I have to announce that at a ceremony in the Gallery Hall this morning, Mr. President and I accepted on behalf of Parliament a painting of Mr. C. R. Swart, the first State President of the Republic of South Africa. The painting, a gift from the Government, will be hung in a suitable place in the Parliamentary building.

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the threats and action against me as a member of the House of Assembly in consequence of a quotation from a State document read by me during a debate in this House on 5th February, 1970.

The hon. member for Innesdal gave me notice, in terms of Standing Order No. 26, of his intention to move this motion. Consequently I have had an opportunity of considering it and I have come to the conclusion that the motion is not one contemplated by the Standing Order in view of the fact that the hon. member will, in the near future, have an opportunity of discussing this particular matter in the House. I regret, therefore, that I cannot allow him to move his motion.

Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, towards the end of the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville he said, in referring to me, “as always, he can sneer at us and try to belittle us; he can insult us”. I do not know why the hon. member is so sensitive. Sir, is it that he realized towards the end of his speech that as usual he had allowed his eloquence to run away with his common sense? When the hon. member himself gets to his feet, he is completely insensitive to the feelings of his opponents. I do not sneer at the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. I do not belittle him when I point out in a gentle way his shortcomings as a transport critic. I do not insult the Opposition when I say that I have seldom witnessed a more blatant exhibition of political opportunism by the Opposition than during this debate. I am not insulting them; I am merely stating a fact.

It was really pathetic to listen to hon. members opposite and to hear their deep concern for the welfare of the railway workers. The hon. member for Yeoville said, among other things, that I must pay proper attention to their pay demands. I usually do. In the past 15 years I have always paid proper attention to their pay demands. He said I should appoint experts to evaluate their work. Well, Sir, it sounds very nice but there are over 630 different grades in the Railway Service and I do not know whether it is humanly possible to get an expert from outside the Service to evaluate the work in every one of those grades. Evaluation has been done by the Management itself, but not by the expert envisaged by the hon. member. Then he said that we must introduce a non-contributory pension scheme. Well, Sir, the contribution of the Administration is approximately R221/2 million annually and it increases every year. In other words, the expenditure would be increased by R221/2 million for the first year if we had to change from a contributory to a non-contributory pension scheme. The hon. member said that we should reintroduce the rent rebate scheme which was abandoned in 1954. It sounds very nice, Sir, but it is going to cost a considerable amount of money and it will certainly not give satisfaction to the staff because so many of them will receive the benefit of the rent rebate scheme whereas others will not receive it. Other Opposition members too, Sir, were very concerned about the welfare of the railwaymen. They asked for better wages and increased benefits. I need only refer to the hon. member for Salt River, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City), the hon. member for Green Point, the hon. member for Newton Park who also entered the debate because he suddenly discovered that he had a few railwaymen in his constituency—so he had to say something about them—the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Port Natal who said that I dare not pay railway workers a living wage because if I did I would not get them to work overtime.

Sir, I have heard lots of nonsensical arguments in this House, but I think I have never heard a more nonsensical argument or statement than that made by the hon. member for Port Natal. But the total of their promises will add up to many millions of rand of increased expenditure, and at the same time they want to reduce revenue. The hon. member for Yeoville says, as he does every year, that the profit of the pipeline must go to the users of petrol on the Witwatersrand. In other words, approximately R20 million must go to the users of petrol on the Rand, but at the same time he wants to increase expenditure by many millions of rand. Now, of course there is an election pending and the railwaymen and their dependants constitute a very powerful block of votes, almost 1/4 million. That is why the Opposition shows such deep concern for the welfare of the railwayman, as they do before every election. [Interjections.] In 1961, before the election, they moved an amendment. Among other things it said that the House should refuse to pass the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill because the Minister has, inter alia, (a) concluded an agreement with certain groups of the staff, thus prejudicing the interests of the staff as a whole; (b) departed from the long-established principle of enhanced payment for overtime worked by railway workers, and (c) failed to provide relief for pensioners. That was in 1961, and then the election took place. They lost the election and their number of seats was reduced. In 1966, again before the election, they moved this amendment—

Again the election of 1966 took place. They lost the election and their number of seats was reduced. In many of those constituencies the Railway vote held the balance of power, but they still lost. In fact they lost constituencies such as Umhlatuzana, Germiston (District) and Maitland, which had a preponderance of Railway votes. You see, Sir, apparently the railwaymen do not believe them. They know that those hon. gentlemen have not the slightest hope of ever getting into power and that they will never be in a position of being able to implement their promises, so why worry about such a futile Opposition, such a powerless Opposition? And with every election the railwaymen have voted almost en bloc for the Government, as they surely will do again on 22nd April.

Now the 1970 election is coming up. The Opposition moved an amendment again to the effect that until the Minister gives an assurance that he will remove the strain and injustices suffered by large sections of the staff, they will not pass this Bill. It is going to be very interesting to see whether they will get the support of the railwaymen. I am afraid they are in for a terrible disillusionment. In spite of the so-called confidence the members have on that side of the House, I am afraid they will come back here probably as a reduced Opposition, with fewer seats than they have now. But of course they are pinning all their hopes on their new allies, the Herstigtes. Sir, they are depending on a broken reed. The formation of the H.N.P. and its nomination of candidates will certainly not help the United Party.

We are not worried about that.

I do not worry about that. Those hon. members should worry.

Then why spend so much time on them?

Who congratulated Hertzog at Bloemfontein? [Interjections.]

Order!

This cross-debate having finished, I shall continue with my speech. I want to deal with the level crossings, a matter which has been raised by a number of hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Yeoville said he was surprised that I did not take this opportunity offered by this Part Appropriation to express some sympathy or regret in connection with the children who died in the level crossing accident at Meyerton not so long ago. Sir, I think this was a shocking statement to make. I think it is shocking that the hon. member for Yeoville should endeavour to make political capital out of the deaths of 23 little children. [Interjections.] There is no other explanation for it. I expressed my sympathy and my regret on the day of the accident. Why should he raise the matter in this form in this House if he did not want to make political capital out of the deaths of these 23 little children? Sir, I am a father and a grandfather myself. I can feel and realize only too well how those parents must have felt who lost their children. I think it is a terrible tragedy. In fact, it preyed on my mind for quite a time after the accident had taken place, and that is why I take such strong exception to the shocking manner in which the hon. member for Yeoville endeavoured to make political capital out of the deaths of these children. Having said that, I do not think that we should lose our sense of perspective.

We never have lost it.

Sir, I do not want to retort to the remarks of a woman, because after all they are unpredictable. I say we must not lose our sense of perspective. In 1968-’69, 60 people were killed at level crossings. Almost 6,0 were killed in 1968 on the roads. Surely the motor vehicle drivers should also have some responsibility to take sufficient care before crossing the rails. After all, if they observe the law that they must stop at a level crossing and look to both sides to see whether the lines are clear before they proceed over the crossing, crossing accidents would be reduced by 90 per cent. Surely some responsibility should also rest on the drivers of motor vehicles. I introduced a Level Crossing Act, Act 41 of 1960, for the first time to create a fund for the elimination of level crossings and the establishment of a Standing Committee which is representative and consists of experts and which must make a survey and draw up a list of priorities and enter into negotiations with the local and provincial authorities. Since 1960 R17.5 million has been allocated for the elimination of railway crossings, more than in any comparable period in the past. In 1965 I amended the Act also to provide, out of the funds of that particular fund, for the erection of protective devices such as flash lights and booms, etc. Up to 1969 389 level crossings have been listed; 111 have already been eliminated, and construction work is in hand for the elimination of a further 31 crossings. Negotiations are well advanced for the elimination of a further 76 level crossings, and negotiations are being conducted with the authorities concerned in connection with the elimination of a further 146 crossings. I can only say that everything is being done within the means at our disposal to eliminate these dangerous crossings.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) also made a contribution. He told the House about a crossing called Sweet Waters near Pietermaritzburg, which he said was controlled by gates. He said he went there after an accident had taken place to investigate the matter, and then he had a talk with the crossing-keeper. He asked him whether he had a time-table. The crossing-keeper said no, he had no time-table, and he said he did not have a telephone either. Then the hon. member asked the crossing-keeper how he could know when a train was coming along. The man said he lies down and holds his ear to the rail, and when he hears a train coming, he jumps up and opens the gates. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, it must have been a very arduous job. Just imagine that poor crossing-keeper lying on his side all day with his ear to the rails, listening for trains to come along. Then, if there are two sets of rails, a great deal of agility will be required as well, because the keeper would have to jump from one set of rails to the other. Sir, what are the facts? The Sweet Waters road level crossing was equipped with flash lights at the end of 1967 and crossing attendants were withdrawn early in 1968. Prior to that date, the cabin occupied by attendants at the level crossing was equipped with red lights which were switched on by approaching trains. The attendants were regularly issued with working time books, which contained information regarding all trains. Can the House blame me for be coming impatient sometimes, when I have to listen to such nonsense?

*We again heard, of course, of the serious manpower shortage, especially from the hon. member for Yeoville. Half a dozen of those hon. members said that they would win the election. They said there would be a change of government after 22nd April. One could have expected them to say that, but what are they going to do to meet the serious manpower shortage on the Railways? Let me say at once that the manpower shortage is, in fact, exceptionally serious. What solution does the Opposition offer in this regard? Here I have that infamous booklet of theirs, the yellow book, published by them. I am sorry, but I only have the English copy of the book. Therefore I shall have to quote in English. Under the heading “Transport Services” they say—

Hear, hear!

Of course, they have to say, “Hear, hear”. After all, they compiled this booklet. They proceed—

1. (2) The system of discipline on the Railways will be re-examined to remove sources of injustice and irritation.
2. (3) No Railway employee will be punished for alleged offences once found not guilty of them by an independent court of justice.
3. (4) Pensioners will be re-employed without penalties affecting cost-of-living allowances or bonuses.
4. (5) There will be immediate investigation to convert the Railway pension scheme into a non-contributory pension scheme.

About the manpower shortage they do not say a single word. There is not one proposal in this regard. [Interjections.] And this is their main point of attack, i.e. the manpower shortage.

There is an entire chapter dealing with that, if only you would read it.

I now come to another matter to which they referred.

There is an entire chapter on the manpower position.

Yes, I now come to the other chapter.

But you say that there is not a single word on the manpower shortage?

No, there is not a single word about the manpower shortage on the Railways. Do hon. members know what they say in connection with the manpower shortage? Now this is applicable mainly to workers outside the Public Service and the Railways. This is what they say—

What are these “real wages”? To me this is a peculiar statement. I think they themselves do not know what it is. This is what they say—

It is interesting that they mention “industries” in this regard. They are now going to give such a guarantee for ten years. In other words, suppose there is a shortage of firemen. They will now give the engine drivers a guarantee often years that they will still be in the service, which will be the case in any event. Such an engine driver will not earn less than he is earning at present, but now he has to allow Bantu on the engines as firemen. Do you see. Sir, they do not know what they stand for. It is the ignorance of the Opposition that irritates one so at times. They have heard something, but they definitely do not know the rights of it. They proceeded with their policy statement. They said it was “a policy which pays special attention to education and re-education …”. Hon. members should remember that I am now dealing with the Railways. They have to solve the Railways’ manpower shortage. These are their proposals. Their policy, they say, is one “which introduces a national minimum wage for Whites”. Now what on earth does that have to do with this?

That is long overdue on the Railways.

A “national minimum wage” is not necessary. It is quite unnecessary. If I had introduced a “national minimum wage” three years ago. all wages would have been approximately 50 per cent higher by this time. What point is there in introducing a minimum wage when wages are constantly increasing and not decreasing. Mr. Speaker, they do not know what they are talking about. They go on to say, “We will apply the rate for the job at realistic, not minimum. wage levels in all those cases where normal wages are above the national minimum wage for Whites”. Now this is supposed to solve the manpower shortage. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should find a different adviser on labour matters, because in that case they might come forward with more sensible ideas. These then are the proposals to solve the manpower shortage on the Railways. There are certain jobs on the Railways which are being done by non-Whites at present. I have dealt with this matter here by way of question and reply. There is, for example, the unskilled labourer. At present there are many thousands of Bantu doing that pick and shovel work, but this had started many years ago. There is also a considerable number of non-Whites doing graded work, but there is a standing committee consisting of members of the Management and of the trade unions and each time a non-White is about to be employed in a white job, his case has to be submitted to that standing committee and they have to give their approval. This is how this is being done. When these hon. members said on a previous occasion that they would only be able to do so when the trade unions concurred and gave their approval, I asked them what they would do if the trade unions did not give their approval and whether they would still do so in that case. I am still waiting for a reply to that question. I say there is a serious manpower shortage, but higher wages is not the solution, because the private sector is always able to outbid the State. This has been proved throughout the years. What we do is to introduce better working methods, mechanization and automation in every possible field in order to save manpower and to keep the wheels rolling in that way. That is why we are transporting 115 million tons of goods every year with fewer white workers than five years ago. I want to mention one example. We are making use of and in future we shall make further use of what is called “loopgeselsers” in Afrikaans. I do not know whether the hon. member knows what “loopgeselsers” are. They are “walkie-talkies”. The use of walkie-talkies will save the Railways approximately 500 shunters.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for East London (City) only has knowledge of sheep. He is a farmer who represents an urban constituency and I am surprised that he did not speak on Railway matters, too, because he has, after all, a few railwaymen in his constituency as well.

Hon. members also referred to overtime. I agree that a great deal of overtime is being worked and I agree that there are many of my people who do work long hours. I admitted this on a previous occasion, but I have to keep the wheels rolling and I appreciate the willingness of my people to work that overtime. They are prepared to do so; they are not obliged to do so.

They have to do so.

That hon. member is again talking nonsense.

But they have to work overtime in order to live.

They need not work overtime in order to live. These are the absurd remarks we hear in this House. The hon. member for Port Natal is not present at the moment, but he told the story that I was keeping basic wages low in order to force these people to work overtime. Overtime has been worked since the time the Railways came into existence. It has never happened as yet that we have been able to schedule all trains in such a way that they arrive at their destinations at the exact time when a man is to go off duty. Why does the hon. member not think before he opens his mouth. Then the hon. member for Yeoville spoke of what he called “bush courts”. Mr. Speaker, this name, as I said by way of interjection, he got from The Sunday Times. One of their reporters, who wanted to be very funny, was the person who used this name “bush courts”. There is no such thing. There is no court on the Railways. Does the hon. member not know that? Why does he not take the trouble just to consult the Service Act to see what the disciplinary procedures are? There is no such thing as a court. The only thing that happens when there is an offence is that which is called an “ondersoek” in Afrikaans is held, an “inquiry”, if he does not understand Afrikaans. After the inquiry has been held, a report is made. That inquiry does not punish the official. The only thing they do is to present a report to the discipline superintendent to say whether they have found the man guilty or not guilty. Then punishment is imposed. Then that staff member still has the right to appeal either to the appeal board, on which he is represented by his own people, or to the head of the department, the General Manager and the Minister. This is the procedure. But I do not know from where they get this idea of “bush courts”. It is ridiculous to speak of this. There is no such thing as a “court”.

Ask your railway-men.

I know what the railway-men say and think. They support the disciplinary code. They know what it is. But, of course, any man who is guilty and is punished for an offence, does not like it.

Then hon. members spoke of the accumulation of livestock at Johannesbrg last month. In this regard I just want to say that this is not the fault of the Railways. The Railways are a transport undertaking. When goods are offered for transport, these goods have to be transported from the consignor to the consignee. Surely the Railways cannot exercise control over the number of livestock consigned. This is. in the first place, the responsibility of the consignor and of the consignee. When such livestock arrive at their destination and cannot be received, they have to remain standing there. This is what happened in January. The municipality failed to make adequate provision for the slaughtering of all the animals. They alleged that their slaughtering line had broken down. For years it has been the position that they have been warned that the facilities at Johannesburg are inadequate, but up to to-day they have not yet started constructing a new abattoir. The result was that hundreds of trucks had to stand there. These trucks were standing in yards. Now, I do not know whether the hon. member knows this, but one cannot off-load animals from a truck if there is no platform and no proper kraal. One cannot simply make them jump from the truck to the ground where there is no platform. Neither can one simply off-load them on a platform and let them take their own course if there is no kraal. For that reason it was not possible to off-load them. In that case they stand in the yards where shunting operations are in progress all the time. That is the reason why they could not be fed and watered. Now one of the Johannesburg City Councillors, who was quoted by this hon. member, has come forward with a beautiful idea of designing a new type of truck, something which is, of course, a foolish and impractical thing. In any event, there are numerous places where these trucks are going to stand where water is not even available. How then is one going to take down the troughs, open the hatches and push in the troughs, especially if the truck is fully loaded with animals? Should one make the troughs high or low? While the trucks are in motion, will that water ever remain in the trough? The whole argument is absurd. I just want to say that animals are being transported and trucks are being designed in the closest cooperation with the Department of Agriculture in every respect.

†I am now coming to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). I am afraid that, in terms of the Standing Orders, I am only allowed one hour for my reply, so I cannot deal with all the points raised by hon. members. But the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) made certain allegations that I cannot let pass. The hon. member for Middelburg replied very adequately to him, but I think that I have to add something. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) said that the flying staff are being worked to the limit of their endurance—remember the words “the limit of their endurance”—namely 91/2 hours on domestic fights and 15 hours 45 minutes on international flights. Now, Sir, if the public reads that, they will think that these men are strained to the limit of their endurance and that the safety of the public will be in danger. That is why I cannot let that pass. But the hon. member has heard something about this. He probably picked up a few stories here and there and came to this House, in spite of receiving a reply to a question he put, and made these statements. The position as regards domestic flights is that the South African Airways is well within the 12 hour limit laid down by the International Federation of Airline Pilots for domestic flights.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? In reply to my question you answered on Tuesday morning that the International Federation of Airline Pilots Association did not lay down a limit.

The hon. member must now listen to what I am saying. This is the position regarding domestic flights:

It is interesting to know that pilots prefer the flight to London via Sal. No complaint has ever been received on any aspect of this flight, That is the position and I think if there is any complaint I will receive them from my pilots. They would not have gone to that hon. gentleman to complain. The hon. member also spoke about the actual conversion courses and again he showed his ignorance. I wonder if the hon. member knows what a simulator is. I do not think so. I do not think that he has ever seen the inside of a simulator. The conversion courses on Boeing 707s are approximately three months long, consisting of six week ground lectures, 45 hours simulator training and 10 hours flying training. In the case of Boeing 727s the course is approximately 23/4 months long, consisting of five weeks ground lectures, 40 hours simulator training and 10 hours flying training. The training for Boeing 737 pilots takes approximately 21/2 months, consisting of four weeks ground lectures, 40 hours simulator training and five hours flying training. I hope the hon. member will learn a lesson from what I am saying. Modem simulator conversion training is considered to be more effective than actual flying training, which has resulted in the curtailment of actual flying time in aircraft. The new Boeing 737 simulator has proved extremely effective and provision will be made in the Additional Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works for the acquisition of an improved type simulator for Boeing 707s, which should further curtail the conversion time to this type of aircraft. The conversion time prescribed by the South African Airways is rather on the conservative side and compares favourably with those of other airlines. It should be borne in mind that once experience has been gained in jet aircraft pilots should be conversant with the basic techniques so that the conversion from one type of jet aircraft to another is comparatively more simple than, for instance, from Viscounts to Boeing aircraft.

Now will you answet my question?

This is the position and the hon. member can take it as a fact.

Will you answer my question?

Order!

The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak again during the Third Reading and he may put his question then. The hon. member also said that the short flying hours of training pilots receive may be a reason why they have had more and more reports of bumpy landings and of bad take-offs. By saying that the hon. member is casting a serious reflection on the ability of my flying staff. I want to ask the hon. member where he received those reports from and from whom. The hon. member for Middelburg also repudiated the hon. member’s remarks on bad take-offs. If one makes a bad take-off in a Boeing 707 it will go into the ground. I want to ask the hon. member to hand over those reports and to tell me from whom he received them. Hon. members make allegations and talk without any basis in fact.

The hon. member also spoke about hi-jacking and about the Amsterdam conference. It was an ordinary general meeting of I.A.T.A. at which certain resolutions were taken. South Africa was represented at this conference. The hon. member also spoke about the Tokyo Convention. This convention did not seek a solution to the problem of hi-jacking. There is only one solution to hi-jacking, namely that it should be regarded as sea piracy. All the countries in the world should enter into an agreement that they will treat hijackers the same as sea pirates. For instance, Cuba must enter into a convention such as this. But the Tokyo conventions did not make any suggestion as to how the problem of hi-jacking could be solved. I can only give that hon. member the assurance that if the countries of the world are prepared to enter into such a convention, South Africa will also take part. Hi-jacking should be regarded as piracy. The guilty person should not be extradited, but should be punished in that country where the aircraft lands.

Will you press for that?

Of course we are pressing for it all the time. We do not press at UNO. We press at I.A.T.A. We press it wherever there is a possibility of getting countries to agree. The hon. member also wanted to know what precautions we are taking in this regard. I think it would be the height of folly to say in public what precautions we are taking to prevent hi-jacking.

That was not my question.

In any case, I say that it would be the height of folly to disclose these precautions in public.

I now come to the hon. member for Salt River. He advocated the building of a line from Montagu Gardens at, Milnerton to Saldanha Bay. I do not want to comment on this except to say how much his contribution is worth. Just imagine building a line from Milnerton to Saldanha Bay! I need not say anything more.

The hon. member for Green Point said that all the members of my employee unions are so dissatisfied with the staff associations that they come to him with their grievances. I have a lot of confidence in all my staff associations. In my opinion the leaders are responsible men. I have been dealing with them for more than 15 years. They always try to do their best for their members and to put their case. That is what they have done through all the years. That is why the leaders and their executives are re-elected every year. The hon. member came here with a number of grievances, he said, from I do not know how many members of the employees union. He said that they are complaining about sick leave, about sickness benefits and all the rest of it. I want to say that I have progressively improved leave and sickness benefits over the years. I think the staff associations are much more competent to raise matters such as this with the Minister and the Administration than that hon. member. They at least know what they are talking about.

They get baulked long before they even started.

I said that they at least know what they are talking about. That hon. member does not know what he is talking about. The type of statements that he makes here proves that. He said for instance, that pension contributions should also be based on overtime. Overtime is not something regular.

I never said that.

Of course, he said that was one of their grievances.

I said that their special overtime allowances should be incorporated.

I should like to ask that hon. member if he knows what a special overtime allowance is?

You know what it is.

No, I do not know. This is the first time I have ever heard of a special overtime allowance. They do receive overtime payments at a rate of one and 1/3 of their basic salary. But I do not know what a special overtime allowance is. That is something quite new to me. It is only known to that hon. member and the person who spoke to him about it.

But in many cases overtime is becoming regular.

Overtime is not regular. One man might work 20 hours overtime during one month, whilst during the next month, he only works 10 hours overtime. He does not work a regular number of hours every month. It means that the pension contributions will have to be calculated every month on the amount of overtime that is worked during that month. It is quite ridiculous to make such a suggestion. I have never received representation from the staff associations in connection with this.

It does not reach you, I know.

Of course, it will not reach me because they are not prepared to make such stupid suggestions to me. The hon. member, as a final proof of the dissatisfaction of the railway workers, read us a letter. The contents of the letter were about a man who was transferred and who then went to the Paul Sauer Building. There he spoke to an official and, according to him, the official “was baie onbeskof”. So he says the United Party Government was a much better government than this one because this official was “onbeskof’. And that is now the final proof of dissatisfaction with the Railway Administration. I always thought that that hon. member was a well balanced man and that he does not speak before he thinks. It now seems to me that he does speak before he thinks.

The way you interpret my speech does not show balance.

I read the hon. member’s speech. As a matter of fact I read Hansard as I did not want to misquote the hon. gentleman. If he reads Hansard again he will see that what I have said here is perfectly correct.

*The hon. member for Vasco spoke of the allocation of houses. I just want to say that the allocation of houses is done by the staff itself. There is a housing committee and a method for awarding marks. When the worker obtains sufficient marks, he gets a house.

We also like to employ women. Every day we employ more women.

I have taken cognisance of the representations of the hon. member for Bethlehem, especially those in connection with recreation time for young people. We are doing what we can, but if the work requires them to do so. they have to work.

The hon. member for Newton Park said there were many complaints from Chambers of Commerce, industries and agricultural societies regarding inadequate services. During the past year I received nothing but praise from the Chambers of Commerce and of Industries. I attended some of their meetings. They are very pleased about the fine services they are receiving. The hon. member is a stranger in Jerusalem or otherwise he fabricated those things. What is the nature of the type of cases he mentioned? There are a few cases of delays in forwarding. We transport 115 million tons per annum. Naturally there are delays at times.

Only the other day they complained again about the delivery service.

Who did and where?

The Chamber of Commerce.

Where, what delivery service?

The delivery services in Johannesburg.

In Johannesburg, yes. But there we have already accommodated them. Wherever there are complaints, we remedy matters. For this very reason I now have a large number of private entrepreneurs to undertake those delivery services from Kazerne. I want to continue by saying that if those people who complain would only cooperate and be prepared to receive goods on Saturday mornings and during lunch times, there would not be such an accumulation of goods. The hon. member also spoke of a few head of sheep that died suddenly, etc. This also happens. I do not deny this. But this is no proof of the inefficiency of the services.

Then the hon. member said that there was a salary and wage freeze three years ago. Where does he get that from? Where does he get it from that there was a salary and wage freeze in 1967?

It was Government policy.

But where does the hon. member get it from that there was a freeze? This is the kind of irresponsibility which will probably cost him his seat.

That was your battle against inflation.

This is the type of story he is telling that will probably cost him his seat. One must not tell a railwayman these stories. I think the hon. member should rather confine himself to agricultural matters. In that regard he ought to do better.

†I wish to say to the hon. member for Houghton that the services from Soweto and other Native areas have been improved during the past year. But the population is also continually increasing. It is extremely difficult to keep pace with the increase in population. The hon. member should go to a place such as Melbourne to see what happens on those stations at the peak periods. The hon. member should go to Japan where she will see that they make use of pushers. When the train stops and the doors open the passengers are pushed from behind to get them in. They have no seating accommodation. Additional facilities will be provided, but it is extremely difficult to accommodate all the passengers at the present time. The increase in third-class fares is fully justified. Those Bantu are still being heavily subsidized by the Government, to the tune of R12 million per year. They are subsidized by the Government; that is why their fares are so cheap. The wages of the Bantu workers have increased over the years. There is no doubt about that.

And so has the cost of living.

The hon. member for Wonderboom also had a word to say. He spoke of a parcel he had sent by airmail to Durban. Apparently it went astray and only after it had been to Windhoek did it arrive at Durban. The hon. member said he wondered whether that was not sabotage. I can only say that the hon. member is over-estimating his importance. Who would want to sabotage him? Is it necessary? I do not even know what the parcel contained, but to think that they would sabotage him by sending that parcel to Windhoek instead of to Durban, really is somewhat ridiculous. The hon. member also spoke of the employment of non-Whites, but I am afraid that he will not be able to derive any venom from that. This is no innovation. This has been happening throughout the years, also when he still sat on this side of the House. Therefore he knows what the position is and therefore I hope that he is not again going to make that kind of propaganda we have been up against lately.

Why do you not reply to my question?

In this connection I can only tell the hon. member that no white worker on the Railways will be displaced by a non-White. The white workers of the Railways have full confidence in this Government that it will protect their interests and their jobs.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Point) …

More wind than point.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) reminds me of a woman who firmly believes that she is pregnant. She shows all the outward signs of pregnancy; she even starts making clothes for the baby, but then the doctor discovers that it is nothing but a wind. [Laughter.] I might say that is a medical fact. It does happen.

Is that now the answer to my question?

I am still replying to that hon. member.

Is that now your speech?

Mr. Speaker, I would not like to describe the hon. member for Yeovilie, because I do not think it would be parliamentary.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) named a number of members on this side of the House who did not enter the debate. It is quite right that they cannot outbid the Opposition. It is quite impossible for them to make promises which would outbid those of the Opposition. They have no hope to do that. Why should they then enter the debate? Should they try and outbid the Opposition? The difference is, and the railwayman knows it, that these hon. members look after their interests whereas the Opposition only talks. The hon. member himself said “words are cheap; it is deeds that count”. It is so true; all the words are on that side of the House and all the deeds on this side of the House. The hon. member for Durban (Point) became quite indignant—one would easily have thought that he was in the last stages of labour—when he spoke about the injustice and the penalizing of a certain Mr. Meyer. This Mr. Meyer resigned from the Railways and apparently did not receive interest on his pension contributions.

[Inaudible.]

That is why I said it was only a wind. The hon. member must listen what the facts are. Here I have a report which I received from the Management this morning. It deals with this case and I quote:

The hon. member must remember the dates. I think he had better write them down.

I told you it was in May.

But I am giving you the exact date and the hon. member should write them down. These dates are very important. I quote further:

Op 18.12.69 het dit onder die aandag gekom dat Meyer bedanking ingedien het en sy laaste skof 31 Desember sou werk. Tugondersoek toe vervroeg tot 22 Desember en bedanking is aanvaar en Meyer intussen verwittig daar beskou is hy bedank het om ontslag of gedwonge afdanking te vermy.

Ten tyde tugondersoek 22 Desember Meyer geweier om met tugondersoek voort te gaan en aangevoer dat hy nie kon reel vir bystand nie aangesien hy nie voldoende kennis hou van tugondersoek nie. Tugondersoek toe formeel geopen en uitgestel vir later datum, maar kon ongelukkig nie voor laaste dag in diens, naamlik 31 Desember 1969, gehou word nie. Tugsaak dus nie afgehandel nie.

Eerlikheidstoetse word deur Spoorwegpolisie uitgevoer om Administrasie se inkomste te beskerm.

That, then, is the position. Can the hon. member now see how wrong the information is which he received from this gentleman?

Was he ever found guilty?

He refused to appear at the inquiry; how could he then have been found guilty?

He asked for proper notice.

But I have just given the hon. member the facts. Will the hon. member deny these facts? These facts are authentic and can be proved.

He did not simply refuse …

Did the hon. member not listen to what I said? Unfortunately it is in Afrikaans; it is a pity I do not have it in English; he would then have understood it better.

I followed it. You can be as cheap as you like, you do not bluff anybody.

I have given the hon. member the facts of the position as they are. Does he want me to read it again?

*In the first place, the disciplinary inquiry was to be held on 13th November. Then, however, Meyer suddenly became ill with a headache. The disciplinary inquiry was then postponed until 15th January. Meyer knew what he had done and what he had been caught for—dishonesty. Then, on 18th December, it came to the attention that Meyer had handed in his resignation and that he would work his last shift on 31st December. Thereupon the disciplinary inquiry was specially advanced to 22nd December, i.e. to a date prior to that on which his resignation would become effective. His resignation was accepted and he was informed that he was regarded to have resigned in order to avoid a disciplinary inquiry and disciplinary steps which would result from that inquiry. Meyer refused to proceed with the inquiry which had been set down for 22nd December.

Why?

The reason he advanced was that he could not arrange for assistance. But surely that is nonsense. [Interjections.] Meyer was trying all along to prevent a disciplinary inquiry being held. That is why he resigned in the end. Why did he resign? If he did not resign to aavoid disciplinary steps, for what reason did he resign?

May I just ask you why an alleged charge of misconduct which had arisen as long ago as May had not been investigated and finalized by December.

According to procedure a considerable number of arrangements had to be made. But Meyer would in any event have resigned prior to the disciplinary inquiry. Because why did he resign in the end? Surely it can only be on account of one thing, and that is to avoid disciplinary steps. Surely this can be the only reason.

This is merely the opinion of one official. This has never been proved.

If the man had remained in service and had attended the disciplinary inauiry, the hon. member would have been able to see What would have happened. This was not the first time a trap had been set for ticket examiners. On the contrary, it happens often; and often they are punished in terms of the disciplinary code. If they are found guilty, they are normally discharged. Meyer knew this, of course.

†The hon. member for Simonstown raised mostly local matters. These will be inquired into. I can only say that the suburban services are being improved continually. But, as I say, he has raised mainly local matters and I do not think he can expect of me to have first-hand knowledge of the condition of, for instance, the women’s toilet on a particular suburban station.

*In conclusion I want to say that I think that it is generally accepted that I have been looking after the interests of the railway workker during the 15 years I have been occupying this position. often I have had to refuse demands and requests. This is so. But, on the other hand, wherever it has been possible to do so, I have said “yes”. My responsibility is not towards the staff only, but also towards the public and towards South Africa. It is very nice and easy to become popular—one need only say “yes” all the time. After all, it ought to be nice to meet all the demands of the railway staff and to give them increases all the time. That would be very nice. What is more, the profits yielded by the S.A. Railways do not, after all, come to me; this is not a private company which pays dividends to its shareholders. I have a responsibility, as I have said, also towards the public and towards South Africa and for that reason I have had to say “no” often. But in spite of that I have been enjoying the full support and confidence of the railwayman throughout the years. I once addressssed a challenge to an hon. member opposite, an hon. member who had a lot to say, i.e. I declared myself willing to call a meeting of the managements of all the staff associations so that he and the hon. member for Yeoville might address them. I would not be present. My undertaking was that if one-third of the members of those managements were to adopt a motion of no confidence in the Minister, I wold resign, and if that did not happen, the hon. member would have to resign. That offer was never taken up. For that reason I say that I am not concerned ab out what the railwaymen and their dependants, those who can vote, are going to do on 22nd April. I have sufficient confidence in their sound judgment to leave that safely in their hands.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. H. Torlage, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill reported without amendment.

POST Office PART APPROPRIATIONBILL

(Third Reading resumed)

I want to inform the hon. member for Orange Grove, who asked for a commemorative stamp in commemoration of the centenary this year of Gen. Smuts, that his representations were made at a very late stage. It is customary to submit applications during the year prior to the year in which the stamps are to be issued. The Cabinet has already decided on the issue of postage stamps in 1970 and the hon. member will understand that the work has to be done by an artist. It inevitably takes time, and the artists are not always available to do it.

That is a very poor excuse.

This brings me to the question of the tapping of telephone calls. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the proof the hon. member for Umbilo would produce. Now, the proof of the hon. member for Umbilo is nothing new. It has already been raised in this House on a previous occasion, in 1961. At the time the hon. the Minister of Posts, the hon. member for Ermelo, gave a reply. The question read as follows—

To that the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs replied—

[Interjection.] I can do nothing about the matter. You must discuss it further with the hon. member for Ermelo. The hon. member for Ermelo said yesterday evening he had only denied that Post Office officials had ever tapped telephones, but, he said, he had never denied that other Departments, inter alia, the Police Department were doing so. Now I do not want to do the hon. member an injustice in regard to these words of his. I have the Hansard report here. This is What he said—

Now I also find that the hon. member for Ermelo, when he was Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, replied to a question by Mr. Hopewell in this regard on 3rd March, 1961. The question read as follows (Hansard, vol. 106, col. 2333)—

To that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the hon. member for Ermelo replied as follows—

Mr. Speaker, it is the choice of this House, you and the country outside to decide whether they are going to believe Dr. Albert Hertzog, Minister of Posts and Telegraphs of 1961, or whether they are going to believe Dr. Albert Hertzog, the chief leader of the Herstigte National Party of 1970. Precisely the opposite of what the hon. member said last night he admitted in this reply. He denied that any tapping, by any person whatsoever, was taking place, for the Post Office officials knew …

They can some times …

No, let me quote this reply of the hon. member again. This is what he said—

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon. member for Ermelo can bob about as much as he wishes. If words have any meaning, then these words have the meaning I have just attached to them. That is what is so unpleasant about it all. This hon. member is to-day the leader of a party which prides themselves on being the first party in South Africa which is founded on the infallible word of God. Surely to write something like that into one’s programme of pinciples, if you speak so ambiguously and if you repudiate yourself in this way, just before an election, is to make a mockery of religion.

This is just the way in which you stoop to make of religion …

Order!

No, it is not the way in which I am stooping. It is the way in which you are stooping. It is the hon. member for Ermelo who is stooping, Sir, to deny his own words which he spoke here in this House as Minister and then subsequently to state with a pious face as he did yesterday evening that he has never denied that other officials listened in. It is disgraceful 1

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Would the hon. member please try to be polite. I know he finds it difficult.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I must ask the hon. member for Ermelo to contain himself.

Mr. Speaker, it is fine to see a dignified old man of absolute integrity, but if an old man stands before you, stripped of dignity and integrity, it is not a pretty sight. There sits the paramount man of truth of South Africa. I want to say to the hon. member to-day that with the spirit he has revealed to-day he would have been a very good man of truth during the war years, for in everything he would have done, as far as he would have gone, he would have slandered and maligned his fellow Afrikaner.

Last night the hon. member attacked me on the question of the micro-wave system. He said that I had given the impression that the micro-wave system was a tremendously large network. By doing so he belittled the work which he himself began. He belittled his own work on the micro-wave system which he began as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, because when I became Minister of Posts and Telegraphs I was shown a card on which the micro-wave network of South Africa was indicated. In the year 1972 that work will be nearing completion. It is a network which will then cover a mileage of 4,246 miles, will have 135 stations and will, at that stage, have cost a total of R24.3 million. If it should be decided to introduce a television service the micro-wave system of the Post Office will, when such a service is introduced, form a wonderful network throughout the country, and only isolated parts of the country and a very small percentage of the population will not be served by the television communication channels of the micro-wave system. I felt ashamed yesterday evening. I felt ashamed for the part of an hon. member who. for the sake of the political benefit he thinks he will derive from it, does not hesitate to belittle the work he did, or at least commenced. That is the thanks officials of the Post Office get from their former Minister.

Stop being abusive. Reply to the arguments I raised.

What were the arguments the hon. member raised? Let me tell the hon. member what arguments he raised. I am glad the hon. member reminded me of this, because it gives me a chance to quote his own words. He said—

The biggest centres in the country will be linked by this micro-wave system. What is the hon. member for Ermelo talking about? He does not know what is going on in the Post Office. I want to say to the hon. member for Ermelo that great progress has since been made with the construction of the micro-wave system, for to-day there is no longer time for gossip in the Post Office. To-day work is being done in the Post Office. The hon. member for Ermelo also spoke about courage. He said: “The hon. the Minister need not merely licence all television sets with his personal licence and refuse people permission to have television sets in their possession or to use them, then this difficulty would have been prevented entirely. It is no longer a question of what the Government is doing, but of what they do not have the courage to do.” The hon. member sat here for ten years as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Why did he not have the courage to do so? Why did he never have the courage to do so, for then he would, after all, have made it impossible for me to do. Why did he not have the courage to do so? It was, after all his own legislation. Mr. Speaker, in regard to television I want to inform the hon. member for Orange Grove that when he said yesterday that the United Party would also before the introduction of a television service, have referred the matter to a commission in order to investigate certain aspects of television—this is by the way the first time I hear of this in this House—he was simply proving again that the Government announcement in regard to the appointment of a commission of inquiry on television was necessary, and that I hit them hard and accurately the other night when I replied to the Second-Reading debate by pointing to that careless irresponsibility the Opposition was displaying by wanting to introduce a television service in South Africa without first having the matter investigated by a commission of experts.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, I do not have time. The hon. member is trying in vain. This proves the hon. member’s whole attitude.

How true my summing up was that this Herstigte gossip party were going to use television as a bogey in the election is simply proved again by the words of the hon. member for Ermelo. In the last part of his speech he issued another warning. He quoted to us what the Washington Post says to prove what a terrible danger it is for South Africa, for the Afrikaner and for our race policy. Can hon. members imagine that, the editor of the Washington Post must give guidance and light to the hon. member for Ermelo! It is true, Sir, because they are people who are afraid. They are afraid that the Afrikaner will have to come into contract with English-speaking people. They are afraid that the Afrikaner will come into contact with overseas countries, for the Afrikaner will not be able to maintain his identity. They do not believe in the Afrikaner. They mistrust their own nation, the Afrikaner nation. They think that its integrity is so poor that it cannot maintain itself. It is these people who have to receive guidance from the Washington Post from America in order to throw a scare into the people of South Africa. Do hon. members know that that party owes its establishment to all the American books they have read which have frightened the hon. member for Innesdal in Particular so much that he starts shivering and is still shivering today. When he gets up he shivers when he thinks of all the dangers the American books have made him believe in, and with thich he wants to make every Afrikaner in this country afraid.

[Inaudible.]

I read the right books. I wish that hon. member would not laugh; he looks terrible when he laughs.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

FIRST READING OF BILLS

The following Bills were read a First Time:

Electoral Laws Amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, it is not customary for us to draw out at the Second Reading stage the discussion of Bills of this nature, usually we wait for the Committee Stage before discussing particular points. However, I just want to say that the way in which the hon. the Minister presented this Second Reading to-day, will also help us to shorten the discussion during the next stage. Many of the questions we wanted to ask, have already been answered in his speech. I want to congratulate him on this Second-Reading speech. I think he dealt with this matter in a very efficient manner.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule 1: Revenue Services.

Head No. 17.—Miscellaneous Expenditure, Railways, R45.796.

Mr. Chairman, in connection with item (ii) (a) on page 3 of R.P.8—1970 I should like to know from the hon. the Minister where the R18,000 will be spent. I also want to say that I am very glad that a grant of R20,000 is being made here to the Bureau for Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch. I think the Department of Economics of the University of Stellenbosch deserves to be congratulated on the valuable work performed by it for all those interested in the economy of South Africa, for which it is necessary to make estimates and, to try to assess matters in advance. I just want to say that both sides of the House appreciate the fact that the Railways is also making a contribution to this.

For the guidance of hon. members I just want to point out that when any new item is put. they may discuss its principle. When old items are put, they may only ask what the reasons for the increase are.

I have the information in English only. The position is that this is an adjustment between estimated and actual losses incurred in previous years in the conveyance of passengers to and from th“ settlement areas. This is in accordance with an agreement with the Treasury.

It is therefore hot one particular area.

No.

Head put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 put and agreed to.

Schedule 2: Capital and Betterment Services.

Head No. 2,—New Works on Open Lines: (b) Level Crossings Elimination Fund, R100.

On page 13 of R.P.9—1970 under the heading “Elimination of … level crossings”, etc., the estimated total cost is given as R3 million. The revised estimate amounts to R100. I would be very glad if the hon. the Minister would explain this item to us and would indicate what amount is to be spent this year in connection with the elimination of level crossings. I am afraid that the item as it stands here may lead to misunderstanding.

At the moment I unfortunately do not have the exact figures in connection with the balance of the fund. I therefore do not know what amount can still be used for the elimination of level crossings this year. However, I think it is approximately R3 million.

But only R100 is being provided on the estimate.

The R100 is merely to set the ball rolling. As you know, we have to obtain parliamentary approval. Otherwise we have to wait until the Estimates are approved at the end of the year. We are only placing R100 on the Estimates now so that we shall have the approval of Parliament before the end of this financial year. After that the matter will be proceeded with. I can find out the real amount for hon. members. I shall furnish it later.

I shall be very grateful, because I am concerned that the public may be left with a wrong impression.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 6,—Airways, R5,630,400.

Item No. 162 1R.P.9 —1970, page 341 is in connection with the purchase of one Boeing 707-344C aircraft. The expenditure up to 31st March, 1969, amounted to R1,335,032. The revised estimate, however, amounts to R4,850,000. Can the hon. the Minister please just explain the difference? Is this aircraft being bought on a hire-purchase basis and is the purchase price being paid off in instalments, or in what way?

This is in connection with allocations from the Renewals Fund to capital funds. As I have already explained in my speech, it was to have been paid out of the Renewals Fund originally. But as we did not want to weaken the Renewals Fund too much or exhaust it, we are now using these capital funds partly to cover the cost.

The R1⅓ million has therefore already been charged to the Renewals Fund?

Yes.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 8,—Working Capital: (b) Stores Stock and Recoverable Advances. R12,114,000.

Could the hon. the Minister give us more information in regard to the globular amount of R12.100,000 under Item No. 180 [R.P.9—1970, p. 37] which is to be spent on additional requirements as far as store stock is concerned? I ask this question in view of our past experience with regard to Railway stocking and the difficulties connected with railway stores over the years. The footnote here is very short and the hon. the Minister in his introduction of this particular item discussed it very briefly. I wonder whether the hon. Minister could give this House a little more detail on how this amount of R12 million is to be spent. It is a large amount and I think we should get an explanation in this regard from the Minister.

The additional working capital is required for permanent way material, extra spare engines and other component parts for the growing fleet of Boeing aircraft. It is also used for spares for additional electric and diesel locomotives, goods and coaching stock. There has been a general increase in the cost of equipment this year. That is what this money is actually required for.

Head put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

I move—

In the first place, this Bill seeks to afford protection to certain workmen who are excluded at present. Furthermore, the object is to adjust as from a fixed date all current pensions awarded before 1st October, 1967, in accordance with the increased pensions payable at present. I have already tabled an explanatory memorandum and I now take pleasure in furnishing hon. members with the necessary further details.

As hon. members know, one of the overseas companies which was granted the right to search for oil along our coastline, succeeded in striking petroleum gas. This company employed quite a number of persons living in our country to assist in these drilling operations. In the course of these activities a number of accidents took place which were reported to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. However, the commissioner is of the opinion that the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as worded at present, does not apply to these activities outside our territorial waters, and the legal advisers support him in this view. It is also understandable that this would be the case, for activities of this nature are a new development in our country, and when the Act was passed in 1941 there was as yet nothing of the kind. Apart from the drilling operations, there is the possibility that construction works will eventually be erected over such drill-holes. This is dangerous work, and as the prospecting and drilling operations increase in scope, it may be expected that more and more persons will sustain injuries. In these circumstances it appears to be desirable to bring within the scope of the Act workmen who are resident in the Republic and engaged in connection with such activities, despite the fact that they are for the most part engaged outside our territorial waters and by foreign employers as well. Clause 3 (a) of the Bill makes provision for this.

Normally these persons would, while in the employ of foreign employers, not come within the scope of the Act, since the continental shelf does not form part of the Republic, However, the Republic has sovereign rights over our continental shelf, even outside our territorial waters, for the purpose of exploring, examining and exploiting the natural resources in it. These rights are embodied in an international convention accepted by the Republic during 1963. and under the Territorial Waters Act of 1963 our territorial waters were extended in this manner. Since reference is made in clause 3 (a) of the Bill to “continental shelf” and “natural resources”, it is necessary to define these expressions for the purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and in clause 1 provision is being made for this.

The amendments in clauses 2 and 4 relate to seamen and airmen. It is only under limited circumstances that such persons are at present regarded as workmen for the purposes of the Act. In this manner section 11 provides, inter alia, that the Act shall only apply in respect of a seaman or airman who has met with an accident outside the Republic on a Republic ship or aircraft, provided that such a person was a member of the crew. As drilling operations increase, it may be accepted that certain employers will make greater use of seamen and airmen. In clause 2 of the Bill it is being provided that such workmen shall also be covered if they are involved in the exploitation of natural resources. In addition clause 4 provides that the restrictions imposed upon seamen and airmen by section 11 of the Act, shall not apply to such workmen as their working conditions differ considerably from those of ordinary seamen and airmen.

Clause 3 (b) deals with workmen who, when employed by foreign employers, may possibly be covered by the workmen’s compensation legislation of another country as well. At present section 10 (3) of the Act provides that where accidents happen to such workmen of the Republic while they are temporarily employed outside the Republic, and they would be entitled to compensation under the law of the other country as well as under our law, such workmen shall elect the law under which they wish to claim compensation. As the same position may arise in respect of certain workmen who are engaged in the oil-drilling operations, and who are now being brought within the scope of the Act, it is being provided in clause 3 (b) that such workmen will also have to make a choice, just as is the position in respect of other workmen in similar circumstances.

In addition section 96 (3) of the Act provides that a foreign employer who carries on business in the Republic, shall register with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. It is being provided in clause 10 that a foreign employer who is concerned with the exploitation of natural resources on the continental shelf and employs workmen of the Republic, will also have to register with the commissioner. The amendment contained in clause 5 seeks to eliminate a gap. Section 43 of the Act provides, inter alia, for the payment of increased compensation if an accident was due to the negligence of an employer or a responsible person in his employ or a patent defect in the condition of the premises, plant, machinery, etc.

However, an application for increased compensation has to be lodged with the commissioner within six months of the date of the accident, and under certain circumstances the commissioner may extend this period by a further period not exceeding six months. Subsection (6) of section 43 also empowers the commissioner to apply of his own accord the provisions of the section in any case where, even if no application has been lodged, he considers that there is prima facie proof that a workman is entitled to additional compensation, but he may only exercise this power within 12 months of the date on which the accident happened. Recently there was a case of an employer who failed to report an accident, and subsequently it was impossible for the commissioner to exercise his powers in terms of the Act, since, when the application was considered, a period of 12 months had already expired after the date of the accident. It appears to be unfair that the rights of a workman can be foiled in this manner through the failure of his employer to meet a statutory obligation. Therefore, it is now being provided in clause 5 that the period of 12 months shall be calculated from the date upon which the accident was reported to the commissioner.

Now I come to clause 6 (a) which deals with the adjustment of pensions. As hon. members know, the increased benefits granted in the past were only applied to accidents which happened on or after the date on which the statutory amendments took effect. Financial considerations played the most important part in this. In the first place, it cannot be expected from the present employers to finance in the form of higher annual assessments the additional costs of accidents which happened years ago. In the second place, bearers of risks other than the Workmen’s Compensation Fund, will not find it easy to bear the additional financial burden. These bearers of risks include, for instance, the mutual associations such as the Rand Mutual, which undertakes accident-insurance for the mines, and the Federated Employers Mutual Association, which undertakes insurance for the building industry. There are, in addition, certain exempted employers such as municipalities, the Railways, Provincial Administrations as well as all Government Departments. However, representations in connection with a revision of existing pensions have been made to us for quite some time. In the light of these representations I instructed the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to investigate the possibility of an adjustment of pensions awarded before the 1967 statutory amendments. It appears from his report that, on the basis of the present formulae and wage limits, the cost involved in an adjustment of this kind will, it is estimated, amount to approximately R443,000 a year. The capitalized value of this will be approximately R5¾ million, which will also be the total cost for the Fund.

In the absence of details, calculations have not been made in respect of the other bearers of risks, which include Government Departments and the Railways. Everybody came out in favour of the revision, but the two licensed mutual associations have emphasized that these adjustments should not be regarded as a precedent, since the rate at which they have accumulated reserves is for the most part dependent upon the assessment rate system. Without long-term planning and tax implications for the associations, this system cannot be changed to make provision for regular pension adjustments.

I should now like to give a few examples of the way these adjustments will look like in practice. A widow whose husband died in 1943 as a result of an accident at work and received a salary of R69.77 per month at the time of the accident, receives a montly pension of R10.27 at present. After the adjustment she will receive R20.93 per month. A workman who is 100 per cent unfit for work owing to an accident which happened in 1960 and whose salary at the time of the accident was R171 per month, receives a monthly pension of R66 at present. After the adjustment he will receive R112.50. A widow with three children whose husband died in 1965 and received a monthly salary of R154 at the time of the accident, receives R90 per month at present. After the adjustment she will receive R112.50.

However, I want to emphasize that everybody will not gain the same amount by the adjustment, as the workman’s wage plays a fundamental role in the calculation of his pension. For instance, a pensioner with a pension which was based on his total wages, will receive no increase, unless the accident happened before 1961, at which time a less favourable formula applied.

Furthermore. I want to call attention to the fact that pensions payable under the 1934 Act, have not been included under the envisaged revision, since accident-insurance under that Act was borne by private insurance companies.

According to my information the Workmen’s Compensation Fund has sufficient reserves for bearing the additional expenditure, and it will not be necessary to increase the assessment rates for this purpose.

The amendment contained in clause 6 (b) relates to the deletion of certain provisions of the Act. Section 43bis of the Act provides, for instance, that a pensioner may, in addition to a pension and subject to certain conditions, be paid an allowance in respect of an accident which happened before September, 1956. Applications for such allowances are rare, and since 1957 only four such applications and allowances have been received and awarded, respectively.

As it is being envisaged to revise all current pensions, the said provisions have become redundant and it is being proposed that they be deleted. The present beneficiaries will not be prejudiced by this step.

Several organizations have now for many years been making representations for the year of assessment of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund to be changed so that it may coincide with that of the income-tax year. This proposal also has the support of the Federated Chamber of Industries, the Iron and Steel Federation, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and the South African Agricultural Union. Clause 7 of the Bill and the consequential amendments contained in clause 8 carry these representations into effect. The financial year of the fund will remain the same, i.e. 1st January to 31st December, but the year of assessment, for the furnishing of wage-sheets, will extend from 1st March in any year to the end of February the following year. However, the wage-sheets for 1971, i.e. at the time of the con version, will also have to include the wages paid out in January and February, 1970.

The amendment contained in clause 9 seeks to extend the powers of the commissioner in regard to further or special medical treatment. As hon. members know, the Rehabilitation Hospital in Johannesburg is now in full swing and provides excellent services to injured workers. This hospital was erected at a considerable cost, and it was expected that this centre would enjoy the full support of all interested parties, i.e., employers, workmen and doctors. However, I regret to have to say that full cooperation, especially on the part of doctors, is not as desired. Investigations have brought to light the fact that some doctors give preference to private institutions, the result being that a considerable number of beds in the Rehabilitation Hospital are empty. A similar trend is noticeable at the centre in Durban.

As the commissioner finances these hospitals, it appears to be justifiable that he should have the power to place, at any time, injured workers in such hospitals for further or special medical treatment, as well as for treatment with a view to rehabilitation.

Prominent orthopaedic surgeons have already mentioned to the commissioner that such a step would be welcomed, and official representatives of the Medical Association of South Africa also supported these proposals in principle.

However, I want to emphasize that it is by no means the intention to grant autocratic powers to the commissioner, and consequently there is a provision in terms of which consultation with the Medical Association of South Africa has to take place prior to an instruction being issued in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, these are the main features of the envisaged amendments, and I trust that they will meet with the approval of the House.

This Bill is a measure to improve the administration of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and which removes certain anomalies, and What certain people call injustices, and for that reason the Opposition will support it. But with a view to facilitating discussion in the Committee Stage, I should like to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister, and I hope he will reply to them, so that we can take the matter further in the Committee Stage.

It appears to me that this Bill will mean that fishermen fishing and exploiting our natural resources outside our territorial waters, will also be covered by the Act. I should like to know whether this is the case. Then the Minister should explain to us the position of those fishermen who, according to an old and strange custom, receive no salaries, but a percentage of the catch, in terms of a fixed contract with the owner of the boat. I wonder if they too will be covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. If not, can something not be done to ensure that these people will also be covered? The fact that they work for a percentage is, as I said, a question of tradition. I think in practice they are really employees of the owners of the boats.

Then I should also like to ask the Minister whether this Bill contains anything which would cover deep-sea divers. In this connection, I am thinking particularly of a case we had a year or two ago when the young man Mr. Beukes drowned near Durban and was apparently not covered by the Act. In this connection, too, I would be pleased if the Minister could assure us that such cases are covered by the Bill, and if not, whether he would consider rectifying the matter in the Committee Stage.

Under clause 9, in terms of which the Commissioner will have the right to designate the institution at which an injured person must receive special or further treatment, I should like to ask whether the Commissioner will have the power, for example, to send injured Bantu back to the homelands. We know that it is the desire of the Government to send as man) Bantu as possible who are not immediately required for work in the white areas, back to the homelands. Misgivings have been expressed to the effect that this power may be used by the Commissioner in order to achieve this end. I should very much like to hear the Minister’s comments in regard to that. If it is the case, as I think it is, that the Medical Association must be consulted in all cases, it is difficult to see how this can be used to carry out the other aspect of policy, but the misgivings do exist and have been raised, and I shall be very grateful if in his reply the Minister would deal with this as well.

Mr. Speaker, this Workmen’s Compensation Act is an ornament to the Statute Book of South Africa. I Should like to assure the Minister that whenever he wants to introduce any measure to improve it, he may always depend on the wholehearted co-operation of the Opposition, because it is the party on this side of the House Which placed the original Act on the Statute Book, as is the case with all the good laws.

Mr. Speaker, we wish to thank the hon. the Minister of Labour for this amendment Which he has introduced. We are grateful that the hon. members of the Opposition agree that this Workmen’s Compensation Act is an Act of which this House can be very proud. But we are even prouder of this Act because it is being administered so well by the Minister and his Department. None of us wants to make political capital out of this Bill, because the person Who derives the most benefit from this Bill is the unfortunate worker who is injured at work. For this reason we are grateful that amendments which will be to the advantage of the worker are again being introduced. This Act was placed on the Statute Book for the first time in 1941, and it came into operation in 1943. It so happens, however, that highly necessary amendments are added every second or third year. I want to ask the hon. the Minister Whether the time has not arrived for this legislation to be consolidated. I know that it is a big task which lies ahead, but I want to appeal to the Minister to consider this. The Minister should seriously consider whether instructions should not be issued for this Act to be consolidated as soon as possible.

Certain pension benefits are now going to be improved in terms of clause 6. I understand that 3,200 persons are receiving pensions under this Act. In this connection, I should like to address a request to the Minister. Let us say, for example, that the case of a worker who was injured in 1957. and whose case was finally dealt with in the same year, is reopened in 1969. 12 years later. Twelve years later that worker is still suffering as a result of the accident which he had in 1957, but when his compensation is determined, it is done on the basis of the salary which he received in 1957. Since we are now granting new pension benefits to these workers, I want to ask the Minister to see whether an improvement cannot be granted in regard to compensation as well.

That is the first time I have heard you agree with us.

The hon. member over there will still agree with me often.

He will not have the opportunity, because this is your last session.

That is just wishful thinking. We can have another good fight next week. Let us talk about the worker for a While on this occasion. There is another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister. As far as the large industries are concerned, we find that there are no problems in the application of this Workmen’s Compensation Act. A large industry has its own welfare officials. If a worker is injured, there is a first-aid room where he can be taken. The worker who has been injured, is treated. He can be taken to a doctor. As a result of the fact that the industrial expansion in our country is taking place so rapidly to-day, we find, however, that more and more smaller industries are being established. When a worker is injured in such a small industry, even the employer does not always know exactly what should be done, nor does the employee always know what advantages he can claim. Now I want to know whether it would not be possible to take short extracts from the Workmen’s Compensation Act to be pasted up in a prominent position in every factory. Both the employer and the employee will then know exactly to what benefits they are entitled, and what they should do in order to obtain those benefits.

There are such instructions.

If the hon. member says that this is the case, then I say that I have seen factories where they have not been pasted up. I ask the Minister to ensure that it is done.

Clause 9 deals with the rehabilitation hospital. Our rehabilitation hospital is probably one of the best rehabilitation hospitals in the world. We are very grateful to the Department of Labour for having established such a rehabilitation hospital to take care of the worker, but at the same time one is sorry to hear that that hospital is not being utilized to the full. We agree with the hon. the Minister that the worker should be transferred to that hospital, because, after all, the fund pays for it. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that we from the East Rand in particular find that the hospital in Johannesburg is situated in a place which is not easily accessible. The rail and bus services to this hospital are not convenient. Although I have already done so in the past, I again want to submit a plea to the hon. the Minister in this connection this afternoon. When a worker is injured and has to spend a long time in that hospital, is it not possible for the Workmen’s Compensation Fund to provide his wife and children with a rail or bus ticket at least once a week so that the family may visit the person who is in hospital? I read in the newspaper that there is talk of this rehabilitation hospital possibly standing in the way of Johannesburg’s new freeways.

In a hundred years’ time, perhaps.

The hon. member says perhaps in a hundred years’ time, but if this is the case, then it is fine. I sincerely hope and trust that the hon. the Minister will make very strong representations to the City Council of Johannesburg ki order to prevent this beautiful building, which only now can be fully utilized, from being demolished. If this report is true, then the construction of that building was a waste of money, which we cannot afford in this country. I hope and trust that the hon. the Minister will fake a strong stand on this matter and that he will not give way easily. We thank the hon. the Minister for this legislation which he has introduced.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the hon. member for Yeoville, we on this side of the House will support this Bill. In fact, we welcome the amendments which are introduced by the first few clauses. The effect of these amendments is to bring within the provisions of this Act those persons who are working above or below the water on the continental shelf so that they will be protected by the Act. In view of the growing importance of oil drilling and prospecting both on the continental shelf and inland, we consider it to be particularly important that those persons engaged in these activities should be protected by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. We will therefore support the amendment which has the effect of giving them this protection. Ait this stage I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention a matter which we will discuss more fully in the Committee Stage. If will, however, give him a little time to consider the matter if I raise it now. This is the question which was briefly referrred to by the hon. member for Yeoville, namely the protection of divers. It seems to me after a proper reading of these amendments that divers will now be protected because they will fall under the definition of “workmen” and not “seamen”. If they come within the definition of “seamen”, then it seems to me they cannot be protected because the definition of “seaman” reads as follows—

A ship is defined as “a vessel of any description used in navigation”. An oil rig is not used in navigation and therefore would not fall within the definition of a ship. A diver, if he falls within the definition of “seaman”, would therefore not come within the provisions of the Act. I think that it is important that divers should have this protection by being brought within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. As I say, Sir, I think that the position is covered if divers do come within the definition of “workman”.

There is one other aspect about this legislation that I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention. Clause 3 reads—

The point which I should like to raise for the hon. the Minister’s consideration, is the following. If certan workmen are actually resident on an oil rig operating on the continental shelf, would such a person be regarded as being “resident in the Union”? In terms of this clause it is necessary that he be classed as being “a workman resident in the Union” before the provisions apply to him and before he can be entitled to compensation. It seems to me that a workman on an oil rig operating off the continental shelf of our coast would be regarded as being resident in the Republic, only provided that that oil rig is operating within the territorial waters of the Republic, which, in terms of the definition of the Territorial Waters Act (Act 87 of 1963), is defined as being “the sea within a distance of six nautical miles from low water mark …”. Some parts of the continental shelf extend beyond six miles. It is doubtful whether an oil rig operating outside the six mile limit can be regarded as being within the Republic. Consequently, in such a case it seems to me that it may be doubtful that a workman resident on that oil rig can be classed as being resident in the Republic. In my opinion there would be no problem with regard to a South African citizen, because in any event he has a permanent home in the Republic. So he would be resident within the Republic, irrespective of the fact that he may be on the oil rig. But this may not be the case in respect of a foreigner who is brought to South Africa particularly to work on one of these oil rigs and therefore has no permanent home, or no residence for that matter, in the Republic. If the amendments that are being introduced by the hon. the Minister, are intended to cover persons who are not South African citizens I think very careful consideration should be given to them. If an accident occurs foreigners are given the choice either to claim compensation under this Workmen’s Compensation Act or under some other provision which may entitle him to compensation. I think it is necessary to give very careful consideration to these matters in view, as I have said earlier on, of the growing importance of the search for oil both on and off-shore in South Africa.

Before sitting down it may be of interest to refer the House to a very recent article which appears in the January issue of the Federated Chamber of Industries’ official journal, Viewpoint. This article was written by Major Louis Croft who is the Public Relations Consultant of Total South Africa and a writer and lecturer on scientific subjects. He has extensive experience in this field. In this article he examines the prospect of finding oil in South Africa, either on-or off-shore and comes to a very encouraging conclusion. He says there are reasonable prospects of a discovery of the type of oil which was recently made in the Saharan oil fields which are apparently owned by the Total group where a strike of about 90 million tons was made. The conclusion he reaches in this article is that there are reasonable prospects of a strike of that size which, in comparison with other strikes, would be regarded as being a medium quantity. It will not be a huge strike, but will be of medium quantity. This article is perhaps more encouraging than many other comments that have been made on the prospects of the oil search in South Africa. In conclusion I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give careful consideration to these aspects of the matter, particularly in view of the growing importance of the exploitation of these natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to refer to the relations between the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and the medical profession and the relations between the medical profession and the nursing homes and hospitals which are referred to in clause 9 of the Bill. The hon. the Minister wants to give the Workmen’s Compensation

Commissioner the right to direct an injured, man, subject to certain penalties if he fails to do as he is told, to certain hospitals. The last thing I want to do is to give the impression that I do not approve of these hospitals. They are extremely fine hospitals and they represent an advance in social services. They are extremely valuable to the injured man and to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. There is a similar hospital in Vienna where most of the workmen’s compensation cases are treated. However, this is not necessarily the best hospital because the head of this hospital is a salaried man from an insurance company. It turned out in practice that he is a genius. But this might not have been so. Firstly, the profession is seriously concerned about the freedom of access of all doctors to special hospitals, to these few special hospitals which may be followed by others. They would like the assurance from the hon. the Minister that the freedom of patients to choose their own doctors is assured. They want the assurance that there will not be the slightest interference with that. This is really a principle of the original Act and must be observed by both sides. The doctors feel that there should be freedom of choice of doctors and of specialists. They also feel that all the facilities of these hospitals should be available at all times to all the doctors who are attending patients in these hospitals. I am sure the hon. the Minister will give these assurances. However, as the hon. member for Brakpan pointed out, there are other difficulties. The patients may have good reason for not wishing to go to these hospitals. It is not very accessible, I understand. Transport to these hospitals is difficult. One of the most appreciated privileges which a patient has is that he can be visited by his relations. However, if he is taken to a hospital which is difficult for his relations to reach, unless you provide some way for his relations to visit him, this privilege is lost. These are all working people, which make it all the more difficult for them to visit their relations in the hospitals. Therefore, some provision should be made for a patient’s relations to visit him. He may even have to provide financial assistance for these people. It is not easy for a mother of three or four children to leave her home and be away most of the day, or at least most of the afternoon, in order to visit her husband. The husband may have reasonable grounds for asking to be moved to another hospital which he may even be advised by his doctor not to do. But, nevertheless, to him it is something of great importance. I hope the hon. the Minister will give thought to making some arrangements for these people to be collected. There is a social welfare movement in Durban and also perhaps at other centres called the St. Giles Association. They collect people who are injured or crippled and who need physiotherapy or similar treatment or electrical therapy and take them to hospital where they receive their treatment. Then they return them home. Something of that nature might be considered by the hon. the Minister. However, he will certainly run into trouble if he tries to enforce on the workman, who is very often supported by his own doctor, the use of a hospital which is not easily accessible to his home. The profession as a whole feels that they would like from the hon. the Minister an assurance that free and total use of all the facilities and totally free choice of doctors will be assured to the patients and to the doctors attending them. I feel that it will be an infringement on the rights of a person should he be forced, after having had an accident, to go to a hospital which might be excellent, but to which he has good reasons to object.

*The MINISTER OF LABOUR Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the exceptionally good reception which this measure has received in this House. It is with pleasure that I reply to questions which were put to me. The hon. member for Yeoville put a number of questions in respect of which I should like to give him certain information. As far as deepsea divers are concerned—and with this I am replying to the question of the hon. member for Musgrave as well—I can assure him that they will most definitely be covered by this measure. The question of fishermen is not so easy. Fishermen outside our territorial waters are not covered by this measure.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, there is a great deal of sympathy for this case. There was, however, sympathy in the past as well for those people whom we cover to-day, but whom we could not cover under the fund at the time. This is also the position in respect of fishermen who are at the moment excluded because they receive only a part of the profits as their wages. They are still excluded. This is the position because it is so difficult for the Commissioner to make calculations in respect of these people, because their wages consist of a part of the takings or profits. This is the reason why they were excluded in the past and unfortunately still remain excluded.

Are they not taxed if they have to pay income tax?

Yes, but surely they do receive other benefits in this country. The hon. member wanted to know whether the Commissioner would have the right to send Bantu to the homelands. The hon. member perhaps did not notice that this rehabilitation hospital is intended for Whites. In other words, it falls completely outside the scope of the discussion.

Then the hon. member for Durban (Central) wanted to know whether injured workers would have a choice of doctor. Yes, they will most certainly retain the choice to make use of their own doctors. But this provision is meant to do justice to that hospital. When I visited it recently, I was really impressed by the high standard in that hospital. By chance that young man who had suffered 90 per cent burns was in that hospital. You will recall that this case was in the headlines about a year ago. At the time I paid the visit there, this young man was almost on the point of leaving the hospital as someone who could face life again. It made one realize what good and outstanding work is being done there. When such a beautiful hospital exists and offers these services, it is a pity that it is only half-full. When the reason is advanced that the doctors send their patients to their own clinics in which they have interests, instead of to this hospital which is financed from the fund, one feels that this is really anomalous. Hence this necessity. I want to assure you, however, that the Commissioner will exercise the power conferred upon him by this provision, in a very reasonable way. Apart from the fact that the Medical Association will be consulted, he will act in a very reasonable way, and definitely not simply in an autocratic manner.

The hon. member for Brakpan also raised a few matters to which I want to reply. The hon. member pleaded for a revision of compensation so that it will be calculated on the basis of a workman’s present salary, and not the salary received by him at the time of the accident. This is another matter with which one has a very great deal of sympathy, but it is something which must be borne by the fund. The fund, as the hon. members know, is maintained only by the contributions of the employers. The workers do not contribute a cent towards this fund. Only the employers contribute towards this fund. The fact that we are now inserting this provision which will in fact make the benefits applicable to a period prior to the amendment of the Act represents a very great concession by the fund to the workers. Now I fear that to ask for more benefits would certainly not be fair to the fund. The concessions which are incoporated here, will provide great relief, and because of that I think we should show our satisfaction at this juncture. I have already mentioned the financial implications of this: it will amount to R53/4 million over a certain period. At the moment this amount is all the fund can afford.

The hon. member for Brakpan also asked me for information in connection with the fund. The Workmen’s Compensation Fund Act does not make provision for extracts to be pasted up on premises, as in the case of the Unemployment Insurance Fund Act, for example. Perhaps the only reason for this is that only the employers contribute to this fund. In any case, I shall ask the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner whether this is a matter which can be investigated, i.e. whether, as in the case of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the benefits or the main points of the fund can be pasted up. The hon. member for Brakpan also wanted to know whether this measure could not be consolidated now. Consolidation is always necessary, and we are always busy consolidating Acts, because it is useful for reference purposes, but it is an extensive task, especially in view of the staff position. I shall aso present this matter to the Commissioner and find out if his staff position is such that he will be able to undertake this task.

Then the question of the possible removal of the rehabilitation hospital in Johannesburg to make way for the new freeway was raised here. It would really be a pity if this beautiful and well-built hospital had to be demolished. We have heard that such a possibility exists and we made very earnest representations to the authorities concerned and I am hopeful that our representations will succeed. The hon. member also spoke about the awkward situation of the hospital in that some people have to travel long distances to get there, from the Far East Rand, for example. It is a fact that for some people the hospital is inconveniently situated, but it is well situated for the inhabitants of the Witwatersrand, as well as for people who have to come by train, since it is situated close to a station. This position can however not be changed. The hon. member also asked that we should provide free bus tickets to the women and children of injured workers, so that they may go there once a week. Such a measure would also have financial implications, and the fund must consider their expenditure very thoroughly when such concessions are contemplated. In the past they did not see their way clear to doing this. I can ask them again to consider it, but I can make no promises in this connection.

The hon. member for Musgrave referred to the workers living on ships outside the territorial waters of South Africa. He wanted to know what the position would be in respect of them. The position regarding them would be that if they were ordinarily resident in the Republic and were living on the floating oil rig only temporarily, they would in fact be covered. If they were not ordinarily resident in the Republic, they would not be covered by this Act. Then they should be covered as foreigners by the funds of their own countries. This is the most the fund is able to do at the moment. I have now dealt with the questions which were put to me.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

It is not only the policy of the Government, but the Government regards and accepts as its responsibility and duty towards the people, to give continual consideration to the economic and social position of the various population groups, and to see to it, as far as this is within its power and possible in prevailing economic conditions, that every population group is able to make a reasonable subsistence within the economic and social structure. This duty the Government feels to an even greater extent towards those groups in our society that are dependent upon protection and the financial assistance on the part of the State for a reasonable subsistence. Hon. members will agree with me that one group towards whom the State has such a duty—and I personally feel very strongly about this—is those people who as a result of industrial diseases can no longer carry on their occupation as miners and continue to support their dependants. I am referring here to the mineworkers who suffer from pneumoconiosis and /or tuberculosis, and their dependants, and to the dependants of the deceased victims of these two diseases. The Government has a duty towards these people and I do not think anyone will begrudge my saying that this Government has, over 22 years, never hesitated to do its duty towards them and to look after their interests. I therefore find it a pleasure to announce that the Government, after careful consideration, is convinced that an increase in the compensation payable in terms of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act is necessary and justified, and that it is the purpose of this Bill to effect such increases in the rates of compensation.

The last general increase in compensation was in 1965. Subsequent to that, in 1968, only certain rates of compensation were revised and adjusted to eliminate the difference in the compensation for mineworkers who were entitled to compensation prior to 1st October, 1962, and those who were entitled to compensation subsequent to that date. At the same time only a general increase of pensions was granted to the dependants of deceased pneumoconiosis sufferers. Therefore the Government has now decided, as in 1965, to grant a further general increase in compensation on the basis of (a) an increase of 20 per cent in respect of all benefits payable under the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act, with the exception of the pension payable to mineworkers and Coloured labourers in respect of pneumoconiosis with 20 to 50 per cent disability, and (b) an increase of 10 per cent in respect of the pension payable for pneumoconiosis with 20 to 50 per cent disability. The first group includes single amount benefits for all race groups, pensions of miners and Coloured labourers with more than 50 per cent disability and the pension payable to widows and dependent children of deceased beneficiaries.

The difference between the two groups of beneficiaries is drawn on the grounds of the fact that mineworkers and Coloured labourers with 50 per cent or less disability are not legally obliged to stop working in this dustladen atmosphere in controlled mines. After certification the greatest percentage of these people continue working as normal on the mines and receive these pensions in addition to their normal and full remuneration. Those in this group who no longer work in mines have relinquished their work for reasons other than pneumoconiosis, but such other reasons and diseases which are not related to their occupation as miners do not give them a claim to increased compensation. It should be noted that compensation for work disability brought about by pneumoconiosis and which results in a loss of the ability to earn a normal wage forms the basis of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act. I do not think we should begin to tamper with this basis. On legal, social and moral grounds there is therefore no justification for giving the group with a 20 to 50 per cent disability the same increase as those workers who are compelled by the Act to relinquish their earnings and who in many cases therefore are exclusively dependent upon their pneumoconiosis pensions for a subsistence, and to the widows and dependent children of deceased beneficiaries.

The result of the increase in pensions since 1962 on the basis of a percentage of the pensions prescribed in the 1962 Act is that pensions now include cents in the total. This gives rise to a great deal of work and makes mechanization in regard to the drawing of cheques and the payment of benefits difficult. Although benefits will therefore be increased on a percentage basis, as I have already indicated, it was decided, in the interests of simplifying the work involved, to take pensions to the nearest rand in future, for example if the pension were to amount to R89.61 in respect of a miner, his wife and dependent children, this pension would be taken to the nearest round figure, i.e. R90.

In addition to the direct increase in benefits, the following additional concessions were also included in the Bill: (a) In 1965 a single amount benefit was introduced for the dependants of miners who were at post-mortem found to have been suffering from pneumoconiosis with less than 20 per cent disability. Since then it has become apparent, from a legal opinion which was obtained, that this provision was not applied to the dependants of miners who worked on mines doing other work than work in a dust-laden atmosphere. This matter is now being rectified so that such persons will in future also receive their rightful compensation; (b) It was found that as a result of increasing costs the assistance granted in connection with burial costs was inadequate. Provision is now being made for assistance to be rendered with regard to burial costs as well to the dependants of deceased miners who received only a single amount benefit and the increase in the contributions to these costs. This assistance which is at present limited to R120 in the case of white miners and R60 in the case of Coloureds,_ is being increased to R150 plus 20 per cent, i.e. R180 in the case of miners, and R75 plus 20 per cent, i.e. R90 in the case of Coloureds; (c) The position of persons simultaneously in receipt of a pneumoconiosis pension and an old age or other social pension has also been considered, and in order to give these people as well the benefit of the concessions, the Government decided that the increase in pneumoconiosis benefits under this Bill, just as in the case of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Amendment Act, 1968, will not be reckoned as means for the purpose of social pensions. This means that the person who in addition to his pneumoconiosis pension also received another pension or allowance from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions will continue to receive that pension or allowance; (d) A further concession which appears in the Bill affects persons who were resident outside Southern Africa. Such persons are, according to a provision in the 1962 Act, and all previous Acts, excluded from any increase in benefits. In the meantime some of these people and /or their dependants have, however, returned to the Republic, while they are still receiving compensation granted to them in terms of a previous Act. These people will now receive the appropriate pension payable at present. This however applies only to persons who have returned and obtained permanent domicile here. There are approximately ten such cases; (e) Provision is also being made in the Bill for the exercise of medical control over people who work in “works” as defined in the Mines and Works Act in contrast to “mines”. Control over works is exercised by the Government Mining Engineer in terms of the above Act in the same way as other mines. However, the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act is only applicable to mines so that there is no medical control over works. This is a serious deficiency for in many of the works people are exposed to large concentrations of dust and it is therefore necessary that legal authority be obtained to subject persons who work in works under harmful conditions to medical examinations and in order to exercise medical control over them. It is not the intention that such persons be included under the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act for compensation purposes. For this purpose they fall under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and this is left as it is; and (f) in addition the Bill also makes provision for compulsory medical examinations of persons working on controlled mines in works other than work in a dust-laden atmosphere. This will afford the Department an opportunity of obtaining medical evidence in order to be able to establish what occupations ought to be declared to be work in a dust-laden atmosphere. In future this will make effective medical control over such workers possible and also compel mine owners to make such workers available for medical examination. These people will then go for examination to the Bureau more readily.

The increase in benefits and the other concessions of course create additional liabilities for the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund. As you know the Fund consists of three separate accounts, namely the A, B and C account. The C account (that is, the State) is responsible for the compensation of all cases certified before the 1962 Act, and the A and B accounts for all cases subsequent to the commencement of the 1962 Act. In 1956, however, the Government accepted the principle that mines should not be burdened with additional debts arising as a result of the retrospective increase in benefits. The Government consequently decided that this retrospective burden would now, in all fairness, have to be borne by the State, as in the case of all increases in 1956 and subsequently. So, too, the Government decided in 1956 that it was unfair to burden existing mines with further obligations created in respect of closed mines. The Government therefore decided that this burden would also have to be borne by the State.

In terms of the accepted policy the mines were consequently held liable for the costs of all future certifications, while the State bore the additional costs in respect of the increase in the pensions of all existing pensioners.

The financial implications of the increase in benefits has been provisionally calculated and will, according to estimates, be as follows in respect of beneficiaries who have to be compensated from the A account, that is to say by Group A mines and from the B account, that is to say by Group B mines—

As I have already explained, the State bears the costs in respect of the increase in existing pensions, and the mine the cost of the new certifications. In respect of new White, Coloured and Bantu beneficiaries, the increased burden of the Group A mines will amount to approximately R800,000 per annum and that of the Group B mines to approximately R112,000. In addition to this, Group A mines will accept an additional obligation in respect of latent pneumoconiosis of approximately R5,600,000, and Group B mines of approximately R710,000. This debt is in respect of damage which has already been done to persons concerned, but which will only subseqently be disclosed by way of certification. The annual levies make provision for damage done during that year and which will subsequently come to the fore by way of certification. This provision is being made at current compensation tariffs. When an increase in the compensation tariff is made it means that an insufficient amount has been provided for such damage and that it. must subsequently be recovered. In this way outstanding debt is created in respect of cases which have not yet been certified. Provision for future damage is made in the increase in annual current levies.

The additional liability for which the State will have to accept responsibility is estimated at—

1. (a) approximately R959,000 per annum in respect of the increase in pensions payable from the C account;
2. (b) approximately R2,840,000 in respect of the increase in existing pensions payable out of the A account; and
3. (c) approximately R380,000 in respect of the increase in existing pensions payable out of the B account.

This means that the State’s obligation in respect of the C account will increase by approximately R959,000 per annum.

In addition to its increased obligations in respect of the C account the State will have to pay the amount of R2,840,000 to the A account and the amount of R380,000 to the B account, that is altogether R3,220,000, in respect of the increase in existing pensions.

When benefits were increased in 1965 this debt was paid out of the C account to the A and B account, but what is being proposed now is that it should not be done in this way again since eventually it will merely increase the deficit in the C account and secondly, will oblige the C account to sell investments at a loss in order to find the money. The Bill now provides that this debt be paid out of appropriated funds directly to the A and B account.

A few other administrative corrections are also included in the Bill but no matters of principle are affected thereby, and in addition they are of lesser importance.

In conclusion I just want to say that I have already informed the Chamber of Mines of the Government’s intention to grant an increase to beneficiaries under the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act. The mining industry accepts and concedes that certain concessions are in fact necessary and in view of the fact that the State bears the greatest burden in respect of these concessions, I do not think the mining industry has any reason to complain about this. I am satisfied that it does not place unreasonable obligations on the mines.

At the same time I also want to say that the mining trade unions, and the Mineworkers’ Union in particular, have asked for concessions. I may say that I am continually coming into contact with the Mineworkers’ Union who are continually bringing this matter of improvements in compensation to my attention as Minister of Mines. However, it is not only the miners who have asked for this. There is the closest co-operation between myself as Minister of Mines and the mineworkers group of the National Party caucus here in Parliament, and the members of that group admittedly urged even higher and greater improvements and compensation than is being granted here. But I think in all fairness that the members of the group can feel satisfied, although I am sorry that I was unable to concede to their requests for greater and improved benefits. It is unavoidable that one has to cut one’s coat according to one’s cloth. I am grateful on your behalf as well that the Minister of finance and the Government nevertheless saw their way clear to making these considerable improvements. Although they are not yet aware of the concessions which have been made, I am convinced that the persons who are entitled to compensation, that is those who are still working, those who are no longer working as a result of greater affliction, and the dependants, will accept that this is a vast improvement in the case of our miners and their unfortunate dependents. For the information of the House I shall mention a few examples of how this will be applied in practice. Let us in the first instance take the case of a mineworker who has a wife and one child. I do not know why my Department took the case of a man with one child, for usually they have three or four children.

Miners are very satisfied with four children.

The hon. the Minister can speak as an authority on this subject. I am now giving the House the example of a mineworker with a wife and one child. Persons who are certified to the extent of 20 to 50 per cent are at present receiving R39.60 per month. This is now being increased to R43.56, but we are taking it to the nearest round figure of R44. In other words, there is an increase of R4.40 per month. Those who are certified to the extent of 50 to 75 per cent, are at present receiving R76.80. They will in future receive R92. This is therefore an increase of R15.20. Those who are certified above 75 per cent, are at present receiving R114. From 1st April they will receive R137. In this case therefore there is an increase of R23.

The second group pertains to pensons for a widow and dependent children. A widow at present receives R42 per month. This is now being increased to R50. There is therefore an increase of R8 For every child a widow at present receives R21 per month. This is being increased to R25 per month. There is therefore a monthly increase of R4 per child. After pneumoconiosis has been posthumously found to the extent of less than 20 per cent, there is at present a single amount for the next of kin, i.e. the widow, of R1,150. This is now being increased to R1.380. That is to say, there has been an increase of R230. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that this Bill, with its implications, will be accepted with great pleasure by both sides of the House. For that reason I now move the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will naturally not oppose this Bill. We welcome quite a few of the clauses in the Bill. What we do not like, is the way in which the Minister has discriminated against certain sections of the mine-workers who are going to receive benefits. Let us deal firstly with clause 2. Here he has divided those who will receive pensions into two groups, namely those with a disability of less than 50 per cent and those with a disability of more than 50 per cent. That is the meaning of this clause, because we have one group with disabilities ranging from 20 per cent to 50 per cent and another group with disabilities ranging from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. Those with a disability of less than 50 per cent will only receive a 10 per cent increase Those with a disability of over 50 per cent will get an increase of 20 per cent. There is a difference of 10 per cent in the payment to the pensioners in these two groups. For what reason does the hon. the Minister increase the pensions? He does so, obviously, to meet the rising costs of living to-day. That is one of the main reasons for this increase. He wants to meet those rising costs, so he says: I am going to give you more. Sir, surely rising costs are the same for all pensioners. These costs do not vary between one group of pensioners and another. The hon. the Minister said that he did not grant an increase of 20 per cent to the group with disabilities ranging between 20 per cent and 50 per cent because those people were still able to work on the mines. But the Minister knows that the same applies to those above the 50 per cent mark. They can also go back to work.

They are compelled to leave the mines. You know that.

But the Minister has already introduced a Bill here in terms of which he made it possible for a mine manager. for instance, to go back to work if it could be proved that his tuberculosis was no longer active. You see. Sir, it is possible for a miner to go back to work. The hon. the Minister will remember quite well, I am sure, that he said that a miner who was suffering from a disability of 50 per cent to 70 per cent, could still be an active worker.

How many of them do go back?

We are not talking about that. We are talking about ability to work.

You are using the exception to prove the rule.

No, I am not. They can go back to work. That is the point. I am not encouraging any miner who is suffering from pneumoconiosis to go back to work underground. We know that pneumoconiosis is a progressive disease, and therefore my plea was that the miner, once found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis, should be warned not to go underground because we know that it is going to endanger his health. For that reason I pleaded some years ago, I think it was in the days of Dr. Van Rijn, that the miner should be taught a second trade or a second occupation immediately he is discovered to be suffering from pneumoconiosis.

Did he agree with that?

I think so. This is something we have to consider. My point is that when we grant an increase to a pensioner, the purpose of that increase is to meet increased living costs. The increase should therefore be spread out evenly amongst all of them. I think the Minister should really have given a person suffering from a disability of between 20 per cent to 50 per cent an increase of 20 per cent in his pension. I have worked out the figures as well, and the hon. the Minister has confirmed my findings. If a person has a wife and a child, he will only get an increase of R4 per month. That is an increase of a little over a rand per month each. That is what the increase is going to amount to. The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has at times been more generous than that, and he is not too generous. I say again that we have to reconsider the amounts that are to be given to mine workers. After all is said and done, Sir. one of the big reasons might have been that there are many more miners suffering from a disability of 20 per cent to 50 per cent than miners suffering from a more advanced stage of the illness.

But they are all still fully occupied.

It does not matter whether they are fully occupied or not. That is not the point. Why should all miners not get the same increase? I cannot understand why we should discriminate against certain miners merely because they are in a certain stage of the illness. Whether they are working or not is beside the point. If the Minister is going to say that there is a difference in allowances because some of these people are working, they are not entitled to get anything at all. This is what happens when one goes to the other extreme. I say that people who are drawing a pension should all receive the same increase, even though they are in different stages of the same disease.

But in the second stage of the disease these people are prohibited from working underground.

The hon. member knows as well as I do that these people can be engaged in other work. They may still work on the mines, but they may be engaged in clerical work. That, however, is beside the point. The point is that an increase is being given, and the man who is suffering from a disability of 20 per cent to 50 per cent is being discriminated against. That is what I do not like about clause 2. The hon. member may have his arguments, but I have mine, and I do not like this discrimination.

Since when are you so concerned about the mine workers?

He has always been, if you would only open your ears.

Sir, that hon. member has only been here a week or two. He only has a little longer to go, so let him enjoy himself. There is a further form of discrimination that I do not like in this Bill. I shall deal with clause 7. In terms of clause 7 the Minister is going to increase the amount he gives for funeral expenses and he is going to give a reasonable amount towards immediate medical expenses. He is going to give this to the white worker and the non-white worker. His powers are very, very wide here. This is going to be given to dependants of miners who for the first time during post-mortem are found to have been suffering from pneumoconiosis. If these people had been working on the mines, it is quite obvious that their pneumoconiosis resulted from their work. If a person has been working in a mine they may find, only 20 years later, that he has pneumoconiosis. We say that that pneumoconiosis is due to his having worked in a dusty atmosphere. Why was it not discovered originally when he presented himself for his periodic examinations? There may be a hundred and one reasons for it not being discovered. There may be very good reasons for that but the fact is that the person has pneumoconiosis. Whether it is discovered or not, the fact remains that he did have pneumoconiosis while he was living and that he got it from working in a mine. I say that the dependant of that miner who is also found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis in any stage below 20 per cent should receive at least two-thirds of the pension that would normally have been paid to the widow if he were suffering from pneumoconiosis of 20 per cent to 50 per cent.

Why not the full pension?

If the hon. member says that the widow should get the full pension I will support him. I want him to get up and ask for it. I am very pleased that he said that.

Why do you ask for only two-thirds of the normal pension?

I do so only because of the fact that that person may not have contracted pneumoconiosis until very late in life or it may not have resulted from his original work although the possibility is that it did. We need to be quite clear on this. I do not see why the widow or the dependant should be penalized. The miner himself cannot benefit from the compensation.

What did he die of?

It does not matter. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that whatever the man died of, pneumoconiosis would have been one of the factors which contributed to his death. It may have been the cause of his death; in any event, it certainly is something which contributed to his death.

Even if it is under 20 per cent?

No, I said from 20 per cent upwards and not under 20 per cent. I said between 20 per cent and 50 per cent. My case is that that man had pneumoconiosis and that if he were alive he would have received a pension. On his death his widow would have received a pension.

But if his pneumoconiosis was above 20 per cent she does receive a pension.

But it was only discovered after his death at the post-mortem. Mr. Speaker, I want to leave this aspect of the matter now. I have put my point across to the hon. the Minister and I have quite a few other matters to discuss. I want the hon. the Minister to remember what I said. The dependants of those people who during a postmortem were for the first time found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis are entitled to a pension if they are not already receiving one.

Are you referring to cases below 20 per cent?

Of course it is below 20 per cent. Let me put my case clearly to the hon. the Minister. A dependant will receive the pension if the man concerned had been found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis from 20 per cent to 50 per cent or above that at the time of death. If through a postmortem it is found that the person concerned has got pneumoconiosis at any stage, and I said that with emphasis, his dependant is entitled to a pension because it would have progressed if he had been working. [Interjections.] I hope that is clear now. I want to ask the hon. member for Brakpan if he will support me if I change my plea from two-thirds of the normal pension to a plea for a full pension.

There is another point which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It would appear that clause 16 brings us nearer to the establishment of a department of industrial medicine, which we mentioned previously. I have pleaded for the establishment of such a department of industrial medicine and I see that the Minister has introduced a clause which could lead to this. He brings in other types of work which are covered by the Mines and Works Act. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister knows this, probably he does, but he is doing work for other industries. For instance, if you look at page 17 of the Blue Book of the Miners’ Medical Bureau of 1967 you will see that work was done for the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, the South African Iron and Steel and Industrial Corporation, the Union Steel Company, Dowson and Dobson and the South African Railways and Harbours. Already we see that a channel is being formed whereby we can get people who are suffering from industrial diseases into this department. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that people who are suffering from conditions other than pneumoconiosis should be covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I would remind the hon. the Minister that he does not specify this in the Bill at all. Clause 16 (2) of the Bill reads as follows—

The Minister does not specify in the Bill that the injury should be a type of pneumoconiosis. He does not specify that there must be injury to the cardio-respiratory system only. He covers by this Bill a person who comes into contact with a substance which may cause, say, dermatitis. In terms of this Bill he also covers persons suffering from deafness or allergies. All these diseases will be covered. If that is the intention of the hon. the Minister with this Bill, then I am very much in favour of it. If it is not the intention of the Minister to include these diseases to which the mine worker is subjected, although other workers may also be subjected to them and also do work which may cause pneumoconiosis, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it should be his intention. He should amend the Act so that he can do this. I should like to know what the hon. the Minister’s feelings are on this matter. As far as I am concerned, I think it would be a good thing if we started to study this subject to see whether we cannot establish a department of industrial medicine. It is especially important that diseases which are due to occupational hazards should be included. If he could do that then, in due course, we can take away the control of pneumoconiosis from the Department of Mines and bring it within the ambit of industrial legislation, which I think will be a good thing and it would at least obviate a lot of the anomalies which are at present in existence. I pointed out some of these to the Minister last year, I think. I told him how a man working in a mine and one working on the roadside chopping stones could both get pneumoconiosis, with the difference that one is covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the other by the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act. If he had a department of industrial medicine, all these would be covered on an equal basis.

Now I want to say a word or two about the money which has been accumulating in the Fund because it has not been claimed, particularly as far as the Bantu is concerned. I know there are great difficulties in trying to trace the Bantu after he leaves the mine. Something has to be done about it, because this amount of money is growing over the years. I do not know what steps the Minister has taken, but he said last year that he would take steps to have as many of these people traced as quickly as possible, and that they would get their money. Is it not possible for a central bureau to be established where all Bantu labourers who leave the mines must register so that they can be informed in writing where they can claim their money? If that is done, and they can keep this little document, they are going to know where to go to get their money. I do not know what happens to-day to those labourers who come from Lesotho or Malawi. How are they traced? What happens to their money? Who pays them out? I wonder whether the Minister knows how much is outstanding in those accounts. I think it is something which the Minister ought to look into. He should see that this account is diminished as soon as possible and that the rightful owners of the money shall receive it. According to clause 17—

I want to know why the Minister excludes the Bantu. Is there a special reason? The Minister did not mention this in his second-reading speech, but if he does not know, perhaps he could find out and let me know. I should very much like to know why the Bantu is excluded in clause 17. Let us take the question of the Bantu to-day working on the mine dumps. He exposes himself to a dusty atmosphere, but he may be a gardener. He may be employed by the department of gardening of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines and is thus, as with the messenger who goes up and down outside the mine property, especially on a winter’s day on the Reef when the wind blows, always exposed to a dusty atmosphere. These people also should come under first examination. If it becomes necessary for them to receive a pension, they should get it, or a lump sum, whatever the Minister decides to do.

There are several other matters which we can discuss during the Committee Stage. I think it would be better to do it then. The Minister will then have an opportunity of replying immediately to the matters that are raised. As I have said, we are going to support the Bill, but we do not like the discriminations that have taken place and I do think especially that those people who are suffering from pneumoconiosis in the 20 to 50 per cent group should also receive the same 20 per cent increase as the others.

Mr. Speaker, it is with particular pleasure that I congratulate the Minister of Mines on this legislation he wants to place on the Statute Book. It is also with pleasure that I find that there is to-day so much support on the part of the hon. member for Rosettenville.

When we came here in 1966 the Opposition were as silent as the grave, but suddenly in the year 1969, just before the House prorogued, they came to light as the champions of the mineworkers under all circumstances. Consequently it is also a pleasure for me today to hear from that hon. member that he wants certain ideas, good ideas, which he expressed here to be put into effect, if those changes could be made. I thank him for that.

On behalf of the mineworkers in my constituency, and probably on behalf of many other constituencies as well, I want to express my thanks to the Minister. This is a need which arose. Then I begin with those unfortunate persons who have been certified below 20 per cent at post-mortem. The widows of those persons received a single amount of R1,150. This is now being increased to R1,380. We express our thanks for that. What I should also like to see, and I would be neglecting my duty if I did not say that this is what I should also like to see in future, i.e. if the funds can be found to do so, is that a monthly pension be paid out to those widows.

There is the other case of a person who was certified at 20 per cent and above. Under the 1968 adjustment that person received no additional compensation apart from their pensions. I am grateful for the fact that file Minister has now seen his way clear to increasing the pensions of those persons as well. Hon. members will recall that with the 1968 adjustment they did not receive this. But then we must add that these are persons who, according to medical reports, are able to carry on normally with their work. The idea that all mineworkers who at the slightest sign of pneumoconiosis, should be certified and taken out of the mines, is perhaps a very good idea. But we ask ourselves whether this could be applied. We are particularly grateful for the concessions which have been made in the form of an increase in the pension allowance for widows and dependent children. In the past it was felt, when widows received R42 in the 1968 application, that this amount should be increased to R45. This would have been the same increase as that received by other widows. However, I am grateful that this pension is now being increased to R50 and that the allowance for every dependent child is being increased from R21 to R25. I want to say thank you very much to the hon. the Minister for that, for it is after all the widow who suffers when the breadwinner falls away. Care is in fact being taken here of her and her dependants now. Widows are the persons who suffer the most. They do not have such a hard time when the breadwinner is still working or when he is still able to supplement a portion of his income. I am also grateful for the fact that the old age pensions of these persons, or any other pension, will not influence the pension they are receiving as a result of this legislation in any way.

In particular I should like to address a word of thanks to the hon. the Minister and the Department for the wonderful new building which has been built for the mineworkers and which will shortly be opened by the hon. the Prime Minister. I pay frequent visits to the Bureau and the new building is a tremendous improvement on the existing one. I go among the mineworkers every day and I know that they are highly appreciative of the facilities offered to them in the new building. I am speaking in particular now of the persons who formerly had to climb up the numerous steps, but for whom there are now sufficient lifts available in the new building in order to convey them from one floor to the other.

In regard to pneumoconiosis I should today like to put one question and I am addressing it in particular to the medical practitioners. Can it be precisely established, or is it mere guesswork when a person is certified as having suffered from pneumoconiosis to an extent between 20 and 49 per cent. When is a pneumoconiosis sufferer certified below 20 per cent, and when is he certified above 50 per cent? I can understand that it would be easy to certify a person at 75 per cent and above, but this is one question which causes a great deal of concern. I do not want to sully this fine legislation and this wonderful gesture on the part of the State with a complaint, but in respect of this matter I should like to inform the hon. the Minister and the members of the medical profession who are sitting in this House to-day that we as laymen and particularly the mineworkers have doubts in regard to that system of certification.

We are also very grateful for the increases which have been granted. They alleviate hardships and help those persons who are struggling to keep their heads above water. I also want to say thank you for the alleviation which has been introduced in respect of burial costs. I trust that this will not be the end now of changes and amendments in this connection and that there will always be concessions. If concessions are made which make it easier for the mineworker or his dependants, I shall always be grateful. On behalf of my constituency I want to extend my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister for these concessions. I have not yet heard what my voters have to say about this, but I have every hope that they will again, as in the past, trust this Government and return the National Party to this House. After all, the National Party is the party that, since 1922, has faithfully looked after the interests of the mineworker. This is also the party which did not only make promises when they suspected in 1969 that there was going to be an election. It is however the party which has always done everything it could, to the best of its ability, for the worker. We have every confidence that wherever mine-workers, through their votes, must prove the decisive factor in the coming election, they will prefer the National Party because they know where they stand with it. I do not think the mineworkers will buy a horse, or bet money on one they do not know, and which is in such a condition as the United Party is.

Mr. Speaker, I refer in particular to the type of action the hon. the Minister is now going to undertake in terms of clause 16 of the Bill before us. He has always had the power and why is he suddenly taking up the substances, many of which have very little connection, if any, with mining. What type of medical examination is the hon. the Minister going to carry out? This applies particularly to the medical examinations which are carried out by his Bureau for Industries other than mining industries. What is overlooked completely in this regard is that the great value of the examinations carried out by the Bureau is the pre-employment examination. It gives the Bureau a permanent picture of the man’s chest before he is employed at work in a dusty atmosphere. This examination allows the rejection of people whose chests are medically considered to be unsuitable for work in a dusty atmosphere. The main thing is that the man who becomes a miner is rated as having a normal chest which gives the Bureau a chance of seeing changes that take place. The whole key of the Bureau’s examination rests on that first examination. They can defer a man and tell him to come back later or they can completely reject a man. In these other examinations and in the examinations which have been carried out for industries there was no pre-employment examination as a rule. It may be there exceptionally, but I doubt it. The absence of this examination vitiates largely the examinations at subsequent stages. Particularly in certain industries which have dusty atmospheres it is a very serious matter. I hope the hon. the Minister will follow the advice given by the hon. member for Rosettenville, namely to create, as it were, a thorough universal bureau for the examination of workers in dusty atmospheres. The hon. the Minister has taken the power to order the medical examination of workers who work with power. I can understand it when he orders the medical examination of workers who treat minerals, who do the crushing, cleaning and washing of minerals. The hon. the Minister can order the medical examination of workers who are concerned with the generating of any form of power and the transmission and distribution of the power. This is being done, but of what value is it compared with what should be done in other industries? The whole problem of these examinations should have been realized by the hon. the Minister if he had personally, apart from opening i.t, attended the conference which he called in Johannesburg last year. Most of this conference’s attention was devoted actually to what happened to the person who came in contact with asbestos. Firstly, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the invitation the extended to my colleague and myself. But what happened to the resolutions which the final meeting of that conference made? When are they likely to be published and how far have they advanced with the editing of the proceedings of this particular conference? One lesson the hon. the Minister would have learned had he attended the conference is that, if he was going to do a public duty …

But was he not there?

Yes. he opened the conference. He gave a good banquet too. If the hon. the Minister will, and I hope he will, undertake an investigation of all dust diseases the country as a whole will benefit.

That is my job as Minister of Health and not as Minister of Mines.

Yes, I will suggest it to you when we come to the Health Vote. I have suggested it before. However, if he did follow up the products of his mines, he would have seen what the products of his mines are doing.

How can the hon. the Minister separate one from the other?

That is what he is trying to do here perhaps. I do not know. The hon. the Minister, especally in his capacity as Minister of Health, has a duty to the country, namely to make an investigation into the dangerous dusty minerals which have done so much harm, particularly asbestos. If he will do that, he will be doing a great service. I should also like to know why the hon. the Minister is taking on these works. It is true that they were thought of in the original Mining Act. Like my colleague, the hon. member for Rosettenville, I cannot see why the hon. the Minister separates the sheep from the lambs when it comes to the people who get 20 per cent or 10 per cent instead of getting the position uniform. It is quite true that if a man who suffers from pneumoconiosis is knocked down by a car, it would be difficult to say that pneumoconiosis contributed to his death. Nevertheless, a man’s working capacity and his length of life in general are seriously concerned by the fact that he has dust in his lungs. With the introduction of the 1954 legislation on pneumoconiosis, the main complaint of the miners at that time was that there were among them men who were receiving quite high pensions, even up to 75 per cent, whilst they showed exactly the same symptoms as other men who were passed as normal by the bureau. That was the trouble at that stage. It was found that too much attention had been g’ven to the X-rays and not enough to the clinical material available and the clinical examination. I mention this because one of the hon. members on that side of the House spoke earlier about the injustice of some men receiving higher pensions than others. It is because medicine is not infallible. One cannot always measure exactly the percentage of loss. It became necessary to introduce better tests at that time so as to try to sift the sufferers from the non-sufferers, the malingerers from the genuinely unhealthy people. I hope the hon. the Minister will continue to use these methods and be generous towards those whom the X-rays do not show suffering from this disease.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Central) should in fact look for any deficiencies in the clinical identification of, say, 5 per cent pneumoconiosis sufferers among members of the medical profession. The medical Profession should be blamed for this, and not the Minister. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Stilfontein where he expressed appreciation of this legislation. This is something special for the workers in South Africa. I note that in this legislation there is no reference to the mine-workers of South-West Africa. I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that the mine-workers in South-West Africa would very much like to participate in this wonderful legislation. They would also, like other workers in the Republic of South Africa, like to have the security which this pneumoconiosis legislation offers. Of course, it is only a National Party Government that could place such legislation on the Statute Book. I am aware of the fact that the Department of Mines keeps a vigilant eye on the health of our mineworkers in South-West Africa, but I should nevertheless like to know from the hon. the Minister, if South-West Africa does not fall under this legislation, what the reasons for that are.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to hon. members on both sides of the House for the measure of support they have given this measure, whole-hearted support from my side and half-hearted support, but at least motivated, from the other.

The hon. member for Rosettenville expressed criticism in regard to the fact that, in his opin on. there was discrimination here. In this legislation there is not one single clause which testifies to discrimination. It is a fact that those persons who are certified between 20 and 50 per cent, are only receiving a 10 per cent increase, and that all other benefits are being increased by 20 per cent. Since I became the head of this Department I have consistently adopted the attitude that when an overall amount of money is available, as in this case, my point of departure should be a sympathetic one, i.e. that in the first place those who need it most should be looked after. I think that we should always accept it like this. I am glad that in this respect the Mineworkers’ Union understands my point of view, i.e. that when money is available it should in the first place and to a generous extent go to that man who is no longer earning what he earned before. Then it must go, to an even more generous extent, to the widow and the orphan. In the Bill it is specifically provided that that person who is certified between 50 and 75 per cent and above can no longer work in the mines. There are mineworkers above 75 per cent who are bedridden. My heart will always go out to them to give them that extra little bit, in the future as well. I think the widows and children of deceased mineworkers can accept it as axiomatic that as long as I am Minister in this Department I shall always do my best to give them in the first place, together with those who can no longer carry on their occupation as in the past, a little bit more of what is available than to those people who can still carry on their occupation to the full. That is the whole premise of this Bill. The fact of the matter is that on this side of the House there is more sympathy towards those who need it than the hon. member for Rosettenville implied in his speech. He has equal amounts of sympathy for all. He says so. I am prepared to say that there are people who are entitled to more sympathy and that we should show this in a tangible form by giving them an increased pension. The hon. member also referred, almost derogatorily, to the increase of R4.40 per month. But if it is considered that this specific person, who is certified between 20 and 50 per cent, is still in full employment and is earning his full daily wage and is now at one go receiving an additional R52.80 per year, this is not something to be scorned. This is over and above his earnings. That is why I want to make it very clear that I think this principle, or rather this method which we have adopted, i.e. of giving more to those who need it more than to those who are still in full employment, is entirely justified.

†The hon. member also made the point that the widows of mineworkers who were found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis at post-mortem and certified at less than 20 per cent, should also get a pension on the same basis as those certified between 20 per cent and 50 per cent. But we must remember the history of this Act. We know that in the beginning there was no question of giving a pension to those who were found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis at post-mortem and certified at less than 20 per cent. Therefore we decided on one amount which is payable to the widows of these people. I should like to remind hon. members, and also mineworkers, that in establishing a less than 20 per cent pneumoconiosis at post-mortem, it could not have been done whilst the person was alive. It cannot be done on clinical examination. It can also not be done on X-ray examination. It is only done on microscopic examination and with the aid of other apparatus that we have at our disposal at the moment.

*In other words, Mr. Speaker, the certification of 20 per cent at post-mortem is a microscopic presence of some sign or other which could possibly have been caused by working in dusty mines, f think that we should never lose sight of this fact., I cannot possibly have any influence on the working ability of any person. It cannot possibly have had any influence on his way of life, his domestic life, or his work. That is precisely why this has been provided. In other words, during the lifetime of that person that wife and children never suffered in any respect as a result of the fact that he showed less than 20 per cent signs. In addition it cannot have been the cause of his death. In such a case this would have been established by other methods. I think we must see this matter very clearly.

The hon. member also put a question in regard to the Bantu. He must not concern himself about that.

†The Department of Bantu Administration and Development is administering the aspect of pensions for our Bantu people in a very satisfactory way. I had discussions as recently as during the latter half of last year with my colleague over here together with members of our two departments. We are quite satisfied that they are doing this in an admirable way. That is also applicable to Bantu from other territories, such as Lesotho and Malawi. The arrangements are satisfactory from our point of view as well as from that of those countries and it is seen to that they get the money that they are entitled to. I therefore do not intend to make any change in so far as this particular issue is concerned.

Then the hon. member asked me about clause 17. He wanted to know why Bantu are excluded. The simple reasons is that Bantu, as the hon. member knows, are not examined at the medical bureau as in the case of white workers. They are, however, periodically and systematically examined clinically at six-monthly intervals in any case.

Does that apply to Bantu working on the surface as well?

It applies to every Bantu worker on a mine, whether he works underground, on the surface or whether he is a messenger. He is examined and properly examined every six months. It is therefore not necessary to make this compulsory legislation in so far as the Bantu are concerned.

*In the space of a few minutes the hon. member for Stilfontein left this entire House at least with the impression that he is a person who has not only worked in a mine but who understands and comprehends the conditions of the mineworker in South Africa. I am glad we have people like him—and there are others as well—who are not only sympathetic towards the mineworker, but who are also experts in the field. They can advise us. In fact, file hon. member came to my Office only last week to put questions to me and to explain what the problems of our mineworkers were. Other members also do this. It is to me as Minister, as well as for the officials in my Department, a very great help that members, such as he inter alia, are of assistance to us in this regard. The hon. member referred to the pneumoconiosis bureau and the new building. The Prime Minister has kindly consented to open this new building officially on 19th March this year. I hope that on that occasion we will be able to show the representatives of our mineworkers and their wives what we have established there, not only for their health in the form of examinations, but also for their convenience. I hope that there will be many people present on that day.

In regard to the question the hon. member for Sttilfontein asked, i.e. whether we could establish precisely what the percentage was, whether it was 20, 49 or 50 per cent, I can only tell him that we are unable to establish this. Medical science, with all its wonderful aids, is not an exact science. This arrangement is a practical arrangement which up to now has worked reasonably well. Distinction must be drawn between the man who is no longer physically capable of working and the man who can still do the work. In other words, we cannot establish this precisely. Not only is use made in practice of radiological examinations or of medical examinations by means of other apparatus and breathing tests, but also of clinical examinations which play a tremendously important role. The clinical examination enables the panel of doctors and the other bodies which have been established, including the reviewing authorities, to establish with a reasonable amount of certainty and a reasonable amount of exactitude what the condition of the patient is, so that the Act can be properly implemented. I may just say that the apparatus at these new clinics is of the very best and Professor Oosthuizen, my medical advisor, has also been instructed to purchase any new and improved apparatus immediately it is available. In regard to the apparatus which is being used in the interests of the mineworker and the patient, the costs of that apparatus may play no part whatsoever. It may not be taken into consideration to the detriment of the mineworker. In regard to a further question from the hon. member for Stilfontein I may also say that it is the intention to review this entire Pneumoconiosis Act, it is hoped in 1971. This will also be done pursuant to the conference mentioned here by the hon. member for Durban (Central).

†Then the hon. member for Durban (Central) raised a point in regard to clause 16. I think that the points that he has raised are very important; in fact those particular issues pertain to my portfolio as Minister of Health, and not as the Minister of Mines. As is stated in the clause, certain works can be classified and treated in a certain way on the recommendation of the Government Mining Engineer and the Director. In general we have here in mind those works which perform a function which causes dust. Therefore it pertains to the Pneumoconiosis Act and that is then the reason why it pertains to this particular Act. Perhaps it is a start in the direction of a department for industrial medicine. However, this pertains to work in dust.

*The hon. member for Etosha raised the question of South West Africa. I may just say that South West Africa is not included under the Pneumoconiosis Act of 1962, and that is why it has not been included in this Bill either. But with this rearrangement it was indicated in the White Paper that it would be desirable to make this Act applicable to South West Africa as well. This could be done in two ways, firstly, by way of a regulation promulgated by the State President, or secondly, by way of a statutory amendment. From the legal advice I have obtained it appears very clearly that by way of regulation justice will not be done to this matter. It is intended, after the entire matter has been taken into consideration, to make this Act applicable to South West Africa as well by way of legislation during the 1971 session. I may just add that the Chief Government Mining Engineer and officials of my Department in South West Africa have already instituted an investigation in regard to the mining industries, and it was found that the incidence of pneumoconiosis there is extremely slight. It is therefore not an urgent matter at present. The problems which do exist there pertain to toxicosis caused by other materials. This matter is covered by another Act, i.e. the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I hope that with this all the questions put here have been answered.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This measure makes provision for the amend-ment of section 8 (11) of the Act in order to allow a member of the Post Office Staff Board to be re-appointed in the Department by the State President even after having voluntarily resigned during his period of Office and not only at the expiration of his period of Office.

The Act, as it reads at present, provides that a Staff Board member who, at the expiration of his term of Office is not appointed as a board member, can be re-appointed as an official in the Department if he has not yet reached the age of 65 years. This makes provision for the possibility that, because of the particular competence, background and experience of a Post Office official appointed as a member of the Board, it may be in the interests of the Department for him to be taken up once more into its administration at the expiration of his term of Office, rather than that he be appointed to the Board for a further period.

The duration of a board member’s term of Office is determined by the Act as a maximum of five years. However, if a member is appointed for a full five-year period it means, under the present provisions of the Act, that he cannot be re-appointed in the Department before that long period of time has expired. In the meantime there could be complications necessitating the immediate re-appointment of an official who was appointed as a board member. One of the important administrative posts in the Department could, for example, become vacant, a post which at that time cannot be filled as adequately from the ranks of the available officials as from those of the Staff Board. officials appointed as Staff Board members are inevitably the most senior, most competent and most experienced officials in the Department. Under such circumstances it must consequently be possible to appoint a Staff Board member to the post, even though his term of Office as board member has not yet expired at that stage. Such an appointment would, of course, take place on the basis that the Staff Board member concerned is prepared to accept the post and resign his Office as board member.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment envisaged by this Bill introduces no new principle, but is intended to bring about flexibility in the existing regulations. I trust that both sides of the House will support it, and I therefore move.

Mr. Speaker, since this Bill will assist the hon. member for Orange Grove, who is unavoidably absent to-night, to administer this measure better after the 22nd April, we on this side of the House are prepared to support it. It is a simple measure …

What about Albert?

The hon. member for Brakpan is wrong. There is no question of the hon. member for Ermelo becoming the future Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. That post will be filled from this side of the House, j

Order! What has that to do with the Bill?

Sir, I was answering the hon. member for Brakpan, who is about to depart from this House and I wish to give him a soldier’s farewell. Sir, there is one serious point concerning this one-clause amending Bill which I think must be placed on record, and that is that the original measure which is being amended was passed in 1968; it was section 8 of Act 67 of 1968. In 1969, a year later, it was amended by section 2 of Act 59 of 1969, and now it is being amended again by clause 1 of A.B. 22 of 1970. In other words, this hon. Minister introduced a measure which after one year had a weakness in it. Within a year of introducing an amendment to that Bill, which required printing, which required the time of this House to pass it, which required the attention of the officials to draft it, which required the services of the legal advisers to put it into legal language, which required the parliamentary draftsman’s attention and which required the translator’s attention, the hon. the Minister comes back to amend this Bill again. Is this an indication of the efficiency of the hon. the Minister? He now seeks our support for the passing of this Bill and we give that support willingly because it will make our task easier, but, Sir, why did he not introduce the correct amendment last year? The hon. the Minister owes us an explanation. Why did he not correct this measure properly last year? Of course, the position is that the people being dealt with here are senior officials who are being appointed to what is the equivalent in the Post Office of the Public Service Commission, which deals with the appointment of staff and with the promotion of staff. They are therefore people with very high, powerful authority within the department. They, Sir, will create, by means of other promotions, the vacancies which they themselves can now fill after resigning, and I think we must have an assurance from the hon. the Minister that if a member of the board resigns his Office on the board, it shall not be because of a vacancy which the board itself has created. We accept unequivocally that if you have a suitable person available on the board, that person, if there is a vacancy for which he is qualified, should be entitled to fill that vacancy, but it must be filled on the basis of qualifications, and the ability to fill the post, and not simply because that person happens to have blue eyes or curly hair. We do not want members of this board to be appointed in the same way as dismissed Cabinet Ministers are appointed to the S.A.B.C. We want people appointed on merit, and if Cabinet Ministers or others are dismissed from other posts, we do not want them appointed to these posts.

Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Then I will merely say that I accept this Bill and we will support it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of current expenditure the Fuel Research Institute is financed, inter alia, by way of a levy not exceeding .4167 cent per ton of coal produced and sold. This maximum levy was already fixed more than 20 years ago. To the levy received from the coal industry in this way, the State contributes on a R for R basis out of funds annually voted for this purpose by Parliament.

The current expenditure of the Institute exceeded its revenue by more than R3,000 during the financial year of 1967 and by more than R53,000 during the 1968 financial year. During these two financial years the levy was fixed at .375 cent per ton, and the deficit made up out of a reserve fund which the Institute had built up over the years. These reserves are now depleted. The latest available data indicates that the deficit in 1969 will eventually amount to about R56,000 despite the fact that the maximum of .4167 cent per ton was levied after consultation with the coal industry. Expenditure on increased salaries, which came into operation on 1st April, 1969, was not brought into account with this deficit.

The increase in the expenditure of the Fuel Research Institute is attributed to factors completely beyond its control. The most important of these is the increase in the cost of laboratory equipment, repairs to and maintenance of buildings, and salary increases which had of necessity to be granted in order to keep pace with other comparable organizations and in an attempt to retain the services of the existing staff at least.

It may be mentioned here that during the past number of years the Institute has been under pressure from the coal industry to enter new fields of research, but that in view of its financial position and manpower shortage the Institute was forced to follow a more conservative and selective policy.

Despite this policy, however, the Institute could not, as I have pointed out, succeed in balancing expenditure and revenue during the past year, and after consultation with and the consent of the coal industry, the Fuel Research Board felt itself compelled to make representations to the effect that the Act should be amended so that a maximum levy of 1 cent instead of .4167 cent per ton of coal could be levied.

What is being envisaged with the statutory amendment now before the House is, to give effect to this request. It will create some scope for the foreseeable future, and I should like to point out that it is intended that the annual levy should continue to be fixed after consultation with the coal industry, and within the prescribed maximum of 1 cent per ton of coal.

We support this Bill, Sir. The Fuel Research Institute has for many years rendered very valuable service, not only to the coal industry but also to the country through its research in coal. It is understandable that, like everywhere else, their costs have increased. Not only have their costs increased but the scope of the work which they have had to undertake has also grown larger. The problem of coking coal, for instance, is one which requires constant attention. The Fuel Research Institute is a subsidized body; I think the hon. the Minister said that the Government subsidized the Institute on the rand for rand basis, and the coal industry has been contributing on the basis of .4 cents odd per ton. I think it is very reasonable now, having regard to the importance of the coal industry, that the Fuel Research Institute should be properly financed. The suggestion contained in this Bill is that the contribution of the industry of .4 something cents per ton should be increased to a maximum of 1 cent. I understand that that is done in collaboration and agreement with the coal industry, which shows that the coal industry values the services of the Institute, and this justifies our agreeing to this proposal and we therefore support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to say a few words in moving that the proceedings in connection with this Bill be resumed. In the light of the fact that we discussed this Bill very thoroughly at the end of the session last year and the Second Reading of the Bill called forth a discussion that lasted about ten hours, and also in the light of the fact that we took the trouble of tabling a White Paper explaining each clause of this Bill, and also in the light of the fact that is the same House of Assembly which is now being asked to proceed with this legislation, and also in the light of the fact that we made it very clear during the second-reading debate last year that we intended to proceed with this amending Bill in the next ensuing session, which is the present session, from the stage, i.e. the Second Reading, it had reached during the preceding session, and further in the light of the fact that we as a House will be able to examine and discuss each of these clauses very thoroughly and fully in the Committee Stage, and also in the light of the fact that there will be the necessary opportunity at the Third Reading to hold a further discussion on this Bill, and also in the light of the fact that Standing Order No. 71 quite clearly and explicitly provides that a Bill may, at a subsequent session of the same House of Assembly, be resumed from the stage reached during the preceding session, in the light of these seven reasons, I want to make a very friendly appeal to the House on this occasion not to draw out the discussion of the motion unnecessarily, if possible.

Sir, we do not intend prolonging the discussion on this motion, but we are not impressed with the reasons which the Deputy Minister has given for introducing it. I think he would have expected us to oppose the motion, firstly because of the strong condemnation we expressed at the introduction of the legislation last year and, secondly, because we say that circumstances have changed since last year, and, thirdly, because it is not desirable to push a measure of this nature which is so vital through Parliament in this short session immediately before an election, more especially as the Bill will be repealed by the next Parliament. Very shortly, we are opposed to the far-reaching dictatorial powers which are given to this Minister. He can control the economic future of South Africa and that in fact means the well-being of the whole country. By a simple notice in the Gazette he can, without consulting anyone, prohibit the employment of Bantu in any specified area which he may choose, in any specified class of employment he may choose, in any specified trade or in the service of a specified employer or class of employers, and that means any employer; it may even be the Koornhof Construction Company, which may be told that it can no longer employ a Bantu. Although some of the Minister’s predecessors may have wanted a power of this nature to force their policy on an unresponsive public, they realized that there were limits to which they could go.

Order! I hope the hon. member will not make a second-reading speech.

No, I do not propose to do that. I have read the rulings of the past and I realize how difficult it is to say exactly what can be allowed and what cannot be. I can assure you, Sir, that I do not propose going deeply into the merits …

I appeal to hon. members to assist the Chair.

We will, Sir. This measure can affect the lives not only of the majority of the Bantu but in fact of all groups in South Africa. The result will be general uncertainty in regard to the security and rights of the employer as well as those of the employee. What is more, this Bill threatens the security of the residential rights given to Bantu in terms of section 10 of the Bantu Administration Act. I know the Minister spent some time in the second-reading debate dealing with this point, and he said that if they wanted to take away those rights they would do so directly instead of in an indirect manner, but he did say that those rights given in section 10 are an obstacle to the implementation of the policy of the Government. One of the previous Deputy Ministers indicated in a speech made at Stellenbosch that the Government would like to do away with those rights, but he said you could imagine the fuss that would be made by the United Party if they did that. Of course that is not the true reason why they do not abolish these rights. They do not abolish these rights because Dr. Verwoerd was the man who granted these rights in 1952. So they avoid abolishing those rights directly, but are trying to do so by an indirect method in terms of this Bill.

We object mainly to clause 11. I have stressed the importance of the effect it can have on the whole of the economic life of South Africa, but other clauses also contain principles totally unacceptable to us, as we stressed in the second-reading debate last year. Secondly, I think circumstances have changed to the extent that the manpower shortage has become more acute since Parliament met last year, and it is unwise to let one man, the Minister, control and exclude our valuable economic asset, namely a ready supply of manpower. It is also inadvisable because it will foster resentment amongst the Bantu and frustration and uncertainty among entrepreneurs and employers. It is unwise also because it will bring further condemnation from abroad at a time when our stocks are not standing high, and it will be an embarrassment to our friends overseas who try in every way to assist us where they can.

Where do you get it from that our stocks are not standing high?

After this sports debacle, is it necessary to tell the hon. member that our stocks are not standing high in the international world? Of course they are not standing high. Surely there is no need for the Minister to rush the Bill through at this stage. The Minister said in his second-reading speech that clause 11 was under discussion as long ago as 1963, but nothing was done, and it cannot be so urgent now that it must be forced through. After all, it could have been passed last session, but it was left right to the end and was produced in the last week; in the last dying days of the session this Bill was introduced. If it was so urgent, if it is a matter of such vital importance, why was it not introduced earlier during the session and passed last year?

The thon. the Minister more or less admitted the far-reaching scope of this Bill, but he pledged himself to administer it sympathetically. He said “a statute must stand on the Statute Book in the form of words, but it is the way in which it is applied that is important”, and that is just what we fear. We are not prepared to give this Minister or his deputy the powers sought in this Bill, because we fear the way in which it will be administered. The Minister also said that the sole purpose of clause 11 was to put a stop to the work which was in the hands of the Whites passing into the hands of the Bantu, but he does not have to pass this Bill to do that if that is the only urgent feature of the Bill. He has the job reservation provisions. Why does he not proceed in the way the Government thought fit to stop work done by white men passing into the hands of black men? Why do they not proceed under the Minister of Labour? Why do they not let the Industrial Tribunal do it? I will tell you why they will not, Sir. It is because under that Act there must be consultation before a recommendation is made to the Minister. The Minister of Labour is sitting here. I wonder whether he will not get up and tell us why he cannot stop the work going into the hands of the black man from the hands of the white man. Why is it necessary to have two Ministers in charge? How will the industrialists, the financiers and the entrepreneurs or the Bantu, oi anybody, know where they stand when they have two Ministers who can control the employment of Bantu? And then we still have the Minister of Planning who can intervene as well.

I say it will lead to general confusion in the country, and this is not a fair answer to the problem. We do not need this measure in order to carry out the intention of the Deputy Minister. He said that this legislation is simply another brick in that building which we want to leave to posterity in order to ensure in white South Africa that we retain control. But we do not need this measure to ensure white control. The Minister himself has admitted that as far as the employment of black labour in the white areas is concerned, numbers are not decisive in the future of South Africa or for the control of the white man. Then why must he take power now to control the numbers if numbers are not decisive? And they admit that we will always have black labour integrated in our economy in the white area, so they do not need a measure of this nature to maintain white control. If they cannot maintain white control without such a totalitarian measure as this one, the sooner they hand over the better. We know it is said that those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Sir, the Gods have some design on the Nationalist Party.

Order! That is not under discussion. It is not even in the Bill.

No, but it is the consequence of the Bill. I say again it is not necessary to pass a Bill of this nature at this time, just before an election, because as I said earlier, this Bill will not have the opportunity of being implemented because the next Parliament will repeal it.

The hon. member for Transkei said: “We do not need this measure to ensure white control.” I think he wanted to say, but was afraid to do so, “That we do not want any measures aimed at ensuring white control.” That would indeed have reflected the drift of his party’s approach more correctly.

Before going further I should just like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for this explanatory memorandum which he made available to all the members of this House before the time and which gives a very clear exposition of what is envisaged in this Bill. The Opposition is opposing this motion, and it was to be expected that they would do so, although there are no objections in terms of the Standing Orders, or no technical objections. On the contrary, the hon. the Deputy Minister’s motion is altogether in agreement with section 71 (1) of the Standing Orders, which deals with such matters. This boils down to the fact that the House should continue with a Bill, the Second Reading stage of which has already been dealt with. At that stage, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, there was about 10 hours of detailed and exhaustive debate about the principles contained in this Bill.

Did you speak about it?

No, I did not have an opportunity to speak about it, and I am not speaking about the Bill now, but about the motion before the House, and that is that the Committee Stage should be continued with. That Second Reading was approved here; the whole principle of the Bill was accepted here. We may therefore ask why the Opposition is now opposing the Committee Stage, because the Committee Stage is no longer concerned with the principle; it is simply concerned with the clauses severally. Everything the hon. member for Transkei said here about one or two clauses he could indeed have dealt with effectively in the Committee Stage. But this specifically is just one of the things characteristic of this Opposition. They repeat themselves in every debate in this House with monotonous regularity, and the hon. member for Transkei and other hon. members opposite are going to be singing the same tune they are singing now when they get to those sections in the Committee Stage, merely for repetition, because they have already talked themselves out. This is the actual reason why they are against this motion, because they have nothing more to say about the whole principle of separate development; because it is not this Act they do not want to see implemented; it is the whole idea of separate development, the principle of separate development, which they want to delay. They want to put a spoke in the wheel of legislative and policy implementation.

But let us look for a moment at what it is they are trying to oppose. It is concerned with important aspects of housing which are urgently necessary.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that he must not go into the merits of the matter. He should indicate reasons why this motion should be adopted and must leave the merits out of consideration as far as possible.

As it pleases you, Sir. I am merely trying to indicate what the effect of their resistance is, but I leave the matter there. I think that another reason is that there will be a wasting of time if this motion does not go through, a wasting of the Government’s time, the country’s money and also the time of this House. If this Bill is not passed now, an additional 10 hours will have to be used for a Second Reading debate after this House of Assembly meets again after the election. Sir, it will in any case be the same Government assembling here after 22nd April. It will then mean that 10 hours of this House’s time, of its money and of the taxpayer’s money will be wasted. For me this is one of the most important considerations why this motion should be accepted.

The hon. member for Transkei alleged that circumstances had changed since the introduction of the Bill during the previous Session. He did not succeed in indicating any changed circumstances. He said that when they came into power they would not continue with this Bill. We are glad they adopted that standpoint. We shall go and tell the voters what this means, if this Bill must once more be submitted de novo, it will mean that the entire discussion will have to be repeated.

I just want to tell the hon. members of the Herstigte Party that we shall see whether they vote for or against this motion, because they walk out when voting takes place, do they not? We shall see whether they are going to vote with their allies and protectors, because a few months ago they voted for the principle of this Bill. They will have to indicate whether they have now gone so far as to be against the implementation of this legislation, and are going to vote with the Opposition against its continuation. Sir, there is no reason why this measure should not be continued with, and I therefore support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterkloof actually used the argument that if the House rejects this motion proposed by the Deputy Minister, it will mean that an additional ten hours in debating time will be wasted. He said that these ten hours would cost the country and the taxpayer money. Sir, I can only tell the hon. member that if anybody has been sitting in this House, adding up the time wasted by the internecine warfare, between his own party and the Herstigte Party, which he started again tonight, they would be much more concerned about that waste of the country’s time and the taxpayer’s money than about an additional ten hours debate which might be very advantageously spent for South Africa in once again asking this House to reconsider a thoroughly undesirable Bill. South Africa stands to lose a great deal if in fact the Government does not have second thoughts about this Bill. It is perhaps significant that it never occurs to the hon. member for Waterkloof or to any other member of the Government side that there are any arguments which could be advanced from this side of the House, which might make them change their minds about legislation they have introduced. In other words, Sir, the Ministers come to this House with their minds made up. Most Nationalist members come to this House and vote without knowing what they are voting about. I want to say that I can think of no better advantage to this House and to South Africa than if we did waste an additional ten hours in rediscussing the basic principles of the Bill.

I would imagine that the constitutional brains that drew up the rules of this House and framed Standing Order No. 71, must have had certain things in mind when they decided that a measure which had proceeded up to a certain point in one session, should, by motion of the House, be allowed to be continued with from there at a subsequent session. I can only imagine that there were two main reasons why the framers of the rules thought up Standing Order No. 71. The first is that the measure concerned was an especially desirable measure which would benefit the country and the second was that it was an especially urgent matter which had to be rushed through the House. Looking at this Bill, which the hon. the Deputy Minister proposes that we proceed with, we find that neither is it especially desirable nor especially urgent. Indeed a positive case can be made out for delaying the passage of this Bill. In every major respect this Bill is a disadvantage to South Africa. The hon. member for Transkei has mentioned that it gives the Minister exceptional powers. It certainly does. It gives him the power to control something like 75 per cent of the labour force of South Africa. It gives him power over and above the powers enjoyed by the Minister of Labour, and it gives him powers greater than the powers enjoyed by the Minister of Planning.

Does the public interest not rate as a reason for the use of Standing Order No. 71?

I am not discussing the public interest. I am discussing the Bill. I said that this Bill is not particularly desirable as Standing Order No. 71 must have envisaged.

It does not say so.

I did not say that it did. The Minister was not following my argument. I said that I was trying to imagine what was in the minds of the framers of Standing Order No. 71.

You are a mind reader.

The hon. the Minister should be worrying about the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, because the powers the Deputy Minister is taking supersede his own powers. He should be watching very carefully because the hon. the Deputy Minister is now infringing on the powers of the Minister of Planning. He certainly has much wider powers than that Minister took for himself under the Physical Resources and Planning Act. The powers he is taking are, of course, also much wider than the powers enjoyed by the Minister of Labour in terms of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act.

As the hon. member for Transkei mentioned, we have ministerial assurances that, despite the wide nature of the powers being taken, the intentions are good and that these powers will not be used in their widest sense. I have sat in this House for a number of years now, and I have observed the way in which ministerial good intentions get lost over the years. Sooner or later power breeds a desire for more power and Ministers start using the power that they have taken unto themselves.

This Bill interferes with local authorities. It whittles away the already attenuated rights of the small privileged group of urban Africans. It creates the most complicated machinery to replace a system which has been working reasonably well, in terms of Nationalist policy anyway, as far as the rights of migratory workers to return to jobs within a year, are concerned. The most complicated machinery is created. The Bill, if implemented immediately, will create the greatest difficulties for labourers wishing to return to former employers, and for employers who wish to take on this labour. This is the old, familiar pattern of Nationalist legislation, introducing new systems without ensuring that the administrative machinery has been adequately created, and can function properly. At the same time, it blithely destroys existing rights. I say that this Bill conflicts hopelessly with the realities of South Africa of the 70s. It is not a Bill that is designed to meet the needs of industry in the 70s, the needs of a modern, industrial economy. It is a Bill, Sir, which harps nostalgically back to the days of the Stallard Commission 50 years ago, when the pattern of industrial development in South Africa was merely beginning. For all these reasons, I think that this Bill is not desirable, because I believe it is not urgent, because I believe it is a fantasy, based on false premises, and because I believe that it will bring in its wake disruption, misery and dismay. I think that the House should take advantage of this opportunity of having second thoughts about it. I shall certainly object to the motion proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education.

Mr. Speaker, we are busy here with very important legislation, the Second Reading of which was dealt with last year. Now we are engaged in a discussion which causes me to think that the demonstrators have now come on to the field. They just want to impede the normal and proper course of events without having very clear reasons for doing so. I do not want to label the hon. member for Houghton a demonstrator. She is actually a political “can-can dancer”, a high-kicker who just always protests, but members of the official Opposition definitely acted the role of demonstrators. Everyone indicated that during the Second Reading a great deal of attention was given to the Bill. To say now that there is no vital necessity for continuing with it is beyond my understanding, because the people do not understand the basic policy approved of over many years by the electorate of this country. They made a great fuss about the increase in the Bantu population of our urban areas, and where we have important legislation here to counteract those numbers they want to put a spoke in the wheel.

Did you take part in the Second Reading debate?

That is not relevant now. I did not speak then, but I am speaking now. Those hon. members are now becoming emotional and hysterical, but this was already happening last year as well. Before the discussion of the Bill last year the “Commercial Opinion” of March 1969 spoke of “frightful power”. That is the kind of approach we get. They do not go through this legislation step by step and see what is envisaged. There are 16 clauses in this Bill, but the hon. member for Houghton and the official Opposition refer only to clause 11. All the other clauses which are also in the interest of the Bantu, as far as his housing, the regulation of his work, etc., are concerned, receive no attention. Nothing is said about profits that can be transferred and about all the other aspects of the Bill that are in the Bantu’s interests. They think only of clause 11 and of the “frightful powers” the Minister is now going to obtain. That is why I say that the demonstrators have come onto the field. I feel that if they cannot make use of better arguments they must stop wasting time; they must come to light with constructive proposals. At the Committee Stage they can argue about each of these clauses on its merits and suggest something, but simply to say now “We are against the Bill because there is one clause we do not like”, is a poor case. In an article I read I saw that in 1960 there were about 30,000 Bantu men of working age and 432,000 Bantu women in the white cities who were not employed. These are the kinds of problems the Government wants to solve in the interest of White South Africa and in order further to counteract integration in the labour market. They indicate that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Planning do, in fact, have legislation to do this, but that is legislation covering only certain aspects of this problem. Now the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development wants to take action to carry this mandate through consistently in the interests of both White and non-White South Africa, particularly the Bantu. I want to content myself with that, because I do not want to waste time unnecessarily. I want to ask the Opposition please to relinquish the role of demonstrator and to act constructively.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nelspruit has referred to us on this side of the House as a bunch of demonstrators. I just wish that the demonstrators overseas could be as responsible as those of us on this side of the House have been with regard not only to this legislation but also to other legislation introduced by this irresponsible Government. We are here as the watchdogs of the public of South Africa and that is the job we are doing. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, that noise does not worry me in the least. If we are regarded as demonstrators in the eyes of those hon. members when we carry out this duty as the watchdogs of the public, we shall continue to be the demonstrators in this Parliament. The hon. member says that all we are worried about is clause 11. I do not want to go into the whys and wherefores of clause 11. He has quite rightly said that we will have the opportunity to do this in the Committee Stage whether it comes in this Session or the next Session. I doubt whether it will come in the next Session. I wish the hon. member for Nelspruit and the hon. member for Waterkloof had really paid attention when the hon. member for Transkei put his case to the House. He made a very strong case. He produced evidence of other facts which must be taken into consideration. The hon. member for Houghton made the same case. Surely, those hon. members should have listened and paid attention before they got up and spoke as they did? Let me say that perhaps the most damning evidence against the acceptance of this motion is the figures quoted by the hon. member for Nelspruit. I do not know where he got his figures from; we have been unable to elicit any figures from the hon. the Minister. He tells us that 30,000 Bantu males and 420,000 Bantu females were unemployed in the urban areas of South Africa. I do not know where he gets these figures from but is this not the most damning evidence which should make us reconsider this whole matter in the light of this fantastic number of unemployed Bantu in the white urban areas? We have at the moment in South Africa the situation where an artificial shortage of Bantu labour is being created deliberately by this Government by means of legislation which is in force to-day. Now the hon. the Minister, in terms of this legislation which we are being asked to give a free passage, is to take further powers to further aggravate this artificial shortage of Bantu labour. I think this is the strongest evidence and evidence which this House should consider to-night for the rejection of the motion of the hon. the Deputy Minister that we should allow this Bill to go ”head from the stage which it had reached during the last session. If the hon. member for Nelspruit is correct when he says that there are more than 450,000 unemployed Bantu in the While areas, and they must obviously be there with some authority, and this hon. Minister asks for powers to create even more unemployment, surely we have here the strongest point in favour of the rejection of the motion by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The House is being asked to-night to allow the proceedings on the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill to be resumed from the stage which was reached during the preceding session. There is provision in the rules of this House for the House to adopt such a motion.

Read them, then you will get something into your head.

I have read that Standing Order although I do not know whether the hon. member for Klip River has read it. Perhaps he has read it but I do not know whether he really understands what he has read. Normally I would consider this to be a very wise provision. Our forbears in this House placed this provision in the rules of this House. I would say that under normal circumstances this is a very wise provision because it would be a waste of valuable time to re-argue all the matters which had been debated previously. In this case we find that the Second Reading has been completed and that the principle of the Bill has been accepted by a majority vote of this House. As I said, under normal circumstances this would be a very wise provision but to-day we are not faced with normal circumstances.

Did you have an opportunity to speak?

I did speak in that debate, as the hon. member will know to his regret if he remembers what exactly took place in this House. To-day we find the circumstances most abnormal. If this motion is adopted and this Bill is bulldozed through Parliament by the Nationalist juggernaut, it will be a tragedy for all South Africa. I should like to get the attention of the hon. the Minister of Labour for one moment. I should like to make the point that this Bill amounts to a vote of no-confidence in the Minister of Labour. This Bill, introduced by the Ministry of Bantu Administration, is usurping the functions of the hon. Minister of Labour who is at present in the House. Is this not an admission by the Government of the failure of their ability to carry out their self-avowed policy uf job reservation.

Order! I wish to point out to the hon. member that he should not go into the merits of the Bill. He can just refer to them, but he must not go into them too deeply.

Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling. I want to go on then, Sir. I abide by your ruling and therefore leave that particular point. Let me go on by saying that this Bill is a wicked Bill. As such, it should be dropped, rather than be placed on a Statute Book of South Africa. Those of us who have a real interest in the future welfare of all South Africa, will continue to oppose it. We opposed it then and we oppose it now. We will rigorously oppose it no matter when the Government brings it before this House for debate. But I do submit that to-night this House must take cognizance of the changed circumstances since this Bill was debated. My hon. friend from the Transkei has presented some of those circumstances. The hon. member for Nelspruit also presented some information to-night. I want to bring certain other matters to the attention of this House, matters which have come to my attention, and, I am sure, also to the attention of other hon. members, since the close of the last Session when at the Second Reading the principle of this Bill was adopted. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister is aware of the opposition to this measure which has come from all sectors of society, from commerce, industry, local governments, religious bodies and even his own church has expressed misgivings about the provisions of this particular Bill. But above all, we find that this Government now wishes to rush this Bill through on the eve of a general election.

Why not?

I hope that some hon. member on that side, or perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister, will tell us why this unseemly haste to place this Draconian measure on the Statute Book of South Africa. I wonder if it is not perhaps merely a further manifestation of the megalomaniac tendencies cf this Government, particularly of this hon. Minister and his two Deputy Ministers, to whom we affectionately refer as the “three blind mice”. I wonder if this is not the reason for this unseemly haste to place this Bill on the Statute Book, that this hon. Minister is determined, even if it is only for three months before they lose power on the 22nd April, to have this power to control the lives of the non-White population of this country. Are they rushing this legislation through because they are afraid of the outcome of this election? Arc they afraid that they are going to lose their right wing votes? Is this legislation a stop to the ideological verkramptes in their party in an attempt to win a few votes? I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to take serious cognizance of what I am going to say. Is this hon. Deputy Minister prepared to risk upsetting the whole economy of South Africa in order to win a few votes from the verkrampte right wing of his party? Is this Minister prepared to risk even the internal peace of South Africa—and how, Sir!—just before an election to win a few votes? I have warned this hon. Minister and his deputies before that they touch the section 10 rights of every Bantu at their peril. The Bantu are extremely jealous of these rights. These are the only remaining rights of the urban Bantu under this Government. This Bill is merely a subterfuge to infringe those rights. It is especially dangerous in the light of development since the last session of Parliament when the Second Reading of this Bill was adopted and the principle was accepted by a majority vote, because of the development of nationalism among the Bantu. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development would pay attention, because these words are particularly directed to him in all good faith and in the hope that we might be able to do something for the good of South Africa. The development of nationalism among the Bantu people in this country has manifested itself more and more since the close of the last session. Let me say that this is a nationalism which has been actively fostered and assisted by this Government. In fact, I have evidence that it has been assisted financially.

Are you against it?

Of course I am against it! That is why I am raising the matter. This nationalism amongst the Bantu people has been assisted by this Government. I want to point out to this House that this is Black nationalism which is now being actively fostered by that Government. I want to go further and say that that Black nationalism is now becoming more militant.

Order! I pointed out to the hon. member that he should not range too widely or discuss the merits of the Bill. He is doing that now. I once again call upon the hon. member to abide by my ruling. [Interjections.] Order! *I shall give my decision from the Chair. Hon. members must heed my decision.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling with respect. May I say that I am trying to make the point that in the light of these changed circumstances and in the light of the changed evidence which have now become available to me and to other members of this House, it would be advisable that this Bill be reconsidered de novo. In this I support the hon. member for Houghton.

That is a second reading speech.

Mr. Speaker, I must abide by your ruling. May I just conclude by saying that the fact that Black nationalism is becoming more militant is evidence why the Bureau of State Security and the security police are increasing their activities.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

I shall let that matter go, Sir. I abide by your ruling.

This Bill seeks to disqualify Bantu by not allowing them to continue employment in certain categories, by not allowing them to return to their employers in white areas and by not making adequate provision for housing for the Bantu. In the light of this, it becomes even more necessary to at least postpone, but better still, to drop the legislation, when we consider all these factors in the light of the manpower shortage in the urban areas particularly.

The hon. member is repeating now what he said in the beginning.

Sir, may I not discuss it in the light of the manpower shortage?

The hon. member can address the hon. the Minister of Labour on that point. This is not a second reading speech.

All right, Sir, I will let that go at that. This measure was introduced towards the middle of the last session, but for some reason or other it was delayed until the end of the Session when we had time only to pass the Second Reading stage of the Bill. Now it is produced again in this House. It is produced with an urgency and must now be passed in this pre-election session, when matters of extreme national importance only, I would submit, and matters which are necessary for the continued effective running of the country only, should be presented.

I am wondering, and once again I am thinking aloud, why there is this urgency and I wonder if the reason is not perhaps that there is a power struggle within the Cabinet. This Bill cuts right across the job reservation regulations. It also cuts across the Industrial Conciliation Act, once again affecting the hon. the Minister of Labour. It also cuts across the Physical Planning and Utilization of Natural Resources Act, affecting the hon. the Minister of Planning.

Order! Those arguments have been raised already.

But they do not lose their effectiveness. They all lead up to the point I am making.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling. He must not tell me that it does not effect the effectiveness of those statements.

I abide by your ruling. Sir. The most important consideration is whether it is wise that such a measure should be placed on the Statute Book at a time like this just before a general election when this country will be in an unsettled state because of uncertainty as to the outcome of the election. This Bill constitutes a gross interference …

Order! If the hon. member has no new arguments I will ask him to resume his seat. I will give the hon. member one further opportunity.

You are making it extremely difficult for me … [Interjections.]

Order! I must warn the hon. member again to abide by my ruling and not to make derogatory objections to what I say. The hon. member said that I am making it extremely difficult for him.

I crave your indulgence, Sir. I think it is common knowledge that this Bill is infringing the rights of employers as well as that of employees.

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, since 1966 the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has habitually been making a fool of himself in this House. To-night he most certainly presented himself as a champion among fools. It is also to be regretted that the hon. member’s remarks in respect of a senior Minister of the Government and his two deputies reached such a pedestrian level. It is clear that the months the hon. member spent on the railway lines, jumping between the two in order to ensure that he kept his one ear on the railway line, also affected him in other places. I leave the matter there, but the hon. member laid such emphasis on the changed circumstances since the prorogation of this House last year that it puts one in mind of the changed circumstances he has experienced in his constituency.

There is only one cardinal matter on which the entire argument of the Opposition centres. And that is the difference between the policy of the United Party and that of the National Party. The hon. Opposition is opposing the proposal for the continuation of the discussion of this Bill, because their point of departure is an economic one. Their point of departure concerns what there is in the pockets of those rich friends of theirs. Their point of departure is not concerned with the position of the white inhabitants of South Africa and with the progress of its non-white inhabitants. That is the basic difference. Our policy is based on the protection of white civilization and on the development of the non-white peoples. The United Party sees this matter from an economic point of view and for that reason they hammer in their arguments on the disruption to the economy should the discussion of this measure be continued. All their arguments are centred on that. My standpoint in this matter is that specifically because of this basic difference in policy it is so vitally necessary for this legislation to be continued with and for this measure to be placed on the Statute Book. The Opposition are simply concentrating on clause 11 and it is very clear that they are too afraid to continue this discussion because they know what happened to them precisely as a result of their basic political view, which rests on economic considerations. In 1938 30 per cent of the South Africans voted for the National Party. In 1966 58 per cent were already voting for the National Party, and then the hon. members opposite still speak of "watchdogs”.

Order! This is irrelevant.

I should just like to qualify the reason for my reference to this. The previous hon. member said that the United Party members were the “watchdogs” of South Africa. With respect to the Chair I want to say that South Africa has been rejecting that party as “watchdogs” for the last 25 years. That is the fear of hon. members opposite. However, I find the whole matter a very simple one. The entire wording of section 71 points to the intention that if a Bill has progressed as far as this Bill during the last Session, that Bill can be continued with. If that were not the case this section would surely have read differently. I am supported in this connection by a comment of an hon. Speaker in this House on the 8th February, 1950 (Hansard, column 949), where he said the following—

Chiefly for this reason, and without going into all the other aspects which the previous speakers dealt with and which one would very much like to comment upon, something I am deliberately not doing, I gladly support the request of the hon. the Deputy Minister for the continuation of the Committee Stage of this legislation.

The matter is being discussed very broadly now and I want to appeal to hon. members to curtail their discussions so that a decision may be arrived at.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with the motion before the House and I can assure you that I intend to speak within the framework of that motion. The whole purpose of our objection to this motion is that we seek the opportunity to discuss again the principles of this Bill. Therefore there is no point in our to-night trying to discuss the principles of the Bill. We are asking, by opposing this motion, for a further opportunity to discuss those principles. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave seven reasons why the motion should be accepted. I submit that unlike the “vier dwergies” of the Prime Minister, these were seven dwarf reasons why we should pass this motion. The first of his reasons was that this Bill had been throughly discussed during the last session of this Parliament. His words were “deeglik bespreek”. But I made a particular point, by way of interjection, asking hon. members who spoke on this motion whether they had an opportunity to speak during the Second Reading debate on this Bill. I have since checked in Hansard and not one of those hon. members had an opportunity to speak during the Second Reading debate on this Bill. When I asked the hon. member for Water-kloof directly, namely “Het jy gepraat” he replied “Ek het nie kans gehad om te praat nie”. Those were his words. It is not that he did not want to speak, it is not that he had nothing to say—“Ek het nie kans gehad nie”, were his words.

No, the hon. member must come back to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the hon. the Deputy Minister said the first reason why this motion should be passed was that the House has had ample opportunity. However, I am quoting an hon. member who states that he did not have an opportunity to speak.

Order! The hon. member need not go into that matter. He must give his reasons for not accepting the motion.

The second reason which I want to give is that since this measure was introduced last year there has been a vital change in the background against which we should review legislation of this nature. That vital change has not been mentioned in this debate. That background wat that at the time we considered this measure last year the hon. the Deputy Minister—it is here recorded in Hansard—had before him a picture of population figures and population movements against which, he believed, this measure was necessary and could be implemented. Since that time that background has changed to such an extent that none of the arguments used in June last year, can be applied to-day without review, because when we are dealing with 28 million people and 40 million people, the mechanics of handling the difference between 28 and 40 million …

Where do you get the 40 million?

That is the figure which, according to an article in Die Beeld, that hon. Deputy Minister used. Machinery designed to deal with 28 million people cannot function when it is dealing with 30, 35 or 40 million people, because it is designed to deal with a different problem. I submit …

What does the Act deal with?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks me to discuss the Bill. I am not prepared to breach your ruling. If he wants me to, I will go through it clause by clause.

Order! I hope hon. members will now cease these interruptions.

i

This measure was designed to meet a set of circumstances and a certain situation. We submit that since those circumstances have changed, we in this House should have the opportunity to discuss it again. The third reason against passing this motion is the atmosphere in which this measure was debated last year. We started the debate on the 18th June. On that day the hon. the Minister introduced the measure and we discussed it until the conclusion of the debate on the 18th June. The debate was then broken. We came back to it after having dealt with other urgent matters. We started to discuss it again at column 8628 of Hansard. We then broke off again and dealt with other matters. We came back to it only on the 20th June at column 8667 of Hansard. In other words this measure was debated last year in an atmosphere of broken debate. There was no opportunity for this House to give proper continuity to its consideration because we were debating it in an atmosphere in which there was a deadline for this House to rise. A deadline had been set; certain legislation had to be passed. Against that deadline this measure had to be fitted in. It was not debated in the spirit in which a fundamental Bill is debated. It was slipped in in bits and pieces as other legislation created gaps in the programme. Any hon. member on that side of the House will know that there was no opportunity for this House to deal with this measure with the serious consideration which it deserves. We feel that when South Africa is being asked to pass a measure of this nature it should be given the opportunity to give proper deep and unbroken consideration to its principles.

I want to give a further reason why this motion should not be passed to-night. From approximately the end of this month until the 22nd April the Government will be engaged as the Opposition will be—but I speak of the Government because it is their responsibility —in fighting an election. That will mean that until approximately the end of April no thought or consideration can be given to the implementation of this measure. I have seen the programme of meetings that the hon. the Minister and his Deputy will hold. They will not have time to give consideration to the implementation and the regulations required under this measure. They will then have 21/2 months from approximately the end of April until the 17th July. They will have 21/2 months, if they should by accident and by tragedy win the election, in which to implement this measure. I do not want to repeat the arguments which were made earlier, that we in fact will repeal this measure, because that is what will happen. However, if it should happen that the Government returns, we submit that it could not in fact apply or create any effect out of this Bill. My sixth reason why we should not pass this motion …

What were the other five reasons?

If the hon. member was rot listening, I am not going to repeat them. My sixth reason is that if we accept this motion, we are accepting a measure which transfers from seven Ministers of State powers which are spread amongst them into the hands of one Minister. The seven Ministers are the Ministers of Bantu Administration, of Planning, of Labour, of Water Affairs, of Economic Affairs, of Transport and of Finance. At the moment, in order to implement what this measure is aimed at, those seven Ministers must work together; their departments must co-operate through a committee and there must be consultation between them. Now we are being asked to transfer from those seven Ministers an overriding power to the hon. the Deputy Minister who is before us here.

Finally I should like to say that this measure which we are being asked to deal with here is a measure which can do South Africa infinite harm in the atmosphere in which we live today. Of all times when the hostile eyes of the outside world are on us, this is not the occasion io introduce legislation which rightly or wrongly will be interpreted by the hostile Press of the world as dictatorial, as totalitarian and as oppressive. Whether that be right or wrong I am not entitled to debate. I do not want to. I say that at this time with the hostility against South Africa, this is not the time to hand a weapon to our enemies. With an election ahead of us, after that election when we can become the government, we can deal with measures of this sort. I promise hon. members that there will then be no need for this measure. I oppose the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by referring to the hon. member for Durban (Point) who has just said, inter alia, that the atmosphere in which this Bill was discussed towards the end of the session last year was supposedly not the right one. He said: “By bits and pieces this Bill was slipped in between us”. However, I have the Hansard report of last year’s debate here with me. I just want to point out to him that the Second Reading of this Bill was taken on Wednesday, 18th June. That evening a long discussion was conducted about it in this House. It was then continued immediately the following day, Thursday, 19th June.

What happened in the interim?

On Friday, 20th June I replied in this House to the assertions made by hon. members on that side of the House. The assertion which he made here that this Bill was passed in bits and pieces is therefore completely incorrect. This is how many Bills are piloted through this House.

There is another matter which I really take amiss of him. Perhaps it was because the hon. member was not prepared. During the Second Reading last year the gist of my reply was that the United Party was conjuring up spectres in connection with this Bill. I think I mentioned 71 spectres which they conjured up in this way. In the meantime a few months have gone by. What strikes me, is how one speaker after another on the United Party side got up here again to-night and had the most glaring and blatantly ignorant things to say about this Bill. I do not want to go into details now. You would not permit me to do so, Sir. I promise to cover this field thoroughly during the Committee Stage. Hon. members want to create the impression that this is a complicated Bill, despite the fact that a comprehensive White Paper has already been laid upon the Table months ago. I myself took the trouble to table another White Paper, in case they had thrown away the original one, as so often happens. Despite that, and because they are unprepared, the hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke very verbosely of “dictatorial powers”. In addition, he still had the audacity to tell the Chair that he did not know whether he might use those words. But he nevertheless used them. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) spoke of a wicked Bill and said, “this is going to do South Africa’s name overseas irreparable damage”. This is the type of thing that was said. I want to point out that when this Bill is being discussed in the Committee Stage, hon. members will find out how completely mistaken they are. Although the following charge was levelled against us, i.e. that this Bill “will damage South Africa’s good name overseas”, the true position is that they are the people who are damaging and prejudicing South Africa’s good name overseas, because they conjure up spectres without truly realizing what is going on.

Innocent little Snow White.

I take the strongest exception, Mr. Speaker, to what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said about dictatorial powers. The same goes for the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). The words which he used, will definitely damage South Africa’s name overseas. Every speaker on the opposite side of the House put forward, inter alia, as reason why the Bill should not be proceeded with the fact that it was being done before the election. Surely a more nonsensical reason does not exist. They themselves discussed this Bill for 10 hours during the Second Reading. I want to point out that the maximum duration of time for a Second Reading debate is 12 hours. Last year when there was no talk of any election they discussed the Bill for 10 hours. The Second Reading was also agreed to. Now hon. members on that side get up and advance as argument the fact that we are coming forward with this Bill right before the election. Surely that is completely untrue and nonsensical.

Then hon. members allege further that “changed circumstances” have supposedly arisen. I listened very closely to what those “changed circumstances” supposedly were. I was very surprised, because I did not know what those “changed circumstances” could be. I found out what they were, however, when the hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke. He was the only person who tried to show what “changed circumstances” had arisen between last year and the present. It was the so-called numbers aspect, which is also devoid of any truth. At that time it was already being mentioned in certain circles that there would be 40 million and not 28 million Bantu by the year 2000. Consequently that argument does not hold water either. If they want to advance the argument of “changed circumstances” in regard to this Bill, I shall tell you what the “changed circumstances” really are. The “changed circumstances” are the fact that the United Party has landed itself in a terrible predicament with this Bill. The predicament they have landed themselves in is the fact that they are really facing an election now, and that, with a view to the election, they do not know how to handle this Bill, or what defence to put up. There are “changed circumstances” which have arisen. I noticed how hard they were trying this evening to turn this very important matter into a light-hearted debate.

That is untrue. What was light-hearted about it? On a point of order, Sir, is that not a reflection on the Chair?

Order!

That hon. member whom we all like, finds it very difficult in any case to act anything but light-heartedly in the House, and not to make us laugh. It is not my intention to go into any of the principles of the clauses.

I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will not go too far.

I shall not, Mr. Speaker, I promise. I just want to point out that they have landed themselves in this difficulty as a result of the fact that clause 11 contains the important provision, i.e. that an end is now being made to labour integration in the Republic of South Africa. That is the difficulty they are faced with.

What will Ben Schoeman say about that?

I want to bring an important point to the notice of the House categorically and with the greatest emphasis. Various hon. members argued this evening as if this Bill had something to do with section 10 of the Urban Areas Act of 1945. I now want to state categorically and with the greatest emphasis that no word or clause in this Bill has anything to do with section 10.

Has it any influence on the effects of section 10?

This Bill has nothing to do with section 10. I say this with the greatest emphasis.

Does it have any effect on it?

We can discuss that later.

In fact, the debate on this motion should really have dealt only with one single point of procedure, and that is whether we were justified in continuing with the Bill in accordance with Standing Order No. 71.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must return to the motion now.

Mr. Speaker, if we discuss the point of procedure in terms of Standing Order No. 71 it is very clear that in terms of the Standing Orders and morally we have the right to proceed with this Bill.

Order! Yes, but it is not necessary for the hon. the Deputy Minister to emphasize this. It is in terms of a ruling by the Chair that the discussion is taking place in this way.

Hon. members advanced or tried to advance various reasons why we could not proceed with this Bill. Surely I am therefore entitled to point out that what is at issue here is a point of procedure. I want to conclude by pointing out that it is the Cabinet which adopted a resolution to the effect that this Bill should be preceded with, because various hon. members on that side of the House tried to cause a rift between various Ministers of the Cabinet. It is something which cannot simply be left at that. [Laughter.] But of course. It is according to a resolution adopted by the Cabinet that this Bill is being passed. While I want to thank the Opposition for not talking at length about the motion this evening, I want to say that this Bill will most certainly serve as a nail in the coffin of the United Party at the ensuing election.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. H. Torlage, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As a result of certain criticism of our apprenticeship system, I requested the National Apprenticeship Board as far back as 1967 to give its attention once again to this important system of training and to submit recommendations in regard to any improvements to be effected. The Board’s unanimous finding was that our apprenticeship system was inherently sound. However, the representative on the Board of SEIFSA, that is, the Iron and Steel Federation, submitted details of a scheme designed to stimulate the training of apprentices by means of a levy system. The Federation hit upon this idea because certain employers were training apprentices at great expense, while others were avoiding the responsibility of providing training and were enticing trained staff away from firms which provided training.

In principle, the National Apprenticeship Board was favourably disposed towards the Federation’s proposal, and it appointed a special committee to investigate the matter and to report on it.

SEIFSA’s representative on the Board was sent overseas by his organization to study the training schemes which were applicable in, inter alia, the United Kingdom.

The finding was that those training schemes were aimed solely at enabling industries or groups of industries to establish training boards and to impose levies on employers, matters which here in the Republic can be handled as well, if not better, under the Apprenticeship Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act.

On the basis of these findings the National Apprenticeship Board recommended, inter alia, that industrial boards should themselves, by means of their agreements, take the lead according to their own requirements as far as the introduction and financing of training schemes were concerned.

As apprenticeship training forms only part of the larger whole, it was also recommended that industries which undertake training schemes should be encouraged to extend them to all levels of work activity.

The recommendation about th“ introduction of training schemes amounts to this, that employers in any particular industry will contribute towards a training fund according to a prescribed formula and will be entitled to be compensated in terms of that formula for the training which they undertake. In this way employers who provide no training will be obliged to help to defray the costs connected with training. This recommendation requires no amendment of the existing Act. Such funds are in fact in operation under the Industrial Conciliation Act, e.g. the National Development Fund for the building industry.

Workers who are trained at great expense in one industry or area are, however, often enticed away by employers in another industry or area who spare themselves the trouble and expenditure connected with training. In order to combat this tendency, clause 2 (a) provides that an industrial council agreement which makes provision for a training scheme in respect of any particular industry, can also be made applicable to another industry and to the same industry in another area. Such application will mean that all employers in the industry concerned or in the same industry in different areas who require the services of a particular category of worker, will have to contribute towards the training of that class of worker. However, the Bill provides that before the levy system of one industry can be made applicable to another industry or in an additional area, the Minister must consult any industrial council registered in respect of such additional area or in respect of such other industry.

It is further provided that the Minister must publish a provisional notice in order to afford interested parties an opportunity to lodge objections, should they have any. The period within which objections must be lodged is 90 days.

Provision is also made for the appointment of persons by the Minister to represent the parties in the other industry and area on the body which is responsible for the administration of the training fund.

In clause 3 of the Bill provision is made for training schemes and levies in industries which do not have the machinery of industrial councils. The clause provides that when any group or association of employers have arrived at a training scheme in respect of employees who are not subject to a scheme in terms of an industrial council agreement, the first-mentioned scheme may be declared binding for all employers in the same industry and area, provided that the Minister is satisfied that the group or association concerned is sufficiently representative.

Provision is also made for such scheme to be extended to the same industry in another area if unfair competition exists, on the same basis as the extension of agreements in terms of section 48 (1) (c) of the existing Act. However, it will not be possible to extend such scheme to another industry as in the case of industrial council agreements. Most employer organizations are opposed to such extensions and it is the view that in such cases the employers concerned should proceed to the establishment of an industrial council, which will then have the necessary authority.

These, Mr. Speaker, are the main provisions of the Bill. The amendments contained in the other clauses are consequential amendments which arise from clauses 2 (a) and 3, and have already been set out in the explanatory memorandum which I laid on the Table last year.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that a draft Bill was published on 22nd January of last year for general information and comment. From the comments which have been received, it appears that the proposed measure enjoys general support, and apart from certain amendments which have been made to give effect, as far as practicable, to representations which have been received, the measure is largely the same as that which was published for objections. The most important amendments which have been made are the extension of the period within which objections may be lodged in terms of clause 2 (a) from 30 to 60 days and the insertion of a new requirement in the same clause to the effect that before a training scheme of one industry may be applied to another industry or area, the Minister must consult any industrial council which is registered in respect of such additional area or other industry.

I may add, Mr. Speaker, that the principles of this measure also have the full support of a sub-committee which was appointed by the Economic Advisory Council to investigate the matter. The Economic Advisory Council has already approved that the committee concerned should continue in existence and should report on the progress which is made with the introduction of levy and training schemes. The committee is empowered also to bring into the matter groups which as yet have no representation on the committee.

I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the measure will meet with the general approval of this House as well.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, as the official Opposition, will support this measure. We do so because the main principle of this Bill is to make further provision for the better training of manpower. I believe that at this stage in South Africa’s history, the start of a new decade, the decade of the 1970s, it is appropriate that this House should be asked to consider the problem of the better training of manpower to enable the country to face the coming decade and the challenges which this will provide. We on this side of the House have for long been drawing to the attention of the Government the problems which are arising as a result of the manpower shortage in this country. In particular, last year, through the hon. member for Hillbrow, we introduced a private member’s Bill, which is even more important than a private member’s motion, dealing with this subject. Therefore, Sir, we are pleased to see that this Government has at last taken a step in the right direction, a step towards providing some machinery for the better training of our workers. Because we consider this measure a step in the right direction we shall be supporting this Bill.

However, for reasons which I shall elaborate in a moment, we consider this Bill to be completely inadequate for the task which lies before us at the start of this new decade. We know, Sir, the strides that have been made by this country in the last 30 years, the strides which have been made because of the tremendous human and natural resources at our command in this country, and the strides which have been possible because of this, despite— and I should like to emphasize this point—the many restrictive policies of this Government. We know, Sir, that economists and industrialists, in increasing numbers, have been drawing attention to the fact that the greatest obstacle to economic advancement in this country is the shortage of skilled workers, technicians and other highly trained personnel, not only in industry but also in commerce. In increasing numbers, knowledgeable persons have been drawing attention to this fact. In increasing numbers, these people have been describing this as a manpower crisis. Now what do we find the hon. the Minister of Labour doing? We find that he is obstinately refusing to see this problem as a crisis, despite the fact that at least two of his colleagues who sit in the Cabinet have described the position in these words. One of them is no less a person than the hon. Minister of finance and the other a somewhat lesser person but one whom I am sure would not like to be considered as being too much less a person than the hon. Minister of Finance, namely the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who is not in the House this evening. Whether or not the hon. Minister of Labour is prepared to accept the problem as a crisis, the fact of the matter is that there is a serious manpower shortage and that much the hon. the Minister must accept.

Order! The hon. member is going beyond the scope of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out with respect that the whole object of this Bill is to provide for better training of workers.

I have allowed the hon. member to make these general remarks but I hope he will come back to the Bill now.

The problem of a manpower shortage must be seen in relation to South African conditions. An insufficient number of people are being trained to meet expanding demands for labour and to meet the increasing complexity of modern industry and modern commerce. Bearing this fact in mind I should like to look at this Bill. Mr. Speaker, I submit to you and to the House, and this is also the contention of this side of the House, that while this Bill of the hon. the Minister helps in some respects to provide other methods of training, it will be completely inadequate for the needs of the coming decade. In our opinion it will be inadequate for several reasons. Other reasons will be submitted to the House by other speakers on this side of the House. I wish to refer to a few reasons only.

Many parts of this Bill are extremely obscure in phraseology. For example, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will be interested to learn that one clause in this Bill contains a single sentence which runs into 235 words.

Will the hon. member rather try to amend that during the Committee Stage?

Mr. Speaker, I assure you that we have no intention whatsoever of trying to amend this Bill. This is the responsibility of the hon. Minister of Labour. We are supporting the Bill because its main principle is to take a few steps forward in the training of manpower. However, we consider it to be so inadequate that we do not propose to introduce any amendments. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Leader points out that the inadequacies of this Bill are no doubt due to a shortage of manpower in the hon. the Minister’s department. This is the first inadequacy, in our opinion, of this Bill. The phraseology is obscure. In some respects it makes it extremely difficult to interpret what is intended. I am referring to the proposed amendment of subparagraph (d) of subsection (1) of section 48 in clause 2. But there are other parts of this Bill that are also obscure.

The second reason why in our opinion this Bill is inadequate, is that it does not provide for advanced training over a wide range of industrial and particularly commercial activity. It has no relation to commercial activity at all. I will come back to this aspect a little later.

The third reason why we regard this Bill as inadequate, is that there is no provision in the Bill for the proper training of the staff who will be required to train the workers. There is not a single clause in this Bill dealing either with the staff which is to be required, i.e. where they are to be obtained, what qualifications they are to have or, above all, what training they themselves are to have to provide the training which is envisaged for the workers. This, in our opinion, is a very serious deficiency in this Bill.

The fourth reason why this Bill is inadequate, is that it links training to Industrial Councils. In our opinion, if this problem of the proper training of manpower is to be tackled in the way in which it should be, there is only one way in which it should be done, and that is by a separate measure to provide separate manpower training, free of the provisions of the Industrial Council. We say this because, first of all, the Industrial Conciliation Act is limited in its application. It does not deal with all workers at all. It does not deal with Bantu at all, for example. And, above all, it does not deal with all the white workers. Now, surely, a Bill which is aimed at the proper training of manpower for the future needs of South Africa should include the proper training of all workers in commerce and industry. The hon. member who sits behind the hon. Minister of Labour—I am not sure of his constituency—when I referred to the fact that the Industrial Conciliation Act did not refer to Bantu, immediately said “Daar’s hy!” I can anticipate what is going to happen in this debate. All the speakers on the Nationalist side are going to turn this into a “swart gevaar” debate. They are going to make the allegations against this side of the House that all we are concerned about is the proper training for non-Whites. What nonsense! Even they on that side of the House have said time and time again, through the hon. the Minister of Labour and also through other Ministers, that they themselves stand for the better training of the non-White races, not only the Bantu but also the Coloureds and Indians. Are hon. members opposite going to deny now that they stand for the better training of all the non-White races? Of course they will not.

The fourth reason why we consider this Bill to be inadequate is that it links training to industrial councils instead of dealing with itas an entirely separate issue under an entirely separate bill. What do we need? In our opinion we need, as I have said, a separate bill which will deal with the problem as a separate issue, because, in this way, we can then ensure that proper provision will be made not only for the workers who are covered by the Indus-trial Conciliation Act, but also for all workers in industry and all workers in commerce. The hon. the Minister seems to look at this simply as an extension of the present apprentice training schemes. He seems to look at it in this narrow framework. We on this side have a far more broader vision when we speak of properman power training in South Africa. We look at it not only from the point of view of industry, but we also look at it from the point of view of commerce; we look at it not only from the point of view of apprentices, but also all other categories of workers within these industries. The objectives which this Bill requires in our opinion are basically, first of all, to ensure that an adequate supply of trained men and women at all levels of industry and commerce can be provided to meet the needs of the decade that is before us, namely that of the 1970s. We believe that that cannot be done in terms of the amendments which are proposed by the hon. the Minister and which have a very narrow limit indeed. We believe that the second objective should be to en surean improvement in the quality and efficiency of training. It is only by improvements in these two regards that productivity, which we have been hearing so much about, can be improved. Where is there one single word in this Bill which has to do with this aspect of the matter,namely with the improvement of the quality and efficiency of training? There is not one word. The third objective, of course, is that the Bill should deal with the sharing of the cost of training more evenly between organizations in the same industry. It has been the experience that some industrialists are conscientious about this matter of training their workers and are prepared to spend money on it. Very often the result is that within a short time they lose the personnel that they have trained to their competitors or to other industries. Some provisions must, therefore, be made for reasonable contributions within an industry so that there will be a fair sharing of the costs amongst those who undertake the task of training. This Bill makes most inadequate provision in this respect. I agree with the hon. the Minister that it does refer to some form of sharing of levies, but it is in a most inadequate way with which we can deal more fully when we come to the Committee stage.

We have yet another reason for suggesting that this is an inadequate Bill. Nowhere does this measure give the impression that it is designed to thrust South Africa well into the technological era of the 1970s by providing the fully trained workers which will be required both in industry and commerce. It is a Bill with a very narrow vision. We see this problem on a much broader front. We see this problem as a measure which should be related to the age in which we live, which is the jet age. The hon. the Minister and his Government appear to look at this measure still from the point of view of a slow moving economy, an economy where steps can be taken gradually. This is not our vision of this problem at all. It will be our task when we take over the Government of this country, to place before this House and before the country a measure which will deal with this problem, with the responsibility, the courage and the vision which are required in this day and age. It is for these reasons that we shall support this measure but we shall draw attention to its inadequacy.

Before I sit down, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how he can reconcile the introduction of this Bill with the way in which he and the hon. members on that side of the House acted when the hon. member for Hill-brow introduced his Manpower Training Bill last year? This was a measure with precisely the same basic principle, i.e. the training of manpower. What did the hon. the Minister and the hon. members on that side of the House do? They voted against the measure at its Second Reading. They voted against the principle of adequate proper training of manpower.

Did you say “adequate”?

Yes, that is right, adequate training. It would be interesting for the sake of the record to refer to the fact that 62 members on that side of the House voted against that Manpower Training Bill…

Yes, but that should not be discussed now.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, it was a Bill with precisely the same principle.

Order! That might be so, but the hon. member must come back to the discussion of this Bill. We are not dealing with that now.

I do not wish to pursue this. However, I wish merely to place on record the reference to that debate, i.e. column 1663 of volume 25 of the debates of 1969.

I wish also to refer the hon. the Minister to one further matter before I sit down. I want to refer him to the fact that when this Bill, the one which is before the House to-night, was introduced last year, we on this side of the House asked the hon. the Minister to refer the Bill to a Select Committee before the Second Reading or if he preferred it, to a commission of inquiry so that it would be possible to provide the best instrument to meet the needs of manpower training. The hon. the Minister told us that this could not be accepted because the measure was so urgent that it had to be passed immediately. Now, Mr. Speaker, it was not passed last year. A whole year has elapsed, a year during which, had a commission been appointed, this important question could have been thoroughly canvassed and we could have placed before the House to-day a measure which would have adequately dealt with the needs of this country regarding manpower shortage, instead of the measure which we have to-day which we, on this side of the House, are convinced will not meet the requirements and which will have either to be amended in the future or will have to be superseded by an entirely new measure such as the one which we suggest.

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Musgrave. It is also very clear that this hon. member knows very little about labour legislation. The hon. member’s entry into this debate reminds me of the Australian cricket team whose wickets began to fall very quickly, that hon. member being sent in at the last moment to try to save the situation.

A “nightwatchman”.

Yes, a “nightwatchman”. It is very clear that the hon. member for Hillbrow is the member who should have come in to bat now. Unfortunately he does not have the courage to take part in the debate at this time of the night, since he usually only issues statements and there are apparently too few pressmen in the press gallery at the moment.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your decision. I am dealing with the Bill. The defence that was put forward here and the attack that was launched were really very feeble. One is nevertheless grateful that the Opposition displayed the common sense to support this Bill which was introduced by the hon. the Minister of Labour.

That is what you did not have.

The hon. member says that that was what we did not have. It would have been very foolish if this side of the House accepted the Bill which the hon. member submitted, a Bill he copied from the British Industrial Training Act, instead of this Bill with which we could introduce much better legislation by amending six or seven clauses of the Industrial Conciliation Act. The hon. member says it was foolish of us not to accept it. That hon. member never took the trouble to investigate and to study our own existing legislation properly. Had he done so it would not have been necessary for him to go and ferret around in the British statute books and to do all the translations necessary to make this Act comprehensible to this House. I told the hon. member last year that he was displaying his ignorance here with the Act to which he referred. He is nothing more than a “copy cat”. To-day we have legislation here before the House which we shall discuss further in the course of time. This legislation is altogether acceptable and I am therefore grateful for the fact that the hon. Opposition will support it. However, the hon. member has quite a few objections to the legislation which they want to support. We shall certainly come back to those objections. The hon. member for Musgrave said here that the legislation placed before the House did not meet with the requirements of our demands for trained manpower. We shall most certainly also come to that aspect of the matter, in order to prove the contrary, i.e. that this legislation makes much better provision for that than the legislation that was submitted to us last year and about which the hon. member had so much to say. We shall prove this. Our industrial conciliation legislation makes provision for the fact that with very small amendments we can change the legislation to meet the requirements. The hon. member jumped the gun and said that the legislation did not make provision for the training of the Bantu. That is the crux of the whole matter. They want the kind or Act that will flood the labour market with black workers because they do not care about the white worker. That hon. member could not help himself and had to let the cat out of the bag.

Are you opposed to the training of non-Whites?

No, no one is against the training of the non-Whites, but this must not take place at the expense of the Whites in South Africa. I mentioned a few matters here …

Order! I hope this has a bearing on the legislation.

I have just come to the legislation. Mr. Speaker. I was just giving the introduction. It is my pleasant privilege to support wholeheartedly the legislation submitted by the hon. the Minister to this House, because this legislation is practical and can be implemented at little cost. Last year we did not support the hon. member for Hillbrow’s Bill, but we could not do so for various reasons. If time allows me to do so I shall also indicate here why this side of the House could not support the hon. member for Hillbrow’s Bill.

What are the reasons?

There are sufficient reasons and we shall give these reasons to the hon. member. After we have given the reasons to the Opposition they will make a very shamefaced exit from this debate.

Order: The hon. member said that he would come back to the Bill. He must do so now.

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the Bill.

We are still waiting for the reasons.

There are certain reasons justifying the introduction of this Bill, because when such a Bill is introduced there must be reasons for doing so.

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

I just want to inform the House what business will be dealt with next week. On Monday and Tuesday the House will deal with the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill. Then the House will deal with all the Orders of the Day in the sequence in which they appear on the Order Paper, except that precedence will be given to the Additional Appropriation Bill on Thursday. We want to dispose of the financial measures as soon as possible.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

In the Bill now under consideration, Parliament is asked to make provision for the financing of Government expenditure as from 1st April, until such time as it is possible to pass the main Appropriation Act for the 1970-’71 financial year.

An amount of R1,140,000 is asked on Revenue Account, R390,000,000 on Loan Account, R30,000,000 on Bantu Education Account and R40,000,000 on South West Africa Account. These amounts may only be spent on services already approved by Parliament under an Appropriation Act or on services for which statutory authority exists.

Hon. members will notice that the amounts asked for under the various Accounts are considerably higher than those normally provided for. The reason for this is that the Appropriation Bill will not be introduced during this Session and sufficient provision should, therefore, be made to cover Government expenditure for at least 7 to 7+ months.

Since Government expenditure fluctuates from month to month, the amounts requested under the various Accounts cannot be taken as an indication of the possible expenditures for the 1970-’71 financial year.

Mr. Speaker, it is not normal practice for a Minister of finance to anticipate his Budget speech when he deals with the Part Appropriation Bill. However, in view of the fact that the Budget statement will only be delivered during the next session of Parliament, I wish to avail myself of the opportunity to raise a few fiscal and financial matters and to make a brief statement on our economic position.

It is still too early to make an accurate estimate of our revenue and expenditure for the current fiscal year. The indications are, however, that expenditure on revenue account will be higher than the amount originally appropriated, largely because of increases in salaries, in provincial subsidies, in university grants and in certain other services for which provision will be requested in the Additional Estimates. Revenue will probably also be higher than originally estimated, mainly be cause of higher receipts from those taxes which are associated with the high level of prosperity in our country.

Expenditure from Loan Votes is expected to be about the same as the amount originally appropriated, apart from an amount to be included in the Additional Estimates to which I shall refer later. Receipts on Loan Account have, however, been adversely affected by the tightness of the local capital market, but the shortfall may be met to some extent from additional foreign borrowing at present under consideration. Any remaining deficit can be easily met from the opening balance on Loan Account and by transfers from the Revenue or Stabilization Accounts.

I should like to say a few words about the relaxations of sales duty recently announced. In my Budget speech last year I pointed out that it was very difficult to be sure that the yield of sales duty had been estimated with reasonable accuracy and that the application of the duty would not result in certain anomalies. For this reason I was given the authority to reduce the sales duty on any article at any time, in anticipation of subsequent parliamentary approval. It was not possible before the closing months of the year, however, to obtain a reasonably reliable estimate of the revenue from the sales duty. As soon as it became clear that a somewhat higher yield than the original estimate could be expected, I instructed my Department to explore the possibility of reducing the rates of duty where the concessions would most benefit the lower income groups and where it would remove administrative difficulties or anomalies. The Department submitted its proposals and the reductions were announced at the earliest possible date. I must also emphasize once again that, while the interests of the lower income groups will always be taken into account, it is simply not possible to confine the duty to pure luxuries if the necessary revenue is to be raised. In my Budget speech last year, I clearly stated that the basis of the duty would be domestic consumption, but that items which play a large role in the expenditure of the lower income groups would be excluded. I shall always be ready to consider the reduction of any duty which presses unduly hard on the less fortunate members of the community. The fact that file duty is estimated to be responsible for a rise of only 0.7 per cent in the consumers’ price index— a once-for-all rise—is an indication that its burden, even before the recent concessions, was not unduly severe.

I have to announce an administrative change which should facilitate the payment and collection of the sales duty. Shortly after the introduction of the duty it was decided that manufacturers should pay the duty quarterly, during the month following the quarter to which the payment related; for the last quarter of the financial year, however, it was laid down that payment had to be made before the end of the quarter, the payment in respect of the last month of the financial year being based upon an estimate of the amount due. It has now been decided to dispense with this latter requirement; in other words, payment of sales duty by manufacturers in respect of the quarter January to March, 1970 need only be made during April. This should be of considerable assistance to manufacturers, to the Department of Customs and Excise, and also to the banks who might otherwise have been called upon to finance the earlier payment of the duty.

Hon. members will not expect me to deal in any detail with the fiscal prospects for the next financial year, but there are a few points I wish to mention.

The first concerns concessions to social pensioners. Although the Budget for 1970-’71 will only be introduced during the second Session this year, I do not think it would be fair to ask social pensioners to wait until then for the relief which the Government has found it possible to extend to them. I am therefore glad to announce that the Government has decided to increase social pensions and grants payable to white persons in the Republic by R2 per person with effect from 1st April, 1970. This increase applies to old age pensions, war veteran’s pensions, blind persons’ pensions, disability grants, maintenance grants and family allowances. At the same time, the bonus payable, which amounts at present to R5 per month, will be consolidated with the basic pension or grant. As a result of these concessions the maximum basic pension will amount to R35 per month per person and R43 per month in respect of war veterans. Consolidation also brings about an appropriate adjustment in the means plus pension limitation and in the maximum assets allowed to qualify for the minimum pension.

Settlers’ allowances and veterans’ pensions payable in South West Africa in terms of the German War Veterans’ Pensions Ordinance of 1965 will be increased correspondingly.

It has further been decided that, in cases where maintenance grants or family allowances are paid under the Children’s Act, the basic children’s allowance and bonus should be consolidated. In addition, the difference in the allowances payable in respect of the first two children and that payable to the third child will be eliminated, and the allowance payable to school children, amounting at present to R2 per month in respect of each child attending primary school and R4 per month for each child attending secondary school will be increased to R5 per month in both cases. A widow with three school children will henceforth receive R90 per month compared with R83 per month at present being paid to a widow with three children in high school. The children’s allowances payable to settlers will be similarly increased. All these concessions will apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the children’s allowances payable in South West Africa.

As a further concession, the capitation grants payable to children’s homes and foster parents will be increased by R2 to R22 per month. This increase, however, does not apply to grants payable to foster parents in the territory of South West Africa, as such grants are already higher than those payable in the Republic.

The increase in social pensions and grants nccessittes a corresponding increase in the minimum pension payable to ex-employees of the State. It has accordingly been decided to increase the minimum pension payable to a single person from R50 to R52 per month and that payable to a married person or unmarried person with dependants from R100 to R104 per month.

It has also been decided to provide relief to war pensioners by increasing the bonus of 10 per cent at present being paid to them to 12½ per cent.

The concessions mentioned above are those applicable to white pensioners, but corresponding increases are also being made in the social pensions and grants payable to Coloured, Indian and Bantu pensioners.

All these increases will, as I have mentioned, take effect from 1st April, 1970, and the total additional cost will be approximately R10.5 million for the year 1970-71.

There are also two tax matters to which I wish to refer, since they will affect tax assessments for the current tax year ending on 28th February, 1970. The concessions to married women announced in the last budget do not apply to the earnings of a married woman from a partnership of which she or her husband is a member, or from a private company of which she or her husband is the sole or one of the principal shareholders. This seems unduly restrictive and legislation will be introduced next session, with retrospective effect, to extend the concession to the earnings of a married woman from a partnership or private company except when her husband is a member or a sole or principal shareholder. The second concession concerns medical expenses. The amount allowed is R150 for married and R75 for unmarried persons. An unmarried person who is the sole support of a dependant is, however, entitled to R150. I feel that the same should apply to a divorced person who maintains a child out of his or her own resources, without assistance from the other parent. Here again legislation will be introduced with retrospective effect.

I should like now to give the House a brief picture of the economic and financial situation of the Republic as it has developed over the past year. Comprehensive statistics for the year 1969 are not yet available so that the picture is not in all respects completely clear.

It seems reasonably certain, nevertheless, that the real gross domestic product increased during 1969 at a rate well in excess of the target growth rate of 5½ per cent. Moreover, all components of gross domestic expenditure increased at a relatively high rate during the first three quarters of 1969 and this trend probably continued during the fourth quarter.

Private fixed investment showed a distinct upward trend during the first nine months of 1969 and was 12 per cent higher during this period than during the corresponding period of 1968.

This vigorous growth was reflected in the index of the physical volume of manufacturing production which, during the first ten months of 1969, was on average 10 per cent higher than during the corresponding period of 1968. The physical volume of mining production, on the other hand, increased by only 2.1 per cent, despite a sharp rise in gold mining production.

While good rains have fallen over many parts of the country, especially during the earlier months of the summer, the position in other parts is less favourable and in some areas the farming community is facing a grave situation. The Government is giving urgent attention to this problem.

Another factor which is at present causing difficulty to many sectors of the farming community is the prevailing high level of interest rates. The Government has decided to include in the Additional Estimates for the current year an amount of R15 million as a loan to the Land Bank, at 2 per cent interest, in order to enable the Land Bank to assist more farmers at a low rate of interest.

Most economic indicators confirm the strong upward movement of the economy. For the corresponding period of 1969 compared with 1968, merchandise imports increased by 14 per cent, sales of new commercial vehicles by 30 per cent, new motor cars by 18 per cent, value of wholesale sales by 9.5 per cent and value of building plans passed by 26 per cent.

The acceleration in economic activity led to an all-round increase in salaries and wages. Salaries and wages per white employee in manufacturing, for example, increased by about 7 per cent and in construction and the railway service by about 8 per cent during the first ten or eleven months of 1969, compared with the corresponding period of 1968.

Employment in manufacturing, construction and especially in the Post Office increased substantially during the first ten months of 1969. This, in turn, led to a further decline in the number of unemployed Whites, Coloured and Asiatics from a seasonally adjusted total of 11,740 in December, 1968 to 9,359 in November, 1969.

This vigorous expansion in the economy was achieved with a comparatively moderate rise in prices. The seasonally adjusted index of consumer prices increased by 3.3 per cent during 1969, compared with 2.9 per cent during 1968. If the effect of the sales duty is excluded, the increase in 1969 was 2.6 per cent. Wholesale prices rose by 2.3 per cent in 1969; if sales duty is excluded, the increase was only 1.4 per cent.

The acceleration in economic activity during 1969 resulted in the appearance of a deficit on the current account of the balance of payments. Preliminary estimates indicate that the deficit for the year was in the vicinity of R140 million, compared with a surplus of R90 million in 1968. Imports rose from R1,930 million in 1968 to about R2,200 million in 1969, and while net gold output increased, merchandise exports remained at about the level of R1,500 million reached in 1968.

The net capital inflow declined substantially in 1969 but still amounted to about R70 million as compared with R446 million in 1968.

Total gold and foreign exchange reserves therefore declined by approximately R70 million during 1969.

The deficit on our balance of payments helped to reduce the excess liquidity in the private sector. On the other hand bank credit to the private sector increased by R493 million or 17.7 per cent during 1969. Bank credit to the government sector increased only slightly over the year, a decline in the first half being followed by a substantial rise in the second half. The net result of these and other factors was that the total quantity of money and nearmoney increased by 10.3 per cent during 1969, that is, at a considerably slower rate than the 20.7 per cent of 1968. The greater part of the increase in 1969, however, occurred during the last five months of the year.

Surplus liquid assets of monetary banking institutions still amounted to some R286 million at the end of 1969, but seasonal factors will probably cause a tightening of their liquidity during the early months of 1970.

The very strong position of the economy is not reflected in the Stock Exchange, and I wish to emphasize once again that the level of share prices should not be regarded as a barometer of our economic position. After climbing to unprecedented heights during the early months of 1969, the prices of industrial and commercial shares have, on the average, now fallen to approximately the levels which obtained about the middle of 1968—i.e. still substantially above the level of two years ago. Gold mining shares have fluctuated less widely but also show appreciable declines.

Hon. members will recall that in October last year I instructed my Department to investigate the conditions prevailing on the Stock Exchange and the circumstances which gave rise to the decline in share prices. Senior officials of the Office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions interviewed representatives of the Stock Exchange and of the most important financial institutions in the country. Among these men of divergent interests, but all in close touch with the Exchange, my officials found a remarkable consensus, from which it is possible to form a balanced view of the course of share prices during the past 12 months.

The main conclusion was that share prices during the second quarter of 1969 reached un realistic and unsustainable heights, and that a corrective decline was inevitable. Among the factors responsible for the excessive rise in share prices were: the high degree of liquidity in the economy associated with the inflow of foreign capital; the substantial volume of credit granted by banks and other financial institutions which went to finance, directly or indirectly, the purchase of shares; the administrative dislocation in the Offices of brokers and transfer secretaries caused by the tremendous volume of business which led to delays in requiring payment of minimum cover from clients and consequently to the unofficial extension of a huge volume of credit to such clients some estimates put the figure at hundreds of millions of rand; the lack of knowledge and sophistication on the part of many newcomers to share investment, who were sometimes misled by overoptimistic Press reports; and lastly, the heavy investments by unit trusts at the time when prices were climbing steeply.

All these factors helped to create a situation where a reaction was inevitable. The reaction, when it came, was intensified by a number of other factors. Firstly, the movement of the balance of payments into deficit reduced the liquidity of the economy and also created an unfavourable psychological climate since many investors seem to believe, irrationally, that there is a necessary correlation between share prices and the level of our reserves of gold and foreign exchange. The lessening of pressure in brokers’ Offices made it possible for brokers to catch up with their work and so reduce the unofficial credit to which I referred earlier. Banking institutions also tended to be more restrictive in extending credit. A special factor which may have had some influence was that certain unit trusts at that time attracted a large volume of money from the public in connection with an issue of shares by the management company, thus withdrawing these funds from the market.

My officials found no evidence that bear speculation played an important part in the fall of share prices. It was pointed out that bears may fulfil a useful function in eliminating extreme price fluctuations. Furthermore, any shareholder may sell shares on a falling market and buy again when prices have fallen still further, and it is not clear that anything could or should be done to curb such operations.

Another factor which intensified the reaction on the Exchange was the large number of small and relatively unsophisticated investors who—despite warnings from the authorities— had plunged into the market when it was rising steeply. The shock and disillusionment among these investors, some of whom could ill afford their loss, created a psychological climate in which the decline could not easily be checked. The Press also received some blame in this respect.

Financial institutions, particularly insurance companies and banks, did not contribute to the fall in prices since they did not sell in the falling market. Many of them, in fact, had not bought for a considerable time before prices reached their peak, but some are now selective buyers.

A final factor contributing to the decline was the fall in share prices on the London and New York Stock Exchanges. Considerable falls were experienced on both these exchanges during 1969 and this doubtless affected foreign interest in South African shares.

The results of the inquiry are not startling and indeed reflect what responsible and knowledgable observers have been saying for some time. The basic fact is that share prices rose too steeply and to too high a level, and that the reaction has naturally been sharp. Whether the present general level can be considered the correct one is obviously a question on which I cannot express an opinion, but in view of the country’s strong economic position and of the good profits shown by many companies, responsible investors are considering a resumption of selective buying. Such selective buying is, in the long run, much healthier than the irresponsible and indiscriminate scramble of last May.

It is often said that a relaxation of the credit restrictions would have a favourable effect on share prices. Perhaps it would, but the Government cannot consider the interests of the Stock Exchange alone. The picture which I sketched earlier shows an economy poised for rapid expansion, and it would be irresponsible of the authorities to risk renewed inflationary pressures by relaxing restrictions prematurely. To do so would be to gamble with the welfare of hundreds of thousands of wage-and salary-earners, pensioners and all those who stand to lose from rising prices. It is for this reason that it was announced earlier in this session that no further general relaxation of credit restrictions was considered advisable at present. I emphasize the word: “general”. In other words, this does not mean that specific relaxations will not now be considered. The authorities will watch the position closely and further relaxations will be made whenever this can be done without the risk of stimulating inflation. Yesterday already the Reserve Bank was able to announce a relaxation of the liquid asset requirements and a raising of the ceiling on investments by monetary banks, designed particularly to enable the banks to grant more medium-term credit to industry in the form of debentures.

I wish now to say a few words about the recent understanding with the International Monetary Fund regarding the sale of South African gold. I have already commented on this understanding in public and I do not wish to burden the House with excessive detail, though I shall be happy to answer any questions on the new arrangements.

Since the inception of the two-tier market for gold in March 1968 the problem of the disposal of South African gold has been an unsettled question. Although we were able to sell enough gold, on the private market and to monetary authorities, to meet our requirements of foreign exchange, we did not have an assured market as we always had in the past. In this connection I think a word of tribute is due to the Reserve Bank for the ingenuity and resourcefulness which they displayed in these unfamiliar and difficult circumstances. The uncertainty surrounding the marketing of our gold clearly made it desirable to reach some agreement on the matter, and discussions with the American authorities, the International Monetary Fund and others continued over many months. We found it difficult, however, to find a formula which would meet what we regarded as a fundamental condition, namely, that the position of gold as a monetary metal should be recognized and that there should be a continuing possibility of a significant flow of gold into monetary reserves.

Strangely enough, I think the factor which eventually made it possible for us to reach a satisfactory understanding was the decline in the gold price on the private market towards the end of 1969, since this increased the pressure on the other countries concerned to reach some agreement.

For South Africa, the new arrangements have the advantage that they establish a “floor price” for South African gold of just under $35 per fine ounce.

Secondly, South Africa will never have to sell more than its current gold production on the private market though it may do so if it wishes. Since South Africa has in fact been selling very nearly its total output on this market in recent months I do not foresee great difficulty in meeting this requirement, especially in view of the prospective increase in the industrial demand for gold to which I shall refer later. Furthermore, when we have a surplus on our balance of payments, we need not sell our full current gold production but may add the surplus to our monetary reserves.

Thirdly, South Africa obtains an additional measure of elasticity in marketing its gold through the provision allowing it to sell to monetary authorities approximately 1 million ounces per quarter out of its gold stock as at March, 1968, subject to certain deductions.

Fourthly, South Africa may use its gold in certain I.M.F. transactions, as for example when it repays drawings from the Fund, when it increases its quota, when it is “designated” to receive Special Drawing Rights from other countries and must acquire convertible currency to pay for them, and when South African rand are drawn by other members of the Fund and converted into gold.

While sales of gold to monetary authorities under these arrangements will normally take place through the Fund, South Africa has not bound itself exclusively to this channel.

By removing the uncertainty which until recently surrounded the disposal of our gold, the understanding will give us much greater flexibility in framing financial policy. In other words, we can now formulate policy without having to ask ourselves the question: “Will we be able to sell our gold, or not?”

The arrangements represent a compromise and naturally do not give us the full freedom which we should like in disposing of our gold. They are, nevertheless, more advantageous than any which we could have obtained at any earlier stage of the negotiations. Basically, whereas before March, 1968 we had both a floor and a ceiling price for our gold, now we have a floor but no ceiling.

The medium-and long-term prospects for the gold price on the private market are, in my view, quite bright. Recent studies indicate that current gold output is already exceeded by industrial and other non-speculative demand and that, even when account is taken of possible speculative sales, there is likely to be substantial upward pressure on the price in the private market within two years. Furthermore, the re-introduction of what amounts to an effective “floor price” may well stimulate new speculative buying of gold, especially if currency uncertainties should recur, and this would make an earlier price rise probable.

Up to now gold speculators have mainly bought in the hope of a rise in the official gold price. With the prospective increase in industrial and hoarding demand within two or three years to levels well above current production (at the $35 price), however, there is a real possibility of a quite substantial rise in the gold price on the private market arising from this class of demand alone, and this in itself may elicit a strong speculative demand at an earlier date.

This is not to say that a rise in the official gold price must now be ruled out or has been rendered significantly less likely by the new arrangements for the marketing of South African gold. It is true that the introduction of Special Drawing Rights has made it less probable that the official gold price will deliberately be increased in order to augment international liquidity—desirable as that would, in my view, have been. Given the present attitudes of the United States and other major countries, however, it has long been clear that a rise in the official gold price is—unfortunately—not likely to come about in this way, but would more probably emerge from some currency crisis— as it nearly did in March, 1968. The currency realignments of 1969 may indeed ensure some degree of monetary tranquillity in the months to come. If account is taken of such factors as the large prospective deficit in the American balance of payments, however, it is by no means impossible that currency crises will occur again and that the official gold price will again be called in question. In such a crisis, the system of Special Drawing Rights would be of little avail.

Mr. Speaker, I have tried in this “little budget” to give the House an account of some of the financial developments of importance to South Africa in recent months. The picture which emerges is not that of a country without financial problems. A country without financial problems is a country which is financially and economically static. In our dynamic economy, problems must arise. We have shown in the past that we can solve these problems, and our basic economic strength, vitality and stability leave no doubt in my mind that we can continue to solve them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has made an unusally long speech for a Part Appropriation Bill. I think the House appreciates his object in making it under the circumstances in which we find ourselves to-day. He has given us to-day what one might call a fair run over the course, an outline of how he sees the position and a reiteration of the optimism which he has always felt in considering the economic and financial position of the country both now and in the future. Apart from the overall review of the situation, there are two things he said which I should like to comment on briefly.

The first is the immediate concession to pensioners, the small increase to social pensions of R2 per month, which, of course, small though it is, is welcome and will be welcomed by all those due to receive it. It only amounts to an increase of about six cents a day in those social pension, and whether that will be sufficient to achieve the desired object of attracting votes to the Nationalist party for the coming election, remains to be seen. Apart from the timing of it, the concession is welcomed.

The other point which the Minister made was his confirmation of the statement of the Governor of the Reserve Bank yesterday in regard to the relaxation of certain restrictions in credit control. This again will be generally welcomed by financial institutions and by people generally. Important sections had been pressing for some relaxation for some time. Of course, the scope and effectiveness of this lifting of certain restrictions remain to be seen. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister two questions in this connection. First of all, I should like to ask him why this announcement was not made here in Parliament instead of being made outside. The first most of us learnt about it was when we opened our morning papers to-day. The Reserve Bank made the announcement yesterday. It did not appear in the papers last night. Credit control and currency control are matters of national importance at the present time. I maintain that if Parliament is sitting, Parliament should be the first body to be informed of changes in this direction, whether the restrictions are to be lifted or whether they are to be increased, especially in this particular case when the hon. the Minister was due to make a statement on the very subject this morning. I think it is little less than a slap in the face of Parliament to act in this way—not in that of the Opposition. It can only have been deliberate neglect of the rights of Parliament, or is it bad staff work? I acquit the hon. the Minister of any intention of treating Parliament with a lack of respect. I have always found him an upholder of the rights and the dignity of Parliament and I do not believe that he will do such a thing. That only leaves us with the alternative, namely bad staff work. It might have been accidental, but how did it happen? I do not know. Is it possible that the hon. the Minister forgot to tell the Governor of the Reserve Bank that the speech he was to have made yesterday was not going to be made until today. I do not know. I do not think that any ill-effects could flow from this, but it is disturbing to think that leaks of this kind can happen through bad staff work, because it could happen that the consequences might be very serious.

I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister a second question. In his speech he referred to the question of what was said in the State President’s speech and what was said by the Governor of the Reserve Bank yesterday. The hon. the Minister tried to differentiate between a general lifting of credit restrictions and a selective one. With all due respect I think that is only playing with words. There is no doubt that the speech made on the 30th January which was prepared by the hon. the Minister’s department for the hon. the State President said the following: “The economy, however, remains very liquid. Because there are many visible signs of an increased growth rate no further general relaxation of credit control is considered advisable.” There is not the slightest doubt that the general impression throughout the country was that there was not going to-be any further relaxation of credit control in the near future. This immediately led to a further depression of the stock exchange which is, whatever it may or may not be, to a certain extent the barometer of the day-to-day feeling of the financial houses as to the state of affairs. One would have thought that the hon. the Minister would have learned a lesson from last year, if he had not learnt it before. We all know what happened last year, and we on this side of the House will have more to say about it in the course of the debate, but it does show how very careful the hon. the Minister has to be in the responsible position he is with the statements he makes and when and where he makes it. The popular phrase to-day is the “credibility gap”. I am afraid that the hon. the Minister in his capacity as Minister of finance is gradually acquiring the position of being a prime example of the credibility gap. It is very serious when people start to question the extent to which statements made by the hon. the Minister can be relied upon as accurate, binding and reliable. The statement the hon. the Minister made to-day certainly reveals a lack of co-ordination. The hon. the Minister must have known that what was said in the State President’s speech was going to leave the impression throughout the country that a further relaxation of credit control was not contemplated.If the hon. the Minister did not know that, he should have. If he did not know that, he is not fit to hold his job. However, we will have a good deal more to say about this question of the credibility gap in the course of the debate. Meanwhile I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, while replying to the second-reading debate, the hon. the Minister answered many of our problems. I was particularly pleased to see that the hon. the Minister maintained a very high tone in his answer on that occasion and I should like to express my appreciation in respect of that. It makes it possible to one to debate in the interests of the case which one wants to promote. I think it is always useful if one can measure one’s mind against another without trying to hurt each other.

I want to say at once that I realized from the hon. the Minister’s reply that he took it amiss of me becausse I had said that I was sorry he had not availed himself of the opportunity to express sympathy to the close relations of the children who were involved in the accident near Meyerton. I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance, and I hope he will accept it, that it was not my intention to imply that he was unsympathetic or had not expressed the necessary sympathy at the time. My intention was to point out that I had hoped that he would express his sympathy on that occasion by some announcement or other and that he would take more intensive steps tc reduce accidents, especially level crossing accidents. When the hon. the Minister sees how I followed it up, he will understand. I trust that the matter has now been cleared up, because I do not want the idea to get about that the hon. the Minister is unsympathetic in these circumstances.

I hope that in his reply to the third-reading debate, the Minister will do what he omitted to do in his reply to the second-reading debate. I hope he will reply more fully to matters which were raised in all seriousness by hon. members on this side. In some respects he did not reply to problems at all.

I had only one hour to reply. I said that I could not reply to everything. The hon. member must also remember that I will have only half an hour at my disposal to reply to this debate.

For this reason I should like to raise a few matters which are of real importance to us again, so that the hon. the Minister will know to what we should like to have replies. Firstly, there is the question of pensions. I want to say at once that I do not find the hon. the Minister’s reasons for his being unable to introduce a non-contributory pension fund, in any way convincing. The hon. the Minister’s main reason was that railway workers are to-day contributing about R221/2 million, if I remember correctly …

That is what the Administration contributes.

The hon. the Minister said that the Administration would then lose these contributions. However, the Administration will not lose everything, because there is a Superannuation Fund which must be used only for pension purposes. That fund will not cease to exist, but what will in fact happen is that it will be unnecessary to increase that fund. The principle will be that the Railways will be responsible for the pensions of the people who draw pensions at the time. Therefore an Actuarial Fund will not really be necessary. The contributions to the fund will therefore be terminated, but the interest from that fund will then be available to meet the costs of such a non-contributory pension fund. I think that since it is the tendency in the world to-day to switch over to non-contributory pension funds and since there are already signs that the public service has accepted this new principle by reducing the contributions of civil servants to their pension schemes, the Administration under the guidance of the hon. the Minister should give more attention to the matter. I hope that it will be calculated how much it will cost and how much money will be available from the Superannuation Fund to support such a noncontributory scheme and that the hon. the Minister will give us a fully-reasoned reply to the matter. This is important. It is one of the benefits to which workers in a stable organization such as the Railways should be entitled. Also owing to lack of time probably the hon. the Minister did not react to the proposal that all the widows of pensioners who went on pension prior to 1951, should be placed on the same basis as those who went on pension subsequent to that. We made the point that after 19 years there cannot be very many of these people left. Therefore it cannot place a tremendous burden on the Railways. I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister would react to that proposal and give us his opinion in regard to it. I was glad that the hon. the Minister gave us the assurance that he would continue with his policy to change the labour pattern on the Railways where necessary. I would like to say that the hon. the Minister is a refreshing phenomenon in the Cabinet in this respect, because the policy which he is following for the Railways is in many respects diametrically opposed to that which is being prescribed for private undertakings by other hon. Ministers. The standpoint which we have consistently adopted and which was supported by a very important speech by the former General Manager, the late Mr. Hugo, is that where a shortage of manpower exists, it affords the community the opportunity to place our white workers in better avenues of employment as non-Whites are taken into service. The non-Whites then also benefit by being offered the chance to do less lucrative and inferior work. I was glad to hear the hon. the Minister say that he was engaged in elevating the Whites, for example, so that there would be no need for them to do so much pick and shovel work in future. But the hon. the Minister will admit that there is much which can still be done in this respect. There is also much which must be done in order to overcome the labour problems of the Railways, ft is very striking that the number of Whites and also the number of Coloureds and Asiatics which are in the employment of the Railways, has remained static for a number of years now. It is not really increasing anymore. I have figures which show that in 1967—I took the month of June as an example in the case of each year—there were 115,000 Whites in the service of the Railways. In June 1968 it was still 115,000. In June, 1969, it was 114,000. Admittedly this is not a significant decrease, but what is significant, is that the number of employees remained virtually static. In the case of Coloureds and Asiatics it was 16,000 in 1957, 15,000 in 1968 and 15,000 in 1969 as well, in other words the amount remained more or less static. The number of Bantu increased from June, 1967, when there were 90,000—I must add that it moved up to 93,000 during other months in that year—increased to 94,000 in 1968 and 96,000 in 1969. This is a considerable increase if one takes into consideration the fact that the other numbers remained static. The point I want to make is that we cannot bluff ourselves that a problem does not exist and that changes are not taking place in the labour pattern.

Should we as a country want to continue our present-day prosperity, it will be necessary to make further adjustments in the labour pattern. The hon. the Minister says that the adjustments which are made, must be done in conjunction with a standing committee of the workers’ societies and of the administration. Nobody can find fault with that. It is the policy of the United Party which the hon. the Minister said a few years ago he did not understand. He said at the time that it would create problems, because what would one do if the people did not agree. Now he is in fact carrying out the United Party policy as so many of them do when they have no other alternative, when the interests of the country demand it. I want to congratulate him on that. I do not wish to make too much political capital out of it. However, the little to which I am entitled, I want to take. Indeed I know that when that hon. Minister was still clear-thinking, when his powers were at their peak, and when he was a fiery young man, he was a United Party member. He then sat on this side of this House. That is, however, just in passing.

I am also glad to hear, although he did not say so directly, that although he must now expect attacks on political exploitation of the policy which he is carrying out so sensibly, he will not be deterred by the propaganda which will be made by the new party, the Herstigte Nationalist Party. He must not allow the past of the Nationalist Party which lives on in the Herstigte Nationalist Party, to impede and weaken him in his determination to persevere with a new direction in the Railways. I want to commend the hon. the Minister. I want to say that it is correct that he does what we tell him to do and that he gradually wants to elevate Whites from the pick and shovel work as far as possible, taking into account the circumstances of some of the people who do this type of work. This forms a shrill contrast with the policy of the hon. the Minister of Labour who, in terms of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, Whites remove the night soil in Durban for all races. This hon. Minister’s policy is however the opposite. He wants to elevate the people and give them better provisions. The hon. the Minister of Labour, probably with the best intentions, thinks he is protecting people by keeping them on the bottom layers of the labour front. I just want to say that we are on the side of the hon. the Minister of Transport in regard to this matter. If he continues with this policy, he may rely on the support of this side of this House. I only hope that after the 22nd April, when we come into power, we will be able to rely on his support in this connection.

I am also very sorry that the hon. the Minister replied only very briefly to our request that he should consider whether the rebate on rentals, which was abolished in the 1950’s, could not be reintroduced. I do not think it is necessary for me to stress this. When we read that the price of land has doubled in some of our cities during the past few years, then we know what is happening. The considerations which applied when this rebate was abolished, do not apply to-day. Only a small number of railway officials today own departmental houses. I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) said that only about 20 per cent of the railway officials own departmental houses. There are tens of thousands of people who, during this period of exorbitant prices on the market, have to obtain houses. This applies especially to the young people who reach the stage where they get married and want to raise a family. Most of them must rent houses to-day, because buying is out of the question. They have to pay an exorbitant proportion of their earnings on the Railways for house rent. I think the hon. the Minister will agree when I say that it is a healthy policy that, if possible, no citizen of South Africa should pay more than 20 per cent of his income towards house rent.

But the hon. the Minister took it amiss when some of us said that the large amount of overtime which is being worked on the Railways, is attributable to the fact that the railway worker feels he does not receive enough money. However, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that the necessity for paying house rent which applies especially in our cities, forces many people to work overtime beyond their physical capabilities. This creates an unhealthy situation. The example was mentioned of the man who earned only R70 a month, and who has to pay up to R50 in house rent. This is perhaps an exaggerated example, but it nevertheless happens. The hon. the Minister heard about this matter in another capacity. He knows that the house rent of new houses in particular results in houses being virtually unobtainable to-day for people who live under the average income level. I want to plead with him in all seriousness that he give this matter further consideration and investigate the financial implications. I wonder if he has done that. In his reply it was not apparent that he had in fact investigated the financial implications. But let him at least ask his officials to investigate the matter so that thorough consideration can be given to it. It is a problem which is increasing at present and which causes hardship for many people in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister did not react to the question of manpower either. I had asked him what his standpoint was in regard to the military training of many of the young men in the service.

I cannot talk about that. It is a responsibility of my colleague.

But surely the hon. the Minister has a standpoint. If the hon. the Minister feels that he does not want to talk about this, I shall not carry the case further. I shall introduce the matter to the Minister concerned on another occasion. From the point of view of the Railways I believe that misuse is being made of our manpower. The Railways are being asked to do without employees of theirs for periods of one year and in some cases for ten and 16 years after that because of military training. Everyone concerned in this matter, will testify that the time of those persons is not being utilized as effectively during the training period as could be expected! I shall not discuss this any further. II is also the standpoint of the Opposition in the interests of the Railways. Although the hon. the Minister will not talk about it, we can only hope that he will discuss the matter with his colleague or the Cabinet.

The hon. member keeps on talking about it though.

No, I have finished. I want to raise the matter of the pipeline between Durban and the Witwatersrand with the hon. the Minister again. He did not really react to it, and it is very clear to me that he is going to persevere with the injustice towards the petrol users of the country.

I am going to persevere with it.

I am very glad. The hon. the Minister says he is going to persevere; he is therefore going to persevere with the injustice towards the domestic consumers of fuel. The profit on the pipeline was R20 million last year. One would expect that it could contribute R52 million or even more as a result of the addition of new pipelines. In general it is the Railways that benefits from that. However, we feel that it is a strain on a section of the population and that it is a strain on the production costs in our industries and on the distribution of our consumer goods through the trade in South Africa. It is a fact which has an influence on the production costs of the goods which are used by people. There are other methods of obtaining the money. We do not want only the people of the Witwatersrand and of Transvaal triangle to benefit from that. It can go to the consumers of petrol in the whole interior of South Africa. At the moment I do not have the time or the desire to say more in this connection. We shall however have to return to it if something goes wrong and a better government does not come into power after the 22nd April. Then we shall have to raise the matter again. We shall have to point out the tremendous portion of the cost of each gallon of petrol which goes to the State and to the Railways. It is out of proportion and exorbitant. We shall continue to raise pleas in spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister has already said what his reply is. I want to make it clear that it is a policy of the Opposition that this benefit should go to the consumers of petrol, and that it could be used, inter alia, for the construction of roads and freeways in our cities. It would solve the problem. It is absolutely necessary. It is unfair that the people of the coast should be the only ones to benefit from the fact that this pipeline is so profitable.

There is a final question which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. His reply was not very clear. When can we expect to get further information or reaction in connection with the report of the Marais Commission about the co-ordination of transport in South Africa?

Next session.

We can therefore expect that the matter will have been finalized by the next session? I am pleased to hear that, because one was afraid that the Marais Commission would become like the Press Commission or the Commission on the Depopulation of the Rural Areas and other commissions, whose reports are historical documents and nothing else. We are all looking forward to next year.

This year; next session.

Yes, I mean by the next session. As I have said, we are looking forward to it and it is my sincere prayer that the hon. the Minister and his Administration will have the sense to accept what is good in the Commission’s report without fear or prejudice, and with consideration not only of the interests of the Railways; in other words, that they will look after the interests of our economy as a whole. I hope that whatever steps are taken will be taken in that spirit.

Mr. Speaker, since I just want to speak about one specific matter I shall no doubt be excused if I do not react to the previous speaker’s speech.

It frequently happens that one is compelled to speak about something one would prefer to remain silent about. This is the position I am in this morning. During the second-reading debate on the Railways, repeated reference was made, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, to the bus disaster in my constituency. I say again, out of a feeling of piety, commiseration and almost holy respect towards the broken-hearted parents who have remained behind, I would rather not speak about this. However, I feel myself compelled to do so. This dreadful disaster took place, not only within the boundaries of my constituency, but also on the outskirts of my own hometown, Meyerton. The 23 children, young boys and girls who were on the threshold of their lives and who fell like green corn before the sickle, are children who grew up before my eyes. These broken-hearted parents who remain behind are my voters whom I know by name. If the hon. members who touched upon this matter had known the circumstances, the background and the people as I do, their feelings of piety would have been deepened and they would have preferred not to have spoken about this. There is, for example, the case of a father and mother who had four small children, two girls and two boys. This is a well-to-do father who probably looked forward to one or both of his sons possibly following in his footsteps one day. After the disaster only the two girls remained. They were seriously injured and taken to hospital. There is also the case of a father and a mother who only had two children, the elder 13 years old and blind, and the second, who came along seven years later, without any physical defects. After the disaster the second youngster was no longer there. The parents, therefore, have only die first youngster left. Many of these people are not well-off. Their greatest asset was their small children. In a few cases their only assets were their children. Those have now been taken from them. Had you known that, you would have been able to understand how it hurt me to hear it referred to casually here in a political debate.

What are the actual facts and what is the actual background? That is why I am compelled to speak about it. I am doing so to put this matter in its true perspective. The Dr. Malan High School, one of the three schools involved in the disaster, which was the most seriously affected had 985 pupils on its register on 28th January, 1970. 700 of them go to school each morning and return home in the afternoon by bus. It is indeed a proud record for all of us, connected with this school in one way or another, to know that in all those past years not a single accident occurred in this fleet of school buses serving our school and our children each day. But then on 28th January, 1970, after many years, it happened. At five past two in the afternoon that dreadful disaster took place at a railway crossing where there was a very good view for both the bus driver and the engine driver. If there is one person who wished that there had been a flyover bridge it was I, but unfortunately the bridge was not there. This accident was an accident in every sense of the word. It should be clear to us that as long as there are people there will be accidents, because the one factor, human fallibility, will always be present.

But amidst all this sorrow I also saw a ray of light during that dreadful disaster. This was the way in which our people have at their command in a time of crisis an inborn resilience to work, to help and to translate words into deeds. We saw that within 30 minutes there were 17 ambulances on the scene to save what there was to save. Within 40 minutes the scene had been cleared. That evening and that night at the hsopital we saw our Afrikaans-speaking doctors, English-speaking doctors, Jewish-speaking doctors and all roll up their sleeves and work on unceasingly to save those lives that could possibly still be saved. We saw housewives coming along with coffee and tea to assist the parents. We saw undertakers coming forward to provide everything free of charge, a question of thousands of rands. I was then reminded of the inherent strength our people have at their command. In a time of crisis our people have an almost Biblical Samaritan charity, and I thought further that our leaders need not fear the difficult times that possibly lie ahead for us. I thought, too, that when things are going well with us as a nation we fight and argue among ourselves, but when it is dark and times are difficult, as we saw there, one can see the strength of our people, of our nation.

Those unhappy events are past, and we are grateful to know that before the disaster it had already been decided to replace the crossing with a fly-over bridge. We are grateful for that and we look forward to the day when it will happen. That is all past, and what is one to say now. One can express one’s deepest commiseration for the parents, one can say that one hopes that the children who are still sick will fully recover, but I consider it more important for all of us in South Africa to say that in future we shall intensify our human co-operativeness to such an extent that such a thing will never happen again. We in South Africa must all keep watch and pray that something like this will never befall our lovely country, South Africa, again.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville has expressed the sympathy of this side of the House to those people who were affected by the disaster at Henley-on-Klip. I think it has had the effect that there will be a speed up in the elimination of these level crossings. However, it does bring to mind the change in the public outside, the type of apathy which seems to be growing. I suppose the disasters which we are experiencing all over the world to-day are responsible for the fact that a certain amount of apathy has been born in the minds of the public. If this had happened years ago one could imagine all the towns folk closing the crossing. It once happened at Springs. That is how the attitude of the public has changed. I can only express my sorrow to these people and I just want to say that we must learn from this tragedy and get a move on. I think these crossings should be manned and properly protected where buses and public transport are being used. It is all right to say that the driver bears the responsibility and should stop, but the lives of the children and the lives of the public are worth more than that, and therefore we should take every possible step to see that our level crossings are protected, especially crossings such as these where public transport is involved. I am sure that this school and the other schools where there are traffic scholar patrols, will make it their business to protect these crossings if the Railways or the Police cannot do it. However, I am fairly certain that the hon. the Minister has taken note of the public reaction to what has happened and that we shall see a speedup in the elimination of these crossings.

We listened to the hon. the Minister when he replied to this debate. His attitude was that of a person who is well satisfied. He was satisfied with his Budget speech and after he had listened to us, naturally it was his attitude to brush any opposition aside by saying, “we, the Nationalist Party, have done this, we have done that”. Of course, that is not so. The Railways do not only consist of Nationalists working for the Nationalist Government. He has come here with claims of what the Government has done during the past 21 years. Actually, all that has been achieved, has been achieved by railwaymen, namely Whites, Blacks and Coloureds. The hon. the Minister has never told us at any time that the Railways as such never make a profit. Although the Administration tries to run the Railways on business lines, they have run consistently at a loss. The Railways are dependent upon the profits which are being made in the Harbours, the pipeline and the Airways. Various speeches have been made here in regard to the division of the various services. In regard to that, we were asked how the Railways would pay if the services were to be split up, and that was not in the spirit of the Union. Of course, when the Union was formed there were no Airways or pipelines, and the Harbours only came in later. We must keep everything in its true perspective as far as such issues are concerned.

We have had a look at the running of the Railways and we are aware of the difficulties. The hon. the Minister has told us of the progressive planning of the Railways, but if one looks back over the past 21 years during which we experienced the shortage of coal when there was a breakdown in the coal service to the Reef, and the trouble with the transport of iron ore to Port Elizabeth, it seems that the hon. the Minister and this Government must be jolted into doing something. For example, it took the Japanese some time to jolt this Government into action to do something about modernizing the Port Elizabeth line and to have an ore-delivery port built in Port Elizabeth.

The Minister seems to be tied up with Railway red tape and unless he is jolted into action, nothing happens. We saw what happened in Cape Town some time ago when we wanted an oil port. The Minister was inclined to drag his feet but when he saw that the matter was urgent and that a refinery was going to be built here, we had a new basin built overnight. That is what happens; you have to jolt this Minister into doing something. Sir, I want to come nearer home. The hon. the Minister referred to my speech about Montague Gardens line. I thought he knew the Peninsula, but apparently he does not. As you know, Sir, we have a very old-fashioned, out-dated line that runs to Saldanha Bay. In order to go to Saldanha Bay from Cape Town you have to go some 21 miles to Kraaifontein and then come back on to the Malmesbury line, notwithstanding the fact that you could go up the coast by a very much shorter line. During the war years, a line was surveyed to replace this out-dated line; the war ended and this line was never built. Strange as it may seem, after the closure of the Milnerton suburban line and with the building of the present guaranteed line that runs through the refinery to Montague Gardens, the suggestion was that the new line to serve Saldanha Bay should go through there. The potential of Saldanha Bay was seen then. Admittedly this line at the present moment is a branch line; it is a guaranteed line which has now been extended to the refinery. On top of that, there was a suggestion from the former member for Maitland—the present member for Maitland is apparently not very interested—in this House that the big township of Bothasig which was developing there could be served by this line.

Furthermore, beyond the refinery, another large township is going to be built shortly; thousands of people will be housed all along there; and with the development of these areas and with the development of the big atomic power station further on, one would have thought that the Railways would do something about building a modern line there, instead of forcing people to go to Kraaifontein on their way to Saldanha Bay. The Saldanha Bay line is completely out-dated. The Vredenburg line, which carries a large amount of coal and other goods to the big fishing factories, is actually a branch line. The train has to back into Vredenburg because the Vredenburg station is on a branch line. Sir, I know this area well. I happen to have served there during the war and I know the importance of this whole area. The hon. the Minister, for some reason or other, has his eye on Richard’s Bay. The Richard’s Bay line and the Richard’s Bay harbour will serve their own purpose but this harbour of ours for the West Coast could and would open up this area. One can visualize large steel works being situated in Saldanha Bay at some future date because it is in the vicinity of the big ore concentrations in the Northern Cape.

Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he is not tied to a 3' 6" gauge line. The Japanese are not tied to their 3' 6" gauge lines; they have built the most wonderful passenger service lines of very much wider gauge. A line to Saldanha Bay to transport ore should be of very much wider gauge. Sir, the hon. the Minister has been in Office for about 21 years; I think he must be just about tired of it; possibly he wants to get out and retire, and I would like to say this to him. Let him ask himself during his retirement after the 22nd of April whether he has done all he could have done for the S.A. Railways: whether he is as progressive as he pretends to be? I know that he runs his railway service well.

He is “verlig”.

I do not know whether he is “verlig” or “verkramp”. I do not know what his position is in the party but I know that he is very powerful. He was able to decide that we would have a general election: I do not know whether he fixed th“ date but apparently he is a very powerful man within the party framework. (Interjections.] Unfortunately I do not attend their meetings, so I do not know the inside story. However, to come back to the Railways, in every debate on railway matters throughout the years the hon. the Minister has told us about the shortage of labour, but at no time has he been able to put forward a scheme to this House to overcome this labour shortage. We have never had any scheme from the Nationalist Party to overcome the shortage of labour. They have, it is true, reintroduced our immigration scheme, but that alone is not going to overcome this shortage. What are they going to do? It is not good enough to say that the private sector is in competition with the Railways and that the private sector is able to offer better salaries. That is rubbish. As far as professional men in the railway service are concerned, the Railway Administration will have to wake up otherwise they will lose all their top professional men. They must bring the salaries of professional men and their working conditions into line with those prevailing in the private sector. We cannot afford to lose these people. What is happening is that our best, top-line men in the railway service are leaving and going to the private sector, and what does the Railways Administration do? They have to give contracts to private firms to get their work done and the men who originally worked for them then come back and do the work for the Railways on contract.

The Railways must realize that if they wish to retain the services of their top-line men they have to treat them well and pay them well. Do not let us have this continuous plea that the Railways cannot compete with private enterprise. After all, the opportunities offered in the railway service and the fringe benefits are really first-class. All that is needed to retain these people is a little bit of imagination and a business-like attitude. As far as labour generally is concerned, Sir, the one fear of the Government is that the black man is going to take over the white man’s job. We have produced figures here to show that that has been happening in fact under this Government; you cannot help it and the hon. the Minister is not ashamed to say it. He consults with the unions and gets their permission to employ non-Whites and the unions know what is happening. Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville has said that it is high time we re-examined the whole position as far as the various grades in the railway service are concerned and that we found out how we can uplift the white man in the railway service and give him a better job. Sir, let us make economic use of the population of this country. Where are we going to get the labour that we require? Or are we continually going to say that there is a manpower shortage? We must face the fact that we have to live with this problem and that we have to solve it. When the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has had his way—if he lasts as long as that—and the Government has divided up this country into separate states, the Railways will have to be run entirely by white people. We simply do not have the population to do it. The Minister has never told us how he intends to run the Railways when all the Bantu are in these eight Bantu states.

That is never going to happen.

We must face the fact that that is their policy. When that happens, where is he going to get the white people to run the Railways? Sir, when you go to the docks in Cape Town you find white men on the tugs doing work which normally in other ports is done by Blacks. Why must we waste that valuable white manpower? Is it not time that we re-evaluated these particular jobs and filled the vacancies in the railway service?

Then I want to say a few words about the Disciplinary Code. The hon. the Minister shrugs off the complaints in this regard. Evidence has been brought here concerning various cases. One does not like to read out letters in this House concerning individual cases, but there is this feeling amongst railwaymen that they do not like the administration of the Code and they feel that something should be done about it. The hon. the Minister talks about having to compete with commerce and industry. Let him ask our big national industries whether they have a disciplinary code that is applied in a similar manner as in the Railway Service. Of course not. You could never retain any of your employees if you applied the disciplinary code which the Railway Service has at the present moment. Sir, the Code is not applied by judicial Officers; it is applied by people who have no judicial experience and who has the power to penalize persons charged before them. I brought a case to the hon. the Minister where a person was penalized for having been a minute late. There are other cases where promotion has been withheld from people. You have too many people in the Railway Service to-day walking around with a chip on their shoulder because they have not been able to get on. Railway servants, in order to comply with the disciplinary regulations, have to go through the prescribed channels in submitting their representations, on appeal and many of these people are not capable of doing it on their own. They have to sit down and write out the whole history of their case, usually in long hand. I have read numbers of these case histories. These people have no idea of the way in which the Code is administered, and very often when you have read the case on appeal submitted by them in writing you find that they have not been able to put their evidence properly to the Administration. Surely if the Code is to remain, something should be done to assist these people to put their cases to the Administration. You find that people who have been in the service for years are fined for some contravention and de-graded. They cannot afford to lose this money. They have wives and families to support and they cannot afford a reduction in their wages. I wonder whether the Minister realizes the terrific financial penalty that he inflicts upon some of his servants for the most minor offences. Does the Minister realize what a terrific financial burden he imposes upon a man who is fined R25 or R30 and de-graded on top of that? This sort of thing would never happen in a civil court. The individual who has been penalized in this way never seems to have any redress. Sir, these are the items that are worrying the railwaymen; these are the things which will turn the railwaymen against this Government. As I said in my Second Reading speech, it is up to us to build up the morale of the railwayman. Let them feel proud once more to be railwaymen. Let us get back to the position that we had in the good old days where railwaymen were proud to be railwaymen. The hon. the Minister reminds us from time to time that he served on the footplate; he is proud to have been a railwayman, but things were different in those days. To-day when you talk to a man who is on the footplate he tells you that he cannot wait for the day when he retires. I have often talked to these people and asked them whether, if they could choose their career all over again, they would join the Railway Service and the reply invariably is: “That will be the day!”

Then, Sir, I would like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister with regard to railway-men who have retired and who wish to come back again, not so much because they like the Railways, but because they have been trained for that specific job. These people find that it is not so easy to get back into the Railway Service again. They have to fill in an application form and they have to have certain qualifications if they wish to be re-engaged. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not streamline the procedure as far as the reemployment of railwaymen is concerned. Even younger people who have left the Service and who wish to return are put off. There have been cases, admittedly, where young members of the Service who have kicked over the traces and have been dismissed and have sought reemployment but the Railway Administration decided not to re-employ them. I feel certain that in many of these cases the people concerned have learnt their lesson and they are now anxious to come back again.

Why do they want to come back?

They want to come back because that is the job in which they have been trained. They have been railwaymen for a long time and they have had no other training. As you know, Sir, a railway clerk, for instance, is trained in a particular way. That is why these people want to come back. After all, they have to earn a living and they must have a roof over their head. These are the things to which the hon. the Minister should give his attention if he wants to solve his labour problem. But, as I said, the Minister has not come to this House with a blueprint telling us what he intends to do about this. He has never told us how he is going to succeed in running the Railways with White labour once the Bantu states have been created. He has never been able to tell us where he is going to get this white labour. Are we going to become a small state with a handful of Whites? Then we will never be able to run the Railway Service that we have to-day. Behind the Minister’s political facade, he is an understanding person and he realizes that he has to face up to the facts and make the best possible use of the population we have here to-day. I would say from Press reports the he is powerful enough and he should tell the Cabinet and his party: This is my plan; this is my blueprint in regard to the Railways, and if you do not like it, find another Minister, but I cannot run the Railways under those circumstances, without having the labour available. As a former Minister of Labour he knows that there are clauses in the Factories Act protecting workers against overtime. They are most strict on these items, but on the Railways he allows his staff to work excessive overtime to the detriment of their health. The Factories Act particularly protects the workers against excessive overtime, and in the industrial agreements they take a very strong view about this matter. They even restrict overtime to 10 hours a week, and if you want to exceed that you have to get the permission of the local industrial council. But the hon. the Minister of Railways just carries on. But he has to face up to the fact that he cannot go on like that indefinitely. If the Railways are going to continue with the growth he anticipates, he has to ask himself where he will get the staff, and if he has the staff, how will he use them. That is one of the things he has to do. We can say that over the 21 years, in spite of this Government, this country has prospered, but the Railways have just jogged along. We had to jog them into building a pipeline and we have had to jog them to do this and that, and we had to jog them to give the staff better salaries. The Minister said in his speech that he is always prepared to meet and to help the railwaymen, but we know that we have had a railway debate in this House and at the same time railwaymen have also been sitting in conference with the Minister’s staff in Cape Town asking for higher salaries and the Minister decided not to give them a rise. And when the railwaymen threatened to take strong action, he came to this House with a Bill restricting them from taking that action. We know all that. Do not let the Minister pretend that he has not had to have his arm twisted very hard by the railwaymen and the railwaymen know that. When you talk to them outside, the railwaymen say they know Ben Schoeman too well, and unfortunately that lowers the whole morale of the service.

At the present moment you think they are all paid well, but they cannot live on an overtime economy. If the overtime disappears tomorrow you will see that a lot of people will absolutely starve, and people who have been living on a higher standard should not be asked to lower their standard of living. And that is the trouble. The hon. the Minister has created an overtime economy and he has to face up to the fact that there must be some sort of consolidation of overtime with wages when it comes to reducing their salaries. I would say to the Minister and the government: Let them come forward with a blueprint for their labour policy on the Railways, to show how they will overcome the difficulty, and what they intend doing when they break up this country into separate Bantu states. Where are they to get the labour to run the Railways then? Are we going to bring the Bantu in on a temporary basis, as migrant labour? Let us hear something concrete from this Government. Do not pretend that you have done so much in 21 years when you have done nothing of the kind.

I have just listened to the hon. member for Salt River, who has apparently once more tried to make political capital out of the Railways. He spoke continually of this manpower shortage, but we surely know for a fact that there is a manpower shortage in this country. Surely the hon. the Minister has repeatedly stated very clearly that for the interim period the Railways was doing everything possible, and that through additional mechanization of the Railways we can indeed expect this manpower shortage, this string the United Party has now got to strum on, to be solved effectively in due course. All these people think of is solving this manpower shortage by pushing in non-Whites, and they say so themselves.

No, by uplifting the Whites.

Just this morning the hon. member for Yeoville stated here, very clearly and straightforwardly, that it was the only solution, and we say that it is not. I expected this large-scale courting of the railwaymen to take place here before the election, but we Know the railway people very well. We have contact with them. I myself was a railway doctor for many years and I know those people intimately. I may as well tell the United Party that they would do as well to save their breath because they will not be able to exploit these so-called grievances of railway people, as they would like to do.

But let us have a brief look at the so-called grievances. I would be the last to say that all the railway people are altogether satisfied. On the contrary, then I am not recognizing the human element present in any department as a matter of course.

It is nearly 25 per cent.

I want to tell the hon. member that it is not 25 per cent; it is not 5 per cent, and I know what I am talking about. I want to say that because there is of necessity a manpower shortage here, the Railways is inevitably very dependent upon its senior officials to get the best out of each employee, and the railwayman was not found wanting. He tackled this task, which he saw waiting for him in the Railways, with enterprise, and to-day we can merely attest to the tremendous work these people do, under difficult circumstances in many respects and without a murmer. On the contrary, I think that in many respects the railwayman is also glad of the privilege to supplement his salary by overtime.

Our railway system in this country is a nationalized system and I want to tell you that to-day it is indeed one of the things of note throughout the world that a transport system that has expanded, as our Railways has done, can operate on an economic basis. I want to mention that there is no place in the world where such a transport system really operates economically, and I think that we can only thank the hon. the Minister of Transport for setting us this pattern throughout the years according to which this system could function.

Now I just want to put forward another matter which also links up with the so-called manpower shortage that is now being puffed up to such an extent. I should like to ask hon. members to make a point, on some occasion, of going to see how the C.T.C. system, the centralized traffic control system, works. That is what the Railways has created for us in this country. Since this system came into operation the Railways have in consequence employed between 50 and 60 less people on a short section of line between Newcastle and Volksrust. This is one of the ways in which we shall solve the manpower shortage. The hon. member for Salt River tried to create the impression that there was nothing but a decline in respect of the planning and modernization of the Railways. I want to tell you that in this country to-day we have some of the most modern systems in the world, where a responsible official can sit at a switchboard and see how the trains move on the panel, and through the manipulation of small knobs control one train after another with greater safety than 50 to 60 staff members. I think we can be proud of the Railways for having been so far-sighted as to establish that system for us.

I should like to come back to a few remarks which I made here in respect of grievances. I want to tell you that when I was elected to the House of Assembly I made a point of going into any possible grievances thoroughly. The hon. members opposite have now tried to make political capital out of quoting me when I mentioned the matter at the National Party congress. I just want to say that this bit of political capital they have tried to make out of that is not worth the effort, for the simple reason that the National Party ascertained for itself that all the channels for dealing with grievances exist, that these are among the best channels in the country and that the channels through which grievances can be dealt with in the Railways are even better in many respects than those in the Public Service. While I was in Pretoria to see the hon. the Minister about certain problems, I also ascertained that there were no fewer than 21 cases of Railway people of the lowest grade having the right to appeal even to the Minister himself. I ask you what other system in the world gives the man on the lowest grade and with the lowest wage the right to appeal to the highest authority. These are the actual facts. [Interjections.] Those hon. members want all the discipline in the railway system to be broken down, so that they may say once more: But what are you doing now? But we shall not allow the discipline in the Railways to be broken down altogether, and the present system of discipline is welcomed by the railwayman. That is my experience of this matter.

But we have a sympathetic Minister and we know that we can go to him with each of these problems, and the railwayman knows this to be so as well. I want to ask the United Party to mention a single instance where a man did not have the right to appeal by way of all these channels. On the contrary, I think the hon. the Minister is probably one of the most popular Ministers in his Department, and the railwayman speaks of him with the greatest esteem and respect.

To-day I should also like to express my appreciation to the Department of Transport in respect of the improved medicinal facilities and the medical services which we have received in the last few years. I want to say that to-day the railwayman is in the fortunate position of having one of the best medicine lists that any medical aid fund or other body could offer its members. In earlier years it was thought that medicines obtained in the Railways were not of the best, but I want to tell you that the Railways’ medicine list contains all the modem antibiotics, steroids and everything one needs in this modern day and age. I would still like to see what other medical aid fund offers its members the same facilities as this Railway medical aid fund does. It is only right that in this debate we should note this fact with appreciation.

Sir, allow me also to mention another small matter. We in Newcastle are now on the threshold of great development. There are great developments taking place in the Northern Cape. Near Richard’s Bay there is large-scale planning in progress. The hon. the Minister pointed out that the railway line from Vryheid to Richard’s Bay was now in an advanced stage of completion. However, the question now arises whether the Department of Transport is going to give greater attention to rail connections in the Northern Free State and Northern Natal, particularly with a view to this development. We hope the Department is already planning this to a certain extent. At Frankfort recently a conference was held at which various interested bodies came together to discuss the merits of such a request. It appears that a great need exists for such rail connections in those areas, because inevitably, as a result of the development in the Vaal Triangle and in Northern Natal, one can expect transport bottlenecks to develop. I do not want to claim now that I should act as a railway planner. I am mentioning this matter because I think that it justifies our serious consideration. Sir, we should like to conclude by saying that we …

Is that the “royal we”?

Order! I have already told the hon. member for Durban (Point) not to make a farce of Parliament. The hon. member may proceed.

We want to conclude by congratulating the Minister most sincerely on this Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not deal at length with the hon. member who has just spoken. We all know that he represents a Natal constituency. I think that many of us will agree that, during his speech, he very often went off the rails. Being a member from Natal, that is not surprising, because the whole Railway department is going off the rails in Natal, according to a reply I received from the hon. the Minister this morning. He indicated that in the latest year for which statistics are available, there were no less than 118 derailments in Natal. Now we have had the 119th one in the speech of the hon. member for Newcastle.

Sir, I stood up to issue a protest against the lack of action on the part of the Railways Administration in regard to the appalling state of affairs on the Witwatersrand, where there is a concourse, during peak periods, of Bantu labourers, and where totally unnecessary accidents have occurred as a result of the terrific pressure of the huge crowds which mass on the bridges across the railway stations during these peak periods. We had an appalling instance of this yesterday. We read in this morning’s paper that another three Bantu had been crushed to death at a railway bridge near Industria in Johannesburg. This was a totally unnecessary accident, which could have been prevented. Three people were killed. I believe that 17 to 20 of them had to be taken to hospital. I am quite sure that many others were injured more or less seriously. It is quite clear to me that the facilities at these bridges during peak hours are totally inadequate. There is no excuse for the hon. the Minister, because he has been warned by similar serious accidents in the past. The hon. the Minister will know better than I do what the real reasons are. Are these bridges badly constructed? Was that responsible for the collapse of the railway bridge at Dube? We have had a statement in this regard. Are the bridges too narrow? Why can more bridges not be built? Why treat these passengers in the same way that cattle are treated? Surely they are one of the greatest sources of income to the Railways? The Minister himself has admitted that third-class passenger traffic is one of his greatest sources of passenger revenue in the whole of the country.

Why do you not stop the rain storms?

We give the Minister a special subsidy for the transport of African passengers on the Witwatersrand. Surely some of that money could be used to make the Railways safe for them. I am sorry, but I did not hear the remark made by the hon. member for Harrismith. What did he say?

I said: “Stop the rain storms.”

Sir, have you ever heard anything like that? Yesterday’s accident did occur during a rain storm. I admit that, but must the hon. the Minister now put a red skull and crossbones on every passenger bridge for Bantu and say: “Unsafe in rainy weather”? Must he put a notice up saying “fatal during rush hours—you may be killed if you use this”? What a callous attitude! What an inhuman attitude to say: "Do not do anything about this. There will be rains again. People will be killed again. They will simply have to keep away from these bridges during the rain.” Sir, something has to be done about this matter. I demand that the hon. the Minister make a much more intensive survey than he has done of all the stations in the Witwatersrand complex where the danger of these crushes occurring exists, because these crushes can lead to this sorry loss of human life. As we saw again yesterday, this is an unnecessary loss. It is not that the hon. the Minister has not been warned about this. We remember the tragic accident at Dube last year, when several Bantu were killed, and 400 were injured, when that railway bridge gave in and proved inadequate. Surely he should have learnt a lesson? Surely he should have taken adequate steps to ensure that such an accident does not recur? Look at the accident which happened at Jeppes. These things are becoming far too frequent. I maintain that far too little is being done. We on this side of the House have done our duty. We have voted the necessary capital, but the Minister has not been doing what he should have been doing. If proof of this is needed, then it is the accident which occurred yesterday, and of which we heard this morning.

I trust that the hon. the Minister will also ask his officials to go and look at the crush one finds on occasion at the Johannesburg Railway Station. It has been reported to me that there is a crush of Bantu during the peak hours. It is expected that, sometime or another, due to that crush, a fatal accident may occur. I say that I blame the hon. the Minister for negligence. If an accident of this nature occurs again, we on this side of the House, and the country, will be justified in accusing the Minister not only of negligence, but of criminal negligence.

There is another matter I should like to deal with. We listened a few minutes ago to a speech by the hon. the Minister of Finance. We were most impressed by what he had to say about pensions. If the hon. the Minister of finance can use the occasion of the Second Reading of an Appropriation Bill for such a purpose, I should like to persuade the hon. the Minister of Transport to use the occasion of the Third Reading of this Appropriation Bill to say something about pensioners of the South African Railways. If ever there was a group of pensioners who deserve better treatment these are the Railway pensioners. I know that the hon. Minister of finance referred largely to social pensioners. That is so, but there is a large group of Railway pensioners whose income at the moment is so low that they can be classified with social pensioners. They have a hard life. They have difficulty in making ends meet since the cost of living rose by an unprecedented 3 per cent, as we heard some time ago. These things affect them. Their ordinary livelihood is threatened by a sales tax on everyday necessities. These people are entitled in their old age, in the last days of their lives, to some consideration from the hon. the Minister. That is the second point I want to deal with.

I come now to my third point. When I started speaking I replied to the hon. member for Newcastle and I mentioned the very large number of derailments we have in South Africa. This fact was underlined this morning particularly by a reply which the hon. the Minister gave to me in regard to the number of derailments on the South African Railways during the last financial year in respect of which statistics are available. That year is the year ended on 31st March, 1969, almost a year ago. I would not be surprised if the state of affairs is even worse to-day, but certainly it is a matter of concern when you have to hear from the mouth of the hon. the Minister himself, as we did this morning in reply to my question, that during that financial year there were no less than 451 derailments on the Railway systems of South Africa. That is not good enough. There is something wrong somewhere. I am not blaming the railway workers. As a matter of fact they are the last people who are to blame. They are overworked. I think of tired-out drivers and firemen. I am not blaming them in the least. It is not the personal factor that is to a large extent responsible for the derailments but the hon. the Minister must surely know what the reasons are. Is it the fault of the track? Are the speeds that are maintained too high? Whatever the reasons are, 451 derailments a year is a serious matter. It is a serious matter too when you consider the appalling costs of these derailments to the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, do you know that those 451 derailments resulted in damage and subsequent repairs which cost R916,000; that is almost R1 million which was unnecessarily wasted through these derailments. It is a shocking state of affairs, something which deserves the attention of the hon. the Minister. I am particularly concerned about the figure in respect of Natal, where 118 derailments took place. I do not know what is happening on the Natal Railway system. There are twice as many derailments there as in the Northern Cape and five times as many as in the Cape Western system. It seems to me that when a locomotive on the Natal Railway system goes round a curve, the fact that it and the curve go in the same direction is merely a coincidence. These are matters which have to be investigated and I trust that the hon. the Minister will do so. As my hon. friend said, this is not the time for making political speeches. These are serious issues affecting the lives of the railway workers and the income of the taxpayers.

I conclude by also referring to one other issue, that is the fact that the profits made on the oil pipeline are not used for the benefit of the users of the oil. the petrol and other fuel in South Africa. If there is an overtaxed community it is the taxpayers of the Witwatersrand. They deserve some form of relief, since their transport costs are higher than in 90 per cent of the rest of the country. They contribute more actual revenue for maintaining roads in the country than the people of any other town or city in South Africa. Surely, even if a proportion of the profits made on the pipeline were to be granted to the motorists on the Witwatersrand it would be some recognition of the fact that they are the greatest contributors towards our road system in South Africa and towards tax in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

I am proud to be the hon. member for Orange Grove. I have the finest voters in that constituency and I shall fight for their interests whenever I can, both inside and outside this House, and against the hon. members on that side. I therefore want to conclude with this appeal to the hon. the Minister: Please do something about this matter. He must remember that it was the United Party who drove him to build those two pipelines after he had refused to build them for years and years. I appeal to him to do something, and on this one point even I will be prepared to thank him.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to set myself up here as an authority on railway and transport matters. I do not need to be one either to react to the requests and discussions from the other side of the House. Firstly I want to refer to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said. He immediately tried to take political advantage of yesterday’s events, when a large group of Bantu simultaneously tried to cross a bridge in a rainstorm. If he wants the Railways to plan in such a way as to make provision for the nature and character of the Bantu under all circumstances he would, in my opinion, have to go altogether beyond the limits. I just want the hon. member to realize that one also has to be realistic in these matters. I cannot see how the Railways could plan for such exceptional events. As far as the railway bridge is concerned, technical faults probably crept in and one could perhaps still argue about that.

After that he raised the question of the railway pensioners, and that is something the hon. the Minister will probably reply to. It is probably a popular item before an election. The hon. the Minister of finance has made concessions, and now the hon. member for Orange Grove also wants to intercede for railway pensioners. I do not begrudge him this because it is always pleasant to intercede for deserving people. He said that during the past financial year 451 derailments took place, with 118 in Natal alone. I just want to dwell on that briefly. He compared that figure with the figures for the Northern, Western and Eastern Cape. If he were to analyse the traffic there he would find that accidents are in proportion to the amount of traffic on the particular section of line where the accidents take place. It is not because Natal in particular is more poorly administered than other parts of the country. I want to suggest that this is perhaps the reason why the number of accidents in Natal are greater than in other places. But in proportion to the traffic there it is probably no greater than in other places.

He also touched upon the question of pipeline profits. This is a broad policy matter, and I think the hon. the Minister will reply to him about it. I now want to go back to the hon. member for Salt River. I do not think I can simply let his speech pass, because it appears to me as if the salt in Salt River has become quite useless. To say, when one is dealing with an organization such as the Railways with its large staff, that the discipline is too severe and that the disciplinary measures applied are too strict is in my opinion altogether unrealistic and an argument which we cannot leave at that. He must first try to determine the extent of this organization and the size of the staff, at all levels, working there. But now he comes along here and says that the discipline is too severe and that the disciplinary measure should not be applied. How can one maintain so important an organization as the Railways without proper discipline and disciplinary measures. I want to state very clearly that I think that here the hon. member was particularly at fault, even more so than in his plea for a railway line from Cape Town to Saldanha Bay.

I just want to refer briefly to the developments in my own area, the Eastern Lowveld of the Transvaal, where many perishable products are produced and where we frequently also have bottlenecks in respect of transportation. I want to express my appreciation for the excellent service we have had in the past years, while such rapid development took place in that area in respect of our citrus and perishable products intended for export as well as for the local market, including the Cape market. A number of years ago, in the digging season, we had to make use of cattle trucks to transport citrus products. We held discussions and I can tell hon. members that annually in my area we meet many railway officials. I want to make special mention here of the courtesy and obligingness displayed by them to that community. I cannot think that it would be different elsewhere in the country. They cannot always meet all the demands made, particularly by the farming community, because the farming community, I know from experience, can frequently make unpractical and unrealistic demands. But, seen in the light of the tremendous service given us by the Railways, I feel that we have had good cooperation and exceptional progress in that area. The electrification of the main line to Lourenço Marques definitely contributed to that. I also want to mention here the improvement in the passenger service on that section of line. A number of years ago I had reason to complain, but for the past four years I no longer have reason to do so. There has been a very fine improvement in the service there and we have the co-operation of the staff in continuing the improvement. As far as I am concerned we therefore feel proud of the railwaymen in the Lowveld, of whom there are large numbers.

I now want to come back to another argument. Hon. members say that the people are dissatisfied. But I say that a dissatisfied man is a good man. A satisfied man is, in my opinion, a United Party member, because he is going downhill. No one is satisfied with his position and his salary, nor ought he to be. But this is not of such a nature that people will be unrealistic about it and even go as far as to be unrealistic enough to support the United Party, because they do at least display the responsibility and insight to realize that there is nothing for them in wanting to place a United Party Government in power. I do feel it necessary for those hon. members to reflect on that.

I also want to express a particular word of appreciation in connection with the rapid progress in respect of the Metz-Kaapmuiden line which is there chiefly to deal with the exports from Phalaborwa. I am very glad that the Minister mentioned in his speech that there was such good progress. I trust that we shall also get the adjustments there for the benefit of our agricultural products. The present position is that large quantities of perishable products in the Hoedspruit area must go via Komatipoort en route to the market, or via Soekmekaar in the north. There will now also be a considerable improvement in that direction.

However, there is one small matter that I want to bring to the Minister’s attention, a matter in respect of which we are experiencing problems at the moment. This concerns the question of certain types of mechanical refrigerator trucks for the export of avocado pears. As I have said, we have a large export market for citrus products from that area, but the avocado export market is increasing annually. We experienced problems last year. The Lowveld Agricultural Association and the Transvaal Agricultural Union claim that they were promised that a certain number of the L.A.S. mechanical refrigerator trucks would be made available for the export of avocado pears. Then last year they had to make use of the ice-cooled L.A.S. refrigerator trucks. The Perishable Products Export Control Board indicated that the avocado pears arrived here in a very good condition, even in the ice-cooled trucks. But I nevertheless want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that a test of the product here at the docks is not a final indication of its condition because it still has to go overseas. Avocado pears must be transported at a temperature of about 40 degrees Fahrenheit. But if there were to be a fairly substantial increase in temperature for a period, the detrimental effects would not be visible here. Those products still have to go overseas, where it may still take quite a while before they are sold. Then the detrimental effect of a high temperature are first visible. It could very detrimentally influence the marketing of our products from South Africa, since markets to-day are fairly competitive. I do, however, want to mention that the Railways undertook that some of these trucks would possibly be available, but I nevertheless feel that it is important for me to mention it here and to draw attention to that specific point, particularly because organized agriculture claims that a promise was made which was not kept. As far as I could determine these trucks have indeed been brought into circulation and put into operation. But there was such a demand for other products, such as fish, ice-cream, meat, etc., for which these trucks were used, although the avocado pear farmers had envisaged that they would, in particular, be able to make use of them.

I now want to touch upon something else in connection with the Railways in my area, particularly as a result of the tremendous development and the greater production of perishable products and wood. I want to suggest that in respect of long-term development we obtain an alternative to the single railway line to the Witwatersrand and the line to our nearest Republican harbour, Durban. We also export a large number of goods through Lorenzo Marques. I do not want to discredit those people or to offend them, but we find that in respect of our perishable products we do not receive the standard of handling in Loureno0 Marques that we would like to have. They also find difficulty in making available the cold storage facilities they promise us and to have these available at the specified times. We would prefer it if we could perhaps get a better flow to Natal, and if thought could possibly be given to the new harbour at Richard’s Bay. It could perhaps be considered now whether a railway line from Barberton via Carolina to the new harbour would not also give very good service. Of course, I feel that because of our obligations to Mozambique we should also bear them in mind, but that we cannot make ourselves too dependent on other people as far as transportation is concerned. Therefore I want to leave the hon. the Minister with the thought that we should give some consideration to that aspect. The transporting of wood from the Lowveld is also increasing annually. It was mentioned to me that it would probably be necessary to lay down junction lines from either Barberton to Carolina or from Graskop to Lydenburg in order to relieve the pressure on the main line. It would perhaps be difficult to double the existing line, hence the idea of an alternate route.

Sir, as an agriculturist I once more just want to emphasize this question of the importance of the transportation of agricultural products for the farming community. I cannot neglect to come back once more to emphasize the very good co-operation we get from officials at virtually every level. Nelspruit is becoming a large transfer centre for products from various parts of the Lowveld. The farmers would like to have their products at the market in as fresh a condition and as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Nelspruit. I think he stated his case very well. He pleaded for the interests of his people and for improved facilities for the farmers in his constituency. I think that this is the duty of each and every hon. member here. I am still waiting for other hon. members of the House to join me in my plea to the hon. the Minister for the reduction in the high price people have to pay there for petrol. This does not apply only to hon. members from the Reef, but also to those from the Transvaal country districts and from the Northern Free State. We all have to pay this burdensome amount, hut we do not hear a word from those hon. members in this connection. I am also still waiting for hon. members opposite to support us in our pleas to the hon. the Minister to care for railway pensioners as well. However, they have not said a word in this connection. As one of my colleagues once said, they are “zipped” and are not allowed to say anything.

Hon. members opposite claim that we are courting the railway people, but it is not necessary for us to do so. Hon. members opposite tell us they can do what they want to with the railway people and that the latter will still vote for the Nationalist Party, but it is not going to work this time. This time they are not going to support the Nationalist Party. The railway people will remember that the improvements to salaries, conditions of service and pensions which took place during the last few years were the result of the pleas of hon. members on this side of the House.

I am actually getting up in order to bring the complaints we hear about, in connection with the Airways, to the Minister’s attention. I think we have already had this experience, and from the start I want to say that I think they are complaints that can he rectified administratively. This has nothing to do with the safety of the Airways or with its pilots. I am now referring to complaints we all receive in connection with overbookings and underbookings. It frequently happens that persons with properly booked seats have to wait at airports because an aircraft is full. At times they have to wait for a later aircraft and at times they cannot get away at all.

However, what happens more frequently is that when, days ahead of time, one tries to obtain a seat on an aircraft one must hear that there is no seat available. A few weeks ago I myself wanted a seat on a seven o’clock flight. I tried to book on the Thursday, but there was no seat. I tried again on Tuesday morning, but there was no seat then either. I then went to the D.F. Malan airport and did, in fact, obtain a seat on the seven o’clock flight. This is understandable, but what is beyond comprehension is the fact that on the same aircraft I counted 19 empty seats which had not been occupied. I am sure that steps could be taken to discourage people who cancel bookings at the last moment. This causes the travelling public a great deal of inconvenience and also causes the Railways heavy losses. On that one flight alone the Airways lost about R700 because seats were not taken up. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could institute an investigation to determine how the matter could be rectified. I think it can be rectified, it is merely a matter of how to do so. I am thinking, for example, of persons who book seats having to pay deposits which are then forfeited when the seats are cancelled, or of a portion of the fare being forfeited in such cases. However, something must be done to solve this problem. This happens on virtually every Airwavs’ flight and it is seldom that an aircraft is altogether full. One then hears of other people who tried to get on to that same flight, but who could not do so. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to do something for us in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Rand made a plea for cheaper petrol for the Witwatersrand complex as well as for an improved pension scheme for railway workers. I regard this merely as cheap politicking at this stage, and we on this side of the House will not pay much attention to it.

This morning the hon. member for Yeoville spoke in a vein very different from that during the Second Reading debate. In his previous speech he was so aggressive that it seemed as if he would attack someone physically, but today he is altogether docile. He has apparently also learnt his lesson. I want to refer to the Railways as one of the largest businesses in the world. I think it is my duty, on behalf of this House, to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister for what he has done for South Africa’s transport. The hon. the Minister is a person who has made a tremendous contribution on behalf of the South African Railways. Just this morning we heard of our economic growth rate of 51/2 per cent per annum. The Railways, in its turn, has kept pace with the economic growth of South Africa. In other words, there is no backlog in the economic growth of the Railways as compared with that of the South African economy. I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Salt River said. He pleaded for the relaxing of discipline among the staff of the South African Railways. Is the hon. member aware of the responsibility resting on his shoulders in this House?

Not relaxation, but for the sake of justice.

There is justice in the South African Railways, just as there is justice in any other sphere of the South African economy. The Railways has its own disciplinary measures and why would there not be fairness? I really think that it is irresponsible to plead for the relaxation of the discipline on the South African Railways. Something like that cannot be allowed or tolerated in this House. This plea is linked to the promises made in this yellow United Party booklet. On page 26 of this booklet “You want it? We have it! ” it is stated, inter alia, that the United Party will ensure that the system of discipline on the Railways will be re-examined to remove sources of injustice and irritation. Where is the injustice and the irritation on the South African Railways? How many hon. members opposite realize what problems railwaymen in general really have? How many hon. members on that side of the House have ever taken the trouble to determine what the position is in respect of our railway labourers. The third United Party policy statement in respect of railwaymen in this booklet reads as follows: No railway employee will be punished for alleged offences once found not guilty of them by an independent court of justice. In other words, it boils down to the argument raised here the other day, i.e. that the so-called bush courts would be done away with. Departmental hearings would therefore no longer take place. I do not think that this is something that can be allowed, and I think that the Railways has functioned very well in the past.

I should just like to mention another matter, i.e. the labour shortage on the South African Railways. Is it not distressing that at a Port Elizabeth congress in 1948 the United Party decided that the white railwaymen should systematically be replaced by Coloureds? Is that not true? Could the hon. member for Durban (Point) reply to that?

I shall reply to that.

It is true.

It is not true.

Do you deny it?

Yes.

Well, then, we accept it. At a later stage we shall prove that it was, in fact, true. This is to-day still the policy and the trend of the United Party in general. They want more and more non-Whites in the service of the Railways. They want to shift the Whites into higher posts and then fill the lower posts, which have consequently become vacant, with non-Whites. Thus they will eventually bring about fully-fledged integration. That is the United Party’s policy. That is also why they are concentrating to such an extent on the manpower shortage. Every day they harp on this manpower shortage in the Railways. The manpower shortage is not only being experienced in the Railways; it is a general manifestation in South Africa as a result of our tremendous economic growth and industrial development.

Hon. members spoke a great deal about the railway crossings that must be eliminated. I too would very much like to see this done. In the future millions of rands will be spent on the elimination of railway crossings. On the other hand I want to point out that millions of rands are being spent on the building of roads in South Africa. The better South Africa’s roads become the greater is the accident rate. The railway crossings will be eliminated, but accidents will still always be happening. One day I stopped at one of the many railway crossings in my constituency. While my motor car was standing there another motorist drove past me and over the railway crossing without stopping. The primary responsibility rests with the individual driving the motor car. If the public disregards the rules of the road, no law or government can ever do anything about it. The responsibility rests with the public. The public must ensure that they do not act injudiciously at railway or road crossings, because it is dangerous for anyone to ignore these aspects.

I should just like to refer to a few matters in my constituency. Firstly I should like to refer to a very important question. It has already been discussed repeatedly at agricultural congresses and I think that it has also been raised here in this House several times. I should nevertheless like to draw the hon. the Minister of Transport’s attention to it to-day. I am referring to the railway junction between Maclear and Matatiele, a distance of 86 miles by road. In the past the agricultural economy offered no justification for the construction of that junction. But when the Hendrik Verwoerd project is completed that area will have to have an outlet. The obvious outlet for this area is, of course, the Natal complex in the east—the Hendrik Verwoerd complex outlet will never lie in the south. Neither could it ever be in the north. It can only be in the east, i.e. Natal. I therefore feel that planning should be made along these lines and that a junction should be laid down sooner or later, particularly with a view to a future outlet for the Hendrik Verwoerd complex, the Central Karoo, the Southern Free State and the Northern Cape. This entire area could then be served. The marketing of livestock from certain parts of my constituency, for example Barkly East, necessitates at present the use of railway lorries. These lorries are at our disposal and we are grateful to the hon. the Minister for them. But the roads are in such a condition that the livestock get badly bruised. The weight of the livestock consequently decreases if they are transported along these roads. However, when one wants to make use of the railway service for the transportation of livestock from Barkly East, this must be done via Bloemfontein and Kroonstad to Durban. This is a tremendously roundabout way. On the other hand, Barkly East lies only a short distance from Maclear. Thence the livestock can be transported to Matatiele. This is a very important matter. We shall have to bear it in mind when planning is done for the future, because when the Hendrik Verwoerd project is completed we shall need that junction to serve the outlet in the east.

Another matter I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to is the condition of the goods shed in Matatiele. According to the Durban System Manager the new goods shed was to have been built there in 1969. We do, of course, understand the circumstances. We know, for example, that credit restrictions were imposed and that the Railways does not have unlimited funds. But there is actually chaos at that goods shed in Matatiele as a result of the fact that all the goods received there cannot be stored. I therefore want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister that the construction of a new goods shed be speeded up.

In conclusion I should like to thank the hon. the Minister, the General Manager and the staff of the South African Railways most warmly on behalf of my constituents for everything they did for us and for what they are still going to do.

Mr. Speaker, if there was one aspect of this debate which will interest railwaymen and those employed in our harbours, it was the continual reference, as the hon. member who has just sat down has made, to the fact that their conditions of employment give no ground for complaint. According to those hon. members, these people have no complaints and the conditions under which they work are happy, and we are merely attempting to make political propaganda by suggesting that there are grounds for improvement. If the hon. member says that I am correct in saying that there are grounds for improvement, surely the responsibility is as much his as mine to raise these matters in this House and to raise them with the hon. the Minister. The hon. gentlemen on that side of the House seem to wish all the railwaymen to believe that, in so far as the Government is concerned, there are no improvements necessary. I think that is what the railwaymen can fairly deduce from the contributions to this debate which we have had from that side of the House.

There is another matter which the railwaymen will notice. That is the agile manner in which the hon. the Minister moved his train onto the side line instead of keeping it on the main line of the accusations which we made against him. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister was giving us a demonstration of the agile use of points so as to avoid any head-on collision with the arguments of hon. members on this side of the House and to get us side-tracked onto some issues which he found suitable and convenient to raise. I say that because I want to come back to one or two matters which I have mentioned to the hon. the Minister; matters which I had hoped would have his attention and which I hoped he would deal with. However, he came back with an attempt to give an entirely different interpretation of what I actually said.

Now, Sir, he started with a somewhat specious argument that I had attacked the efficiency or otherwise of the union executives representing the workers on the Railways. What I in fact said to the hon. the Minister was that the union representatives who put forward the complaints and requests of their members are frustrated by the fact that the only answer they seem to get to most of their representations is that the time is not opportune.

I asked whether you received representations from the union officials.

I had it from the members of the unions to whom their officials had reported as to why these matters had not been rectified. They are then entitled to say that their officials had come back to them and said that they could not get anywhere because the Minister or the heads of his departments said that the time was inopportune. For that reason they come then and see us in regard to these particular problems.

The hon. the Minister attempted to indicate that I did not know what I was talking about when I spoke about special overtime allowances. But surely the hon. the Minister knows that there was a regrading and readjustment of the salaries of certain grades in the Harbours Administration. Certain staff were given a special overtime allowance so that they would not have to be faced with a reduction in wages. It was called a special overtime allowance to compensate for what they had been earning on overtime. Many of them are still getting that. I put a very simple request, a very simple statement to the hon. the Minister, namely that the time had come for that special overtime allowance to be incorporated into the basic wages of these men so that it would count for pension purposes. The hon. the Minister pretended that there was no such thing in the service. He tried to suggest and indicate that I did not know what I was talking about. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that there are many employees who are concerned about this matter. It is a similar type of allowance to that which was previously introduced when the cost-of-living allowance for civil servants was incorporated into their basic pay so that they could have the advantage of it when they retire on pension.

A third point which I trust the hon. the Minister will deal with when he replies to this third-reading debate, is the question I raised in regard to the manner in which recommendations of the Pensions Select Committee are dealt with by the Administration. I gave the hon. the Minister one example. He only has to look through the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions to this House over the last few years to see what slight and scant regard has been had by the Administration to those recommendations. The hon. the Minister uses the procedure to refer the recommendations of the Pensions Select Committee in so far as they affect railwaymen, to the Administration for attention and decision and then these recommendations do not form part of the Bill which is normally passed by this House dealing with all the other recommendations which have reference to State employees in all other Departments of the State. One wants to know why this procedure is being followed. Why does the hon. the Minister request this House—and he gets the support of the House—to sidetrack the recommendations instead of giving effect to them when they come from the Select Committee? The hon. the Minister will know that those recommendations of the Select Committee do not come here without a thorough investigation. They do not form part of the report of the Select Committee without having been thoroughly investigated and discussed with the officials of the Railway pensions section. They appear before the Select Committee. I have indicated one case because that unfortunate man has now left the Service due to injuries sustained on duty. But there are many others in the Service who are rankling over the injustices which they feel have been meted out to them.

Mr. Speaker, we received on our desks this morning the annual report of the S.A. Railways and Harbours for the financial year 1968-’69. I should like to deal with one aspect of that report which brings up to date some of th“ comments which have been made from this side of the House in regard to the staff position. I want to do it because I believe that one is facing a situation in the Railways when, as yet, the hon. the Minister has not indicated any method whereby he intends to deal with this particular problem. I want to read from the report on page 90. In dealing with staff shortages the report says—

I mention this because those are, as have been correctly stated in this report, the key personnel without whom the Railways cannot function safely and efficiently. There is no indication in the report as to the steps that are being taken to fill those particular positions. I know that for the advanced technical positions on the establishment of the Railways there are bursaries and opportunities for study which are given to Railway employees. But what plan has the hon. the Minister to fill these positions, these key positions of shunters, firemen and drivers’ assistants in the Railways. It seems to me that the problem which presents itself, as indicated by this report, is the same one that appears in other industries when there is not a sufficient intake of apprentice staff to replace those on the permanent staff who will be retiring in due course. I think we will be indebted to the hon. the Minister if he could indicate to us what steps are being taken to deal with a problem of this nature. It is not merely a matter of the recruitment of personnel. Is it not really a matter of which one can say that these positions should no longer be occupied by Whites and that they should now be occupied by non-Whites, as is happening in other departments of the Railways? Is that in fact what the Minister sees as the only solution to this particular problem? We would be grateful to him if he would in this debate indicate to us what is being done other than the normal attempts at enlistment of additional and new members to the Railway Administration.

I should like to mention one final matter to the hon. the Minister in respect of which we would appreciate some report from him. One is aware that the reconstruction of the Cape Town docks has been undertaken and phased. The hon. the Minister through his Department was kind enough to give me a 1967 programme as to how that reconstruction was being planned and phased. That appears also fully in the General Manager’s report. With the pressure that is building up in the docks in dealing with ships arriving in Cape Town, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the programme of reconstruction is proceeding according to plan and within the time limit that has been set down. I understand that there have been certain practical difficulties connected with the reconstruction work. Certain difficulties have arisen which were perhaps not anticipated. It would be reassuring to know that this programme of timing will be adhered to. The hon. the Minister will be aware of the fact that the first stage was due to commence in September of last year. The first stage is to be undertaken in certain phases. The first one was the providing of the new A-berth inside the eastern mole. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that the work is proceeding according to plan.

Then there is another development which, according to my observations, is taking place. This concerns what is happening in and around the Table Bay Docks. Because of delays which do occur, and by that I do not for one moment suggest that the dock staff are not turning around the ships in the shortest possible time they can, and because of the fact that this harbour is still under construction, it would appear that an increasing number of vessels do not enter the Table Bay Harbour area. That is, they do not enter the limits of the Robben Island-Mouille Point line and by doing so they do not have to pay dock fees. However, they are still being supplied from the Cape Town docks area by means of a helicopter service. They seem to make more and more use of this helicopter service in order to keep outside the Cape Town dock area. Is no revenue being derived from those vessels that are being serviced in this way? These ships are supplied in the roadstead at some distance outside the demarcated liability line of entrance to the Table Bay harbour. As I was saying, it is only my own observation, but nevertheless there seems to be an increasing number of ships that are not availing themselves of the Cape Town harbour facilities but are being serviced by this helicoptei service. If this tendency does grow, it can have a considerable and adverse effect upon the revenue which is accruing to the Cape Town harbour. This revenue will be sought after when this additional capital work has been completed. I do not wish to take the matter any further but to inquire what is envisaged and what is the policy in regard to this new method which is developing of victualling ships outside the harbour area.

I want to conclude by saying to the hon. the Minister that I would like him to specifically deal with the recommendations of the Pensions Committee. I hope it was an oversight when he did not deal with it during the Second Reading and that he will deal with it now during this Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I also represent a constituency which has many railway voters. At the same time South-West Africa’s economy is very heavily dependent upon the efficiency of the railway network in the territory. One thing has become very clear to me in this debate and that is that I shall not be able to serve those interests to which I referred in South-West Africa by approaching the matter as the hon. members of the Opposition did. I want to concede that the Opposition is correct on two points: firstly, that one cannot seek perfection in the South African Railways, Airways, etc., either. The simple reason being that one cannot establish perfection there. Listening to the criticisms of the hon. members of the Opposition, I felt that the second point I wanted to concede to them was that it could rightfully be expected of an Opposition to be critical in their approach to these matters. However, setting this consideration off against what we actually had, I would have been very offended had I still been a railwayman to-day. In the first place, a great deal of the criticism was devoted, not to attacking the hon. the Minister and his policy, but to attacking the railwayman himself and his performance as an employee of the Railways. Numerous examples were mentioned here which were absolutely just a case of human fallibility and with which the hon. the Minister and his policy had absolutely nothing to do. For instance, examples were mentioned of wrongly consigned trucks that were delayed for nine days. Then there was also the example of a package that went to Windhoek instead of to Durban. Many similar instances were mentioned. This is a complaint against the railwayman and cannot, under any circumstances, be a complaint against the policy of the hon. the Minister and against the way in which the Railways is administered. If the hon. Opposition had come and said that these instances of a truck wrongly consigned, of discourtesy, of a package wrongly addressed, were on the increase on the South African Railways, it could have become a complaint. Then it would have meant that something was going wrong. However, this was not done and in that respect the Opposition has, in my opinion, failed altogether. In other words, they did not lodge a complaint against the administration of the Department and against the hon. the Minister, but they did lodge a complaint against the individual railwayman. They tried to exploit the quite ordinary fallibility of the individual with, I surmise, some or other political objective.

Who is responsible for it then?

That hon. member who is now interrupting me will not even find perfection on his own farm which he himself manages from day to day. There will be mistakes and there will be disillusionment for him. What does he then expect from the South African Railways and from the Department of Transport? The second aspect of the Opposition’s actions which would have shocked me had I been a railwayman to-day is the way in which they stormed down on the railwayman in this debate for the sake of his vote. When a gentleman courts a lady he does so with at least a certain measure of circumspection. He does not rush at her, because she could take to her heels or be frightened. That is precisely what the hon. Opposition did. For the sake of a vote they rushed recklessly at this “lady”, the railwayman. The hon. members of the Opposition know, in the first place, that if in this debate the hon. the Minister of Transport had offered the railwayman those improved conditions of service, for which they pleaded so assiduously to-day, they would have accused the hon. the Minister of exploiting a Government Department for the sake of votes. In the light of the economic considerations at stake here they would have said that he was disregarding very important economic concepts in the process of that exploitation.

Like the Minister of Finance.

What is their standpoint? They say that the conditions of service of the railwayman must be improved considerably. Overtime must be eliminated; staff shortages must be settled and this must then be done through a considerable improvement in the conditions of service of the railwayman. Sir, I want to make this statement: Even if the hon. the Minister were to improve the railwayman’s conditions of service by 100 per cent and to double his salary he would still want to make use of the opportunity to work overtime. It is only human.

Would he have a shortage if he doubled it?

If that method of clearing up the shortage is to succeed I would want to know from those hon. members where they want to get the manpower from for clearing up this shortage. Do they want to draw that manpower from the rest of the Public Service? Sir, l want to predict that when we come to the Public Service, to the Department of the Interior, we shall hear the same plea and the same solution to eliminate the shortages there. Do they want to supplement those staff shortages from the private sector? Are they really recommending that in this process the hon. the Minister should bid against the private sector for the labour forces, which the private sector is as short of as the State and its Departments? Sir, you may go to any employer of importance in this country and he will tell you of a manpower shortage, in spite of the fact that the private sector, as we know, already bids higher than the Government Departments. The Government Departments must, of necessity, be the stabilizing factor in this situation in our country. If, as far as salaries, etc., are concerned, the Government Departments were not the stabilizing factor, who would be? Must we expect this of the private sector? The State is in a very strong position to bid against the private sector, but this would not be beneficial, and the railwayman who thinks about this realizes it. In the present economic conditions, inflationary as they are, the Opposition comes along and, without demonstrating any discrepancy between salaries and living costs, pleads for a general improvement of conditions of service. If the present economic trend were to be reversed—and it could happen to-morrow or next year—and if the present upward trend were to be a downward trend next year, would they come and plead for the opposite to what they are pleading for to-day? This would only be logical. Would they come and plead for a decrease in wages? No, when our economy shows an upward trend they plead for higher wages, but when it shows a downward trend we can, according to what they have indicated here, expect the Opposition to plead for even higher wages. Would this then be consistent? I can lay this charge against the Opposition: If, under these circumstances, they come along to plead for increased wages on the merits they have advanced, they will have to plead for a reduction of wages when the present economic trend is reversed and we have, not a labour shortage but a labour surplus or unemployment. That would be only logical. {Interjection.] I do not know whether the hon. member is trying to tell me that my statement is correct or incorrect; I cannot understand him too well, but I would like to know what they are going to plead for if the present picture is reversed—-and it is not unreasonable to expect this.

If there is a manpower shortage, what do you recommend other than an increase of salaries?

What I recommend in the case of a manpower shortage is a level-headed approach, such as we have today, and if there is a manpower surplus I recommend the same. In what position are we going to land ourselves if, in order to draw more people, we pay higher salaries and all the other Government Departments and the private sector also do so? The cost structure shoots up and the manpower shortage increases because the economy is being increasingly overheated under the circumstances which the Opposition want to create. Where are we heading then? The railwayman is intelligent enough to know in present-day circumstances the State is the stabilizing factor. He knows that his Minister is taking into account that his salary must keep pace with the cost of living and the responsibilities resting on his shoulders, but he also knows that when the wheel turns one day the public servant and the railwayman will not be dismissed casually and that the State will not lightly curtail salaries, while the man who is to-day flourishing in the private sector, because of the private sector’s competition with the Government Departments, must know that the day this wheel turns the entrepreneur in the private sector will not hesitate for a moment to dismiss surplus staff; to drastically curtail the salaries of staff he cannot afford.

The railway worker knows this. Therefore, irrespective of the election and of the rush to court the “lady” that we have seen in this debate, I feel that I can adopt this standpoint since I also represent a railway constituency: I know that the Department—it has proven it repeatedly in the past years—take the railwayman’s position in respect of the cost of living into account. This is taken into account and adjustments are made periodically, as in the past years. But we also know that the Department adopts an attitude which offers the railwayman security, stability and a future, even when the picture changes and the wheel turns.

Mr. Speaker, we have made some progress in this debate. As we now approach the end of 15 hours of discussion on this subject, we find that in those 15 hours one hon. member on the Government siae has discovered that nobody is perfect. The hon. member for Windhoek who has just sat down says, “niemand is volmaak nie”. But we have made bigger progress; we found one hon. member on the Government side who actually admits that not more than 5 per cent of the railwaymen are dissatisfied.

I said not 5 per cent.

I feel that if we could continue this debate a little longer we would get a little nearer the truth and a little nearer the reality. Of all those hon. members on the other side who have spoken here during the last 15 hours, it is obvious that none of them has any contact with the ordinary rank-and-file workers on the South African Railways.

Nonsense!

Sir, in the second-reading debate I pointed out that of all the Nationalist Party members in Natal only one had spoken and that hon. member has not said a word about the railwayman and his problems. We have had a 20 to 25 per cent improvement; we have a second hon. member from Natal who has spoken in the third-reading debate but, by saying that he had had to go and see the Minister in Pretoria over various problems, that he had had to raise the railwayman’s difficulties at the Nationalist Party Congress in Natal, he admitted by implication, although he denied it afterwards and said that it was not 5 per cent, that he himself was aware of the problems. Of course, hon. members opposite who are whistling in the dark and trying to pretend that there is nothing wrong, are aware of these problems.

They are not being realistic.

Sir, we will go back from this House at the end of this month and we will tell the railwaymen of South Africa that hon. members on the Government side believe that they are entirely satisfied and happy. I want to issue an invitation to the hon. member for Aliwal. I hope to be addressing a meeting in his constituency. I ask him to make sure that his satisfied railwaymen are there to tell me how satisfied they are.

Sir, we have enumerated what we call the four fundamental failures of this Government in the administration of the Railways, and all we get is this utopian claim that everything in the garden is rosy. If we cannot get reality in this House we will have to seek it outside because something has gone wrong with the communications between Government members and those who they are supposed to represent. Let me just take a few of the remarks which have been made in this third-reading debate. The hon. member for Newcastle said that the railway worker was completely satisfied with the system of appeal which takes him direct to the hon. the Minister. I would like to challenge the hon. member for Newcastle to tell me how many complaints he has had about appeals which have been lodged and have not succeeded, and whether he can tell me of any cases of successful appeals in his constituency.

I will accept that challenge.

I hope he will do so, Sir, because I have been around in that hon. member’s constituency; I have talked with people in that constituency and I have heard person after person complain about the very thing with which the hon. member says they are absolutely satisfied. The hon. member for Newcastle said: “Die spoorwegman praat met die hoogste agting en respek van die agb. Minister.”

That is so.

Sir, two days before I left for Cape Town, a harbour worker, was talking to me and he said “Meneer, sal u nie ’n bandopnemer bring en kom hoor wat die mense sê van Ben Schoeman nie?” He then added: “Maar ek is jammer, ongelukkig sal u dit nie kan gebruik nie, want die taal wat gebruik word sal onparlementêr wees.”

Let the hon. member for Newcastle go on living in his dream world. Somehow it seems that we are the ones who are in touch with realities, with what people feel. The hon. member says he knows his job. Yes, he was the Railway doctor in Newcastle, and I should like to tell him what some of the Railwaymen in Newcastle had to say about their medical treatment and the whole scheme, including the availability of treatment. I raised it with the hon. the Minister in regard to Glencoe, where there are more than 5,000 Railwaymen and their families, and there is one Railway doctor. The Minister knows it. He knows that the Railwaymen will sit in the consulting room for hours and when the doctor has to give up late in the evening, people have to go home without having been attended to; and he is a first-class doctor, but he is a human being. He is the railway doctor and the district surgeon and the medical Officer of health at Glencoe, and he has to treat all the complaints of the railwaymen at Glencoe. This is the hon. member who says, having been a medical Officer on the Railways, that he knows how satisfied they are. I have taken it up through all the channels available. I have pleaded that the Glencoe railwaymen should be allowed to go to Dundee, where there are many doctors, because they cannot always get medical treatment available at Glencoe.

You interfere with other members’ constituencies.

Sir, when the M.P. does not look after his constituency, someone has to do the job, and we have United Party supporters who come to us and say that their M.P. is not looking after them, and they ask us to do something about this or that problem. I do not care what constituency it is and I do not care to what party the man may belong who has a problem or a complaint; I will take it up because that is our job as representatives of the people.

How many railway-men are there in Glencoe?

I think there is a voting strength of 2,800 out of the population of some 6,000 Whites.

How far is Dundee from Glencoe?

Dundee is five miles from Glencoe. I have written officially to the Railways asking whether people cannot go to Dundee, because if they go to Dundee they have to pay for themselves and cannot be treated free under the Railways medical scheme. I know of parents who have taken children across to Dundee to have them treated out of their own pockets, because the district surgeon, the M.O.H. and the Railway medical Officer, was tied up or was out or was engaged in an emergency and could not deal with the case. But when I go to the department they say this is run by the staff and they can do nothing about it. That may be the position, but then do not come to Parliament and say you do not know anything about it.

Do you agree that the poor medical services at Glencoe are because of the United Party Provincial Administration’s lack of interest in providing hospitals?

I have just said that Dundee is five miles away, and has a magnificent hospital with all the necessary facilities. All we ask is that the Railway Administration should allow Glencoe Railwaymen to go the five miles to Dundee to enjoy the service which is provided by the United Party Provincial Administration of Natal, but the Railway Administration will not allow it. Does this hon. member expect us to build two hospitals, one at Dundee and one at Glencoe? Anyway, the hospital is right on the Glencoe side of Dundee, so it is probably not even five miles away. I ask whether that hon. member or his party have made any representations for a hospital at Glencoe. I challenge him to name any occasion on which he or his party has asked for a hospital at Glencoe. They have asked for a clinic, but clinics fall under the Central Government and not under the provincial administrations, and the Central Government turned down their request for a clinic Sir, let us not have this sort of nonsense.

The hon. member for Windhoek asked whether we were going to bid against private enterprise, and he said: “Die Spoorweë hou rekening met die lewenskoste.” Are we really expected to swallow that, that the Railways take account of the cost of living? What industry, what organization in South Africa, has 80 per cent of its employees earning less than R200 per month?

80 per cent? Is non-White staff included?

Yes. Does that hon. member deny it? That shows the colour-blindness of that hon. member. When he thinks of railwaymen, he thinks only of white railwaymen. The 80 per cent includes all races, but of the Whites it is 64 per cent. There are 64,000 railwaymen earning less than R200 a month, and 12,000 earning less than R100 a month, which is slightly better than the position was three years ago, when 93,000 were earning less than R200 a month. I ask any hon. member on that side of the House to tell me how a person can rent a house and clothe, feed and educate a family on R200 a month, and maintain the standard of living which is expected of a country with the riches South Africa has; and R200 is the maximum. Mostly the basic wages are between R160 and R180 a month. That is where the large mass of that group falls. Then we will be told yes, but look at the overtime they earn, and all the Minister says is that there is a job to be done and they must get on with it. Sir, I made a mistake in the Second Reading. I spoke of somebody who was working 130 hours a week. Obviously I meant 130 hours a month—130 hours overtime. What does that mean to the family life of a man? But there is no answer from the Minister except a shrug of his shoulders and he says the work has to be done and they have to do it. Our case is that if you are making demands of that nature on people, then they deserve recognition for what they are doing, and the railwayman is doing the work and he is making that sacrifice. But he has to live at an unnatural tempo and work unnatural hours, and it has an unnatural effect on his whole life. The hon. the Minister gave no answer other than a shrug of the shoulders in regard to the problem of overtime and low wages, the first of the four factors.

When it comes to the question of discipline, it is on record and it stands in Hansard, and we will use it, that Government members state that railwaymen are perfectly satisfied with the disciplinary system. I want to deal, firstly, with the one case with which the Minister dealt, the only point on which he replied to what I had to say in the Second Reading. His reply consisted of personal abuse and then he dealt with the one point. I leave the personal abuse aside; we are getting used to it from that hon. Minister.

Have you no sense of humour?

Would the hon. the Minister like us to descend to that sort of sense of humour, of making personal remarks against members instead of dealing with the arguments? But let me deal with the facts of the case. I made a speech in which I claimed that the Railways penalized a person without trial. The hon. the Minister attacked me and said: But look at what this man did; he was due to be tried disciplinarily; he evaded the hearing by pretending that he was sick, claiming that he needed an opportunity to defend himself, and therefore we were right in deciding that he had resigned to escape punishment. But what are the facts? In May last year two non-Whites were found on his train without tickets. I am now dealing with facts. They claimed that they had paid the ticket examiner, and he denied that they had paid him.

Why did he not stand trial?

Sir, this was in May. Only when he said he was leaving, a few days before he put in his final notice, was a hearing called. [Interjections.] But irrespective of whether he stood trial or not, the fact is that R1.40 was involved, and this man had spent his life on the Railways. Without a chance to defend himself, that person was sentenced in the opinion of an official, Who assumed on the facts before him that he was guilty. [Interjection.] I am dealing with the principle of punishment by the Railways in the opinion of an official. I want to say, and it stands on record, that the Minister accepts that the opinion of an official shall be the basis on which a man may be fined. [Interjection.] It stands in the Act; that is the legal position. It is not only the legal position, but it is what js done in practice, that an official can determine on the evidence placed before him by the railways police or by some other complainant. [Interjection.] The hon. members clearly have no interest in principle at all. because I am dealing with the principle and he is trying to deal with the detail. I am dealing with the principle of punishment in the opinion of an official and I say it is wrong that an official in his opinion, without hearing evidence and without investigation, should be entitled to come to a decision.

But why did he run away?

No investigation was held. No hearing was held. That person did not state his side of the case. Whatever the reason for his leaving may be, that is his business. The fact is that he was not heard. This is typical of the attitude of this Government in so many fields: “We will determine what is right: we will do what we think is right and we will try you and we will act as prosecutor and as judge, and we mil act as policemen and we will sentence you and we will act as gaolers and we are not interested in the rights of individuals.” If the hon. the Minister of Transport has a claim against a person, he has machinery for it. Why did he wait seven months before taking disciplinary action? Why, if a crime was committed, even after the person resigned, did he not charge that person with committing a crime? If a crime is committed there are courts. He claimed that theft had been committed. Why did he not lay a charge of theft with the police, because theft remains theft, whether the person is a railway servant or not. Sir, the answer is that Railway justice is a different sort of justice from court justice, which is the justice which is granted on the basis of the traditional approach of South Africa to the rights of an individual. Railway justice appears to be different. The hon. the Minister and his department did not charge the man. They simply fined him administratively in their own right.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to spend all my time on that case. There have been many others. We have stated, and it has not been proved otherwise, that punishment for minor offences is becoming a bone of contention and a course of dissatisfaction in the Railways. Petty offences are being treated with far more severity than they should be. Last year I said this and the hon. the Minister jumped on me from a dizzy height. He challenged me to quote cases. Unfortunately for him I could quote cases of people being punished for refusing to do overtime work, and of people being punished for late arrival at work after they had done long stretches of overtime and had had only a short time off. In this House, for political reasons, the hon. the Minister attacked us. He attacked me and he attacked others, but what did he do then? He has now accepted that our case was justified. An instruction has been issued that people shall not be charged and disciplined for reporting late for duty. In other words, we were right, but for political reasons the Minister attacked us in the House. Now seven or eight months later an instruction has been issued as an experiment that action should not be taken in terms of disciplinary procedures against people reporting late. That is our duty as an Opposition, but I want to go further and say that when we are the Government in April, we will see that true justice is brought into the Railways. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister or any members on that side of the House have trouble, I am sure that we shall have jobs as wheel tappers for them. I think we shall be able to find the sort of job for many of them where one has to go around tapping wheels with a hammer. They will then make another sort of noise out of those wheels.

One of the other complaints I only dealt with at the end of my speech is what I call administrative bureaucracy. I mentioned to the Minister that 23 servants of the Railways had had their status changed. In the process they did not lose a single day’s service, but simply because their status was changed, they were penalized and have not yet received their double Christmas selection bonus. These were I.C.C.’s—intermittent casual clerks. I addressed the Minister in this House for five years in connection with these people, and every year he pooh-poohed me, until eventually he took action and did what I have asked. Those intermittent casual clerks who were suitable had their status changed to temporary staff last year. After being given the status of temporary staff they continued to do the same jobs without a single day’s break. These people had not served a full year as temporary servants, so they were not paid their Christmas bonus. Is that the sort of fair play in the Railways? Two people received their bonuses and 23 did not. If the hon. the Minister wants the details, I shall give them all to him. In terms of weekly notice No. 4384 of 24th November, 1969, which deals with the conditions of their transfer, they had to do 313 shifts, I think it was. but because they had been transferred during the year and had continued to do the same work in the same Office with no break at all, they were classified as not being entitled to their bonus. If they had stayed as I.C.C.’s they would have received the bonus and if they had spent the whole year as temporary staff, they would also have received it. However, because they changed their status during the year, they were penalized. The matter has been referred to the System Manager and to the General Manager. What is happening is that a bureaucratic argument is going on, and nobody will make up his mind. The result is that it is now February and that, since November, 23 people have been denied what is their right. That sort of issue the hon. the Minister does not answer. He can tell me that I am full of wind, but he cannot deal with facts. However windy it may be for the Minister, it is that sort of gale that is going to blow him out of Office in April, because he will not listen to the reality of the problem.

What if that does not happen?

If it does not happen, it will be a sad day for South Africa, because South Africa deserves a change. It deserves better than it has at the moment. I raised the question of the promotion system. It is interesting, Sir, that we are told that the Government is always right. I remember the hon. member for Yeoville some years ago questioning the promotion of a certain person who had been jumped up way above other people. The hon. the Minister got up in the House and said: “You do not know what you are talking about. This man has been promoted on efficiency. He is a first-class man. He has all the qualifications. He is being promoted because of pure ability and efficiency. That is why he has jumped over all the others.” Last year, Sir, a very senior position became available, almost at the fop. I challenge the hon. I the Minister to deny that that certain person came to him for an interview because he did not get the job.

I do not know about that.

Mr. Speaker, that person was found to be unsuitable for the position. He was a brilliant man, but he was found unsuitable for promotion, even though the promotion was available and his seniority entitled him to it.

Who was that person? You had better send me a note about this.

I shall send the hon. the Minister a note. I think he knows about this. This is the sort of thing that happens. If the Minister wants to defend his action in promoting someone, he says that that person is outstanding, but when it does not suit him to do so, he says that the applicant does not have the necessary qualifications or the necessary ability for the position. I have now quoted an example of someone at the top. This sort of thing happens at all levels. One of the things that causes dissatisfaction is that people so often act in a higher position than the one they are in fact occupying. Sometimes they receive acting-in-grade pay, but sometimes they do not. However, when such a position is filled, it is filled by someone from outside, who supersedes them. I have had cases where people have acted on and off for more than half their careers in higher positions. Then somebody is brought in from outside and promoted over them. I quoted, for instance, the case of the sailor in the harbour service, who was a deck helper. This person sometimes acts in as high a position as master, but he cannot be promoted because he does not have the seniority. He eventually left the service after two years of pure frustration, then found that he was at heart a seaman and that his life was on the water. He then returned to the service. He has now had another two years service, but he does not have any chance of promotion because others with more service are brought in. They do not know the work and he has to teach them, but they get the position.

The hon. member for Windhoek said that one could not bid against private enterprise, but the conditions under which people work also make a difference, ff we acceded to the hon. member for Yeoville’s request and subsidize rentals, it would make a big difference. Here I have a letter, dated 6th February, which I received yesterday in connection with a case I was dealing with. The answer given here is that this person was given a comprehensive list of local housing agencies and advised to seek suitable housing until such time as he could be accommodated departmentally. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Yeoville would always behave as decently as he did today, we would find it very enjoyable to fight and debate against each other. I cannot raise any objection whatsoever to the nature and the standard of his speech. Nor do I have any objection if, every now and then, he tries to make a little political capital out of the good deeds of the government. After all, they have to be consoled a little. Nor is it uncommon for the Opposition to tell the electorate that everything the government has done, is actually their responsibility. However, I grant them that little consolation. After all, it will not do them the least bit of good at the election. They will come off just as badly from this election as they did in 1966.

Where are you going to live after 22nd April.

In the same house I am living in now. The hon. member once again spoke about the pensions. He again pleaded for a non-contributory pension scheme. Sir, I really cannot understand the United Party now. They recently have had a great deal to say about the so-called credibility gap. This is another word they have borrowed from America, for while President Johnson was president, all the newspapers referred to his credibility gap. This is where they got it, but now I want to refer to the credibility gap of the United Party. The hon. member for Yeoville pleaded here for a non-contributory pension scheme for railway workers, but in this yellow booklet of theirs they plead for “a national contributory pension scheme free of the means test”.

Those are social pensions and not contractual pensions.

A national contributory scheme, as recommended to the previous government by the Sullivan Committee, will cover everybody. In a speech the hon. member himself said that the pension schemes had to be combined. He advocated this himself. He himself said that it was so easy to have a non-contributory scheme for the whole country by combining all the pension schemes.

One cannot debate that way.

If this is not the position, if such a scheme will only be for social pensioners, I do not know how it will function, because all of us will be old one day and those who comply with the means test will be able to apply for an old age pension, whether or not they were railway workers. Even those railwaymen who receive pensions to-day, are receiving supplementary allowances in order to bring their minimum income up to R100. Those people would then be excluded from the scheme advocated by the hon. member according to this yellow booklet.

Why would they be excluded?

They would be excluded because they would not qualify for it. Surely, they have to contribute to the old-age pension fund now.

But the one is social and the other is contractual.

But, surely, the two are combined. The two pension schemes are combined in the case of those persons who receive the supplementary allowance and the old-age pension. Let me put it this way.

But you cannot succeed in doing so.

The hon. member should merely try to understand this correctly. They say that the old-age pension scheme should be a contributory scheme, not as it is to-day where there is no contributory scheme and pensions are being paid out of the Treasury. They say all the aged should now contribute to that scheme in the beginning.

No aged person will contribute; the young people will do so.

The young people have to contribute, but surely they will be old one day. The trouble is that those hon. members do not know what they are talking about. The contributory scheme includes everybody. The object of a contributory social scheme is that when a person reaches a certain age, he has to receive a pension. Is this the case?

Yes.

In other words, he must have contributed to this scheme over a period of years and then he receives his old-age pension, unlike the position to-day where he receives it from the Treasury without having made contributions. They want to change this. They say that every person in this country who is a worker, has to contribute to that scheme. They did not say that railway workers or public servants would be excluded. Every worker has to contribute to that scheme, and when he reaches a certain age one day, he receives a pension, whereas at present elderly men and women receive pensions which are paid out of the Treasury, without their having made contributions for that purpose in the past. That is the difference.

How does this concern the Railways?

It concerns the Railways because the railwayman is also entitled to a free old-age pension to which he did not contribute anything.

Quite correct.

These hon. members are now saying that he must make contribution in respect of that pension, but not in respect of his railway pension, because that will be noncontributory-In other words, in order to receive a railway pension one day, he does not have to pay contributions for that purpose, but in order to receive an old-age pension, he must in fact do so. That is what they are advocating. Those hon. members have never given proper consideration to this matter; otherwise they would never have come up with this scheme. [Interjections.] I should very much like to argue this matter with the hon. member when there is time; at the moment we do not have the time to do so.

Now I come to the question of a non-contributory pension scheme for railwaymen. The hon. member said that it should not be a contributory scheme, but that it should be converted into a trust fund. After all, any pension fund must be sound actuarially. In asking for this, the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. The only fund which is not sound actuarially, is the parliamentary pension fund, because it is paid out of State revenue and if there is a deficit, it will be made up. Any fund must be sound actuarially, otherwise one has to contribute in order to make that fund sound. The latest finding of the actuaries is that, after the latest increases that were granted last year, there is an actuarial deficit of R396 million in the present Superannuation Fund. That is the position.

You will just have to retire.

*The MINISTER The hon. member’s trouble is that he talks about matters of which he has very little knowledge. His trouble is that he is too superficial He has never investigated any matter properly. He refers to a noncontributory scheme. In other words, the State has to accept the responsibility for all deficits that may arise in such a fund. The State has to make all the contributions and ensure that pensions are paid out of that fund. That is what they are asking for.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question in order to help him?

The hon. member need not help me. If it is an intelligent question, he is welcome to put it.

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. the Minister want to deny that actuarially a pension fund is based on the idea that if the undertaking is abandoned, there should be enough money for paying out pensions. May I also ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks the Railways will go out of existence?

If this were the case, the Railways would never have appointed actuaries to examine the Fund, and yet this has been done all these years. This is not the only basis on which an actuary examines a fund. They also take into account what the future obligations of such a fund are going to be. They take these things into account and they base their actuarial report on them. I repeat that the hon. member has not given attention to this matter. They are making all sorts of promises whilst they do not investigate the matter properly.

I want to mention another matter merely to show how little thought they are giving to the matter. The hon. member said that the Act of 1951, in which provision was made for widows whose husbands retired from the service before 1951, might also receive pensions. Once again he failed to remember that in 1951, when this provision was made, it was also provided that the contributions of the members of that fund had to be increased by 2-) per cent. For Heaven’s sake, how can these husbands who died before 1951, now be asked to make a contribution of 21/2 per cent so that they may again qualify in some respect or other. This is indicative of the way they investigate matters, and then they still come along with all sorts of promises.

How many people are involved?

The number of people involved in this, is 5,000. I have dealings with the members of that fund, and that fund is controlled and administered by the staff itself. The Superannuation Fund Committee makes recommendations on what is to be done, but the hon. member wants to go over their heads. They are so concerned about the workers, but they nevertheless want to deprive the workers of the right to decide about their own fund. That is what it amounts to. I hope that in future the railwaymen will take note of this.

In addition, the hon. member spoke about the housing rebate scheme again. Such a scheme would be a very fine thing, but it would cost a lot of money. The staff association has not asked me again to introduce such a scheme. I have only been asked by the Opposition to do so. I do not make promises before an election, and therefore I am saying now that I am not prepared to introduce it. As far as it is financially possible. I would rather provide my railway people with housing at low rentals, and I have already indicated that the Railways suffer an annual loss of R10 million on these departmental houses. In other words, a subsidy of R10 million is granted to those railwaymen who live in departmental houses. They must also bear in mind that at present it is not only railwaymen living in departmental houses who are enjoying this benefit. What about the house ownership scheme? They did not take this into account at all. In terms of this scheme loans at an interest rate of 4 per cent per annum are being granted to railwaymen, and at present thousands of them are living in such houses. That story with which they came forward to-day, i.e. that merely 20 per cent of them are receiving assistance, is therefore the biggest nonsense in the world. This simply is not the case.

Could you say how many of them there are?

The hon. member can place that question on the Order Paper and I shall reply to it then.

Then the hon. member once again raised the pipe line story. The question here is not whether we are making a profit of R22 million on the pipe line. A very important principle is at stake here. If I am to abandon the fundamental principle of rating, i.e. what the traffic can carry, and take into account the actual cost of the transport as well, it would mean that the Railways would have to reduce all its rates in respect of high-rated goods. Over all these years it has been the position that high-rated goods have to help to pay for all those goods which are transported at low rates and on which losses are often suffered. This is a principle which has been a generally accepted one ever since the Railways came into being and not only of late. Pipe-line transport is high-rated transport. That money is used, in turn, to subsidize the low-rate goods —such as agricultural products, foodstuffs and coal conveyed to the Cape—and to help to make it possible for the Railways to transport them at a loss. Therefore, apart from the amount which is fixed, it is a sound principle. As one says in English, “what you lose on the swings, you make on the roundabouts”. That is why I am not prepared, in spite of all these pleas made by the Opposition, to give consideration to reducing the rate on such pipeline transport. That money is urgently necessary for helping the Railways so that lowrated goods can in fact be conveyed.

That will take another two months.

The disillusionment awaiting hon. members will indeed be a rude one.

Order! Surely this is not relevant.

As regards the hon. member for Salt River, I can only say that I am not prepared to follow him on all those devious routes where he wants railway lines constructed. The hon. member again spoke about the disciplinary code, as did the hon. member for Durban (Point). I wonder if these hon. members really know what the disciplinary rode is. It is not a code that has been established or instituted by this Government. It has been there since 1910. I shall explain the system to the hon. members. Any servant who is guilty of disciplinary infringement can be charged in terms of the Act. That is an Act that has not been introduced to-day. It has been in existence for many years. He can be charged. If found guilty, he is punished. When he has been charged, he has the right in certain circumstances to ask for an inquiry. There is no such thing as a court. Then an inquiry is held. In certain cases of disciplinary infringement an inquiry must be held. In certain others a servant who is charged, has the right to ask for an inquiry. If that inquiry is held, witnesses are called and evidence is given. The disciplinary Officer sends a report to the head of the department to say whether in his opinion he finds that man guilty or not. Then the head of the department decides to mete out the appropriate punishment to that particular employee. When he receives notification of punishment, he has the right of appeal. He can appeal to the disciplinary appeal board on which he is represented. The chairman is a judicial Officer from outside the service. He is usually a magistrate.

That is only in serious cases.

In any case he can appeal, if he wishes, to the disciplinary appeal board. On that disciplinary appeal board he is represented. If the disciplinary appeal board’s finding is unanimous and accepted by the head of the department, there is no further appeal. But he also has the right to decide not to appeal to the disciplinary appeal board, but to appeal to the head of his department and then to the General Manager. If he is not satisfied yet, he can then appeal to the Railway Board. If it is a case of dismissal, he has the right, together with his representative of appearing personally before the Railway Board, to plead his case. That is the procedure that has been in existence, not since to-day, but for all the years since the Railways was established. I have received no complaints from the staff organizations in regard to the disciplinary code. Of course, every man who is punished is dissatisfied if his appeal does not succeed. Those are the people who complain. That happens. It will always happen. I want to say that the Railway servants are more privileged than the civil servants. There is no system of appeal in the Civil Service, none at all, whereas the railway servants have the right of appeal. They have the right to appeal in regard to promotions. They have the right of appeal in terms of the disciplinary code, either to the Appeal Board, or to the Minister eventually and the Railway Board. They can appear personally in the case of dismissals. This is the procedure which has been in existence, not since this Government came into power, but since the days when the United Party and other parties were in power. The staff organizations accept that. Of course there is dissatisfaction. Obviously many appeals do not succeed. Possibly the majority of them do not succeed.

100 per cent?

Not 100 per cent, but the majority. But that shows how, in the first instance, the Officer who dealt with the case, was quite justified in meting out that punishment. That is the position.

Is that Officer competent to do it?

Of course he is competent.

Is it not so that each level upholds the one below?

No, it is not so. Does the hon. member accuse the Railway Appeal Board, on which the railwaymen are represented, that they are prejudiced against people appearing before them? Is that what he is trying to say? I want to reply to this allegation. He says that everyone merely supports the other one.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether that board has before it only the documents in regard to the case and does not take any further evidence when it goes into an appeal case?

That board has before it the servant himself, together with his helpers.

His legal representatives?

Legal representatives are not allowed on the Railways. They never have been. It has never happened before. That is the system that has been in force on the South African Railways since its establishment. That is the disciplinary code. There are no “bush courts” as the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned. There is no court at all.

I know it.

Now he knows it, after I have told him.

Are there no courts at all?

I have just tried to explain to him. But surely, even the hon. member for Yeoville should know the difference between a court of law and an inquiry.

The workers call it a “bush court”.

The Sunday Times calls it a “bush court”. That is where the hon. member picked up this name.

The hon. member for Salt River spoke about young people wanting to come back again after having been discharged or having left for other reasons. We take them back unless their records are so bad that one really cannot take them back. There are many of them wanting to come back who have been in the service five or six times. We still take them back even then. Very often they have been discharged for serious offences. But after they have rehabilitated themselves, we give them an opportunity again of coming back to the Railways.

*The hon. member for Newcastle said that some attention had to be given to a new railway link between the Free State and Natal. Attention is given to all these requests, but at the moment there is as yet no justification for spending many millions of rands to construct such a new railway line. At the moment there is, of course, the link which goes through Bethlehem to Danskraal.

As regards the hon. member for Nelspruit, I may just say that 400 of these mechanized refrigerator trucks have been ordered. We hope that when delivery takes place, it will be possible to make more of them available to the farmers, especially those in the Lowveld area.

He also said that we had to give thought to a railway link between Barberton and Richard’s Bay. This is once again a question of whether or not it is economically justifiable. We may not construct railway lines which are not economic. But any railway line which will in fact be economic—in other words, which will at least be able to cover the working costs and the interest on capital—will always receive favourable consideration.

The hon. member for North Rand referred to over-bookings on the Airways. This is an old complaint. This is done by all air-lines, and the reason for this is that the approach of the passengers is totally different from that of passengers on trains. As regards the Airways, they think they can book and then stay away. If they stay away until after a certain time before the departure of the aircraft, they are penalized. But there are scores of them who stay away in spite of that penalty. After all, the aircraft cannot fly half-empty; consequently it often happens that people simply do not turn up whilst there are others who could not secure seats, and that when such persons reach the aircraft, they find that there is quite a number of empty seats. But sometimes it also happens that there is so much freight to be conveyed that certain seats have to be left empty. I know this is a problem and we are trying to surmount it to the best of our ability.

The hon. member for Aliwal spoke about a railway junction between Maclear and Mata-tile. This is once again a question of whether or not it will be an economic undertaking. We should very much like to provide this junction if the traffic on this route will in any way cover the working costs and the interest on the capital expenditure. As regards the goods-shed at Maclear, I want to say that I shall go into the matter and that I shall ascertain when the construction on a new shed will be commenced.

†The hon. member for Green Point said that the Employers’ Union was frustrated about the fact that when they make representations I turn them down. That union did not make representations in regard to the particular matters which the hon. member raised. The Federal Council of Railway Staff Associations made representations to me, however. This council is not the union, but the union is represented on the council. I want the hon. member to get his facts right. I turned their representations down because I said the time was not opportune. The hon. member again insisted that there is such a thing as a special overtime allowance. There is no such thing as a special overtime allowance and the hon. member’s facts are completely wrong. The hon. member has heard something about it, but he does not know what it really is. What I think the hon. member was referring to is a standard wage enhancement that is paid to certain grades. That is paid to servants when we revert from a daily-paid to a monthly-paid system. There is no such thing as a special overtime allowance and I want the hon. member to remember that when he goes back to the people who complained to him. He must tell them that he has heard the right name for what they have in mind, namely a standard wage enhancement.

They referred to it in writing as a special overtime allowance.

Can the hon. member not accept that there is no such thing? Overtime payments are paid at certain rates, but there is no such thing as a special overtime allowance.

You are correct. That is what they were talking about.

I replied to that matter in my reply of the second-reading debate. Servants are paid 11/3 their normal rate for overtime and they want their pension contributions based on their basic salary as well as their overtime. I have explained to the hon. member why it cannot be done. The hon. member also wanted to know why I do not accept the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions in regard to certain cases that came before them. I had very good reasons for doing that. The Select Committee on Pensions is informed by my department why they are not in favour of a special petition succeeding. In spite of that the Select Committee might make a recommendation.

But they do not agree.

They do not agree because they do not know enough about the matter. They might often make recommendations out of sympathy.

I am talking about the Select Committee.

I say that out of sympathy they often make recommendations.

That is what they are there for.

I have to run the Railways and I cannot create precedents. Very often the recommendations of the Select Committee can create precedents, the consequences of which I cannot foresee. I would like to give an example in this regard. In the past the Select Committee on Pensions has frequently recommended that the service of a servant with broken service should be linked up. If I agree to that I will create a precedent and open the door. I cannot possibly accept such a recommendation. That is the reason that when recommendations of this nature come before the House I move that it be referred to the Government. In other words, it is a nice way of turning it down.

It will save the Select Committee a lot of time …

The Select Committee knows what the procedure is in this regard. Is the hon. member a member of the Select Committee?

Yes.

In the particular case the hon. member mentioned did he not see the report of the department why they could not agree to it? He should then know what the position is.

The Select Committee still felt that the man was entitled to certain benefits.

I am also very sympathetic towards this man. Does the hon. member think that I deliberately rejected the Select Committee’s recommendation because I do not like the man? Surely the hon. member realizes that I only act when I think it is the interests of the Administration not to accept the recommendations.

The hon. member also spoke about ships lying in the bay which are victualled by helicopter. He asked if the Administration could not get revenue through this service. I am afraid that we cannot, because we have no control over it.

I have dealt with the disciplinary system to which the hon. member for Durban (Point) referred. The hon. member also made a very serious attack on the Sick Fund. The hon. member spoke about one railway doctor for 5,000 railwaymen at Glencoe.

5,000 railwaymen and their families.

I know what the hon. member said. I am not taking him up on that. The hon. member also asked why these railway servants could not get to doctors in Dundee. I take it he means private doctors.

Private and provincial doctors.

Are there no private doctors in Glencoe?

None.

The hon. member tells me that he is continually in contact with railway-men and surely they must have told the hon. member at one time or another that the Sick Fund is controlled by the railwaymen themselves. Does the hon. member not know that? Does he not know that the Minister has no control and no say over the Sick Fund? Does he not know that the Sick Fund appoints their own doctors? Does he not know that the Sick Fund decides where doctors must be appointed? Does he not know that there are local Sick Fund boards and also a Central Sick Fund Board with overall control? Does the hon. member not know that the Sick Fund makes recommendations as to the amount of contributions that have to be made by railway-men? Does he not know that they take disciplinary action against railway doctors if it is necessary? In other words, does the hon. member not know that the railwaymen control their own sick fund? The only time the Minister comes into the picture is when there is a deadlock on the Selection Committee in regard to the appointment or the dismissal of a certain doctor, and then he must act as arbitrator. The only other time the Minister comes into it is when he has to agree to increased contributions.

Is the Administration not represented on the Sick Fund Board?

Yes, of course, but surely they are also railwaymen? It is not the Administration that is represented, but the management. Does the hon. member not know that there is a difference between the Administration and the management? I and the Railway Board are the Administration and the General Manager and his officials are the management. Does the hon. member not realize that the General Manager and his officials are also railwaymen? Of course they are. Hon. members opposite plead for the railwaymen on the one side and on the other they attack them. The railwaymen administer their own Sick Fund.

Are my facts right?

What facts?

That there is only one doctor for 5,000 railwaymen and their families.

I do not know. It may be. The Sick Fund is administered by railwaymen themselves. The hon. member may be right and I do not deny it for one moment. If the hon. member wants to blame anybody, he must blame the railwaymen. It is their fund and they administer it. They have to decide if there should be another medical district. They can decide if they want to appoint additional railway doctors in Glencoe. The hon. member’s complaint is therefore against the railwaymen he purports to represent.

The hon. member again spoke of the Meyer case. If Meyer wanted to clear his name, he should have remained in the service. It was not seven months after the disciplinary infringement that this servant was charged. He was charged immediately on the basis of the Police report. In a similar case he would probably have been arrested. He was charged immediately, after which he said that he wanted an inquiry. That inquiry was arranged, not seven months later, but two months later on the 13th November. The offence was committed on the 17th September.

No, the offence took place in May.

The offence took place in May, but he was charged on the 17th September. He was, therefore, charged four months later and that was done to ensure that no injustice was done to him.

After everything is completed and all particulars have been gone into by the officials concerned, such a person is charged. This man was charged on the 17th September. When he received his charge, he said that he was not guilty. So it was arranged that an inquiry would be held on the 13th November, two months later. If the hon. member reads the Service Act, he will see that certain periods are allowed within which appeals must be lodged, in which charges must be made, in which the servants concerned have their right to say that they are not guilty and that they want an inquiry. In this case an inquiry was set down for the 13th November. Then he complained of a headache and took leave from the 13th November to the 28th.

I do not dispute all that.

What is your argument then?

My argument is that this man was punished without being able to defend himself.

This man was found guilty and charged. He was given the opportunity of an inquiry to prove his innocence. However, he made excuses because he did not want to appear before the inquiry. Eventually he resigned because he knew he was going to be punished. All these years the position has been that when a man resigns in order to avoid punishment or to avoid being charged, he is penalized as this particular man was penalized.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In this Bill a total additional amount of R9,797,350 is being requested to make provision for increased salaries and overtime rates for Post Office officials which were granted last year, for price increases, increased rentals and maintenance costs, the costs of telecommunication apparatus on order which could not be delivered during the previous financial year, speeding up of the Department’s expansion programme, and other additional expenditure which will have to be incurred during the present financial year. R8,613,200 is needed for additional operational expenditure and R1,184,150 for additional capital expenditure.

Details of the additional amounts required under the various heads of the Estimates, appear in the Estimates of the Additional Expenditure, which has been laid upon the Table.

It is probably not necessary for me to elaborate any further on the details at this stage, except perhaps to explain that approval for the 12 new building operations for which nominal amounts of R50 each were requested, is now necessary in order to prevent delay in calling for tenders for these works.

I can give the House the assurance that the services for which the additional funds are being requested, cannot be postponed without prejudice to the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, it is customary, at the Second Reading of a Bill of this nature, to refrain from having a long discussion since it deals primarily with particular items of which a few will be discussed during the Committee Stage. I note, however, that the hon. the Minister is requesting an additional amount of almost R10 million. I hope that the services of the Post Office particularly in regard to telecommunication, will improve accordingly.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to explain Item R, namely the hire of circuits in the Trans-Atlantic Cable and in other overseas telecommunication systems where an increased amount of R848,500 is asked for.

Mr. Chairman, this amount represents that of circuits in Trans-Atlantic Cable and other overseas telecommunications systems. The increase is as a result of the extension of circuits in the subterranean cable from Portugal to France, Italy and America.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this extension also has to do with the cable to America?

Yes, it is the extention of the cable from Portugal to France, to Italy and America.

Item S [R.P.13—1970]—Contribution towards the Development of Communication Sattellite Systems, R62,000.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister just to give us more information in regard to Item S, i.e. the contribution to the development of communication satellite systems, where an increase of R62,000 is being requested.

The Republic’s contribution has in the meantime been determined by the COMSAT Committee, and is greater than originally estimated. That is the other reason for this increase.

Mr. Chairman, I am not very satisfied with the explanation the hon. the Minister has now furnished. It was a very brief and very incomplete explanation. Additional money is being requested here for a system which is not really used by South Africa in any effective way. We are of course in favour of the system.

Order! The hon. member may only request the reasons for the increase in the amount.

Of course I can also discuss the reasons and criticize them not so? The reasons furnished by the hon. the Minister are in my opinion completely inadequate. I do not agree that such a large amount should be requested, since this system is never going to be utilized. The reasons advanced by the hon. the Minister here are in my opinion completely inadequate. More money is being requested here, but the hon. the Minister does not explain precisely how that money is going to be applied. I want a complete statement from him in this connection, for we are spending a great deal of money on this Satellite Communication System and on our membership of COMSAT. This is a good thing. We support it, but we want more information in this regard from the hon. the Minister. How is this additional amount going to be utilized? Is it simply money which is being thrown down the drain and from which we are going to derive no benefit? What benefits are we going to derive from this additional amount of R62,000. Could the hon. the Minister please explain this to the House?

Mr. Chairman, we receive the same benefits we have always received because of our membership.

What are those benefits?

We can at any time make use of this development. It also enables us to remain conversant at all times with the new development which is in progress. It is to the advantage of South Africa that we should know what that development is. I think the hon. member will agree that we must be well informed. The day we find it necessary to make use of it, we can make use of it.

Schedule 1 put and agreed to.

Schedule 2: Capital Services.

Items 2 and 4 [R.P.13—1970]—Telecommunication Services, R776.250, and Buildings, R600.

Mr. Chairman, an increase of R776.250 is being requested here for telecommunication services, could the hon. the Minister perhaps give us more information in this regard?

Mr. Chairman, of course it is here in fact that the achievements of the Post Office during the present financial year in respect of the expansion of our telecommunication services are reflected. The hon. member will know that last year we had R39 million with a view to spending on our telecommnication services. Then R52 million was placed on the Estimates in respect of the present financial year. That amount has been exceeded. Despite the fact that the expansion programme for the present financial year was increased by 33 per cent, it was nevertheless exceeded by the amount as indicated. The total amount in respect of telecommunication expansion consequently totals R54.2 million. This was brought about chiefly as a result of an acceleration of the telecommunication expansions. Then, too, there is still equipment on order which could not be delivered during the previous financial year. Provision has also been made for higher prices of materials, as well as for labour saving devices. This also represents part of the expansion which has to be paid for.

The hon. the Minister says that the increase which is being requested has something to do with the acceleration of the communication expansion. Does he mean by that the acceleration in the reduction of the shortage of telephone services in this country? Surely not. The hon. the Minister must furnish a better explanation of what precisely this means. The additional amount being requested now brings the total up to R52 million. According to the financial statements of the Post Office up to November, the hon. the Minister was not really spending each month what had originally been budgeted for. Does this additional amount which is being requested mean that we have the assurance that that R54.262.200 will really, or virtually, be spent on this particular item? I should also like to know in regard to sub-head No. 4 in respect of buildings, where an increase of R600 is now being requested, whether the total amount of R7.619.550, or a more or less equivalent amount, will be spent on buildings. In this case as well the figures indicate that up to November an average of 50 per cent of the amount which had been voted had been spent.

The position is that this amount will in fact be spent, otherwise the additional amount would not have been requested.

But then again you are saving in other ways.

No, the amount will be spent. I do not think we can argue this matter in the Committee Stage, but if I now wanted to teach the hon. member for Orange Grove a lesson. I would point out to him that one does not see the results of an expansion programme immediately. But must I now once again explain to the hon. member from the beginning the old story I have explained to him so many times already? Perhaps I shall explain this to him now in a very calm way.

Order! The hon. the Minister is not allowed to furnish an explanation.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. It is your ruling. I had wanted to teach the hon. member a lesson in this calm atmosphere, but now I unfortunately cannot do so.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a further question in regard to subhead 4 and the particulars given thereunder. Could the hon. the Minister give us some information in regard to the new automatic telephone exchange wing in Rose-bank, Johannesburg? I realize that it is only an approximate estimate.

Order! The hon. member may only ask the reasons for the additional amount of R600 which is now required to be voted.

With respect, Sir, I believe the hon. the Minister has given the reason, namely that it was done in order to get the work on the Estimates. Would it not be correct to say that this is an entirely new amount?

No, it is not a new amount.

The amount of R50?

It is an additional amount.

I am referring to the item lower down on the Estimates.

Are you referring to subhead No. 4?

Yes, subhead No. 4. But on the same page of the Estimates lower down details are given of subhead No. 4. You will find that each one of these amounts are new amounts. I do believe that I am entitled to ask for further particulars. I am not trying to hold up the House but I would like to have further particulars on this one exchange in an area in Johannesburg where great difficulties are experienced.

All I can say to the hon. member is that a new automatic telephone exchange wing will be installed in Rosebank. And of course this means that provision will be made for additional telephone services. I cannot now furnish you with all the precise details and say how many telephone services will be supplied as a result. What details does the hon. member expect to get? Does he know what the building is going to look like?

I should like to know what exchanges will be served by that.

I cannot give you that information at the moment.

Schedule 2 put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Yesterday I asked the hon the Minister whether he could not give us the reason why he has differentiated between the two classes of pneumoconiosis sufferers, namely those suffering from a disability between 20 and 50 per cent and those above 50 per cent. Those above 50 per cent are going to get a further 20 per cent increase in their pensions but those below 50 per cent will only get a 10 per cent increase. The hon. the Minister gave us the reasons and said it was because he was much more sympathetic towards those people who are unable to work on the mines because of their disability. He thought that in those cases he ought to give them a 20 per cent rise whereas the miner with a disability up to 50 per cent can still work. For that reason he was not entitled to get the same uplift in his pneumoconiosis pension. I want to remind the hon. the Minister again that the reasons for giving the pension in the first place are twofold. In the first place he is being compensated for his dis ability. The second reason is that increases in the disability pension come about because of the stresses and strains that that miner has because of the continual rise in cost of living. Now. the cost of living for the man who suffers from a disability of 20 to 50 per cent rises in the same way as it rises for the man with a disability of 50 to 75 per cent and more.

I cannot understand the reasoning of the Minister. He is firstly compensating, and differentiating, the disability because of the extent of the disability. That we can understand, but where it comes to a rise, surely the rise because of the circumstances which prevail at that time, must be the same. If he says to the House that those people suffering from a disability of 50 per cent or more are basically going to receive more money because of some reason, I can understand it, but he is giving a general increase in pensions. He says that the man who is suffering from the same disease but to a lesser degree, is going to get less rise in pension. I am not satisfied with the Minister’s reply and I wonder if he would not reconsider this position at a later stage. As the Minister knows, we cannot make any amendments at the moment, but I should like to ask him to reconsider this position. Perhaps he might find it possible to make the increases on a uniform basis for all the miners suffering from disability, so that all dependants will enjoy the 20 per cent increase.

Mr. Chairman, I gave the reasons yesterday during the second-reading debate on this Bill. I may just remind the hon. member that the pensions which are being paid at the moment and which have been paid over the years are also differentiating. The person who is certified as having between 20 to 50 per cent disablement gets a much smaller pension than those who are certified between 50 and 75 per cent and over. Therefore, the differentiation is inherent in the whole system as we have known it over the years. In regard to his plea that I should reconsider this at a later stage, I must say that I have certain difficulties which would keep me from doing so even if I was prepared to accept it, which I am not. That means we have followed the practice over the years to consult with the mining houses if a change is considered necessary, because they are also affected. I followed that practice very scrupulously also in this particular case. I think it would be totally wrong to agree now to something which has not been discussed in full with the mining houses.

I want to make the point again that it is only right and proper, and it should also be done in future, that if a global sum is available, it should first be seen to that the widows and the orphans of the deceased miners, and those who are prohibited by the Act to work in a mine and who cannot earn the living they have earned before, get the better deal out of the amount of money available. I may say that I have discussed this matter with the Mineworkers’ Union and they have full sympathy with and understand my point of view. If the hon. member reads The Mineworker, their official organ, of last week, he will realize how happy the miners are and how grateful they are for what we have done in this particular case. They fully accepted the fact that this one category, those who must earn their full living on the mines, should be given a 10 per cent rise while the others get a rise of 20 per cent. Therefore, I am sorry, but I cannot accept the hon. member’s suggestions for those very reasons. I think that we are very fair to those who need it most.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say that, although I can see the point of the hon. the Minister as regards the practice that if you have a global sum available, it should be used to the best advantage, I do not agree with him that by doing this he is necessarily using it to the benefit of the greater number of the people. Last night the hon. the Minister explained that these post-mortems usually reveal microscopic evidence in the lungs and I accept that part of his explanation. In other words, these are the people whose disease was overlooked in life and who later were examined post-mortem. It does not follow that their disease was overlooked because it was microscopic. It frequently is but there may be extensive degrees of the disease which are not recognized in the person who is still alive. The fact that the man himself was suspect to the extent that a post-mortem had to be carried out on him, shows that he had at least complained. I do not know whether the post-mortem was carried out because he was a miner or an ex-miner or whether the post-mortem was carried out because he had complained to the bureau and was suspect although not having been granted a pension. The assessment of his working capacity is relative because it depends on clinical grounds and it does not necessarily follow that it is accurate. A man may have much more disability than that found by the bureau. Under those circumstances I can easily see that there are many cases or could be many cases where it would be justified to provide the little extra that my colleague is asking for.

Mr. Chairman, I now fully understand the Minister’s difficulties in acceding to my request. Following upon what I have said, could the hon. the Minister then tell me how long pneumoconiosis sufferers would have to wait if they were in the 50 to 75 per cent disabled category and have to go into the next category? Will such a person get an amount which he is entitled to if it is found that he has been in a different category? In other words, the border lines between the categories must be so fine, as it was explained by the hon. member for Stilfontein. that you sometimes find a person who is 49 per cent disabled getting a 10 per cent increase, or his dependants are going to get it, whereas if he had been 50 per cent disabled he would have been entitled to a 20 per cent increase. If such a person goes for an examination, there is a six months’ interval, at least, between the examinations and what I want to know is. what happens in that interim period? Say a person goees for an examination in January and is certified as 49 per cent disabled, but when he goes for another examination in June, he is certified as being 51 per cent disabled, what is going to happen during that six months interim? Is he still only going to get the 10 per cent or will he go into the higher grade? I am trying to get as much as I possibly can for the miner who to-day classified under 50 per cent. I want him to get as much as possible and for that reason I say that his classification should start at his previous examination and not at his immediate examination.

In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Durban (Central) I would point out that a postmortem examination of all deceased miners is compulsory. It is laid down that the cardiorespiratory organs of any miner who dies, of whatever cause, must be forwarded to the Pneumoconiosis Research Institute, and that is why these cases where there is a microscopic presence of pneumoconiosis are picked up. The post-mortem is not done for any other reason. I think this is a very important point, because our miners have the absolute assurance that a post-mortem will be carried out. It is also, of course, of great assistance in the research work that is going on continuously at this particular unit, which I think is doing wonderful work in the interests of our mining community. So the point made by the hon. member that there might be much more discipline is not a valid one, I think, because during his lifetime the miner is examined periodically as a matter of right. He can go to the Bureau and ask to be examined, and as a matter of right he can also take the report of his house doctor and even the house doctor himself along to testify in his particular case.

The hon. member for Rosettenville would like to know how long it takes for a person certified to be 20 per cent to 50 per cent to move into the next category. There again it is laid down in the Act. He moved into the next category, as far as the amount of money payable is concerned, from the moment of certification. It is also laid down that there is no such thing as back-pay. That applies to all cases. It is the only practical way of doing it. But there again the miner goes up for periodic examination and of right he is entitled to these examinations and to the whole procedure which is laid down. I should like to take this opportunity, since this matter has been raised, to make an urgent appeal to miners all over the country to avail themselves of these examinations, because there are miners who neglect to go to the Pneumoconiosis Bureau. This is to their own detriment, so I think they should take note of the discussion that we have had here and make quite sure, in their own interests, that they go to the Pneumoconiosis Bureau periodically for examination.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

The proposed new subsection (2) of section 82 reads—

This disposal of the amount is something which I think needs investigation. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell the House briefly what methods are used to trace the pneumoconiosis sufferers in this category specifically and to inform them exactly how much is due to them and whether any funds have accumulated for their benefit. I want to say that it is no good putting this sort of notice in the Government Gazette because the average person does not even look at the Government Gazette. How would the man know that he was entitled to an amount of money which the fund may have on his behalf, or how would his dependants know?

This clause only refers to the Bantu.

That is the important point, because we have the difficulty of tracing these people. Yesterday the hon. the Minister told us that in his opinion it was good and sufficient to leave it in the hands of the Department of Bantu Administration and that he was satisfied that they would carry out the investigation and dispose of the money in a proper and reasonable manner. I want to read out to the Minister what the Auditor-General had to say about this; he said under the heading “Benefits to Bantu labourers: Financial Statements”:

Has the Minister amended the Act? I am not satisfied that sufficient care is taken with regard to the disposal of this money. Mr. Chairman, am I in order in discussing this?

The hon. member is in order.

I feel that there is too much money lying in the account for the pneumoconiosis sufferer which is now handled by the Department of Bantu Administration. Is it not possible, as I said yesterday, to have a central bureau where every Bantu worker who works on the mines can be registered? On leaving the mines he will then have to give the bureau his destination.

Order! I think that can be discussed more appropriately under either clause 5 or clause 6.

I know the one fits into the other.

The hon. member may continue.

I will not repeat this when we come to clauses 5 and 6. What other methods can we use to ensure that the Bantu knows that he is entitled to go and collect his money? I say that some sort of document ought to be given to the Bantu when he leaves the mine. He will be informed in this document which he carries with him that he must go to the commissioner. He will have the details in this document. What is happening now, I think, is that some of the Bantu working in the mines do not know, when they return to their homelands, that they can go to the commissioner periodically. They are lost sight of while the money owing to them is accumulating. The Auditor-General has remarked on the fact that the disposal of this money has not been satisfactory. Perhaps the Minister could give us his ideas on this matter.

Together with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, I paid specific attention to this matter during the recess last year. I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that this clause 4—and the same applies to clauses 5 and 6—resulted, as he said quite rightly, from the observations made by the Select Committee on Public Accounts in 1968. But this relates only to the bookkeeping system, and we are now rectifying it. The second point is that there are no accumulated funds with the Department of Bantu Administration. The arrangement is that we make advances to them from time to time. As regards the question of payments to the Bantu, I can assure the hon. member that I am extremely impressed by the way in which Bantu Administration is handling this matter purely and solely in the best interests of the Bantu. The Bantu is entitled to a certain lump sum of money, whatever it may be. Hon. members can appreciate that if this were given to the Bantu in one payment, it would be wasted. Before leaving the mine, he is notified that he is entitled to it: he is aware of it, and he has been identified by Bantu Administration. They know where he is going. It is therefore not a question of tracing them; the Bantu comes forward of his own accord, because he knows that he is entitled to certain moneys. Bantu Administration then arranges for this money to be paid to him in certain amounts according to his needs in the area in which he may be living, so that it actually takes the form of a pension. In certain cases, where such a Bantu for example wants to build a house or buy cattle, a larger amount, according to his needs, is made available to him on a single occasion. I am just giving hon. members these details in order to show that in this regard great care is exercised in the interests of the Bantu. I want to assure the hon. member that this amendment is merely aimed at rectifying the bookkeeping, etc., and that there is no accumulation of funds. In regard to the Bantu, those in our neighbouring states as well, I just want to add that our arrangements are such that the money is paid out there, or, in certain cases, here; it varies from state to state. The arrangements are not exactly the same. For example, we do not have exactly the same arrangement with Zambia as we have with Malawi. But the money is paid out in consultation with the various states. Although the Bantu are entitled to the money here, it is usually paid over to those states. The Bantu is aware of this; he knows where to go; he is identified and the money is paid out to him there according to the best judgment of the persons who know his needs. I want to give the hon. member the absolute assurance that we have given this specific matter the closest attention in the very recent past.

I thank the Minister for giving me this explanation and I accept it. While I am on my feet I wonder whether you are going to allow me to deal with the three paragraphs in clause 5?

No, the hon. member must please wait until I put clause 5.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

There is just one slight alteration I should like the hon. the Minister to make in the Other Place perhaps. Sub-section (2) reads that whenever the Bantu Affairs Authority discovers a Bantu person who is entitled to any benefit, certain things must be done. I think this word “discover” is a bad word. You do not discover a person. I think we should rather use the word “find” or “locate”. But to “discover” him means, to my mind, that you are going to dig underground to discover him.

This relates to live persons.

Yes, and that is why I said the word does not fit the case; but it is just a small matter. Would the Minister consider changing the word “discover” to “locate”?

I looked into that and to my mind one finds diamonds. “Discover” is quite a nice word. The Afrikaans version reads “the wete kom”. In this particular case perhaps the Afrikaans language is more expressive than the English. But I do not think there is anything wrong with this word “discover”, and I think we should rather leave it there.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

Here again I differ with the Minister and yesterday I said that I felt that a widow whose husband has been found to be suffering from penumoconiosis by postmortem should not only get the pension she would have been entitled to if he was disabled 20 per cent or more, but I felt that the widow was entitled to a pension even if it was below 20 per cent. I recommended that the Minister should consider giving to that widow, or the dependants, a pension of not less than two-thirds of the amount which would have been given to the widow if her husband died and was suffering from 20 per cent to 50 per cent disability. I do not want to elaborate on it. I think it is a matter which could perhaps be pursued further. I feel strongly about it.

This clause does not deal with that. It deals with funeral costs.

I say I agree with the funeral and the medical costs. I said that yesterday, but in addition to that I asked for this.

Order! The hon. member cannot go beyond the clause. He cannot ask for something additional.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to the implications of this clause, because if you look at it you will see that not only may the ex-miner unfortunately have had pneumoconiosis, but he may have had tuberculosis as well in some instances. This is more serious and should justify something being done for the widow, because after all the miner, while alive, did not receive any compensation for his tuberculosis or his pneumoconiosis, but I am emphasizing the tuberculosis aspect of it. Tuberculosis and pneumoconiosis together constitute an extremely serious illness. To pay the funeral expenses is. of course, a gracious act to the widow and the children.

The hon. member must confine himself to the medical and funeral expenses only.

I am talking about the medical expenses, because I want to emphasize the seriousness of having the two diseases together, and how much more compensation the man would have been deprived of by the fact that it was not discovered earlier. That is what I really want to draw the Minister’s attention to, namely that he must not overlook the gravity of this situation merely because in some cases, in fact in most cases, the discovery is only made by means of a microscopic test. Tuberculosis, anyhow, is a very grave illness, particularly when it was not recognized during life. Then it was and remains an even greater threat to the man’s family.

May I point out that this clause merely deals with funeral costs. Those widows or dependants who after the amending legislation of 1965 got the one sum because the husband was found at the post-mortem to be suffering from pneumoconiosis to the extent of less than 20 percent were not entitled after 1965 to the R170, as it was then, and which is now R180. for funeral costs. This is merely to put it right so that they will also benefit. In other words, it is an extension of this particular question of funeral costs, and that is all this clause deals with.

The hon. member mentioned the possibility of a miner being found to be 20 per cent or less suffering from pneumoconiosis at the postmortem. If that particular miner was suffering from tuberculosis, he would have been compensated for it in his lifetime, and if he is found to be 20 per cent or less at the postmortem, his widow will get the lump sum. So nothing can be overlooked. But this clause merely deals with the funeral costs.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

We will support this clause because it merely gives the Bantu Trust authority to utilize this money for the purpose of taking over townships from the minucipality and to take liability for the housing loans which the municipality has incurred. I think a discussion of this would probably be more proper under clause 2, and therefore we will not oppose this clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

We have no objection to clause 2; but at the same time I should very much like, during the course of this short discussion in Committee, to get from the hon. the Minister what exactly he hopes to achieve by this clause. In his second-reading speech the hon. the Minister said, inter alia, that in implementing the policy of the Government it is desirable for these townships to be incorporated in the homelands. I would like him to tell us what exactly he hopes will be achieved in the furtherance of their policy in this regard. Of course there are two types of townships mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister in his second-reading speech, namely those Native townships which were in the homelands and which were convenient for serving urban areas situated in the white areas. I stress that they were convenient for serving urban areas situated in the white areas. I think a clear example of that would be Umlazi, which is in the reserve but conveniently situated for serving the urban area. The second class, of course, consists of places which, in the Minister’s words, are situated in white areas but adjacent to Bantu areas. Here the Minister himself gives the examples of Durban and Rustenburg, and I take it that here he is thinking probably of Kwa Mashu in Durban. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me what he thinks this achieves in the furtherance of his policy, what it truly achieves, apart from re-drawing boundaries. I can quite see that re-drawing boundaries of the kind we are having does enable the hon. the Deputy Minister or may enable him after the 1970 census to come along and say: “You see, the rate of increase of the numbers of Natives in the white areas is slowing down.” If this is an important objective of the Government, they are perhaps welcome to it, but I suggest that in fact there will be as much interlocking after the moving of this boundary for which this money is being made available, as there is at present. Sir, I received through the post a publication called “The African Reserves of South Africa” by Muriel Horrell, in which I find there is a map. It is interesting to note that on this map there are 71 townships referred to—all the various townships in the Native reserves or, in some cases, just outside perhaps; I think they are all in the reserves. It is interesting to note that with practically no exceptions these townships, many of them established by this Government—others have been there for years—are right on the very borders of the reserves adjacent to a white area, adjacent to a place of activity under white control requiring labour. The point I want to make is that all these 71 townships, with very few exceptions, remain interlocked, if the Minister does not like the word “integrated”, with the whole white economy. As far as the Transkei is concerned, I do not think there is one new township inland at all. I think there is one very close to Queenstown, which is shown as No. 67, and which I presume is probably Ilinge. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he can name one town or village which is really deep into the interior of these reserves and which has an independent life force of its own. I think the whole idea of the Government’s policy, with the creation of these townships, was that they should have a life force of their own, quite independent of the white economy. But I cannot find one, and I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, when he replies to tell me of one which has an independent life force of its own. It is not only persons like myself that have worries in this regard. No less an authority than Professor J. H. Moolman, speaking to Sabra, in October, 1967, had something to say about this type of township right on the border which is either incorporated or not incorporated. He was speaking about the number of these townships. When he spoke four years ago, he referred to 39 new townships, or “dorpe” …

Order! I think the hon. member should confine himself more to the details of clause 2. That is a second-reading speech.

Mr. Chairman, we are here being asked to approve a clause to make it possible to incorporate areas presently in the so-called white part, into the reserves. I suggest that, seeing that we are spending this money, we are entitled to know what the Minister hopes to achieve by this action. I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to indicate what he hopes to achieve by doing this. His reply could well add to the justification for supporting this clause. Sir, I hope that you will not be severe on me in this regard. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have an opportunity to advance reasons why we should vote for this clause. I have said that we will indeed support this clause but, at the same time, it would be very interesting to have him advance his reasons.

Sir, I shall not delay the House with a long quotation from Professor Moolman’s speech, save to point out that he emphasizes that we are here involved in a considerable effort of physical planning. He too is looking for villages which have an independent life force of their own. He asks whether we are not simply concerned with negative planning rather than positive planning. I end by simply saying that, while we are supporting this provision, neither we nor the Government are hereby in fact separating one single Native by one yard from the white areas. Although we are authorizing this incorporation of areas, these people are as close as ever to the white areas.

Secondly, I want to suggest that we do not in any way reduce the numbers actually circulating in the white areas, in the parks, the shops, the streets or the railways or wherever else you like. I therefore feel that it would be most helpful if we could hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister what in fact he is positively achieving with this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the Opposition for supporting clauses 1 and 2. The hon. member for Pinelands has asked a very fair question. He wanted to know what we were going to achieve after we had placed clause 2 on the Statute Book. I want to mention a few very important considerations to him, in order to show what we are in fact going to achieve. Firstly, we are, to put it in general terms, now reaching a position where the policy of separate development, with the emphasis on the word “development”, is being implemented further along these lines. This point will be made clear when I mention the other considerations. As I explained in my second-reading speech, we find, in the second place, that the Bantu Trust cannot undertake development in a white area, but the Bantu Trust can in fact undertake development in a Bantu homeland. There is therefore a second great advantage in this. If this clause should become law, Kwa Mashu could, by means of this, be incorporated in the Bantu homeland, or the Bantu area near Brits can be incorporated in a Bantu homeland. Here we therefore see a second great advantage, because the Bantu Trust could then undertake development in those areas. As Kwa Mashu is situated now, i.e. adjacent to a Bantu homeland, the Bantu Trust from the nature of the case cannot undertake such development.

There is a third advantage, which in fact is the most important of all. The third advantage is that in a Bantu township in a white area the Bantu have no proprietary rights. In the Bantu homeland, however, the Bantu certainly do have proprietary rights. Therefore we find, again in terms of a practical example, that in Kwa Mashu as it is situated now, i.e. adjacent to the reserve near Durban, the Bantu have no proprietary rights. If, however, this clause becomes law, and this area is incorporated, the Bantu in Kwa Mashu will obtain proprietary rights. This is very important.

There is also a fourth very important advantage which will be gained. Of course, in this process hon. members will see for themselves how sensibly this policy of separate development unfolds itself here, and that is why I am so glad the hon. member asked me the question. The fourth advantage is a very, very important one. It will perhaps be precisely this fourth advantage which the Opposition will find the most important of all. The fourth consideration is that, in a white area, our policy is aimed at settling Bantu there on a migratory labour basis, whereas, in the Bantu homelands, the Bantu are settled on a proper family basis. To take another example, we find that if Kwa Mashu were incorporated, the Bantu could be settled on a family basis much more easily than the case would otherwise have been, because it would then be inside a Bantu homeland. There are other conditions I can add which are less important and which arise from the four most important ones I mentioned, but with these four advantages I have mentioned, I think I have answered the hon. member’s question.

The hon. member also asked me a second question. I want to reply very frankly to that as well. He wanted to know whether I could name a township where the Bantu were completely independent economically. The fact of the matter is simply that we have always been saying that we are working in the direction of reaching a stage where every Bantu homeland, and therefore the townships in those Bantu homelands as well, would as far as possible and as soon as possible attain economic independence to the extent which is possible in a country such as South Africa. This, we said, we want to achieve through activating the Bantu authorities, with which we have made good progress, and through our general development policy in the homelands. But we have always added that at the same time we, as practical people, accept that there is such a thing as economic inter-dependence. In this connection I can refer hon. members back to Dr. Verwoerd and Minister M. C. Botha, as well as to the speeches I myself have made in this connection. We have never evaded it, nor do I intend evading it now. Having said this, I can reply further to the question put by the hon. member for Pinelands. I may tell him that in the vicinity of King William’s Town and Pretoria there are in fact areas where we are rapidly reaching a stage where we are able to effect, to the extent in which it is possible, a certain measure of economic independence. Temba is such an area where we are now making good progress with the agency basis. This is my reply to the two questions put by the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the Deputy Minister for his reply, but I think …

Order! That question a moment ago was completely out of order. I allowed it, and I also allowed the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to it. I think we should leave the matter at that now.

Sir, may I not just very briefly …

No, I am not prepared to allow it.

I submit to your ruling, Sir, but I am sorry that I do not have a chance to show …

The hon. member may do it during the third-reading debate.

Very well, Sir, I shall just complete my sentence. I shall not go any further. I just want to say that I find it interesting how the two policies in this connection practically amount to the same.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to enlarge upon that.

Mr. Chairman, you have just ruled that we cannot discuss the reasons given by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I submit that we are entitled to find out how this clause would be administered, and what the intention of the Government in fact was. The Deputy Minister has said that one of the intentions is to be able to give the African home ownership. Once the Trust takes over this land from the municipality, it will then be able to allow home ownership. That is one of the reasons he gave. That, in fact, is one of the main reasons why we give our support to this clause. This matter actually arose during the discussion on another Bill last year, when the Minister said that it was the intention to give home ownership to the Bantu. That influenced us in accepting this clause.

The Deputy Minister also said that the African would now be able to enjoy a family life in these townships that will be taken over, because it is the Government’s policy to allow the Africans in the reserves to enjoy family life. That is one of their aims.

There are no restrictions.

Yes, exactly, but I should like to ask him how an African living in Kwa Mashu is going to be any better off once Kwa Mashu is acquired by the Bantu Trust. Will the African be any better off than he is to-day? He is enjoying his family life there to-day, and working in Durban. I am afraid that I cannot quite follow the Deputy Minister’s point. In any of these townships which the Bantu Trust is going to take over, the African is in fact enjoying family life at present. Is that not so? It is so. The Deputy Minister gave that as the most important reason.

If that is so, why do you quarrel so much with us about contract labourers?

That is not the point, Sir. These Africans who are living in Kwa Mashu now, are working in Durban. They are enjoying a family life. When the Bantu Trust takes over Kwa Mashu those Africans will still be living there, they will still be working in Durban and they will still be enjoying a family life. I really cannot see the point the Deputy Minister was trying to make. What I do fear as a result of the remarks made by the Deputy Minister, is that the Government will now use these figures in respect of Africans living in Kwa Mashu, or near Rustenburg, or in any other township which may be taken over by the Bantu Trust, and add those figures to the Africans who have moved into the reserves. That is what I am afraid they will do. He has already indicated that…

Order! I think the hon. member is entirely off the clause.

But entirely correct in my surmise, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! That may be so, but the hon. member must come back to the clause.

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to me in regard to the fourth reason he mentioned.

I shall answer very briefly on that point. We on this side of the House are certainly not so figure mad as to adopt as our aim what the hon. member has just suggested, and for that reason try to incorporate Kwa Mashu, or for that matter any other area bordering on a Bantu homeland, into the homeland.

Promise you will not count them.

Our intentions as far as this clause is concerned, and always, are absolutely aboveboard. [Interjections.] I have mentioned four very fundamental and important reasons, to the advantage of the Bantu people, why we are adopting this course. I think I must leave it at that.

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister explain the fourth reason again?

Order!

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, we will not oppose clause 3 since it is aimed at bringing about better control over visitors to farms who may be there unlawfully and without the permission of the owner of the farm or anybody else. We therefore support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I object to this clause because it puts a very heavy onus on the African concerned and because it will be one of these little laws that implies guilt unless innocence is proved. I also do not like the new clause 3 (c) (i) which states that “it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved”. This is one of those measures which puts the onus of proof on the accused and because in principle I am against such legislation. I am going to object to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed section 26 (4) (ii) states:

1. (ii) it shall be no defence for such owner to allege or aver that such Bantu are on such land without his approval unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court that he has instituted and is actively pursuing an action for the ejectment of such Bantu from the land.

It seems to me that the meaning of this provision is that if Bantu illegally squat on a man’s land …

Could you just give me the exact reference again?

Mr. Chairman, I can quite understand it that the hon. the Deputy Minister is having difficulty following me.

Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt the hon. member. I do not want to be rude but if the reference is in fact the one he gave, then he is talking about something which has been law for very many years. I am therefore not in difficulty; he is.

Order! The hon. member for South Coast may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister is not going to start off by talking about being rude because I can also be rude.

Order! That is why I called the hon. Deputy Minister to order.

Let us then stick to the same rules which are applicable on both sides.

Calm down.

Then he should not talk about being rude. He should in fact apologize. If the hon. the Deputy Minister now has the correct reference I will proceed. I refer to proposed paragraph (ii) which starts with the words “it shall be no defence for such owner to allege or aver.. That is the paragraph with which I am dealing. Its full reference is 3 (c) and starts in line 44. The position seems to be that if Bantu are illegally squatting on land or have settled on that land in terms of what goes before this, the owner himself can find himself in trouble and can himself be charged for permitting those Bantu to squat there. He cannot go to court and on oath say that they are there without his permission. He can go to court and prove “to the satisfaction of the court that he has instituted and is actively pursuing an action for the ejectment of such Bantu from the land”. This is one half of the picture. What about the other half, i.e. what the owner does? There are numerous cases where Bantu do squat without the owner’s knowledge or approval. This clause puts the onus on a man who as far as he is concerned has remained within the four corners of the law. The hon. the Deputy Minister is right when he says that that is the law at the present moment but it is being re-enacted here and we want to know what the position is going to be. We on this side of the House are now investigating a case where precisely this position has arisen. The magistrate has said that he will not grant an eviction order because he has nowhere to put these people.

Order! I am not quite sure with which provision the hon. member is dealing.

I am dealing with paragraph (ii) which starts in line 44.

But that is existing law and is not under discussion at the moment. Only the portions marked in black are under discussion. The hon. member may not discuss existing law.

What I am discussing follows from the new provisions earlier in this clause which places the onus not to squat on that land on the Bantu. One of the new provisions is that which places the liability on the Bantu. The various provisions higher up in the clause are new. They impose the liability on the Bantu.

The hon. member may only deal with the new subsection (1) (c) which starts in line 22, because that is a new provision.

The Bantu on such land cannot allow another Bantu to come and occupy their premises or that land.

That is the only point that is under discussion.

That is correct and I ask what the Government is going to do about it. That Bantu will want to get them evicted but what does he do? I know about the existing law which is not being enforced. I pointed that out. I told the House that the existing law was already not being enforced. This onus is now placed upon the Bantu but what will a Bantu have to do in terms of the new subsection 1 (c)? I refer especially to line 23. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us what such a Bantu must do? To-day the white man can do nothing because the Government will not assist him by giving eviction orders. What position is the Bantu now going to be placed in? He is now being made a criminal for something where there is probably no mens rea whatever as far as he is concerned.

Mr. Chairman. I should like to reply to both the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Houghton in this connection. However, I should first like to rectify something else. I honestly did not intend being rude when I wanted to correct the hon. member for South Coast. Now I quite understand the problem which the hon. member has, and I should very much like to try to reply to that in detail.

Briefly, the position is this. In terms of the Trust and Land Act of 1936 the onus rested solely on the farmer. We are simply adding two small things in this regard. We are now making provision for a prohibition and a presumption. Should this clause be enacted, the prohibition provision would mean that the onus would rest firstly on the Bantu who is in fact lawfully on a farm and secondly on the Bantu who is found on the farm and may not lawfully be there. This is the first step we are taking. That is the prohibition provision. In other words, we are extending the responsibility which has rested solely on the farmer up to now, to these two categories of Bantu as well. Then we are taking a second step.

†I refer to the point made by the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton spoke about the question of a presumption contained in this provision. In terms of this part of the provision we presume that the Bantu legally there, in the event of a court case, will have the onus to prove that he has not given the necessary permission to a Bantu who is found on those premises. This is specifically to meet the point made so validly by the hon. member for South Coast, namely that the farmer is not always on his farm. We have experienced in practice that that gives rise to a lot of problems. We have included this provision to place the onus also on these two categories of Bantu, that is both the Bantu who is legally there and the one who is illegally there. That is the position. As far as the point raised by the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I want to say that it is basic to the criminal law system that an accused is always deemed to be not guilty until it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that he is in fact guilty. The State is however not expected to prove his guilt beyond all doubt but in civil litigation a litigant need only prove his case beyond a balance of probabilities. Thirdly, the whole conception of having presumptions in our criminal legislation is an aid, and is to aid the State in providing a set of circumstances. It would be foreign to our much cherished criminal system in that it militates against the cardinal principle set out above, which I have just mentioned. Yet it is not unusual to find these presumptions in our present day legislation. We have them, for example, in section 9 (5)bis of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945. The courts have, however, ruled that after such a presumption applies, i.e. where the onus is on the accused to prove his innocence, the same rule applies as in civil litigations. That is to say, the quantum of evidence required to shift the onus or to rebut the presumption is proved by way of a mere balance of probabilities. He may, for example, merely deny a certain state of affairs under oath and then it is for the State to prove that he told the untruth, or that the circumstances in fact exist.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the presumption is nevertheless of great value to the prosecutor, as it assists him to finalize an action without a host of witnesses. So the point I am trying to make is that, where we now place the onus on the Bantu, the position in the existing legal system of South Africa is that this is considered to be very, very fair justice indeed. I therefore do not think that the hon. member made a valid point a moment ago.

Everything the hon. the Deputy Minister has now said strengthens my determination to vote against this clause. First of all, as I understood the clause, and he has in fact borne out everything that I did understand by this clause, what really should be the responsibility of the absentee landlord, the farmer who is not on his land and ought to be on his land, is now placed on the African. He has to show that any illegal squatters who come on to that land have done so without his permission. How will he be able to stop people from squatting on the land? These may be enormous farms. In South Africa there are farms of 5,000 and 6,000 morgen. Why should an African living legally on that land, who has been there as a labour tenant or in any other legal capacity, be held responsible for any illegal squatter that comes and settles on any corner of this land? It is the farmer who has to look after his land, not the labour tenants, who have no authority anyway.

On his premises, not on the land.

The point is that an African does not have the authority to kick another African off the land. The only person who has the authority is the legitimate owner of the land, who is the white farmer It is on him, fairly and squarely that the responsibility of getting rid of illegal squatters should rest. I am against this removal of the responsibility from a man who is in a far better condition to look after himself and his land than is the African labour tenant. All the other arguments the hon. the Deputy Minister has used about onus of proof, probability and all the rest, weigh extremely hard on a rural African who has no knowledge of the law and is unlikely to be able to afford any defence whatever. He probably does not even know, since nobody is likely to tell him that all he has to do is to deny on oath and the chances are that the magistrate will accept this as being sufficient proof that he is innocent. He has to face a trained prosecutor. He has no legal defence. There he is, hauled into court, and the onus of proof of innocence rests on him. I think this is taking an unfair advantage of a man who is least able to defend himself. He is not in any condition whatever to be able to stand up to a law of this kind. I am certainly going to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has not read this clause properly.

I have read it very well.

No, I shall prove it to her. If the hon. member reads lines 53 and 58 she will find that she argued wrongly. In these two lines it is made abundantly clear in the words “found in such dwelling”. It does not read “on the farm”. So she misinterpreted this altogether. What does the expression “in such dwelling” mean? If a Bantu is found on the farm, it is one thing; but if a Bantu is found in the dwelling of a Bantu who has been there legally, then surely the onus must be on that Bantu in whose dwelling this Bantu is illegally found. It is his responsibility. If the white man cannot be on that farm, what is wrong with that? You would not allow any foreigner in your dwelling without your noticing it. You will carry the responsibility.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must address the Chair.

So, Mr. Chairman, why the hon. member is making such mischief out of this clause I would not know. She agrees with the reasons I put forward in terms of the probabilities and the legal aspect of it. Then she made this point. Now I am proving to her that that point is not valid at all.

Mr. Chairman, I doubt whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has read the Bill if it comes to that. If the Deputy Minister would look at line 25, he will see that that clause goes much further than “occupying any dwelling”. It says—

Sir, it goes much wider than just the dwelling. I am going to vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is really being somewhat mischievous, because in interpreting a clause she is venturing into the field of law. With the best will in the world one surely cannot read into this clause anything which makes it applicable to land. The entire clause deals with residence. It does not deal purely with occupation. If it were occupation, then it would refer to land. Here there is talk of “residence”, and residence refers to a building. This entire provision concerns residence in a building which may be on that land. This is where the hon. member misunderstands the matter. I think if she would just appreciate this, she would realize that she has completely misinterpreted it. Therefore her argument is also wrong.

Look at line 26.

Yes, I have looked at line 26, but the hon. member is wrong. The hon. member is also wrong in regard to the onus. None of us in this House likes the placing of onusses on accused. This has been said repeatedly in this House from the Government side. But where it is essential, it is a recognized part of our law of evidence. Here it is essential. What is the problem of the police or any person who wants to investigate this Bantu’s actions there? He arrives at this dwelling and finds the permanent lodger there. He asks him: “What are you doing here?”. He then replies-“No, I am just visiting here”. The owner of the land perhaps says so as well. That is about as far as that prosecution can go. All the thousands who live there illegally, make use of this excuse and the State simply cannot prove its case against them. They get away with those excuses. The one protects the other. It is high time that this legislation was introduced to clamp down on those people who want to get away with those excuses. The only way in our law of evidence in which one can succeed in a prosecution, is to place the onus on that accused. It is correct, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, that the onus is the same as in a civil case. In other words, he must prove his case on a balance of probabilities. But that balance of probabilities does not mean that he can get away with any nonsense in court. If he can say, “But I am only a lodger with this other person”—in terms of the first clause the onus is placed on the owner as well, the Bantu who is allowed to occupy that dwelling—then he cannot get away with this kind of story. Therefore the onus is essential to obtain a conviction in this case. This is virtually the only way in which one will be able to achieve it. If this article appears on our Statute Book, I am convinced that these geographic problems would very soon be solved. I think the hon. member is off the mark in regard to those two matters. This is why she raised this argument.

Mr. Chairman, I can’t let the hon. member for Houghton off the hook so easily. When she spoke a moment ago she referred to line 25. I want to make one observation in this regard, namely that it is only the presumption that applies in line 25 and that that presumption is applicable to the dwelling and not to the farm. The hon. member is therefore also wrong in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to one matter. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister who is responsible when some other person occupies a house if the owner is not there. There is no definition of the word “occupied” in this legislation. A person may stay two, three, or eight days at a place. We do not know what “occupied” means. In this connection I should like to mention an example. If the owner of a house is away on leave and his brother comes to stay in that house for ten days, is his brother then occupying that house? What is the situation then? Should the measure not be more clearly defined in respect of what occupation means? Must one hold a person responsible when someone is staying in his house if we do not have a definition of “occupy”?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has raised a very important point, and I am grateful to him for that. He is entirely correct. This legislation does not in any way define what “occupation” means. In legal terms it means that the dictionary meaning of “occupation” is the accepted legal meaning of “occupation”.

And what is that?

The generally accepted meaning of “occupation” is that if a person should remain in that house for a day or three, that person is then occupying that house. For that reason it was not deemed necessary to define occupation here, and for that reason, too, it is not being defined in the Bill. I think there was a court decision in this regard. The court stipulated simply that “occupation” in the accepted sense contained in the dictionary means occupation. That is the reason why my Department has never yet deemed it necessary to come forward with an amendment in order to give a more detailed definition of occupation. I can give the hon. member the assurance that we have not yet experienced problems in regard to the definition of occupation.

Mr. Chairman, surely it is not the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to create a situation which could create suspicion. Do we want to hold such a person responsible at all times for who lives in this house? After all, one can now have the situation that a person is charged when, for example, his brother stays for a few days in his house in his absence. Surely that is not the intention of this measure. I am of the opinion that the term “occupy” should be defined in this legislation. Surely the term “occupying” can never mean, apart from the dictionary definition, that when a member of a family of a person visits that person for a few days, even without the permission of such a house owner, the house owner can then be charged.

Mr. Chairman, the position in this regard is very simple. That is precisely why, in the prohibitory provision in this clause, we have two categories, i.e. the Bantu residing there legally, and those who may be found on the premises. In addition hon. members must understand that proceedings have to be instituted and that those persons must then appear before the court. The court will then have to decide whether the person was able to occupy such a place legally, or whether he had no legal right.

But the first one is guilty because he did not lay a charge against such person?

No, because this is so, the hon. member can think for himself that there is no question of any person being charged and having to appear before the court if he happened to be away for a few days and subsequently returned. The onus is being placed on him and it will be expected of him to prove to the court what his position in regard to this matter is. For that reason, because we have two categories here, we do not foresee a problem in regard to the application of this measure which is the one the hon. member has just put.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, when he introduced this clause during the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that this clause was not a very material amendment to the existing section. There are many word changes in the clause, but the amendments are material, however. In subsection (2) of section 3 of the Act the word “except” is inserted before the words “upon such terms and conditions” and the word “if any” are inserted after the word “compensation”. I do not know why it is necessary to insert these words. I take it it is done so that the Minister does not have to give any compensation. I think there is a subsequent amendment which states the case where no compensation will be paid. I will be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister will explain why these amendments to section 3 (2) of the Act is necessary, because I cannot see the full implications of them at the moment. Our main objection to this clause is the amendment deleting the necessity for a public enquiry where the Minister wishes to abolish a location, Bantu village or Bantu hostel as the case may be. Quite rightly the law as it is now lays down that the Minister should hold an enquiry before he instructs a municipality to abolish or remove a location or Bantu hostel. I do not want to repeat all the institutions every time, but the hon. the Deputy Minister will know what I am talking about. The point is that it is not only at the request of the local authority concerned, that this Bantu village, location or hostel may be abolished. It may be at the request of some other authority. A neighbouring authority may request that the location under it’s neighbour’s authority should be abolished. During the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister said that the enquiry was necessary because representations could be made to the Minister and that the Minister, in any event, would consult with the local authority concerned. We submit that that is not sufficient. As the law now stands, when a local authority applies for the removal of such a location, Bantu village, or Bantu hostel, all the parties concerned, for example the Bantu themselves, or their employers are entitled to appear at the public enquiry, and to be legally represented, to put their case. The public can then see what the objections to the removal are or why it must take place. I submit that the provision should be retained. It is not sufficient merely to allow the Minister to consult with the municipality concerned, because that is all the Minister will be required to do. As far as we know, the Minister has not had any trouble in this regard so far. I will be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell me when there has been undue delay because of a public enquiry. Where has the hon. the Deputy Minister had any undue delay in removing a location, Bantu village or Bantu hostel? The hon. the Deputy Minister told us, when dealing with clause 5 during the Second Reading debate, of the trouble they had at Windhoek and at Harrismith. But that had nothing to do with the necessity of holding a public enquiry and I will be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us why he has found it necessary now to do away with this safeguard the public has enjoyed.

Mr. Chairman, the first reason why we should like to abolish this enquiry—and this is a very important matter—is that we find that there are, for example, old houses the owners of which we cannot trace at all. Consequently it is a long and laborious process to have a Bantu village removed in this way. I promise the hon. member that I will reply to his question in full. In amending this clause we proceeded on the assumption that there may be cases where compensation really cannot be payable, such as in the case of old houses the owner of which cannot be traced with the best will in the world. This causes the process to be very seriously delayed.

Now I actually come to the hon. member’s second question. The hon. member referred to the proposed deletion by clause 4 of certain words in section 3 of the Act, which amounts to this, that in future an enquiry will no longer be held. As I said in my second reading speech, the position is such that in practice we have found that that enquiry has simply become a dead letter, because the parties do not turn up, often because they are not interested, or because of other reasons, and consequently the proceedings are delayed. If one finds that such an enquiry has become a dead letter in practice because of the reasons I have furnished, why should one continue to hold this kind of enquiry?

Give an example.

I shall give you an example. In the case of Sheshe vs. Vereniging there was such a court case. Now I must be careful how I express myself. I could mention other examples as well, where no one even went to court, but where certain parties, a few malicious parties which are really problem cases, enlisted the services of attorneys and even advocates and by doing so placed the others, who were quite willing, in a very awkward position. By doing so they seriously delayed the entire process. Because it has been proved in practice that this method has become redundant, but nevertheless lends itself sometimes to exploitation by a few malicious parties, it has been decided to abolish it, because as a result of this exploitation others who are quite willing to cooperate have to suffer. This is very unfair. I want to point out to the hon. member for Transkei that we want to be very fair in our actions towards and treatment of the Bantu. I always aim at that. I want to be very fair in this clause as well. That is why the hon. member will see, if he reads this clause, that we just want to abolish something here which has become awkward in practice and which, moreover, is of no value to anyone concerned. As the Act is going to read now, it will not mean that there will be no enquiry in future, because it is explicitly provided that there will be consultation with the local authority and there will also be consultation with, as the hon. member called it, the “neighbouring authority”, if any neighbouring authority is involved. In this clause we therefore do not want to deprive anyone of the opportunity, if he has a case, to state that case. The hon. member for Transkei himself will know that we find in practice that the local authority and its officials know best what is happening in that area, because they come into contact with the Bantu all the time. It is therefore our honest opinion—and I am very sincere when I say this—that by deleting these words we are not depriving the Bantu of any privilege which he possesses in a case where an old Bantu township or building has to be removed. These are more or less the reasons for the proposed deletion of these words. I could mention other reasons as well, but I do not think it is necessary for us to go into them. If I should mention other reasons, we would come to policy aspects and I want to try to avoid that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister gives a very smooth explanation of all of this. He assures us that there is no intention of being unjust. He says that the reason why he wants to do away with the public inquiry, is that it has been found to be useless, delaying and time-consuming. However, there are people concerned with this. It is all very well for the hon. the Deputy Minister to say that he does not want time to be taken up, he does not want delaying tactics and so on. But if one looks at clause 5, which goes very closely with clause 4, one finds it has very serious effects on the people concerned. Because simply after consultation, without any searching enquiry, without giving interested people the right to appear before him, he can take a decision. The immediate consequences are that the people are moved lock, stock and barrel. As soon as the decision has been taken to move the location, power is taken under the next clause to take a man’s personal belongings and move him off to some place where the Secretary decides he should go. We have had ample experience of other types of removal in this country where people are moved lock, stock and barrel, where illegal squatters are told to go somewhere else, usually back to their homelands. They arrive there with very scant provision having been made. However bud these slum dwellings are that they have left, they are at least structures that these people had lived in. There had developed some sort of community life around these structures.

You know better than that.

I know exactly that. I have visited these places and I know exactly what they are like. Tent settlements have been erected in replacement of these illegal squatter villages or even of demolished townships which have become slum dwellings. I cannot go along with this; I cannot see why a proper inquiry should not be instituted. This system, whether the hon. the Minister likes it or not, has in fact served for a number of years. In view of the fact that clause 5, as I say, brings with it severe physical consequences to the people concerned, I certainly am going to register my objection to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am most disappointed with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation and his justification for the changes in this clause. [Interjections.] I find it interesting to hear the laughter on that side of the House in view of the far-reaching consequences that this clause has.

We shall be able to clear up slums.

Clearing up slums? How can the removal of these two provisions have anything to do with the clearing up of slums? The hon. member for Brakpan must not make irresponsible statements like that. Let us, first of all, take the first amendment which is proposed and which will make it possible for the Government not to provide any compensation if a dwelling is removed. This has been done simply by the addition of the words “if any”. What does the hon. the Deputy Minister give as a justification for this? The only justification he has offered to this House has been that sometimes it happens that the owners of old dwellings cannot be found. Surely that is no justification for giving a discretion to the hon. the Minister to remove dwellings without giving any compensation whatsoever. If he is not able to find the owner, surely a reasonable compensation can be assessed and the amount placed in a Guardians Fund in case the owner comes forward at some stage.

That is what the Guardians Fund is for.

That is precisely what the Guardians Fund is for. Large amounts are deposited by various Government departments in this fund. These amounts are required to be deposited in Guardian Funds, as will be the position in cases of this sort where the owners or persons entitled to these moneys cannot be found. It is no justification whatsoever to say that the Minister may be given the right to award no compensation at all simply because he cannot find the owner at the time. If that is the only reason which the hon. the Minister can give to this House to justify this amendment, then we are perfectly within our rights to say to him that we will oppose him tooth and nail. That deals with one aspect of this clause.

The second aspect of it is equally unjustified in terms of the explanations and reasons given by the hon. the Deputy Minister. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the words used by the hon. the Deputy Minister when he introduced the Bill at its Second Reading last year, as reported in Column 8473 of Hansard, amount to misleading the House. He was talking about the doing away with the requirement of a public inquiry and said—

How can the hon. the Deputy Minister have the effrontery to say that when you do away with a public inquiry you do not prejudice anybody, even if there is still consultation with the local authority and the Minister? There was consultation with the local authority in terms of the law as it now stands. I am not sure that there is consultation with the Minister, but I will deal with that in a moment. There is certainly consultation with the local authority and a public inquiry. He now does away with the public inquiry and he still says there is no prejudice to anyone. This is misleading the House. Anyone who is versed in legal procedure will know the benefits of a public inquiry. There are numerous benefits of a public inquiry which you do not get simply under the procedure of consultation. First of all, these things are aired in public, and that in itself is a very important factor. It is very important in its tendency to restrain Government bodies and departments such as this department from acting to the prejudice of persons concerned if they know that their actions are going to be placed under the spotlight of a public inquiry.

Justice must be seen to be done.

The well-known principle of law that justice must be seen to be done is a very important one, which this amendment transgresses.

Now, let us deal with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reasons for justifying this. He said that it has not worked in practice. He has given us no explanations to justify this, none whatsoever. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that it tends to waste time. Obviously a public inquiry of necessity takes longer than the procedure which is now suggested, namely that of consultation with the local authority. It is a very much easier and quicker procedure. But is it fair and just? When steps of this nature are to be taken to remove locations, Bantu villages and Bantu hostels, they are in fact very serious steps. Surely, the fact that you have to take a little longer before the matter is finalized is important. It is also important that the persons involved are given a proper opportunity to air their views, even though that procedure may take a little longer. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that there will still be consultation with the local authorities concerned. In terms of the law as it will read, that is correct. But that is not the same thing as a public inquiry at all. The hon. the Deputy Minister also suggested that representations may be made directly to the Minister by interested parties. I am very interested to hear about this. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us where there is provision for making direct representations to the Minister b/ interested parties. Unless I misread this clause, that does not appear there at all.

It is not there.

I am subject to correction, and I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to clarify this point. The hon. the Deputy Minister has made a great point of this.

I should now like to refer to the White Paper on this Bill and to make certain comments on it. First of all, I think that the White Paper is most misleading. It starts off by saying that this clause merely amends the existing section 3 as if this is a very insignificant and minor amendment. [Time expired.]

I just want to reply in a few words to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member made the point and asked how this particular clause is going to be applied. I should like to tell the hon. member that my conscience is a very good girl and that I can always come to terms with her. That will certainly be the case in connection with the way in which this would be applied.

*I want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave that he has really exploded a stink bomb here in a discussion which up to now has been quite pleasant and rewarding. I take the strongest exception to the fact that he accuses me of trying to mislead the House. Why should I try to mislead the House? In the second place, I take very strong exception to what the hon. member then went on to say. It is one thing to blame me if I had misled the House. I can deal with him myself in regard to the things he said. But the hon. member went further to cast the scandalous reflection upon my officials by saying that they were misleading the House through the White Paper which had been laid upon the Table and had been drawn up by them. Yes, they were supposed to mislead the House and on top of that they were doing so in writing. It does not become that hon. member to make remarks of that nature.

He said the White Paper was misleading for certain reasons.

He was casting a serious reflection on the officials. Nobody can deny that. I hope the hon. member for Transkei will reprimand him, because I am sure that hon. member will not put up with such things. If the hon. member had a leg to stand on, he had all the right to make that speech. However, he did not have a leg to stand on. What is the factual position? I stand by what I said during the Second Reading debate. I also stand by what is stated in the White Paper. I want to repeat emphatically that, in terms of the provisions of this clause, no Bantu is being deprived of the right to receive compensation. Shall I repeat it for the information of the hon. member? No Bantu is being deprived of the right to receive compensation. If that is the case, why did the hon. member make this scandalous remark? I shall try to give the hon. member the true state of affairs. If one has a few tins and sacks for which nobody wants to pay as much as a cent and if one has to pay somebody to cart it away on top of that while with the best will in the world and with the best detectives in the world one cannot find out to whom the sacks and the tins belong, who will determine what compensation should be paid for these articles, and to whom?

Why do you use the example of the tins and the sacks?

The point I want to make is that the hon. member has no idea of and does not appreciate the practical problems my officials and I have to deal with as regards the moving of locations. If that hon. member had paid a visit to Windhoek and seen what the position was there, he would not have made these silly remarks. If he had visited Harrismith and seen the conditions prevailing there, he would not have made that speech.

The hon. member also made another point. He said: “Everybody accepts and everybody knows the importance of a public inquiry”. I am not so stupid that I do not know that a public inquiry, may have advantages. It could, indeed, be an important instrument to ensure that justice is done to all. I would be the last person to refuse to give my approval for a public inquiry to be instituted when such an inquiry is merited and could benefit the people concerned. In practice it has, however, been proved beyond a doubt over a long period that such a public inquiry would have served no purpose in this case because, to start with, the parties do not turn up. In practice it has become merely a dead letter. Hon. members can take my word for it. I would not have given the House this information if it was not true. And, in the second place, there is the important point with which even the hon. member for Houghton cannot disagree, and that is that I have seen to it personally that the provision which has been included in the clause will not remove any rights to receive compensation. This position will be made even more clear when clause 5 is discussed. The hon. member for Musgrave should therefore not make the allegation he made here this afternoon. Neither should he repeat his statement that we, and particularly my officials, are misleading this House.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to let the hon. the Deputy Minister know quite clearly that it does not bother me in the least if he is upset at the fact that I have accused him of misleading the House during his Second Reading speech in regard to this clause. I repeat that allegation. If the hon. the Minister proposes, as he does in this amendment, to do away with a public hearing, then it is irresponsible in a Second Reading speech to say to the House that by doing so he is not prejudicing anyone.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has been on his feet supposedly to reply to the arguments I put forward a moment ago. But of course he has not done so. Let us take the question of compensation. The argument which I presented to this House was simply that even if you are not able to trace the owner of the dwelling, you can still assess reasonable compensation and place that in a Guardian Fund. This has been done continually in terms of all sorts of laws. It has been done by other departments of his own Government. He has not told this House why it cannot be done in regard to these proposed removals of locations, Bantu villages and Bantu hostels. In order to justify himself, the hon. the Deputy Minister gave facetious examples. He gave examples of a lot of sacks and other worthless things. In other words, it means articles in dwellings. This is not what he has to pay compensation for; he has to pay compensation for the dwellings that he has removed. Even if the hon. the Minister was meaning that the dwelling was merely a shack and was not worth anything, then if it was not worth anything, no compensation would be payable. There is no need to amend the clause to give the hon. the Minister a discretion not to pay compensation in every case. This is what is being done. He is now given a discretion not to pay compensation in any case that he chooses. The case that the hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned is no justification for amending this clause. If the dwelling is worthless, then no compensation is payable.

That is not the only point; on top of that you might not be able to find the man.

What is the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply to my suggestion that if you cannot find the owner, you assess a reasonable compensation and pay that amount into a Guardian Fund? That is the practice in numerous departments of this country.

Give us an example.

The hon. the member for Prinshof is an advocate himself and now he is asking me to give him examples. Does he not know about the Guardians Fund? I am certainly not going to waste my time in telling him what it is. He should ask his colleagues in Pretoria. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister said that no rights were being removed. How can the hon. the Deputy Minister make a statement like that? Here again I say that he was irresponsible when he said it. If a public hearing is required of the clause as it stands, and that is removed, it is a very real right that is removed. A public hearing is a very real right that the persons concerned have. That right is now being removed. The hon. the Deputy Minister has repeated that this procedure of a public enquiry has become a dead letter, but he gives us no examples to justify this contention. He states no cases to enable the House to judge whether it is reasonable or not to do away with this procedure. I again refer to this White Paper. In the White Paper a similar statement is made and it is said that this right is being removed because “it has been found to be unpractical, cumberous and does not actually serve any useful purpose”. Not one single example has been given to this House to justify statements of this nature. While I am on my feet, I would again ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to justify his contention that in terms of the clause as it will be amended, that is if the amendments are passed, interested parties will have the right to make representations directly to the Minister. I raised this question when I spoke last time and I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to justify this statement of his. However, he has not done so. I again want to ask him to do so. In our opinion the amendments proposed in this clause seriously transgress the few existing rights which persons who are subjected to removals have. The hon. the Deputy Minister has not justified these amendments. Unless he can do so, we are perfectly within our rights to say to him that he has not made out a case and that we shall oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, in order to get more clarity about this matter and view it in a better perspective, I think it is necessary for us to note that we are dealing here with the “removal, curtailment or abolition of locations, Bantu villages and Bantu hostels”. One aspect of this is that of compensation. Under the present circumstances a local authority or all interested parties may lodge objections or appear at a public hearing. I also want to point out the fact that not only Bantu will be concerned with this, but also local authorities with their ratepayers. There may be traders and many other persons whose rights may be involved here. As was done by other speakers, I shall therefore emphasize the position of the Bantu in this matter, although I want to stress the fact that very few Bantu will be concerned with this. The Minister says that he wants to be fair towards these people and I accept it. His justification for the abolition of the public hearing is mainly because it is a laborious process and because the parties do not turn up. If the parties do not turn up, it cannot delay the hon. the Minister at all. While we are now dealing with the rights of human beings, I think it is very easy to use the procedure which is so often used as regards the re-zoning of stands and so forth. When rezoning takes place, the interested parties are requested to submit reasons on a certain day why this, that or the other thing cannot be done. I should think that the hon. the Minister would find the procedure quite easy particularly since the hon. the Minister says that people do not turn up. All he has to do is to give notice that a hearing will take place on a certain day and that interested people should come and present their case. If matters are as the Minister tells us they are, we can expect very few people to turn up. If the people do not turn up to state their case, it is their concern, but their interests have nevertheless been taken into consideration. I would say that a measure of this nature would make for better relations. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that they come and complain to the Minister hut I should like to know what is better: to hold a meeting at a place which is probably situated within the location or Bantu village where people can lodge their claims for compensation and air their grievances, or for the people to go and complain to the Minister? I cannot see that it will be easier for any of these people to go and complain to the Minister. I think it would be much easier for them to present their case in the Bantu village or location, particularly, as the Minister says, since so few people actually turn up.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.