and that we could accept many of them as they were and indeed implement them. The hon. member will also concede that in reply to a question by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, he indicated that we should adapt these things to our South African circumstances.

However, I just want to express a few thoughts here today about the unemployment problem, and more specifically the problem in the Black labour market. Yesterday the hon. member for Yeoville alleged here that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark was under the impression that there was no unemployment here, in fact that he made the statement that we did not have to be concerned because we did not have such a thing as unemployment. Of course this is entirely untrue.

Yes.

The hon. member said that we did have unemployment. We admit it. We are not running away from it. He went so far as to say that the unemployment rate for 1976 was 14 000 and that it had doubled to almost 28 000 in 1977. How then can the hon. member for Yeoville make a statement like this?

During the course of her speech the hon. member for Houghton also tried to create the impression that the Government is not at all concerned about unemployment, in fact that the Government’s policy is actually the cause of this unemployment. However, if this is the case, why did we not have widespread unemployment problems in the second half of the sixties, because, after all, we had the same policy then? We had the same measures. On the contrary, there were still measures in effect then which are no longer in effect today. The hon. member cannot blame the Government for the drought and then refuse to give it credit for the rain.

I said I want to say a few words about the unemployment problem. The subject which I want to associate with this is the continued campaign which we have had over the past few years for narrowing the wage gap. The hon. member for Innesdal also referred to this. Economists and several industrialists have warned that we must not narrow the wage gap too rapidly without bringing about an equal or at least a relative increase of productivity at the same time. At the time we could not foresee either that we would enter a state of recession. Statistics about the real Black unemployment figure are not reliable and I do not want to join those who speculate about the actual figure. However, the fact is that the unemployment figure in the Black labour force is more disturbing than that in the White labour force. In fact, there is an imbalance in comparison with the position in normal times. I think this is a generally accepted fact.

I want to highlight two sets of comparable figures from the latest figures indicated in the Bulletin of Statistics for the quarter which ended in March this year. In the first quarter of 1975 there were 1 201 000 employment opportunities for Whites—these are approximate figures. In the fourth quarter of 1976— therefore two years later—there were 1 229 000. In the case of Blacks there was a decrease from 2 537 200 to 2 533 600. Therefore, for Whites there was an increase in employment opportunities of approximately 2,3% while there was a drop of 0,14% for the Blacks. In the same statistics, if one takes a look at the position as regards salaries and wages, one sees that in the corresponding period, the salary of the Black man increased considerably more rapidly than that of the Whites. The average monthly income of the Whites increased by 26% while that of the Blacks increased by 44%. The relatively more rapid increase of the salaries of Blacks as against those of Whites was 69%. It is interesting to note that in the central government sector the relative increase was much lower. It was obly 33% as against 69% in the total sector. However, the employment opportunities in the central government sector, increased by 8,5% for Blacks, while there was a decrease of 0,14% in the entire labour market, of which this sector still forms a part. A state where salaries are increased while employment opportunities are actually decreasing cannot be reconciled with the basic economic law of supply and demand. In saying this, I do not mean that we should not narrow the wage gap. Naturally, this is something we should all like to see. However, we must also take reality into consideration.

I want to suggest that we take a fresh look at planning with a view to an employment policy for South Africa for the future. We must definitely strive after an increase in productivity. Yesterday, in his first speech in this debate, the hon. member for Durban North had a great deal to say about this. I do not think any of us can disagree with him on this. It is very important that attention should be given to training. However, I also want to ask that we should handle this matter in a careful and sober way. The hon. member for Yeoville referred yesterday to a new problem which had arisen.

He said that we were always talking about the wealth gap and the wage gap but that there was also a skills gap. I want to appeal to everyone not to become emotional about this matter in future. I do not accuse him of having attempted to do this. I just want to ask everyone to be careful in future when we talk about the difference in skills and the programme of training for the future. Another idea which I should like to submit to the hon. the Minister for his consideration is that we should perhaps think of a programme of demechanization and more labour-intensive enterprises. We shall find in many cases, and this has already been proved, that a labour-intensive method may be more economical than the mechanized method which is already in use. To conclude, I want to say that we should not be in too great a hurry to narrow the wage gap in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. members who have taken part in the debate since last night for their really good contributions. My replies to the hon. members who spoke will not necessarily be in the order in which they rose; I shall rather highlight some of the main points they made in their speeches. I want to begin by reacting to a remark made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort.

With reference to what was said yesterday about the situation abroad and my remarks in connection with my own visit and that of Prof. Wiehahn to countries abroad, the hon. member asked me what the position was. I should very much like to say a few things about this. As hon. members know, we conceived the idea some time ago of expanding our dialogue with foreign countries in the light of the fact that it has become absolutely essential for South Africa to keep up a dialogue with the outside world. I said yesterday—I repeat it today—that in the international sphere, South Africa has to move along with the international labour force and labour opinion because we are a part of it and because events in South Africa are watched from outside as well. It should also be pointed out that actions taking place in the outside world are of particular importance to our country. We must not forget that plans are devised from time to time for launching a boycott movement against South Africa in the outside world. It is of the utmost importance for South Africa as well as the outside world to know what the implications will be if such proposals are put into effect. Cognizance must be taken of what the implications of such action would be for the workers in South Africa, for South Africa as a whole and for the outside world itself. The possibility exists that there may be a factual misunderstanding, and it is with this in view that I have said that such a section should be created in the department.

I have been confirmed in this attitude, in this decision I have taken, by the success which Prof. Wiehahn has achieved up to now in the personal assignments he has carried out. Last year, when we were going through a very critical stage, Prof. Wiehahn was instructed to go abroad. Apart from the fact that he himself is well known abroad and is personally acquainted with most of the labour leaders, Prof. Wiehahn was able to initiate a dialogue as my and the Government’s representative. This was so successful that it, eventually caused many of the countries to be less vehement in their condemnation of South Africa, so much so that very little came of the action which had been planned.

A short while ago, another boycott action was being planned, and I instructed Prof. Wiehahn to interrupt his commission work and to go overseas to visit the most important countries. He did this and I joined him in Germany towards the end of his tour. We had a very interesting, illuminating and successful discussions. Prof. Wiehahn reported to me in full about his visits to all these countries. He undertook a Herculean task. He visited Britain and Europe and reported to me about every conversation he had. He had talks with British Cabinet Ministers and labour leaders and with the most important leaders in Germany, France, Belgium and Holland. Some of them had been to South Africa, but others had not. His talks with them had a very favourable outcome, so much so that it seems to me at the moment that the proposed action has lost a great deal of its momentum.

This is what I mean when I say that we must act and that we must keep up the dialogue; it may succeed. I have experienced this myself. I have a telegram here which was sent to Prof. Wiehahn when he was visiting Britain and having talks there with very prominent industrial and labour leaders. It reads—

The telegram then goes further, but I need not read it all here. This is the drift of the ideas which have been fed back to us, and for that reason I should like to report to this House that those visits have been successful. If those visits could take place on a more permanent basis, and especially if there could be machinery for regular contact between South Africa and the outside world on this level on which we have to wage the struggle, I believe it could only have a positive effect. My impression is that there is a great willingness in all countries to continue this dialogue with South Africa. The mistake we made in the past, I believe, was the fact that we thought we could win the struggle inside South Africa alone without talking to those people in the outside world who are planning actions against South Africa in the field of labour. That was not good enough. Nevertheless, we are now moving in that direction and there are signs of great goodwill and, I believe, of great success as well.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question on this specific issue? I support the hon. the Minister’s idea, but I would like to know whether he has in mind the concept of a labour attaché, which we have in the country from other countries, placed for example in Bonn, or does the hon. the Minister have someone in mind who will be based in this country and who will then move to these other countries from time to time?

No. We do not intend to appoint an attache. It may be a good idea, but after consultations with the Department of Foreign Affairs we came to the conclusion that it was not necessary. The Department of Foreign Affairs has the machinery required for maintaining this liaison. What we desire, however, is direct dialogue between labour leaders in South Africa and the department on the one hand and, on the other hand, the feedback, the reciprocal visits and the exchange of ideas and information in a systematic way. This is what we have in mind. Therefore we do not envisage a foreign division in the sense of having attachés, but a division within the department which will be able to stimulate action and collect data abroad in order to be able to conduct a dialogue with the outside world. This is the foundation we are trying to lay.

I now want to refer to a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. This hon. member asked me a question, along other things, about sheltered employment. Unfortunately I do not have any information about the specific case he mentioned. I shall have the matter investigated. For the time being, I can say that the people who are given sheltered employment in factories are people who have reached a certain degree of disability. Because of their disability they cannot be remunerated on the same basis as a normal person who is fully employed. However, their remuneration is being re-examined at the moment and the possibility exists that it may improve in the future. But I shall order an investigation into the specific case which has been brought to my attention.

Another aspect I now want to discuss was raised yesterday afternoon by the hon. members for Overvaal, Krugersdorp and Koedoespoort, among others. In fact, all hon. members who have taken part in the debate since then have discussed this one important theme, i.e. the labour situation and labour development inside South Africa. Perhaps I should say at once that a great deal has been said in recent years about labour and about the movement of labour. When the Wiehahn Commission was appointed, various people took various views of it. There were those who hoped that in appointing the Wiehahn Commission, the Government was going to deviate from its policy. Others again—I am one of them—saw in the appointment of the commission an opportunity to have the whole of our labour legislation investigated and to adapt good legislation within the framework of the Government’s existing policy. We must then move forward in this connection.

I have said before that socio-economic legislation cannot retain its efficacy unimpaired for so many years because we live in a moving and a developing world. That is why I felt at that time that the appointment of the commission was essential. However, hon. members have advanced arguments from both sides today which have made it necessary for me to say that the whole question of who will work where and the whole question of how people will be absorbed into the labour situation or how it will be possible to meet the needs of labourers in this country must be subject to one golden rule. I stated it personally to the Confederation of Labour at their first congress which I addressed. I noticed a fear on the part of the Confederation of Labour in the sense that they believed that they would henceforth no longer enjoy the protection and shelter which can be expected by any person working in any country. For that reason, I told the Confederation of Labour that the golden rule in the future would have to be that the decision in connection with the restructuring of the labour situation—in other words, the decision about who should work where and at what pace, at what wage and in what way—is a decision which should not merely be announced in the form of a directive by the Minister, but which—so I believe—should be taken by all interested parties mutually and in co-operation with one another. I believe that this must be so, because we know that by the end of the century, the number of people who will be involved in the labour situation will have grown by millions. The people working in South Africa will have increased by millions. Some of them have not even been born yet. When we look at population numbers, we know that these millions of workers are going to consist largely of Brown, Yellow and Black people. There are not going to be enough Whites to do the work which has to be done. Everyone will have to be absorbed into the greater labour set-up and it will have to be possible for everyone to be happy. Since it is essential that everyone in South Africa should be offered work, that they should be able to sell their labour to a factory, it is essential to decide in advance where those millions of people are going to work within the set-up we have today. That is why we have laid down the rule that the decision about who is going to work where must be a democratic decision taken around a table. Although we have been able in the past to govern largely by ministerial directive, i.e. to dictate by way of legislation, I think the best way to take such a decision is around a table where the labourer himself will be involved.

Against this background we appointed the Wiehahn Commission and instructed the commission to go into all our labour legislation. I want to tell hon. members at once that we have a dualism in our labour situation in South Africa. On the one hand we have the organized part and on the other hand we have the unorganized part. There is the part which is organized into trade unions and the part which is not organized into trade unions. In this respect, therefore, it is very important for us to know in the future what the pattern within which we shall work will look like, because it is in the interests of South Africa that we should know in time what that pattern is going to look like. For this reason, the commission was instructed to go into the legislation and to see whether it could integrate this dualism within the framework of the Government’s policy. However, it has to be done in such a way that all the workers of our country can be satisfied that their security will not be threatened. With reference to various remarks which have been made, by Anglo-American as well, I want to point out that this has been seen as an opportunity by them to create a situation in the future in which Black and Brown people may be absorbed into the labour set-up in a way which may threaten the security of the Whites. What must we have in this country? We must ensure, in the first place, that a feeling of security is preserved among the people, and therefore we say that if one has to change a structure, it does not mean that one has to change it in such a way as to repudiate one’s own principles and policies. We must co-ordinate the structure in such a way in the future that everyone will be satisfied that their own position will remain protected. We are not concerned here with protecting the position of the Whites only, but also with protecting the position of the Coloureds.

Many Coloureds have come to me and told me that we have to be careful as far as the future is concerned. They have said that they also want to be protected in the traditional set-up, in the traditional position they have occupied in the labour world.

This protection is ensured in many ways in the outside world. In Britain, for example, they have the closed-shop system. Do hon. members know how this works? It means that before a labourer can go to work, he first has to join a trade union. Once he has joined the trade union, he may be employed by an employer as long as he carries the trade union’s card. However, if a secretary of a trade union kicks him out the next day, the employer is obliged to terminate his services forthwith and to fire him. In other words, when they feel threatened by immigrants from outside, the trade union simply does not grant membership of the union to immigrants and the employer therefore cannot employ them. This is a much worse form of terrorism than is found in any other part of the world. In South Africa we do not, in the main, have this degree of built-in protection. In South Africa we have a different kind of set-up. For this reason I say that the principle that established or minority groups, whether religious minority groups, minority language groups, immigrant minority groups or any other kind of minority groups, will be protected is not an unknown principle. The German labourer, too, is today being protected against the Turks who enter Germany, and in the same way the Swiss labourer is being protected against the Turks and Italians who enter Switzerland. If we want to bring about change, it has to be change within the framework of a policy which wants to maintain peace and order in South Africa. I think the arguments advanced by hon. members can be seen within this framework. If the Wiehahn Commission carries out its terms of reference—I do not know how, because I cannot dictate to the commission what decisions it should take—and produces formulas for making this adaptation in a rapidly developing South Africa, it is bound to be done in the right way.

The hon. member for Randburg referred in his speech, among other things, to the whole question of labour discipline and the wage gap. I remarked in that connection yesterday that the labour world could not keep the economy going if everyone did not show understanding for that one discipline; a person who sells his work must know that he is selling a commodity just as he would sell a shoe or a car. A person’s labour in a factory is just as important a production component as anything else. For that reason, the person who sells his labour must also realize that just as a farmer who sells a second-grade ox cannot expect to be paid the price of a first-grade ox, he himself cannot expect to get the same wage if he cannot show the same productivity. This concept of labour discipline must not only be advocated by a Government which sounds a warning in this connection. It is something which must form part of one’s view of life and one’s education and which has to be built into the life of a people. On the road ahead, therefore, we must remember that South Africa can only survive if it is able to sell its products in the outside world. Our country will have to depend on exports in the future, and we shall only survive if we compete, and we can only compete if we keep down the price of the basic elements of production, which include labour, supply and power, etc. The arguments advanced by hon. members fit into the overall pattern that one has to look at the cost of labour on the one hand and, on the other hand, at the gap which may exist.

The hon. member for Geduld spoke of a responsible middle class among the people of colour. I agree with him. Actually, we all agree with that. But the moment I say that, it can be interpreted in two ways again, and there will be those who will say that we are now deviating from Government policy. However, it is not a question of deviating from Government policy; all we are saying is that the moment a man has something which he can hold on to, he begins to feel that he has something for which to live. That is why other departments too are working in this direction to give people some security in this rapidly moving world. However, this is not the task of the Department of Labour. The Department of Labour deals with training. It deals with the training of people and with the employment of people. This is very important in these times.

While we are on the subject of training, I want to tell hon. members that the second component, the component of training, is also extremely important as far as the labour force of South Africa is concerned. In the past, we trained as fast as the need for it arose. I concede at once that it has now become necessary for us to train faster. We find ourselves in an economic recession at the moment, but the possibility exists that we may make a rapid recovery from this recession, and then the question will arise whether we shall be able to keep pace with the need there will be for trained people. I want to mention one example. We built a large refinery in South Africa and it was essential to supply certain specialized services there, and because we could not provide these services, we had to import Koreans. After all the attempts at recruitment in this country, and after we had combined all the resources available to us, it was necessary for us, for the sake of proceeding with the construction of the second Sasol, to re-employ these people to do certain very specialized welding on large pipes which could not normally be done in South Africa. We did not want to take the credit for having done this on our own. It is extremely specialized work. If we were to build a third Sasol one day—and I hope the newspapers are not going to say now that we are in fact going to build a third Sasol—our policy from now until then must be such that it will no longer be necessary for us at that stage to import people, but that we shall have trained our own people. That is the objective. In this great process in South Africa, where we are preparing for a great economic development in the future, it is essential for us to remain confident and to train our own people to make ourselves less and less dependent on people from outside to do certain work in South Africa. For this reason, it can now be understood that when we look at our labour legislation, the principal objective of the legislation must be the development of a pattern which will suit South Africa, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp, among others, said yesterday when he spoke of developing patterns in the outside world which have to be adapted in South Africa in a way which is acceptable in this country. Therefore my general reply to hon. members on the other side is that whether it is machinery for industrial bargaining, whether it is training and whether it is legislation, what works well in another country will not necessarily work well in South Africa, although there may be a great deal we could take over. That is why I say that the creation of labour peace in South Africa must be a South African creation, within a pattern which is appropriate to South Africa, which suits the people of South Africa, and in such a way as to ensure built-in labour security. In this respect, one thing is very sure. I can never tell the workers of South Africa by way of legislation or by way of departmental action, “I am destroying the existing structure and I am destroying the security which existed in the past.” That we cannot do.

For this reason I want to express my sincere thanks to hon. members once again, as I said at the beginning. I think that everything which was said by hon. members was appropriate to this Vote. Everything we have to do in the field of labour remains important for the present and for the future. In a time of rapid development, such as we have at the moment, it is essential that everyone who works in this country—Brown, Black, Yellow and White—should fit into a pattern where everyone will have security, a pattern where they will have certainty and clarity about their own protection in the future. This is the broad basis and this is the road along which we shall move.

I think I have now replied to all the questions in general. I apologize to the hon. members for not having been able to respond to each of their points, but I tried to give a survey, as I see it, of the matters which they raised. I thank them very sincerely for the discussion and I hope that when we meet here again next year, we shall be able to testify that there has in fact been progress in the meantime. Before I conclude, I just want to refer to one other matter.

The hon. member for Geduld asked me about a job reservation. Just allow me to say something more in connection with job reservation. This is a striking example of what may happen when one conducts a dialogue about a matter. When I instructed the industrial tribunal to investigate the justification for the retention of existing reserved jobs, I explicitly stated that the court was not allowed to investigate unless it made doubly sure that every trade union was consulted. I did this in the light of certain things which have been happening over the past 25 years.

One of the things has been the phenomenon that certain industries in which the labour force originally consisted predominantly of Coloured people or of Whites have changed to such an extent during the period of 25 years that in some of these industries there are few if any White employees left today. One example of that is the clothing industry. In some cases the percentage of Whites has dropped from 67% to 4%, and even to 3%. In other cases, Coloured workers have been completely supplanted by Blacks. It was therefore possible to approach the trade unions with figures of this nature, and to ask them what we were to do.

All the trade unions, without exception, indicated that they were satisfied that circumstances had changed completely and that job reservation did not apply at all any more in the industries concerned, and could therefore be abolished. I made it clear to the trade unions that I would not abolish any job reservation except with their co-operation. I want to repeat that I will not abolish any job reservation unless I have the co-operation of the trade unions in doing so. In fact, job reservation is still the law of the land. However, I want to add that I want to add that if the commission investigates this piece of legislation and recommends that under the new circumstances we ought to devise different plans for the protection of our workers in the future, we shall consider the matter. However, as long as the present protection continues, I cannot change the law of my own accord. As long as the legislation exists, I cannot leave unprotected the people who seek protection in terms of the law concerned. For this reason I am pleased that so much progress has been made. Just as senseless as it would be in one part of the country to reserve an industry for Whites when, for example, only one White person is left among the 300 employed in that industry, just as senseless it would be in other cases as well.

What we have done amounts to an absolutely logical development. After proper consultation between me, my department and the trade unions, we decided on the change. In fact, I believe that if—when we have investigated the remaining five job reservations as well—the trade unions still grant their cooperation, we shall abolish those as well. However, if the trade unions maintain that for valid reasons they are not prepared to do that, those job reservations will remain as they are. After all, this is the law of the land. In the meantime, however, I think we would be well advised to wait calmly for recommendations by the Wiehahn as well as the Riekert Commission. Then we may be able to introduce legislation next year which will amount to a step forward. However, I shall not feel free to introduce legislation in this House which is not in the interests of peace and of harmonious co-existence in South Africa.

Finally, I convey my thanks to all the hon. members who have taken part in the discussion of this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell me whether the department makes any effort, other than publication in the Government Gazette, to trace the well over 3 600 people whose names appear as people to whom unclaimed moneys are owing by the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. There is a huge list of unclaimed moneys, large amounts that are owing. What is being done about that?

The answer, in a word, is “Yes”.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 7.—“Mines”:

Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to listen to the reply by the hon. the Minister of Labour. He said quite a few things about the labour scene in South Africa which sound promising to us. It was particularly interesting and encouraging to see how critical he was of the closed shop principle as it exists in British industry, for instance. He pointed out the inhibiting effect it could have on peaceful economic progress. We wish to express the hope in this Vote that the hon. the Minister will be as critical of the closed shop principle as it exists in South Africa, for this has as inhibiting an effect on sound progress in our economic life.

It is surely a long time since mining has been so vital for our domestic economy as it is today. This is so particularly because mining is our greatest exporter. Mining is responsible for earning foreign exchange to the amount of approximately R4 billion per year. It is, of course, also extremely important because it is the creator, directly but also indirectly, of tremendous job opportunities in our country. In these circumstances it goes without saying that very high priority should therefore be given to keeping the mining industry healthy. When we look at the present condition of the mining industry, the first thing that strikes one is the alarming cost increases of the mines in all respects. During the past few years it has generally been the rule that the annual cost increases in the mining industry have been considerably higher than the increase in the cost of living and the general inflation rate. The reason for this is not known yet, but intensive investigations are being conducted in this regard in the private sector, and I take it also in the department of the hon. the Minister. It will be extremely difficult to establish the reasons for these cost increases and to deal with this tendency successfully. For the present, it appears as though each component in the cost structure is rising. This applies to supplies, locally manufactured as well as imported, to services, to fixed prices, to electricity, to fuel, to cement and also to wages. I wish to dwell for a moment on the question of wages because there are those who suggest that recent increases, especially of Black wages, were excessive and that this should bear most of the blame for the general cost increases in the industry. I particularly wish to warn against the misconception that the mining industry could have afforded noo to act as it did act with regard to Black wages. It is encouraging to see that the first report of the Franzsen Commission also supports this viewpoint of mine. I quote, for instance, from paragraph 58.4, where they say the following—

This did happen. A few years ago our mining industry still relied mainly on the labour of foreign Black people from outside the borders of South Africa. Today, especially when one includes Transkei and Lesotho, a far greater proportion of our Black labour comes from areas close to us and the strategic danger is therefore much smaller than it used to be.

There are, however, other reasons why it was correct and remains correct that Black wages in the mining industry should increase rapidly. In this regard I quote from paragraph 58.2 of the report by the commission—

†Then it should also be noted that it is still true today, in spite of all these increases, that Black wages in the mines are still substantially behind those paid in secondary industry generally. The commission also makes this point. If we take the most recent determination of the value of non-cash wages paid on the mines, which is R41 per month, and we add this to the average that the commission gives, which I think is R102, we reach a figure of about R140 per month, whereas the average wage in industry is still around R180. There consequently remains a necessity to narrow ornclose the wage gap between mining and industry if our mining industry is to be competitive in terms of attracting our people to it.

I now want to come to the question of what is really necessary if we are to maintain the prosperity and real strength of the mining industry and are to put it in a position where it can, in the competitive markets in which it operates, accumulate sufficient capital to see to its future strength. If we are to do this, the major question we have to consider is the productivity of our industry as a whole. [Interjections.] As I was saying, we must look at the productivity of our industry as a whole, and in this connection—and this is the point I want to make—we must look very carefully at the question of the structure of our working week. I am very well aware that this is a delicate matter which is under negotiation at the moment, so I propose to handle it in that spirit. I have been reading, as I am sure other hon. members have, what the Franzsen Commission has to say about this very complicated and delicate problem. At the moment we are operating on an 11-day/fortnight system. I think it has been a reasonable compromise and it may well be, for the time being, the best we can do. The time has surely come, however, for us to consider whether we can afford, any longer, to let the mining industry’s assets of R2 billion stand idle for any part of any week. The Franzsen Commission has commented on this in the following rather striking terms—

There are several other passages I could quote, but that one will do. The truth of this is really quite obvious. The commission also quotes the example of the Vanderbijlpark Steel Works which, it says, has assets totaling R790 million and which works three shifts a day for seven days a week. One cokld have quoted any of our essential services, for example electricity, transport, railways, airways and other major industries. All over South Africa it is necessary—and more necessary today than it has ever been before—for us to use these capital intensive institutions to the fullest possible extent. Whilst I am not so ignorant of these subjects or so reckless as to plead fornprecipitate action in this regard, I believe that if we wish to maintain the health and vital export potential of our mining industry, it is essential that we begin thinking in terms of a seven-day mine-week. Obviously I am talking of a mine-week and not a man-week. The arrangement involving how many days the individual works when the enterprise is working seven days a week is a matter for industrial relations bargaining and not, I think, something which this House would wish to lay down. Obviously the harder our people work, the higher our productivity is likely to be, as was said in another debate this afternoon. We simply cannot afford any longer, with capital costs what they are, to let capital assets lie idle for any part of the week. The commission, as I have said, in arguing in various places the desirability of thinking along these lines, states in paragraph 57.7—

Obviously, we do not want an expensive increase in manpower if it can be avoided. Therefore, when we are considering the mining industry, we must also be prepared to consider changes in our labour structures and in our job patterns. So, firstly, if we want our productivity improved, if we want our real costs lower and if we want our competitiveness in world markets improved, we must look to the time when we can employ our capital assets on a more full-time basis. Secondly, there must be a willingness here, as there is beginning to be in many other sectors of our industrial life, to be flexible and to use all our labour resources to best advantage and to permit changes to take place where it is right that these should take place and where, as the hon. the Minister has said, this can be done without triggering off costly and undesirable disturbances. It is in this regard that I refer back to the remark I made at the beginning of my address this afternoon about the closed shops. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Parktown this afternoon on the very positive speech which he has made. [Interjections.] A colleague behind me says “Pity”, but I want to do him the honour today of saying thank you to him. He has years of experience in the mining industry and he has made a good study of the subject which he discussed. I also know a great deal about it and I want to congratulate him on his contribution. I do not want to discuss his speech further, because the hon. the Minister will reply to it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise another question here today, namely the Medical Bureau for Industrial Diseases. In the first place, I should like to thank the department for the report for the year 1976-’77 which appeared recently. Unfortunately we only received it yesterday afternoon, but it has been of great use to me to study this report. When I talk about the Medical Bureau for Industrial Diseases, I include the sub-bureaux which exist. The main bureau is of course in Johannesburg, but there are sub-bureaux in Klerksdorp, Welkom, Kuruman and other places. Permit me to thank the director in charge of that great organization, Dr. Wiles, and all his officials for the very thorough work which they are doing. Today I also want to break a lance for Dr. Wiles for certain ideas which he has expressed. A few weeks ago I addressed a group of mineworkers in my constituency and also in the constituency of the hon. member for Klerksdorp together with Dr. Wiles. There we set out the problems in connection with the complaints which are for ever being received from mineworkers in connection with certification. The bureau is a gigantic undertaking which provides an enormous service. However, the health of the men employed by the mining industry is at stake. On an average, there are 6 000 persons annually who report at the bureau for their first examination to obtain a certificate of fitness to work in the mines. Please note that a person must be 100% healthy to obtain a certificate and to be approved for employment by the mining industry. It is a great task to examine those men every year—the State undertakes it at its own cost—to make them available to the great mining industry of which the hon. member for Parktown spoke when he said that this industry was worth billions of rands to our country. For this industry we must have fit and healthy labour. Those who have been in the mining industry can testify that as the years go by, diseases begin to afflict that man who was at one time declared 100% 7t to go and work underground.

In the beginning, those people are asked every two years to undergo an examination so that they can again obtain a medical certificate of health; later, once every year, and still later, every six months. This requires work and it is sometimes not pleasant to keep hearing the complaints of these people as time goes by. That is why I am so grateful that those officials and the bureau are so tactful, so sympathetic and so honest in their dealings with those people. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I appreciate the fact that with the approval of the department, Dr. Wiles goes out of his way to attend to the complaints of the ordinary mineworker. These are not complaints which relate to the work of the mineworker, but they are rather health complaints.

I have said that such a worker is initially healthy, but that as the years go by, such workers also fall ill. In the mining industry, a worker can be certified. We have often amended the legislation which was passed in the ’fifties in this connection, and at present the Industrial Diseases in Mines and Works Act is applicable to those workers. Every time, adjustments were made and every time, benefits were given to the worker. This is a good thing, but the problem has not yet been solved. What problem? The problem which arises when a person complains that he thinks he should already have been certified while he is still working in the mines. How do these complaints arise? I have two X-ray photographs before me. In one case, the photograph shows that after 40 years the worker, according to his medical history and according to the examination which has been carried out on him, does not suffer from any of the industrial diseases. But he may already be suffering from other illnesses. The other X-ray photograph which I have before me is that of a worker who has already been working for 18 years. This worker has been certified and for that he gets compensated. I want to add—not to criticize the work which is done, but to praise it—that South Africa is far ahead of the rest of the world in this respect, because South Africa does much more for its mineworkers in this respect. Many other diseases are also certifiable in terms of the legislation, whilst this is not the case in other countries.

But one is now saddled with that problem and that is why I want to plead with the hon. the Minister this afternoon. One has the worker who has been working in the mines for 36 to 40 years, but cannot understand why he has not been certified. Why? It is because the mineworker seeks security. The aged mineworker has no pension scheme which will provide in his needs one day. That is true. He does not have that pension and he feels worried. Unfortunately such a person then dies and a post-mortem examination is performed. The post-mortem examination then shows that such a person did suffer from pneumoconiosis, perhaps in a very slight degree. Such a person is then posthumously certified and an amount is paid out to his estate. These are the complaints and the problems which we encountered. The medical bureau is doing everything in its power today, but as the Act reads today, they simply cannot tell a man with 40 or 35 years’ service that he is sick and that they give him the benefit of the doubt that he can in fact be certified. I understand that the mineworkers’ union and the staff association have submitted certain memoranda to the department in this connection. [Time expired.]

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip for the extra time which he offers me. The memoranda as well as the representations by the mining study group on this side of the House have been submitted to the department. I want to make an appeal for a scheme to be worked out in future whereby those who started working in the mining industry during the early years, 1935 and 1936, should be compensated in one way or another. Why do I request that? I do so in the first place because such a person did not have the privilege of being a member of a mine pension fund, and after the pension fund was instituted in 1949, his contributions to the fund were so small that he could not build up sufficient pension to lead an independent life after his retirement. A person who enters the mining service today is much better off and he can look after himself in the future. But there is a group of old mineworkers who are really suffering. One encounters certain cases where mineworkers went underground when they were still 100% 7t for their work, and when this certificate of fitness is withdrawn after 15 years, then he has just that small pension which he has built up over the period of 15 years, and for the rest he is out of work. He is, as it were, on the street. The details are fully reflected in the report and there one finds that the certificates of fitness are withdrawn at a rate of up to 20, 30 and 40 per year. Dr. Wiles and I addressed a group of 60 mineworkers at Klerksdorp a while ago. These 60 men had each had more than 30 years’ service in the mining industry, and according to the mining bureau, those workers are sick, but they cannot, in terms of the Act, be certified.

I understand that, because it is quite logical. How can we help those men in future? The hon. member for Parktown has suggested that we should perhaps institute a seven-day working week in the light of the fact that costs are rising. On the other hand, people make representations to work less and still others make representations for higher salaries. I think the Government should, in co-operation with the Chamber of Mines and the mineworkers’ association concerned, work out a scheme whereby mineworkers who have had 30 or 35 to 40 years’ service will, over and above the amount which accrues to them if they are certified, also get a gratuity—whatever that might be called. [Interjections.] We simply cannot delay this matter any further. I believe that we should make a proper study of that. I know that it will cost a lot, but I believe that the young mineworker who today has the privilege of belonging to a good pension fund, will contribute to improve the lot of his old colleagues who did not have that privilege and who, on account of health reasons, could not continue with their work.

I still want to devote a few moments to the question of post-mortem certification. The mineworkers accept that this certification is totally different from an examination which a person undergoes while alive. This is so, but at the back of his mind he thinks that he cannot be certified while alive, although he is a sick man, and the medical men admit that he is sick. But he is not suffering from a certifiable disease. One cannot get it into his head that someone who works above ground can suffer from the same disease. But those diseases have not been included in the legislation. One worker has 40 years’ service and does not get certified, while another one works for 18 or 20 years, for example, and does get certified. One can simply not convince the people that we are acting strictly in accordance with the provisions of the legislation. I know that the hon. the Minister is aware of representations in this connection. Everyone of the hon. members who represents a mining constituency knows that those people are forever asking what is going to happen to them when they turn 60 or 61 and the mine-bosses tell them that they are no longer require their services, and that they therefore have to go. It is difficult for these people. I want to say today, and the Government cannot be blamed for this, that the position of the retired mineworker is a difficult one. I want to quote my own example. I worked in the mining industry for 21 years and after my retirement I got a monthly pension of £5—R30 these days.

That was under the UP Government!

It does not matter under what Government it was. A mineworker who leaves the mining industry after 40 years’ service today gets a pension of between R120 and R130 per month. Surely he cannot exist on that. Such a person had surely given his life to his country and to the mining industry. Surely he has made his contribution. [Interjections.] I therefore plead today, not only with the Government, but also with the Chamber of Mines and with the trade unions, that a scheme should now really be worked out to give these people, too, some security. If we can accomplish that, many of the other problems which we have, such as complaints by people who are refused certification, will fall away, because these people who grab are simply seeking security for the future.

I trust that other hon. members who participate in the debate will support these representations.

Mr. Chairman, it is well known that the mining industry has played a significant role in the historical development of South Africa. That role has expanded over the last 80 years so that we have now reached the point where we with our gold, coal, diamonds and other strategic minerals find South Africa once more in a position where it holds an extremely vital link with the many countries in the world that we do trade with, a link which guarantees the survival and viability of many of our neighbouring as well as some overseas countries.

In fact, if it was not for our well endowed mineral wealth, I think South Africa may well have followed a very different course over the last few years. However, it is precisely our mining expertise and our minerals which ensures that this country of ours is still in a position to deal with other people, overseas and in Africa, on an equal footing. Furthermore, it is the mining industry itself which provides a considerable number of people in South Africa with their daily bread. One finds, therefore, that the mining portfolio is very closely linked with the hon. the Minister’s other portfolio, that of labour. They are very closely intertwined, in fact almost inseparable. One also finds that mines are integrated with the social and political life of our country. If we are going to win the political battles which face us, we first have to fight many a battle in the economic field as well, as I mentioned yesterday. I trust that the spirit of development and the foresight the hon. the Minister has revealed to us so clearly in the previous debate, will also be a prevailing factor in this debate, for it is in the mining field that I think the hon. the Minister will find his greatest challenge to influence and develop people in South Africa. I want to appeal to him not to shrink from these challenges in these battles which are going to be fought in this particular area.

I was most heartened to see in the report of the Government Mining Engineer that a considerable breakthrough has been made in the field of coal mining. I understand from that report that recent mechanization developments and the introduction of capital in the mechanization field in the coal mining industry have made a considerable contribution towards increasing the recovery of coal, which in the future will become the black gold of South Africa. I see in the report that the recovery rate has increased by 5%, which is very significant when one realizes that the average recovery rate of coal in South Africa has been in the region of 40% in most South African mines. It is, however, this type of development, this new technology, which is also going to bring in its wake the necessity for job restructuring. The new technology which is introduced into the coal mines today may well become feasible in the hard-rock mining sector, namely the gold mining sector of South Africa. I should like to quote from a comment by the President of the Chamber of Mines, Mr. Van den Bosch, in the March edition of the Chamber of Mines report. He said two significant things.

On economic considerations alone the removal of restrictions on employment can be shown to be both inevitable and of compelling urgency.

He says further—

These are the kind of pressures which are going to be exercised on the legislation and the insight of the hon. the Minister in his portfolio of Mines. It is obvious that if we, as in the case of the coal mines, are to progress and make better utilization of our scarce resources, we have to introduce a new technology. That new technology will require job restructuring and the introduction of additional training and employment practices. Let us face it: If the hon. the Minister attempts to make strides in this direction, he is going to meet in a head-on clash with the Mineworkers’ Union. In a television programme the other night on which the hon. the Minister appeared so successfully, we saw that the only disquieting attitude amongst all those people interviewed was shown by the leader of the White Mineworkers’ Union. I do not blame him for the attitude which he has. The White mineworkers are scared that job restructuring is going to deprive them of their livelihood. It may well mean job retrenchment for them, or it may well mean a loss of income. One cannot blame people if they wish to protect with everything at their disposal their right to employment.

When a clerk is employed in one department or organization and that organization decides to a bit of job restructuring and he loses his job, he can go to another company and be a clerk. If he is an accountant he can do exactly the same. But a mineworker is a highly-trained and highly-skilled man. He learns a particular set of skills which cannot be transferred to any other industry than the mine industry. Hence the fear that if job restructuring occurs in the mining industry, this man can lose his livelihood and that his family will suffer as a result. The counter to this attitude, as we have seen in so many cases in South Africa lately, lies in negotiation, in a better understanding of the intentions and attitudes of people on both sides. Unfortunately, in so many cases where management and labour try to negotiate with each other, we find that these fears are not allayed, but enhanced. People dig their heals in and say that they are not going to move forward. In this regard, as a relatively independent objective body, the Department of Mines can play a very significant role.

We noticed recently that the employment figures for Blacks have gone up quite considerably and that the total employment of the South African gold-mines alone is approximately half a million a year. But what is particularly interesting, and this is brought about as a matter of necessity, is that more South African Blacks are being employed in the gold-mines. These people are going to bring in new attitudes, new job aspirations, and if they cannot find outlets for their skills and inventiveness, then I think the economic and mining problems are going to overflow into political problems as well. I am very pleased to hear from the hon. the Minister’s statement during the discussion of his other portfolio, what a positive attitude he was taking towards training and retraining and the exercise of leadership in the field of inter-person relationships. I sincerely hope and believe that the hon. the Minister will continue this very positive relationship and direction also in the mining field. It is interesting to note that where the interface occurs between the Black and the White worker in South Africa, we find that we have probably the most radical element of the White workers interfacing and working in direct relationship with the Black worker. I foresee that if job restructuring occurs in the mining industry, whereby we are able to take some of the routine work off the White miner and give it to the Black miner and develop him in that way, we should give consideration to training the White mineworker, not only in how to use a jack-hammer, how to charge up a hole or how to clear out the ore from the mine, but that emphasis will be placed—and in this respect I refer especially to the Government Mining Training School—on teaching the White miner to become a trainer of the labour that works under him. A number of miners have very good technical skills, but in order to convey that knowledge to another worker, requires very specific skills. I would like to see included in the curriculum of the White mineworkers at the Government Mining Training School and on training courses on the mines, the development of the skill of training other people. In this way we can assist the White miner to develop his own responsibility and to maintain his job. What is very important, the emphasis, as we have seen in the manufacturing industry, is on job relations and human relations. I worked in the mining industry for three years. It was not a very pleasant business sometimes working down in the deep, and I know that under those conditions tempers flare up very easily and the worker has to exercise a considerable amount of self-discipline. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North made a responsible speech. I would like to remind him that it was this Government that has seen to the interests of trade unions through the years, and in a very sensitive industry like the mining industry it is of great importance that the Minister of Mines works in close collaboration with the trade unions. I have practical experience of this and the hon. the Minister of Mines does everything in his power to give the necessary assurances, and not only the assurances. His whole approach towards the mining industry is of such a nature that it can only foster well for the mining industry in South Africa.

*Permit me, on behalf of the mining discussion group, in the first place to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Mines on the honorary doctorate which he has received. I am convinced that after a few years as Minister of Mines, he will receive further honorary doctorates on account of his scientific and correct approach to the mining industry.

I want to concentrate on the worldwide supply pattern of two of our basic raw materials in South Africa. I have already said that South Africa’s mining industry is very important. I believe that it is the most important industry in our country today. I am going to substantiate my statement by referring to just two basic raw materials. Those are the two raw materials of which I have personal knowledge, i.e., platinum and chrome. When we look at the pattern of distribution of these specific metals in the world, it appears that South Africa is actually in a position of power as far as the production of these two minerals is concerned. It is, however, a position of power which South Africa has never yet abused.

When we therefore hear of sanctions and of all sorts of other threats, the question involuntarily arises what the West will do without these two basic raw materials which I have just mentioned. Cognizance must be taken of the fact that South Africa has 80% of the world’s reserves of chrome ore. Ferrochrome, a compound of chrome and iron, is transported from here to the rest of the world. South Africa supplies more than 30% of the ferrochrome which is used in the world. South Africa and Bophuthatswana together supply 75% of the world’s platinum.

It is easy to ask why ferrochrome and chrome are so important. It is easy to underestimate these minerals. When we analyse the uses of these raw materials, however, we find how important they really are. Ferrochrome, for example, is used for manufacturing mechanical equipment and jet aircraft engines, in the oil refining process, etc. We can go and search everywhere in the world and we shall find that there is no metal which can take the place of ferrochrome. Even the mighty USA cannot continue the manufacturing of their modern jet aircraft without ferrochrome. It plays a role in their defence. It plays a role, in fact, in the defensive ability of all great Western powers.

Let us now look at the uses of platinum. It is used in combating air pollution. It is used as a catalisator in the production of oil. In Japan, jewellery is manufactured from it. But I am now talking of the vital uses of the platinum. Let us look at the uses of chrome in our alloy industry. That is the industry in which metals are combined in order to produce things which are important in the mechanization and the development of every country. Notwithstanding the present economic development and the fact that our alloy factories are in some cases only producing 50% of their potential capacity, we already have a share of 18% in the world sales of alloy products. What is very important is the fact that we know that this industry has the potential for expanding by 30% until 1981. As soon as the economy has fully recovered, there will definitely be a great demand for steel again.

Stainless steel is produced in South Africa. Research is being done in South Africa, and we have the entrepreneurs to take care of the expansion of our mineral industry.

Sir, one can wax lyrical about mining as such. I say in all modesty today that the mining expertise in South Africa is an example to the rest of the world. Many countries can come and learn from us about mining. It is also of importance as far as our African politics is concerned, and in this connection I refer specifically to Southern Africa in the first place. Bophuthatswana, for example, is an independent and free State. I want to say today that it is admirable to see how a Minister handles a delicate matter like this. He appeared personally in my part of the country, in the bushveld coagulation complex with its mineral wealth, which can be compared to the Witwatersrand complex. That area has a greater potential for earning currency than even the Witwatersrand. It gives one courage for the future.

Then there is talk of homelands like Bophuthatswana not being viable! Its platinum and other mineral wealth alone can make Bophuthatswana a very rich country. But what is of importance in this connection is the economic co-operation between the two States. This is in fact one of the best examples which could be used. On the one hand, we have an independent Black State and on the other hand the Republic of South Africa. Just think of the co-operation there is between these two countries today. Who was the mediator who concluded agreements in connection with sensitive matters between these two States? Who was the mediator who established peace and labour peace? It was the hon. the Minister of Mines, who personally paid a visit to that area and who gave assurances to workers. The responsible action of the Bophuthatswana Government, too, was a factor. The Bophuthatswana Government accepts the concept that the mining industry is a specialized industry and that the necessary knowledge and expertise are of great importance to them. Great capital expenditure is also taking place in Bophuthatswana and many White workers in the industry work in Bophuthatswana. By means of this liaison, we are building bridges for the future of Southern Africa. I think the mining industry can serve as a link between the countries in Southern Africa to show the world that we in South Africa have a contribution to make to the rest of the world. It is a contribution in the true sense of the word, because with labour peace and with effective methods, we can produce the necessary raw materials for the world—a world which is almost wholly dependent upon certain minerals from these countries. I am referring in particular to countries of the West. We have the know-how, to exploit this mineral wealth and to supply it to those countries.

What is important, Sir, is that we must look at the competition which exists in connection with platinum. That competition is limited to South Africa, Bophuthatswana and Russia. It is interesting to note that last year, Russia placed no platinum on the market. It is said that they use it for coining money. All sorts of excuses are advanced. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the debate in another direction by discussing the possible need to take a new look at a metals and minerals policy for our country in order that our vast natural wealth can firstly be utilized for the economic development of our nation, but of greater importance, I think, is the fact that we can use these resources to secure our strategic position with those countries of the world which are opposed to communist aggression. I believe the development of such a policy to be equally important as the conduct of an adequate foreign policy. In any event, I would consider that an overall metals and minerals policy should form part of a foreign policy. The total sales of metals and minerals in 1976, as mentioned by the hon. member for Parktown, realized something like R4 500 million. Just more than about half of that was from gold sales. The base metal and mineral sales in 1976 realized nearly R2 000 million, the metallic minerals, excluding gold, silver, platinum and uranium, accounting for something like R650 million. It is from within this group of ever increasing sales that some of the most strategic metals to Western security are exported from our country.

It seems to me that the only criterion that has ever applied in the development of our metals and minerals has been whether we could get a supply of capital for their development from overseas sources, in return for which we would not in any way restrict the export of these metals and minerals. I immediately admit that, what I would call this open sales policy, has had to be adopted because we have needed to obtain foreign capital for the development of our country. Also we have needed to earn the necessary foreign exchange with which to buy what we have wanted. I am in no way suggesting that these considerations should immediately be set on one side. The fact remains, however, that our metals and minerals are a wasting asset. And in the supply of many of these strategic metals we are nevertheless as important to the West as are the Arab States of the Middle East when it comes to oil. I would even go so far as to say that we are of equal importance to the West.

My submission is therefore that we should formulate policies on a longer term basis, policies in terms of which we can export these metals and minerals in the processed form and in terms of which we can use our resources as a political weapon on the international scene. That this is not the policy at present, is clearly stated in the annual report of the Secretary for Mines, because in submitting the report of the Director of the Minerals Bureau, the following is stated—

It is therefore clear that the emphasis is on the optimum utilization of these resources, and the only question is what immediate economic value they can have for South Africa.

The other aspect of the work of the bureau, on which little emphasis has been placed in the report, concerns the strategic studies that the bureau has carried out to evaluate the importance of mineral exploitation in other countries with a view to assessing the possible impact on our own export trade. It seems to me that the emphasis has been placed entirely on economic considerations. In the formulation of policy, for strategic reasons I think there are certain aspects we have to consider. We have to consider, in fact, how important the South African minerals and metals industry is to the West. In order to illustrate this I regret that I shall have to quote figures, something I do not often do in this House. South Africa, representing less than 1% of the earth’s surface area, ranks first in the production of gold, the platinum group of metals, vanadium and antimony. We rank second in the production of chrome and manganese. We rank third in the production of diamonds, uranium and asbestos. We rank seventh in metal, eighth in fluorspar and ninth in bituminous coal. Because of South Africa’s contribution to the Western world, the Western world is the leading producer of a number of metals and minerals. It produces 73% of the world’s supply of gold, 71% of its vanadium, 65% of its uranium, 64% of its nickel and so I could go on. South Africa is responsible for 10% of the total Western world’s production of half of these minerals. It is considered by various authorities that the Western world produces some 42% of the total value of the world’s mineral production. Out of this 42% it is able to meet only 65% of its consumption requirements. Without South Africa’s contribution production would fall for the Western world below 50% of its mineral requirements. It is clear, therefore, that the West can ill afford to ignore its dependence on South African supplies and the 10% I have referred to will be placed at risk—while that 10% is a critical factor as far as the Western world is concerned—in the struggle against communist aggression.

I have briefly quoted the relevant figures because I believe we have not made use of our strategic importance to the Western World to secure our own position in South Africa and to bring home to the Western world the importance of South Africa, as we consider it, in respect of the supply of these metals and minerals. We must bring home to them the fact that we have never attempted to emphasize to the Western world that without South Africa it can well be held to ransom by the communist countries of the world and by the Third World which is also a major producer of certain of these metals and minerals. It can be held to ransom by them in its efforts to meet its supplies adequately. I believe we have to take a long-term view. It is not enough to consider exploitation and look for markets for economic reasons only. I believe that consideration should also be given to the use of these resources for our own strategic needs in the world. I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider the suggestion which I have very briefly set out in the time I have had at my disposal. I believe that as a matter of urgency attention should be given in the first instance to the development of programmes for the processing of the mineral products such as ferroalloys, stainless steel and high-strength alloy steel.

On this basis and with these developments our relative importance to the Western world would also be increased considerably. There is a second reason. The depletion of the world’s economically viable deposits of these strategic metals and our vast resources of them will also increase our vital importance to the Western world. There is a third point I wish to make. It is, incidentally, a remarkable thing that one has to make use of American sources to get figures indicating how important our production is to the Western world. I had to make use of American sources to ascertain what the position is. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Von Brandis pointed out the importance of the mineral wealth of South Africa. In that regard I should like to associate myself with him. To that I should like to link a question of South African origin, and that is whether we in South Africa have trained manpower in sufficient numbers for exploiting all that mineral wealth.

Before I come to that, Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Stilfontein in a few words on the speech he made here this afternoon and on the plea he addressed to the hon. the Minister. I should like to say—and I address this to the hon. the Minister as well—that everyone of us in this House who represents a mining constituency, has been impressed by the earnestness with which he delivered his plea. I want to add that every one of us is faced with the same problem. In associating myself with the hon. member for Stilfontein, I am of the opinion—and I say this with great respect and great responsibility, with all the responsibility at my command—that the time has arrived for a formula to be worked out in South Africa for granting compensation to our mineworkers on some basis over and above the certification which is done. For that reason I gladly associate myself with what the hon. member said when he brought it to the notice of the hon. the Minister that consideration be given to the matter of paying a gratuity to our mineworkers after they had rendered service—good service for South Africa—for a certain number of years.

But I said in the first instance that I wanted to associate myself with what the hon. member for Von Brandis had said in order to point out in brief the wonderful mineral potential of this wonderland, South Africa. Not only is the Republic of South Africa one of the five major mineral producers in the world, but in contradistinction to many other countries, it also has an unequalled record as a stable and reliable supplier of a wide range of important minerals, metals and related mineral commodities at fair prices. The Republic of South Africa has a unique geological concentration of the world’s reserves of precious metals and minerals as well as raw materials for the steel industry. Therefore South Africa is an ideal partner in all respects for the supply—especially in future—of these minerals and metals to consumer countries, both in the East and in the West. It is the ideal place for investment and for meeting future requirements. The value of minerals produced during 1977—and it is enlightening to take cognizance of the fact that we in South Africa produce 60 mineral commodities—amounted to approximately R5 500 million. The hon. member for Von Brandis spoke of a figure of R4 500 million, but that figure reflects the position as it was a year ago. In my opinion this is an excellent record. Notwithstanding the fact that we experienced a drop the previous year—that is the figure to which the hon. member for Von Brandis referred—the present figure is in excess of R5 500 million, i.e. an increase of approximately 26% in spite of the inflationary conditions which are being experienced. This is indicative of the importance of the mineral wealth of South Africa.

Let us look what was in store for the South African mining industry during the past number of years. Probably the most significant development in respect of the non-gold-producing sector was the completion of the super harbours at Saldanha and Richards Bay. Today the earnings in respect of coal exports are just slightly less than those in respect of platina and diamond export sales, and that is thanks to the harbour at Richards Bay. The total sales value of iron ore increased by more than 150% during 1977, and the foreign exchange earnings increased to a record of more than R200 million. That is thanks to the harbour at Saldanha Bay.

Now that I have referred to these things in brief, the question arises whether South Africa has the trained manpower in sufficient numbers to develop our mineral potential further. It will not profit us in any way to have such vast mineral reserves if we are unable to supply the trained manpower for the further development thereof. The question also arises whether we have the necessary facilities for training the manpower that we require for the further development of the mining industry. Our minerals are in demand throughout the world, but the question arises whether we are able to supply them to our potential trade partners. Another problem is that our production costs are increasing at a tremendous rate, and consequently we shall have to give consideration to the question of developing techniques to mine minerals more cheaply in South Africa. For this we need trained men with the necessary expertise and know-how. Moreover, our minerals should be exported in a refined form, so that we may obtain higher prices and create more employment opportunities. If we can comply in all respects with the requirements of potential trading partners with regard to the supply of minerals, our exports will increase and the growth rate of our country will rise.

The Government’s Miners’ Training College was, and still is, the main source of supply of White mineworkers for the gold mining industry. The annual enrolment of the college totals approximately 1 045 students. Every year approximately 350 students qualify as mineworkers. This number is insufficient to fill all the vacancies, and this is an important matter.

Divisions of the college operated at 11 different gold mines during 1976. One-quarter of their maintenance costs is borne by the State, while the Chamber of Commerce is responsible for three-quarters of the maintenance costs. At Witbank, there is a training college for mineworkers, and this college is managed and financed by the Chamber of Mines. The mining industry spends approximately R28 million per annum on the training of mining officials, mining artisans and mineworkers who want to obtain diplomas and degrees in engineering, in metallurgy and in certain other fields of study. Young men with the necessary qualifications and abilities are afforded the opportunity of attending a university for academic training, at the expense of the mining industry. The mining industry also gives considerable financial support to the departments of mining engineering, metallurgy, geology, mineralogy and other university faculties connected with mining. Our position as regards the matter of producing metallurgists, physicists, chemists, design engineers, etc., is not too rosy, in spite of favourable training facilities and generous financial support. Our country needs men with academic qualifications in these fields of study in order to develop a mineral processing industry. Research has to be undertaken in order to find new or improved production methods, new uses for minerals, new mineral compounds with special characteristics, and new reduction methods. These are the matters with which the National Institute for Metallurgy is occupying itself. This institute took the initiative in 1970 to stimulate interest in this direction. The results have been encouraging, but inadequate for meeting our requirements. The institute also makes bursaries available to post-graduate students. In 1972 18 post-graduate bursaries were awarded and in 1977 29. Post-graduate students form an important part of the research potential in the field of extraction, metallurgy and related sciences. As far as chemical engineers are concerned, an estimated number of 32 chemical engineers are required in 1978 as against an average number of only 16 who qualify each year. Mining engineers are equally indispensable to the operations of the mining industry and also as far as this group is concerned, the figures are disconcerting. In 1978 100 additional mining engineers are required for normal growth as against an average of seven who qualify at our universities each year. In other professions, too, there are serious shortages of manpower. In this regard I have in mind the professions of, for example, geologists, geo-chemists, mineralogists, and mineral economists. As regards trained manpower for the further development of our mineral potential, the field is lying fallow. I want to address a serious appeal to our young men today to make themselves available for training in the directions I have just mentioned. It is an acknowledged fact that we in South Africa are in the fortunate position—as I said right at the outset—of having vast mineral wealth.

But I want to stress that another acknowledged fact in this regard is that the mineral wealth of South Africa cannot be exploited in any way if we do not have the manpower to do so. We are grateful today to our corps of mineworkers, irrespective of whether they are Black or White, throughout the country for what they have done throughout the years in connection with the development of whatever nature and in whatever form, of mining in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Welkom when he made an appeal to the hon. the Minister and to the young men of our country to give their support to the mining industry. There is a shortage, and consequently we support, as we did in the past, the appeal of the hon. member for Welkom. If we want to utilize the resources of this country to the full, we shall have to contend with a marked shortage of manpower.

The hon. the Minister will probably not hold it against me nor will he be surprised if I want to discuss energy once more. I know he agrees with me that it is an extremely important subject, that it represents an extremely important part of our future in South Africa and that time does not wait for us. Therefore I feel that I should once again call for the more effective structuring of a general energy policy and the establishment of an energy department which will accept the responsibilities regarding the development of a complete and effective energy policy. Everywhere a certain measure of praise is being given and possibly a certain measure of lip service is being paid to the efficient coordination of energy by the Department of Planning and the Environment. One does indeed want to praise, and one appreciates the reports which are published, but one is none the less obliged to ask oneself whether this dispensation is working. Furthermore, if the various components of the energy pattern in South Africa had fallen under one department, it would have been possible to deal with the subject just once. But now, for example, I am obliged to go peddling from one department to another in order to reach each hon. Minister to discuss his component of the energy pattern with him.

On this occasion I should like to take a brief look at coal as a part of the energy industry and the energy pattern, and I should like to raise a few matters in this regard. Recently Dr. D. J. Kotzé, Director, of Energy of the Department of Planning and the Environment, wrote, inter alia, the following in the journal of the CSIR, Scientiae, for the first quarter of this year—

I agree with the last statement in his argument. It is true that we are not going to have inexhaustible reserves of coal in the long term. As regards the shorter term, Dr. Kotzé’s statement that our coal reserves would probably be exhausted within 15 years, there might indeed be reason for differing from him. For example, if one consults the Petrick report concerning the coal reserves of South Africa, one sees that the commission is, at least as far as the short term is concerned, far more optimistic. The commission feels that our production could well be 300 million tons per annum even during the period 2000 to 2050, and that our coal requirements would possibly be more or less the same. In other words, they feel that there will be an equilibrium between production and requirements by that time. From present predictions, we know that the production of coal will decrease after that and that we shall have to turn to something else to be able to generate the necessary energy to satisfy the requirements of our industries.

†This situation, the projection of intersecting lines of development, one of production and one of consumption, I think brings into focus the need to start now to develop alternative sources of energy. This is a task of enormous financial magnitude and a matter of great technological complexity and if we were to wait until the emergency is upon us, until the disaster overtakes us, it will be too late to undertake this development which I would imagine, considering its complexity, will occupy this country maybe 20 or 30 years. That is the time it would take to replace South Africa’s present primary energy carriers.

There are other differences which one finds when one looks at the attitude of various departments. The reports of the Department of Planning and the Environment are fairly neutral, for example, on the question of whether we should be exporting our coal to other countries. The Petrick Commission, on the other hand, is reasonably clear in warning the country against the export of coal to other countries. The coal industry itself makes a very strong case that we should be exporting coal to other countries. The industry points out that it is relatively price-bound within the domestic structure. It is only by exporting coal to other countries that it may earn the profits with which to develop the coal industry, explore, modernize and conserve coal by discovering more coal and mining it more efficiently. This is the sort of conservation which is important. It is one with which I agree very strongly. I believe the hon. the Minister of Mines as well agrees with that view, because in answer to a question earlier this year he informed the House that local production of coal in South Africa had increased to 85,4 million tons in 1977, of which 12,7 million tons had been exported. It shows that it is possible to increase local production to satisfy more fully the needs of local consumers while also exporting, and in the process achieve that kind of conservation which is the real conservation. On present estimates the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association calculates that by the year 2000—only 22 years from now—exports of coal could, within reason, earn up to R15 000 million. This is a factor which surely must also appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I hope that in our approach to the question of coal production and exports this view will prevail. The immediate concern is, of course, with high-grade coal and coking-coal for metallurgical purposes. This is our area of greatest shortage and concern. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister—I hope he will be able to reply in the course of this debate—what the position is in regard to the new resources which have been discovered in north-eastern Transvaal. We have heard a great deal about the Kruger National Park and the lions becoming guests of the Carlton Hotel, but I should like to know what the facts are, how the Department of Mines sees the resources of high-grade coal which may become available in north-eastern Transvaal, either in the Kruger National Park or, preferably, outside it.

Another serious preoccupation relates to the low grades of much of our coal reserves. In relation to the purification of coal by the method of solvent refining, a method which reduces the ash content and removes the shales and sulphur, I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate how far this art has been advanced, because quite clearly it is a matter of extreme importance to South Africa in that so large a portion of our coal reserves is of such an extremely low quality. In comparison to the rest of the world we have some of the lowest calorific values. This method, which is being developed in America, could make an enormous difference to the bulk content and concentrate the calorific value of coal produced in South Africa. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would inform the House of the information at his disposal in this regard.

In the time available I am afraid I cannot discuss our second greatest energy carrier and fuel resource, namely uranium. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia has, as usual, made a constructive contribution in this debate. I am looking forward to the answer which the hon. the Minister is going to give him in this connection. I shall also have something to say about energy in the course of my speech.

I should like to bring two matters to the kind attention of the hon. the Minister. One of these is less pleasant; the other, again, is particularly pleasant.

The first matter is the disturbing phenomenon that in the ranks of Anglo-American, certain people have an axe to grind with the Mine Workers’ Union. It seems as if other mines are also being drawn into this dispute in this process. Matters which at this stage, are of a sensitive nature are dragged in without hesitation. The requirements to qualify for blasting certificates to the question of mixed trade unions, are all matters which are at present being investigated by the Wiehahn Commission. Methods are being suggested whereby the influence of the Mine Workers’ Union can be broken down. I do not want to go deeper into this matter, because it is unsavoury. Yet it remains a cause for concern.

I want to stress, however, that this campaign is not in the interests of Anglo American, it is not in the interests of the Mineworkers’ Union, it is not in the interests of mining, and it is not in the interests of South Africa. In a moment I shall express a compliment to Anglo American too. In the meantime, I shall leave this specific matter at that.

The second matter I wish to raise, and raise with pride, is the refining of minerals in South Africa. The well-known historian, Toynbee, mentions metallurgy together with agriculture and animal husbandry as the most important discoveries up to now. He says that although metallurgy has raised man’s standard of living, it has brought with it a division of labour, and as far as the environment is concerned, it has occasioned the progressive consumption of raw materials which are scarce and irreplaceable. At the juncture in which we now live, in which we are trying to maintain a particular standard of living, the world is really unthinkable without steel, and even more so in war conditions. The present world production of steel is 680 million tons per annum and it is expected that by the end of the century it will have increased to 1 000 million tons. South Africa has the most important resources of manganese, chrome, vanadium, fluorspar, and iron ore in the world. We have the mines, we have the production capacity and the infrastructure to supply larger quantities of the most important raw materials to the world. As far as the growing mineral refining industry is concerned, we are the biggest exporters in the world of ferro-chrome. Similarly, South Africa is the biggest supplier of manganese metal, and the third biggest exporter of ferromanganese. We have built up this proud record since as recently as the Second World War. We really only started with this after the Second World War. We have grown so phenomenally in this industry that between 1970 and 1976, the volume of our production doubled and we are today exporters of world class. The mineral sales as indicated here, rose by 24% in 1977. The sales amount to approximately R5,5 milliard. I am aware of the fact that the South African ferro-alloy producers are at present experiencing difficulties. There is an over-exploitation of production capacity; the prices are low; there are accumulated stocks overseas, and there is protection of overseas producers of ferroalloys, especially in the European Common Market. I have in mind the high cost of electricity and transport—matters to which the hon. the Minister, too, referred during the discussion of his previous Vote. As far as transport is concerned, it amounts to more than 15% of the total production cost. As far as the cost of power is concerned, we have just seen the quarterly reports of the different mining houses, and we have noticed that the main reason for the increased cost during the past quarter, has been increased costs of power. The cost of power has risen to approximately 23% of the total production cost. In the past, South Africa’s cheap power was always the most important reason why South Africa could favourably compete with other countries in the world market. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. For that reason I want to endorse what the hon. member for Constantia has said, viz. that intensive research should be undertaken with a view to energy conservation, and that the continuation of research by the National Institute for Metallurgy to improve existing oven process control, be encouraged.

Some encouraging announcements have already been made in this connection. I call to mind, for example, the announcement by the hon. the Minister last year that the National Institute for Metallurgy had made a breakthrough by raising the production capacity of a ferro-chrome oven by more than 30%, merely by means of more effective computer control. Good progress is also being made with the development of the so-called low-shaft furnace by Samancor, in co-operation with the National Institute for Metallurgy. In this respect, we have reason to be proud of the phenomenal achievements of the National Institute for Metallurgy, as is once again apparent from the report for the period 1 January to 31 December 1977. Let me quote a single paragraph from this report—

Good progress is being made in this connection, but a significant drop in energy consumption must be effected. In fact, it is being effected in this instance by making use of large quantities of cheap coal, instead of scarce and expensive coke, as a reducing agent.

Now I want to pay the compliment to which I referred earlier. It is a compliment to Anglo-American, and it really also concerns the constituency of the hon. the Prime Minister. It is also to the benefit of my constituency. I refer to the establishment of the company Ergo, a subsidiary of Anglo-American. It is a project which cost R140 million and which is unfortunately not labour-intensive. However the project will in future yield 7 000 kilograms of gold and 200 tons of uranium annually as well as approximately 530 000 tons of acid. Apart from that, the activities of this project are also to the benefit of the environment. Unsightly slag heaps are processed and the general appearance of the vicinity of Brakpan is being improved in that way. I think this is a praiseworthy effort. Last year, I had the privilege of viewing the project together with the hon. the Minister. A unique method is being made use of to process metals and minerals which are really found once only, to the benefit of South Africa.

In conclusion, I wish to point out that in agriculture, the same products are produced year after year. In order to ensure the continued existence of cultivated crops and tamed animals, man merely has to plan and exercise self-control. Things will continue that way until the world is no longer habitable. That is not the case with metallurgy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take up the theme the debate has followed up to now and which it followed last year. I am referring to the theme that we in South Africa should have an overall mineral policy, one which, in my opinion, should be based on promoting the judicious utilization, consumption and benefication of our mineral wealth in South Africa. To render the formulation of such a policy possible, the Minister instituted the Mineral Bureau which is to undertake the necessary studies and research in connection with the minerals available in South Africa.

I want to associate myself to some extent with the hon. member for Constantia by concentrating in this regard on one mineral in particular: Coal. There are vast quantities of coal in that part of the world where I come from. In the first place I want to refer to the mining of coal. Coal is being mined in concentrated areas and the Petrick Report determined those areas as far as possible. When coal will have to be used to an increasing extent as a source of energy because of the exhaustion of other fossil fuels, there will be a growing demand for coal both in the national and international economies. That in turn will result in larger investments having to be made in the field of coal mining. Eventually that will lead to the situation where there will be a concentration of large numbers of mines in the concentrated areas with all the resulting consequences such as pollution, mutilation of the topography and of nature, etc. It is important that we develop mining in South Africa, but we must ensure that it takes place in a proper manner, and plan it properly, especially with regard to exploitation.

I have dealt with the subject of strip mining on various occasions in this House and referred particularly to its influence on our agriculture in that it disturbs our agricultural resources. On this occasion I want to express my sincere gratitude to the Minister of Mines for what he has achieved in respect of this matter. Last year he announced that the Department of Mines in collaboration with organized agriculture, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and the division of Soil Conservation in particular had to draw up a special code for the application of the strip mining method.

I am delighted to be able to say that the code providing for this kind of mining, reached me this morning. As far as my knowledge goes and in so far as I have been able to consult the code, it seems to me as though it will work quite efficiently, since it covers various aspects. One of the provisions is that before such exploitation may take place, proper planning has to be done concerning all facets of importance in the area, facts such as water, topography, etc. It is also laid down that the rehabilitation plan for the reclamation of the area after the mine has become exhausted, should, in the opinion of the Government Mining Engineer, meet the requirements defined in the code. I notice that even the staff appointed to ensure that the requirements of the code are met while mining is being done, will be evaluated by the Department of Mines in order to determine whether they do have the ability and have the techniques at their command to execute such a complicated plan. I trust that our fears in this regard will no longer be founded. I also understand that private companies which apply mining methods of this kind, appoint scientists to ensure that the topography and our agricultural resources are properly protected. We owe the hon. the Minister a debt of gratitude in this regard.

I believe that we should come to a growing appreciation of the importance of coal to South Africa and that we shall have to give careful consideration to the question of the refinement of coal. It is interesting to mention steps which an important State corporation has taken in respect of the mining, and especially the refinement of coal. I am referring to Sasol. Because of the fact that coal is the most important raw material which Sasol uses the corporation does a great deal of research in this regard. It is interesting to read in the latest annual report of Sasol that the total turnover of this State corporation was R681 million, of which R121 million was in respect of chemicals alone. Of this amount of R121 million there were exports to the value of R12,5 million. This indicates that we should not see coal as a source of energy only. Coal also contains very valuable chemicals which can be utilized in a large variety of industries. Sasol also found, inter alia, that if one measured the energy per ton of coal, one would find that one could extract 15% more energy from a ton of coal as fuel if one used the same criterion as that used in respect of the energy one could extract from a ton of coal used for the generation of electrical power. In other words, a more economical use of energy is effected by the processes used by Sasol. But Sasol went further. It made a break-through. It found that coal could be refined by using a solvent, instead of the various heat processes. They call the system the SRC system. I do not know what it means, but in their statement they mention that within eight to ten years we should be able to use coal more advantageously as fuel by means of this new method of refining and that the process would be introduced economically in eight or 10 years’ time. I am not quite sure, but after the break-through by NIM with the refinement of uranium, to which the hon. the Minister referred last year, I believe the cost involved is approximately 30% less. The question which arises is whether we should assume that we should proceed with the conventional method of power generation from coal for all times. Should we not think further into the future and because of the indispensability of coal, move more in the direction of generating electricity by means of the kind of project we have at Koeberg, in other words, nuclear power plants? I want to call on the hon. the Minister and his department not only to consider with greater circumspection and seriousness the mining methods of coal, but also to ensure that we use this valuable mineral resource more carefully and sparingly in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I represent a constituency with a large number of mineworkers among the electorate, and therefore it gives me pleasure to be able to participate in this debate. I am aware—and I believe the House is also aware—of the role which gold has played during the past few years in earning foreign exchange. I am also fortunate in representing a constituency which produces quite a lot of maize, a product which has also earned a great deal of foreign exchange. If we therefore take note of the green and gold, I believe I can rightfully claim that my constituency is the Springbok constituency of the Republic.

During the election my opponents used a lot of arguments to stir up trouble, particularly in connection with the five-day working week and job reservation. I feel it my duty today to react to certain aspects which were mentioned in this regard. I want to refer briefly to the handling by the authorities of certain matters in connection with the five-day working week and the marginal mines which greatly contributed to the additional exchange which was earned and the job opportunities which were created in the whole of the mining industry. We are aware—the hon. member for Durban Point has referred to this—of the working conditions of the mineworker and the specialized work which he does. It has also been pointed out that he is trained to do only certain kinds of work, and if deprived of his job, he could perhaps experience problems.

The Gold Mines Assistance Act, No. 82 of 1968, is based on certain guidelines laid down at the time by the Ministers concerned. According to the relevant report, the guidelines laid down for an acceptable assistance scheme were: the fairness of taxation, the prevention of unemployment, the increase of the gross domestic product, and the amelioration of the effect on the balance of payments of a sudden decrease in gold production. Further requirements which were laid down for the specific mines under those circumstances were that they should be in production, that they would probably have to close down within eight years and that it would prolong their life significantly and also increase the production of gold and uranium significantly. The assistance would take the form of tax exemptions and direct financial aid in terms of a set formula. The Act not only enabled those particular gold mines, by means of the assistance they received, to mine low-grade ore which would otherwise have been lost, but also stipulated that the low-grade ore had to be mined if the assistance was accepted. Such a mine then had to decrease its pay margin by 20% and future activities had to be conducted on the level of the average grade of ore reserves.

It was expected at the time that the Government would contribute R82 million over the subsequent eight years in the form of tax concessions and direct payments, but also that additional gold to the value of R332 million would be produced in terms of the prevailing structures. I quote what the then Minister of Finance said (Hansard, 27 March 1968, col. 2897)—

The extent of assistance to be given would depend on the cost increases within the industry as well as on the fluctuation of the free market gold price. We are aware of the fact that if one considers the figures of the period which is past, one finds that R152 million was contributed from 1968 to the 31 March 1978. As one can expect, they varied considerably during those years. In 1974-’75, for example, only five mines made use of the assistance. It then amounted to R1,1 million and the percentage of gold was 10,5% of the total production and the value of the gold produced was R273 million. In 1976-’77 the largest number of mines availed themselves of it. In that year 15 mines received assistance to the value of R40 million. That represented 9,7% of the gold production, to the value of R229 million. We can say, therefore, that all in all, R96 million in assistance has been granted over the past five years, while the value of gold produced amounted to R1 200 million. When I look at the whole project, I want to associate myself with what Mr. N. Osmond said—

Mr. Chairman, in this regard I should like to agree with what has been said. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, in respect of these mines and the implementation of this Act, that we should continue to grant assistance to those mines, not only for the sake of earning foreign exchange, but also with a view to the employment of mineworkers. On the whole it is in the interest of the country and of the mining industry that it should be continued.

There is another aspect, however, which I would like to discuss briefly. I am referring to the five-day working week, which is also dealt with at some length in the report of the commission and which is closely bound up with the marginal mines. It is a fact, in considering the five-day working week, that it is morally justifiable for the South African mineworker to be placed in the same position as that in which other workers find themselves under certain circumstances. There are certain branches of our industry which work seven days a week or in which there is a seven-day working week. When one considers the health factor, it is true that the mineworker works under much more difficult circumstances than other people and consequently it is justifiable, for health reasons, that he should spend two days in the open air for the sake of his health.

My time is running short, but I want to point out briefly that when one considers the economic and financial circumstances of the mining industry as a whole, there are indeed certain implications which one could mention because they create problems for the mining industry as a whole. These circumstances could also cause problems to the mineworker as far as employment and unemployment are concerned. That aspect should therefore be considered. In the past the authorities followed the procedure of consulting with all the interested parties, i.e. the Chamber of Mines, the mining trade unions and everybody else concerned, to give them the opportunity of sorting out the matter after proper consultation with the Government, and, in the interests of the country as a whole and of the mineworker in particular, to see which methods would be the best when it comes to the implementation of a working week.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Carletonville will excuse me if I do not react to his statements and do not elaborate on the subject which he discussed. I apologize for that because I wish to put certain questions to the hon. the Minister.

†I started my first speech of ten minutes earlier this afternoon by saying that the economic, social and political lives of all South Africans are inextricably intertwined. When we look at one aspect of life in South Africa, it is also necessary to look at the implications and the repercussions of activities and policies in one area in relation to the total spectrum of South African life. I have a number of questions that I should like to direct to the hon. the Minister and I hope that he will be able to give us his considered opinion in regard to these problems. It is, for instance, well known that South West Africa is likely to become totally independent either at the end of this year or certainly early next year. That independence is something which we welcome, because I believe, in keeping with the policy of our party, that local option should be exercised. We must also examine the consequences for South Africa when South West Africa becomes independent and we must consider the consequences of creating totally separate and independent homelands in South Africa. In this regard I refer specifically to the problems which we are going to have in the mining industry. It is well known that South West Africa has extensive copper deposits, very extensive diamond deposits and also very extensive uranium deposits. It is also rumoured that kwaZulu has the finest and richest reserves of coking coal, a commodity which is absolutely essential for our steel industry. The question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister with regard to kwaZulu, is what will happen when kwaZulu becomes totally independent and tries to take the same kind of political action which we recently saw taken by Transkei. Knowing Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, I do not think he would leave it at words, and there is every possibility that he would then make us dependent upon him for this very rich source of coking coal.

The other issue I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is that of the platinum of Bophuthatswana. What is the position in regard to Bophuthatswana and our platinum reserves? Are we going to find ourselves totally dependent upon Bophuthatswana for our platinum supply within the next few years?

I should like to come back to the South West African issue and talk specifically about the value of the diamond mining industry there. From the recent hand-out by the Department of Statistics, we see that the diamond industry in South West Africa—we presume most of it is from South West Africa—gave South Africa no less than R552 million in foreign exchange in 1977. Of this amount R456 million was earned in the form of exporting rough diamonds and R96 million by the export of cut diamonds. The question is now what is going to happen when South West Africa becomes independent. What is the effect going to be upon us if we lose that amount of foreign reserves? I put the question not to cast any aspersion or any poor light upon South West Africa’s independence, but merely to find out whether we have calculated the cost of their independence to South Africa.

It is well known that the gold mines in the Witwatersrand area, stretching from east to west, are virtually exhausted. During the last two years we saw that the mines of Durban Roodepoort Deep, ERPM, and a few others have now reached the State Aid stage. We are therefore going to find ourselves in the unfortunate position, should we continue creating totally independent homelands, that South Africa will, within the next 50 years, be dependent upon the independent homelands for strategic minerals, let alone foreign reserves. I should like the hon. the Minister— I am sure he has the information available— to tell us whether he has been consulted by other departments and by the Government to make a study of the implications of our policy of totally separate homelands.

I should also like to refer the hon. the Minister to the uranium position in regard to South West Africa. Is South Africa involved in Rossing uranium plant and, if so, what is our involvement? We do not wish to know any trade secrets, but we should like to know whether in fact South Africa would be dependent upon that source of uranium. How do the reserves there compare with the reserves we have in South Africa?

Furthermore, I believe it is problematical whether the price of gold will remain as high as it is at the moment. We hear from all comers of the world, including the hon. the Minister of Finance, that the present drop in the price of gold is only a temporary hiccup. When one looks, however, at the mechanization and the foreign policy of the USA, it is very possible that we shall find, within the next five years, that America will actively pursue the policy of reducing the gold price in order to harm South Africa. After all, the only people who the USA claims benefit from gold at the moment are South Africans and Russians.

Should it therefore happen that our strategic reserves of high quality coking coal are in the homelands and our platinum and uranium reserves in South West Africa, where would South Africa stand in terms of the exploitation and the benefits of those particular strategic reserves? One can take the matter a little further and ask whether we have the technology to refind chrome ore so that we can utilize it in South Africa, or are we, in turn, going to be dependent upon other countries for the re-use that metal.

The reason why I ask these question—I am sure the hon. the Minister and the department have made a study of this—is that we are going to face stiffer sanctions in the aircraft manufacturing field and the manufacturing of high grade steel. It would therefore become necessary for us to produce certain metals which are dependent upon a fairly advanced stage of refinement of the chrome metal. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can provide us with some idea of our dependency upon outside countries for the refinement of this metal so that we can reuse it when it comes back to us. I should like to know whether we are in a position to develop that technology.

I should then like to go a little bit further in regard to our homelands policy. I want to emphasize again that the Government must tread wearily and cautiously in rejecting the possibility of these homelands coming into a confederal relationship with South Africa, if only to preserve the availability of and access to our very strategic minerals. I am sure that the hon. the Minister’s department has been consulted in this respect.

Finally, I should like to know whether there is any significance in the fact that there has been a scurry for coal under the Kruger National Park because of the possibility that kwaZulu may accept independence within the next two years?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North asked the hon. the Minister of Mines quite a number of questions and I believe that the hon. the Minister will answer him. One thing from the hon. member’s speech was very clear to me. Many hostile stories have been circulated against the NP, one of them being that we want to create homelands which are not viable, and that at certain stages it was even alleged that the homelands were consolidated in such a way that they would not contain the mineral wealth of South Africa. Today, however, we have had an hon. member of the Opposition expressing his alarm about certain strategic minerals which are to be found in those very homelands and of which South Africa might be deprived in future. The hon. member proved in my opinion that the consolidation of the homelands in South Africa has been effected in such a way that these territories will also possess mineral wealth. We have also made mining development possible, a development which will bring about growth and vitality in the homelands. I am thinking of Bophuthatswana for example, which is already independent by now and which has considerable platinum and asbestos reserves. I believe the hon. the Minister will answer the questions of the hon. member for Durban North.

The course of this debate on mining so far today, is to me a sign that the hon. the minister and his department are doing excellent work for South Africa in this field, because I have not heard an hon. member levelling strong criticism at the hon. the Minister or his department today.

The mining industry is probably one of the most popular employers in South Africa today and also one of the most important providers of employment in South Africa. We find that the total number of employees in the mining industry in 1975 was 628 315, and that that number increased to 701 434 in 1977. We see therefore that the labour force in the mining industry increased by more than 73 000 workers in the course of three years. The number of White workers increased by 4 804 from 1976 to 1977, i.e. an increase of 6,7%. The Black employees in the mining industry increased from 585 000 in 1976 to 623 000 in 1977; an increase of 38 000 within the space of a year. The Coloured workers in the mining industry, who constitute a very small percentage of the labour force, also showed an increase during this period. The gold and platinum mines, the biggest employers of Black workers, provided work to 344 883 Black workers in 1977. Some of these workers, were recruited in the Republic of South Africa, Bophuthatswana, Transkei, South West Africa and other Black homelands. They constitute 63% of the total Black labour force in the mining industry.

In Lesotho, our neighbouring state, 127 992 labourers were recruited and are active in the South African mining industry today. 18 029 labourers were recruited in Botswana and Swaziland. They constitute 3,32% of the total labour force in the mining industry. In Mozambique, 17 477 labourers were recruited and are working on the mines in South Africa today. Although 63% of the total Black labour force were recruited in South Africa, Transkei, Bophuthatswana and other homelands, one would like that percentage to be much higher.

The hon. members for Parktown and Durban North indicated in their speeches that they, too, would like to see us employing our own Black people in South Africa on a larger scale. I should like to associate myself with them and I should like the mining industry to give still greater preference to Black workers who are citizens of Transkei, Bophuthatswana and other homelands in South Africa. One is grateful to learn that some progress has already been made in the direction of giving preference to our own Black people. The gold mines, which fall under the Chamber of Mines, employed 75 391 Black workers from South Africa, Transkei and Bophuthatswana in 1964, together with another 78 889 Black workers from Mozambique. In other words, there were more Black workers working on the mines from Mozambique than from among our own South African Black workers.

But what is the situation today? At the moment there are 198 650 Black workers recruited in South Africa and the homelands who are working on the mines, while only 34 000 Mozambicans are employed by our mines. There has been a tremendous increase in the employment of our own Black labour force in our mining industry, while the importing of foreign Black labourers from Black neighbouring States has decreased dramatically. One can point out many more examples, but I do not think that is necessary.

I still believe that the 63% of Black workers who are recruited in South Africa, Transkei and Bophuthatswana is not enough. I want to call on the mining industry to give preference to the Black people closest to us. Although hon. members of the Official Opposition supported us, they did nevertheless complain in the labour debate yesterday about the unemployment which prevailed in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands—he agrees with me—to use his influence with his masters, Anglo-American, to persuade them to raise this figure of 63% as far as our own Black people in South Africa are concerned.

It has dropped a great deal over the last few years.

I concede that, but I nevertheless call on the hon. member to talk about it to his masters.

They are not my masters.

I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that there are still 198 000 Black workers from other Black countries employed in the mining industry. Last year the hon. member for Constantia pleaded that Black people should to a larger extent be housed on a family basis on the mines of South Africa. I want to know from the hon. member for Constantia whether he wants these 198 000 Black workers from foreign countries to be settled on a family basis on the mines.

No.

He says “no”. Now I want to ask him whether he wants Black workers recruited in the Transkei—it, too, is now an independent State—to be settled on a family basis on these mines.

It does not matter where they come from. It is the permanent and skilled workers that matter.

There are skilled workers from foreign States on the mines too. Furthermore, many of these foreigners are doing the sought-after jobs on these mines.

I should like to say a few words about the Northern Cape. It is not only Transvalers that are taking part in this debate today, but the mining industry has extended to the Cape Province as well, and it is my privilege as a Cape man to express a few thoughts in this regard. Mining developments in the Northern Cape have increased tremendously over the last few years. Mineral sales in the Northern Cape have increased from R48 million in 1960 to R363 million in 1976. At this stage they are exceeding R400 million. Some of these mining developments have taken place close to, and some inside, Bophuthatswana. I should like to adopt the standpoint that the settlement of Black workers on a family basis in this region, which is 120 km from Bophuthatswana at the furthest point, should not be allowed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to convey my hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Kuruman, as a Cape man, for having also been able to make the contribution he did in this debate on mining. As a person who has many mineworkers in his constituency and encounters daily the same problems as the hon. member for Stilfontein, I want to thank him sincerely for the contribution he made in this regard today. When our Minister had to take upon himself the responsibility of Labour and Mines two years ago, he really landed in the soup. For the first time since 1922 there was a real danger that we would have a general strike of White mineworkers concerning the five-day working week. We all realize what the consequences of such an event would be for our country, for our economy, but particularly for the mineworker himself. If one bears in mind that the increased exports of the mining industry during 1977 were largely responsible for the increase in the total exports, namely R1 500 million, or 70% of the total increase in exports, one really begins to realize how responsible this task of the Minister was and how vital it was that he should have found these solutions.

Whereas the report of the Franzsen Commission has now been made available, I do not believe that the problem has been eliminated entirely, but I do believe that I would be failing in my duty if I were not to thank the hon. the Minister on behalf of this committee, the country and the mineworkers themselves for his actions under these circumstances.

I want to emphasize that the mineworkers are an extremely responsible group of people. It is hardly necessary to say that the mineral wealth of our country would be worth nothing without the mineworkers. The mining industry is one of those industries which is very difficult to mechanize fully. To sit isolated for the total period of one’s shift deep under the earth and to work in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances, which the majority of us could not visualize, are heavy demands which these people are set. These people and their families regularly live in fear and anxiety, and earn the respect of every one of us who enjoys the benefits of a flourishing mining industry.

With that as a background I should like to devote a few minutes to a special group of these mineworkers, namely the so-called proto teams. Their slogan is “Voluntate servio”. They are ordinary mine officials; mine captains, shift bosses and ventilation officers, who do this work on a voluntary basis and under demanding circumstances. Not only do they render their service voluntarily, but also with perfect teamwork. They are really the soldiers in our economic sphere because, just like the soldiers on our borders, they have to brave death in order to keep the enemy at bay. Every fire or rockfall or flooding of a mine not only endangers lives but also has a directly detrimental effect on production, something which, in the light of the tremendous contribution of our mining industry to our national revenue, can have an enormous influence on the economy. Every team is comprised of five people who have to act jointly at all times, so that if one of them is injured in an operation, at least four remain to furnish aid. They have to undergo regular medical and fitness tests. They are available at all times, irrespective of whether they are at work or at home. It does not even matter if they are asleep or not. Within 30 minutes after they have received a call, such a team of five men is ready to render service.

They serve an area in South Africa twice as large as France, and even went to furnish aid in one of our neighbouring States recently. They worked under extreme conditions but nevertheless they maintain an outstanding safety record. Since 1946 when these teams were established for the first time, there have been only 25 fatal accidents.

In 1977, 300 members of proto teams were available day and night for three weeks to extinguish a blaze at the Westonaria gold mine. In 1976—the year which is in fact a black year in the history of proto teams— there were 12 fatalities. Unfortunately five of them—a full proto team—were involved in an accident at the Western Deep Levels gold mine in my constituency. It was a team from Stilfontein.

Due to the dangerous work they perform, these people have to pay far higher life insurance premiums. They are not entitled to any form of special compensation if they are injured in their work. I think that this is a case which certainly requires further attention. I think that particularly because these people work in special circumstances, because they are prepared to give their lives, because they expose themselves to situations where no other person would risk his life, it is necessary that the hon. the Minister and his department consider the possibility of making a special award to these people in special circumstances. I do not know what the Chamber of Mines does in cases of this nature. However, I think that merely thanking them or merely paying them a cash sum is not good enough.

These people expose themselves to circumstances in which they know that their lives are in danger. Their families know that their lives are in danger. I am therefore of the opinion that it is the duty of the Government to give tangible proof to these people or their next-of-kin of our gratitude for what they are prepared to do; this would be on behalf of our country as well.

Mr. Chairman, the West Transvaal team of our mining group was well represented in this debate this afternoon. Consequently I want to congratulate the hon. member for Losberg on a good speech and I should like to associate myself with what he said. I should very much like to support the representations made this afternoon by the hon. member for Stilfontein with regard to the memoranda submitted relating to gratuities for mineworkers after certain periods of service. If a man has sacrificed his whole lifetime to dangerous work it is important to see to it that everything is done to ensure that compensation is paid to him during his lifetime. I believe that every possible obstacle should be eliminated in this regard. As far as this request relating to gratuities is concerned, I believe that funds are a problem. I should like to make the suggestion that we could perhaps use as a basis provisions similar to those contained in section 62(1) of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Industries Act of 1973. A contribution per shift could then be made in terms thereof by the owner of the enterprise so that a gratuity fund could be built up. I believe that the worker, too, would be prepared to make a contribution.

This evening I actually want to refer to the issue of post-mortem certification. The hon. member for Stilfontein touched on a certain facet thereof. I want to refer in particular to cases where the respiratory organs have not been removed or received by the bureau. With reference to the plea I want to make at a later stage I must refer to certain trends relating to post-mortem certifications which have become apparent over a period of about three years. In this regard I want to refer to certain information I have obtained. In the first place I refer to the post-mortem certification of persons with a maximum of 25 years of service. Between 1 April 1974 and 31 March 1975, 37 persons out of a total of 49 were certified in post-mortem investigations. This gives us a percentage of 75,5%. In a subsequent year, from 1 April 1975 to 31 March 1976, 34 persons out of a total of 68 were certified in post-mortem investigations. That is to say that precisely 50% of them were certified. In the subsequent year ending 31 March 1977, 28 persons out of a total of 51 were certified in post-mortem examinations, giving us a percentage of 54,9%. In the case of post-mortem certifications of persons with more than 30 years of service the following information was provided: In the first period, from 1 April 1974 to 31 March 1975, 29 persons out of a total of 48 were certified in post-mortem examinations. This gives us a figure of 60,4%. In the second period from 1 April 1975 to 31 March 1976, 39 persons out of a total of 65 were certified in post-mortem examinations. This gives us a figure of 60%. In the final period, from 1 April 1976 to 31 March 1977, 43 persons out of a total of 67 were certified in post-mortem examinations. This gives us a percentage of 64,2%. If I may summarize this briefly, the position is that on average, 60% of mineworkers with more than 25 years service and 61,5% of mineworkers with 30 and more years of service were certified in post-mortem examinations. In contrast, 40% and 38,5% respectively of the decreased mineworkers were found to be free of diseases. The majority of post-mortem certifications were based on minimal sub-microscopic lesions causing no physical disability or obstruction of the respiratory organs and their functions. In no other country in the world is this recognized and certified as a compensable occupational disease.

The case I now want to use as an example for my plea is that of a mineworker buried without his lungs having been removed during the autopsy. He had worked underground for 30 years. Inquiries by his dependents started about nine months after his death because they had waited for the outcome of the post-mortem investigation or medical investigation with a view to certification. It was ascertained from the police that an autopsy had been held. However, no one had known that he had been attached to the mine.

Apparently, no subsequent request for the removal of the lungs was addressed to the pathologist. The family maintains that the undertaker knew that he was a mineworker and that his lungs had to be removed. It was therefore a question of one party against the other. In this regard, disinterment would not have been worthwhile either because according to the director of the Medical Bureau, after 17 months—the period which had passed in this case—from the expert’s point of view there would be no point in disinterring the organs for pathological purposes because no macroscopic or microscopic investigation would have been possible. They would therefore not have been able to achieve anything. However I know that the Medical Bureau—and I have great appreciation for this—does everything possible to benefit the dependents of the deceased. X-ray plates are examined, as are all possible reports of clinical examinations and laboratory test results which are available. Further medical evidence is obtained. Reports by hospital doctors and the family doctor are consulted. Even the autopsy report is perused with a view to possible certification. In such a case he gets the benefit of the slightest doubt. The case is even submitted to the reviewing authority concerned. In my example the deceased was not certified, despite this fact. More than a year before his death he was at the Medical Bureau and it was found that he was not suffering from a compensatable disease. The outcome is that his widow knows that his respiratory organs were not removed, that he was not certifiable at the last medical examination, that there was no certification after his death and that consequently no money is available from that source. That is basically the problem. I understand that this is not an isolated case. There is a possibility of such cases which could occur in the future and there were also other such cases which exist. I believe therefore that one should have security of justice in regard to this aspect. In the normal course it places a difficult onus on our Medical Bureau and the certification committee.

I also wish to make a plea that, firstly, a more stringent obligation be imposed on undertakers. They must make absolutely sure whether a deceased person has been employed in the mining industry or a similar industry. In my opinion, more stringent legal provisions should be introduced in this connection. Secondly, in the light of the statistics I have mentioned I want to advocate a consideration of such cases on the following basis. The deceased mineworker had 30 years of underground service. Over the period of three years approximately 61,5% of persons with his category of service years were certified after their death. In their cases, analyses of their lungs were available. I therefore believe that it fair in such a case to pay 61,5% of the first grade certification amount to his widow or dependants. In the case of R13 200, 61,5% is R8 100, in round figures. I am convinced that this formula could easily be formulated in legal language and inserted in the Act. Otherwise this formula could serve as a basis for ex gratia payments in such cases. However, if the evidence and reports, by their nature indicate certification, then of course in my opinion they should be left unchanged. I believe that if we were regularly to determine the trend over a specific period of three years in such a case, we should be able to justify this on a scientific basis.

In conclusion, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the director and staff of the Medical Bureau for their co-operation in this regard. I find them always very punctual in their replies. One is also courteously treated by these people. I refer a number of people to them and those people, too, say that they are very well and courteously received and treated. I therefore want to convey my sincere thanks to them.

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to the hon. Whip for having granted me this opportunity to speak again briefly. Earlier I tried to sketch the development taking place in the Northern Cape. With reference to that I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister of Mines. He and his senior officials visited the Northern Cape last year. They paid a visit to the Sishen region which contains the world’s richest iron ore deposits. They also viewed the Hotazel region where the world’s richest manganese deposits are found. The hon. the Minister met the leaders and the workers of the mining industry there. He viewed the circumstances in which the Black workers there are accommodated. He also saw the fine town of Kathu which has been established at Sishen by Iscor and where the White workers are accommodated. The hon. the Minister also visited Kuruman and the Kuruman hills that provide 10% of the world’s blue asbestos. Not only did he walk round there and view these surroundings; he also went down the mine and inspected the asbestos mill. He also acquainted himself specifically with the circumstances which could cause disease conditions, particularly in regard to asbestosis, which is one of the dangerous mining diseases. I do not know whether this gave rise to the fact that the international conference on asbestosis was convened in South Africa last year, but for that, too, we want to express our deep gratitude to the hon. the Minister. We want to thank him for having come to look at the circumstances there and for having acquainted himself with the state of affairs there. We know that he and his department will do their best to eliminate this dangerous disease caused by asbestos dust in the future.

When the hon. the Minister visited the asbestos mines at Kuruman he not only met the mine managements there and viewed the conditions in which the Black and White workers performed their work, but also, despite his full programme, set aside time to conduct discussions with the mine workers’ union, and I can tell him that the members of the mine workers’ union at Kuruman very much appreciated this. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister for the way in which he as Minister of Mines acquainted himself with the Northern Cape, which is the mineral treasure chest of South Africa. We believe that he as the Minister, and the department too, will play their part in harnessing the mineral potential of the Northern Cape in the future in the interests of South Africa.

When I was interrupted a short time ago, I said that I should like to adopt a standpoint opposed to the establishment of Black workers on a family basis in this region, the furthest point of which is approximately 120 km from the homeland. I should like to see an effort being made to establish the Black workers within the homeland on a family basis so that they can work on the mines on a daily or weekly commuter basis.

The hon. the Minister also met the GEFCO people, and I want to say that that mining company has already proved that this is possible. That company is conveying Black women from the homeland up to 100 km per day to their place of employment and back at a cost of R2,45 per worker. They find this more advantageous than to provide housing close to the various mines. This system could be very fruitfully implemented particularly in the manganese region of Hotazel-Black Rock-Wessels. The mining companies concerned would do very well to establish their Black workers on a 100% family basis within Bophuthatswana. Some of these companies have already intimated that they are prepared to do this and are anxiously awaiting the establishment of a Black residential area or Black town within Bophuthatswana for that purpose.

I should also like to address a plea to the hon. the Minister today. Since he has inspected the mines which are situated close to the homeland, and has seen that these mining companies are able to establish all their Black workers within the homelands on a family basis, I want to ask him to give very serious consideration to affording to mines which are situated close to homelands and which are prepared to settle their Black workers within those homelands, benefits similar to those granted to industries which decentralize to border areas.

In the few minutes still at my disposal I should like to pay tribute today to the mining industry for what it does to establish the very finest facilities for its employees, both Black and White. As far as housing is concerned I have already referred to the fine town of Kathu which was built near Sishen in a forest of camelthorn trees. The town was beautifully developed without a single tree being removed. Then, too, some of the finest sport and recreation facilities have been established for the White people of Kathu and Sishen. One of the big quarries which came into being in that region is being filled with some of the millions of gallons of water being pumped out of the mine so that the people of Sishen and Kathu can even go and fish a few kilometres from Kathu. For the Black people, too, fine facilities have been made available, for example a hall for 800 people. There are few halls in the Northern Cape that can hold a candle to this fine facility being established for the Black workers there. I think that I can say today without fear of contradiction that no other industry does more for the establishment of sporting and recreation facilities for both its White and its Black workers. There are mining companies, not only in the Northern Cape but throughout South Africa, that provide the very best facilities for their Black and White workers. These mining companies also make skilled and trained sports organizers and coaches available to the various national groups in order to organize and promote sport. Nor is it any wonder that this industry has produced high-calibre Black sportsmen, men like Mathews Batswadi who, as it happens, was born at Mothibi Town near Kuruman and grew up there. He went to work at the mine at Beeshoek, near Postmasburg. On those sportsfields at Beeshoek—and I assure you that that rugby field at Beeshoek is a finer one than Newlands at this time of the year—Mathews Batswadi, because he had had the opportunity on those fine fields, and due to the good coaching he had enjoyed, was able to win Springbok colours. The new Black athlete, Mathew Motshwarateu, who has conquered the athletic world with his “loop-en-val” style and has set up a South African record over 5 000 metres after having taken part in a big meeting for only the third time, is also a Black man who works on the mines. I think that virtually all the good boxers the Black people have produced, and all the good athletes and soccer players, began to take part in sport and develop after they were able to make use of the facilities for the Black people established by the mining companies of South Africa. Whereas years ago the Black people on the mines used to spend their free time attacking each other with knobkieries on the mines on Sundays, they now take part in sport on beautiful soccer fields. They also have at their disposal boxing rings, tennis courts, athletics fields and cycling tracks. I think we should thank the mining industry, not only for what they have made available to their Black workers for the purposes of sport and recreation, but also for having enabled these people to reach the highest rung today. However, we must also thank them for the facilities they provide for their White workers in order that those workers, too, may be contented, since they do hard work in the mines and make a contribution towards the exploitation of our minerals, which earn so much for South Africa.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I should like to express my thanks to hon. members who participated in the Mines debate this afternoon. It was a very fruitful debate and if I take into consideration the length of time I have been associated with this department, I can confidently state that the debate stands out as one which was conducted on a high level. The debate produced a particularly wide variety of subjects, and I want to thank all members who participated in it very sincerely for doing so.

I want to begin by referring to what the hon. member for Losberg said when he made a plea for the proto-teams. Proto-teams are the people who, in times of emergency such as a fire or a rockfall in a mine, risk their lives going down the mine to put out the fire and also to try to save the lives of all who are at risk there. It so happens that I have just received a report of a pressure burst at the Buffelsfontein mine. According to the report five Whites have been reported missing—it might even be eight—and two injured Whites as well as 27 injured Blacks have already been brought to the surface. This gives us an indication of how serious such a situation can be. The hon. member for Losberg referred to these proto-teams and their work this afternoon, and I want to express my thanks to him for doing so. I should also like to convey my sympathy to the nearest relations of those who may perhaps lose their lives. I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to express our gratitude and appreciation to the people who are even now, probably while we are talking here, risking their own lives in an effort to save the lives of the people trapped in the mine. As regards the hon. member’s request that we should examine the possibility of a special award to these proto-teams and also of a method whereby medical expenses can be met if some of them should be injured, I want to inform the hon. member that this work takes place on the various mines in whose service the proto-teams are. I undertake on my part to raise the matter with the Chamber of Mines to see whether adequate provision is being made in this connection for compensation, since it is a matter of deep concern to all of us. Once again I convey my thanks to the hon. member for his contribution.

Now, however, I am compelled to refer to something less pleasant i.e. to the serious situation which arose in the Mineworkers’ Union as a result of a report which appeared under the following headline in a newspaper “Alle rasse moet alle werk doen”. The report read—

The report goes on to refer to the automobile repair industry. This report appeared in Die Transvaler this morning and caused such a stir that the following report was issued to the Press by the Mineworkers’ Union. I happened to hear about it this evening. I shall quote the resolution—

[Interjections.] Yes, one must be very careful. I want to point out to hon. members that we have for two years now been dealing with the very delicate situation concerning the five-day working week, and precisely because the Chamber of Mines and the Mineworkers’ Union are at this stage engaged in negotiations on the matter, I refrained from interfering in these negotiations. For that reason I referred to this in a specific way yesterday, and again this afternoon, in the hearing of everyone. For the record, and so that the Mineworkers’ Union may know about this, I want to quote what I said. I said (Hansard, 25 April 1978)—

This applies to the Coloureds here. I went on to say—

Therefore I never referred to all industries and least of all to the Mineworkers’ Union. With reference to this I want to tell hon. members on this occasion that if the Mineworkers’ Union should go on strike—and they are able to do so if they wish—South Africa will find itself on its knees. Do the hon. members realize that? For that reason I want to say that this is an extremely delicate situation. All the matters of this union are constantly dealt with by means of negotiations. In that spirit for example, the Government appointed the Franzsen Commission and asked special people to attend and to give advice as experts. We do this precisely because we want to take the Mineworkers’ Union with us on this road. I said this afternoon, and I want to repeat it now, that whatever we do must be done within the laws of the country. There is a pattern within which we work, and the Mineworkers’ Union need not be afraid that the Government will throw open all the doors. We do not want chaos here. In the past there has indeed been progress, but this progress took place after negotiations. I gave an undertaking that negotiation should also take place in this case, and the progress which must come, will take place after negotiations. One cannot do these things without negotiations. I think it is unfair to noise this report abroad in this way and to cause this “gevalt”. I therefore want to make an appeal and to say to the Press in general that if they want to write about labour matters, and particularly the affairs of the Mineworkers’ Union, they must make certain that the facts are correct, otherwise they may be noising a report abroad and causing a whole lot of misunderstanding in one of the most important industries in these times for the continued existence of the Republic of South Africa. I hope this will not happen again.

I now want to reply to the contribution made by other hon. members. The hon. member for Parktown did me the courtesy of apologizing for being absent this evening. Although he is not here, I nevertheless want to reply to his speech. He referred to the rising costs in the mining industry. Rising costs in the mining industry have caused an inflation rate of 20% in this industry. There are many reasons for this, for example increases in the cost of power, of fuel, of cement and other things. Apparently the inflation rate in the mining industry is among the highest in the country. If we delight in an increase in the gold price and think that it will be more beneficial for us than the gold price of, say, six months ago, we must not forget to take into account an inflationary cost increase of 20%. If we do that, hon. members can understand that we will within three or four years be in the same position we were in when the lower gold price was prevailing. In the industry itself those who work and those who provide work must therefore also take the costs in the mining industry into consideration. This figure is an important one, too, as regards the service which is being rendered on the mines.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to wage differences and said that the wages of Black workers in the mining industry were lower than in other industries. He wants this gap to be narrowed. I do not wish to discuss the narrowing of the gap now, except to say that we should compare comparable things with one another.

A worker in the mining industry is given free food, transportation and hospitalization, all his recreational requirements are met, and he receives free housing. Therefore his case is not comparable with that of a person who receives an income from which he still has to cover his transportation, his housing, food and other commodities. We must be careful with the comparisons we make. Hon. members will recall that we introduced legislation in this regard this year. The mining industry itself said that that difference was not clearly understood and that it would for that reason prefer to pay higher wages, from which it would deduct an amount for the food which it supplies to the miners, so that there could be a realistic basis of comparison. The position is not always clear if the wages are compared without taking into account what fringe benefits the Black miners enjoy. I do not think that the comparison is quite correct. I hope that the mining industry will not overlook this aspect in their thinking, because it could have very important consequences.

The hon. member said that and advanced precisely the same argument.

But the hon. member said that consideration should be given to the wage gap. For those reasons I am telling him that I hope the mining industry will not overlook that aspect. This applies not only to the group in which the hon. member has an interest, but to all who are engaged in the mining industry. The hon. member also referred to the period of 11 to 14 days. I do not want to react to that. The matter is being negotiated and I am therefore not prepared to react to it here in this House.

The hon. member also spoke about a seven-day mining week. The commission recommended this as an alternative, but I do not think that this is the occasion now to speculate on the matter.

The hon. member for Stilfontein discussed the Medical Bureau. I thank him for the sentiments he expressed in regard to the good service which is being rendered by this bureau. I agree with him. For many years now this good service has been rendered. The hon. member also discussed, as he has done before, the compensation for occupational diseases. The question of compensation for industrial diseases is one which has been discussed in this House for many years. There was a commission of inquiry into occupational diseases in general but this commission, which was appointed by the Department of Health, did not make recommendations on the compensation aspect. The compensation aspect is a matter for which the Department of Mines is responsible. In talks a short while ago with various mine unions I said that it had merit and that we would give proper consideration to this matter over which there are constant arguments, viz. the compensation aspect. I held out the prospect that we would cause this to be investigated by an expert commission which would be able to consider all the aspects and subsequently provide Parliament with the necessary advice. I want to repeat this undertaking, which I gave outside, in this House.

The hon. member for Durban North made a very interesting speech and said a whole lot of things, all of them interesting and important. This hon. member has the ability—I have noticed this recently—to say many tilings and ask many questions in a short time. If he continues to ask so many questions, we shall need a great deal of time to reply to him. But, in any case, I appreciate the contribution which he made. He spoke about technological change and said that when technological change in an industry necessitated the restructuring of the industry, it was essential for one to reconsider the position of the labourer in that industry. In general this is correct, and it is in fact being done in the mining industry. If a change is effected which is a departure from a previous situation, an adjustment must also be made as far as the labour is concerned. In this regard I agree with the hon. member. That is precisely why negotiations on these matters take place from time to time between the employers and the employees. However I want to reiterate, with reference to what was previously said, that we cannot allow these changes to take place in any other way except within the rule which I laid down this afternoon, i.e. that the parties involved— the employers, the employees and the State— must reach a decision collectively and accept that in any restructuring the necessary protection is present and that everyone has played a part in deciding, in our developing economy, where each one fits in.

The hon. member for Rustenburg referred to the hardship shared between him and me in the situation which arose. It is not an easy situation. The hon. member’s mines are situated in Bophuthatswana. The people who work in these mines, live in his constituency and the border in the case of one mine adjoins the mine itself, with a portion of the shaft on the one side and a portion on the other. One mine is situated entirely inside Bophuthatswana. Hon. members can therefore understand that this situation creates human problems. Many questions arose from these human problems. Up to now we have been fortunate in being able to settle all problems. I want to thank the hon. member for the contributions which he has made during the past few months to keep the situation in his constituency quiet so that we could enter into the necessary agreements. The hon. member also spoke about the building of bridges and referred to the agreements between the two countries. As in the case of other departments, the Department of Mines also provided its co-operation prior to independence by negotiating and making proposals in terms of which the situation could be resumed after independence. The department endeavoured—and also succeeded in this—to reach a prior agreement with Bophuthatswana that the status quo would be preserved. The status quo is indeed being preserved. No change will take place, and if it does, the two parties—the two Governments—must give each other two years’ notice. I discussed this with the Mineworkers’ Union, and also with the hon. members’ voters. It is accepted that the period of two years for any restructuring is adequate. I want to add—as I said in Rustenburg—that we must remember that we are now dealing with another State here. That State will look after its citizens. Consequently one must expect, and one can expect, that progress in all spheres will be created by that State for its people. We understand that.

The hon. member for Von Brandis spoke about our mineral policy and our mineral strategy. The hon. member made a good contribution. He spoke about the policy which has been followed for many years. He correctly described the policy as the “open sales policy”. That is quite correct. South Africa, being a rich mining country, kept its doors open to investments here, investments by people from abroad as well. If such large quantities of capital had not been invested in South Africa, we would not have witnessed the present enormous developments. The mining houses that undertook the development, followed their own rules for the selling of their products. As far as gold is concerned, hon. members know how it happened. Gold is sold by the Reserve Bank. Diamonds are sold by a diamond organization which all interested parties join. Many of the other minerals are sold in terms of contracts. The hon. member wanted to know whether we should not now have a mineral policy within a new strategy for our mineral products. I agree with the hon. member.

It is indeed the case. We are now investigating the question of whether, as far as these important products are concerned in future, we should regard them purely on the basis of their economic value or whether we should also regard them in the light of their international political value.

These are very important products. To South Africa mining products are important owing to their volume in our own economy. They are also important to the outside world owing to its dependence on these products. I therefore agree with the hon. member. But he wants to know from me whether we are placing sufficient emphasis on this abroad. I want to quote to the hon. member what I recently said in Germany when I appeared in public there. I want hon. members to know that this is the message we are conveying. I commented as follows on the matter—

This is our mineral wealth in South Africa. I went on to say—

I said this with the view to the fact that we in South Africa find ourselves in a very strategic position in relation to the West. Therefore I just want to repeat here what has already been published. I should like to indicate what the position would be if the resources of the West were to be combined with those of Russia as far as strategic commodities were concerned. I wish to quote to the House the following passage from my speech, as I presented it there—

And this is important—

This is the factual situation. But I want to go further and tell the hon. member that in the case of 20 of the most important minerals in the American economy that country has already depleted its own reserves to such an extent that it is already dependent for 50% of its needs on imports from abroad. This is so despite the fact that Europe already has to augment 75% of America’s needs by means of imports, and Japan almost 90%. It is important that these things be said. I have ascertained that the embassies have all this information at their disposal and that they go out of their way to disseminate it in the circles where it is needed. I want to reassure the hon. member, therefore, that these things are in fact being done. The hon. member will also recall that it was said in the discussion of the previous Vote that certain of these things should be made available at a faster rate. That is what the Minerals Bureau is seeking to do.

That bureau is engaged in studies today that will enable us to know precisely who has what in various parts of the world.

The hon. member for Welkom asked for a formula to be found in regard to certification. The hon. member for Stilfontein dealt with the same subject, and I am therefore replying simultaneously to both of these hon. members. The hon. member for Welkom presented a very good survey of the benefication of minerals, and said that we should make more scientists available. He pointed out, and rightly so, that benefication, just like exploitation, is so important that we ought to have the technical knowledge at our disposal to be able to do it here. I agree with the hon. member. In this connection I want to refer to the case of chrome. In the case of chrome it is very important that we should refine it in South Africa.

The value of chrome increases so tremendously from the ore stage to the stage at which it is processed into ferrochrome, that we should carry out that refinement here. The value of the ferrochrome is 13 times the original value. The increase is not this high in all cases, but in the case of chrome it is a tremendous increase. Apart from that we think that we are in the position, as a result of the refinement of minerals—particularly in the case of stainless steel—to become a leading world supplier. The position is in fact that we would be able, within the not too distant future, to produce stainless steel to the value of R1 000 million per annum. But it is true that the people who are involved in this are the scientists. We must have enough scientists to be able to enter this field. The National Institute for Metallurgy went out of its way to make bursaries available for the training of such scientists. In addition they are now in a position to make further bursaries available. We are also trying to encourage the various disciplines at the various universities so that those disciplines can also be advanced. I want to tell you, Sir, that if South Africa is going to win the economic battle, it is going to do so because it develops and refines its minerals into the form in which they should be, in South Africa itself. For that reason I am in complete agreement with the hon. member. My colleague, the Minister of Defence, is in the position that he himself has to be a creator and a builder. If it had not been for the fact that we have made such progress in this sphere, that hon. Minister could not have made the progress he has made in that connection. That is why it is so important that these steps should be taken. The hon. member’s observations were entirely correct. We must seek to achieve the objects which he mentioned to the best of our ability.

The hon. member for Constantia spoke about energy and advocated the establishment of a department of energy. I want to tell the hon. member that we have an energy policy committee, and therefore I do not think it is necessary at this stage to establish a separate energy department. I think that this matter is at present being dealt with satisfactorily by the departments who look after these matters and who deal with coal exploitation and uranium enrichment. But these are matters for the future and I do not want to comment any further on them except to say that these specific matters are at present being dealt with satisfactorily by the departments concerned. In regard to coal the hon. member referred to what was said by Dr. Kotzé. Dr. Kotzé said that we had coal supplies for a further 15 years. I hope it was a printing error and that there was a nought or something missing, because I cannot understand how Dr. Kotzé could have made such a statement. Allow me to mention a few figures in this regard. Let us assume that the rate of coal consumption is less than 100 million tons per annum. I do not precisely know what it is. It could be between 87 and 99 million tons, but we shall be able to establish this by the end of the year. For the purposes of this argument, however, let us assume that less than 100 million tons per annum are consumed. As far as the established reserves are concerned, which hon. members and the country are aware of—I know of many more which have not yet been made public—there are 94 000 million tons. Of these reserves the amount which is recoverable, with out old incorrect methods, is probably in the region of 25 000 million tons. The figure cannot therefore be 15 years. I do not know how he arrived at that figure.

It is not my figure. It is his figure.

I am saying I do not know how he arrived at that figure, not how you arrived at the figure. I know the hon. member knows far too much about coal to say such a stupid thing. [Interjections.] As I have said, I do not know how he arrived at that figure, because it is quite wrong. Apart from that, we have not yet discovered all there is to discover. It is not for me to enlighten hon. members in this regard now, but hon. members will probably hear more about it in the not too distant future.

Of course there is a method involved here. A Minister cannot divulge what other people still regard as their secret discoveries. But I can give hon. members the assurance that the quantity is not 94 000 million tons. It is far more than that. The important point I want to make here, however, is that if we improve our methods of recovery—this can be done by means of technical aids—and instead of recovering 20% and leaving 73% in the ground we can recover 50%—it ought to be possible—just think how much we would then have! In future we will definitely be able to recover 50 000 million tons. I can give that assurance. At a consumption rate of even twice the figure he mentioned, i.e. 200 million tons per year, a rapid calculation tells me—I multiply 50 by five—that the supplies will last for 250 years. Therefore I want to say that in my opinion his figure is incorrect, and I hope that it is not read by too many people for then people will be unnecessarily concerned about the coal position. In general I want to say that whether or not we should sell our coal is a debatable aspect of policy. [Interjections.] An observation was made in that connection as well. Hon. members discussed this question this afternoon.

Hon. members opposite said today that we should see whether it is in fact a wise policy to sell coal. I agree that science and technology are developing so rapidly that however important coal is today and will still become—in the petro-chemical industry and also in the chemical industry in general—this source of energy could become less important as other sources of energy are developed in future. But we should not feel complacent about this. There is a question we ought to ask ourselves. If we can find the money to pump in in order to extract the additional coal remaining in the ground and therefore credit South Africa with this amount, would it not be a wise policy? Whatever is said, therefore, and whatever fears are expressed, provided we are careful and know what we want to do with the income, it may in my opinion be a wise policy to sell a portion of our coal to enable us to extract more coal from the ground for our future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will concede that while the Director of Energy of the coordinating department caused the idea to be published that coal only has a future of 15 years, although the hon. the Minister and I agree that this cannot be the case …

Order! The hon. member must put a question.

Does this not prove that there should be one department with one policy for our sources of energy in South Africa?

No, I do not think that is an argument. But it is an indication that we should examine this matter very carefully, and in particular should be very careful what we say about it. I concede that.

The hon. member for Brakpan referred to Anglo-American and to certain articles written by them which upset the Mineworkers’ Union. Whether it is Anglo-American or anyone else for that matter, no mine may of its own accord effect whatever structural changes it likes. There are laws in a country. We have seen what happens if one has disruption and unrest in an industry and if one is not careful about what one does.

The hon. member also discussed benefication. In this regard I want to refer the hon. member to the remarks I made a moment ago on this matter. He also referred to the Ergo project and to the progress in the technological sphere which has made it possible to recover gold and uranium from old mine dumps. This is an extremely important matter. With reference to what the hon. member for Brakpan said, I also want to say that it is important that one should consider those things which are happening beneath one’s very eyes and at what is available. Certain divisions of the department have very interesting information at their disposal, and I should like to inform this House that I shall arrange for members who are interested to be invited as my guests to pay a visit to the National Institute of Metallurgy to see what work is being done there. We could also pay a visit to Geological Survey. I should like to have the hon. members as my guests. We shall arrange that those hon. members who are interested can participate in these visits under the direction of the various mining groups.

The National Institute of Metallurgy has indeed made miraculous breakthroughs for South Africa during the past two or three years. We can have only the highest praise for the work which is being done there. At the present moment the institute is in fact investigating certain problems. There are already indications that breakthroughs will be made in this regard as well. The investigation is aimed at recovering those minerals which occur in sparse quantities, the minerals of a low ore content, in an easy and inexpensive way. I cannot say much about this now, but I hope to be able, during the next session, to bring as good news as the news which we were able to bring some time ago in regard to the 30% higher reclamation at lower costs of ferrochrome by means of the method developed by this institute.

The hon. member for Bethal discussed open-cast coal-mining, i.e. the strip mining which is taking place in his area. He had very friendly remarks to make about the organizations who participated in this. I am very pleased that it helped. There was concern on the part of farmers and nature conservationists that this would have a disruptive effect on the environment and that certain aspects of pollution would assume such proportion that it would create great problems for us, particularly in the region to which the hon. member referred. The committee which was appointed and in which my department, the Department of Planning and the Environment, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the Chamber of Mines, the South African Agricultural Union and others served, drew up a code in an effort to promote orderliness, and exceptionally good results were achieved with it. Consequently they asked whether the committee should not be disbanded. I decided not to disband the committee, but to allow it to continue its activities in future because I believe that it will be able to render a good service in future as well. I want to thank the hon. member for the observations which he made in this regard.

He also referred to the careful use of coal. I think that what I said a moment ago in regard to the consumption of coal in future serves as a reply to what he said. He also advocated more planning, not only in respect of the development of coal, but also in the entire mining industry complex in that part of the world. What he said was entirely correct. Pollution is becoming an extremely important matter. The frequency of mining activities there is increasing all the time, and one can therefore understand that the public is becoming concerned about the situation. In fact it is the Department of Planning and the Environment which is giving attention to that matter.

The hon. member for Carletonville referred to a few interesting matters. One of them was assistance to marginal mines. These are the mines which find themselves in a temporarily weak economic position as a result of the slump in the economy and which therefore have to be supported by the State. The State was faced with the choice of carrying these mines in the hope that the price of the product which they produce would rise and that the relative benefits obtained by the State from that would outweigh the need to carry them. In fact, the State has carried quite a number of so-called marginal mines, but hon. members will understand that if the price of the product changes, it will also affect the need to finance these mines. Hon. members will understand that, a price of $100 per ounce the State would have to make a far greater contribution because there would then be far more marginal mines or even mines operating at a complete loss. It will have to decide whether it is going to spend up to hundreds of millions of rands to keep these mines going. The most important advantage is, firstly, that the people working there are kept employed. At one stage the economy was of such a nature that we could have lost up to 8 000 White workers. These are people who would then have been unemployed, and the same would probably have applied to almost 50 000 Black workers. Fortunately the gold price rose, and as a result the position today is quite different. It was not only the gold mines that were affected. Other mines, for example the copper mines, were also affected. The copper price was more than £1 300 sterling on the Metal Exchange in Britain, but a while ago it dropped to £500 sterling.

The price has risen again and is at present approximately £700 sterling. Hon. members can understand, however, that this can mean great losses to many mines and that is why one must constantly keep an eye on these matters. I therefore want to assure the hon. member that as long as the mining industry is important, the State should always adopt the policy of carrying the industry through the valley periods. Every rand which the State spent by way of subsidy during these difficult times, assured the State at the same time of R7 in foreign exchange, money which would otherwise have been lost to the State. In other words it was good business practice to do this. Once through the valley period it will mean that the mines whose life would have had to be shortened or whose production would have had to be terminated, are able to derive a new lease of life from their own resources if the price of their product rises. Therefore I want to assure the hon. member once again that as long as the State is able to afford it will in future continue to adhere to this policy.

The hon. member also referred to the five-day working week and asked us to examine the implications. However, I do not want to comment on this although it is true that we should examine the implications of such a step and should consult the other parties involved.

The hon. member for Durban North asked many questions. I wonder whether this hon. member should not come to see me. I shall then be able to reply to his questions. He asked questions pertaining to the position of the homelands and of South West Africa. He wondered what was going to happen if we granted homelands their independence. He asked what would happen if those countries did not want to supply us with minerals. I want to give the hon. member the immediate assurance that there is not a single mineral which will be mined in any homeland which South Africa does not also have itself. A country such as Bophuthatswana is situated in the Bushveld igneous complex. A large part of that complex is situated in that country. Botswana, too, is not the only country with chrome, platinum or coal. We also have these minerals. Those countries will not therefore be able to paralyse our exploitation of minerals. Nor should we think in terms of such poor relations that we speak of paralysing one another. The fact of the matter is that the economies of these countries will in future be interdependent. Hon. members will understand, however, that if a country’s minerals are as important to its economy as South Africa’s are to its economy, one may ask oneself this question: What country is going to be so stupid as to refuse to sell its minerals? Take South Africa for example. If we say that we are annoyed with the outside world and that we are not going to sell our gold, diamonds or other minerals to them, it means that, as far as 1978 alone is concerned, the output of our mines, which amounts to R6,6 billion in value, will not be exported and that we will therefore be left with these stocks on our hands. In other words it is not realistic. I do not think that those countries will be able to survive for long if they want to use this as an instrument of negotiation, and I do not think the hon. member need have any fears on this score.

I do not want to comment on the question of uranium in South West Africa. As far as the diamonds of this territory are concerned, it is a fact that South West African diamonds are not cut in South Africa. In any event they are disposed of by the central selling organization. If South Africa helps a country with a contribution as we help South West Africa, and that country has a product, for example diamonds, which it sells and the transaction were to take place through our intervention, what would the position be if they sold their own diamonds. They will probably succeed in selling their own diamonds and we shall lose the exchange, but hon. members must bear in mind that South Africa will then no longer have other responsibilities and expenditure in connection with South West Africa. We shall therefore be exactly where we were before. So I do not think we need be concerned about the future as far as this matter is concerned, because we are interdependent.

The hon. member for Kuruman referred briefly to the fact that we are dependent for a great deal of our mine labour on the importation of foreign labour. Actually the figure mentioned by this hon. member applied only to the gold-mining industry and the platinum-mining industry, and not to the mining industry as a whole. The overall mining industry in South Africa relies to the tune of approximately 50% on its own labour. The other 50% is imported labour. The question now arises: Should we, or should we not cut off the labour which we are attracting from such countries as Malawi and other surrounding countries? There are advantages and disadvantages attached to such a step. One of the disadvantages could be that if there should be upsurge in the country’s economy, and the local workers and those who think it is not popular to work in the mines do not return to the mining industry, we would have a shortage of workers on our hands. The advantage attached to this is of course that the capital can remain in South Africa and that one has better control over the position. As regards peace and quiet and control on the mines, hon. members need have no fears. The people who come to this country to work are under contract and are under good control, so that we do not experience any problems in maintaining order and discipline among them. The hon. member also wanted to know whether the workers working on mines close to the homelands should not rather live in the homelands and then commute to their place of work in South Africa. This could probably happen, but dealing with this matter is not the responsibility of the Department of Mines. Perhaps the hon. member has something there, but he should preferably raise it on another occasion.

The hon. member also referred to the principal product in his area, i.e. asbestos. South Africa is a major asbestos producer. Not only are we a major asbestos producer, we are probably the country that knows most about the disease known as asbestosis. That is why an international congress on this disease was held in this country and not elsewhere. All countries came here to attend the congress, and we were told that South Africa, in this regard, had a vast amount of knowledge. Consequently South Africa was spoken of with great respect.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp referred to gratuities and to the possibility of setting aside a small amount for every shift done by a worker, which can eventually serve as a kind of gratuity. The hon. member also raised various other interesting aspects. The one I want to single out is related to the cardiorespiratory organs and the problems which exist in this regard, to which the hon. member consequently referred. Looking at his Hansard, I see that the hon. member’s recommendations are of a technical nature, and I should like to have them looked into, but in my opinion he made very useful recommendations. I shall reply to this member as well in writing in this regard, because some of these questions will first have to be discussed. I cannot give him any off the cuff information in this regard now.

The hon. member for Constantia referred to one of the methods which is being used for the reclamation of energy from coal itself. I want to tell the hon. member that as far as this aspect is concerned there is very great expertise in South Africa, both in regard to the contribution by Sasol and the contribution of the industries involved in this matter. Within and outside South Africa very serious attention is being given to one simple matter, viz. the reclamation of energy from coal. The question which is being examined is whether we are extracting all the energy from coal. In addition the question of whether the process by means of which we do this, is too expensive or cheap enough is also being examined. I want to give the hon. member the assurance, therefore, that this aspect is receiving attention. A great deal has been published on this matter, and I want to refer the hon. member to the technical publication, Coal, Gold and Base Minerals. He would do well to read the article “South Africa leads world in coal processing”. Of course we can learn from other countries, but in this field we are one of the leading countries, as far as knowledge is concerned as well.

I could also provide the hon. member with scientific studies which will give him an indication of what research is being done today. I am satisfied that South Africa’s achievement in the scientific sphere, despite the fact that it is a small country, that we have so little money, that we have a big backlog and have only been moving in the world of science for a short time, is man for man probably, the greatest achievement in the entire world. If one considers South Africa’s achievements in all branches of science and one takes into consideration how many people, with how much money and in what a short time we were able to do this, I believe that South Africa can be satisfied and can be proud of its achievement in the field of mining, and particularly in the field of science associated with mining in our country.

With this I have come to the end of my reply to the hon. members’ contributions. I want to thank hon. members very sincerely for a very pleasant debate and express the hope that we will have just as pleasant a debate on our mines next year.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 29.—“Indian Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, I have an urgent matter to raise and I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Musgrave for the courtesy of allowing me to raise the matter at this stage. It is with regard to the Indian community in Wynberg, Sandton, that I should like to raise a matter which has arisen and which requires the urgent and immediate attention of the Government. The Indian community in Wynberg, Sandton, number approximately a thousand people living in very depressed and crowded conditions. The community is composed of businessmen mainly, some professional people like doctors and lawyers, and white and blue-collar workers. In 1973 they approached the hon. member for Sandton and the Sandton town council with the request that they assist them with their problem. The Sandton Foundation subsequently also became involved in a very productive way. The hon. member for Sandton immediately approached the Government on behalf of these people and as a result the area was visited by certain Cabinet Ministers who did an investigation on site. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs was very sympathetic with regard to the problems these people were experiencing and promised to do all in his power to assist them. At the same time he explained to them an existing Cabinet decision that prohibited the establishment of any new Indian townships in the Greater Johannesburg area. He also requested the Sandton town council that they should commission a comprehensive sociological survey to study the entire problem and also to express themselves on the feasibility of developing a new Indian township in Sandton. As a result, Prof. Oosthuizen of the Institute of Urban Studies at the Rand Afrikaans University carried out a very comprehensive study and produced an authoritative report on the basis of his study. The report was sent to the Ministers of Indian Affairs, of Planning and of Community Development. I believe they studied it and found it a very interesting and useful report. The Government responded very favourably and in due course a meeting of the Group Areas Board was held in Sandton which was attended by representatives of the public, the town council, ratepayers’ associations, the Indian community and others. An investigation was carried out. It was indicated that a township for Indian people would be established at Marlboro. Marlboro was the third choice of three townships in respect of which a decision had to be taken. It became clear that the Government favoured Marlboro. It also became clear that if Marlboro was to be the township allocated for this purpose, the property would have to be expropriated, and that a new township would have to be designed along modern lines, because Marlboro was a very old township and had now become obsolete. It was designed in 1904 and would not be suitable for the purposes of this community. It also became clear that the Department of Community Development and the Sandton Town Council would have to play a major role in this undertaking. In February a major Marlboro property owner, a certain Mr. Dawid Fourie who owns 263 stands there and, I believe, operates on behalf of 150 other sand-owners as well, started persuading Indian people to sign option documents in terms of which the purchaser would purchase stands from the seller on one of two conditions.

The hon. member for Sandton immediately advised the hon. the Minister of Planning of this and requested that a final decision be made by the Government as speedily as possible. On Monday, 24 April, the hon. the Minister of Planning announced in the Senate Chamber that Marlboro would be proclaimed as a new Indian township for Sandton. The hon. member for Sandton has now received complaints from a number of Indians from Johannesburg, Pageview and Wynberg that an agent purporting to be acting on behalf of Mr. Fourie, had set up a table in the Oriental Plaza and was persuading Indians to sign the option document, to which I previously referred.

When did he hear this?

On Tuesday, 25 April. The announcement was made on Monday night. Apparently, as an inducement to sign this document, the agent was also telling people that the building of houses could start in June 1978. The relevant facts are that the layout plan for Marlboro is out of date and unsuitable for the needs of that Indian community, that no services have been provided up to date and that neither the Sandton Town Council nor the Government apparently have funds immediately available to provide the services that are required. The existing stands will all have to be expropriated and the township redeveloped into a modern, attractive and comfortable residential area. The existing stands are not worth the R9 000 and much higher which are the amounts being inserted in the option documents that are being signed. The possible consequences of the situation are that persons signing the option documents could become financially committed for stands on which they will never be able to build homes since these stands are to be expropriated and the township redesigned, and that these persons could suffer considerable financial losses as well if the stands for which they have signed option documents and in respect of which they have become financially committed are expropriated at amounts well below the option amounts I have mentioned. The Wynberg Indians are obviously extremely concerned and very unhappy. They have waited for many years for a township of their own to relieve their conditions. It is possible that they may now be deprived of a chance to own a home in this area by an influx of Indians moving in from many other areas. Obviously these have become the most sought after township stands in Johannesburg. They provide the Indian community with the opportunity of owning property in a northern suburb of Johannesburg; I might add, in a PFP constituency. It could cause delays because there could be litigation, and many other problems could arise at this stage which could cause delays regarding the redevelopment of this township. The last thing we want, at this stage, is for extraneous matters such as this to interfere with the smooth passage of redeveloping this township and providing homes for the Indian community of Wynberg. It could also cause a tremendous escalation in the overall development costs of that township. This is something which must be avoided at all costs because these people are not well-off and would not be able to afford the stands if they were very expensive.

Do you have the terms of the option?

I can give the hon. the Minister a copy. I shall quote it if I have the time left at the end.

Does the hon. the Minister know all about it then?

It could also cost the Government a tremendous amount of money if, as a result of these activities, the stands’ values are escalated to such an extent that the expropriation costs go way beyond a reasonable limit.

One must also mention the tremendous heartbreak and shattered expectations of the people who are looking forward to buying stands and having homes in this area, not only the Wynberg people, but also those poor unfortunate people who are being induced to sign these options in the full belief that they will be able to buy a stand there, develop a home and live in a beautiful suburb in the northern areas.

The hon. member for Sandton, Mr. Dalling, has warned Mr. Fourie about the implications of his actions, and Mr. Fourie’s attitude is that it is his stands and he can do with them as he pleases. He says that he offered them to the Government but the Government would not buy them and that only a court order or purchase by the Government would stop him. Mr. Dalling has gone to Sandton to meet the town council and the Indian community in an effort to allay their fears. I would like to make a very urgent appeal to the Government to immediately put a stop to this unscrupulous exploitation of people and to take steps to ensure that the Indian community of Wynberg will soon be able to move into their own homes in their own township. I believe that it is not only in the interest of the Wynberg community of Indians, but that it is also in the interest of Indians in the Johannesburg area who are now under the impression that they can buy stands there and are, in fact, signing options. It is also in the interest of the hon. the Minister and his department, and also in the interest of the Department of Community Development and its credibility that this practice should not continue, because it could sour what has started off as a very good and positive development.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the remarkable question raised by the hon. member for Bryanston. Unfortunately I must say that it is a little disappointing if one prepares oneself to attack one’s opponent and what he says has nothing to do with the broad policy which one had thought the Opposition would have explained this evening. This evening will be the first opportunity for the PFP, as the Official Opposition, to state their policy in regard to the Indians, within the framework of the Southern African situation. The hon. member for Musgrave whom, I take it, is the chief spokesman, will quite probably go into the matter later.

The hon. member for Bryanston was my first opponent in politics and I regret that this evening he was not able to take us back a little to the federation policy he advocated at the time. Nevertheless, the political dialogue we would normally have during the discussion of this Vote will be a dialogue between the NP, as the Government of the day, and the various Opposition parties. It is true that one the one hand there will be such a dialogue, but that is not all we can say about it. The debate is not conducted by the NP concerning a specific national group in South Africa only. This dialogue which we seem to conduct with each other as Opposition party and Government, is preceded by the NP’s very close contact with the Government department concerned, and contact, not only with the ordinary Indian, but also with the Indian leaders. It is also of importance to say that this debate was preceded by a year in which the leaders of the NP conducted very painstaking and penetrating discussions and conversations at the highest level with the leaders of the Indian community.

Anyone who takes an unprejudiced look at the report of the Department of Indian Affairs will agree with me that in the light of this report the interests of the Indian community have been looked after over the past year in the widest sense. In the nature of the matter one recognizes that in every community there will be a number of points of friction. However, the fact of the matter is that the Department of Indian Affairs, together with the Government, looked after all the interests and facets of the Indian population in South Africa, in the widest sense of the world. One is deeply grateful for that. As far as I am concerned the accusations that have come from the ranks of opponents of the NP to the effect that the NP is not in close contact with the Indian community and its leaders, have been unjust.

I have no doubt at all that the relations between the Indians and the NP are steadily improving. It is true that the NP is the leader of the White people of South Africa. It goes without saying that there will be differences in regard to aspects of policy. It also goes without saying that many of the Indian leaders will not agree on a number of aspects of the policy of the NP. That is quite normal in the course of affairs of any country. The reason for the improving relations between the NP and the Indian community rests, in my opinion, on the following factors. In the first instance, there is a better mutual attitude than before between the White community and the Indian community. In a country inhabited by a diversity of peoples, attitude is a very important aspect.

The second reason for the improved relations between the Indians and ourselves is the fact that more and more leaders of the various peoples in South Africa are recognizing the fact that we in South Africa are a diversity of peoples. Quite probably hon. members of the Opposition hear this so often that it escapes them. The man and the leader who recognize this, however, are also better equipped to establish improved relations between people.

The third reason for the improvement in relations between the Indians and ourselves is the fact that the NP is trusted and believed not only by our own supporters and by those who vote for the NP but increasingly by the members of other population groups in Southern Africa. It is astonishing that under the policy of the NP these specific improved relations and attitudes are being brought about and perceived by a variety of people. The NP, which has been known for 30 years now among hostile propagandists abroad as a party which humiliates other people and holds them in contempt and does not want to allow them to come into their own, is the party under whose Government all these positive things have come into being.

One does not always want to compare, nor should one always do so. Indeed, the PFP are the first people to be only too quick to tell one that one may not compare. However, particularly since we are engaged in a debate between the White people and the Indian people in Southern Africa, let us draw certain comparisons between the attitude of the White and the Indian in South Africa and the attitude between the Indian peoples or communities throughout Africa and the indigenous population groups encountered in the same regions. One can even see what the relationship has been in recent times between the Indian communities and a country like England. What is also very important—and I think that we in South Africa ought to take due cognizance of this—is the present political situation in the mother country itself, India. What is the situation there? The position in South Africa since the Second World War should be contrasted to that. The National Party in South Africa, which is branded by the propagandists as a party which humiliates and oppresses others, has seen to it that an improved attitude and relationship exists between these communities in South Africa, in contrast with what one encounters in other parts of the world.

I do not wish to weary the House this evening but I should like to quote a few extracts. For the sake of the Sunday Times I shall mention the sources. These quotations are important when I attempt to confirm this standpoint of mine. The first quotation comes from one of the first books I read as a young student. It is a book which disturbed me a great deal. It was written in the early ’fifties by P. S. Joshi. This author wrote a number of books. The name of this one is Struggle for Equality. About three years after the National party came into power he wrote the following—

I have understanding for the fact that Mr. Joshi wrote these things, but he made a few errors of reasoning and a few scientific and historical errors by ascribing the unrest and the problems in the Indian community solely to the short period, from 1948 to 1951, during which the National Party had been in power. Nevertheless, the fact is that Mr. Joshi, who was an author and an expert on those times— he himself was an Indian—wrote this. However, let us look at what happened subsequently. I have before me a book written, not by a White man or an Indian, but by a Black man, a certain Henry Kyemba. The PFP is probably going to tell me that it is unfair to quote such a person in view of the country from which he writes. In this book, State of Blood, he writes about Uganda. He states the following—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the half hour. The hon. member for Rissik waxed almost lyrical when he spoke about the contribution which the Government had made towards what he alleged was the improvement of relations between the Government and the Indian community of South Africa. He will forgive me if I do not follow him along those lines, and if I take a contrary view. During the course of my remarks I shall touch upon a number of matters which he has raised, and he will therefore note that there is very profound disagreement between us as to the contribution which the Government has made towards improving relations between the rest of the community in South Africa and the Indian community.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of matters I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. In the first instance I want to deal with the political development of the Indian community in South Africa as part of the South African community, with particular regard to the Government’s new constitutional proposals. There is no need for me to remind the House that although the Indian community is the smallest of the four main racial groups in South Africa, it nevertheless comprises some three-quarter million people, many of whom are fourth and fifth generation South Africans and the overwhelming majority of whom are South African citizens by birth. Let me say to the hon. member for Rissik that when one is dealing with the Indian community one is not so much interested in what took place or is happening in Mother India. One is, in fact, dealing here with South African citizens who have served South Africa in a number of capacities and constitute a very important part of the South African community.

The Indian community consists of highly qualified academics, eminently successful businessmen and members of most of the recognized professions in South Africa. These are, in other words, the people who pay taxes, pay rates and make an important contribution to the community at large in South Africa. Despite all these things, however, they are people who are, in fact, given no real say in the laws by which they are governed in the land of their birth. I therefore want to put a question to the hon. member for Rissik and others. What has the Government, in fact, offered the Indian community to date in so far as political representation is concerned? What is the existing position …

What have you offered them?

… of the South African Indian community as far as their political aspirations and their legal rights are concerned?

What are you offering them?

We have the S.A. Indian Council.

The Indians in South Africa are better off than in any other place in the world.

Half of its members are nominated by the Government and the other half are elected by local affairs committees and committees of that kind. It is a council of 30 members who are there supposedly to represent the interests of the Indian community. I do not want to claim that the council serves no purpose at all. It does at least, I suppose, provide a link between the Government and the Indian community. I do not believe, however, that even the members of the council themselves would claim that they are in any way representative of the South African Indian community. It is virtually a nominated body. If one knows the Indian community, one would know that it is very sharply divided about whether its members should in any way, participate in the council or not. That is another matter, however, which I do not want to raise at this stage. I nevertheless quite clearly want to make the point that the S.A. Indian Council cannot be regarded as being representative of the South African Indian community. Its methods and the scope of its activities certainly indicate that the Indian Council is really offering little more than tokenism as far as representation for the Indian community is concerned.

It is interesting to take a look at the report of the department to which the hon. member for Rissik has referred, a report which deals with the activities of the Indian Council. With the greatest respect, the comments about what the Indian Council is or has been doing are almost pathetic when one views it as a body which is supposed to be representative of a very important section of the South African community.

This, after all, is what the Government has, up to the present time, given to the Indian population of South Africa. Even in the department’s current report before the House there is the following rather pathetic comment on page 5, and I quote—

That in itself is a terrible reflection. Here one has a council supposedly representing the political aspirations of the South African Indian community, yet in a period of one year it meets for a maximum of 12 days. Viewed in that light, how important can its function be? If one looks at the Executive Committee of the Indian Council, one finds a further comment on page 5 of the report that “meetings of the Executive Committee are normally held monthly for three days at a time”. Again, it is a token form of representation because, surely, no authority that really represents the interests of a community can afford to meet at intervals of this kind and for periods of this sort of duration.

We will talk about that later.

Certainly. To be fair to the Government, it has committed itself to other plans regarding the council. Over the years we have been told that it will eventually become an elected legislative body, presumably in the true sense of the word. This is what the Government has committee itself to do. It is not that at the present time. The picture I have drawn is of the Indian Council as it has functioned and as it is now functioning. However, I give the Government credit for having said that this is not the end of the story but that in time it is going to become a legislative body in the elected sense.

It is interesting to note, too, that on page 6 of the department’s report there is the following comment—

Then it gives the quaint example: “e.g. education”. I find that rather interesting. Why does education affect the Indian community only? One wonders what other matters affect only the Indian community in the common society in which these people live. The passage from which I quoted goes on to state—

We are now in the year 1978 and I want to ask the hon. the Minister in his reply to give us an indication of what has happened to this general registration of voters. We know that there is the Electoral Act for Indians which deals with the delimitation of constituencies, a voters’ roll, etc., and we also know from this report that the registration of voters is apparently still in full swing, having commenced in 1976. We know, furthermore, that the life of the Indian Council has been extended after it was due to expire in November 1977. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what progress has been made with regard to the registration of voters. I want to ask him to tell us why it seems to have taken so long since it is still in full swing although it was commenced with in 1976. There is a further question I want to ask him. Perhaps I am misreading the estimates, but the only item I can find in the estimates referring to elections and electoral systems is a very nominal item of R100 on page 29-3. It may be that the item for the registration of voters and so on is reflected elsewhere and that I have missed it, but I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what the nominal item of R100 represents and whether there is in fact any other amount on the estimates in regard to the continued registration of Indian voters.

I want to go on to the question of the extension of the life of the Indian Council which the hon. the Minister has announced. Towards the end of last year he gave as the reason for the extension of this council the fact that the Government was busy with its new constitutional proposals and that, therefore, putting the Indian Council on an elected basis should be postponed.

Again I want to ask the hon. the Minister: In view of the fact that the S.A. Indian Council has already unanimously rejected the constitutional proposals of the Government as being unsuitable and in view also of the fact that the Indian Council has indicated that, as a nominated body, they would be reluctant to commit the Indian community on so momentous an issue as the Constitution anyway, how does the Minister or the Government propose to consult the Indian community on those constitutional proposals if indeed they propose to consult them at all? It seems to me that the hon. the Minister finds himself somewhat in a comer on this issue because on the one hand he refuses to let them proceed to become an elected legislative body because, he says, the new constitutional proposals are going to be considered at some date in the future and the council should wait until that situation arises, while on the other hand quite correctly the Indian Council say that, because they are not elected by the people, they do not think it appropriate to bind their people on this sort of issue. My question again is: How is the Government intending to consult with the Indian community? They cannot do so through the Indian Council because they have not created the proper machinery. There is no body, no organization which the Government can say is fully representative of the Indian community. My question is: How are they going to consult them in regard to their constitutional proposals? The hon. the Prime Minister, during the discussion of his Vote, indicated very clearly that the Government was fully committed to the principles behind their constitutional proposals. He said that the basic principles could not change and he said that they would remain as long as his party was in power. The principle that the Government presumably has in mind, of giving the Indian people what they would term a separate Parliament for the Indian community—a principle which the Indian Council has already rejected and rejected unanimously and emphatically—is still going to obtain, without consultation and without the machinery for consultation. I presume the Government, as they have indicated to other racial groups, will say that their attitude to the Indian community is: Here is the proposal; we are not going to consult you about it; you either take it or leave it. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us and I would like him to elucidate what he believes or what his department’s attitude is to the form of consultation which should take place with the Indian community on this very vital issue.

But, Sir, never mind the proposed constitutional proposals of the Government. Even in the present context one wonders just how seriously the Government takes the Indian Council. I wonder whether the Indian Council was in any way consulted by the Minister and his department in regard to these estimates. I do not believe that the Indian Council was consulted in regard to the budget because in a previous debate I think it was the hon. the Prime Minister who indicated that the Cabinet Council had not met to consider the budget. The reason was advanced again that this was because of the proposed constitutional proposals. It had not been possible or it had not been considered necessary for other racial groups to be consulted in regard to the budget. However, I want to ask: How long are we going to put these things off while we wait to consider the Government’s constitutional plans? Here we have a situation where, as far as this Parliament is concerned, there is already legislation in the offing in regard to the extension of the life of the Senate until 1980. Presumably therefore the constitutional plans are at least going to take another 18 months or two years. However, are we in the meantime going to say to all the other communities and to the Indian Council that it must endure in its present form, pending the new constitutional proposals, for another two years? Is everything going to be put off until that takes place? Even within the limited scope of the present operation of the Indian Council, there are signs of considerable dissatisfaction amongst the Indian community, not only amongst those members of the community who have from the start rejected the concept of a separate Indian Council, but even amongst those who are participating in the Indian Council itself.

I want to quote from The Argus of 14 November. The heading of the report is “Ultimatum on Indian grievances”. The report reads as follows—

He is a very well known and very highly regarded member of the Indian community—

He went on to say—

Therefore there is ample evidence from members of the Indian Council themselves that that council, in its present form, is not operating satisfactorily. So much for the comments of the moment on the question of the political rights of the Indian community and what the Government has offered in terms of its policy and what it has given to the Indian community at the present time. I believe there is a tremendous gap and there is a tremendous question to be answered by the Government as to where it is taking the Indian community now and in the immediate future and in the long term as far as their political rights are concerned.

We would like to hear something of your policy if you do not mind.

No, I am dealing with the Vote of the hon. the Minister and we are talking about the department of the hon. the Minister. The hon. Whip must realize that in terms of parliamentary procedure it is our right to examine the policy of the department which is concerned in this particular Vote. [Interjections.]

There are a number of other issues affecting the lives of the Indian community that I wish to deal with in the short time at my disposal. There is, for instance, the alarming shortage of housing which I shall deal with at greater length on another occasion shortly. The stark reality is that, according to reports, in Durban alone nearly one-third of the Indian population in that area are homeless today. We have the figures, as substantiated by the Durban City Council, which indicate that there are 24 000 families who have their names on a waiting list for homes in and around Durban. This represents approximately 120 000 people out of a total community of approximately 369 000. Then there is also the question of the growing unemployment among the Indians. The department’s report stresses this and further stresses that this tendency is growing and that unemployment has doubled on a monthly basis during the past year. Again the hon. the Minister must indicate to us what his department intends doing in this regard. He should not merely say, as the report states, that the incidence of unemployment is going to become even greater. He should tell us what his attitude is going to be to what could be a very serious situation indeed. I would also ask the hon. the Minister to give us some indication as to what is happening in regard to the Indian Industrial Development Corporation. Legislation has been passed, a directorate has been set up and I would like the hon. Minister to tell us whether this corporation is working, or when it is intended to start working and what it is doing.

A further matter that is of tremendous importance to the Indian community, is what the Government is going to be able to do in order to assist them to acquire more land for agricultural purposes. A great deal of accent is placed on urban development, but constant appeals are made—this has been the case throughout the years—by Indian people that they be given greater opportunity to employ themselves in the agricultural field. It is all very well for the report again to refer to this matter by saying that the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment has indicated that he will consider applications by Indians to occupy White-owned land, but I believe that this hon. Minister and his department should be actively pursuing this issue which is of vital interest to the Indian community. These are all matters of very serious importance to the Indian community and I shall, with interest, await the response of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman the hon. member for Musgrave put forward a number of questions. It is clearly evident, inter alia, from his questions that the hon. member has just returned to Parliament after a lengthy absence.

That is an old story.

Unfortunately it is an old story, but the older it becomes, the truer it becomes. It is a simple fact, however, that the hon. member for Musgrave showed once again this evening that he is somewhat ignorant as regards certain aspects concerning this department. The hon. member asked the hon. the Minister to report, inter alia, on the activities of the Indian Industrial Development Corporation. If the hon. member had been here when that legislation was introduced, he would have known that it was not introduced by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, but by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. The legislation is entirely the responsibility of the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs has nothing whatsoever to do with the handling of the legislation pertaining to the Indian Industrial Development Corporation. The matter may be discussed under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

The hon. member also raised a few other matters, and I think he could have chosen his words better in some cases. The hon. member used the following words, inter alia: “Approximately a third of the Indian population of Durban is homeless.” “Homeless” means to be without any home. So where do those people live? Do they sleep out in the open, or where do they live? Had the hon. member said that they were living in overcrowded conditions, that might have been so. But to allege that they are homeless, i.e. that they have nowhere to sleep and that they are sleeping out in the open, is a misrepresentation testifying either to his lack of understanding of the sensitivity of this type of terminology, or otherwise to his being somewhat wilful …

Or possibly to his being right! [Interjections.]

He also said that unemployment amongst the Indians had doubled in recent times. This sounds terrible. What the hon. member failed to say, however, was that the unemployed amongst the Indian population at this stage represents approximately 3% of the working Indian population. An unemployment figure of 3% is not abnormally high.

Whose figure is that?

I do not want to question that there is unemployment, and that there is concern about it, but to allege here that the unemployment rate has doubled without the actual figure being given, makes it sound as if it is a terrible thing. Once again, this is a misrepresentation if the matter is presented in this way. The hon. member for Musgrave is the only representative of the PFP in Natal and was elected by a mere few hundred votes, and I want to tell him that he should be more careful and more responsible in his terminology. What he is in fact doing, is to participate in the PFP’s whole attempt to bring about alienation between the Indians and the Whites for the sake of shortsighted political objectives. I want to ask him to stop dragging this type of confrontation politics across the floor of this House.

He is a complete distorter!

Confrontation politics of this nature is not to the advantage of anyone; not to the advantage of either the Whites or the Indians.

Your whole policy is one of confrontation!

There are also a few other matters which I should like to raise. The hon. member also referred disparagingly to the Indian Council and said, “The Indian Council is not representative of the South African Indian community”. Once again the hon. member did not tell the whole truth. He gave out that the entire Indian Council was appointed by the hon. the Minister. He did not intimate that 50% of the Indian Council is elected by the Indian local affairs committees of the municipalities.

I said precisely that.

Then you said it very softly.

The representatives elected by the Indians themselves to the councils, were all elected by ordinary majority vote.

You did not listen.

At this stage, only half of the members of the Indian Council are nominated members.

How would you like to be elected by divisional councillors?

I should not like that to be done but…

Order! The hon. member does not have to reply to the question. He may proceed.

I have already replied to the question and I want to react to it further. The hon. member knows full well that the creation of the Indian Council is in a transitional stage. The council, as it exists at present, is not a permanent one. The NP has already suggested very clearly that it intends creating an absolutely representative Parliament for the Indians. The Parliament will consist of 46 members, of whom 41 will be elected and five will be appointed on a proportional basis by the elected Indians themselves. Therefore, the present Indian Council is simply a phase that has to be passed through on the road of development. What would have happened if the party of which the hon. member for Musgrave is a member, had remained in power in 1948? In that case the Indians would have had two representatives in this House. What would the result have been? Those two representatives would have been Whites representing the Indians. The Whites, like ventriloquists dummies, would have had to speak here in this House on behalf of the Indians. This is a system which is completely unacceptable to this side of the House. The appeals made by hon. members of the PFP, are not at all to the advantage of the Indians, and I think that hon. members of the PFP are fully aware of this.

The hon. member used the word “tokenism” with reference to the Indian Council. Surely this concept is not appropriate. They have a responsibility, and the members appointed to this council are not any Tom, Dick and Harry who support the Government’s policy. The Government has gone out of its way to appoint people capable of expressing independent opinions, people who were well known in the past for being severe critics of the Government, to the Indian Council. There is no question whatsoever of the Government having appointed only people who slavishly echo the Government. The hon. member for Musgrave knows this full well. However, they are trying to cover it up that this is so and they are trying to create the image to the outside world that the Indian Council is not representative.

There is another aspect which I should also like to point out. I have discussed the matter with many Indians. The Indians, too, do not consist of one homogeneous community only, but of two definited communities. The one is in the majority as far as numbers are concerned, and the other in the minority. Certain prominent leaders of the Indian community, have voiced the misgiving that if the elections were to be held purely on a one man, one vote basis, the minority group in the Indian community would possibly be completely under-represented. Concern has been expressed about this. That is why it was desirable during the first phase of the establishment of the Indian Council for some people to be appointed so as to have the council representative of both main groups of the Indian population of the country.

Should the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, too, be represented on a similar basis in this House?

I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is very knowledgeable as regards this matter and his remark testifies to that fact.

Can you tell me what the ratio is between the members of the Indian Council?

That is irrelevant. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think this is an appropriate time to deal with a few of the matters that have already been raised. I am rising to speak fairly early in the debate because I want to reply in particular to the matter raised by the hon. member for Bryanston before another day goes by. He raised a very important matter, namely the danger that improper speculation, which would not be in the interests of the community concerned, could take place with regard to the proclamation of Marlboro as an Indian area, particularly for the Indians in the municipal area of Sandton, especially those in the region of Alexandra. I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me advance notice of his intention and also a summary of his arguments and a copy of the option to which he referred in this speech. It makes it far easier for us to discuss the matter fruitfully and in the interests of the community in question. I appreciate his interest in the matter and the fact that he rose to ask us to act so that speculation, possible exploitation and a possible baulking of the aspirations of the Indians of Wynberg may be prevented. I particularly appreciate this and I want him to know it.

Now you have really praised him enough.

Yes, I think that is more than enough. [Interjections.] It is necessary for us to know what the reaction of the people concerned is to the proclamation which will probably appear in the Gazette on Friday, according to the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment. He reviewed the history of the matter. As far as I, as Minister of Indian Affairs, am concerned, I just want to say that in 1975 I was asked by good friends of mine in the vicinity of Sandton, and also by the City Council, to come to Sandton to investigate certain problems there, problems which had come to the fore particularly after certain riots which had taken place at the time. It was then that I met the Indian community of Wynberg for the first time. It was immediately apparent that we were dealing here with an Indian community which was largely a forgotten community.

They are orderly people and, without being in any way obtrusive, lived their lives there and never bothered anyone. However, they led their lives in the most impossible circumstances—I am tempted to say, in atrocious circumstances. They had their hamlets on the outskirts of the Bantu township of Alexandra, where they had to live without any permanent rights whatsoever. What amazed me—I think it is to their undying credit—is that although they had to live in the most miserable conditions, they retained their self-respect and their love of peace and upheld their standard of civilization and brought up and educated their children properly. I am very proud of these people and I have developed an admiration for them. I also said there, at the request of the municipality of Sandton, that if they could assist in identifying suitable land for the purpose, I as the Minister of Indian Affairs would plead the case of that Indian community with the Department of Planning and the Environment with all my might. And that is what I did. I want no further credit; I just want to say that that is the history—as far as I am concerned I want to place it on record—of this remarkable community which was living there, outcast and in wretched circumstances.

Now the Department of Planning and the Environment has announced that within a day or two that dream of those Indians and the Municipality of Sandton, viz. that these people, too, would be properly housed in fortunate circumstances, is to be realized. What has happened there is a repetition of what has happened in the case of hundreds of thousands of Indians throughout South Africa: Whereas previously they had to live in atrocious circumstances, lacking any permanence, lacking any proper accommodation, in sheds behind their shops and in wretched circumstances, thanks to the Group Areas Act in terms of which action is now once again being taken, those people are now being removed from that wretchedness and properly housed in towns of which they can be proud, where they are happy, where they can give expression to their identity and fulfil themselves to the utmost.

Like Chatsworth.

The reproach is always levelled at us that we demolish houses and resettle people in a cruel manner, but this is what we really do: We eliminate misery and we create order and happiness.

30 miles from their work.

My good friend, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Planning and the Environment, handed me a telegram to read and I should like to quote it to the Committee so that it can be placed on record how the Indians feel about the implementation of the Group Areas Act in this case. The telegram is from the Wynberg Indian Association with whom I have often spoken, which has cooperated closely with the Department of Planning and the Environment and is representative of the Indians. It is a very concise telegram after the hon. the Minister’s announcement the day before yesterday. The telegram reads—

That is how they feel. That is what the NP Government is doing for these people in terms of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

You should have been on the stage.

Now I return to the specific matter which the hon. member for Bryanston raised. Of course, we have the Group Areas Act and the Group Areas Development Act—two remarkable statutes— and I am very pleased that I am able in large measure to set the mind of the hon. member for Bryanston at rest immediately. Those Acts were drafted in such a way that the attempts at speculation which occur wherever we implement the Group Areas Act can be frustrated and stymied. Two years ago, the Department of Planning and the Environment made fine areas at Lawley and Grasmere available to Coloureds and the Indians. I think there were 25 000 plots for the Coloureds and 35 000 for the Indians. There, too, there were efforts by land-owners to utilize— I do not wish to use the word exploit—the land hunger of the Indians in order to negotiate immediately extremely high prices for their land. My department obtained a special Vote of R10 million from the Treasury to put a stop to that. We put a stop to it in two ways. In the first place we have a right of pre-emption as soon as an area is declared to be a group area, whether it be for Indians, Coloureds, Bantu or whatever. We have a right of pre-emption. Whatever transactions may be in progress, we have the right to step in and say that we are exercising our right of pre-emption, that we are purchasing the property in question and that other purchasers are eliminated in this way. We did this in the cases to which I have referred. We have also done so in other areas. Apart from that, we also have the right of expropriation. The moment we give notice to a landowner that we are going to expropriate his land, then in terms of the law the ownership of that land immediately passes to the Community Development Board.

Now I can inform the hon. member for Bryanston that an expropriation order was served today on the person to whom he referred this evening in his speech.

And the quantum of the compensation?

That is a very good question. This facet really belongs with the Department of Community Development. However, I shall reply to the matter. If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I shall reply to the question since the Indians are concerned here. The quantum of the compensation is determined by independent valuators, valuators who are not in the employ of the State but who are nevertheless highly respected professional men.

Yes, but at the market price too?

Oh yes! The Act reads that the market prices prevailing at the time of the proclamation are the basis on which the valuation must take place.

Today’s price?

No, it cannot be at today’s prices. The hon. member for Groote Schuur is a lawyer. I am not here to give people legal advice. However, there can be no real contract if someone offers something which he does not have the power to carry out. The hon. member for Groote Schuur is a lawyer. He ought to know that the person concerned here had nothing to sell in terms of the Act. He could offer no certainty.

Yes, but he wanted to determine the price.

Yes, but after all, he cannot determine the price in a fictitious transaction. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Hon. members can take it that I am not in the least concerned about this aspect of the matter.

Now we have your answer!

I know what I am talking about. I speak from experience. I speak from experience and therefore I am not concerned. That effort to determine values was frustrated. The second reason why it was frustrated is because Marlboro, as it is today, will never develop into a town. Therefore no values can be determined. It is a town which was proclaimed in 1904. All it is, is what our English-speaking friends call a gridiron township. The town consists of a lot of streets going in different directions. There are no facilities, no parks, no provision made for schools. The town as a whole will have to be replanned from scratch. The hon. member can therefore be sure that that person had nothing to offer the Indians.

Nevertheless I want to warn the Indians concerned that they must take great care. This document is an interesting one. The man who has the option makes an offer for that option—

†In other words, the property should in the first instance be proclaimed a group area and, secondly, the permit, if it is a controlled area, should be issued by the Department of Planning. At the moment it is a controlled area. Then it says—

I now want to say that I had the opportunity of speaking to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Planning, who deals with this matter. He gave me the assurance that under no circumstances—until Friday when it falls into my lap—would any permits be issued in connection with the change of ownership of Marlboro township. We are doing what we can. But I think the time has come for me to say that our Indian people, especially, must appreciate that the Government is doing everything in its power to make housing land available to them. I am thinking only of the period since I have been Minister of Indian Affairs. There are the large areas we gave them on the Witwatersrand, near Angus, and in the Nigel area. There is also Betterton, which we restored to the Indians, and several other places. We are really trying to give our Indian people the opportunity to become home-owners according to the fundamental policy of this Government. We want to create a home-owning democracy for the Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

But not for the Blacks!

I want to warn the Indians, however, that they must please not try to speculate and outwit one another when these areas are proclaimed. As far back as 1975 I said that if we succeeded in getting an Indian area in the vicinity of Marlboro, that land would go, in the first instance, to the Indians of Wynberg and then, secondly, to those Indians—with the full approval of the Sandton municipality—living in the northern and eastern suburbs of Johannesburg for whom Lenasia is disproportionately distant from their present homes and occupation. That policy will be applied by the Department of Community Development, because when that Government Gazette appears on Friday and this area is declared an Indian Group Area, the responsibility for its development, in every sense of the word, immediately rests with the Department of Community Development. I give the undertaking that I shall see to it that the priorities I have just mentioned will be carried out, that speculation be stopped and that there is no exploitation of any Indian. There will certainly be no exploitation of the Department of Community Development.

Again I want to thank my hon. friend for bringing this to my attention. It has given us an opportunity to clear the air, and I hope that any attempt to exploit the people concerned will now end as the result of this.

Thank the hon. member for Sandton too. I think he had a great deal to do with it.

I am thanking him for raising it. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton must appreciate that this exploitation would not have taken place in any case. All I have done now is to reassure the hon. gentleman and anyone else who had any doubt about this. For that opportunity I do thank the hon. member and his colleagues.

*I also just want to convey my thanks to the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Klip River for their contributions to this debate. The hon. member for Rissik and I have much in common. We like politics. It is a very interesting occupation. This evening he made a political speech, and he is fully entitled to do so. He pointed out the progress that had been made as regards our Indian community and the good relations between the Government and the Indian community. He advanced reasons for that, reasons with a political flavour. I concede that. He was followed by my good friend, the hon. member for Musgrave. In his speech— of course, it is his right and his duty to do so—he took politics a great deal further. He intimated that everything that the hon. member for Rissik had stated positively, was wrong. On his side there is only a negative insight into our relations with the Indians.

The hon. member for Klip River replied with profound insight to the speech by the hon. member for Musgrave and put paid to his political arguments. However, I must now reply in more detail to the speech by the hon. member for Musgrave. He discussed the political development of the South African Indian Council and the new proposals of the Government. He referred to the Indian community as a prosperous community, but asked what we could offer these people in the political sphere. He then disparaged the Indian Council. He said that it was an absolutely purposeless and meaningless body. He also referred to the 19 matters which my good friend, Dr. Moolla, the chairman of the Indian Council, had raised, in regard to which he maintained he had not had satisfaction. After that statement, Dr. Moolla and I had further discussions and I can assure the hon. member that that list of 19 points is now much shorter. He will not hear about that again often. As a result I, too, asked my department to set down for me a few things which the Indian community had received as a result of the close relations between the Government, through the Department of Indian Affairs and its Minister, and the Indian Council. The Secretary for Indian Affairs sat down there and then and, without referring to a book or anything else, set down no fewer than 36 positive things which had been achieved for the Indians thanks to the S.A. Indian Council. I do not wish to quote all 36. However, I want to give a few examples.

†For a long time the Indian community has been asking the Government to admit the wives and children of Indians who married outside South Africa. They now have that, thanks to the Indian Council and the Department of Indian Affairs. One of the last decisions taken by the then Minister of the Interior, now the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development, was that this should be done and the selection should be done by the executive of the Indian Council, and to a large extent—almost 90%, I would say—the Department of the Interior is guided by that.

Why did you not let poor old Desai’s daughter-in-law enter?

That is a special case.

I’ll say!

Now wait a minute. That is a very special case. As far as I know, there are very good reasons for that, but it does not fall within my province. The permission is given by the Department of the Interior. When the time comes, the hon. member can raise the issue again. It would be wrong of me to anticipate that hon. Minister’s reply. However, the hon. member must be careful.

You are passing the buck.

No, it simply does not fall under my department. How can I then pass the buck? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I just want to warn hon. members for the rest of the debate to be very careful about raising individual cases with a great gesture of indignation. They may compel us to give the real reasons for the actions we have taken in certain circumstances.

Big deal!

That may only bring great unhappiness to the people concerned and their families. They are, however, free to do it, but I am just warning them of the possible consequences.

Time is passing. The next thing I want to mention is the establishment of an Indian Industrial Development Corporation. That was directly the result of the work of the S.A. Indian Council. I also delegated Indian educational matters to the executive of that Council about 18 months to two years ago, and as a result of that and also as a result of the personal interest taken by myself and my department in it, there will be compulsory education for Indians as from 1 January next year on the same basis as it exists for Whites.

Hear, hear!

Does anyone want to say that the Indian Council is a useless body when that is the sort of thing that is achieved? They have made it possible that provision has now been made for the military training of Indians. At the request of many Indians in South Africa, they are now being trained and they are producing a very fine type of naval cadet and officer from their naval academy at Salisbury Island. We are also introducing a cadet system for the Indians at their schools. Again, this is being done at their request. We are also training Indians in work they have never done before, especially in the Post Office as technicians and artisans. The Indian Council are negotiating at the moment with the owners of Sasol 2 for Indians to be trained in special skilled jobs in that industry. These are things they have never had before, and they are now getting them thanks to the Indian Council.

In fact, apartheid is breaking down.

On the recommendations of the Indian Council we also abolished the barriers on interprovincial movement. I remember how pleased the hon. member for Houghton was at that. Yet her colleague says this is an insignificant body, a worthless body.

It is unrepresentative.

He made some grudging acknowledgements, admitted that it did do a little, but he went on to say that it was a worthless body and criticized the Government for not giving the Indians something better. Thanks to the Indian Council they have their section 19 area in Grey Street. Let me say immediately that as a result of their representations it is now the policy of the Government to give greater attention to the establishment of section 19 areas under the Group Areas Act in all the larger towns and cities of South Africa. This is a complete change of our policy thanks to the Indian Council.

What about Eric Winchester?

We stopped the naturalization of non-South African Indians years ago, but thanks to the Indian Council they are now being naturalized in deserving cases. We have created holiday resorts for Indians. Thanks to the representations made by the Indian Council we have revolutionized the education of Indians. Compulsory education for Indians will be introduced next year. They have a university with almost 4 500 students. I was at their graduation ceremony on Saturday and was proud to see what was happening there. At the same time we must note that there are more Indian students at other universities than ever before in the history of South Africa. This was not done by depriving them entirely of the right to go to other universities. No Indian who has university exemption and who wants to go to university is debarred from a full university education because, for any good reason, he cannot go to the University of Durban-Westville. There are 762 Indians at universities other than Durban-Westville, and this is more than ever before in the history of South Africa.

By permit?

Of course.

Yes, of course.

Mr. Chairman, I love the Opposition, especially that hon. Whip. [Interjections.] I always know that when they are cornered, when they have been caught out in a wrong approach to a debate, as in this instance, that hon. member will come with some fatuous remark to confess their discomfort.

Is that what you used to do?

Order!

What is so interesting is the results we are getting in our Indian schools. We have almost 9 000 teachers in our Indian schools, and except for a few dozen they are all Indians. With few exceptions they are also all highly qualified Indian teachers. This is a revolution when seen in the light of what the position was before 1948 when most of the schools were community schools with a small subsidy from the Government. As one Indian leader said to me only the other day, in those days Indian education was allocated £5 per Indian child by the Natal Provincial Council, and that council made a profit on the deal. This is then the change we have today. We have schools and an education system today of such a high standard that Indian students who write matric get an 88% pass, results as good as those of any other community in South Africa, thanks to the Indian Council which my hon. friend tries to belittle in the way he tried to do this evening in this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

We are spending more than R50 million per year on Indian education, and this figure is going up all the time. We have made special provision to spend R7 million per year over five years—or it could be R5 million over seven years, I am not sure—to catch up on any backlog in Indian schools. [Interjections.] Mention is made of housing. We are making approximately R25 million to R30 million available for Indian housing on our budget. Another R50 million will also be made available over the next three years by way of a loan we have obtained from the banks. At this rate the backlog to which that hon. member referred—almost with tears of desperation in his eyes because it is an insoluble problem— should be caught up with and eliminated within the next five years.

That is not what the experts say.

I am advised by experts and, what is more, they are doing their job successfully and they are proving it with their achievements.

Last year you said the weather was against you.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. Chief Whip make a speech lasting longer than 10 minutes from his bench?

Order! The hon. the Minister may continue.

I am not even half-way through my argument, but I think I have already made my point. There are, however, still many good points that I wish to make. There is, for example, the fact that industrial zoned land has been exempted from the provisions of the Group Areas Act, thanks to the Indian Council. All draft Bills that affect their community is sent to the executive of the Council for their advice before it comes to Parliament. We have just instituted a medical aid scheme for Indian civil servants, and so I can continue listing the changes that we have brought about. All this could be done as a result of the close, extremely friendly and constructive liaison between the executive of the Indian Council, my department, myself and other Ministers whom they can see when they need to. I therefore want to appeal to my hon. friend for Musgrave, whom I know as a reasonable man, not to be misled by the prejudices of the party to which he belongs, but rather to give proper attention to the facts when attacking the Government.

When are you going to answer my question about the constitutional proposals?

I am still coming to that. [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon. member for Groote Schuur wish to ask a question?

Can we not even laugh anymore?

The hon. member for Musgrave further asked me …

Order! If the hon. member for Groote Schuur wishes to ask a question, he must stand up and do so.

No, Mr. Chairman. I was merely laughing.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the hon. member for Musgrave, because the sort of help he is getting in his desperate plight is not really very valuable. I think he will admit that.

Having belittled and denigrated the Indian Council, a body of fine men doing a fine job of work, the hon. member wanted to know what the situation was in regard to the new constitutional plans. He started by referring to the question of the registration of voters and he wanted to know what happened as there was only R100 budgeted for this purpose. The hon. member did not do his homework and did not state the facts, because if he will look at item E on that very page to which he referred, he will find that last year we budgeted R2 900 for the registration of voters, not R100. This year another R2 000 is budgeted for the registration of voters. [Interjections.] That may seem to be a little, but it was all we needed to buy certain maps and certain other necessary instruments. We had the use of a computer of the University of Durban-Westville, and therefore we did not have to spend much on that. Our own staff, in their normal duties, perform the work of registration. I want to remind hon. members of the discussion of the Vote last year when I said that I did not get any disagreement in this regard. Hon. members must bear in mind that it is the first time that this department has undertaken a job like this. It was not done by the Department of the Interior, but by my own small department with its limited staff. I said last year that if we could do what they have achieved in America, i.e. to register 60% of the people entitled to register, I would be happy. I am very glad to be able to say that when we closed the first registration, we exceeded 60% considerably. This could be done as a result of the energy and devotion displayed by the staff of the Department of Indian Affairs and because of the interest and enthusiasm shown by the Indian people themselves, in spite of an attempt by a small group—the hon. member for Musgrave attaches great importance to that group—to boycott this registration. We are now engaged in the first supplementary registration, and again—the figures are not yet available—the response is remarkably good and gratifying and, of course, terribly disappointing to my hon. friends on that side of the House.

It has taken you two years to achieve that.

I have just received the figures and I realize that I have been too conservative in what I have said. During the first registration we registered 268 188 Indians while the estimated total who can register is 392 000. Therefore the percentage is 68,4%—nearer to 70% than the 60% which I mentioned. Since we started very recently on the supplementary registration, the figure has gone up to 280 500, which represents 71,5%of the potential—excellent! Thanks to the interest of the Indian community in their own political future in South Africa.

They have rejected your plan, have they not?

I am still dealing with that matter.

You extended the date of registration.

Order! This is the hon. member’s last chance. Will the hon. member please stand up if he wants to ask a question.

Mr. Chairman, have you ruled that there should be no interjections because that was an interjection?

No, I did not rule that there should be no interjections. But the hon. member is continuing with a stream of interjections. If he wants to ask the hon. the Minister a question, he may do so. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; Have you ruled that there can be no interjections?

No, I have not ruled that.

Well, I am still interjecting!

If the hon. member continues with his stream of interjections I shall have to rule that there be no further interjections. I am just warning him.

Mr. Chairman, you have not, in fact, ruled me out of order yet.

No, I have not. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave says that the Indian Council has rejected our proposals. [Interjections.] He also asked me where we are taking the Indians and mentioned a few specific problems that he has with the Indians, something I still have to deal with.

I first want to come to the question of the rejection of the plan of the Government. The Indian Council passed a resolution to say that they would not accept the plan because of what they regard as contradictory statements by Cabinet Ministers on this plan and because they want discrimination against them removed. However, that does not mean that it is an unconditional rejection; there were the two conditions. Both the parties in the S.A. Indian Council, a great many people who are not on the Indian Council and organizations which are not directly represented on the council, have indicated to me that they want to discuss the plan with me further. They have not shut the door. So, the talk of a final and outright rejection is wrong. It was a conditional rejection and I am going to discuss their problems with them. So, in this respect my hon. friend also overstated his case slightly.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware that one of the reasons given, certainly by Mr. J. N. Reddy, was that he felt that because the council was not elected it was not in a position to act responsibly on behalf of the Indian community on a matter of this kind.

I was not aware of it, but I completely accept that. I am coming to Parliament this session with a Bill to reform the S.A. Indian Council, converting it into a fully elected body. I do not want to give an undertaking that that body will be elected before the new scheme comes into operation, but there will be full discussions with the present council and all the representative bodies of the Indians in South Africa. I shall approach them and if they wish to discuss it we shall do so. At the election we shall see whether the Indian people support this scheme or not. Then my hon. friend and I can talk again.

The hon. member thought that our plans were insignificant and referred scathingly to the fact that we gave education as an example of something the Indians could deal with themselves. They are doing it now very successfully.

The CRC is still on its way to what we have in mind for it under the new plan. I have here the Estimate of Expenditure for this year. I am not sure of the exact page, but the CRC is getting close to R300 million this year for its budget. I think the amount is something like R279 million. Does my hon. friend honestly want to suggest that a body with a budget like that is doing nothing and is completely unimportant? More things are also going to go to them.

Does it make up its own budget?

The hon. member for Musgrave also asked where we are taking the Indians. I will tell him in one sentence. He must remember that when the parties to which he and I belonged in the past were in power, and when the NP was in power before, the Indians were not accepted as South Africans.

That was a generation ago.

That does not matter. However, if I want to go back to a period in the history of South Africa when this Government was not in power, I have to go back a generation and a half. That is my difficulty. Hon. members will appreciate my difficulty. When those parties were in power the Indians were not South Africans. Both the major parties were in agreement that they had to be repatriated. It was the policy of the then Government and of the UP. I was a member, so I know. However, now they are accepted in the full sense, not as South African Indians, but Indian South Africans. We are taking them to full status and dignity as citizens of South Africa. South Africa is proud to have them and they are proud to be in this land and of this land. We are now devising a constitutional method whereby they will get full recognition.

And full sovereignty?

Over their own affairs they will have a great degree of sovereignty, which will help their development along. [Interjections.] Under previous Governments the Indians had absolutely nothing. The best the previous Government could offer them, was three representatives in this House. The greatest failure in the history of the South African Parliament was that idea, the idea of putting three people here who had nothing to do except talk. General Smuts once said to me that the reason why the Native Representative Council failed, was because we thought we could satisfy them by giving them a talking-shop with no executive functions. Now we are giving the Indians a parliamentary institution with executive functions and we are joining them with us on a common Cabinet Council, which will initiate legislation and will have executive functions towards the respective Parliaments which will pass legislation which will affect the people of South Africa. People may belittle and scorn it, but it is a complete revolution in the constitutional development of South Africa.

It will not work.

They say the bush universities and the Group Areas Act would not work and that a republic would be a disaster. I said it with them. I am glad to admit that I made a fool of myself. When will they have the intelligence to realize it themselves? [Interjections.]

I think I have dealt with most of their arguments. I shall be interested to hear the further discussion.

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Rissik, I too was hoping for a positive policy statement by the Official Opposition. Like him, I was disappointed. Instead we had an entirely negative contribution from the hon. member for Musgrave, a contribution which consisted of a catalogue of carping criticisms of Government policy. His speech was totally in contrast with the very positive contributions made by the hon. the Minister and other hon. members on this side of the House. His speech was totally out of keeping and out of touch with the telegrams from the Indian Association in Wynberg which the hon. the Minister read out. That suggests to me that once again the Official Opposition is not in touch with the Indian community, but relies entirely, as they have put it in a previous debate, on their innate intelligence for knowing what the Indian community has decided it wants. Hon. members will recall that that debate concerned a Bill to grant greater autonomy to the University of Durban-Westville, the establishment of which was a giant leap forward for Indian tertiary education in this country. For all intents and purposes tertiary education did not exist under the previous UP Government. I should like to remind hon. members that all three Opposition parties represented here today have the UP as their common parent.

That Bill granted the university greater autonomy, with the prospect of full autonomy later on. The hon. the Minister then stated quite clearly that when this university had the same assets and other advantages which the larger and older universities had, this was envisaged. It is well on its way to achieving that. For instance, in the past year, the chairman of the Indian Council, who also serves on the council of the university, Dr. A. M. Moolla, donated R75 000 to the development fund of the university and the M. L. Sulton Trust donated a further R30 000. Dr. Moolla received the first honorary doctorate from the university in the year under review and he is the type of person who I think is eminently suitable to serve on the council of the university. However, in that debate the hon. member for Musgrave suggested that other people should rather be co-opted on to the council. He suggested, amongst others, a member from the Durban municipality, a member from the borough of Westville, etc. It seems to me pretty obvious that these people will be Whites and not Indians. It was also quite clear in his plea that the same conditions regarding loans, etc., that apply to White universities should also apply to this university, and that he was less concerned with the Indian community than with imposing a certain political ideology on the Indian community. He then said that he wanted an open university. There are plenty of open universities at which the Indian community can study, but the Indian university at Durban-Westville has given the Indian community tertiary educational opportunities in this country which it has never had before. I cannot see why this should be denied the Indian community in this country, because it is, after all, the largest Indian community in the world outside the Indian subcontinent.

It is their right to have education after all.

It is their right to have education and it is also their right to have education of their own kind because this university also caters specifically for their needs. It offers courses in 16 languages, languages which include Arabic, Persian, Telegu, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati and Sanskrit. It also offers special courses in Indology and Islamic studies. I cannot see that these opportunities will be available to the Indian community in an ordinary open university. It has also offered advancement for the Indian community in the sense that 63% of its total staff is now Indian. It has eight professors, 15 senior lecturers, 35 lecturers and 20 junior lecturers who are in the university. Under the previous dispensation I cannot see that these people would have had the same opportunities. In fact, the establishment of the University of Durban-Westville is directly attributable to two things, both of which occurred as a result of the policies of this Government. The first was the decision of South Africa to leave the Commonwealth and become a Republic, which took the Indian question out of the realm of international dialogue. South Africa assumed full responsibility for her Indian population, with the intention of involving them in her policy of separate development, so that they could then have the same opportunities as all the other nations of this country. They could then have stability, forward mobility, greater job opportunities and the same rights as everybody else, rights which were previously denied them totally. They had no tertiary education simply because the policy was to repatriate them and not to provide for them in any sense on a permanent basis. But even before the establishment of the University of Durban-Westville and before South Africa assumed full responsibility for the Indians as South African Indian citizens, tertiary education was …

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.