I move—

Mr. Speaker, on the fifth day of the Railway debate, in this Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, a speaker can usually expect a certain measure of sympathy, but this year it is somewhat different. It is the hon. the Minister who needs the sympathy, for after four full days of debate, we have to-day on the fifth day received no answers to the basic problems facing the Railways. This Parliament is being asked to approve a record budget—the largest amount which we have ever been asked to vote for the Railways—and what did we get? The Minister won a few debating points. I must concede that he caught me out with an incorrect figure, but I thought the Minister was more far-sighted than he really is. I stated that he had ordered 10,000 trucks, and in point of fact he placed an order for only 7,000. He did not therefore look as far ahead as I had assumed. I accept that I was in error, but I think the Minister was even more in error because he did not look further ahead in order to meet the needs of the Railways. Like a drowning man the Minister his team and his newspapers, seized upon a few words and wrested them out of context in regard to a particular problem on a particular railway line. They tried to use this to distract the attention of the House and of the public from the real problems of the Railways.

What did the Cape Times say this morning.

The hon. the Minister can smile as much as he likes, but he knows that he is trying to distract attention from all our attacks on this Budget. He is throwing up a smoke-screen which consisted of wresting a few words out of context. The hon. member for South Coast made it clear here that we on this side of the House do not differ in any way on our labour policy. It is the hon. the Minister who climbed down. He is the person who said in this debate last year that he was prepared to employ non-white labour against the will and without the approval of the trade unions. In this debate the hon. member for Houghton supported him and complimented him and told him that he was pursuing the correct policy. I want to place it clearly on record here that this ally of the hon. the Minister said it was her policy and the policy of her party to employ non-white labour, regardless of any strikes which might result from that. She stated clearly: “Let there be strikes; that is my policy.” And what happened then.

The hon. the Minister climbed down immediately and said: “No, I am not going to cause strikes now; I will only do so if I have the approval and the goodwill of the tradeunions.” In other words, as a result of the support of the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. the Minister had to accept our policy, our policy which stipulates clearly that we will negotiate with the trade unions and obtain their approval for any changes. Because the Minister finds himself in difficulties now, he wants to use the words of the hon. member for South Coast to try to throw up a smoke-screen in an endeavour to gloss over and conceal his own change in policy.

For what are the facts, Sir? We are being asked to vote money for a service which, as the Minister admitted, cannot convey the traffic offered. In the first place, we are being asked to vote money for a service which can not convey all the goods which are being offered, which is restricting our exports and which is weakening our balance of payment. That is the contribution of the hon. the Minister to our economy. Secondly, we are being asked to vote money for a service which is experiencing a labour crisis, as was admitted by the hon. the Minister and in the report of the General Manager, and by every sensible person. The only people who do not admit this, are the hon. members on that side of the House. What is more, we are being asked to vote for a labour policy which is deliberately in conflict with the labour policy of the Government as a whole. The hon. the Minister knows that. He has now accepted the policy of this side of the House, and I hope that he will convey that policy to his colleagues, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Minister of Labour. Thirdly, Sir, we are being asked to vote money for a R100,000 commission, for which the Minister himself asked, whose advice he himself requested and whose recommendations he to a large extent rejected, and which he subsequently insulted. Fourthly, we are being asked for money for a service in regard to which the Minister is not prepared to test whether his employees are satisfied or not, a service which cannot tolerate an impartial investigation of grievances. This is quite different to what the hon. the Minister’s party thought in 1948. Then they were very eager to appoint a com mission of inquiry.

Then it was necessary.

Then they were prepared to do so, but now that we are proposing a commission, the Minister admits that it will sit for years; in other words there are so many grievances, so much dissatisfaction, that a commission would have to sit for years if it were appointed. We are being asked for more and more money, and not only for wages; we welcome the Langlaagte improvements, but we are being asked for additional millions for overtime. I just want to refer in passing to what the Department itself says in regard to working hours. I have here a letter from the System Manager of Cape Town, which reads as follows—

Sir, here is an official letter from a driver who was simply asking for his rights, a driver who was fined twice because he was asking for his rights. After his appeal was refused, this driver was transferred and given shunting work to do, and the reason was that there are too few shifts on open lines where the drivers work less than 12 hours. We are now being asked to vote this money so that the railway workers can work an increasing amount of overtime until they are simply unable to carry on.

We are being asked to vote money for a disciplinary system which leads to many people feeling a grieved. The Minister as usual tried to reply by saying that we were attacking the senior officials. Sir, this is not true. If the Minister would take the trouble to go into some of these matters himself, if he would only take the trouble of finding out for himself. he will find out that very few of the ordinary workers are able to state their case so plainly that those who have to consider it on appeal can see clearly what the facts of the matter are. The hon. the Minister knows that what I am saying here is correct. The fact of the matter is that we are being asked to vote for money for a service which can only be kept in operation by the dedication and sacrifice on the part of the staff. When we tried to present problems in this debate, to point out weaknesses and to seek improvements, insults, attacks and threats were all we got from the hon. the Minister.

What is the hon. the Minister’s reply to this point? I spoke of a service which is incapable of conveying the goods which are being offered. The Minister admits that this is the case and therefore accepts that the public must remain cold; that timber must lie unsold on the farms; that sugar cane must rot; that certain mines must close down; that goods cannot be exported; and that development must be impeded. The Minister admits all these things, but offers no solution. Not once in this debate did he give an indication of how he intends solving these problems. He said that he had ordered more trucks, but the only result of this was that more trains would have to be cancelled. The fact of the matter is that the Government had no confidence in South Africa; they displayed no confidence in the development of South Africa. On the contrary, the hon. the Minister has committed himself to a rate of development which does not testify to any confidence in his own country, a rate which will hold us back instead of helping us to get ahead. It is only this side of the House that has the necessary confidence in our country to look ahead and to say what we must and what we will. do. Year after year the Minister plays around with a 4 or 5 per cent increase, but does not look forward to the great things which South Africa is capable of.

As far as the labour problem is concerned, the hon. the Minister grabbed like a drowning man at a few statements, and thought that there was no further need for him to furnish replies, Chat he could attack. Those are the old tactics—if you find yourself in difficulties, you simply attack the other side. That is what the hon. the Minister tried once more to do here. He tried to put us on the defensive, but he will not succeed in doing so. We attacked them, and we demand a reply, because it is the Minister and his Government that have to keep this service in operation; it is the Minister, and not the Opposition, who has to lay down the policy for his Department. The Minister cannot get away from that by trying to turn the attack on to us.

As the third reason why we are being asked to appropriate money, I mentioned a commission which the Minister had appointed. How far ahead did the Minister try to look in regard to the Airways? He is for ever linking this to the revenue of the Railways. But he knows that the Airways staff on all levels are dissatisfied with the present dispensation. He knows Chat throughout the service there is a desire that the service be treated as a separate service, so that they can control themselves and undertake planning on a separate basis. I have heard, from various people in the Airways, that if matters do not improve, our aircraft will not be able to fly.

On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Langlaagte entitled to say “Oh, you are lying”?

I did not say that.

Order! Did the hon. member use that expression?

No, Mr. Speaker, I said, “He is side-stepping” (Hylie).

Is that parliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if it is unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

If our aircraft cannot operate, it will not be as a result of a shortage of aircraft or of pilots, but as a result of shortage of ground and technical staff. As far as the hon. member for Langlaagte is concerned, his interest in South Africa is proved by his attitude in this debate. It is the attitude of the Government—they regard the problems of the Airways and of the Railways as a joke, as something to play about with.

All stories.

That hon. member is an example of that. He is an hon. member who was kicked out of his previous constituency by his own supporters and now he is trying to ridicule the seriousness of the problems of the Railways.

Order! The hon. member must return now to the Third Reading of the Bill.

I was talking about grievances and said that the hon. the Minister may have won a debating point. I want to have the hon. the Minister’s words placed very clearly on record. He said that if I could bring him cases of checkers who after more than five years’ service did not yet earn R200 per month, I could put their cases to him. Am I interpreting the hon. the Minister correctly? Well, this morning I received the following telegram from Durban—

Here I have another one—

This is correct; that is what the hon. the Minister said. But why did the hon. the Minister have to give other information to this House which did not conform to the facts? The hon. the Minister tried to make a major issue of a minor point. All I can do is to keep this information. I know there is going to be a witch-hunt. That is why hon. members of the opposite side want to know where I got my information from and who the persons in question are. We have had experience of these witch-hunts but it will be to no avail. The Minister told the railwaymen of South Africa that they were prejudicing their own case by taking their problems to the Opposition. [Interjections.] I regard thjs as a very serious matter, and that is why we want clarity regarding it. We on this side represent each one of our voters—National Party voters, United Party voters, public servants and railway officials. We are the democratic representatives here, elected under the democratic system of South Africa. But the hon. the Minister wants to intimate that railway officials and public servants should not approach their parliamentary representatives, and should not submit their problems to us. Is that in fact what the Minister wants to do? Does he want to deny his officials their democratic rights? If so, these are the marks of a dictatorship, That we reject. When we are sitting on the benches opposite and the Government on these benches, are they as opposition still going to adopt the same attitude? In fact, did the National Party, when they were still in opposition, also adopt this attitude—that no person who was employed by the State or the Railways Administration was to approach them with their complaints? No, Mr. Speaker, there is one law which applies while the Nationalist Party is sitting in the Government benches, but when they are sitting on this side one day, it will be a different, story. We on this side of the House have never tried to undermine discipline. I have received nothing but the greatest co-operation from senior officials of the Railways Administration, and I went to them with scores of cases. I only bring those cases to this House where I am of the opinion that unfair action was taken and where one cannot make any progress through ordinary channels. We can bring forward one case after the other for five days on end here and then still not have covered all the cases. When we try to raise these matters here in a responsible way, the hon. the Minister threatens us. To the railway workers of South Africa I want to say that it is not necessary to pay any heed to the Minister. We shall continue to investigate your problems and we shall continue to support you in getting fair treatment in the service of the Railways. We know the hon. the Minister. One of his nicknames is “Ben the bully”. That is why he did not become Prime Minister. But he will not be able to bully us.

This debate has once again shown the bankruptcy of the Government, bankruptcy as far as the day to day administration of the everyday way of life in South Africa is concerned. The Government finds it easy to play politics, but when it comes to the real problems of the country—-the transportation of goods and of passengers and other transport problems—then we find ourselves saddled with a Minister who is so wedded to the past that he cannot see into the future, a Minister who does not have the necessary vision. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister was a big game hunter, and retired of his own accord. He will know what to do with a faithful old dog which has grown too old. I am not saying we should do the same to the hon. the Minister, but I wonder whether he should not consider giving up not only big game hunting, but also the maladministration of the S.A. Railways and hand over to someone else or, better yet, give us on this side a chance so that we can show what we can do with the S.A. Railways.

The United Party has probably on many occasions been very grateful for the fact that they have a member like the hon. member for Durban (Point). Again, now, he tried to extricate them from the grave difficulty in which they found themselves. Actually, I felt sorry for him. He pushed and shoved like an old locomotive which could not make it to the top of the gradient; he rocked about from point to point without expressing a positive idea. He even went so far as to admit that he had made a mistake. If he was not acting as a lightning conductor, then I do not know what a lightning conductor is. For that party is in such grave difficulties as a result of the standpoint of the hon. member for South Coast that the hon. member had to try to make us believe here that the hon. member had not said what he actually did say, that what he had said, he had not meant, and that what he had meant was the safety aspect. If safety was the point at issue, why did he not simply refer to the safety of the railway line? Why did he then object to the type of labour which was being used? The type of labour which was being used was Bantu labour. In other words, the implication of his objection was that Bantu were completely unsuited and unqualified to do any work in this country. That is the purport of his argument. Otherwise he will have to explain to us how he arrived at that conclusion.

That is untrue.

No, it is true. That hon. member also went so far as to accuse us of having an ally in the shape of the Progressive Party. How ridiculous can he be? I shall in the course of my speech furnish further replies to the points which he made in his argument. I want to tell him that it became apparent in this debate that the approach of the United Party in regard to the Railway Budget is completely different to that of the National Party. In its approach it has an entirely different point of view to that of the National Party. The basic premises according to which they formulate their arguments differ completely from those premises we use. That difference represents the basic difference in ideology between this side of the House and that side of the House. The approach of the United Party is based on an economic standpoint which is in fact precisely the same as the economic standpoint of the Progressive Party. During this debate the hon. member for Yeoville clearly emphasized the fact that they advocate a free economy, and that there should be no restrictions on the growth of the economy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the same thing very clearly during the censure debate. This agrees precisely with the standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton as she has stated it. All of them launched an extremely fierce attack on the Government. This attack, not only on the part of those parties, but also on the part of the anti-National Party English language Press in the country, has lasted for months now. They are trying to create a psychosis, and are launching one tirade after the other. They are making propaganda to the effect that the growth rate is being unnecessarily retarded by this Government and that full employment of non-Whites would really be able to boost the growth rate to its full potential, and that, if this were to happen, the manpower shortage would be solved in a matter of moments.

It is true that the intensity of an economic growth rate is very closely bound up with the employment structure of any country. This is something which in turn is very closely bound up, inter alia, with the manpower position of the country. The Progressive Party is a party which does not concern itself about the ethnic composition of the country. Nor does it concern itself about white/non-white relations in the country. It quite naturally therefore makes propaganda to the effect that all the sluice gates should be opened, that work reservation should be abolished and that the National Party should abandon its labour policy completely. Strangely enough, the United Party is attacking the National Party from the same premises as the Progressive Party is doing. It is that the economic growth of the country should be in top gear without any restrictions on it. But then suddenly they come forward with the story that they will only allow non-white labour in if the trade unions give their consent to this. In other words, they are now going to place restrictions on their employment processes. They are not going to make use of the full manpower supply and labour potential, i.e. which they are kicking up such a fuss about. If they were to follow that policy, surely they would not be solving the manpower problem, as they claim they would be doing.

Why not?

Because they would then be using the same modus operandi as the National Party. Surely this is the worst form of political hypocrisy. That is precisely what the hon. member for Houghton told them the other day when she attacked them here and accused them of double-dealing. I think the word she used was “duplicity”. At least the Progressive Party is honest. I can say that for them. Every white voter who votes for them, does so with open eyes and is aware that the days of the Whites in this country will be numbered if they should come into power. Every white voter who votes for them is quite prepared, consciously and voluntarily prepared to see white suicide being committed in this country. The United Party is therefore attacking the National Party from the same standpoint as the Progressive Party, but has in reality no solution to the manpower shortage. I want to say to them that if they should ever come into power—it will be an evil day, but if it should ever happen—they will never be able to apply this so-called labour policy which they are advocating. There are various reasons for that. In the first instance, they will be the captives of their own economic policy which they are now announcing. It is the same policy as that advocated by the Progressive Party. In this respect they are precisely ad idem. It is a policy which wants the highest possible growth rate in the country. We cannot possibly, for this is a contradiction in terms, want on the one hand an uncontrolled growth rate and on the other and at the same time a controlled and restrictive labour policy. It is a contradiction in terms, and implies a latent conflict. If that conflict should take place, the free economic powers which will have free reins, will be victorious, and then that party will be compelled to introduce a policy of free employment of all manpower. This is foreseen and accepted by the Progressive Party, for they regard this country as a homogeneous country in all respects. They foresee this, and for that reason they have no worries. But now the United Party is attacking the National Party from the same standpoint. They have precisely the same economic policy, but they want to apply a different labour policy. Practically it is impossible for them to do so.

I come now to the second reason why they will not be able to apply that policy. They will be the captives of the English language Press in this country which is at the moment telling them what to say. This English language Press is not the Press of the United Party. This Press is completely liberal. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville has himself admitted that they did not have a Press. The Press dictates to them, and if it had not been for the Press, they would not have been sitting here. The English language Press is the Press of the Progressive Party, but in the meantime this Press is tolerating the United Party, for the United Party is a tool they are using. They can at this stage condition the public of the United Party little by little to think progressive. The United Party has already been lured into a trap, and will not be able to escape. If it should ever come into power, this Press will compel them to carry out the full consequences of this economic policy which they are now advocating. If it does not do so, this Press will break the United Party.

Then there is a third point as well. The United Party can forget about it if they think they can keep the best of two political worlds. There is no such thing. There are in South Africa two political polarities, two political philosophies and two political directions. The one direction is that of the National Party. The other is that of the Progressive Party. I want to inform those hon. members on the opposite side that they will have to make a choice one of these days. Perhaps sooner than they think, they will have to make a decision. The bomb is going to explode, and there are going to be many fragments. Sir, just think back for a while to what the Sunday Times and the hon. member for Bezuidenfaout did to the hon. member for Sea Point during the election. What do hon. members think lies ahead now for the hon. member for South Coast?

Order! The hon. member must come a little closer to the railway line.

Sir, I shall return now to the standpoint of the hon. member for South Coast in regard to the question of labour on the Railways. I want to tell him that he will be attacked. He will be attacked by the liberal press. Even if the hon. member was being a prophet the other day when he told the Prime Minister he would remain here for only three more years, this is perhaps a vision which will be applied to himself, as leader of Natal.

On a point of order. Sir, I take it that l shall be allowed to reply to the hon. member in a like vein when my opportunity comes.

That is not a point of order. The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, I explained that the United Party was attacking the National Party from exactly the same economic platform as that of the Progressive Party, but that they are not prepared to accept the full consequences of that economic policy. They will in subsequent years be forced to do so. The National Party on the other hand has a clear economic policy. It is an economic policy which is quite different.

Order! I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that we are not discussing the economy in general now.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, this has a bearing on the criticism of the Budget. I want to explain that the economic policy of the National Party is based on growth. It is however based on a restricted growth, a balanced growth, which takes into consideration all the natural resources of the country. The Budget must therefore be judged within the framework of the economic policy of the National Party. So, too, the Budget must be judged within the framework of the labour policy of the National Party. This is fundamental, and if one wants to judge the Budget from any other economic standpoint and from any other labour standpoint, it is totally unrealistic to do so. One may not do so, because it is unfair.

With a view to the major manpower shortage which we are now experiencing and the increased economic growth which the National Party promoted within the framework of its economic development programme, I want to point out that the National Party set a certain growth rate as a goal. In a free economy, however, one cannot keep precisely to such a growth rate figure. There will be cycles of rapid growth and cycles of slow growth. We have just had another cycle of rapid economic growth, which accentuated the manpower shortage. The fact that we have a manpower shortage, is not bad in itself. A manpower shortage in itself is not a danger to a country. On the contrary, a manpower shortage is a built-in factor in the growth of any economy. In all the years the hon. the Minister has been Minister of Transport there has been a manpower shortage precisely because the Railways have been growing. One also finds a manpower shortage in any growing business undertaking. This must be the case. The problems we have had, were a temporary phenomenon. The United Party has used the intensified manpower shortage we are now experiencing for political purposes. They have exaggerated the manpower shortage out of all proportion.

Going hand in hand with this economic policy, the National Party has a labour policy in terms of which certain restrictions are being imposed. These restrictions also take into account the policy which is being applied by the Railways. It is rather hilarious that those hon. members should want to say to the Minister of Transport that he should apply a different labour policy than the one which is being applied throughout the country by the Minister of Labour. They want to make politics again by making statements like that, but this is not true.

What about the 5 per cent decrease?

The 5 per cent has nothing to do with this. It is part of the policy. The hon. the Minister made it very clear that, in times of emergency, and when it is important, he will use labour. That is also the labour policy of the country. We know that, but in general the wishes of the public and the wishes of the trade unions are taken into consideration. Those policies which I mentioned, and which must be seen as background when a judgment has to be made of the Railways, are policies of which we are proud. These are policies which have up to now ensured that the white man is safeguarded and that we have maintained racial peace in this country. As I have said, this Budget must be judged within the framework of those policies. The Railways is being expanded within that framework, and within that framework the Railways is providing the country with what it needs. As a result of those policies which I have mentioned, the electorate returned this Government with a fantastic majority of 70 members in this House. That is our policy and that is the policy which we will continue to apply. If one judges this Budget against the background of these policies, we have only one word for this Budget, and that is “magnificent”. I have said that if we wanted to judge this Budget from any other point of view, it would be unrealistic. One cannot do so, because it is not adjusted to that. It is not a Budget which is adjusted to a completely free economy, which grows without any planning. If the United Party should ever come into power, their policy will be a danger to this country. Their policy is a threat to the Whites. The railway worker will be in such a state of turmoil that the Railways will come to a complete halt under their policy.

I should like to judge this Budget against the background I have sketched. Once I have done that, and have said that it is a magnificent Budget, I want to congratulate the Minister and the Management very sincerely on this Budget. I then ask myself this question: Has the system of transport succeeded in continually playing the role of one of the factors of production which comprises part of the general economic infrastructure of the country? I also want to ask myself whether the Railways has succeeded in ensuring that the country’s natural resources are exploited, as it has done in the past. The replies can be seen quite clearly in the Budget. There has been expansion on all fronts of activities. Provision has been made for further capital works. Automation and mechanization is being introduced everywhere, in order to meet the growing need for increased transport and carrying capacity. We are adjusting to our growth rate. Another question I ask myself is whether this undertaking has progressed at the expense of any other sector of the economy and the other factors of production? Then one is struck once again by the contribution the Railways has made towards maintaining a stable price and cost structure in the country by keeping its rates system as stable as possible. One is also struck by the wonderful amount which is contained in the Rates Equalization Fund, and which can be kept there as a buffer for any difficult days which may perhaps lie ahead. But the United Party does not like this stable cost structure in the country. Hence their plea for the separation of the various services, and then this nonsensical and ridiculous plea that the profits of the pipelines should now be used to the benefit of the motorists on the Rand. Why are they not consistent and put in further pleas to the effect that the profits of the harbour in Durban should be used for the people of Durban, and that the profits of the harbour in Cape Town should be kept for the people in Cape Town? This view of the United Party, if it were to be implemented, would lead to a complete fragmentation of the rates structure throughout the country, and this would constitute very great disadvantages to the economy as a whole.

You are already doing so in the Bantustans.

That has nothing to do with the matter, and it is a Very unintelligent remark.. I am also asking them whether the Railways, which is a State-controlled undertaking and which stands in the midst of the private sector, is keeping pace with file future development and planning in the private sector? Once again proof to this effect has been forthcoming, and I now want to refer to the market research organization and the appointment of marketing officials which, to my own personal knowledge, has made a very great impression on the private sector. It also expanded and stabilized that very important channel of contact with the private sector. I hope that it will develop to such an extent that the private sector will in its own future planning immediately involve transport in this and by so doing place the management and the Administration in the position that it will have the necessary advanced knowledge of development and that it will then be able to make preparations, which will also help in its own future long-term planning.

Then I come to the question to what extent the system of transport has succeeded in influencing, advantageously or disadvantageously, our present-day economy. Once again I can speak with great praise of this Budget, because it meets precisely the requirements of our present-day economic climate. At this stage the Hydra-headed dragon of inflation is lifting one of its heads again, and this Budget is neutral, or slightly deflationists, in its application. I am referring to the increase in productivity which took place on the Railways. I am referring to the application of its own funds and revenue which are being used for capital works, as well as for smaller purchases. I am referring to the increase in salaries which was financed from its own profits. So I can continue and mention further examples, but the fact remains that this was an excellent Budget, delivered by an excellent Minister, supported by an excellent staff which worked overtime so commendably and at such sacrifice, and also completely voluntarily, in order to combat this temporary shortage of manpower.

Temporary?

Yes, it will be temporary. [Interjection.] I do not want to waste my time arguing with that hon. member. But what thanks did these people get from the Opposition. They merely had the reproach levelled at them that they were being paid too much for overtime, and after this hopeless and poor display by the Opposition, I do not think that those few railwaymen who did vote for them, will ever vote for them again.

The day before yesterday, speaking in the Railway debate, I had five minutes in which to make an appeal to the Minister to deal with. a particular section of line in my constituency where the permanent way had reached a stage where it was likely to result in an accident to trains. That was a short time and I was limited because of the rules of this Parliament. The hon. the Minister did not choose to deal with that matter at all. In his reply there was not one word about the safety of passengers or the possibility of trains coming to grief. He chose, to adopt his old policy of attacking me on political grounds and he made this a political issue at once, which had nothing to do with the safety of trains. I accept that the hon. the Minister is entitled to do that and if he wants to fight it on political grounds I will do so willingly, I can assure him, on his own Hansard.

But I come back and I say again categorically that I was dealing—and I said so in my speech here—with the line between Durban and Port Shepstone, and I repeated it over and over again, and in an interjection while the hon. the Minister was speaking I repeated it again. When I was dealing with the Bantu employed on that line I referred to the Bantu in the jobs on that line. The Minister tried to turn this into a policy statement of mine as against the United Party policy in respect of the whole of the Republic of South Africa. But let me tell the hon. the Minister that I do not go against the policy of my party; I am behind it 100 per cent. I was dealing with a specific case and the Minister knows it, and when I challenged him to read my Hansard yesterday he refused to do so over and over again. Why? Because my Hansard would show that I was dealing with the safety of our trains and of the travelling public, the safety of the passengers. He has accepted responsibility, rather ungraciously to begin with, but eventually he was driven into it, and admitted that he was responsible for these accidents which take place all over South Africa. He said he was responsible.

Sir, let me repeat that I am 100 per cent behind the policy of this side of the House, the United Party. In this House I have repeatedly said that that Government killed our immigration policy and stopped white workers coming into the country. What they are doing is to make it plain that in future there will be insufficient white hands to do the job and the job will be done by non-white hands. And the Government over there is responsible for it, of which the Acting Prime Minister is the Minister of Transport. He is the man responsible. When I dealt with this particular matter, and the Minister ran away from it, I went so far as to say that I would show his officials the precise point on that railway line where there is danger at the present time, because the permanent way is no longer safe. The Minister did not take me up; he did not say that this was a serious matter and certainly he would send somebody along with me so that I could show him where the permanent way was bad. Why did he not accept my offer? It was not a challenge but an offer. For a very good reason. The moment he accepted my offer it indicated that he was prepared to accept that the overseeing of that part of the permanent way was not adequate. That is why. And he knew that it killed the whole of his political approach to this problem; it brought it back to where it belonged, namely the safety of the railway-user and of the trains on a permanent way which was not fit any longer to carry passengers and trains without risk; the overseeing was inadequate at that place on that railway line. That is why the hon. the Minister would not take up my offer to show his people. But the Minister now twists and turns the thing into such a pattern that, since my turn has come now where I will have more than five minutes, I shall ask the Minister whether the policy of his Government—not on the Railways but of his Government—is to put trained Bantu into white men’s jobs. I am asking whether he will put in trained Bantu. What is his answer?

I will give my reply.

You see, Sir, we are going to have another long political diatribe.

I only have a half-hour in which to reply, so I cannot make it long.

I only had five minutes and you took an hour to reply to me.

But at the Third Reading I only have half an hour to reply.

Never mind about the Third Reading. You have had your chance and endless time to reply to me when I had only five minutes. Is it the Minister’s policy to put in untrained Bantu into white men’s jobs? [Interjection.] The hon. member over there says I am being silly, but let me ask the Minister this: Are those Bantu patrolmen on the line from Durban to Port Shepstone trained? Will the Minister tell us whether they are trained? Why does not the hon. member for Colesberg say that is silly? Can he tell me whether those Bantu patrolmen were trained? Where were they trained? Sir, they are ordinary Native labourers, and I said so in my speech, taken along by the platelayer and dumped along that line, and one of them is put on as a patrolman. Where are they trained, if anybody suggests they are trained? Of course they are not trained. They are ordinary, raw native labourers. The Minister cannot deny it. He knows those Bantu are not trained. Will the Minister tell us whether they are trained? He talks about patrolmen when I am hamstrung by the laws of this House. No, I will listen to his political diatribe when the time comes. I repeat that I am concerned with rite safety of our railways and of our passengers. That is what I am concerned with. [Interjections.] Sir, this is a very good point, which I want to deal with. I want to deal with it outside this House. The hon. the Minister appealed to all sorts of pagan gods, the Press, the people “daarbuite”. What for? To bear out his interpretation of my speech? He had my Hansard in front of him. Why did he not quote from it? I read a newspaper report which said that the people sitting be hind me were sitting in stunned silence. Are they sitting in stunned silence to-day? No, I am going to pursue this matter and I am going to attack the Minister on it. Will the Minister answer this? Is his Department still maintaining the permanent way between Durban and Port Shepstone, or has he given it out on contract?

I will reply to everything in my reply this afternoon.

Have you given that line out on contract? You see, Sir, either he does not know or he will not say. Let him ask his officials. They can nod to him. Sir, the hon. the Minister has given that line out on contract for five years already for the maintenance of the permanent way. Why? Because he knows it was unsafe. That is why he gave it to a private contractor to maintain it.

Who is silent now?

Who is the white contractor employing to-day? The same overseer ganger who was working for the Railways, on precisely the same section—the same man. Why does not the Minister stand up here and say that he was guilty? If he was not deliberately misleading the House he was getting very near it. He is not maintaining that line any longer because he knows that he could not do it. The line had become so unsafe that he has had to give it out to a white contractor for five years to maintain the permanent way. What happens now to this political story that he tried to put across South Africa? He said I was on the mat. What mat? He repeated it five times because he hoped the Press would take it up and that there would be big headlines, at any rate in Die Burger, because Die Burger is not concerned with facts; it is concerned with the politics of the Minister. Sir, I am coming back to this. The Minister said I was on the mat. I was not on the mat. I have spoken to my Leader to ask him whether I was permitted to say that. I do not give away caucus secrets. Not one word of criticism of any kind has come to me about this.

But, Sir, I want the Minister when he gets up to tell us the policy of his party and I want hon. members over there to stand behind him and support him. He is going to put untrained Bantu into work that has been done by trained white men in the past, because that is what he has done on the South Coast line. A lot of people do not know what work is done by a ganger, by a platelayer. The Minister knows. I was talking to a railwayman when I spoke the other day. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also knows. A lot of people think that a ganger or a platelayer is a man who goes along with a pick and shovel cracking stones or tapping the railway line. As one man said to me yesterday, “I saw a bloke with a crowbar tapping the railway line; I suppose that is a ganger”. The hon. the Minister knows that a platelayer is not a man who just goes along tapping railway lines. He knows how many years that man has to work there as a learner; he knows what tests he has to pass before he gets his certificate. The Minister says that the man was a semi-skilled man. Are the Bantu whom he has been putting on the job semi-skilled? Where were they trained? Is this the Nationalist Party policy then? [Laughter.] Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister may well laugh. When the Minister was called “a bully” and somebody said “the bully beef’ I said, “no, he is the bully but there is the beef—the Deputy Minister”. Sir, here is the Nationalist Party supporting their Minister and saying that untrained Bantu can get on to the railway line and do the work of trained I angers and platelayers. That is their policy. Sir, they must not talk to me about my policy. Here we have this liberal, outward-looking, “verligte” policy of the Minister’s. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot be a “verkramp-te” for the purpose of some of the Nationalist newspapers and a “verligte” for the purposeof Die Burger and some other newspapers. He has to come clean this time. Sir. my hon. friend, the member for Yeoville, quoted from a speech made, I think, last year by the hon. the Minister, in which he said that if the trade unions did not agree and he thought it was in the interests of South Africa and of the Railways, he would put non-Whites into the Railway service, whether the trade unions agreed or not. How quietly was he piping his little tune yesterday when he came along and said, “Provided the trade unions agree and provided there will not be any industrial unrest, and provided the trains run smoothly and everything is hunkey-dory, if I need a Coloured man on the Railways I am prepared to bring him in at the rate for the job. Sir, are these gangers and patrolmen, these plate layers who are Bantu and who are employed on the South Coast line, working on the basis of the rate for the job? Have the trade unions been asked whether they approve of Bantu labourers being taken to do the work of gangers and platelayers on this line? Sir, the raw Bantu labourers there have had no training or experience of any kind whatsoever. The Minister is a railwayman he knows what Iam talking about.

He pretends that he does not.

Sir, I spoke to the Natives; I speak their language. I could hardly believe it when the patrolman said to me, “I am looking to see if there are stones on the line, of course”. I asked him, “What else have you got to do?” “No,” he said, “nothing else; I walk along to see if there is a stone on the line.” That is what he had been told to do. [Interjections.]

Did he not even do a war dance?

But when I raise this matter as a matter of the safety of the travelling public, the Minister comes to Parliament and tries to make tiny, petty politics out of it.

You are putting your foot deeper and deeper into it.

Well, the Minister will have his chance to reply, which I did not have.

You are not dealing with the safety of the railways; you are dealing now with your political safety.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister had better be careful. We have a by-election pending at Klip River with a Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration standing there as a candidate. I am going to ask him whether he agrees with the policy of the Minister to employ untrained Bantu as gangers and platelayers on the Railways. I am going to ask him that at public meetings. It is going to be very interesting to know what this new Deputy Minister is going to do. The Deputy Minister of Transport must not give me ideas because I will use them against his colleague. [Interjections.] I know the Deputy Minister does not want him here in Parliament but then you see, Sir, the Deputy Minister is a “verkrampte” and the new Deputy Minister is a “verligte”. I want to put it to the Minister that what he should be concerned with as Minister of Railways first and foremost is not politics but the safe running of the trains and the safety of the passengers on our lines; that should be his main consideration. It is still not too late for him, by a sustained campaign overseas, to revive the white immigration policy of the United Party. Let him admit that his Government has made a mistake. Let him open the doors and try to get these people to come here to give us a helping hand because we are in distress and we need them. Let him revive our policy. It is easy to confess and to say: “We made a mistake,” if they have the courage to do that. Let us open the doors and bring in immigrants and stop making politics where the safety of the travelling public and of our trains is concerned.

Sir, it is interesting to listen to the hon. member for South Coast. He accuses this side of the House and he accuses certain newspapers, inter alia Die Burger, of simply having chased up hares; of not having understood him properly and of handling the matter quite wrongly Sir, let us assume that the reporters of those newspapers which the hon. member has in mind, could not understand him properly when he spoke in English. How then did the Natal Mercury, which is, after all, an English-language newspaper, understand him?—

That is untrue.

Sir, I shall leave the newspaper at that.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member entitled to quote a newspaper report dealing with a debate during the session?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Here we have an English-language newspaper.

Mr. Speaker, may the hon. member read comment upon a debate during this session of Parliament?

The hon. member read the headlines. The hon. member may proceed.

I was stopped the other day from quoting a newspaper report. What the hon. member read, is comment.

The hon. member was quoting headlines from a newspaper.

But that is comment on this debate.

He was not quoting the newspaper report itself. The hon. member may proceed.

I shall leave the newspaper at that. I just want to make this statement …

Am I to understand now that it is quite within the rules to quote newspaper, headlines provided you do not read the comment?.

The hon. member read out nothing from the report itself; he only referred to the headlines.

But he had the newspaper in his hand and he was looking at it, Sir.

He was reading from it.

The hon. member-may proceed.

On a point of order, Sir, may I address you on this point? Rule 120 says—

My submission is that either that was a report of a debate in this House or that it contained comment on a debate in this House. Whether it was a headline or not, Sir, I submit that it was either a report or a comment.

Order! The hon. member just referred to the headlines of the newspaper. He did not read any extracts from the newspaper.

Mr. Speaker, there is a misunderstanding here about the facts. [Interjections.] I am sorry, I cannot hear myself.

Order!

I think there is a misunderstanding here about the facts. I saw that the hon. member for Germiston had the newspaper in his hand, and I heard him quoting more from it than just the headlines. Sir, I should be glad if you would refer to Hansard before giving your final decision, because I am concerned that we are arguing here on the basis of wrong facts.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, I am prepared to accept what those hon. members have quoted from the Standing Orders, and I. shall leave the newspaper at that. I make the statement—and it is not only the newspapers to which those hon. members referred that understood the hon. member in this way—that there are English-language newspapers that maintain that the hon. member for South Coast placed the party in the most embarrassing of positions. Sir, does one need further proof, in respect of this matter I have just quoted here, than the fact that one gets this reaction from the Opposition? I have been in this House for quite a few years, be it five, seven or eight, and I have seldom seen such a reaction from the Opposition when you take a shot in the dark.

They are helping.

No fewer than three hon. gentlemen on that side stood up, when someone on this side trod on their corps, and said: “No, do not bring up that matter.” This just, goes, to show the Opposition’s acute ’embarrassment. But! Sir, if we have misunderstood the hon. member for South Coast, let us take an unbiased look at his Hansard. He made two points in his speech, and the first was this—

That is the one matter he raised, and he stated at the beginning that he was going to speak about this. He then elaborated on it and said—

Read on.

Very well; I shall quote further. The hon. member announced the first point he was going to speak about, and he announced the second point as well, i.e. “the question of manpower and the use of non-Whites”. Continuing, he said—

Then the hon. the Minister said by way of an interjection: “That is quite correct.” At a later stage in his speech the hon. member for South Coast asked this question—

No. Bantu.

This is exactly my point. There are Native patrolmen walking along the tine seeing that the ballasting, the dog-spikes, the fish-plates and everything else are in order so that we will not have spread rails. That will not do. This is the very point l am making.

Just about the use of Bantu. He continued—

Not “these”—

Very well. I read further—

That is the crux of the matter

A little further on the hon. member stated—

He never spoke about “safety”.

He was referring to the Minister’s policy of doing that, of using Bantu on that work level as well. He then continued—

Not a single word about safety.

Sir, the question of safety is connected with this matter, but it is not the main point made by the hon. member. No, the issue here is the use of Bantu in certain spheres of work on the Railways.

Are you opposed to that?

If it may not even happen there, if this Bantu patrolman is not responsible enough, have specific responsibility scales been drawn up for other jobs in which they want to use Bantu on the Railways? [Interjections.] Sir, the Whips have reduced my speaking time. If those hon. gentlemen want to attack the hon. the Minister about his policy and say that he should employ more Bantu, they must also say iN what jobs. If these people are then not responsible enough for certain work, and they cannot carry the responsibilities of a job. what must then be given to the Bantu, and who is to determine the sense of responsibility of these people? Surely the Bantu Who are employed receive a basic training for the worst they must do. If the hon. member for South Coast gets an inexperienced Bantu to come along and dig holes for him in which to plant poles, surely he first shows him how the spade must be used and where he wants the holes: He does not just leave him and tell him to carry on. For the work for which they are employed on the Railways, however trivial it may be, they surely receive a basic training.

Mr. Speaker, if we read through the Opposition’s criticism in this debate, and the hon. the Minister said this of the hon. member for Yeoville. we find many words piled up with exceptional skill. However, if one looks for grain it is very thinly sown. There is no clear statement from the other side of an alternative policy: there is no clearly defined view of a matter; there is no conquering drive. Their actions are so vague that one cannot pin them down properly on any point. They are ambiguous and opportunistic. If this debate had taken place after the provincial elections, they would perhaps have been making more distinct utterances. But the provincial elections are still to come and now one must be careful how one puts ones standpoint; one might say something that the railwayman does not like. At the same time one must allow oneself a little elbow room so that one may get back on to the rails at a later stage, if necessary. Because what have we now had? Just last year the hon. member for Salt River spoke of “all the available manpower”, [Interjections.] It is recorded in Hansard. Unfortunately I do not have the reference number now.

You see, Sir, there are arguments again. But we shall leave it at that. This year we had the question of co-operation with trade unions again. They attack the Minister for not using Bantu labour in certain posts, and then the hon. member for South Coast comes along and upsets the applecart, and we saw the reaction. Sir, how could we ever leave the policies and control of the S.A. Railways in the hands of these people? We simply cannot do it. They have to speak with many voices. They must satisfy the newspapers that make such comments about the position of the non-Whites in the labour market. But the hon. member for South Coast keeps the back door open so that they will at least still be able to say that they complained of Whites being sequeezed out of their jobs. You see, Sir, their policy must cut both ways. This is plain opportunism and ambiguity, and with such ambiguity we cannot entrust a large undertaking such as the S.A. Railways to them.

On the other hand, this side of the House comes along and handles the situation in the most efficient way possible, and ensures excellent transport services at all levels.

As far as the staff is concerned, in this Budget we give them certainty about labour ratios, where non-Whites must be employed in one or other section. In this connection the Minister pointed to the Standing Committee, which has existed from 1961, and on which representatives of trade unions serve. He showed how well they considered matters such as this. At the same time the Minister mentioned posts, such as those of station foreman, stoker, conductor, etc., as examples of posts in which non-Whites could never be used. Hon. members opposite have not yet said what they think of this, but behind the scenes they shout that we should make use of the services of non-Whites, because the transport services are coming to a standstill. We are eliminating shortages in these posts by mechanization and automation. As far as salaries are concerned, railwaymen are also gaining the assurance from this Budget that their material welfare is being ensured. This side of the House has a proud record over the years in this respect, if we add up the times the salaries of the railway people have been increased. Best of all, in the year ahead the railwayman will do something in return to justify this wage increase. They will do this by way of dedicated service during, as well as after, working hours.

The hon. chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours is sitting right next to me here. In his speech the other day he said that there were 1,190 officials from certain grades who let themselves be trained for work in other grades. In the year ahead we shall find this happening again—something being done in return by way of dedicated service, and also by increasing productivity. I was actually delighted the other day when the hon. the Minister pointed out that there was no other undertaking in South Africa that could boast of an increased productivity of the calibre of the S.A. Railways. As far as that is concerned we must once more single out the railway officials. If we think of the fact that the amount of traffic increased by 105 per cent in the past 20 years, by comparison with a mere 18.6 per cent augmentation of the staff, then they deserve only praise. They will also maintain this increased productivity in the year ahead. One may go and read the newspaper comments in which these people are praised for the way they work. At the end of this year we shall once more have to take our hats off to these people. In fact, we and the public outside do not always realize what a great national service these people are performing.

Furthermore we have the assurance that on the road ahead use will be made of modern scientific methods in order to keep pace with our country’s transport needs. The planning methods make allowances for increased demands and the need for renewal. On page 30 of the Marais Commission’s report the following is stated—

As far as planning is concerned, we have the assurance that the very best methods will be adopted so that we may have the best integrated transport system possible.

As far as the staff associations are concerned, I gained the impression from hon. members opposite that they do not trust these people. They want officials to by-pass their associations and to take short cuts. As far as I am concerned, it is quite certain that we shall be able to negotiate with these staff associations confidently. They command respect from the Management and from their members. Therefore, it will be possible to pursue good relations in the year ahead. It is not necessary for officials to forget that we are also their representatives. However, in any service organization there are prescribed procedures and the railway official is also willing to follow the prescribed procedure. But they also know that when there is injustice they can also come to their parliamentary representatives. And in this connection I just want to say that it is not only hon. members opposite who can boast of railway people coming to them. Simply come along to my house and see how many discussions I have with these people. It is therefore not the sole right of that side of the House. Why are we then sitting here in such large numbers, and why are they so few? This proves that we specifically have more contact with the railwayman. Therefore, as far as human relationships are concerned, we can go to meet the year ahead with the greatest confidence, because the management of the Railways is in the hands of this Minister. That is why we say that we support this Budget heartily, because we know that when the Minister once more comes along to give account of his stewardship, we shall have only praise for him and for the staff that works under him.

The hon. member for Germiston tried to kick up a tremendous fuss here in an effort to prove that the hon. member for South Coast’s attitude here to-day differed from his attitude yesterday. But the hon. member should nevertheless still accept the word of the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for South Coast made it very clear that he had only ten minutes in which to state his case.

He could surely have had another turn after his 10 minute speech.

Then the hon. member for South Coast put very pertinent questions to the hon. the Minister to-day, questions arising from the attitude the hon. member adopted in this House. For example, he asked whether it was the Minister’s policy to employ untrained Bantu for the type of work to which the hon. member referred.

But of course. They refuse to train them.

The hon. member for Germiston made no attempt to answer this question. He is trying to create the impression here that they are the only people who can make their labour arrangements in that way and who can co-operate with the staff associations. But the hon. member must know the history behind the hon. the Minister of Transport’s admission in this House that he is now employing non-Whites in posts previously occupied by Whites. It is an admission that would never have been made by any Minister. Nobody wanted to do it, because they wanted to keep it from the people of South Africa. It is the United Party that has issued warnings over the years by stating very clearly that we would never solve our manpower problem in South Africa unless we made more and more use of non-Whites. But they are trying to create the impression that they are protecting the rights of the Whites. But I want to say that their policy is not a protection for the white worker. Unless they are prepared to amend their policy, they are keeping the white worker of South Africa on a low level.

Nonsense.

They do not want to see the white worker improving, achieving a higher standard of living and, in the course of time, obtaining work that places him on a higher status level than at present. If that is not their attitude, they must say exactly why they are then so opposed to the employment of non-Whites in jobs previously done by Whites. If they really have contact and converse with the white railway workers they would learn from them that there are dozens of kinds of work which they themselves would easily transfer to the non-Whites, only on condition that the Whites moved up to a higher level of work. That is the attitude of this side of the House, and nothing else. Our policy is a protection for the white worker, and we see a greater future for that worker on the Railways.

I want to speak to the hon. the Minister about certain replies he gave yesterday to the hon. member for Walmer. I want to say that in his reply to the hon. member for Walmer the hon. the Minister created great disappointment in the Eastern Cape. Certain specific questions were put to the hon. the Minister, but he unfortunately failed to give adequate replies, or otherwise he ignored those questions altogether. I find this attitude of the hon. the Minister very difficult to understand. The hon. the Minister pretends to have the fullest sympathy for the Eastern Cape, particularly for Port Elizabeth. A day or two ago he even went so far as to say that if he were to have had the choice of deciding between Saldanha Bay and Port Elizabeth, when it came to the exporting of iron ore, he would have decided in favour of Port Elizabeth.

l never said that. Where do you get that story?

If the hon. the Minister did not say so, I accept it as such. What the hon. the Minister did say, however, was that he had the greatest sympathy for the Eastern Cape. I am in any case quite satisfied with what he just said. I find these sentiments strange indeed, because when the practical gestures must be made to substantiate these sentiments we do not find those gestures. I want to explain the position to the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Walmer asked the Minister what his attitude is towards private initiative that wants to construct that coastal off-loading point for iron ore. The hon. member asked the Minister what his attitude would be if they wanted to tackle that scheme themselves.

But the original request was that they wanted to construct it themselves. That is nothing new.

The hon. member put this question to the Minister.

But they wanted to do so at the beginning.

I shall explain to the hon. the Minister what the point is that I want to make. Iscor is not the only undertaking that exports iron ore.

I also know that.

The hon. the Minister says he knows it. There are also many private companies doing so. We want to know very clearly from the hon. the Minister what the attitude of Railways is towards those people who want to do so on their own. He did not give them the least encouragement. On the contrary, the hon. the Minister held out the prospect of Port Elisabeth being used increasingly less frequently as an export harbour for iron ore. Those were also his words, because I wrote them down: “Port Elizabeth will be used less and less”. I therefore believe that to a certain extent it has allowed a desperate situation to develop in Port Elizabeth. We accepted that the Government had decided, for its own reasons, to develop Saldanha, but no one expected that the present iron ore traffic to Port Elizabeth would be altogether discouraged and eventually stopped. Although one may have entertained this fear, no one expected such a situation. The hon. the Minister did at least make it clear that it would be useless to have two schemes. But now the hon. the Minister has gone even further and said that the small amount of traffic still in East London would decrease further and eventually be done away with. We now want to know from the hon. the Minister what prospects the Cape Midlands system will then have to compensate us for this loss which will be suffered in the course of time. What prospects does Port Elizabeth have in the future of making good these losses of income if these ore ships will no longer call at Port Elizabeth. This is a serious matter. One cannot take away a Certain source of income from an area and put nothing in its place. Such a step could seriously prejudice an area. It could prejudice the economy of not only the relevant city or town, but also of the entire surrounding area. The status of Port Elizabeth as a harbour could also be seriously prejudiced as a result of the hon. the Minister’s attitude. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that Port Elizabeth now feels like a lady who expected an offer of marriage, but who was refused. We at least hoped that there would be a permanent engagement. Even that has now been shelved. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he must correct the situation and substitute something for that in order to give the Eastern Cape proper compensation.

There is also another point which the hon. the Minister made and which I find difficult to understand. He emphasized that St. Croix would be a calculated risk, if that scheme were developed, because, he said, intensive tests were not carried out. They still have to be carried out by the C.S.I.R. In other words, someone did not do his homework on this matter. It is no secret that the Railways was in favour of the scheme in Port Elizabeth all the time.

Where do you get that story? I am the Railways.

It was announced by the Press and by everyone that the Railways was in favour of that scheme. The hon. the Minister is now, therefore, denying that it was so.

I was not in favour of it.

Is it not true that the decisions had to be made by Iscor and the Railways?

No.

Where, then, did the Railways come into the picture? Was the Railways never in the picture?

If you had listened yesterday to my reply to the hon. member for Algoa you would now have known everything.

I listened very carefully to the hon. the Minister. No one is going to tell me that’ the Railways, which has the people with the expert knowledge to plan ahead, tried to point out a direction which meant that it would be a “wild cat” scheme. I do not believed this for one single moment. If St. Croix is a calculated risk, as far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, and he said so yesterday, then I say to him that there is no proof that Saldanha may not perhaps be a calculated risk as well. The hon. the Minister must answer these1 questions. He replied to the speech of the hon. member for Algoa, but he should actually have replied to the speech of the hon. member for Walmer, because he raised these matters. Unless he can greatly clarify these matters for the Eastern Cape, the hon. the Minister will be responsible for the considerable decrease in importance of the Eastern Cape, and of Port Elizabeth as a harbour city.

I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister. In this debate we have heard many times that the shortage of trucks should be ascribed to the drought, and to the problems we had with the influenza epidemic, but that the Railways had done its best. But this is not the first time South Africa has had a drought. Already last year, and previously as well, we had to point Out to the hon. the Minister that the Railways were not capable of providing for the transport needs of the country when there is a tremendous drought in South Africa. It is not the first time they have had this experience. Even this year, on 26th May, before the influenza epidemic had begun to take on serious proportions, I read the following remark of Mr. Chris Cilliers in the Rand Daily Mail—

Last year we drew attention, to what happened in the Karoo. We mentioned places such as Calvinia where maize, lucerne and other cattle fodder had long been on order, but the orders could simply not be executed. Why must we have a repetition of that situation, so that even Die Burger, in a headline on 11th July of this year, had to say: “Cattle dying in South Africa because fodder does not arrive —urgent representations made to the Government.” The article which appeared under that headline reads, inter alia,, as follows (translation)

In many parts of the country cattle are dying because the vitally necessary fodder that is on order cannot be delivered on time. In the Eastern Cape the Railways are behind schedule with the delivery of about a thousand loads of raw fodder. The fodder should have been at its destination long ago. That fodder, and other fodder that is also urgently necessary, are not even included in this.

Here is another article in the same newspaper—

Sir, is this a situation to which South Africa has only become accustomed this year? This has repeatedly been the position, but in the meantime we are to understand that the hon. the Minister is managing the Railways in the best possible manner for South Africa and that these people do not have any problems.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that as a result of this shortage, and also as a result of the wastage of time in the delivery of fodder, a tremendous amount of damage is being done to our agricultural industry. The hon. the Minister must understand that the agricultural industry in South Africa is one. of his most important clients. There are very few of our other sectors that give 25 per cent of their incomes to the Railways. South African agriculture gives it to him, but when the agricultural industry needs him the most, when there are droughts and when the livestock are dying, the farmers must see how they get along and wait on hope and promises. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the South African farmer is bitterly dissatisfied about this situation. The hon. the Minister must direct his planning in such a way that if there are droughts in South Africa they are in a position to transport our livestock efficiently, and to deliver the necessary fodder that a farmer may need as quickly as possible. Sir, I do not even want to talk about the shortage of trucks, which caused exporting citrus farmers to suffer tremendous losses this year—not to mention the market gardeners.

Suggest something.

There is one thing we can suggest. When there is such a state of emergency, and the Railways is not able to provide for the needs of the people affected by it, they should say so. Then the Department of Defence could, for example, be called in to give assistance. If the Railways thinks it can do this work, they must do it as well as possible so that the least possible damage is done to the agricultural sector. It is my conviction that at present the Railways cannot efficiently deal with a state of emergency, and that we could remedy this situation by proper planning. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the agricultural industry is looking to him to put (his matter right. We cannot simply offer excuses every year. Next year we may perhaps not have an influenza epidemic at the same time, again. We did not have an influenza epidemic last year, but then there was a drought and there was also a shortage. The hon. the Minister must ensure that this situation is remedied so that the farmers in South Africa will be more satisfied.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Newton Park. In the first place he tried to take the hon. member for South Coast under his protection, but he did not really succeed. Then he accused the Minister of Transport of wanting to employ non-Whites in jobs which were previously done by Whites. I do not know whether I understood him correctly, but, as I followed what he was saying, that is what I deduced. If that is the case, I can only say that the hon. member has definitely not been listening to the hon. the Minister since 1962 because the hon. the Minister has, since that date pointed out repeatedly that there is a standing committee, consisting of representatives of the various trade unions, which is supervising this matter. Whenever it is necessary and there are non-Whites available, that committee is consulted in regard to the matter. There are numerous non-Whites which have been employed in such cases in jobs which were previously done by Whites. What the hon. member is referring to therefore is beyond my comprehension. In regard to his next point, about Port Elizabeth harbour, I do not want to venture an opinion. The hon. the Minister will probably reply to that.

After that the hon. member spoke about the shortage of trucks. This was the last of the three matters the hon. member dealt with. He said that we knew that there were frequent droughts, and that we had had a flu epidemic this year, but not last year. Sir. we must be fair. The flu epidemic was so bad this year that many schools closed down. We know that it was an exceptional epidemic. As a result of the fact that 30,000 staff members of the Railways were ill, we can understand why activities in our transport system were interrupted to such a tremendous extent. The hon. member also said that there should be enough trucks available. Any person knows Chat our country has an unpredictable rainfall. As a result of that we can in one year have more than a hundred million bags of mealies on our hands. What must be done then? Must the Railways in the mean while keep enough trucks available in order to transport those mealies immediately? Surely it is ridiculous to think that provision should be made for something which might happen. If, for example, a company concludes a contract with Japan for iron ore, must the Railways immediately have sufficient trucks available to transport that ore? I want to express my thanks on behalf of the farming community to the hon. the Minister and the entire railway staff who went out of their way to render these services. Sir, I can assure you that these people did a great deal in order to cope with the emergency. We are deeply grateful for what they did.

The solution the hon. member proposed was to call in the Defence Force when drought conditions were prevailing. Sir, that is in fact what was done. In Bloemfontein the Defence Force brought us tremendous relief when they made enough trucks available to us to undertake the transportation of fodder. What was suggested by the hon. member is therefore already being done. We cannot but express our thanks and appreciation for that.

What is the Defence Force doing with trucks?

I meant lorries, not trucks. For the last few days we have been listening to the criticism from the Opposition, and it was concentrated for the most part on the manpower shortage. We all know that that is the problem. It was indicated time and again that non-Whites should be employed, and yesterday various hon. members said there was no manpower shortage; it was simply our fault for not employing those non-Whites. The hon. members for East London (City) and Pietermaritzburg (District) said this. But then we had this dramatic about face where the hon. member for South Coast took exception to non-Whites doing the work of gangers in Natal, work which had in the past been done by Whites. There were denials, and I shall come to that now. The hon. member for South Coast said that on a section of railway line between Durban and Port Shepstone Bantu were now doing the work of White gangers. I wrote that down here. He did not say that the Bantu working there were incompetent and should be replaced by other Bantu who had in fact been trained. If that had been his argument, we could have understood it. But no, his objections were to Bantu doing the work of White gangers. [Interjection.] I listened to that speech and I took notes because I knew that I was going to speak later on. The question here was quite clearly not that the Bantu had not been trained. If there had been an objection to the proficiency of those Bantu, that they were unable to do the work properly, it would have been a different matter, and they could have said that they should have been trained. There are enough Bantu who can in fact do that work.

Where should they have been trained?

Where are the hon. members tractor drivers trained? Surely they are also Bantu. Over the years I have been referring to the hon. member for Karoo who was sitting here and who wanted to go further. He spoke of ticket examiners, conductors, shunters and firemen who should be non-Whites, and he was a front bencher of the United Party, but now they are trying to flee from that standpoint they had. But since we have now reached the point where they are trying to prove that this is not their policy, I want to return and refer again to their election manifesto, this policy of the United Party, “You want it, we have it”. This booklet is their election manifesto and I want to read out a few quotations from it.

Where is yours?

No, we need not publish ours. Our deeds are there for all to see, and the voters know what we are doing and where we stand, but our major problem is to find out where the United Party stands. They are trying to sit on two stools at the same time, but most of the time they fall between the two. We admit that this manpower shortage is a very thorny problem, but they have only one solution for it, as they have repeatedly said: Put the United Party into office and then the manpower shortage of the Railways will be solved. But suppose they were to come into office, what will their policy be and what are they going to do? Here they say in the election manifesto—

This is very plain language. Here the matter is made absolutely clear—no restriction on the labour of White and non-White. That is the policy, and now we go further. It states—

1. (1) guarantees employment of Whites at real wages not lower than those they earn at present. The guarantee should last for at least 10 years …

If you keep on reading, you would be making a good speech.

If the hon. member begins to praise me I will begin to feel worried, for then there must be something wrong with me. But here no restriction was placed on labour, as you know, In the first place there are job opportunities for Whites and non-Whites without any restrictions with a guarantee of the same wage for 10 years to the white worker. They realize of course that if you take on non-Whites on a large scale there would be tendency for the wage structure to decline, and now they are giving the white workers a ten year guarantee. In other words, they are freezing their wages for 10 years. After that, we also know, it will be the end of them. But that it the policy of the United Party.

What is your policy?

Our policy is this. Here we have the guarantee, and this is what we have been doing for the past 22 years for the railwayman, and not only at election time. Just look at the memorandum of the Minister of Transport, and you will see that in the 22 years from 1948 no less than R308 million in annual increases has been granted to railwaymen. These are virtually annual adjustments. and not only before an election or during an election, as the United Party is alleging. And as far as that goes. I want to express once again my gratitude to the hon. the Minister for this R60 million increase which has now been granted, not before the election was announced, because then the United Party would have said that we were buying votes. It was announced after the election.

Just before Lang-laagte.

Any right-minded person appreciates the fact that it was announced after the election. And it is not merely by coincidence that we have now granted this tremendous increase. Increases are granted periodically. From 1948-’49 onwards these adjustments have been made virtually every year. Here you have it in black and white; R308 million has been granted to the staff in order to improve their salaries. That is our achievement and that is what we can build on.

But I want to return to the creation of avenues of employment for Whites and non-Whites on a scale which would be impossible if non-white labour were restricted of prohibited. What else could it mean but that the policy of the United Party is to place no restrictions on labour among White and non-white if they should come into power, according to this election manifesto of theirs? It speaks of the creation of job opportunities for Whites and non-Whites on a scale which would be impossible if non-white labour were to be restricted or prohibited. Now, what else could it be? Only one thing; it is race integration. It is the abolition of work reservation and the disappearance of the colour bar. But this election manifesto did not foresee such a cat being dropped amongst the pigeons, which caused such a flutter, when one man objected candidly to non-Whites being employed. It is very clear to me that this integration policy of the United Party has caused the voters to know them for what they are.

Now I want to go further. I want to refer to a further quotation in this election manifesto, on page 26. There we read a very interesting thing. Under the heading, “For the transport user” they say that the United Party will relax monopolistic practices and put more emphasis on competition. That to my mind is another danger sign for it is stated clearly here that the United Party will restrict monopolistic practices and put more emphasis on competition. Here something dangerous for our railwaymen is putting in an appearance. We know that for years now the United Party has been referring to certain legislation, such as the Motor Transport Act of 1930, in terms of which the Railways is afforded certain protection. They have always objected to this, as they call it, unlawful protection of the Railways in that Act. Here there is another back door for them. They have on various occasions advocated that we should hand over the railway workshops to private initiative, and they have made it clear that the State should not compete with the private sector.

I want to proceed, and refer to the last point in their election manifesto. On page 26 they say: “The Party will separate the Railways, Harbours and Airways into three autonomous sections.” Various speakers have made mention of this, and I have no desire at all to cover the territory already covered, particularly by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, in a very capable manner in a previous debate, but I would just like to refer to a few aspects. If we were to separate those services, the pipelines would of course also be separate, because they say in a subsequent paragraph that its profits should be reduced. Now, if they want to separate these four services, how do they want to finance the passenger services, which show an annual deficit of at least R30 to R40 million? Do they want to increase rates? If one comes forward with-such a clear policy, one must after all have the solution to the problems, and then one must say that one is going to increase rates. Then the public knows what to expect, because the United Party has said: Put us into office, and all the difficulties will be solved. How would they have financed this R60 million increase which has now been granted if they were to separate the four services of the Railways from one another? Sir, it is clear to me that many things were said here, but these things were not being said by people who had considered what the final results would be. These were mere statements, and I think the purpose was that nobody should pay any heed to them.

Sir, since the hon. member for Maitland is being so serious now, I also want to refer to a matter which he mentioned here. He said that we should really apologize to the United Party because we are supposedly carrying out their immigration policy now; because we refused to carry it out all these years, and as a result have supposedly suffered so much damage. Sir, that is a very interesting statement. In the post-war years when the United Party was in power they brought in immigrants in their thousands and their tens of thousands, but what was the purpose of that? The purpose was to plough the Afrikaner under. It was stated very clearly. [Laughter] I have just let another cat loose amongst the pigeons. That statement was made by a responsible Minister. And I want to tell you. Sir, that the conditions to-day cannot be compared to the conditions in the years 1946/47/48. At the time, under United Party regime, there was no accommodation whatsoever for our people and there was no building material with which to construct houses. In those days there was no food for the people; women had to queue up in front of butcher shorts; there was no bread; the bread was mixed with maize flour. [Laughter.] My hon. friends are laughing. It is either ignorance or else they are trying to laugh away those conditions. The fact of the matter is that maize flour was added to our wheat flour and that detectives were sent round to catch people who were using sieves to sift out that course bran. We know that story. The fact of the matter is that there was no food. We did not have food for our own people; we did not have houses; our people did not have work. Every immigrant which they brought out here deprived our people of jobs; the immigrants took the food from the mouths of our people, and took their homes. I remember what happened because I fought an election in those days in Bloemfontein (West). [Interjections.] Yes, my minority was simply due to the soldiers’ vote which proved the decisive factor in Tempe.

Soldiers which were being victimized by them.

Yes, they were being victimized by the Government of that day. In those days there was no freedom. Sir, I want to make it very clear; Our people were living in: hovels and tiny rooms; there was no housing for them. The then Minister, Mr. Harry Lawrence, announced that he was going to have 30,000 houses built, and do you know how far he got with that? He did at least turn over the first sod when he announced that the houses would be built, but not a single house was actually built. I am speaking now about railway men. The housing position for the railwayman was critical; There were no houses for the people and every immigrant who, came out here, put a railwayman out of his house-, particularly if the railwayman did not want to take the red oath. Those were the condition at the time, and now that hon. member comes-along here and says that the conditions at the time and at the present can be compared. We had to put a stop to those things in order, to save our own people. But to-day the position is different; to-day we are bringing immigrants in their thousands and their tens of thousands, but every immigrant who is being brought out here, is being brought out because we require his services as a technician. When he arrives here his job is waiting for him, his house is waiting for him, and we have a surplus of food. Sir, I shall return a little later to the question Of housing, but I want to say here that our people know what this Government is doing for them. In his Budget speech (he hon. the Minister referred to the hundreds—yes, thousands—of houses which have recently been built for railwaymen. Our people appreciate that. I do not want to repeat a speech which I made a few days ago and in which I discussed housing, but for the sake of interest, I just want to refer hon. members …

Are you satisfied with the housing for the railwayman?

Order! The hon. member may proceed with his speech.

To tell the truth, I find it quite interesting to see that there are so many corps on that side. I shall proceed, because I am afraid that my time will run out; I still want to make a few statements here.

Sir, once again I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the Minister for what he has done in recent years for the railwayman. I have on a previous occasion referred specifically to the contributory reason for the railwayman being prepared to go out of his way to make sacrifices in order to increase the efficiency of the Railways even further. Every time someone has something to say about a labour shortage or a manpower shortage, I involuntarily think back to the days, particularly under U.P. regime, when there was a labour surplus, when there was unemployment. I want to express my sincere gratitude for the fact that our problem is not unemployment but that our problem is a shortage of manpower. This is a phenomenon which occurs in all countries where boom conditions are prevailing. Because our Government believes in the future of our nation, because we believe that great things still lie ahead for us, because we are aware of the wealth below the surface of our earth, wealth which may at a later stage still be exploited, we realize that we are entering a new phase of development. An efficient transport system is also of the greatest importance in this respect. That is why the Minister of Transport began timeously— this applies not only to the Railways but to every department—to make every railwayman undergo intensive training, and in this way every railwayman has become virtually an expert in his field. That is one of the important reasons for the efficiency of the Railways. Going hand in hand with this there is mechanization, automation and organization, thorough investigations, work studies, and the utilization of scientific methods, mechanization and technological operational improvements, and the latest equipment. Positive and judicious planning has contributed to the efficiency of the Railways being increased to such an extent that we are virtually, with the same manpower, doing 100 per cent more work. This is indeed one of those things which indicates to me that the Railways under this Government is piobably the most efficient undertaking in the country.

The Railways have also played an important role in the development of our country’s industries by placing advance orders with domestic industrialists. During the past six years orders to the value of more than R1,300 million have been placed with South African industrialists. Last year alone such orders to the value of R151 million were placed in South Africa. This has contributed a great deal towards the development of the Railways, the country and the industries in general, with the result that we have been able to achieve this tremendous development.

But, Sir, we are reaching another phase now. We realize now that we will in future have to plan on a different basis; the tractive power will have to be increased, and loads will have to be increased. An announcement in this regard has already been made. We know how much manpower has been saved by having heavier loads and locomotives with greater tractive power, and in this respect we have achieved tremendous success. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) made quite a number of points here, but I do not think I can omit to deal with what I would call the political historical survey which he gave us here this morning. I must say that I never knew we were so very poor in those years, namely 1947-’48. There were no houses; there was not even bread; there was no meat. Those days when silk stockings were used in strainers were days of great suffering, and while we were suffering to such an extent—I mention this for the edification of that hon. member, because this is a vital fact which he left out —the Government lent Britain R160 million with the approval of those hon. members. It does not seem to me that we could have been quite so poor.

It was the first thing they did when they came into power.

Yes, they were scarcely in power, when they had to ask for that money back at a tremendous loss for South Africa. The second point made by the hon. member was that we allowed immigrants to come here. Sir, I find this so strange; he defends the attitude of the then Government and he also steps into the breach for what I would regard as one of the deficiencies in the hon. the Minister’s approach to labour; he defends him, He told us that the U.P. Government allegedly brought immigrants here to plough the Afrikaner under. Sir, the trouble with that hon. member is that he is “verkramp”. He is so “verkramp” that at one stage I thought I should call him Innesdal, but I am prepared to say this to him this morning: His problem is that he has no faith at all in the strength of character of the Afrikaner. To the present day he is one of those who are so scared of an immigrant, even though the immigrant should become a new South African, that I believe he stands solidly behind Innesdal in order to keep out the immigrants.

Sir, that hon. member very ostentatiously said: The Railways appointed a standing committee to investigate jobs which can be held by non-Whites, positions which were previously held by Whites. Sir, this committee is an important body. The committee is the method, the machine, which is used to implement a specific principle, and that principle is the constant change or breaking down of the labour pattern which has prevailed on the Railways for years. I want to ask that hon. member if he is in favour of the breaking down of this pattern. [Interjections.] I thought he would say “No”, because that hon. member uses the standing committee to protect himself; he hides behind that committee because he does not have the courage to say whether he is in favour of it or not, and why not?

We have our policy; surely you know that.

Where is it?

It is a policy which is like an iceberg; only now and then do you see the top above the water. I want to ask the hon. member who made that interjection whether he is in favour of the idea that a ganger may be a non-White? Look at his face now.

That you must ask Douglas.

The hon. member does not answer but this is of cardinal importance, because this is the matter on which the hon. member for South Coast was attacked.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before this House adjourned, I was putting a question to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District). Hon. members will remember that I repeated the question twice. Nevertheless, the hon. member just sat and looked at me and was as silent as the proverbial grave. Now I want to put another very simple question to the hon. member. I put this question especially in view of the attack which was made on the hon. member for South Coast and which he continued. The hon. member for South Coast explained the position of the Bantu very clearly and that hon. member did listen to the speech. Now I should like to ask him whether he as satisfied that that Bantu in fact carries out the work which he is supposed to do on that particular railway line?

If that Bantu is incapable, another one can do it.

No, the hon. member cannot try to evade the issue. I am waiting for a reply from him. The hon. member for South Coast referred to a specific state of affairs and that hon. member must tell me whether he is satisfied that that Bantu is in fact doing his work. If he is not satisfied, he must tell me why he launched the attack on the hon. member for South Coast.

We are not scared to train them.

That hon. member, says that the Bantu need training. Do I understand him correctly? The question is whether the Bantu was in fact trained for that work which he must do. That 15 the position. The hon. member cannot get away from that. He attacked the hon. member for South Coast about a statement which he made. However, he did not say whether he agreed or disagreed with that statement. He just attacked him blindly. Now the question arises why he attacked the hon. member for South Coast. He did not attack him about the question whether he was right or wrong. No, the merits of the case played no part here. With respect, they played no part in the case of the hon. the Minister either. However, I must give the hon. the Minister credit for knowing how to play the political game, but he too did not examine the merits of the case. He attacked the hon. member for South Coast with one single object, and that was to prove that the hon. member had deviated from the policy of the United Party. The safety of that particular railway line was of no concern at all. The only concern was a little political capital which the hon. member wanted to make out of this matter.

I now wish to leave this particular aspect. I also want to leave the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) at that, because he knows neither the Railways nor the political history. What I find disappointing—and I say this with all due respect to the hon. the Minister—is the complete absence of any proof that the Government, including that hon. Minister, realizes the seriousness of the labour shortage on the Railways. This is what I find so tragic about this debate. One can buy more trucks; one can buy more steam locomotives and electrical units. The hon. member will be able to find the money if he wants to buy them. But what he did not tell us, is where he would get the people. The hon. the Minister told me that I had not said in my speech in the Second-Reading debate what the labour pattern of the Railways was. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) may also listen to what I am going to say now. It is very clear what this pattern was. It was a pattern which for years consisted of more or less one White to one Bantu. I know we have now reached a stage where the pattern is slowly moving in the direction of the Bantu. But for years the pattern was one Bantu to one White.

One Bantu to one …?

One non-White to one White. I do not want the hon. the Minister to pick on words again. The labour pattern on the Railways was more or less one White to one non-White. I repeat that the pattern is busy changing slightly in favour of the non-Whites. That pattern was created over the years, not by apartheid legislation, but by custom and convention in South Africa. It is a pattern which everybody supported. But South Africa has progressed. Economic development has taken place and we have reached the stage where white labour has become so scarce that the available labour to-day simply cannot fully provide for the needs of the Railways. This is the cardinal fact. The Railways simply do not have the white labour to fill all the positions. The hon. the Minister is very aware of this fact. He has already applied various methods in order to eliminate the labour shortage. In the first place, there are the wage scales of the Railways. The United Party believes that he could do better even in this respect. In any case, the salary scales can be improved in an attempt to attract more white labour to the Railways. In addition, there is the question of the so-called “fringe benefits”. Here too we believe that the National Party can do better in respect of the Railways.

In the third place, the hon. the Minister has already exploited technology to the utmost in an attempt to save labour. Lastly, there is the question of overtime. This is the fourth factor which I want to deal with. Whereas overtime used to be the reserve strength of the Railways, it has now become a necessity. This side of the House believes that if there are other methods; which can be used to meet the labour shortage than those which I have just mentioned, and if those hon. members believe that the Railways must continue to fulfil its role in South Africa, those other methods should be sought in order to meet the labour shortage. The United Party believes that there is only one way to do this, and that is to reconsider the labour pattern which existed in the Railways and which the hon. the Minister has started changing. This is the only way to do it. What I want to put to the hon. the Minister is this: If the hon. the Minister knows of any other methods which can be used to meet the labour shortage, I believe it is his duty to tell this House exactly what else he can do to meet the labour shortage. If he believes he can continue without supplementing the labour shortage, I say he is making a big mistake. There are two questions which I am putting to him this afternoon and to which he must reply. In the first place, does he know of any methods which can be used to meet the labour shortage, apart from a reconsideration of the labour position? Or does the hon. the Minister believe that he can enable the Railways to carry on playing its proper part without doing anything about the labour position? These are the two questions to which he must pay attention.

As I have said, he has already changed the pattern. He told us recently that 12,000 non-Whites are at the moment doing work which was previously done by Whites. This is a great change. We know that to-day machines are doing the work of thousands of Whites and non-Whites on the Railways. These are all attempts to change the labour pattern, and now the hon. Minister owes this House a reply. He must tell us whether he is prepared to continue changing the pattern. If he is not prepared to continue doing so, he must tell us what else he is going to do. If he tells us that he does not know what to do. we will say: “Now we understand each other. You and the Government’s labour policy have failed to place the Railways in a secure position”.

The United Party’s attitude in this respect is very clear. We do not know of any other methods of meeting the labour shortage than examining the labour pattern, and the hon. the Minister did not inform us in this connection either. We also know that the existing labour pattern is based on the strength of convention. We also know that unless we succeed in convincing the railway worker that we will not sell out his rights, we will not obtain his co-operation. Therefore the United Party states categorically that if we want labour peace in South Africa it is necessary to obtain the co-operation of the trade unions in this regard. Last year the hon. the Minister said that he was going use the “big stick”. If he believed it to be in the interests of South Africa, he would simply ignore the trade unions. In my humble opinion, the hon. the Minister was wiser this year. He was wiser because he followed the policy of the United Party, the policy which he laughed at last year. That side of the House now accepts the policy which they laughed at last year. In that respect the hon. the Minister was wise. I do not know why the hon. the Minister is so afraid to tell this House what he wants to do. Why is he so afraid to say that he intends to change the labour pattern even further?

Jaap is gone.

The former member for Innesdal is no longer here. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) is still here, but the hon. the Minister need not be concerned about him. What is the hon. the Minister so afraid of? I cannot understand it. Now an attack is made on the hon. the Minister for South Coast.

Minister?

I mean the hon. member for South Coast, but in any case it is only a question of time. The hon. member for South Coast adopted a clear standpoint in regard to a particular Bantu who had a certain amount of training or a certain lack of training, who worked at a particular railway line under very particular circumstances. He adopted a standpoint in regard to one position out of hundreds of other positions. But the hon. the Minister with his Press dragged a red herring across the whole debate in an attempt to mislead the people so that they could not see the Government’s failure to provide leadership to the people in this vital respect.

Have you read the hon. member’s Hansard?

I listened to the hon. member; this is as good as having read him. I repeat that the hon. member adopted a specific standpoint in regard to a specific Bantu in a specific position with a specific method of training.

Why are you doing so much explaining?

Because you will not understand.

Have you read the lies in Die Burgerl

I am not trying to do a great deal of explaining, but I had such high hopes that the hon. members on the other side of this House would reveal some intelligence. However, we are having very great difficulty. I want to state categorically that I listened to the hon. member and that there was not the slightest difference between him and me as far as this matter is concerned, or as far as the policy of the Party is concerned. In the absence of a method of providing a permanent solution to the labour shortage on the Railways, the United Party’s policy is to reconsider the labour pattern. The United Party believes that it must be done by means of proper consultation with and consideration of the trade unions, precisely because we want peace in South Africa. This is the principle. The principle of the matter is not whether a Bantu may work in a specific position. We can differ about that among ourselves and we can discuss that, but the main principle is whether the National Party is prepared, firstly, to face the facts and, secondly, to acknowledge that there is no alternative other than changing the labour pattern to a larger extent, something which the hon. the Minister has already been doing. This is all the hon. member did. Now the Nationalist Party, completely devoid of any policy, comes along and raises a storm about a matter which is certainly not a matter of principle. The United Party’s attitude is clear, and the National Party’s policy is at least slightly clearer than what it was. The Nationalist Party’s attitude now is: “We are following the United Party”. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, the tragedy of the matter is that the United Party must force the hon. members to admit that they have accepted our policy. The question occurs to me: Why? In the first place the hon. members should be ashamed that they are again following in the footsteps of the United Party. They have again put their hands into the political money-box of the United Party. In the second place, there is a very good reason why the hon. members will not admit this openly, and that is that for years they have been telling the white workers in South Africa that they are the only protectors of those workers in South Africa. Now that they find that the workers no longer believe them, they go out of their way to make a last attempt just before the election. It is too late. The people have discovered them and to the same extent to which the people and especially the railway-men, have discovered the Nationalist Party will they vote for this party in future?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland had a great deal to say here about the labour pattern, but he proved nothing to us. The labour pattern of the National Party is very clear. The Minister has from time to time stated it to us, and slowly but surely the United Party is adopting it. Just the reverse of what the hon. member for Maitland said. The labour pattern of the United Party is even being attacked by the hon. member for Houghton. This is one occasion when I have to agree with her, for they are offering no solution to our country’s problems because they are not going far enough. I want to test the United Party’s policy against their so-called patriotism, and find out whether it is in the interests of South Africa. That is also what I test the hon. the Minister of Transport’s policy against—he takes his final decisions if they are in the interests of South Africa. They do not want to go so far; they want to stop half-way and have recourse to the trade unions, and if they do not agree, try to persuade those trade unions. If the trade unions do not agree, they cannot go any further. Our Minister of Transport has the courage of his convictions when he says that if it is in the interests of South Africa he will go even further; he will then use non-Whites in those positions. He is not going to do so against the will of those railwaymen; he is going to convince them slowly but surely that it is in their own interests because it is in the interests of South Africa. That, to my mind, is the test. The hon. member for Maitland made quite a number of statements here. He said that the National Party was not in earnest in seeking a solution for the manpower problem. But the National Party is in earnest about solving the problem.

How?

Why do hon. members think the Minister grants an increase of R60 million? Is it not people who are in earnest who are prepared to offer their people more money? This is after all a very great concession which was made to our railwaymen, and I hope they appreciate it. I am convinced that they will return to the Railways. We have heard about so many who are resigning from the railway service, but we find just as many who are returning now. To-day the people will queue up to return to the Railways. Why did we have to grant these increases in salaries? We had to do so because we are a progressive country and because there has been an increase in our standard of living. That is why these increases were granted, and we believe that the Railways will now keep pace. Once we have coped with this temporary manpower shortage, we will continue to develop the Railways in order to establish the necessary infrastructure for the country. The hon. member for Maitland made another very interesting statement. He said that we should not take note of his words. To my mind that is just about the last straw. What must we take note of then?

I did not say that.

Did the hon. member not say that?

No.

The hon. member said we must not analyse words. What must we do then? How must we then judge their policy if we do not consider the words they utter here in the House? Must we go and read that yellow booklet? If we were to believe everything contained in it, we would be even further from the truth. We will take note of every word they say here. After all, they want to become the future Government of the Republic. If that is the case, we must know what their policy is. We want to know where they stand. I want to return to what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said. He said the Government had “misjudged” and that the Government had no confidence in its own country. Those are the words the hon. member used. We have seen how the Railways has developed and how the Department has been prepared to spend large amounts of money to make available what was necessary to keep the Railways operating. If we look at this year’s Brown Book, we will see that millions of rand are again being spent on the Railways. Now the hon. member for Durban (Point) is saying that we are afraid to spend.

No, Sir, on the one hand we want to keep the Railways operating, but we must also consider the inflationistic conditions in the country. Unrestricted inflation is an even greater danger to the railwaymen than a poor salary. If the value of his money decreases so that subsequently he cannot buy anything with it anymore, it is better for him not to receive a higher salary, but rather a smaller salary with money which has buying power. That is why we appreciate what the Minister of Finance is doing, i.e. that he is also introducing measures to combat inflation. We must also bear in mind that, if we can combat inflation, we will also be making it easier for the railwaymen because money will retain its buying power. That is why I test the United Party’s policy against the hypothesis of whether or not it is in the interests of South Africa. I believe that the Minister of Transport introduced this Budget in the interests of South Africa.

When we spoke about staff associations, the United Party said that they were going to try to persuade the staff associations. That is a very wonderful idea. But when they came to disciplinary cases, they did not want to know anything about staff associations. No, every railway official must have the right to run directly to his Member of Parliament. It is probably the right of any citizen in the country to go to his Member of Parliament, but the Railways creates channels for disciplinary matters. After all, one must have order and discipline in any great organization such as the Railways. That is why I say, the channels are there, but if a man cannot get satisfaction after he has made use of all the channels, then he is at liberty to approach his Member of Parliament. But then the United Party must not, in this House, raise trivial little matters which do not have any grounds or foundation. Let the railwayman take the matter to the Minister. I can give hon. members the assurance that we have a Minister who understands our railway officials, and who is also able to understand the man who has committed an offence. He will be sympathetic towards him. But hon. members must not come and do so here in the House. Let him raise the matter with the Minister, and he will receive satisfaction. Every railwayman who is worth his salt knows that if he goes through the correct channels, he will receive satisfaction from this Minister.

In the conclusion of this debate I should like to be a little more positive and just point out what is in fact being done in the country, particularly as far as the development of out harbours is concerned. Our harbours are a very great asset to us. The hon. member for Parow pointed out that we have a surplus of approximately R20 million on our harbours. But we are not afraid to plough the money back either. If we look at the number of passengers over the past few years, we see that these have increased by almost 10 per cent per annum. After all, we must create facilities for those people. If we consider the number of ships, we will find that 17,168 ships have called at South African and South-West African ports during the past year. There were 2,158 coastal vessels and 5,768 trawlers and whalers. This is a tremendous amount of shipping which our harbours have had to deal with. After the closure of the Suez Canal, this burst on them like a storm. We can do nothing but express appreciation to-day for the great work which is being done in our harbours in dealing with this tremendous number of ships. In our harbours 42 million tons of freight has been loaded and off-loaded. It is a tremendous achievement which these people have attained. I am certain that, if it has been necessary to work overtime, this was also done at our harbours. These people, when the pressure was on, did their work.

Think of the dry dock facilities we have made available. It is interesting to note that the dry docks at Durban, East London and Cape Town are virtually in full-time operation. We are rendering a service to the ships which pass here. We have now put two new first-class diesel electric tugs, the Willem Heckroodt and the Danie du Plessis, into operation to keep up with the services we have to render.

We are creating facilities in all spheres. I do not want to go into all the points, but I should just like to discuss our containerization and the fact that we are also developing in this direction. At our harbours the necessary facilities are being created for containerization. It is interesting to note that shipping people calculate that at the moment the North Atlantic ocean traffic between America and England is keeping plus minus 700 ships busy. If those ships were fully equipped for containerization, approximately 50 ships would be needed, which is less than one-tenth of the present total. This simply indicates the great benefits which containerization constitutes.

The various containers will be brought from the interior by express train, facilities will also be created at those stations where they can be handled. In our harbours we will have to make more space available for this kind of development. I am convinced that, because we have a Railways and Harbours Administration which keep themselves fully informed of the requirements of our country, we need not feel concerned about the future of the Railways, Harbours and Airways of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, with the very short time left in this debate before the hon. the Minister replies, it is my good fortune to have the hon. the Minister stand up immediately after me. I want to put some very direct questions to him. Having a reputation for straight talking, I trust he will give very straight replies to what I ask him.

In this debate I think it is fair to say that the hon. the Minister’s policy can be summed up by stating that he will employ on the Railways all the Bantu that he needs, provided only that he obtains the agreement of his staff, or if he is satisfied that there is no danger of labour unrest or friction. There are two facets with regard to this position. The first is that he employs freely in the so to speak “traditional” categories of unskilled work all the Bantu labour that he desires. The second is that he employs in jobs previously done by Whites those Bantu that pass this test of employment which I have stated. On that basis we congratulated him on his policy and said that at last he is coming round to United Party policy.

Hon. members opposite and the hon. the Minister hotly disputed it. The Minister said that this policy of his is entirely in line with Government policy in regard to Bantu. Now I want to ask him some questions. I want to ask him whether his policy accords with the following lines of Nationalist Party policy which are in accordance with our everyday knowledge of their policy. I expect a straight answer.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister first of all whether this policy of his to take in people on this basis accords with the edict of the Government that Bantu in the Western Cape must be reduced at the rate of 5 per cent per year. I want to ask him that. Every other employer in the Western Cape, including farmers, must reduce his Bantu labour at the rate of 5 per cent per year. Does the hon. the Minister accept that he must reduce his Bantu labour on the Railways in the same proportion? No, he does not. He rides roughshod over that first credo of Nationalist Party policy. This is my first question and I would like a straight answer. Or is it now the case that the Nationalists have abandoned this aspect of their policy and have completely run away from the requirement of a 5 per cent reduction because they realize it is absolutely impracticable?

Let me ask the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite the next question and see if this accords with the policy of the hon. the Minister of Transport. We had a reference in the paper to this matter to-day. According to the Koornhof edict, Nationalist Party policy is that Bantu shall not be employed in a certain five categories. These people may not be employed in accordance with Government policy in a certain five categories. There was no question here that there is going to be unrest or trouble in the country. Indeed, these people were taken into employment in these categories so quietly that nobody noticed it at all. It was only when the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education introduced his Bill that attention was drawn to this fact. I now ask the hon. the Minister of Transport if this is in accordance with his policy. I say that it is a complete contradiction of his policy. His policy is to have who he requires, provided it leads to no unrest and, if possible, he can get the cooperation of the staff associations. This does not, however, apply to the other employers in South Africa in regard to Bantu labour.

A third aspect of Nationalist Party policy which I say does not accord with the hon. the Minister’s policy, concerns the Physical Planning Act. Not a single employer outside the reserves, especially in relation to industry, can employ one further Bantu without the permission of this Government. It does not matter whether this Bantu is going into a job which was previously done by a white person. You cannot employ a single Bantu in the most unskilled position without the permission of the hon. the Minister of Planning. On the other hand the hon. the Minister of Transport is completely free of this restriction. We know that the hon. the Minister has a great affection for his Railways, but so have we all. He may maintain that the Railways are important to keep the products of the country moving, but he is only transporting the products of the country. The produce is produced by farmers, industrialists, miners, and so on. He is only transporting what they have produced. But the hon. the Minister claims to be above the law, because he does not want to be faced with a complete breakdown of his Railways, a complete standstill, and the absolute and utter demolition of their policy. And so what do we have in this case? We have a complete denial of the Bantu policy of this Government by the hon. the Minister of Transport. He runs completely counter to this policy. And why does he do it? Because he knows that his Railways will not run for one day if he does not ignore it

It exposes the policy as a farce.

Yes, it exposes the policy as a farce, as the hon. member for Yeoville rightly says. The hon. the Minister is daily exposing this policy as a farce and a fraud. If one ever wants to hear double talk, one must take into view the whole contradiction between the policy of the hon. Minister of Transport and the policy of the Government in regard to Bantu. We know the hon. the Minister of Transport as a straight talker and I think we are absolutely entitled to have from him straight answers as to how he reconciles these contradictions. The tragedy is that this is not an isolated case in the pattern of labour arrangements, but it is the whole basic policy upon which our country is being run. And here we have this inherent contradiction and absolute denial by the Minister of Transport of what his Government is doing in every field.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal with the hon. member for South Coast first. I have a lot of sympathy for the hon. member, because I know he went through a very difficult time during the past few days. I thought he would be sensible and leave the matter which I am going to mention, in abeyance, but he raised it again this morning. I am, therefore, compelled to reply. The hon. member for South Coast reminds me of a boxer who has been floored several times but who comes back for more and more punishment until eventually he becomes punch drunk. That is a permanent condition.

The hon. member and his apologists accused me that I quoted his words out of context and that I gave an entirely wrong interpretation of his words. He also accused me of cowardice for not reading his Hansard, which I did not have in my possession yesterday. One thing that nobody can ever accuse me of is either moral or physical cowardice. I let that go, however, because I realized that the hon. member was very excited and indignant. I have his Hansard here to-day and I would now like to read it to him. The fact that disturbs me is that the hon. member said in an interview in the Cape Times of to-day that he is going to Klip River and tell the railwaymen there what this Minister is doing. Do you know what he is going to tell them, Sir? He is going to tell those railwaymen “Ben Schoeman is taking in Blacks to do your White jobs.” That is what the hon. member is going to tell them. I know that is the type of propaganda we always have from hon. members opposite. It has been said over and over again in this House. Hon. members opposite do not say it openly, but that is the whispering campaign they usually indulge in before every election. The hon. member is going to tell them “Ben Schoeman is using Blacks to do the white man’s job…”. The hon. member said that he was going to read his Hansard to them, but I am going to read it now and I call this House and the country as a witness as to whether I misinterpreted (he hon. member, or took his words out of context, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) alleges. The hon. member said the following:

That is quite correct.

This lets me out, because the Minister admits it. He says that is quite correct. That line is now being electrified. If we have spread rails on that line and a bad accident occurs, who is responsible?

There are continual patrols on the line.

I then leave out one paragraph, which is not relevant now. I go on:

We have patrolmen on the line itself.

How do they travel?

They walk along the line.

Are these white patrolmen walking along the line?

No, Bantu.

This is exactly my point. There are Native patrolmen walking along the line seeing that the ballasting, the dog spikes, the fish plates and everything else are in order so that we will not have spread rails. That will not do. This is the very point I am making. Can one really say that the responsibility …

Hon members must take note of this word “Responsibility”. I go on:

The Minister of Transport: What is the alternative? We do not have white men to do it.

My alternative is to get another Minister of Transport.

That will not help you.

If we have a manpower shortage and we are to change our manpower policy, let us start with the Minister.

That was a very silly thing to say but, nevertheless, I accepted that. Then he said, “There are white men available.” I would like the House to notice that the hon. member never spoke of trained or untrained labour. He never used the words “trained” or “untrained” in the whole of his speech. He continued:

Then he said:

Remember, that is the patrolman. The hon. member says that the responsibility is too great for a Bantu. Bantu are trained as doctors and as lawyers. They are trained as artisans and as engineers, but a patrolman’s responsibility is too great for them.

Go on reading my Hansard.

He said:

Yes, “that railway line”.

… the Minister knows perfectly well that he and his policy will be to blame. He and the Government will be to blame.

Then the hon. member goes on to say:

Here he is speaking about these Native patrolmen—

Why do you not read the part you left out?

All right, I shall read the whole piece. The hon. member said:

That has nothing to do with responsibility.

Has it not?

The hon. member continued—

That is right.

Patrols of Bantu are going up and down, doing what? Are they watching, as a white man would be watching, the precise positions of all those sleepers? No, Sir, they are not. They have yet not reached the stage where they can carry that responsibility.

[Interjections.] How dare the hon. member say that I misinterpreted him?

Yes, you have misinterpreted me.

Well, then the hon. member cannot understand English and he does not know what it means. He does not know what he said. [Interjections.]

Order!

Not a single word was said here about trained or untrained Bantu. This morning when the hon. member spoke we heard a great deal about trained and untrained Natives, and he challenged …

Go on reading. Why do you stop?

Order!

The hon. member continued—

Precisely, that is right.

That was the conclusion of his speech. There was not one single word about trained or untrained Natives. The hon. member was concerned about the so-called “responsibility”. He said that the Bantu had not reached the stage where they can carry that responsibility, in spite of the fact that they can become lawyers and engineers. A Bantu can become an artisan, but he has not yet reached that stage of responsibility where he can become a patrolman on a railway line!

He said “those Bantu”. [Interjections.]

I said “those Bantu”. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member must not start twisting again, for heaven’s sake. He must admit what he said. That is what he said and that is the interpretation which everybody in the country, including his own side, placed on his speech. That is why they were so crestfallen and so silent when he spoke. They did not have a word to say. To-day he has many apologists, but he did not have yesterday. Then he even ran to the newspapers to try to tell them what he actually meant to say. Even during that interview …

That is completely untrue.

I have an interview here which is headed “Mitchell plans to use railway speech”. In this interview the reporter writes as follows—

That is the question which the hon. member was asked by the reporter. What did he reply? He said—

[Interjections.]

I was speaking specifically to Ben Schoeman, who knew exactly what I was getting at, and not the Press and others, who do not understand some of these …

[Interjections.]

… detailed railway matters and may have been under some illusion.

But then the reporter asked—

Mr. Mitchell replied—

He is not speaking of Bantu, but Coloured people. Mr. Speaker, what must we say about this hon. gentleman?

Let me go further and give the hon. member some information. These Bantu patrolmen have been employed in that position on all the lines of Natal for 30 years. The Bantu gangs are adequately and regularly supervised by permanent way inspectors. Bantu patrolmen are selected from gang strengths and. as I have said, have been patrolling all the railway lines in the Natal system for at least the past 30 years. The line the hon. member referred to is in a good state throughout and safe for traffic. Bantu head gangmen, or indunas, are all selected by leadership tests, are on the permanent staff, and have long service. All have undergone special training for six weeks at the non-White training centre in Germiston. What is left of the hon. member’s case? The hon. member should stand up and apologize to the House, not to me.

Are you telling me that the patrolmen have been doing that work for 30 years?

Yes.

How many of them?

They have been doing this work on all the lines in Natal for the past 30 years.

Can I put a question on the Question Paper and ask you for their names? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may I read this information once more to the hon. member? I do not know whether he has difficulty in understanding plain English, but I shall read this information to him again. Bantu patrolmen are selected from gang strengths and have been patrolling all lines in the Natal system for at least the past 30 years.

I shall ask you for their names.

Yes, the hon. member can ask me for their names. He can ask me any questions, but he should apologize to the House for making those statements and for accusing me of misinterpreting his speech. I say again that the hon. member’s speech yesterday was a complete contradiction of the policy of that party, [Interjections.] The trouble with the hon. member for South Coast is that directly he gets on his feet his brain stops working. He then says things that he is very sorry for afterwards. He then embarrasses his party. It is not the first time he has done so. I have here numbers of clippings which show how he has embarrassed his party in the past. I have clippings showing that he has said the most irresponsible things, which they have had to try to cover up. Sir, do you know what the Sunday Times said about the hon. gentleman just before the nominations for the United Party? A headline in that paper stated: “Old men of the United Party are not quitting.” The article reads, inter alia, as follows—

What was his majority? [Interjections.]

Now listen, for heaven’s sake. The hon. member may be wiser after the event. The article goes on—

I have always admired those ultra-rightist views. The article continues—

It did not.

No, it did not during the election. He came to heel. Sir, that is the position in regard to the hon. member.

He also asked me about the contracts. It is quite correct that contracts have been entered into. This has not only happened recently, but has been the case for quite a long time. Contracts have been entered into with three separate contractors to operate heavy on-track tamper machines. Does the hon. member know what a tamper machine is?

Yes. I do.

The hon. member knows what it is. It is a mechanical device.

Do not talk nonsense. Answer the question. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly courteous. If the hon. member does not know, I want to explain to him what it is.

Is that what you call it? Were you courteous just now?

Yes.

Really? [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I am always very courteous to the hon. member. I have a very high regard for him. In spite of everything I say about him, I still like him. The answer is as follows: Contracts have been entered into with three separate contractors to operate heavy on-track tamper machines on all lines in Natal. The latest contract applied as from 14th May, 1970, heavy tamper contract gangs worked in conjunction with the tampers in the maintenance of the track. These contract gangs are under the supervision of the Railways district engineer and the department’s district supervisor, a senior public works inspector. Auxiliary maintenance, other than that done by the tamping machines and contract gangs, is undertaken by departmental gangs, and some of these gangs operate under indunas. They are in turn supervised by a special class platelayer with a mobile gang and are given weekly tasks. They usually work on a section of from four to six miles. Patrolling of all lines is undertaken by the department. That is the position and I say again that the district engineer’s report is that the line is in a good state throughout. It says, further, that the system and district engineers last inspected the South Coast line recently. That is by the engineers, not by patrolmen or indunas.

When was the contract given out for that line?

There are numerous contracts given out by the Railways. Does the hon. member know that the Vryheid-Empangeni line is built by contractors too?

But when was this contract given out?

It does not make any difference. I am speaking of the condition and the state of the line and I have the assurance from my engineers that it is in a good state; there is nothing wrong with the line.

Since you gave out the contract?

No. The line has been continually inspected by the engineers and by the district engineer, and the last inspection was held recently, by the district engineer. The inspecting engineer will do so again shortly. They are continually inspecting the lines and they say there is nothing wrong with them. Surely, if I have to choose between what my engineers tell me and what the hon. member for South Coast tells me, I must take the word of my engineers first of all, because they are responsible.

I have offered to show you the spots.

I am not going to fly down to Natal to look at a rotten sleeper, but my engineers can go down with the hon. member at any time. And I have been very accommodating. I have sent my people down several times when the hon. member wanted to inspect other things like roads, etc. I am quite prepared to send one of the engineers down and the hon. member can show him where the rotten sleepers are. But that is not the point. The fact remains that the hon. member completely contradicted his own party’s policy. That is the crux of my argument, and that is what I said yesterday and what I repeat today, and in spite of all the apologists on that side, and in spite of the hon. member’s speech this morning, that whole speech was about trained and untrained labour, whereas he never said a word about trained or untrained labour yesterday. The hon. member cannot writtle out of that. He will have to stand by what he said yesterday. It is in Hansard and it will remain in Hansard. I think I have dealt adequately now with the hon. member for South Coast, and in the time left to me I will deal with a few of the other points which hon. members raised.

*The only good thing about the speech made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) is that he spoke in Afrikaans, and I do not say this sneeringly. I think it would be a very good thing if more English-speaking members were to make speeches in Afrikaans every now and then and if Afrikaans-speaking members were to make speeches in English every now and then. [Interjections.] I am always courteous and I always reply in the language in which I am being addressed.

You are the only one. [Interjections.]

I repeat that it is a good thing for English-speaking members on that side to make speeches in Afrikaans every now and then, as was done by the hon. member for Durban (Point) this morning, and, in turn, for Afrikaans-speaking members on this side to speak in English, for we are, after all, a bilingual country and we are proud of both of our languages.

Where is Winchester? [Interjection.]

I am very proud of having been a follower of Gen. Hertzog, and I have never been ashamed of it. That hon. member still reported some of my speeches in those days when he was still a reporter. Sir, the hon. member for Durban (Point) stated again that I had allegedly turned a somersault in regard to what I had said last year about the employment of non-Whites. Last year I said that I would do it, even if the trade unions did not agree, if it were in the interests of South Africa, and I still stand by that. I have not changed my views, but this is what I did say: Suppose I had to do this in certain posts, in certain positions, and industrial unrest were to result, then it would after all not be in the interests of South Africa to do so, and that is why I am not doing it. This is after all the most important consideration with all of us who are sitting here to-day. Are we not doing everything in order to work in the interests of our country? Surely, generally speaking this is the case, not so? Even those hon. members want to work in the interests of South Africa. That is why I still stand by what I said last year.

Then the hon. member referred to the overtime again. I dealt with this before, but hon. members are apparently under the impression that all railwaymen are working overtime and that all of them are working excessive overtime. But do you know, Mr. Speaker, that only 35 per cent of the railwaymen are working overtime?

That is 40,000.

And the people who are working overtime most frequently and for the longest periods, are members of the running staff. And they have been working overtime all these years. This is not something new. The only difference is that there are some cases where these people are working very long hours. This I admit, but over all these years there have been cases where they worked such long hours. In my time, 40 years ago, there were certain trains whose scheduled time was between 14 and 16 hours. Every train, i.e. goods trains, on which one worked from Johannesburg to Zeerust, had a running time of between 14 and 16 hours. This is not a new thing to-day, and one cannot stop a train in, the middle of a section of the line and tell the people: You have now done enough work and need not go any farther. This will always be the case. But the overtime worked by them, is not really the point. The point is that the drivers and the running staff are doing it voluntarily. Soon after having gone off duty, they report for duty again, in order to help out the Administration. This is tiring and I admit it, but I want to deny that this is the cause of accidents, for I am furnished with a full report on every accident that takes place, and in addition to that they have to tell me for how many hours the official concerned had been on duty when the accident occurred, how many hours of rest he had had and how many hours he had worked on his previous shift. This kind of thing is being watched very closely. I am telling the hon. member for Port Natal that it is absurd nonsense to say that overtime and the manpower shortage are the causes of accidents. The hon. member said that once the names were disclosed of the railwaymen who had addressed grievances to the hon. member, a witchhunt would probably be on for them. I know who the person is who wrote to him that one letter which he read out here. He is a driver who specifically asked that he should not work shifts longer than 12 hours, and then he was transferred to the shunting locomotives. I am in possession of all the details of the case, but he will not be victimized.

He has already been.

He has not. He asked for a 12-hour shift. [Inteijection.] For heaven’s sake, must you always insist on hearing one side of the case only? One cannot pass judgment after one has only heard one side of the case; one has to hear both sides. I repeat that no railwayman has ever been victimized for having aired a grievance to a Member of Parliament, irrespective of whether it is a United Party member or a National Party member. We do not do that sort of thing; we are not like the United Party. We do not do what you did in your time. I am giving this assurance again. It is, of course, very wrong to disclose names here across the floor of the House, but he can rest very much assured that nobody will be victimized. I am giving him this guarantee; I am giving him my word for it. But what I do say, is that it is undesirable for railwaymen to run to Members of Parliament with their grievances. They have their usual channels and their staff associations of which they can avail themselves. I repeat what I said yesterday, i.e. that it does not do them any good to have their grievances aired here. Are they perhaps under the impression that if the hon. member for Durban (Point) airs their grievances here, he will influence me by doing so or that he will intimidate me into setting those matters right? Surely, this is not the case. It is much better for them to avail themselves of these channels and of the staff associations to do this.

We can only hope for justice by airing them here.

The trouble is that in airing these grievances here, the hon. member is only airing one side of the case, for he does not have all the facts and, on top of that, he often obtains the wrong information, and what use is that? It would be much more advantageous if he came to my office with such cases and heard the other side of the case as well. If that is done, he would be able to judge whether or not there had been justice.

Now I come to the hon. member for Newton Park. My advice to him is to confine himself to agricultural matters instead; he should not go beyond them. I do not say this in order to be funny. He said, for instance, that it was our policy not to protect the jobs of Whites. This was the first statement he made, but have you ever heard such nonsense, Sir? This is the only party which has ever, over the years, protected the white worker under any circumstances. He said that we begrudged the Whites a higher standard of living. Where does he get that from? He said that if I were to speak to the white railway workers, I would find that there were dozens of jobs which they would give to the non-Whites if they themselves could get better jobs.

Promote them to higher positions.

What kind of people am I to promote to higher positions? To what position am I to promote a shunter? The hon. member is talking about matters about which he knows precious little, and now that I ask him what people I am to promote, he does not know. To what higher positions am I to promote these people?

There are many vacancies.

Where? Sir, I am a very patient person, but I lose my patience when I have to deal with such stupidity. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that there are not dozens of posts, and in cases where it is practicable, as I have already explained repeatedly, we do employ non-Whites. But do you know, Sir, that there are still thousands of white railworkers doing unskilled jobs, in spite of the fact that thousands of them have been replaced by Bantu. Time and again we have approached them, one by one, in order to talk to them and to tell them that we want to give them a better graded position, and do you know that there are numerous railworkers who are not capable of doing better jobs? We must fulfil that socio-economic function in order to keep these people alive so that they may not become a burden to the State.

But not all of them are too stupid.

That is not what I am saying. Stop trying to put into my mouth words which you pan use outside. I did not say that all of them were stupid. I said that there were many of them who were incapable of doing a better job, and there are others who do not want a better job, even if one offers it to them. In cases where there is an opportunity of giving them a better job, apart from the question of employing non-Whites, we do so gladly and we give it to them, but I do not know where the dozens of jobs are. Then the hon. member referred to the St. Croix scheme and said that the Railways were in favour of that scheme, but I have never come out either for or against it. I did not say that I was for it or against it. What I did say in Port Elizabeth, was that the Government would decide in the best interests of South Africa, and I said this on my latest visit to Port Elizabeth; I said this in a speech I made on the occasion of a banquet I attended there.

He was there, too.

No, I was not there.

He was visiting the Land Bank at the time.

Sir, the hon. member for Maitland referred to the labour pattern. This is a very fine word. Many people are using it, but then they do not know what it really means. But the hon. member said there used to be a pattern, and that pattern was one White and one non-White on the Railways. When did we have that pattern? I am not aware of such a labour pattern on the Railways. In my time the ratio has never been one White to one non-White, and I have been the Minister in charge for almost 16 years. This was not the pattern in the time of my predecessor. Was this the pattern under United Party regime, i.e. one White and one non-white?

It was the Smuts pattern.

Give us the figure

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words about this important clause, and I am very grateful to hear that both sides of this House have decided that they will allow a free vote about this, because if there is one matter which one feels should not be dealt with on a political basis, it is this extremely important question of whether a 15-year-old girl should be allowed to contract a valid marriage. I want to say at once that I have very serious misgivings about this matter. My misgivings are based on various reasons. In the first place I want to tell you, Sir, that this matter was discussed by the Welfare Council of the Northern Cape, of which I am chairman, without my having induced them in any way to do so, and the unanimous request of that council, on which many experienced and competent social workers serve, was that I should voice the misgivings they had against this. But I want to go further than this. I base my standpoint against this clause on a further reason, i.e. that I regard a 15-year-old girl as being intellectually immature. Therefore such a girl is always placed, in terms of the Ordinance, into the category of persons who are still liable to attend school. But, furthermore, I regard that child as being emotionally immature as well. Any psychological textbook will confirm that as far as her emotional life is concerned, a 15-year-old girl is still on her way to maturity, and if we draw a comparison between the psychological patterns of a 16-year-old girl and a 15-year-old girl, we shall see how much more mature the 16-year-old girl is. While I am speaking of the psychological aspect now, I just want to add the following: No career adviser will regard the replies of a 15-year-old girl to a questionnaire as adequate information which enables him to advise her about a career, because her whole field of interest is still so unstable that one cannot depend on it.

I want to proceed, and what I am going to say is based on my own experience. I have more than 20 years’ experience as far as children’s institutions are concerned, and if you were to ask me, Sir, what the biggest single reason was for committing children to children’s institutions and orphanages, I should say that there were many causes, but that the most fundamental cause to my mind was the fact that those children came from homes in which the parents were emotionally immature. Those children come to a children’s institution where we have to rehabilitate them, and what is our experience? It happens time and again that on the recommendation of the Department concerned, a girl of roughly that age is sent on holiday to her so-called parental home and that during that time she is given to a man by her parents. She marries at that age and we simply hear that she is not returning to the children’s institution. As far as the girls who are sent out in this way are concerned, I want to say that it saddens one to see how easily those parents give their consent for the girl to get married and how easily that kind of parent can be influenced by the most elementary things which they are given to consent to that girl getting married at that age. Sir, I feel very strongly about this matter, because do you know what is going to happen now? Here we are not dealing only with that 15-year-old girl; we are not solving any problems, because now the next category, the 14-year-olds, will come queuing to obtain that same right. I can bear witness to the fact that in the past month we had the case of a 12-year-old girl who had become a mother and who had asked whether we would accommodate her. She is 12 years old and she refuses to give up her child. As far as I am concerned, I should wish that the age for marriage should not be fixed at 16 years either, but at an even higher age at which people are more mature for deciding on the most important step they are going to take in their lives. I think in that case we would have much fewer families breaking up and much fewer divorce cases. On these grounds I have only one course open to me, and I feel obliged not only to speak against this clause, but also to vote against it, and I shall do so.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Kimberley (South) who has just spoken. I think that this Committee is indebted to the hon. member for letting us have the benefit of his views in view of his vast experience in the welfare field and particularly in child welfare. I think it is also important, in considering the advisability of supporting the clause which is before us, to ascertain the views of persons who are directly concerned with and interested in the welfare of our young people. The hon. member who has just spoken has mentioned various reasons why he believes that the passing of this clause is not in the best interests of these young people and of the community. Sir, we have not yet heard any reasons from the hon. the Minister as to why it is necessary to alter the existing position and to reduce the age from 16 to 15. I have spoken to many welfare workers, churchmen, sociologists and people connected with marriage guidance and in each instance they have indicated that there appears to be no reason to alter the existing position. As mentioned in the Second Reading debate, there are two other aspects which fall under colleagues of the hon. the Minister. Firstly, there is the Immorality Act of 1969. Under section I of that Act it is an offence for any male person to have sexual relations with a girl under the age of 16 or indeed to attempt any sexual act against a girl of that age. Then there is the other very important point and that is the school-leaving age. We know that the compulsory school leaving age is 16 years. This is a matter which affects the Minister of Education. Then there is also another aspect which affects the hon. the Minister of the Interior and that is the prohibition of films. We know that the Censorship Board invariably imposes limitations on the screening of films which have certain sexual implications. We know that they often preclude persons from four to 16 years of age. This means that a person of over 16 years of age is considered to be competent to see the film without being in any way adversely affected, but in terms of this clause that we have before us a 15-year-old girl can marry without the necessary investigation and without the permission of the hon. the Minister of the Interior. There again the line is drawn at the age of 16 as far as girls are concerned. I believe that this has worked in the past and there is no reason why the present age limit should not continue. Sir, since the Second Reading debate I have had an opportunity of obtaining figures concerning the applications made to the Minister on behalf of girls under 16 years of age for permission to marry in terms of the existing law. It is interesting to note that over the past four years, from 1966 to 1969, 706 girls under 16 years of age asked the Minister’s permission to marry and of those 706, 548 were 15 years of age, 144 14 years of age, 12 13 years of age and two 12 years of age. Out of those 706 applications, the hon. the Minister granted permission to marry to 461 girls under 16 years of age. 100 of the applications were rejected and 145 of the applications were withdrawn. It would seem from these figures that there were 548 15-year-old girls who asked for permission to marry but the total number granted permission was 461. This means that as a result of investigation, at least 87 of those applications were rejected or withdrawn as the result of investigations. This means that if this Committee to-day passes this clause, in terms of which we dispense with the necessity for 15-year-old girls to apply for permission to marry, those 548 would have been able to marry without having to obtain the hon. the Minister’s permission. I believe that this is important from the point of view of the human aspect which the hon. the Minister mentioned in the Second Reading debate, because if permission has to be applied for, there must be an investigation by qualified people to ascertain whether it is in the interest of that 15-year-old girl to marry, and whether, if a 15-year-old girl is expecting, it is in the interests of the unborn child that she should marry. We know that our welfare workers do not agree that merely because a young girl is pregnant she should be forced into marriage. In many cases this will not be in the interests of a 15-year-old girl because she is not emotionally equipped nor, in many cases, financially equipped to face marriage or parenthood. [Interjections.] This is not a case of the legislature forcing that 15-year-old girl to marry, but the point is that it will no longer be necessary for any investigation to be carried out to ascertain whether it is in the interests of the 15-year-old or of the unborn child, if she is pregnant, to allow her to marry. Often parents are anxious that the child should marry as to legitimize the birth of a Child when a 15-year-old girl is expecting a child. In many of these cases, even where the marriage has been granted, it has been found that these marriages have not been successful due to the fact that in many instances one of the partners deserts as they are not emotionally equipped to meet the challenge of marriage and parenthood. If a child is born from that marriage, the welfare society is in many instances faced with the difficulty of finding a home for the child because the mother then brings the child to the welfare organization because she has to go out to work to try and maintain her child. I believe that it is necessary —and certainly the position that has existed in the past has shown that it is necessary—to have an investigation where a 15-year-old girl wishes to marry. This investigation should be carried out by qualified people who have the interests of that girl, who is still a child in terms of the Children’s Act, at heart. The investigation should be carried out on a thorough and professional basis. I see no reason at all why this age should be reduced in terms of the legislation that is now before us.

We see from figures that have been provided in this House the enormous difficulties that arise from young marriages. In the existing legislation there is to an extent a deterrent to the girl of 15 who realizes that if she wishes to marry, she not only has to have the permission of her parents, but also has to have the permission of the Minister of the Interior and be subject to that investigation. This is dispensing with what I believe, is a very vital factor in considering whether this legislation should be passed or not. Fortunately this is a free vote of the House. I hope that members giving careful consideration to this whole aspect will take into account that a large number of sociologists and people who are vitally interested in this particular aspect of welfare work do not believe this to be in the best interest of these young people. We as a Parliament must take that as our yardstick as to whether this clause should be adopted or not by this Committee. I believe this Committee will be acting wisely if it rejected this clause that is now before us.

Mr. Chairman, I think we may rightly express our appreciation to all members who have participated in this discussion up to now for the very high level on which this matter has been discussed. It is the right thing for us to do, because I think the responsibility which rests on this Committee to accept or to reject this clause is an enormous one.

I want to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his Department for having included this particular clause in this Bill. Legal practitioners come across some of these matters in their practices, and I cannot talk about this with the same authority as they can. I cannot prescribe to them in this regard. We have great appreciation for the work these people do and the knowledge they display in connection with this matter. We also have great appreciation for the work done by welfare organizations in this connection. In expressing my appreciation to the hon. the Minister and the officials of his Department, I think I am speaking on behalf of a great number of unfortunate people as well, the weaker ones in our community. Fortunately there are those who are strong and can bring it far without any false step on their part. Here we are concerned with 15-year-old girls, and I want to plead for the unfortunate ones. As in all other countries in the world we also have the weaker and less fortunate ones in our community. I want to speak on behalf of those girls who have taken a wrong step. However, this unfortunate and wrong step involves not only a girl, but also a man. The man, in a less chivalrous way, can still go and hide himself, but the girl cannot. I want to plead for the unfortunate 15-year-old girl who has landed herself in this trouble and has fallen pregnant. Now we have that situation. We cannot neither wish it away nor talk it away, nor eliminate it by means of legislation. The situation and the circumstances simply exist. At some stage this girl must reveal her condition. She goes to her mother. Now I want to pose the following question and the Committee should take cognizance of my question. At what stage is this girl going to reveal her condition to her mother? She will not do so immediately. After she has suffered heartache and remorse, she reveals her condition to her mother, at an advanced stage of her pregnancy. When she really cannot hide it from the world and the scandal-mongers any longer, she will reveal her condition. In pleading for this girl, I am pleading for that unborn child. She has now revealed her condition. The father of the girl knows of her condition. Let us leave the father of the unborn child out of the discussion. He may be prepared to marry that girl, or he may not be. Let us assume he is prepared to marry her. Perhaps a divorce may follow eventually and perhaps it may not.

The parents of the girl now approach the Minister for his consent for the couple in this unfortunate case to get married. The Minister cannot give or withhold his consent simply with a stroke of the pen on the very first day. The Minister refers this particular matter to his Department. That is not the end of the matter. The Department refers this unfortunate case to the Department of Social Welfare. It takes weeks for a report to be made. A young social worker sets out to investigate this matter with the best intentions in the world. She herself is inexperienced. Or otherwise someone who has no sympathy for the case is sent to them. Everything is alone in a spirit of well-meaningness and the intentions are good, but weeks and months may elapse before the Minister is in a position to settle the matter by giving or withholding his consent on the basis of the information he has received.

This is a very important aspect of the matter.

I agree. It is very important. I listened very attentively while the hon. member for Umbilo was speaking, and I have a great deal of sympathy for his point of view and also for that of my hon. friend here. We must view these matters from both sides.

The practical reality is that we now have a girl who finds herself in a very unfortunate situation. We do have such people in our community. We are not condoning the deed, but now we simply have the situation, and months may elapse. The question I now want to put to the Committee is the following: That child is going to be brought into the world either in or out of wedlock. This is where the question arises as far as I am concerned. What would be best? Would it be best to grant permission? The parents are prepared to give their permission. I do not want to take away from the parents the role they have to play in this matter and place that on the shoulders of this Committee. The parent has a very important function to fulfil in this regard in the education of the child. The parent must accept responsibility for that child. Whether that girl is of school-going age or not, the fact of the matter is that she is 15 years old and in an advanced stage of pregnancy. The fact of the matter is that that child is going to be brought into the world, and I am now pleading for that unborn child. I am now asking this Committee, on behalf of the weaker ones in our community: Give that unborn child the opportunity of being born in wedlock. Give the child a name, give the child a father and then if a divorce does come, it is simply unfortunate. There are adults sitting in this House who are able to testify to the fact of how unfortunate it is that adults who married after they had reached maturity, have been involved in divorces as well. I want to ask hon. members to think about this very seriously. I want to plead for these people with all the sympathy and all the conviction I have, so that these people may be given a chance and so that the unborn child may come into the world with a name and with honour so that he will not be scorned by the world for the rest of his life. Unfortunately this is precisely what happens. [Interjection.] The hon. member may state his own point of view, but I am now stating mine. There are many other points of view which can be stated. I am stating my point of view and on behalf of these unfortunate people, on behalf of the weaker ones in our community, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister, and I want to ask this Committee to vote in a well-balanced way when we do vote on this clause, because it is a very great responsibility that is asked and required of this Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that the hon. the Minister made a very big mistake when he brought this legislation to this House, before he has had a full discussion with other departments which must be interested. I think he should have had a full discussion with the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Health and the Department of Justice. If he has not done that, he should not have brought this legislation into this House. I cannot agree that he has done the right thing when he refused that a clause such as this should be referred to a Select Committee or discussed with other members of the Cabinet. I feel he is doing our country an injustice by bringing in this sort of legislation. Why am I saying that? We are living in the permissive society and this is the sort of legislation which encourages it. I have heard from the last speaker that he is in favour of this legislation because of the girl who unfortunately falls pregnant and because he wants to make sure that this girl who is going to have a baby, gets the opportunity to marry so that the baby can have a name. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us how many of these applications concern pregnant girls, and now many who are not pregnant. Not every one of these 400 girls who apply for permission to get married are pregnant girls.

The reasons why a girl of 15 wants to get married are manifold. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) has put his finger on the point when he indicated that 95 per cent of them are children who come from homes where the parents want to shirk the responsibility of bringing up the children properly. They come from homes which have been broken up, they come from homes where divorces have taken place, they come from homes where the parents are alcoholics, and from homes where the parents are very often drug addicts. In such cases, the parents cannot look after their children properly. These are the children who are having trouble at school; these are the children who are delinquents; they are the truants. They look for refuge by getting married. They fall in love with a uniform. They fall in love and they have a crush on a father image. That is what they want. They want protection; they seek that and they hope to find it in marriage. Unfortunately for them, it is not so. It rarely lasts long and then the girl has the unfortunate responsibility of having to bring up a child which may be born because of a previous association with a man or immediately after the association with a man. She has the difficulty of bringing up this child. The man is very often a young boy and he cannot find the finances to keep a little home going. He has not the know-how, and the girl certainly does not have it. These girls very often have a low I.Q. and very often we find that they are unable to keep pace with the ordinary advances that take place in their communities. And yet the hon. the Minister wants to encourage that. I say he should be more careful to whom he gives this permission.

I would rather see a child born in a maternity home and then adopted, than a child born as a result of an early marriage and then left stranded or left to the mercies of others. The young mother can not go back to school again and has to find a job. What can a child of 16 or 17 earn? Can she earn sufficient to keep herself and provide for the baby as well. It is impossible. What happens is that the grandparents, the parents of the girl very often, and occasionally the parents of the boy, have to take this child and bring it up in the same way as a child who has gone out for adoption. If the grandparents are going to bring up the child, remember that this child is going to be brought up iii the same home that has caused this young mother to go out and look for permission to marry at the age of 15. It is a vicious circle and it will go on and on. It can only cause trouble and misery to many others. This provision will not stop it, because this is what will happen.

This is the type of thing the hon. the Minister is going to encourage by lowering the age of marriage and I think he is making a terrible mistake. I am inclined to think along the same lines as the hon. member for Kimberley (South). If the hon. the Minister does not want to raise the age to 17, he must at least keep it at 16. Let him do that. Does he not think of the anomalies that have occurred and will occur? Can you imagine a girl of 15 taking her child to bioscope. By the time she is 17, the child will be two years old. According to our present censors the child will be allowed to go in if the restriction is for persons between four and 18 years, but the mother will have to stand outside until the child comes out.

That can be fixed up.

Yes, but a much more serious point is that the girl may be physically and sexually fitted for married life, but mentally she may not be.

You are just being frivolous.

Why? Does the hon. member want to tell me that he will, if he had a daughter of 15, give permission to marry? Of course not. The hon. member may think that it could not happen. Every single one of us sitting here to-day could have a daughter who could come to us and ask for permission to get married. I know what I would say. I would say no, because there is no reason for it.

Even if she is pregnant?

Of course, even if she is pregnant. If it happened I would rather let my daughter have the child and have the child then brought up by its grandparents than allow her to marry and suffer for years afterwards. Let us be realistic in regard to this matter. Let the child take the name of the parents. This is happening every day. We must not be afraid to face the facts. How many mothers and their children have come to me to tell me exactly what that hon. member has said? They say “what am I going to do? My child is pregnant. This little girl here is still in form 2 and is pregnant.” Is that child fit to get married? Is the hon. the Minister fit to give a decision in that matter? I say no. Of course he is not. I say that the age should stay at 16 years. These children have to be protected and it is the responsibility of the parents to bring the children up properly. In those homes where these things are happening, I say, and I want to repeat, that lowering the age will not help the child. Getting married will not help the child. All that will happen is that it will bring down a circle of misery which will go on and on. I ask the Minister to think again seriously about what he intends doing and, if possible, to say to us here “I have made a mistake. Vote against this clause, or otherwise, send it to a Select Committee”.

Mr. Chairman, what we are dealing with here is a very serious matter. We know that in other countries overseas the permissive society is exercising its influence to an increasing extent. The intercourse between young people is increasing in this country as well. We have had it in the past, but it is still continuing. Now the question is: Should we allow these young people to get married or not? We know that in overseas countries the authorities help young people with information in connection with contraceptives. If they become pregnant, they may have a legal abortion. Here it is not legal. The only way out for a girl who is in trouble to-day, is either to undergo an illegal operation or to give birth to an illegitimate child or to marry. Now it is up to us to decide what would be best in such a case. We know that most of the girls who fall pregnant, ask for permission to marry. It is the majority of the girls who ask permission. What does the Minister do in this case? What does he investigate? If he finds that the girl is pregnant, he agrees in most cases. We are merely seeking the elimination of this unnecessary routine now. There are only two other alternatives. The girl either has to try to undergo an illegal operation, or she must bring an illegitimate child into the world. What are the results if she brings an illegitimate child into the world? That child is branded as an illegitimate child for the rest of his life, a child who does not have a father. What is the future of such a girl? Mr. Chairman, many times I have seen that a girl who has once had an illegitimate child, finds that the man is not prepared to marry her because she has had an illegitimate child. She, too, is only human, and then she has another illegitimate child, and another and another. For the rest of her life she has one illegitimate baby after another. That is the trouble with these girls.

However, where we are now giving these girls the right to get married, that child will he able to hold his head up high in the years ahead. He will be a child with a father and with a name. In my experience many of these cases have resulted in happily married lives with those same men. But now the difficulty is that even if the Minister does give those people permission to marry, it sometimes takes five or six months to obtain the necessary permission. Then one finds that the baby has been born and that the young man tends to regard that girl in a different light and to say: “No, she is the mother of an illegitimate child now. She is a bad woman now.” Then he is no longer prepared to marry her. Even if he has to be forced by law to pay maintenance for the child, he does that in preference to marrying the girl. If they could have married immediately, a happy marriage for that couple might have resulted in future, and the honour of the child as well as that of the girl would have been saved. Therefore I feel that we should view this matter also from the point of view that we may be saving the honour and the possible future of the child and of the parent by these means.

I have listened with great interest to the hon. members who have spoken in favour of this clause and I am afraid I am completely unconvinced by their arguments. I think the hon. member for Geduld is under a misapprehension about the activities, for instance, of homes for unmarried mothers. They act in a most discreet fashion. A girl who is pregnant and wants to go to one of those homes can go through her entire pregnancy without anybody knowing anything about the situation. She can give birth to a child and the child can be taken to an adoption home, from which it can be handed to a married couple who are eager to adopt a child, and it is adopted by such a married couple who are unable to have children of their own. And that adopted child does not go through life with the stigma of illegitimate birth. It goes through life in a happy home, completely unaware of the circumstances surrounding its birth. So the bleak picture painted by the hon. member for Geduld is just not true. There are, of course, cases where many young pregnant women go through a terrible time during their pregnancy because they have no sympathy at home and they have a terrible time from the neighbours. These are very awkward cases, but it is not necessary in cases that are sympathetically handled. I think that is the direction in which we should be moving, to encourage more homes for unmarried mothers. [Interjections.] We do not want to force young people into marriage. It is a most terrible responsibility to force young people into marriage. [Interjections.] I am not saying the law is forcing them into marriage, but I am saying many young girls have a dreadful time during their pregnancy and this is the thing to tackle and not simply to lower the age at which these unfortunate young women are allowed to get married without the consent of the Minister.

What strikes me, listening to this debate, is that I think we are oblivious to another factor, namely that very often where the parents want to insist that the pregnant girl gets married, they are thinking of themselves rather than of the pregnant girl or the unborn child. They are thinking of the disgrace to themselves because their daughter has got into trouble and the neighbours will look at them askance. There is very little understanding and sympathy for the unfortunate girl who has landed herself in this position. Therefore I do not think we should encourage these parents to give their consent, which is one way of enforcing parental authority, so that a girl gets married and very often contracts a most unhappy marriage. I think we should appreciate that pressure into marriage does not in fact solve the girl’s problem; it punishes her very often; because of misbehaviour in a moment when she lost control of herself she is really forced into an unhappy marriage with all the responsibilities of marriage. She is not in a position, as the result of the overwhelming pressure the parents can exert on a girl, by painting a black picture of what can happen to the girl and the child if she does not get married, to decide correctly. We know about these shot-gun marriages. They are nothing new. It is the parents thinking of themselves and not thinking of the child and of the daughter concerned. Even if she is not forced into marriage by her parents, I do not think a girl of 15 is in any psychologically mature position to judge the suitability or otherwise of her prospective husband, and I do not think that responsibility should be placed on her.

I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, who spoke with a great deal of sympathy about these cases and I was very impressed with what he had to say. But does he not think that real sympathy and real compassion in these cases would really involve care and understanding of the girl during her pregnancy, standing by her during her pregnancy and assisting her to go to a proper home for unmarried mothers and then arranging for the adoption of the child so that the baby can go to a stable home? Because I do not think there is going to be anything stable about the home of a 15-year-old girl married to a man of x years of age. I think it has all the seeds of disaster before they even start. Therefore I think there should be proper care of that girl during the pregnancy and that the parents should have a proper attitude towards her during her pregnancy. That is what I think we ought to go for.

Every argument used by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad about these unfortunate 15-year-old girls can be used about unfortunate 14-year-old girls or unfortunate 13-year-old girls, and where does one draw the line? One has to draw the line somewhere where the effect of the law begins to operate, and if I may point out to hon. members, the law is very educative. The fact that the law gives its stamp of authority to girls of 15 to marry when pregnant, in itself, will encourage more of these cases. I think the hon. the Minister will simply find himself with a queue of 14-year-olds replacing the queue of 15-year-olds. Then he may very well feel that he cannot cope because it is too much for him and he will come back to the House again and ask to reduce the age further. I do not think he ought to do that. He should leave the age as it is now. I think if the burden of work is too much for him and his department, he ought to consider setting up standing committees of responsible citizens like retired magistrates, retired doctors and social workers, in every town of South Africa, who can do all the preliminary work for the Minister and then decide whether permission should be given or not and decide whether the child should be placed in an adoption home or not. I think this is the most sensible way of doing it. I think the Minister ought to scrap this clause and bring in a clause establishing committees of the kind I have mentioned.

There might also be a case for setting up a committee of investigation into our abortion laws as well. There might be cases where, indeed, there should be reform of the abortion laws. I talk particularly about girls who have become pregnant through rape and for other reasons. I know that the medical profession very often act in this way in order to assist these girls, but they can never do so legally; it makes the position very difficult. It ought to be able to be done when the young woman’s mental as well as physical health, and in fact her life, might be affected. I think there is a very strong case for setting up a commission to go into the desirability or otherwise of doing this. They may come up with different conclusions and recommendations, but there might very well be some recommendations for the reform of the abortion laws. For all the reasons I have given I am certainly going to vote against this clause and I hope the hon. the Minister will think twice before insisting on pushing it through the House.

Because this provision is dealing with a social and not a political matter, a matter on which people in the same party may hold different views, the Government has decided to let this Committee have a free vote on this provision. This provision deals with a matter which is of deep concern to all of us. This is a matter which is of deep concern to everybody, because it actually concerns the future mothers of our people. That all of us are deeply concerned about this matter, is true; all of us sitting in this Committee should be deeply concerned about this matter. But when considering the future mothers of one’s people, one should in the first place think of the matters of those future mothers who have to assist them to work out their weal and woe and who have their interests at heart in the first place. What is the main point at issue in this amendment? Is it not a recognition of the parental authority? Is this provision not fundamentally a recognition of the responsibility the parents have and for them to exercise their authority? If this measure were to prejudice parental authority and if this provision for the reduction of the age to 15 years had not provided for the consent of the parents, I would not have given it my support and I would not have brought it to this House either. However, this measure did not appear out of the blue as the hon. member for Rosettenville tried to suggest when he addressed me reproachingly and alleged that I had not consulted other Departments, such as the Department of Social Welfare. Let me tell the hon. member that the Department of Social Welfare had, in fact, been consulted. This measure was, in fact, introduced largely as a result of suggestions and requests made by the Department of Social Welfare. The Department of Justice has been consulted too. We have, in fact, had those consultations, and hon. members should not feel any concern on that score.

I want to return, however, to the essence of this matter, which is that the parental authority is being maintained. Surely, this provision does not affect parental authority. On the contrary, parental authority is being strengthened by this provision. The result of this provisions will be that the position of authority parents will have over their children in future will be strengthened and enhanced even further than in the past. Some of the speakers, such as the hon. member for Rosettenville, referred to the permissive community.

When one wants to analyse a permissive community and determine the reasons for it and the contributing factors, and if one wants to find out who the people are who contribute towards it, one should, in the first place, not begin with the State, but in the parental home. When permissiveness and the behaviour of children are discussed, it is useless to place the responsibility on the shoulders of the Minister or the Government; the parents should be held responsible for it When one allows one’s children to stay out until midnight or 2 o’clock in the morning without reprimanding them, the State can do nothing about it; the State cannot look after those children. This is the task of the parents and it is no use blaming the State because there is permissiveness; it rests squarely on the shoulders of the parents. This is precisely what is being done here in this case, and this measure must be viewed against the background of maintaining and enhancing the parental authority.

What is it that has given rise to this amendment? I told hon. members which Departments had been consulted in this regard, and I should like to repeat briefly what their findings were, as I have done in my Second Reading speech. Over a period of eight years 1,038 applications to marry were received from 15 and 16 year old girls. In reply to one of the previous speakers on that side of the House who alleged that all these girls had come from families in the lower income group, from less privileged homes, I want to say that they did not come from the homes of our most backward citizens; many of them came from the best homes.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, how many of these 1,038 girls were pregnant according to the statistics? Ninety-five per cent of them were pregnant and not all of them came from the less privileged homes; many of them came from the best homes in our country. What happened in these cases? Let us try and determine what the background and the reasons for this amendment were, which did not come out of the blue. What gave rise to the present feeling that there should be a change in this respect? It is the procedure which has been followed in the course of these investigations. Let me take these 1,038 cases. What was the procedure that was being followed during this period? The procedure was this, in pursuance of what was quite rightly said by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad about how the situation had begun. The parents of the girl have given their permission for the daughter to marry, and the matter is being investigated by the Department of Social Welfare.

They approach the parents of the young man and discuss the matter with them. All the parents then agree and only then are applications made. These 1,038 cases could only have come to us after the parents of both the girl and the boy had agreed. Cases do not come to us without the consent of the parents. But what happens in the course of this procedure? These investigations do not take weeks as has been said by an hon. member here; as a matter of fact, they take months. These investigations into the economic position of the parents and the employment opportunities and possibilities of the bridegroom take a very long time.

Sir, I wan-t hon. members in this House to try and imagine the state of mind not only of the pregnant girl but also of that young man; they should also try and imagine the state of mind of the parents, whether they are from among the less privileged or the richest in our country. I ask hon. members to try and imagine the state of mind and the embarrassment of these people. To them it is more than embarrassing; to them it means tension and fear as regards the future of the child and their prestige as a family. Do hon. members know in which way such fear is manifested to us as a Department? Sir, you will be surprised to know how many parents during the course of these investigations telephoned and visited the Department, sent telegrams and were sitting there sometimes with tears in their eyes because the case could not be expedited.

I, as the Minister, cannot give consent until I have received the reports from the Department of Social Welfare together with their recommendations. I cannot reach a decision merely on the strength of particulars given to me. I have to have all the particulars. It takes months to get all those particulars and it causes tension in that family, which we may not quite appreciate. One only has to work in these offices where my officials deal with these people to see the human distress that is caused by this situation, and only then would one realize what one does to these people. Although this amendment will effect a saving in manpower, this is not the basic reason for it. Whether the investigations take months or even longer, the fact remains that in the majority of cases where consent is refused, the girls get married in any case a few months later as soon as they have reached the prescribed age. I have said that only 133 applications out of 1,038, in other words only 12 per cent, were refused. Could hon. members imagine the sorrow we have caused these girls in the meantime only for them to get married a few months later after we, as the State have contributed to their utter humiliation?

We now want to solve this human problem by means of this amendment. I believe some of the hon. members are afraid of the effects this amendment is going to have. As I have said at the outset, this is a matter all of us should apply our minds to. This is a matter which is of deep concern to all of us. We do not have hearts of stone; we think in terms of the future of our people and our mothers, although we should not base our opposition on groundless arguments. I want to refer to the fear expressed here that child marriages will increase. Sir, the information indicates the opposite. I am referring to the information I furnished the other day in reply to the hon. member for Umbilo. When analysing this information, one finds that there has been no increase in the number of applications received from girls during the period 1966 to 1969.

In spite of the population growth the number of applications actually decreased from 193 in 1960 to 183. That is the tendency. There is no tendency towards an increase in child marriages in the country. But then we find that another argument without any foundation is advanced, which is that if the age is reduced, if it is no longer necessary for the Minister to give his consent to 16 year olds, the next step will be to reduce the age to 14 and then to 13 years. Surely, Sir, this is incompatible with reality. To put it plainly, this is a ridiculous inference. Are you and I not the people who exercise control here? Surely, we are the representatives of public opinion. Do hon. members think that we, as the representatives of public opinion, would allow such an unrealistic thing to take place?

Then we come to the other question as to whether a girl of 15 years is in a position to have her own home and children. Sir, all of us know that our forebears married at an early age; we know that girls who later became mothers got married at the age of 14 or 15 years. They gave birth to a generation that is being represented in this House to-day. Many of us are the products of marriages which took place at an early age in those days. As I said in my Second Reading speech the other day, that was the custom in this country up to 1935, and I do not think the present generation need shrink from that.

There were very few cases.

Yes, that is true, but then only little use will be made of this clause. There is no tendency towards child marriages; this is proved by the figures I have mentioned here. Our sole purpose is to meet the circumstances of that small group which falls into this category. We should not adopt the attitude that this legislation is going to encourage this tendency or that it will lead to our reducing the age limit even further. Surely, this is simply incompatible with reality.

The other argument that was advanced, was that the school-leaving age was 16 years, while the age which a girl may have sexual relations with her consent is also 16 years. Surely, these statements are not consistent. After all, the school-leaving age concerns scholastic training, and parental consent need not, in fact, be given in the latter case. That provision is being retained in this Act in spite of this amendment. No, these are not determining factors. What is a determining factor in the first case, is the parental consent which is being retained in the case of children of 15 years of age, as it stands at the moment; it is being retained for everybody under the age of 21 years. That is the first determining factor, and the other determining factor is the human aspect.

I ask hon. members to imagine the sorrow and unhappiness that is caused to people who are affected by this. That is why I am coming to this House with this amendment to-day. Is it right that the State should retain a provision such as this one in respect of 16 year olds when such a provision is not necessary, when it was borne out by our own past, and when it can only embarrass people? The reason why I am coming to this House with this proposal is to eliminate this embarrassment to human beings.

Before I call upon the next speaker, I wish to point out that various arguments have been advanced here repeatedly and hon. members must now advance fresh arguments.

The hon. the Minister, in replying to the arguments advanced so far, has not justified what is in effect an arbitrary decision to change the age from 16 to 15. May I say that the age of 16 is an arbitrary age. As has been pointed out, in some countries the age is 18. The age had to be fixed somewhere in an arbitrary manner. If I may say so, the fact mentioned by the hon. the Minister that most of these people come from rich homes rather than poor homes, rather strengthens the argument that because of the stigma which attaches to a pregnant daughter there is more pressure from the parents, and there is likely to be more pressure if the child is from a rich home. Sir, exactly the same problems are going to arise whether the age is fixed arbitrarily at 13, at 14 or 15.

I am most impressed by the fact that in the debate on this clause, which is going to be left to a free vote, which is an extraordinary event in this House, so far only one and a half people—one person fully and one person half heartedly—have supported this Bill, apart from the hon. the Minister. As far as the members of this House are concerned, one hon. member has supported it wholeheartedly and one member half-heartedly. I think that is significant and I think that is a factor that the hon. the Minister should take into account in deciding whether it is not better to drop the matter at this stage.

Sir, I was most impressed by the argument of the hon. member for Kimberley (South). He said that in his opinion the age for marriage should in fact be higher. I quite agree with him. This was the very issue upon which this House had to decide in 1935—namely whether it should be higher—and they compromised by making it the same age as the age of consent. What I want to say to the hon. the Minister is this: If he is prepared to stick to this, is he also prepared to say that the age under the Child’s Protection Act of 1916 (now a section of the Immorality Act of 1957) should be lowered to 15; that it shall be lawful to have carnal intercourse with a girl over 15 instead of over 16?

I referred to that a moment ago in my speech. The parents’ consent is not necessary in that respect.

I know that, Sir, but these two ages have got to go together. I think this cannot be over-stressed. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) is quite right; if anything the age should be higher; it should never be lower, and I do not know of one country in the world where the age of consent is lower; where it is unlawful to have carnal intercourse with a girl under a certain age and where that age is in fact higher than the age at which one may get married without any interference.

Order! That argument has been raised before.

Sir, I want to accentuate the fact that this is arbitrary. I want to accentuate that it is a matter of public policy. This age, whether it is under the Immorality Act or whether it is under the Marriage Act. is a completely arbitrary age and it is fixed as a matter of public policy. One can argue as a sociologist that the age should be 18, 17, 16 or 15 but we have not heard any arguments …

Order! That argument has been put forward already.

Sir, what I am trying to say is that no arguments have been advanced as to where that arbitrary age, sociologically, should be fixed. The argument that we have had from the hon. the Minister is that this age should now be reduced to 15 because of his Department’s experience and the experience of the people concerned. In 1935 the then Minister of the Interior, in introducing the Bill which provided that the age should be 16 without the Minister’s consent, said this (col. 1007) —

Order! That has been put forward already.

May I go on, Sir? If you do not want me to speak—you give me the impression …

Order! It is not a question of my not wanting the hon. member to speak; it is simply that I do not want any repetition.

Sir, this has not been quoted before and I am about to come to a quotation from the League of Nation’s inquiry. I want to quote this to illustrate this argument. This point has not been made before. If I may say so, Sir, I get the impression that you are trying to prevent me from speaking.

You cannot say that.

Order! That is a reflection on the Chair.

No, it is not a reflection.

Of course it is.

I think it is definitely a reflection on the Chair. I think the hon. member should withdraw it.

If it is a reflection I withdraw it, Sir. He went on to say—

May I read again a sentence from the report of the League of Nation’s inquiry?

A serious responsibility is involved in marriage and the majority of the countries take the view that the minimum age of marriage should be higher than the age of consent.

That is the point the hon. member for Kimberley (South) made. Then he went on to say that we could commit ourselves to the age of 16 years as was adopted in 1916. In other words, that is the lowest age we can go to, namely the age of consent. This is a matter of public policy. It was fixed arbitrarily at that stage because of the Protection of Girls Act in which the age was fixed at 16. If the lowering of that age is now condoned, the lowering of the age of participation and responsibility in carnal intercourse will also be condoned. This is an inevitable consequence. We will then in effect say that although the law states that one may not have carnal intercourse with a girl under 16, one may have carnal intercourse with a girl under 15 provided one can make some arrangement to marry her and provided one is prepared to marry her. That is exactly what the hon. the Minister has demonstrated to us has been happening and will happen, whether the age is fixed at 15 or 14. As a matter of public policy, as a matter of example, what we are doing to-day, is to say to the people of this country that we are prepared to be lax about the extraordinarily increasing number of these happenings in this country. That is the impression the country will get if we say that public policy puts that age at one year lower, because we concede that this is the permissive society and that we are prepared to go along with it.

This is a completely free vote. From my own personal point of view I say that this will be a step backwards. I believe that it would be wise if we maintained that age where it is for all the reasons there are, not because I think 15 or 16 is a better age but because I believe it will be in the interests of society. We dare not give the impression from this Parliament that we are prepared to be more lax and allow more laxity in the morals of our young people.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (Point) is correct in one respect, i.e. the fact that the age of 16 years or 15 years simply is an arbitrary age. Similarly, the age of 21 years, which is the required age for majority, is an. arbitrary age, too. This developed solely as a result of a rule in Britain that one’s scutum, i.e. the tax which had to be paid when one was called up for military service, could be demanded from one only at the age of 21 years. The tone throughout this debate has been that hon. members who oppose this measure are underestimating the youth altogether. This is very clear to me. It reminds me of a picture I saw only yesterday in a newspaper of two small boys talking about the intricacies of childbirth. One of them said they should not talk so loudly, as their father might overhear them and the old boy still thought that storks brought babies. Such is the case with us as well. We tend to underestimate the youth. We are adults to-day and we have reached certain ages. Just consider the ages of members of Parliament. In 1606, 40 members of the British Parliament were under the age of 20 years. In 1621 the member for Amersham in the British Parliament, Edmund Waller, was only 15 years old. Do those hon. members really want to say that it is necessarily so that one gets sense only at the age of 30 or 40 or 50 years? Who is to say that any Parliament to-day will be more sensible than that Parliament in which 40 members were under the age of 20 years?

Our very claim to-day is that we are living in an era in which young people reach maturity sooner. This is indeed so. With the present system of education, the radio, literature, etc., man is developing much faster. He probably develops twice as fast as he developed a century ago as regards his outlook on life as well as in many other respects. It has been proved scientifically that biologically, too, man is developing faster than he did a century or more ago.

To-day we have to act virtually as judges to determine whether that age should now be 16 or 15 years. We would be somewhat jealous, naturally, and increase the age as far as possible. We have tremendous youth problems to-day. These are, however, not youth problems but parental problems. What is more, those parents who take the bad decisions are not necessarily parents who are 20 or 21 years old. I know some of them who are 50 years old and who still take those bad decisions and do not know how to look after their children. Therefore we should never associate youth or age with sense or wisdom. With this legislation we are placing greater responsibility on parents in one respect. Every parent in South Africa will have to know that he will have the final say in the matter of allowing his child who is under the age of 21 years to marry or not. He must realize that that responsibility is his. This legislation pre-eminently emphasizes this responsibility of the parent.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take up the hon. member who has just sat down on the final point he made, which he said was the underlying stress and emphasis of this particular clause. This is an emphasis which the hon. the Minister endeavoured in his address to stress as well. That is that this ought to bring closer to the attention of the parents the fact that their consent is necessary; the fact that we are dealing with the lowering of the age of marriage for a girl would emphasize the importance of parental consent to the marriage of a minor. That is in essence what the hon. member who has just sat down has said. It was an argument which followed very closely on that which the hon. the Minister employed in his address a little earlier this afternoon. I should like to ask whether that is the reason why this particular clause has been included in this Bill? If it is so, it is certainly an unreal type of statement. I say this with all due respect to the Minister whose motives in this Bill I have already highly commended. That this type of method should be used to draw attention to another important phase of our law, does not amount to anything in our whole concept of legal understanding. I want to say that this is indicative of what the hon. the Minister has said. I fully agree with him that there is an important spirit to be observed in this particular clause, namely the spirit that it must be dealt with seriously. It concerns our families and our homes. We must think of our future mothers, as he exhorted us to do.

The hon. the Minister in his reply a little earlier in reply to some of the addresses this afternoon, virtually indulged in an exercise in rhetoric. He did not give us any better reason than he gave us in the Second Reading as to why he wanted this clause. In fact he gave us no reason at all. It could apply as was said— and I do not wish to be repetitive—to any age. However, the point which I should like to impress on the hon. the Minister, still in the same spirit in which he appealed to us, is that I agree with him that one must think of the future mothers. I want to draw his attention to those very mothers. Has the hon. the Minister had an opportunity of discussing the clause with some of these mothers, as I have had since the Second Reading of this Bill was debated? The reply is that psychologically this can have a most detrimental effect on family life, a most detrimental effect on the parental authority and a detrimental effect on the stability of a home. This is far from the issue which the hon. the Minister lauded, namely that it would have the effect of drawing attention to the parental authority. This will have a detrimental effect. I want the hon. the Minister to take this into account. As all of us in this House know, we are not debating this matter on any political basis. We are discussing this matter, as hon. members pointed out, as men who wish to direct the destiny of a country. What is the reason why this particular clause should have been introduced at this stage. I asked the hon. the Minister this question before. I told him that I could not understand why it was done. I pointed out to him that we live in a very difficult permissive society which has developed in an extraordinary way in the past years. Dealing with this Bill other people for instance, say—

Where is the consistency of the legislature when it should endeavour to protect and not psychologically to destroy.

The point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that if there was a sound reason for introducing this clause, if he could give the House and the country a sound reason and give validity to his objective in introducing this clause, then one might have an entirely different approach to the picture. The only reason that has been elicited with great difficulty, if I may say so, is that it would draw attention to the fact that the parental consent to marriage still rests with the parent.

I maintain that if that is the case, the hon. the Minister has given no reason whatsoever. There is, therefore, no reason why we should support this clause and I intend to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, by this time all possible arguments for and against this clause have probably been advanced. I just want to reply very briefly to what was asked by the hon. member for Jeppes, i.e. that the hon. the Minister should indicate just one reason why this was necessary. I want to mention one extremely important reason, and that is the position of the child born to an unmarried mother. This is such an intimate matter that I hesitate to speak about it. Because I myself am concerned in such a case, I shall proceed. I might as well say this. We have an adopted son of our own. I have spoken to many adopted children who were born out of wedlock. One can give those children anything one wants in this world. One can give them everything in one’s power, one can give them all one’s love, but there is nothing in the world which will compensate them for the fact that they do not know their origin, who their parents are. Therefore the supreme reason for allowing these girls to marry, is for that child to be born in wedlock, so that he may at least know who his mother and his father are. In that case one may take many things away. If one gives him this in life, so that he may know his origin, may know who his parents and grandparents are, then one has compensated him for a great deal of other suffering he may experience in life. Take that away from him and you will let that child go through life with a yearning in his heart, one for which he will never be compensated or which will never be fulfilled. That is, why I am not going to say anything more. I simply want to plead for these girls to be allowed to get married so as to give the child this factor.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to approach this matter from a different angle. I want to make it my contention that the question whether the age should be 15 or 16 years, is one of a purely academic nature. It is a question that can be settled by physiologists, sociologists and psychologists. I do not support the clause, because I believe that in the Act, as it stands, we have incorporated certain responsibilities which cannot lightly be transferred to the parents.

Every law has a ratio or reason for its promulgation. A law is a general instruction to the community and is not, in the first instance, directed only at a group of people. Therefore, if it is in the interests of the community as a whole, it is a good law, even if only a small group of people is detrimentally affected or inconvenienced or embarrassed by that law. This is a basic characteristic of every Act of Parliament. It is also a basic characteristic of section 26, as it stands, that it serves the community as a whole. Every year it does not suit a small group of girls to be affected by this. We have the greatest sympathy with them, but my contention is that the section as it stands has established a fine network of entrenchments in our ordered community. If that network is damaged, we can do incalculable harm in our ordered community. I want to add indeterminable harm because we are debating here this afternoon, but later we shall probably not convince one another on the basis of data that the one or the other was wrong. I repeat, by damaging this fine network in our ordered community, we can do incalculable harm. If this possibility exists, I do not think there is room for this amendment.

In the first instance, it protects one of the cornerstones of the State, i.e. marriage. This is a statement with which I think no one can find fault. Violate marriage in any way, and this amendment has no place. We would also have to agree that if the slightest possibility exists of such a violation taking place, then it must fall away.

In the second instance, it protects the injudicious parent and it protects the child from an injudicious parent, in whatever field that might be, but in this case specifically in the field of permission to contract a marriage. I do not think there is room for an amendment to this section which does not have regard for the possibility of protecting this fine network of entrenchments. Therefore, let us determine, as I have tried to contend, whether the proposed amendment will in fact violate this fine network. In the first instance, there is incorporated in this section, as it stands, a right of veto in favour of the hon. the Minister to veto the very parent who has given his permission. In other words, the effect of the amendment will be that the discretionary powers are transferred to a parent. Whereas the Minister has been assisted by a team of social workers in carrying out a very important task, even if it was only in respect of one girl, it is now being transferred to the parent. Now the question is not whether the parent has the power to give that permission, but whether the parent has the sense of responsibility. That is the crux of the matter. If we come to the conclusion that the parent does not have the sense of responsibility, then there is no room for the amendment on the Statute Book. Evidence very strongly points to a suspicion that the parent of 1970 does not have the same sense of responsibility as a parent of a decade or two ago. This is borne out by the appointment of a commission of inquiry into divorces. I want to say, with all respect, that this is also borne out by the appointment of the commission of inquiry into the use of drugs.

Order! The hon. member must not speak in such general terms. He must come back to the clause itself. [Interjection.] I am warning the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). The hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) may proceed.

In connection with this aspect I just want to say in conclusion that whereas the present Act helps to protect the parent from himself and the child from the parent, that sense of responsibility is now being transferred by this legislation to the parent. The question now is whether that sense of responsibility exists. There is doubt in this regard, and if there is any doubt, I cannot support this clause. In view of the fact that they will now be able to contract early marriages, there is a strong possibility of a climate being created among children even to experiment with love at an early stage. This possibility exists; there is evidence for this and there are sociologists who strongly argue in favour of a correlation between the high rate of illegitimate births and the age at which a marriage may be contracted. Therefore if we have the slightest doubt that we are promoting a climate in which a child may be encouraged to experiment with love at a too early stage, I say this amendment does not deserve a place on our Statute Book.

I want to emphasize the situation that social welfare officers have to conduct an investigation. Then, in conclusion, I just want to deal with the effect of this in a wider field, i.e. on other laws. It may happen that a father who has to consider granting his 15-year-old daughter permission to marry, has to report the act of love or that transgression to the police, because technically that boy has committed a crime. Should he suppress it, he is committing a further crime, i.e. collusion. Does this amendment provide for that?

Then I want to refer to the provisions of section 25 of the Marriage Act as it stands to-day. In this we have a dualistic approach to the question as to who is to have the so-called power of dispensation, the State or the courts? The matter was decided in 1935 and in 1961. Here in section 25 of the Marriage Act which has a direct bearing on the section as it stands now and as it is to be amended, provision is made that the Commissioner of Child Welfare may, under certain circumstances, give a minor permission to marry. It also includes girls up to and including the age of 12 years. In other words, practice has taught us that in cases in which such a girl would be in trouble and section 25 would be applicable and that parent cannot be reached, for example, the application to the magistrate, who is the Commissioner of Child Welfare, in that case, may succeed in three days’ or a week’s time. Therefore I would be in favour of the retention of the power of dispensation and its transfer to the Commissioner of Child Welfare for the very reason that I have such a great deal of sympathy for the matter which the hon. the Minister has brought to this House as well as with the fortunes of these people. For this reason I feel that we should have retained this power of dispensation and should have entrenched it in section 25. In this way we can then retain the veto right and all the advantages it has.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to express my gratitude to the Minister for having given us the opportunity to have a free vote. This reveals his particular responsibility in respect of this matter. When I was a newcomer to the ministry of the gospel, after one year as minister, one of my first experiences was a visit to a home in which there was a 14-year-old married mother with a child on her lap. The impression that made on me, has stayed with me. She was a child without any clear conception of the purpose of the visit; she was, in fact, still playing with dolls. The tragedy of that case—and this has remained with me—is the fact that the life of such a child had to be ruined while she still had so many years of her young life left to enjoy. This is a matter of principle to me. and principles may not be weighed against administrative problems. Existing age limits are expressions of the will and wisdom of our earlier legislators who attempted to sound the feelings of the people and to embody those feelings in legislation. An Act with a limiting effect of this nature has always tested against certain norms. The permission of the Minister in cases of transgression of the law, was simply an investigation into the possibility of condoning the transgression of the person who could not resist the temptation. In other words, to consider extenuating circumstances and to make it possible for them to marry.

Order! On what clause is the hon. member speaking? Is the hon. member discussing the entire Bill or clause 9?

Mr. Chairman, I am discussing this clause 9 in particular, because I have just said what exactly it means when the Minister gives his permission for 15-year-olds to marry. The Minister said here that the human problem had to be met by this amendment. My view is that this kind of legislation cannot be remedied by watering down norms and principles. The hon. the Minister referred to our ancestors who sometimes married at a youthful age, but the circumstances at that time differed vastly from those of to-day. The parental authority was much stronger than nowadays. Permissiveness and temptations as those experienced to-day, occurred far less. The hon. the Minister also said that the measure…

Order! The hon. member must not read his speech.

The hon. the Minister said that parental responsibility would be strengthened by this. To that I want to say that a legal provision such as this, in fact, enables the parent to teach his child and to train him to obedience so that we may have an orderly community. The hon. member for Middelland said that those speaking against this clause, were under-estimating the youth. I, on the other hand, want to say that we must be on guard not to under-estimate the meaning and the value of measures and laws laying down the norm. We must, in fact, think of the meaning of such measures and laws as an efficient damper. Thousands of children have not yielded for the very reason that the old measure existed. There are thousands of young girls who have not yielded because their parents have been able to use the shadow of a provision which laid down the minimum age limit for marriage at 16 years. It enabled them to a great extent to avoid the problems, such as that of an illegitimate child (whom we shall always have with us), about which the hon. member for Paarl was so concerned. Therefore I feel that we should not water down the present statutory provision. It was the will of the people, as formulated by our legislators. They considered the matter thoroughly in 1935, and they did not introduce the measure unthinking. They tested it against certain experiences in social life. It was necessary to draw a line somewhere. The line was drawn at 16 years. We must not think only of the victims under the original section, but also of the thousands of persons who, as a result of the existence of that section disciplined themselves to resist the temptation and who waited until they were older and were better able to do their duty as wife and mother in a home, before they got married. Therefore, and to be honest with myself, I am going to vote against this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I rise at this stage briefly to address a few remarks to the hon. the Minister, because it rests in his hands whether or not this House has to vote on this clause to-day seeing that it is part of a Bill introduced by the hon. the Minister. When listening to this debate, one thing impressed me and that is the forceful arguments which have been advanced on both sides. I want to be quite frank with the hon. the Minister and say that I think it will be unfortunate if this House takes a decision on this Bill at the present moment. He had been frank enough to say to us that he referred this matter to various departments of State for comment. In introducing this Bill, he said that even within those departments there was a division of opinion. He will recall that he said that it was referred to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, which as a department, generally, might be said to support this measure. but he added that some of the officials of that Department had other views on this particular clause.

I rise to draw attention to these facts, because if a decision were to be taken without full consideration of other factors that might well be raised, there may be misunderstanding, consequences and repercussions which the Minister is not seeking.

Let me just reply to one of the points he raised in justifying this clause. He said that the main thing was that the parental control should be retained for the under 16-year-old child, who still has to have that kind of control. He respected parental control as something of importance in our society. I agree with him. But the very next argument he used was that the young people of to-day must not be blamed, because there is not sufficient parental control; in other words, that very control is not being exercised in the interests of the young people. This argument cannot apply both ways. The very object of having the 16-year age limit, is to ensure that there is a check on that parental control, which might be otherwise misdirected. The change has not been motivated sufficiently for us to accept this clause. I do not think it has been motivated in those speeches in support of this clause. It would be a tragedy if this clause were to be passed and it would lead to an assumption that there was a condonation of a permissive aspect of the moral life of the young people of this country. That is the danger, unless there is a very real motivation for changing the age restriction from 16 to 15. Mere administrative convenience is not a motivation. Without that motivation the voting of a reduction in the age to 15 might lead to assumptions which certainly none of us feel are justified.

The problem of these young girls who come to the Minister for approval, is a most complex problem. It has been suggested during the course of this debate that there are matters which cry out for further investigation. Which is in the best interests of a child, adoption or a youthful marriage? Then again there is the question of whether there should be some relaxation in the laws regarding the termination of pregnancy to prevent the birth of the child and the consequences thereof, and in what circumstances that should be done in our modern society. These are questions which are crying out for a thorough investigation. Sir, there is no urgency with this particular provision in this legislation. At this stage I again want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, who has control as to whether or not this provision will come before the House, to consider the matter. Although it is quite an individual decision as to how we do vote, we may have our misgivings as to the wisdom of the voting which we do to-day. I wonder whether the Minister, at this stage, would not consider allowing this clause to be withdrawn from the Bill. It is not urgent. It is in isolation in this Bill. It is in a vacuum. It is dealing with one particular aspect and does not touch any other provisions of this Bill. He would be wise, I suggest, to withdraw the clause so as not to commit us to a vote.

Mr. Chairman, we have listened to very clever legal arguments on both sides of the House to-day. Some of those arguments I may not be able to dispute, but I want to approach the matter from a common-sense point of view.

The hon. member for Durban (North) said that the age was only an arbitrary one. Whether it was 12, 13, 14 or 15, was merely arbitrary. Sir, there is something like less and more arbitrary until one decides what the desirable age is. Here puberty and the physiological suitability of the woman are the considerations which apply, which also applied in the past and which were quite good enough for our ancestors up to 35 years ago. At 15 years of age, a girl has passed the stage of puberty in 90 per cent of cases. So much for that aspect. But I just want to mention that the impression I received here was that in their arguments most hon. members wanted to reduce the matter to the question of whether one is for or against the stipulation of 15 or 16 years. That is altogether beside the point.

1 am opposed to a change.

That is beside the point. I say that the impression that was left, if the hon. member was listening properly, was that the arguments wanted the question under discussion to be reduced to—whether one was for or against the stipulation of 15 years. That is why the word “permissive” was used frequently. That is altogether beside the point. I think I may accept that the majority of the responsible members here to-day are opposed to a girl marrying too young. She should rather marry at sixteen than at fifteen. The basic fact we must take into consideration here, and about which we must decide to-day, is whether the hon. the Minister, or the State, must continue to carry a burden and a responsibility for the sake of an age difference of one year, a burden which has not proved worthwhile or really practical through the years. In these cases permission has already been given by the parents, a right which they have in respect of all children under 21 years of age. The question is whether the permission of the State must be required at 15 or at 16 years of age. That is the only question we must decide, and not the question of where our sympathy lies. In conclusion I should just like to emphasize this aspect once more. I think that with the figures he mentioned here, the Minister proved that in the course of time this section had become quite obsolete. It fell into disuse over the years, simply as a result of the fact that in so many cases it was not necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has just addressed the Committee, would have done so as the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare. But it would appear from the arguments he has put forward this afternoon, that he addressed the Committee as the Deputy Minister of the Interior, because he holds both these positions. I was hoping that the hon. the Deputy Minister would be able to inform members of the Committee whether the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, after thorough investigation and discussion with the Minister of the Interior, had taken into account the views of the registered welfare organizations, particularly the responsible welfare bodies, such as the National Council for Child Welfare. Looking at the Government Gazette, I see that the Bill appeared on 17 th July. I understand that many of these national councils for child welfare and marriage guidance, which are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, have not had an opportunity of putting forward their point of view and to make submissions to the Minister of the Interior. I was hoping that the hon. Deputy Minister who has just spoken, would have spoken as the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to give that point of view. I think it is important that members of the Committee should take into account the submission of the hon. the Minister of the Interior that there is a difference of opinion within the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Here we have not yet heard from either the hon. the Minister of the Interior or his Deputy of any welfare organization or Church which has come forward supporting the suggested amendment that is now before the Committee. I feel that members of the Committee have not had placed before them sufficient evidence to show that it is necessary that the proposed change should be effected. The hon. the Minister, in his arguments in support of the clause, dealt with a number of people, namely the parents, who were anxious to have this permission granted, obviously for reasons connected with the condition of their daughter and because they wished to see their daughter married before she gave birth to a child. These are very real difficulties, but surely it is far better than the 15 year old who is expecting a child, should have her case thoroughly investigated by welfare organizations and not merely have the consent of the parents. After all, we have to take into consideration what is in the best interests of that 15-year-old girl. I believe that merely to say that in terms of this legislation that is now before us, we will now be able to dispense with that investigation is not in the interests of good government as far as this aspect of government is concerned. I believe that members of the Committee have not received any satisfactory indication as to which organizations, organizations which are directly concerned with this problem, have supported this particular clause. After all, as the hon. member for Green Point has said, it is a clause in isolation. I would therefore also like to add my plea to those already directed to the hon. the Minister responsible for the introduction of this clause, to withdraw it so that it can be further investigated by his own colleagues, for example by the Ministry of Social Welfare. In that way further evidence can be canvassed so as to ascertain whether it is really in the interests of the community as a whole to reduce the age from 16 to 15. It means that the 15 year old will only require the parents’ consent and will not be subject to any investigation to determine whether it is really in that child’s interests to proceed with such a marriage. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will withdraw this clause so that further consideration can be given to the matter.

Mr. Chairman, clause 10 makes compulsory the use of a certain formula in a marriage service, whether that service is conducted in a church or by a civil marriage officer. I accept that the hon. the Minister, as he said during his Second-Reading speech, does not wish to interfere with religious ceremonial as far as marriages are concerned, but that is just what will happen if this clause is passed. I want to emphasize that this clause removes the differences between ministers of religion, when acting as marriage officers, and civil marriage officers and it subjects both of them to the use of a certain formula, a mandatory formula. This formula is not optional because the exact words as laid down in this clause will have to be used at all marriage ceremonies.

The hon. the Minister has suggested that this formula which lays down the form of the questions to be addressed to the contracting parties as to whether there are objections to their marriage, and the answer in the declaration of the solemnization of the marriage, have already been adopted by religious denominations. That is only a partially correct statement. I agree that they have been adopted in substance, but not the particular words which have now become mandatory under this clause. They have been adopted in substance, intent and in regard to certain implications, but these specific words have not been adopted by the different church denominations. I do not wish to take up the time of the House by quoting the actual words as used by the various denominations. I quoted them during the Second-Reading debate. I quoted the words used in the Presbyterian Church, the Wesleyan Church, the Dutch Reformed Church and the Anglican Church. The words I quoted are not exactly the words which appear in this clause. Unfortunately the Bill is drawn up in such a way that although it might not be the intention of the Minister to interfere with the churches, that does in fact become necessary. That, as I say, is on account of the wording of the clause. The adoption of these words without the use of words of a similar meaning will merely have the effect of introducing into what is now suitable language fitting for the ceremony of the particular church, cold and harsh legal words of the nature of those appearing in this clause. The Minister in his Second-Reading speech suggested that this was necessary in order to bring about uniformity. Even if that uniformity is restricted to the minimum, why is it necessary? Have any difficulties arisen in regard to marriages? Difficulties may have been experienced with sects which are not normally accepted as being church denominations. But that is in the hands of the Minister because it is for him to say who shall be appointed marriage officers. It seems to me that the accepted churches and church denominations in our country should not be subjected to uniformity of the nature in which it is here suggested. I understand there have been difficulties but these have been outside recognized church congregations. But the control, in any event, is in the hands of the Minister and if a church does not conform to the spirit of the law as it stands at the moment, the power is in the hands of the Minister because he appoints marriage officers. There is nothing more dull in life than uniformity just for the sake of uniformity and this is just what this clause is introducing into marriage services. As the law as it stands has worked satisfactorily we do not consider that there is a need for an amendment of this sort. Hence, we are opposed to it.

To carry the argument of the hon. member for Green Point a little further, I want to say that it is beyond my comprehension why the hon. the Minister should wish to have these specific words which, as was pointed out by my hon. friend, are cold and official. It is true that in the proposed new subsection (2) a minister of religion may in solemnizing a marriage follow the rites usually observed by his religious denomination or organization. I do not know whether my interpretation is incorrect but I do not believe that this word “rites” allows the minister in my church to use the words which he has used up to now. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell me that my interpretation is incorrect and that he will be able to use them. In our service, where legal provision is applied to the minister, he does ask the question that complies with the legal provision and then requires both the contracting parties to make a statement—not a flat “yes” as will be the case if this provision is accepted. The Minister did say earlier on that these words were being introduced for the sake of uniformity. But is there any real need for uniformity? Must we all comply down to the last comma, down to the last full stop? Is that something which is desirable in this country? Is it desirable in any society, or do we prefer to have a degree of individuality? I shall oppose this clause primarily because I feel it interferes with the right of the churches to apply their own individuality to this service, a service which is very beautiful and which means an awful lot to every young person who contracts marriage. But here we are going to take that away and substitute therefore this officialdom. For that reason I must oppose it.

The two hon. members who have spoken on this clause so far, tried to give people outside the wrong impression. The whole argument concerns the question, which is set out in this clause, which the marriage officer must put to the couple. It reads as follows—

Surely hon. members have, on account of their position, been invited to weddings outside their particular church denomination? I have been in all kinds of churches and I have never heard a marriage formula in which these words do not appear in one form or other. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Green Point admitted that they do appear in the body of the ceremony. There are other hon. members who can speak about this matter with greater authority, because they have been practising ministers of religion. They say that in the first instance this provision does not stop any church denomination from continuing and retaining the marriage formula as it has existed up to now. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) says that in terms of this we are doing away with all these colourful ceremonies and formulas and are prescribing a few uniform words. The beautiful marriage formula, he said, means a great deal to a couple getting married, and that we are now wanting to do away with that. But surely that is not the case, and the hon. member knows it. Why then does he ask? He knows that we do not want to do away with marriage formulas. All we want is that these words should be put to the couple at some time or other. As the hon. member for Piketberg said, it may be done at some stage of the formula, perhaps at the end. The hon. member for Green Point, however, sees something sinister in this clause, and he must say what it is. I know what he has in mind, but he does not have the courage of his convictions to say what he sees in it. He sees something different in it again. If only they would be specific about what they meant, we could still admire them, but they are continually hiding behind words because they do not have the courage of their conviction to be specific.

The Minister said in his Second-Reading speech that churches are springing up by the dozen to-day, with people who pretend to be preachers of the Gospel. We do not want to interfere with anybody’s religious views, and we do not want to restrict anyone as regards teaching the Gospel in any way they wish. But many of these persons have not been ordained. In this formula there should at least be something which meets the basic minimum requirements of the State, and that is all that is being done here—a minimum requirement is being laid down which has to be met. But hon. members on the other side are trying to exploit religion for political purposes here. It is a disgrace, especially as regards the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). He will go to any lengths in doing this kind of thing, and I despise it.

I really must say that one is very disappointed indeed at the level which some hon. members attain in trying to defend an amendment to an Act for which no sound or valid reason has been given. The hon. member for Parow says we are using religion for purely political purposes.

That is what you are doing.

That is what he says. I am not doing it. I am just repeating what the hon. member has said. But the hon. member has no argument to support this particular amendment. He has used a tremendous number of words and he has suggested that we do not have the courage of our convictions to say what our real purpose is in objecting to this clause, but he gives no reason why one should support the clause. That has unfortunately been the method of presentation of this Bill and its various clauses to the House all along. No sound reasons are given as to why there should be these changes. Now, we are a people of tradition. We South Africans are very proud of the traditions we have established over many years. We have a variety of religious expression in our country under various denominations, and even our denominations are divided into specific churches following a particular line. For instance, we have the Dutch Reformed Church and the Gereformeerde Kerk, and among the Jewish people you have an orthodox and a reformed expression of their religious life, and among the English-speaking people you have the High Church of England, the Presbyterians, etc. These are traditions which have been built up over generations in our country in terms of which each religion conforms to its own rites. For that reason one sees nothing untoward in the Act as it stands at the moment, because all these religious rituals provide specifically for the very things which we as a Christian people, if I may use it in the broader sense of the term, observe in so far as the affinity of relationship is concerned and in so far as impediments to couples getting married are concerned. All these provisions are found in all the religions. If the hon. member for Parow would read some of the introductions to some of the chapters of Van Zyl’s Judicial Practice, a very much revered legal tome in this country, he will find that quite a lot of space is devoted in some of the opening chapters to our following the Mosaic laws. He will find references to it where it is related in support of the development of the law which we practise in our country to-day through the Roman and Roman-Dutch law. So one cannot understand why the emphasis is now taken entirely off the religious aspect by the elimination of these words and confined purely to a civil form of marriage. It does, however, provide in the second clause that a minister of a particular religion may follow the rites of his own religion in addition to these other requirements. But in fact one of the weaknesses of the amendment is that it is going to weaken the strength which the churches enjoy in the following of the young people, for whom they make every possible provision. Young people who see this type of clause and are aware of this aspect of marriage will no longer find it necessary, or even desirable, to spend their time having a marriage performed through religious rites. They will find it so over-simplified that all it will require is that the marriage officer must have the formula pronounced upon them almost as a benediction, answer in the affirmative and put the ring on the finger and the parties are on their way. I believe that a religious form of marriage is a very important feature of the strength of our marriage institution, particularly in our country, where tradition is so strong and so well observed. I believe that some sound reason must be given, which we have not had—and that is the main complaint by hon. members who have spoken on this side of the House; the main complaint is that no valid reason is given why they should remove these particular words. I think it is important to remember that; because as the clause stood, if the marriage officer was not a member of a particular religious faith, then he would be enjoined to repeat these words, because it is a well-known fact, of which one must take judicial notice, that all our religions carry the same provisions with regard to the impediments that are contained in the formula we are asked to observe.

Order! That argument has been used before.

I do not wish to expand on that particular point. I merely want to make it clear that what the hon. member for Green Point referred to during the course of the Second Reading, i.e. the fact that even some of the service books may have to be changed because the wording set out there differs and it might lead to a misunderstanding or confusion in the mind of any marriage officer who is a marriage officer by virtue of being a minister, is something which we must take note of. I think one should remember that particular fact, and all those things will be contributory factors to the removal of the emphasis on the religious aspect.

The hon. member for Green Point asked why this provision was necessary, and the hon. member for Jeppes repeatedly said that “no sound reason” had been given. As I gave the “sound reason” in my introductory speech and in my reply and the hon. member does not seem to have heard what it is, I want to repeat it slowly so that hon. members can take it in.

A marriage contract between two persons is probably the most important contract which can be concluded. I take it that you accept that. This important contract should, as regards procedure, be subject to uniformity if we want to assign such great importance to it. It is for this reason that the provision standing here already exists in the Act. It has been applied by marriage officers for years, not only by State marriage officers in civil marriages, but also by church bodies. [Interjections.] Many have used it; I do not say all. Many church bodies have used it, and the civil authorities are using it. But now we come to the position of the church marriage officer. When that clerical figure solemnizes marriages he does so on behalf of the State. He has been appointed by the State to solemnize marriages, and this most important contract which can be concluded between two people, he concludes as a representative of the State. That is why the State has the right, for the sake of procedure and good order, at least to prescribe that this provision which has existed for years and which has been adopted by many churches, should also be added to *their formula. I say “also”. As is stated here most clearly, as I have explained copiously, and as the hon. member for Parow also said a moment ago, churches retain the right to have their own formula. Churches may retain their own marriage formula and their own ceremonial rites; we have said so repeatedly, and I am amazed that the hon. member has not yet realized it.

I understand it.

Very well, if the hon. member understands it, we are at least making some progress. They have the right to retain their own ceremonial rites. All we are saying is that, because in this respect they are representatives of the State, we require them to include this uniform formula in their own formula. To pretend, as the hon. member for Jeppes did, that we are reducing the religious value of this, surely is absolute nonsense. We heard here that young people would now be able simply to walk into an office, that this formula would simply be read to them and that it would leave them cold, but surely this is precisely what has been happening all these years? After all, people who go to a civil marriage officer to get married do not undergo a religious ceremony there. This is a formula which has been put to them all these years. Why do hon. members now want to pretend that as a result of this amendment young people will get married without undergoing any religious ceremony? They have been marrying according to this formula all these years.

We are reducing the value of the ceremony.

This amendment has nothing to do with reducing the value of the ceremony. We are not interfering with the right of the churches to marry people; on the contrary, we are encouraging it, but we are creating order now. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) said he believed that we were not taking the individuality of persons into account. Sir, if one lives in an orderly state, there has to be order, and it is essential to lay down this provision, because in this State we not only have the marriage officers of our recognized churches, who do things in an orderly way, but numerous small churches have been added, churches that emerge and then sometimes disappear, and for the sake of the people who marry and in order to make the important contract which is concluded between them valid in law, this pattern must be followed, otherwise the State would not be helping these people when they conclude their most important contract. This provision, therefore, will not affect the church ceremony at all; it should have no effect whatsoever on the keenness or desire of people to get married in churches; it has nothing to do with that at all. The sole purpose is to give the marriage contract which is concluded there proper legal force, so that those young people will not find afterwards that they have an invalid marriage contract. That is the purpose of this, and this is the spirit in which it should be approached.

Order! Before calling upon the hon. member for Green Point to speak, I just want to point out that this clause has a very restricted meaning that I have until now allowed a very wide discussion and that from now on I shall take action against members on both sides if there is any repetition.

Sir, it is the very restrictive meaning of this amendment on which I am trying to get the Minister to focus his attention and that is that the minister of religion is now bound by the ipsissima verba, to the exact words. The Minister suggests that this change in the procedure of the churches is of no consequence at all. Sir, I would liken it to introducing an item of jazz in the middle of a presentation of an Italian opera. Of course it is a change and a variation of the normal religious service. The point which I am trying to make and to which the hon. the Minister has not replied is this: Why must there be an interference in a procedure and a course of conduct which have not given rise to any difficulty, for the sake of uniformity and because the ministers of religion are operating as officials of the State? Must all marriage services be dull, uniform services because the marriage officer happens to be acting as a representative of the State? Sir, I am not convinced by the Minister’s reasons and I do not propose to take the argument further. It is obvious that the Minister can give us no reason except that he wants to introduce uniformity.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name, as follows—

This is being added at the request of the Treasury. It is in agreement with the usual provisions.

Sir, the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister will not be objected to by this side of the House. I rise to ask the hon. the Minister in the first place why it is that the term “Governor-General” or “State President” is being substituted for the word “Minister”?

It is the other way round.

Yes, it is the other way round. “Minister” is being substituted for “State President”. In the past it has always been the State President. This means that it is in effect a decision of the Executive Committee, of the Cabinet, which advises the State President to agree or not to agree to the promulgation of these regulations. Sir, it is not just a matter of promulgating regulations relating to the form and content of certificates. If it were just that, then one might say that this was the sort of power which should in fact be used by the hon. the Minister and not by the State President. If it were only the fees payable, then that would also be the sort of thing that should not be the concern of the Cabinet. But, Sir, it goes much further. The section provides that the State President, as it reads at the moment, can make regulations generally as to any matter which by this Act is required or permitted to be prescribed or which he considers is necessary or expedient to prescribe in order that the purposes of this Act may be achieved or that the provisions of this Act may be effectively administered. Sir, that is a very wide power. It is not just a power to make regulations as to certificates and forms and fees; it is a power encompassing an undefined range of things. It seems to us that this is a power which should be exercised only after consultation with the Cabinet and should therefore bear the seal of the State President. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could indicate why he feels that this should be changed. Again one finds here that there different regulations may be made in respect of different population groups, but again this is not defined. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister is going to say again that this is because it is South-West Africa, but surely this will have some application in the Republic. I wonder if he will also tell us what categories or population groups in the Republic he has in mind.

This substitution for the word ‘ “Governor-General” of the word “Minister” instead of the term “State President”, is in agreement with present-day practice. The hon. member will notice from legislation in which another word has been substituted for the term “Governor-General” that it has lately been the practice to substitute the word “Minister” for that term. This is being done for practical reasons. The fact that the power relating to the promulgation of regulations has been framed so widely, ought not to upset the hon. member, because in terms of this Bill all regulations have to be tabled in this House as well as in the Other Place. Hon. members, as a House, will have the right of agreeing to or rejecting these regulations. This probably is the most effective measure of control required. If this power had, in fact, been framed too widely, and if we were to abuse this power, surely there would be the opportunity of amending or rejecting the regulations. I think this ought to provide adequate satisfaction as far as the implementation of this measure is concerned. Questions were once again put to me about the population groups. In this connection, too, we shall act in agreement with the existing race classification legislation of the Republic. In South-West Africa, of course, we shall deal with that in agreement with the measure in terms of which their population groups are designated. There is no doubt as to what we mean by population groups. The population groups are the White population group, the Bantu population group, the Coloured population group, etc. On the part of the Government there is no doubt about this. I doubt whether there is any doubt about this on the part of the public at large.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister has at last given us a definition of what a population group is, so far as it will be applied in the Republic of South Africa. But is a population group as such not also a sub-group of a certain race of people? We have the Malays, the Griquas, and others, within the Coloured group. Does the hon. the Minister also regard them as population groups as opposed to a race? I would have thought that the Coloured people and the Bantu people were regarded as races, whereas the population group might be a sub-division. In view of the fact that this is what is done in South Africa, perhaps the hon. the Minister could indicate whether he intends, so far as the Coloured people are concerned, and possibly also so far as the Bantu people are concerned, to do that as well? The hon. the Minister’s answer as to why this is being done by the Minister and no longer by the State President is not, if I may say so, a very satisfactory one in the sense that the hon. the Minister says that the regulations are laid on the Table of the House and we can deal with them here. We have had this argument too often. They are always laid on the Table of the House as is required in terms of the Interpretation Act. However, what opportunity is there in fact for discussing a matter like that in this House? Let us be realistic and practical. The only person who will query a regulation will be a member on this side of the House. In practice, it will not be a member on that side of the House. When does one get the opportunity of debating those regulations? The hon. the Minister may say that it could be done when his Vote comes under discussion. That is correct. However, the question before the House then is whether one will vote the money for the hon. the Minister’s portfolio. The question before the House is never whether part of those regulations should be deleted or changed or whether it should be scrapped altogether. That is never the question before the House unless there is a specified motion to that effect. The only time that that can be done is during a private member’s time, that is to say when a member of the Opposition devotes his motion to the consideration of that regulation. All the Government members have to do is to talk it out for 2i hours and then that is the end of it. The motion lapses. So there is no real substance in that point, namely, that this House will deal with it. It cannot deal with it effectively, because that motion is never before the House. We cannot change it unless that is so. These regulations are far-reaching. My argument is that because they could be so far-reaching, far more than just, as I have said, the issue of certificates, this is a decision which be taken by the State President on the advice of the whole Cabinet and not just at the whim of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to what the hon. member for Durban (North) said, I can only say it is in fact correct that this matter may be discussed under my Vote. If, however, this does not give him satisfaction, I think he may, as is the procedure, discuss the matter with Mr. Speaker so as to determine in what other way this matter can be raised for discussion. I think Mr. Speaker will definitely indicate to the hon. member the procedure the hon. member is to follow so as to achieve his object. This is something which falls outside my province. I think it ought to be dealt with preferably in this way. The hon. member put a question in connection with the population groups and asked whether the Malays, for example, were a separate population group. They may probably be regarded as a separate population group. In law we regard the Malays as part of the Coloured population group. They are really a sub-group of the Coloured population, just as the Griquas and others are. But the time may arrive when they have developed their own identity to such an extent, and want to show this, that they may insist on being regarded and classified as a separate population group. This, however, time has to show. At the present moment, however, the Malays and the Griquas and others are all regarded as part of the Coloured population group.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, this clause contains a matter of principle going beyond what is necessary in this Bill itself. The new section 38 A (1) provides:

We have no indication as to what the hon. the Minister is asking us to support. He will have a blanket authority by way of proclamation to divest one Minister of the responsibility for the administration of a law and to vest it in another Minister. We have already indicated our opposition to this being done when we dealt with clause 1 of this Bill. Because the normal procedure was followed of bringing in an amendment to the Bill to substitute in the place of the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development for certain specific purposes, we were able to debate the matter. If this clause is passed, these proclamations can refer to other laws and will not have been considered by this House. Merely by means of a proclamation the Minister will achieve what in this particular measure had to be achieved by an amendment to the definition of “Minister” in clause 1. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would indicate what other marriage laws he has in mind? In which other laws relating to marriages will he pass the responsibilities of the Minister of the Interior over to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development? I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would explain what he intends doing.

Mr. Chairman, this clause relates to pre-Union Acts and other existing Acts which are applicable to Bantu as far as these matrimonial affairs are concerned. The intention is to assign to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development those Acts which are still being administered by us. During the discussion on clause 1 we argued a great deal about that principle. I do not know whether it is necessary to cover the same ground again. In actual fact this provision relates only to existing Acts and pre-Union Acts.

Mr. Chairman, that is the very point that we are trying to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The House has considered the removal of the responsibility from his Department to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development as far as the Marriage Act of 1961, as amended, is concerned. This was done by means of an amendment to the definition of “Minister” in this Bill. This blanket clause now before us goes much further than that without there being before this House the specific legislation in respect of which he desires to transfer the control of the Bantu to the Minister of Bantu Administration. It can now be done by way of proclamation. Hon. members will find themselves putting a question to the Minister of the Interior on the Question Paper in regard to some matter under some other marriage law, and that the Minister of Interior then says: “I am sorry but by proclamation this is no longer being done by me but by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.” This is the wrong procedure. It is avoiding a debate in Parliament when there is to be a change in the fundamental responsibility of members of the Cabinet and their Departments in respect of certain aspects of the government of this country. The hon. the Minister has been quite frank. He has indicated that he could not give us the information if we asked him to refer us to the other Acts of Parliament which relate to the marriages laws in South Africa. For those reasons I want to say that the hon. the Minister’s explanation does not satisfy me and would not justify my supporting this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to furnish this supplementary information. As I have said, we are here dealing with pre-Union Acts and other existing Acts relating to matrimonial affairs, but only in respect of the Bantu. One of the Acts concerned here is Act No. 46 of 1887 of Natal. I do not know whether it means anything to hon. members, but this is one of the Acts which relate only to the Bantu and matrimonial affairs. It is these matters which are now going to be transferred.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. the Minister is trying to be helpful, but I should like to say with respect that he illustrates the very objection raised by the hon. member for Green Point. We want to know which other laws relating to marriages will in fact be handed over for administration to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The hon. the Minister mentioned Act 46 of 1887 of Natal. Without looking it up one would of course not know quite what it provides. Is that in fact the law which deals with the Christian union marriages in Zululand or does it relate to Native customary unions? I think that is the Act which deals with Christian marriages, but I am not sure. Our concern as to whether or not it should be handed over will be determined by our knowing what laws are going to be handed over. We now have this situation. The hon. the Minister is asking this House to give him a blank cheque to hand over anything he likes when he himself here on the floor of this House is unable to tell the House which laws he wants to hand over except for the one law he has mentioned, namely Act No. 46 of 1887 of Natal, and he cannot even tell us what it is about. That is precisely the point. No member of this House should want to be a party to handing over the power vested in this Parliament to decide who shall administer what, without knowing what those laws are, without applying our minds to them and deciding whether it is desirable to hand them over or not. The position is even worse than that because the hon. the Minister himself is unable to say which those laws are.

Mr. Chairman, I do feel that the hon. the Minister owes the hon. member for Durban (North) an answer to his query. I think he put a perfectly reasonable request to the hon. the Minister. I want to add to what the hon. member for Durban (North) has said. If I understood the hon. the Minister correctly, in his last reply to the hon. member for Green Point, he said that it was the intention to hand over the administration of any other law relating to marriages of Bantu. Did I understand the hon. the Minister correctly?

Yes.

But that is not what this clause says.

The pre-Union Acts and existing Acts in relation to Bantu marriages.

I should like to point out with respect to the hon. the Minister that there is a subtle difference here. There is a difference between the assigning of the administration of any other law relating to marriages of Bantu and the assigning of “the administration of any other law relating to marriages to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development”. This is the point I would like elucidation on from the hon. the Minister. We have had the situation in this House, and in this Committee, where more and more power is passed into the hands of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He is now empire building, if I may use that term. We find that he is becoming the sole arbiter and the sole administrator over all the Bantu in South Africa. This is not a healthy situation. We here, the administrators, as it was so ably pointed out by the hon. member for Durban (North), should have the control of what is given to this hon. Minister in the way of control and powers. It should not simply be done by means of proclamation. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us a reply, particularly in regard to that subtle difference which I, pointed out to him. I want to know: Is the administration of any other law relating to marriages to be assigned to the hon. the Minister or will it be only those laws which relate to the marriages of Bantu?

Mr. Chairman, I am going to try again. One must not lose heart. This measure deals with the transfer of the pre-Union Acts and the existing Acts relating to Bantu marriages. Is that clear enough? Those Acts will be transferred. I have mentioned one to the hon. members. If the hon. members are further interested in the matter, I shall, at the Third Reading, read them a list of the old Acts involved here. Moreover, the hon. members still have the privilege of expressing criticism in this House when the proclamations relating to that transfer are laid upon the Table.