I move—

I move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, while we here in Parliament assembled are discussing the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill, the Artisans’ Staff Association delegates at their annual congress at Muizenburg are probably considering the possibility of taking strike action to enforce their requests for an increase in basic wages. All delegates have been given a mandate from their divisions and their branches to hold fast to their wage demands. The Minister, Sir, has adamantly refused to grant the increases for which they ask. A deadlock has been reached —a point at which collective bargaining has broken down. From Press reports of the different branch meetings all over the Republic it appears that Congress will probably be asked to hold a referendum to decide whether or not strike action should be taken. The hon. the Minister says that they have “no right to strike”; that “it has never been the intention of the Railways and Harbours Service Act to give the right to strike”; that “transport is an essential service ”. The artisans, on the other hand, say that they are within the law. According to their constitution a three-quarter majority can legally call a strike. Mr. Speaker, the Minister has failed signally as a negotiator in this dispute. He does no doubt know all about machines and we are impressed by that knowledge; but he has failed in this instance to understand or treat with the men, who are much more important than any machine. They say that he is too inflexible, too rigid, unprepared to make concessions, unable to see the other man’s point of view. The facts are that he has been unable to adjust fairly or peacefully, his differences with his staff. We are, therefore, faced with a situation that may well result (although we all hope sincerely that it will not) in a dislocation of vital transport services. We are entitled to ask the Minister here and now: What do you propose to do? Does he propose, Sir, to sit tight and let things develop? Does he think it is wise to threaten the men and then dare them to take action? I submit that either of the two courses would be or could be extremely unfortunate. I believe that he should act quickly. There is no time now to carry out the much-needed overhaul of the negotiating machinery. We asked for this in our amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply. That inquiry may now well have to wait until a later time. It is too late now. The Minister has allowed the situation to develop into what well may be a very grave crisis. And what he has said and done in the course of the debates during the last few days has caused us even greater anxiety and created, throughout the length and breadth of the service, added uncertainty. His attitude seems to be to confine himself to the issue of veiled threats. According to the Minister, the railwaymen, the artisan staff, have no right, moral or otherwise, to take part in a go-slow strike, or a work-to-manual strike, or any other type of strike. “They are all employees,” he said, “of essential services. Parliament and the South African trade unions have accepted the principle that essential workers are prohibited from striking. The Industrial Conciliation Act, in operation since 1943 …

1923.

In operation since 1923, prohibited strikes by essential workers. Differences had to be settled by arbitration. There is no difference between railwaymen and people in other essential services. The hon. the Minister has either said too much or too little in this statement. I believe he should make himself absolutely clear to-day. Is this a threat, Sir, to the Artisan Staff Congress that, if they decide on some form of strike, the Minister will introduce legislation to make strike action by the Railways and Harbours staff an illegal act? The hon. the Minister says “Disputes must be settled by arbitration”. The artisans say “ the Minister by his unbending attitude, by informing us that the Cabinet has taken a decision which must be final, has closed the door to arbitration, has made other action inevitable ”. Sir, we must remember that these men, the artisan staff, are desperate. Almost unanimously they tell us so by the resolutions they have sent in to their Congress. If they were not—I will not go over the old ground again—I am convinced they would never dream of strike action. They are desperate. One of their delegates from Bloemfontein said “ Although strikes may be declared illegal in this country, we need have no fear that 17,000 railway artisans would be gaoled”. I give that as an example to show their degree of disillusionment. They say: “ We are desperate and our desperation calls for drastic action. There is only one way by which we will achieve our aims—a total strike.” That is reported, in the newspapers, to have been said. The railwaymen indeed make it quite clear that they are in no mood to cringe before the upraised hand with a big stick. I believe other methods must be tried and can be tried with success, and I will come to some suggestions later. Our object in raising this matter here to-day, Sir, is prompted by the Minister’s statement made in Committee of Supply. I believe that when a body as determined and desperate as the transport workers, who feel that they have been wrongly treated, face an inflexible Minister, the situation may well explode into a strike. This has become a matter of urgent public importance and deserves the immediate attention of Parliament because we in Parliament are part and parcel of the process which guides the destinies of the Railways. We are gravely concerned about the situation and it is our duty to the public and to the Railways to do what we can, here and now, to avert a clash which could paralyse our transport system, harm South Africa, inconvenience the public, and grievously injure the railwaymen. What does the Minister propose to do besides uttering veiled threats, or are they unveiled threats? I ask the hon. the Minister: What is the good of banning strikes? “ Work-to-the-book ” can never be made illegal, unless you alter the book. “ Work-to-regulation” cannot be banned. “Go-slow” can never be controlled. My advice to the hon. the Minister is this: Do not be obdurate; do not be unbending or inflexible; be prepared to swallow your pride; get together with the men, re-open discussions in some way or other; do not threaten them with the heavy hand of a new law. I think we can trust the good sense of the men in negotiation, just as we have done in the past. I am certain that such confidence will not be misplaced. I think the Minister should withdraw his threat, even if it was only implied, and let the artisans come to discussions at their Congress at Muizenberg, unencumbered by any threat. Threats only beget reprisals, and that is not an atmosphere which engenders reconciliation. I am sure we should be calm and not lose our tempers to-day. We should discuss this matter as calmly and as dispassionately as we would wish the railwaymen to discuss it at their Congress. The increases which the artisans seek are some R6 per month. I understand the cost would be R2.7 million a year. Does the Minister think that demand is reasonable, or does he think it is unreasonable? Is it only because of lack of money that he turns down this proposition? Does he feel that the artisans’ efforts have earned them a rise but that, in spite of the merits of their case, he must refuse them because he just has not got the money available? Surely they have proved by their past efforts, by helping the Railways through the transport crisis and out of the financial mess, that they are entitled to an increase. After all, the hon. the Minister estimated a deficit for this year, too, and it has turned into a surplus of R8,000,000. It will probably be nearer to R10,000,000 or R11,000,000 before the end of the financial year. Maybe the extra increase between now and the end of this financial year will be more than the R2.7 million that this increase in basic wages will apparently cost. Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. the Minister believes in incentives. As Minister of Labour he was very keen on the incentive system. Has the thought of putting an incentive proposition to the men not occurred to him? His increase in wages would amount to say Rx million. He had budgeted for a deficit of R2,750,000. Could he not say to the men: “If by your efforts you increase my estimated balance by Rx million, by the amount of the cost of your increases, I will pay retrospectively out of next year’s surplus, in proportion to my surplus.” That, Sir, seems to me to be a reasonable incentive. I throw out the idea for what it is worth. The Minister may think it is not really worth considering seriously. But I feel that the men are desperate because they are persuaded that they have earned an increase; they are convinced that they were promised that they would share in the profits which the Railways make because they are made through their hard endeavours. I believe that they are counting on the fact that they were told “if you tighten your belts when times were bad you will reap the reward when times are more prosperous”.

I have another recommendation to make which I think may interest the hon. the Minister even more. I advocate, Sir, a Judicial Commission. I suggest that the Minister offer to submit this dispute to a Judicial Commission—immediately. I advise the Minister to offer to the artisan staff arbitration on this basis. Ask them if they will agree to accept as arbitrators a three-man Judicial Commission comprising first of all a Judge, secondly a representative of the Artisan Staff Association and a mutually acceptable third man of standing, preferably with financial experience, perhaps a high-placed civil servant. Anyone, Sir, but a Railway Commissioner, because with their recent rise I am sure they would be viewed with a great deal of suspicion by any genuine railwayman. The Minister will have to agree to abide by their decision and, above all, he has to get going quickly. I think my idea would be acceptable although I do not claim that it is original. The law makes allowance for it. The Minister may be able to throw his mind back to 1947 when the same formula was invoked and worked under exactly similar conditions. This is not the first time, though one would think it was from what the Minister said, that the Railway artisans have threatened a go-slow strike. A similar situation arose in 1947 and it is interesting, indeed instructive, to compare the way in which that emergency was handled and the eventual result, with the position to-day. In 1947 the Artisan Staff Association asked for a 7½ per cent holiday bonus plus other benefits. What they asked for is not relevant at the moment. The point is that they threatened to strike if they did not get what they wanted.

They did not threaten to go on strike; they did go on strike.

That came later. They threatened to go on strike and the fact that they did strike makes my argument even more powerful, as the House will realize when I outline all the circumstances.

That was under United Party Government.

Of course, there was a United Party Government in 1947. That is no new information for this House. That is why the strike was settled, quickly. The question of the railwaymen’s rights was then raised by the Government side, by our side of the House. The Government members asked the Minister what he proposed to do to solve the dispute which had arisen. The clash between railwaymen and Minister happened just at the time when the Budget was being discussed. Our Minister of those days did not make any threats, veiled or otherwise. He did not hint that he would change the law to make strikes illegal. He did not say that he would declare the Railways an essential service. What did the Minister do, Sir? He started negotiations immediately and a unanimous decision was arrived at that the dispute should be referred to a Judicial Commission. Both sides agreed on the personnel: Mr. Justice Grindley-Ferris, Mr. Adam, ex-organizing Secretary of the Artisan Staff Association and Mr. H. P. Smit, an ex-Controller and Auditor-General. The Minister promised that if the Commission found that the artisans were entitled to what they had asked for, the findings and the award would be made retrospective. The meeting of that Judicial Commission was arranged within two days and the chairman of the commission was flown down to Cape Town. If I remember correctly the representation of the Artisan Staff Association was also flown down here. In three days the commission started to work. The strike was called off. The artisans were appeased and satisfied. A committee sat to hear their complaints, evidence was taken, the crisis was over. Those are the methods we would like to see adopted in this dispute, Sir. The Minister would be wise if he would try a similar course. A crisis might well be averted before this congress at Muizenberg ends. The matter can go before a Judicial Commission for arbitration. The commission could be the arbitrators to which the Minister referred when he said “the men should be forced to take their dispute to arbitration”. In his calmer moments I am sure the Minister will realize that, if he is genuinely co-operative, a solution along these lines is possible and could be arrived at speedily. Make this offer to the Artisan Staff Association. Promise them that the commission will be assembled in the same way and with the same despatch as was done on the previous occasion I have mentioned. All the Minister has to do is to accept this principle: that if the commission finds that the artisan staff are entitled to their raise he must give it. He cannot deny it because other railwaymen might also ask, at a subsequent date, for a similar raise. The terms of reference for the commission, if the Minister appoints one, as I hope he will, should be to inquire into this dispute and this dispute only. I ask him, if he falls in with my idea, neither to widen the terms of reference so as to make it impossible for the artisan staff to accept it, nor to enlarge the terms so as to make the work of the commission a long drawn-out, delayed affair. Mr. Speaker, let us take the attitude and the spirit of discussion at that time in 1947 and contrast it with that of to-day. The Minister has said to us and will say again “it is deplorable that the Opposition is so ready to exploit the grievances of the Artisan Staff Association for political gain”. What political gain, Sir? Who is to gain? That insinuation is unworthy of the Minister. But he will make it again, I am sure. I ask, are the artisans not employees of the State?

A real old Soapy Williams.

Mr. Speaker, all the soap that Mr. Williams makes in his many factories could not cleanse the mind or the mouth of the hon. member over there….

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir, but I will say that both sides of the House are sick of the inane interjections which inevitably dribble from the mouth of the hon. member for Cradock.

Order! Will the hon. member continue with his speech.

I will when that hon. member subsides. Sir, I say it is deplorable that the Opposition should be accused of such motives. I have said that the railwaymen are the employees of the State. Are we not concerned here with affairs of State? The Minister is the boss; but he is only the boss under Parliament. He is answerable to this Parliament for his management of the Railways. We are charged (and that is why we are discussing this matter in this debate) with this duty—to take our part as parliamentarians in the conduct of this vast State organization. Is the Minister’s decision in every matter such as this to be final? Of course not! We are here to examine his actions and to criticize him and to question what he does. Are we not just as concerned about the welfare of the Railways as he should be? Is it not our duty, Sir, as Members of Parliament, to take an interest in the working of the Railways and the welfare of the railway workers? We are not obliged, nor do we intend, to bow down to the autocratic decisions of any Minister. We say we will not; emphatically no! It is instructive to compare the attitude which obtained in Parliament in 1947 with that of to-day. On that occasion, in those days, no one was accused of trying to catch votes. As I have said, the Government side first raised the issue. But criticism came from all sides. The Minister listened patiently to Parliament. A commission was quickly arranged and the strike was averted. The same thing could be done to-day. I am sure that, if the Minister is prepared to swallow his pride, agrees to meet the railway men and decide on an impartial arbitration on the basis of retrospective settlement of their claims, this matter will be peacefully resolved.

I want to change the subject and deal with another matter which may be equally uncomfortable to hon. members opposite. I wish to discuss the functions of both the Government side and our side in debates such as these in this House. Let me start off by saying that we think constructive criticism is always the right course for an opposition and that has always been our object. But what is the function of Government members, Sir? All they ever do is to ladle out obedient praise with a large spoon. That leads to complacency and never ever to correction or reform. Government members never question anything their Minister does. They would never dare to criticize him even if they knew him to be wrong. In the past we have been taken to task for pointing to and proving a high degree of ministerial and managerial inefficiency in the running of the Railways. And how right we were, Sir. It was rife. That has now been acknowledged by all the new efficiency measures which it was necessary to introduce recently to correct the state of affairs we pinpointed. Our criticism has been the only healthy corrective which the Minister has had. In his more candid moments, I am sure he will admit that our sustained and positive criticism over the years has been his greatest incentive for the removal of inefficiency, and the institution of managerial and financial reforms. The Minister does to-morrow what we tell him to do to-day. Let me prove my point by examining the situation over the past few years. The House will remember that in 1958-9, in spite of a surplus of some R9,000,000, I said, speaking for my side of the House: “There is waste, extravagance and inefficiency amongst the higher ranks of the Railways.” I was laughed at by that side, but we were right. Before the inefficiency which we alleged could be corrected, the Railways had run into a deficit of some R16,000,000. The next year, in 1959-60, I charged the Railways with financial inefficiency, in addition to waste of manpower and material. We were right again. The statutory accounts and funds were subsequently found to be very weak. They remained deplorably weak in spite of two record surpluses amounting to R36,000,000. Even to-day the Minister has not yet been able to surmount his financial difficulties in spite of the efficiency campaign induced by our criticism. Mr. Speaker, we are not the only stringent critics of the Minister and his management. The Railway staff themselves had very severe things to say about management in years gone by. The Railways staff made their own plans in their own way to help the Minister over his financial difficulties. They were very outspoken as to what they were impelled to do to cure the inefficiency and the waste of material. They got down to work harder than ever before, in spite of losses to their earnings. As the Minister knows only too well, they were uncompromising critics of his administration. The Railway and Harbour Select Committee has also been a rigorous and harsh critic. Read their resolutions over the last three years. They endorsed retrospectively every allegation of inefficiency we have made on this side of the House. Read their references to the condition of the Stores Stock Account; their strictures about uncontrolled expenditure; their criticism of the irregular withdrawals from Railway Funds and the doubtful use of Loan Funds (I have only given the headings of matters on which they commented). We know of gross over-provision of supplies; of slackness in auditing; of the manipulation of the General Renewals Fund and the Higher Replacement Cost Account and a variety of other matters, some of them now happily on the way to correction, thanks to our trenchant criticism. This all-party Select Committee of this House has proved that when we, the Opposition, said there was inefficiency, there actually was gross inefficiency. I am sure that our criticism must have been one of the most powerful elements leading to its correction. Sir, we can even refer to the General Manager’s report for the year before last, in which are reported these significant things. The General Manager admitted that his organization has now … Mark the word “now”. Obviously, this efficiency did not pertain before:

All of these improvements were desirable but the fact that they were necessary, the fact that “improved budgetary control” has been introduced now shows that, when we made our strictures three or four years ago, we were absolutely correct. It indicates that we were right when we insisted that there was wide room for improvement. I suspect that our criticism had much to do with the drive towards greater efficiency. Mr. Speaker, as mentioned before, in the more important directions the Minister seems to take over our suggestions and to carry them out as his policy. Now for some examples. Take rating policy first. For five years we have urged that the rating structure of the Railways should be re-examined and revised to fit South Africa’s new needs. We were laughed at. Those hon. gentlemen are good only at laughing, hollowly. We showed that the present rating system stultified decentralization; that it led to the concentration of industries in the big market areas; in fact that it promoted integration which was directly contrary to the policy which those hon. gentlemen seek to expound in this House. The present effect of Railway rates can be summed up in the words of Mr. Rupert, an industrialist of some renown, when he said—

Of course it does, Sir. He went on to say, in effect—

Now, at last, the Minister appoints a committee to inquire into Railway rates and their effects on the decentralization of industry. Eventually he will do other things we suggest; eventually he will not only abolish or revise drastically the Railway Board; he will also set up a permanent rating commission, as we have been advocating for years. Let me get to a second example. Sir, as you know, we have pressed for many years for the elimination of uneconomic rates. Now this position, too, is to be investigated. I have for many moons pressed for a policy which I can sum up by saying “the Railways should do nothing for nothing”; that national policy services should be paid for out of the Consolidated Revenue Funds. The Minister has taken over that idea of ours. It is because we have forced them to change their policies, that the Railways now earn for their previously uneconomic services more of their fair share of revenue. The Railways have already had R8,000.000 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund from Bantu township Railway subsidies alone, as a result of following our advice. At one time the Minister did not think it was good business to ask for subsidies. If he will throw his mind back to the time of our most severe criticism of his policies, to 1958, on 6 August, he will remember that he said—

I asked—

Of course, I thought it was good business that they should be guaranteed by the Government. We persisted and now the Government play up to the Railways. Consider, Sir, the utilization of Railway and Harbour funds; consider the enormous over-supply and under-spending of loan funds; consider the handling of the Betterment Fund and the Renewals Fund; consider this Minister’s vast over-estimation of capital expenditure which has been as much as 25 per cent too high. One is inclined to ask whether this was deliberate. The Railways can now carry all the traffic that is offering. It seems to me that they could not possibly have needed all this money for which they asked, if they can now carry all the traffic and yet leave tens of millions of rand unspent. That makes me believe that something must be radically wrong with planning and estimation. Why do they ask for more than they need, knowing that they cannot use it even when they get it? If they had been able to spend it what more could they do than to enable the Railways to carry all the traffic that is offering? The excuses given by the Minister and the Management to the Railways and Harbours Select Committee admit the inefficiencies alleged by us over the past few years. Mr. Speaker, I told the Minister, in my opening remarks, the day he delivered his Budget speech, that his R8,000,000 surplus concealed a multitude of financial sins which we would uncover. We have uncovered them, Sir, in these debates. The Minister has now confessed those sins and he has promised to reform. He admits that our criticism has been correct. He says he is dissatisfied with the situation and he is taking steps to improve it. He says: “The hon. member must realize that financial control was only introduced a few years ago and that it is still being extended.” He said: “I trust we will not have a repetition this coming year.” The Minister referred to under-spending on capital and betterment works and said: “I fully agree that the position is unsatisfactory and I can assure the hon. member that attempts are being made to improve matters.” His Department also admits that inaccurate estimates in the past in regard to capital and betterment works, was due to the following causes, according to the latest report of the Controller and Auditor-General and Management’s reply to his strictures. I quote: “Works were started before detailed planning was complete….” This, of course, is no excuse. “Costs of works have been over-estimated” (by tens of millions of rand, I should point out). … “Financial control was then slack…. Progress reports of works were delayed and were then inaccurate….” The management have also confessed to their sins and promised to improve. They have said that “more extensive use will be made in future of equalization accounts to eliminate undue fluctuations in expenditure; that more detailed estimates will be prepared in respect of all schemes and works before they are included in capital and betterment estimates”. I think, Sir, that the sooner all these improvements are effected the sooner there will be more accurate estimating.

Mr. Speaker, I will come to my conclusion. Let me repeat: I said at the very outset of the debate that we would reveal the financial sins behind the façade of the R8,000,000 surplus. We have done so. The Minister has admitted that we have done so.

I have made no such admission.

The Minister has confessed his sins. I have only just read out three or four of the Minister’s admissions made during these debates. He has confessed his sins of omission and commission and he has promised to reform. But we cannot shrive him; we cannot give him absolution, Sir, without demanding that he do penance. The penance we set him is that he should climb down, swallow his pride and make a pilgrimage to Muizenberg. Get together with the railwaymen there and either find a solution to difficulties and differences or to try to arrange for the submission of the dispute which is causing us all such great anxiety, to the arbitration of a judicial commission. I suggest that this is the best and wisest course of action. I submit that the Minister would be well advised to follow the advice which we now give him from this side of the House. If he does so we will then let him depart in peace with the monetary supplies he asks for in this year’s Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I found it quite interesting to observe the reaction of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) up to the passages which I quoted during the Budget debate from his speeches of the past and pointed out that his prophecies had proved wrong time and again. I refer to his reaction in the latter portion of the speech which he made here this afternoon. He pointed out that they had been the Minister’s advisers, and that it was his criticism of the Minister in the past which was responsible for the fact that the hon. the Minister had improved the efficiency and the financial position of the Railways. But the hon. member must not think that the memory of hon. members in this House is so short, because it was only last year that he told the House that the Minister had grossly overestimated his revenue, and he predicted that our withdrawal from the Commonwealth would have disastrous effects upon the economy of South Africa. If the hon. the Minister had had to follow the advice which that hon. member gave him last year, he would have had to raise the tariffs so as to make up for the revenue that he was going to lose as the result of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth, according to the hon member. Then the hon. member goes on to say that hon. members on this side of the House have never made a positive contribution in this debate. I want to say to the hon. member in all modesty that at least my prophecies in regard to Railway finances have been much more accurate and correct than his. Two years ago the hon. member said that tariffs would have to be increased within a short space of time. I find that this is what I said in 1960 in the course of the Budget debate—

In that year the Railways produced a surplus. The following year the Railways again produced a surplus, not as the result of advice given to the hon. the Minister by the hon. member and by other hon. members on the other side, but as a result of the initiative and enterprise displayed by the Minister of Transport from the moment he became Minister of Transport in 1954.

It happened in spite of the advice of members of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Wynberg has moved an amendment in which he says that the Minister must meet the demands of the Artisans’ Staff Association before the Opposition will agree to the second reading of this Bill. Are we to infer from that the attitude of the United Party is that a wage increase must be given to only one section of the staff this year?

I said that their demands should be submitted to arbitration.

The position is that the staff does not consist of artisans only. The staff does not consist only of members of the Artisans’ Staff Association. They only number 22,000, or approximately one-fifth of the White staff of the Railways. Does the Opposition want the other section of the staff to be ignored?

Where did we say so?

I am asking the question.

Of course we do not want them to be ignored.

Let me be fair to the hon. member for Wynberg. I also put this question to him during the Committee Stage and his reply was that there should be a general wage increase. That was the hon. member’s reply, was it not? But now I want to ask him this: Has he considered the financial implications of his proposal that there should be a general wage increase for the staff? The hon. the Minister has told the House that if he meets the demand made by the Artisans’ Staff Association, it will cost the Railways approximately R2.7 million. The Minister has also stated that if he has to comply with the demands of the Artisans’ Staff Association he will also be obliged to grant an increase to the other staff groups in the Railway Service. And that is what the hon. member for Wynberg also wants us to do, as he said the other day in reply to a question of mine. But if these demands are to be met, it will cost the Railways, according to the calculations of the hon. the Minister, R16,000,000 to R20,000,000 per annum.

Do you know what their demands are?

The Minister has received their demands.

Then you admit that demands have been made?

Yes, I have never denied it. Nobody on this side has ever denied it.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I think hon. members over there should discontinue their debate now so that the hon. member may proceed with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, it must be remembered that any increase in salary is not given for one year only, of course; that expenditure recurs every year. Let us just look at the matter from this point of view. After all, we must accept that the Minister is responsible for the whole of the staff. The Minister cannot look after a section of the staff only, because just as the artisans have worked hard in the past few years to help the Railways to weather the storm, so every other member of the staff has worked hard and contributed his share to the success of the Railways. And because that is so, the Minister must consider the full financial implications before he decides on an increase. Let us assume that this R16,000,000, which the Minister believes is what it will cost to give this wage increase to the whole of the staff, is also to be added this year to the deficit, then it means that the Minister has to budget for a deficit of R18,000,000 to R19,000,000. If the Minister were to budget for such a large deficit I believe that it would be a precedent without parallel in the history of Railway Budgets in this country. In any event, in the past 23 years, since 1939, we have never budgeted for such a large deficit. The biggest deficit for which we budgeted was in 1953 when Minister Sauer budgeted for a deficit of R7,780,000, and at that time he was strenuously criticized by the Opposition, amongst others by the hon. member for Wynberg. Can you imagine, Sir, what criticism we would have had from the Opposition if the Minister had decided on a general wage increase, which might very well be the outcome of meeting the demands of the artisans, and if he budgeted for a deficit of R19,000,000? I can imagine the hon. member for Wynberg accusing the Minister then of applying poor business principles and telling the country what a financial mess the Minister has made of the Railways. [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) must not make his speech by way of interjections.

Everybody will accept the proposition that it is impossible for the Minister to budget for a deficit of R19,000,000 so as to be able to grant a general wage increase to the railwaymen. What is the other alternative? The other alternative is to raise tariffs. Are hon. members opposite in favour of that? No reply will be forthcoming from them now.

Oh, yes.

What is the reply?

You will hear it in a moment.

One does not need much imagination to picture what a hullabaloo would be raised by the Opposition if the Minister increased tariffs. Moreover, they would then have the fullest right to criticize the Minister, because everybody who knows anything about this matter will tell you that this is definitely not the appropriate time to raise tariffs, particularly at this stage when the Minister wants to have the question of tariffs investigated. Surely one does not raise tariffs at a time when one causes the tariff system to be investigated by a committee. At this stage therefore we can eliminate the idea of tariff increases. But where is the money to come from? The only other alternative is to effect savings on expenditure or to delete the appropriations which are made from this year’s surplus. Would the Opposition be prepared to say that provision should not be made for R8,000,000 to go to the Betterment Fund? Last year the hon. member for Wynberg stated that he felt most unhappy about the position of the Betterment Fund. One can imagine how unhappy he would have been if no contribution had been made to this Fund this year. It is simply impossible to delete the appropriation to the Betterment Fund, because this contribution to the Fund is essential in the first place to meet the needs of the Fund for this year. Is the appropriation of R599,800 to the Rates Equalization Fund to disappear? Surely the Opposition would not want that, because year after year they come forward with the plea that the Rates Equalization Fund must be built up into a strong fund. And that is right and neccessary because that fund ought to be built up to ensure stability of tariffs and also because to a certain extent it is a guarantee to the staff. Where is the money to come from then? Must there be a saving on the R6.6 million which is provided out of revenue account to the Higher Replacement Cost Account of the Renewals Fund? The hon. member for Wynberg stated last year that this Higher Replacement Cost Account was in an extremely unsatisfactory position. We can imagine what criticism there would have been if the Minister had not made this contribution. Are the contributions of R67,000 to the Pension Fund and R500,000 to the Fund for the elimination of railway crossings to be deleted? I am convinced that the Opposition would not put forward such a proposal. Let me put this specific question to the Opposition: Where is the money to come from to give a general wage increase to the staff, which the hon. member for Wynberg would like to see as he told me the other day in reply to a question? I say that if the Minister were to listen to the hon. member for Wynberg and comply with the demands of the artisans he would simply be forced, having made concessions to a section of the staff, to make concessions also to the rest of the staff.

Are you against any increase?

No, I am not against any increase. I believe that the staff is entitled to an increase, but where is the money to come from? That is why I want to know from the hon. member for Wynberg whether he has considered the financial implications of his proposal. No, he has not done so, because that is a matter which would cause him no concern. It is easier and it is popular to try to gain some political advantage by saying that the railwayman’s salary should be increased. He can do so because he is not responsible for seeing to it that increase is paid. I say that it is extremely irresponsible on the part of the Opposition to insist, for the sake of political advantage, on wage increases which they know very well cannot be granted because of financial considerations.

Let me say to hon. members on the other side that the railwayman thinks for himself and that he is always prepared to hear the other side of the story. The railwayman will realize therefore why it is impossible to grant him a wage increase and he will see through this transparent move on the part of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Wynberg has had a great deal to say about a possible strike on the part of the artisans. I do not want to say much in that regard. This matter is still under consideration. This is a matter on which a decision has been taken by only certain branches of the staff association of the artisans. Some of the other branches passed different resolutions. Last week I received a letter from an artisan in Salt River, not in my constituency, who also has his difficulties but who writes to me to say, inter alia—

I just want to say as far as a strike is concerned that I hope and trust that is the feeling which will prevail amongst the artisans in the long run, and as I know them I think that is how they will feel.

But since the Opposition is now trying to make political capital out of the demands of the artisans, I want to make use of this opportunity to warn the White Railway artisans very seriously against the United Party’s policy. I think few artisans realize the dangerous implications of the United Party’s policy in relation to White labour in the Railway service. During the 1960 session I put a question to the United Party with regard to this matter and the hon. member for Wynberg replied to it. I asked the United Party to whom the work should be given if work which was now being done in the workshops of the Railways could be done more cheaply by private industries; whether the Railways should continue to do this work or whether it should be given to private industry. The hon. member for Wynberg replied that they should all compete on an equal basis. His reply means one thing only and that is that if such work can be done more cheaply outside the Railways by private industries, it should be given to those industries. Many of those private industries, however, make use of non-White labour.

What do you do in connection with the building of houses?

We are not talking about that. Private industries are in a position to produce much more cheaply than the Railway workshops for the simple reason that their wage bill is considerably lower. And now let me say this. If the criterion is to be the lowest cost of production, as the hon. member for Wynberg suggested, the White artisan in the Railway Service will be in a very unsafe position. If such a policy were to be applied the White artisan in the Railway workshop would no longer have protection. That is the policy of the United Party, and this should be a very serious warning to the White Railway artisan. Sir, when I listen to the United Party trying to pose as the friend of the Railway artisan I think the time has come for the artisans to exclaim: Save us from our friends!

In the course of the Budget debate I stated that wage increases had been given to the artisans during the years 1951, 1955, 1956, 1958 and 1961. That statement was denied by hon. members on the other side—amongst others by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk)—and it was stated that was incorrect. At this stage therefore I want to mention the various wage increases which have been given. In 1951 the artisans received an increase when the wage per hour was raised from 3s. 6d. to 4s. ¼d. In 1955 a further wage increase was given when the rate was increased to 4s. 4¼d.

That was the last one.

Let the hon. member rather remain silent now and listen. In 1956 there was a partial consolidation and the hourly rate then went up to 4s. 10¼d., but the hon. member for Turffontein says that the last increase was given in 1955. In 1958 the non-pensionable allowance of R10 was granted to artisans. This year that allowance is being consolidated with basic salaries, and we are justified therefore in regarding this allowance as an increase of basic wages in 1958, but the hon. member for Turffontein says, that the last increase was in 1955. In 1961 there was a further consolidation of the cost-of-living allowance, and it took place in such a way that it also involved an increase in wages, with the result that increased pension contributions were paid without a reduction in the pay packet of the artisans. But the hon. member for Turffontein says that the artisans last received a wage increase in 1955. This year, in 1962, the non-pensionable allowance is again being consolidated in the same way, so that the resultant increased pension contributions are once again being given to the artisan in the form of increased wages. The Opposition would have us believe that the Government is doing nothing for the staff now that the Railways have weathered the storm. They suggest that the Government has not rewarded them in a tangible way for their sacrifices and for their hard work. That is simply not true. More than R16,000,000 was spent last year and is being spent this year to bring about the full consolidation of cost-of-living allowances. Hon. members must not try to create the impression that this is just something trivial to which the staff is entitled. It must be remembered that for some years past all the staff associations, including the Artisans’ Staff Association, had been urging upon the Minister to bring about consolidation, so much so that at one stage it was stated as the first, immediate and urgent matter to which the Minister should give his attention as soon as the finances of the Railways permitted. Effect has now been given to the wishes and the desires of the staff as expressed through their staff associations. This year the Minister has even been prepared to go so far out of his way to meet these wishes that he has brought about the consolidation of the non-pensionable allowance, without having the money for it, but he is, nevertheless, doing it by budgeting for a deficit of R2,750,000. As far as further wage demands are concerned at this stage—and this will also serve as a reply to the interjection made by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson)—I want to state clearly once again that the Minister and the Government are not unsympathetic in that regard. A good case could certainly be made out for these demands. We all admit that. The difficulty, however, is that at the moment the finances of the Railways do not permit of further increases at this stage, and the difference between hon. members on the other side and ourselves is simply that, while all of us want to give an increase to the staff, that side does not have to ask itself where the money is to come from to be able to do so, because the Minister is the person who is responsible for seeing to it that the money is there to meet these increases. The Minister’s policy that if any increase is to be given it must be a general increase for the whole of the staff is the right policy and no fault can be found with it. Or has the Opposition any fault to find with it? I hope that the hon. member who is going to speak after me—and I think it will be the hon. member for Turffontein— will tell this House unequivocally whether there should be a general wage increase for the whole of the staff and whether he thinks that we should only meet the demands of the artisans. Mr. Speaker, the whole of the staff will be waiting anxiously to hear the reply from that side of the House, because I am sure that the rest of the staff also want to know whether they are being forgotten entirely by the United Party. I want to say to those members of the staff that the Minister, who is a responsible person, will see to it that all the members of the staff are compensated for their hard work throughout the years to help the Railways to weather the storm, and I am convinced that, as and when the finances of the Railways permit, they will be rewarded for it. The National Party Government and the Minister have proved their sincerity in the past by thanking the staff in a tangible way and by rewarding them for the hard work done by them.

Mr. Speaker, I usually listen with a great deal of interest to the speeches on Railway matters made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg), but I do not think I can recall the hon. member ever having made a speech containing such mixed arguments as he presented to the House this afternoon in attempting to justify that there should be no increase of wages for railwaymen. The hon. member spent the first part of his speech arguing why it was impossible to give an increase and challenging us to say that the only way we see open to making an increase is by increasing tariffs. The second half of his speech he devoted entirely to showing what wonderful increases the Government had given to the Railway workers in past years. Let me ask the hon. member where the money came from in respect of the increases given to the workers then? Did the money come out of increased rates and tariffs? Now the hon. member is silent.

May I put a question to you?

I have listened patiently to the hon. member, and now that I want to reply to his speech he wants to put questions to me. Obviously he finds himself in difficulty. Where must the money come from? That is the big question he tried to pose. I will try to answer him. The other question he posed directly to this side of the House was: Do we request an increase only in respect of one section of the staff, or do we ask for an over-all review of the basic wages of all railwaymen? Let me make it quite clear to the hon. member, as was stated in the Budget debate, when we made plenty of observations and pleaded for a general review and consideration of the basic pay of railwaymen in general, and not only in respect of one section. When I asked the hon. member across the floor of the House what the railwaymen were asking for, he ran away from it. He said he would acknowledge that there was a case for an increase, but when I asked him what the railwaymen were working for he could not reply.

The Minister has replied to that.

The hon. member knows very well from letters he has had from his own constituents, the representatives of the artisans, asking for support for his own constituents, that they want a 5 per cent increase in their basic wages, and that is the general demand made by the Federal Consultative Committee to the Minister, and that is what the Artisan Staff Association are asking for. But the hon. member does not even have the courage in this House to say what his own constituents are asking for when he spends 40 minutes trying to support the Minister.

That is not true.

I think I can leave the hon. member there. I will reply to the few other points he made in the course of my remarks.

I think it should be realized that we know what we will get from the Minister in regard to this amendment we have moved. We are again going to hear from him: What are we trying to do? Looking to the interests of South Africa by inciting the Railway workers? That is the reply we will have. We will have at least 20 minutes of it from the Minister. The Minister smiles because he knows it is true. [Interjection.] I am anticipating it so that we can reply to it before the Minister delivers his reply. We in this House are to-day precisely in the same position that the artisans are in at their congress at Muizenberg, because we have before us in this debate precisely the same facts that they have. They are considering what action to take on the basis of statements made by the Minister, and what has the Minister said to us in the course of the Budget debate and the Committee Stage? The Minister has openly recognized —and I use his words—that every section of the railwaymen can make out a very good case for improved wages; that they have made out a good case on the merits. The Minister recognizes that the case the railwaymen put up for a 5 per cent increase in wages cannot be disputed. But what is his second point? In spite of the Minister being prepared to recognize the justness of the claims, he says that he will not make any concessions because he has not got the money. So irrespective of what these artisans may discuss, they know in advance that the Minister was emphatic and cannot go back on his standpoint adopted in this House without loss of ministerial dignity; he will not make concessions because he has not got the money. But when he said that he said something else. The Minister said that railwaymen should be satisfied and should not exploit their grievances at this time of national crisis, because since he assumed office he has given concessions to the railwaymen amounting to some R47,000,000, which is a recurrent expenditure, and includes the consolidation of C.O.L.A. That is what the railwaymen have before them now, as we have it before us. What else do we know? That the Minister has given us two quite contradictory figures as to what this will involve in additional expenditure if he grants a 5 per cent increase in basic wages. I want to ask the Minister across the floor of the House whether he is prepared to correct those figures, because he stated that the probable cost of an over-all 5 per cent increase in basic pay …

I never used the words “5 per cent”.

I am sorry, the Minister said that if these concessions are made to the staff, it will cost between R6,000,000 and R7,000,000.

I did not say that either.

Sir, I have before me the Minister’s Hansard. Does he want to dispute his own Hansard?

You had better read it out.

Let me make my own speech. I will read it, don’t worry. In the Committee Stage the Minister went further. Then this R6,000,000 or R7,000,000 had climbed to a figure of R16,000,000 or R20,000,000, because then the Minister said—

Here we have two conflicting figures, and the hon. the Minister can take it for granted that stands in his Hansard, of which I have a copy with his permission. Now it seemsclear to me that on the basis of the figures the Minister quoted in replying to the Budget debate and in the Committee Stage, he himself has no clear idea of what it will cost.

You are putting words into my mouth which I did not use.

We always hear the Minister saying that.

Read the part where I spoke about the R6,000,000 or R7,000,000 and what I said then.

Now he will not be able to find it.

Call Graaff to help him.

We have two conflicting figures. are no conflicting figures. Read out my Han-

There sard.

I will try to find it, but I can assure hon. members I have it here. We know these tactics of the Minister of making interjections across the floor of the House. I suggest that he look at his own Hansard. But then there is a fifth point, that the Minister has threatened the railwaymen that he will take action if they resort to any form of strike action. He threatened them with possible legislation and possible further action.

I have considered it necessary to summarize the views of the Minister because, as I have said, they are not only before us but they are also before the Artisans’ Staff Association in their discussions at the present time. But they are not only before the Artisans’ Staff Association, these views of the hon. the Minister are also before all railwaymen. Whatever decision they take now, they must take with a full knowledge of the views stated by the Minister in the Budget debate. Sir, if I were an artisan, having been refused recognition of my just rights to a 5 per cent increase in my basic pay, I would have to ask myself certain questions. How would I feel about the Minister’s attitude; what would be my reaction; how would I assess the Minister’s views? In the first instance as an artisan I do not have to prove that my living standards are declining because of the failure of the Minister to grant me this 5 per cent basic increase. I do not have to prove that my weekly pay packet buys less because the Minister has himself admitted it. He says that I as an artisan have made out a good case on the merits. Is it fair then that I as an artisan should continue to make sacrifices because of this Minister’s ineptitude and inability to put the railways in a sound financial position? The Minister has said that he has not got the money to pay for these increases. He says he always has to assess the financial position of the railways at the end of the financial year before he can make any concessions whatsoever. But the Minister has been telling me this story since 1958. He has appealed to my loyalty and to my good senses as a South African and he has asked me to make these sacrifices in order to help him to get the railways out of the financial mess in which they have landed through the Minister’s ineptitude and the policies applied by his own Government. He has appealed to me and my fellow-workers for help. But since the Minister made that appeal to the artisans in 1958 he has declared large surpluses, but my basic pay packet has not altered although that of the Minister has and that of his high officials and his Railway Commissioners. My weekly pay packet and that of my fellow-workers who helped to get the Railways out of the mess remain the same, and my standard of living and that of my family continues to decline. This attitude is adopted by the Minister in spite of the fact that I made these sacrifices to help the Minister out of his difficulties and in spite of the fact that in order to ensure my future as an artisan when I go on pension one day, I said to the Minister, “All right, I will forgo my rights; you can pay me my overtime and Sunday-time on my old rate of pay and not on the rate of pay which you have now given me by law for my normal working hours”. That is another sacrifice that I have had to make, and now the Minister says that he cannot increase our wages without a large increase in rates and tariffs. Is this true, Sir? The Minister challenged me personally on this matter when he replied to the Budget debate. There he said that I was anxious on behalf of this side of the House to disclaim any desire for an increase in rates and tariffs, and when I asked the Minister by way of interjection whether that was the only way, the Minister replied, “Yes, that is the only way”. To defend his standpoint and to obtain the support of the public in his fight against the railway workers, and to justify his refusal of their rightful demands, the Minister has continually raised this bogy, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) has just done again—this threat of an increase in rates and tariffs. The Minister’s record over the past five years, this record of political hokey-pokey of the worst degree, is reflected in this attitude adopted by the Minister in the views expressed by him in regard to the rates and tariffs. Sir, during the week-end I took the trouble to look up the Minister’s past statements and I read them at great length. I looked at all the past Budget statements made by this Minister. And what did I find? In 1956, for example, the Minister made a very significant statement in his Budget speech. I would ask the railway artisans in congress at the present time and indeed all the railway workers to take note of what the Minister said in 1956. Let me quote it in full; the Minister said this—

Let me remind the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) that if my memory serves me correctly the Minister budgeted at that time for a slight deficit as he is doing now. Sir, where did this surplus come from that the Minister declared in spite of the wage increases that he granted to the staff in that year? Where did the money come from to pay for the concessions that the railwaymen got in that year? Was it done by increasing rates and tariffs? No, let me give the answer in the Minister’s own words. He said this in his Budget speech—

In other words, that the increases could be given to the railwaymen because of the larger volume of business being done by the railways with resultant increased revenue. He therefore budgeted in that year on this estimate of tonnage that the railways would be hauling. On Wednesday of last week only we heard from the Minister that there was only one way to increase the wages of the railwaymen and that was to increase the rates and tariffs. Let me ask the Minister whether he did that in 1958 and in 1956. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) is silent now. He had a great deal to say just now.

But you do not expect replies.

Sir, when the railway artisans point out to the Minister that it is not necessary for an increase in wages to be coupled with a simultaneous increase in rates and tariffs, what is the Minister going to reply to them? They will refer him to the arguments that he advanced in the past. He has already stated in these debates that he is not prepared to grant those concessions. The Minister has said that in this year he expects a new peak of traffic, a new peak of 90,200,000 tons, an increase of over 2,000,000 tons over the previous year’s operation. That must result in very much increased revenue, because the tonnage in itself is nothing without the increased revenue. Sir, concessions to the staff in the past have always been based on these expectations of traffic that will be offering and traffic that the Administration expects to carry. Where has all the additional revenue come from in the past? Where have all these surpluses come from in the past? The R35,000,000 that the railwaymen have earned for the Minister in the past three years since 1958 has come out of only one source—out of the increased tonnages that the railwaymen have hauled for this Minister in order to get him out of his financial difficulties.

The Minister in these debates has taken great glory for himself. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) made a whole speech on this one occasion—the declining expenditure through greater efficiency in operating methods, the increased carrying capacity that we hear about and the reduction in staff. The Minister concluded by reminding the hon. member for Jeppe (Dr. Cronje) the other day that there had been a reduction of 2,000 in the number of White employees alone and of the curtailment of capital works programmes. Sir, if you expect an increased tonnage and a reduction in working expenditure, then you must anticipate a satisfactory surplus, and if the railwaymen have earned over R35,000,000 in surpluses in the past three years, then why cannot they get their just desserts, the 5 per cent increase for which they ask in basic wages, an improvement which would cost R7,000,000 or R8,000,000? Sir, that is the issue that the Artisans’ Staff Association is considering at its congress at Muizenberg. It is on the basis of that case that they have to decide what action they are going to take in order to see that they get their just desserts from the Minister. I want to go even further and say that if the Minister had granted this 5 per cent increase and he then found at the end of the year that there was a deficit of R5,000,000 or R6,000,000, then what is the Rates Equalization Fund there for, a Fund which now stands at R22,000,000 and which was specifically established for the purpose of taking care of and giving security to railway workers? That is what its purpose is. Is it wrong therefore for the railwaymen to say, “Look at the Rates Equalization Fund; look at the tonnages we are hauling; look how we are reducing our staff establishments and getting the last ounce of labour and sweat out of us. Why then cannot we get our 5 per cent increase? Look how we have helped you out of your financial difficulties in the past three or four years”? Is it wrong then for the railwaymen to consider the possibility of some strike action, as they are possibly doing at the present time?

And if next year there is a deficit?

That, as I have said, is the case that the railwaymen are now considering at their congress. The Minister says that he has not had the money in the past to meet such commitments. Where has the Minister found the money in the past to meet such increasing costs as depreciation charges on the additional assets that he has brought into operation? Where has the Minister found the money to meet the increased heavy interest charges on this R800,000,000 that he has poured into the Railways in the past six years? When the Minister found himself in difficulty in meeting interest on loan moneys or in meeting depreciation charges, he did not hesitate for a moment to increase rates and tariffs to cover that possible deficit. I have before me the Minister’s Budget speech of 1959. At page 90 he stated that the reason for the increase in rates and tariffs was that he had no alternative but to increase tariffs in order to meet the increased interest charges on loan moneys and depreciation charges. But when it comes to the interests of the railwaymen, when it comes to maintaining a standard of living for the men who make the wheels of the railways turn, then there is no question of the Minister coming forward and saying, “I am going to increase rates and tariffs because we have a duty to those men who keep the wheels of the railways turning. But when he finds himself in financial difficulty, when he finds that his revenue cannot meet these charges which result from his own policies and his own financial ineptitude in managing these matters on the railways, then he has not hesitation whatsoever in saying, “I am going to increase rates and tariffs on the railways in order to meet these charges. But when it comes to the interests of the workers, then we do not have that tune from the Minister. No, then he attempts to exploit the railway user, the public at large, by saying that the policy of the Opposition is to increase rates and tariffs in order that railwaymen can get their just desserts, in order to make a little bit of political propaganda.

Read out what the Minister said.

I do not want to go back into the distant past, like the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East), but if I have to do so, let me remind the railwaymen that in the last years of United Party rule, in the years 1946 and 1947 when surpluses were declared on the Railways, those surpluses were immediately handed over to the railway workers of this country. Sir, this Government cannot produce a record of that nature. But there still remains the one question to answer, the one question that is being considered now, and that is the right to strike.

What about the R6,000,000 or R7,000,000?

One cannot discuss matters of this nature in this House without expressing certain views on them. Let me put it this way: The Minister, not content with playing off the railway user against the railway worker by suggesting that their wages can only be increased by increasing rates and tariffs, now attempts the further line of intimidating the railwaymen. The Minister simply adopts the attitude, “I have said no to the railway-men of South Africa; you are employed on an essential service; if you strike I will act with all the authority at my demand to stop you from striking.” And what action does the Minister contemplate? Obviously he contemplates legislation to make any form of strike by railwaymen illegal. I want to ask the Minister whether he has ever threatened the railwaymen with such action? The Minister is very silent now. We know in advance what attitude the Minister is going to adopt as far as railwaymen’s organizations are concerned, because in 1958 when the Locomotive Engineers’ Association made certain requests to the Minister for certain concessions, the Minister had a lot to say to them. I want to quote to the House what the Minister said at a private meeting with the Locomotive Engineers’ Association when they met him to demand pay increases.

Let us hear about the R6,000,000 or R7,000,000.

Sir, this was the Minister’s language and this was the attitude that he adopted to this workers’ organization; he said—

Those are threats.

Yes, they are threats, but listen to this—

Sir, have you ever heard a more threatening attitude adopted by any Minister to any group of organized workers? Imagine the situation if an employer of labour in a big industry had to take such an attitude. I want to ask the Minister, because the railway workers and the Artisans’ Staff Association want to know whether this is going to be the attitude in talking to the Artisans’ Staff Association? Is he going to use the strong arm and say to them, “I sit in Parliament as Minister with a big horde of members behind me and I can pass any legislation I like”?

Read to us about the R6,000,000 or R7,000,000.

The Minister knows as he sits there that the Artisans’ Staff Association may be considering action of some sort. The Minister is gambling; he thinks that in the course of the Budget debate and in the subsequent discussion he successfully played off the railway user against the railwaymen and that the railway users have no sympathy now for the railwaymen, and he is now using the threat of legislation to make any strike action by railway men illegal. Sir, I am quite sure that the artisans are not going to call out all their men. I am sure that the Artisans’ Staff Association and their executives will act in a responsible manner. But is a go-slow strike or a work-to-the-manual strike, which will still allow the flow of essential foodstuffs and materials in the country, not a justifiable course for railway artisans to follow? They have followed that course in the past, and they have done it with some success under the Minister’s predecessor. If the railway workers decide on strike action—and they may decide on it quickly before the Minister can introduce his legislation in this House—is the Minister going to gaol 17,000 railway artisans or any other group of railway workers because they are working slowly? Is he going to sack them because they work slowly in order to get their just desserts? We are entitled on this side of the House to put these questions to the Minister because the railway user of South Africa is becoming concerned at the possible future developments in view of the attitude that the Minister adopts in regard to the difficulties being experienced by railwaymen at the present time and in regard to the demands that they are making upon him. Because the attitude of the Minister, as the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) has said, is completely unreasonable. He has made no effort whatsoever to come forward with any constructive proposals or with machinery for negotiations. He has made no effort to find some loophole to ease the situation of the railwaymen. We cannot supply those solutions on this side of the House, but at least we can suggest the machinery that the Minister should set up, instead of adopting this hard granite-like attitude which seems to be slightly reminiscent of the Prime Minister’s attitude, this attitude of “I have not got the money; claim what you like; there is nothing I can do about it, and if you do anything about it I am going to do something about it; after all, I am not my predecessor; I have the majority in this House and I can legislate as I like.” That is the threat and that is the entire attitude that the Minister adopts. If the railway artisans do decide on some drastic action, as the forerunner of a general demand made by other railway workers, I shall not be surprised if the action taken by them is viewed with a great deal of sympathy by the general public in view of the attitude adopted by the Minister.

The Minister has challenged me with regard to some figures. I repeat that I will produce from the Minister’s Hansard, as I got it from Hansard, the figures that I quoted. The Minister has often accused us on this side of the House of quoting false figures. I am now going to throw some back at the hon. the Minister in the time that is left to me. Sir, we have the Minister’s Budget statement in front of us.

Read about the R6,000,000 or R7,000,000.

We have the Minister’s Budget statement and we have the reply given by the Minister to some points made by the hon. member for Jeppes when discussing the index of productivity for the Railway Administration. This is the kind of thing that we are regaled with year after year, and I want to expose it now once and for all, I hope. You see, Sir, when the Minister makes his Budget speeches he is very fond of putting in these little records that he claims for the Railway Administration, and this year we have two beautiful examples. We have this wonderful record that the Minister claims in respect of increased tractive power at his disposal. The Minister quoted certain figures. As far as those figures are concerned, one has to find out in the first instance whether they are this year’s figures or last year’s figures. The figures which the Minister quoted in this year’s Budget speech were last year’s figures out of the General Manager’s report, as far as tractive power is concerned. But then the Minister goes further and gives us the second example. Let me quote his words—

Does the Minister stand by that figure? When you look at the General Manager’s report you find that the General Manager does not agree with the Minister at all. He reduces the Minister’s figure by no less than 900,000 tons. The General Manager says that the figure is 3,210,000 tons, and if the Minister has any doubt about it I would suggest that he should look at page 74 of the General Manager’s report. The Minister is not averse to adding a few odd millions to make the picture look a little better.

For what year is the General Manager’s report that you are quoting from?

I have the General Manager’s report for 1961.

1960-61.

Now what is the Minister quoting? You see, Sir, he is very cautious now because he knows that if he went one step further he would have fallen into the trap that I was attempting to lay for him. Now the Minister is silent. But let us take the Minister’s index of productivity—these wonderful figures produced by the Minister to show how efficient his Railway Administration has become. The hon. member for Jeppes discussed this matter with the hon. the Minister and this is what the Minister said—and I hope this is correct because I typed this out of the Minister’s Hansard—

I accept that is an error; it should be 75,000,000 tons,—

Does the Minister still stand by that figure? After all, he quoted it across the floor of the House. All he need do is to say, “it is absolutely correct; I stand by it.” Sir, that is typical of what we get from the Minister. The Minister thinks that these things slip through; that nobody is going to investigate what he had glibly thrown across the floor of the House, what the Press then picks up and reports, and then the Minister presents a beautiful picture of the Railway Administration outside, a picture to show how efficient he is, but when you look at the actual figures you find that the Minister is out by no less than 5,000 as far as the Railway staff is concerned. And when he produces his figures of efficiency, he does not mind at all adding a few noughts, adding another 5,000, because it makes the picture look better. “I have sacked 5,000 more.” I have the actual figures here and the reduction in fact was only 14,000-odd in this case, and if the Minister has any doubt about it he can go and look at the General Manager’s report. The whole issue in the debate—and I now challenge him across the floor of the House, for the benefit of the Railway workers in South Africa, to reply to this very pertinent question that I am now going to put to him on the basis of his own efficiency, on the basis of his own production. Sir, the Minister quotes 1957. I am going to use his own year. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) reminds me of the foreigner who went farming in the Karoo. He took a piglet and a pair of shears and tried to shear the pig. When his neighbour heard about it and asked him how the shearing was going, he said: “Oh, Mr. van der Merwe, much fuss but little wool.”

Will the hon. member allow me to rise on a point of explanation?

No. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) put the question to the hon. member for Turffontein whether he advocated a general increase in wages for railwaymen and he said yes. The hon. the Minister has pointed out that this would cost between R16,000,000 and R18,000,000. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) also asked the hon. member for Turffontein where that money, in terms of the budget before us, would come from. He replied to that very unsatisfactorily and I hope that the hon. member who follows him will succeed in showing us where we will get this money from, this R16,000,000 to R18,000,000. He asked: Where did the money come from in the past? That question is not relevant. The question which is relevant in regard to the budget before us is: Where will he find the money in this budget? The past is past, and money was found in the past, but where will the money come from to-day? I hope the next speaker opposite will succeed in indicating to us where they will get the money from to pay this extra amount.

I find it encouraging that there are in fact members of the Opposition who voiced constructive criticism in regard to the Railway budget, but it is disappointing that destructive criticism was also voiced, for example by the hon. member who spoke just before me (Mr. Durrant) and also the hon. member who preceded him (Mr. Russell). In their speeches they tried to sow suspicion and tried to make the Minister suspect in the eyes of the railwaymen. Whilst the artisans are making demands for higher wages and are trying to negotiate, those two hon. members tried to sow suspicion in the minds of the railway-men. I deplore it, particularly now at this time when our country is making great investments to safeguard our future and to protect our country. Fortunately the railwaymen know the Opposition. They also know the Government and they know what concessions were made in the past in respect of wages. The fact is, however, that the Opposition makes one fine promise after another, knowing that they will never come into power and be called upon to implement the irresponsible promises they make. The Opposition hopes that it will succeed in making the cost structure of the railways rise to such an extent, or to frighten the Minister into allowing the cost structure to rise to such an extent that splendid undertaking will come to a fall. We know that in any business undertaking wages constitute one of the biggest items. One can increase wages to such an extent that the business goes insolvent. There is a very great responsibility resting on the shoulders of the Minister. He must ensure that big investments are made so that the Railways will be able to function in future also, and he must ensure that he will be able to pay wages to the railwaymen not only to-day but also in future. I am convinced that the railwaymen will not be misled by the cheap political talk of the Opposition in this debate—the talk of people who are not interested in the welfare of the railwaymen.

The transport system is one of the most important matters in the economic development of any modern country. In South Africa, with its comparatively small population and its large areas, it is more difficult to keep pace with modern developments, and heavy demands are made on those who are at the head of this transport system. Steps have to be taken to keep pace with the most modem methods and techniques in transport. The geographic conditions in South Africa are comparatively unfavourable to fast transport, and that applies to the railways also. There are high mountain ranges and valleys and arid areas where there is a shortage of water, all of which are obstacles to faster transport. In spite of these obstacles, the railways in our country has developed into one of the most splendid undertakings, of which every true South African can be proud. It is gratifying that there is a nice surplus for the present financial year, but I want to say immediately that a surplus as such is not to my mind the only standard by which to test the success of any undertaking. I think the most important yardstick by which success should really be tested is the service rendered in the past year, what services the consumer obtained from the Railways. So many speakers on the Government side have dealt with this aspect that it is unnecessary for me to refer to it again, but I want to ascribe the splendid results achieved by the Railways also to the efficiency, the faithfulness and the devotion of every single one of the 214,000 railwaymen in our country. The success of the S.A. Railways must be measured by the extent to which they succeeded in rendering maximum services to the consumer at a minimum cost. I think it is particularly in this regard that the Minister can review with pride the year which is just past.

However, I want to deal briefly with the linking up of the S.A. Railways with the neighbouring states to the north of us, and in this regard I would like to deliver a plea to the Minister. We know that this matter has been discussed in this House before, but I would still like to say something about it. Political developments and newspaper reports have once again directed our attention to this important matter. The fact is that between the two most progressive countries in Africa, the Republic and the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland, there is only one railway connection, and it is one which runs through a comparatively arid area, viz. through the Protectorate from Mafeking to Bulawayo. If we have regard to the increasing trade between the two countries and of the demands made by modern transport, I can state without fear of contradiction that this one railway link will not comply with the demands made by modem transport. The Messina-Beit Bridge line was built as long ago as 1928 by the Union Government at the request of the Southern Rhodesian Government. It is important to note that the Southern Rhodesian Government undertook to guarantee any loss made on this line. It is therefore quite clear that as early as 1928 Southern Rhodesia already had in mind a second railway link with South Africa. The question then arises: Why such tardiness on the part of the Federation to effect this linkup to-day? I briefly want to sketch the circumstances. The Mafeking-Bulawayo line was built in the time of Cecil Rhodes and in the time of the Transvaal Republic, and that line was built in such a way that it would evade the Transvaal Republic, for obvious reasons. The line would then pass solely through British Territory and link up with the British Cape Province of the time, and all revenue from this line would consequently go to the British Cape Province and to Rhodesia. When Union was established in 1910, however, investigations were already made into an alternative route over the Limpopo. A suitable place was discovered in 1926 and two years later the Beit Bridge was completed by the Beit Trustees, a beautiful bridge of 1,550 feet in length. Then there was a distance of merely 105 miles between Beit Bridge and West Nicholson, which still had to be linked up in order to complete this alternative route.

In the meantime trade between Rhodesia and South Africa increased and tremendously increased demands were made of the Mafeking-Bulawayo line. Now the possibilities for expansion of that line were limited, due to the lack of water in the arid areas. The capacity of this Mafeking-Bulawayo line has become a burning question which is discussed on various occasions, due to its inability to transport all the traffic offering. I looked up the debates in the Rhodesian Hansard and, inter alia, found out that Members of Parliament there had said the following. Mr. Davenport, the Minister of Transport, inter alia, said this in the Rhodesian Hansard, Vol. 33—

In 1952 a certain Mr. Ballantyne introduced a motion in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament asking that the capacity of the Mafeking-Bulawayo line should be expanded. In the debate which ensued one of the hon. members, inter alia, said the following—

Referring to this line the Southern Rhodesian Minister of Transport said the following—

Furthermore, he said—

I can understand that the Federation wanted to have a link up with Lourenço Marques. That would bring them nearer to a port and it would take a railway line through an area of the country which urgently needed development. We cannot deny those people the right to build such a line. In fact, any country can build a line where it likes. But I want to point out that this line was built in spite of the fact that if West Nicholson had been linked up with Beit Bridge, there would also have been an alternative route to Lourenço Marques and it would have been three miles nearer Bulawayo than the line which was built. But this line to Lourenço Marques did not comply with one important need, namely to release appreciably the large and heavy transport of products between the Republic of South Africa and Rhodesia. That traffic still had to go over the Mafeking-Bulawayo line.

Why was there a heaping up of traffic on that line, and why was the line over Beit Bridge a burning question? The fact is that the line from Bulawayo to Vryburg belonged to the Rhodesian Railways until two years ago, when the Vryburg-Mafeking section was bought by our Government. In terms of an agreement, this whole line is run by the S.A. Railways and also in terms of that agreement the Rhodesian Railways would, inter alia, be responsible for the locomotives. In view of the fact that the Rhodesian Minister clearly stated at the time that he did not believe that the Mafeking-Bulawayo line could take all the traffic, what was done then? The S.A. Railways at that time stepped in and supplied its own locomotives, and then the needs could be catered for and there was a large increase in the traffic over this line, as I shall show in a moment. I in fact notice that in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament a gesture was made to the South African Government in this regard. The traffic over the Mafeking line to the north increased as follows. I indicate the tonnages in thousands as transported via Mafeking to the north: For the year ended 31 March 1943, it was 161,000 tons, in 1948 it was 221,000 tons, in 1949 it was already 391,000 tons, in 1950 it was 491,000, in 1951 it was 643,000 and in 1952 it was 704,000 tons. As the result of negotiations numerous bore-holes were sunk in Bechuanaland to improve the position in regard to this line. It was nevertheless still necessary in times of heavy traffic and in times of drought to transport water to strategic points, at the cost of ordinary traffic, to keep the service going. Another factor which made heavy demands on the Railways was the irregularity of large consignments which were offered for transport at certain periods. In 1952, for example, there were large consignments of timber which ordinarily were sent to Port Elizabeth via Beira, and that caused delays on that line. The possibility of replacing steam locomotives by diesels was also investigated, but it was found that it would be uneconomic, particularly because diesel fuel had to be imported, whereas both in Rhodesia and in South Africa there are large sources of coal available.

If one analyses the maximum tonnage of 704,000 tons which in 1952 was transported to the north by Mafeking, we find that 85,000 tons came from the coastal cities, 131,000 tons from ships touching at our ports, and 488,000 tons from the interior. In other words, only 19 per cent represented imports. If, however, we further analyse the total traffic in 1952, we find that 384,000 tons had its origin in the Cape and south of Mafeking, whilst 320,000 tons could more conveniently have been transported over the Beit Bridge line, which would have been 50 miles shorter if that link-up had been made. That would immediately have relieved the over-loaded Mafeking-Bulawayo line and it would have stimulated trade between South Africa and the Rhodesias. On 1 August 1955, the so-called Pafuri line was opened, and that brought some relief to the Mafeking-Bulawayo line, but because the latter would still mainly have to bear the imports from the Republic, traffic was still heavy on that line, as the following figures will show. I am giving the yearly tonnage of goods transported to the north via Mafeking to the nearest 1,000 tons, and firstly the total tonnages transported: In 1953 693,000 tons was transported, in 1954 640,000 tons, in 1955 669,000 tons, in 1956 654,000 tons, and so it goes up to 1960 when 605,000 tons were transported and in 1961 it was 606,000 tons. That shows a slight decrease, and the reason for the decrease was mainly because the traffic went from Lourenço Marques instead of from our ports when that line was opened.

Now I want to give the tonnages which in the corresponding years came from ports in the Republic: 265,000 tons in 1953, 119,000 tons in 1954, 156,000 tons in 1955, 139,000 tons in 1956, 76,000 tons in 1960 and 78,000 tons in 1961. That shows that the traffic from our ports decreased considerably in favour of Lourenço Marques, which is obvious, but if we look at the quantity of traffic going to the north via Mafeking and emanating from the Republic, we find that there was a small increase, and the figures are also reflected in terms of money and prove that our business with the Rhodesias increased. I want to give the annual tonnage transported to the north via Mafeking from stations other than the harbours in the Republic: In 1953 it was 428,000 tons, in 1954 521,000 tons, in 1955 512,000 tons, in 1956 514,000 tons, in 1960 529,000 tons, and in 1961 527,000 tons. That clearly shows that there was an increase in the amount of business emanating from the Republic, and that is also supported by the figures provided by customs and excise, and I want to mention the value of the goods, with the exception of currency imported into the Republic from the Federation, in rand: In 1948 it was R9,000,000, in 1952 R24,000,000, in 1955 R30,000,000, and in 1960 R29,000,000, a considerable increase of almost 400 per cent. As against that we have the exports from South Africa to the Federation. The value of South African products, excluding currency, exported to the Federation in rand to the nearest million rand is this: In 1948 it was R29,000,000, in 1952 R70,000,000, in 1955 R98,000,000, in 1956 R104,000,000, in 1959 R106,000,000, and in 1960 R105,000,000. That shows a considerable increase and it is in line with the increased traffic from the Republic, apart from the ports.

The conclusion to be drawn from these statistics is quite clear, namely that the Pafuri line really brought very little relief to the Mafeking-Bulawayo line and that the same problem in regard to railway transport between S.A. and Rhodesia still continues to a certain extent. According to the annual report of the S.A. Railways, it is also quite clear that water still remains a problem on the Mafeking-Bulawayo line. According to the report of the Rhodesian Railways for the year ended 30 June 1961, 365,000 tons were transport to Rhodesia from Lourenço Marques over the Pafuri line. That also shows that imports to Rhodesia are now made to a large extent from Lourenço Marques instead of from the South African ports and Beira, as was the case before. It also shows the importance of this line to the Federation. This line should in future be of great economic value to the Railways of the Federation, and a link up at Beit Bridge should not in peacetime appreciably affect traffic over this line.

The question then is what the attitude of business men is to the linking up of a second line with our northern neighbours? The question of the building of a line between Beit Bridge and West Nicholson was also discussed in Johannesburg in October 1952, at the 50th Congress of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and the following resolution was passed—

The same resolution also appeared on the agenda of the 31st Annual Congress of the Rhodesian Federated Chambers of Commerce held at Bulawayo in August 1953. Our former General Manager of Railways, Mr. du Plessis, and also the former General Manager of the Rhodesian Railways, attended that congress and there they submitted a joint statement in regard to Part A of this resolution. Thereafter Mr. du Plessis again explained what steps were taken by the S.A. Railways to increase the carrying capacity of the sections linking up at Mafeking, and what improvements had been made or were envisaged to the ports serving Rhodesia. The delegates were glad to learn of the co-operation between the two Railway Administrations, and consequently a motion was unanimously passed in which they associated themselves with the resolution of the Chambers of Commerce in Johannesburg in 1952, and the following statement was issued—

During the congress of the Associated Chambers of Commerce held in Cape Town in November 1961 the matter of the Beit Bridge line was again discussed. The General Manager of the Rhodesian Railways attended the congress, and according to Commercial Opinion he explained that the Mafeking line and the Louren9o Marques line were each making use of only about 50 per cent of their capacity and that there were no economic grounds for an additional line to Rhodesia, and that a third line should be built only when the other two lines had reached satiation point. In spite of that congress adopted a resolution which reads as follows—

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that business men, both of Rhodesia and of South Africa, have expressed themselves as being in favour of this line. According to Press reports, the Rhodesian Government would again consider the linking up of the Beit Bridge Line with Rutanga, 85 miles away, as a safety measure in regard to any possible unrest which might arise in adjoining territories and which might disrupt traffic between Salisbury and Bulawayo and the eastern ports. Whereas the old Beit Bridge connection would bring Johannesburg and Durban 50 miles nearer, this link with Rutanga would bring Salisbury, which is the largest industrial area in the Federation, 140 miles nearer to Johannesburg and Durban. According to the figures of the S.A. Railways, the Pretoria-Beit Bridge line could already, without any further capital expenditure, as early as 1952 transport an extra tonnage of 125,000 tons a month.

Finally, I should like to indicate the reasons why I think why the Beit Bridge line is essential and why the Federation cannot delay the link-up of this line any longer. In the first place, there is heavy road transport over Beit Bridge to the north, and the Federation is losing a considerable amount in railway tariffs. Secondly, with the expansion of the railway network of the Federation, the importance of the Mafeking-Bulawayo line has relatively decreased. In other words, a linkup at Beit Bridge will no longer have such a deleterious effect on the total network of the Rhodesian Railways as before. Thirdly, the capacity of the Mafeking-Bulawayo line remains uncertain, due to lack of water on that line. Fourthly, the improvement of the line between Johannesburg and Salisbury, respectively the largest industrial areas in the Republic and in Rhodesia, will bring those two centres 140 miles nearer to each other. Therefore this reduction of the distance by means of this line is very essential. In the fifth place, the delay in effecting this link-up is a great obstacle in the way particularly of commerce and industry and agricultural development, especially in the Federation. The commercial men of both countries welcome the Beit Bridge link. In the sixth place, the Federation cannot indefinitely delay the development of the southern portion of Southern Rhodesia. In the seventh place I want to say that political developments in Africa and in Southern Africa make it essential that the Federation should be more closely linked by rail with the Republic of South Africa. South Africa and the Federation are good neighbours. The relations between the two countries are steadily improving, and the good relations will undoubtedly be promoted by the Beit Bridge line.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I feel that this important matter can confidently be left in the hands of our efficient Minister of Transport. I just courteously want to request him to use his influence in order to have this linkup of the Beit Bridge line with the Rhodesian Railways made is soon as possible. Thank you.

I want to tell the hon. member who has just sat down that I agree with him to this extent: Firstly, we on this side of the House also give credit where credit is due to railwaymen. The railwaymen claim that they made sacrifices to meet the exigencies of the Administration and that the time has come when there should be some sort of compensation. We on this side of the House say that just claims should be met in a just way and it was for that reason that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) has suggested that the just way of trying to solve the problem would be the appointment of a judicial commission which could deal with the matter and give an impartial decision on the claims of the railwaymen. Such a commission would look at the matter in its correct perspective as to ability to pay as well as productivity in work. Secondly, of course, I agree with the hon. member where he says that it is “regrettable” that the second railway link with the Rhodesias and our harbours was lost to South Africa. This is hardly the occasion to go into the reasons for that, but the hon. member may realize that even more recently South Africa also lost the opportunity of providing a railway link to Swaziland.

We did not lose any opportunity.

The opportunity offered and it was lost. It went elsewhere.

It was not granted to us.

I am not saying that it was not granted. I am saying that it was lost. The opportunity was there …

What about 1948?

It was agreed before 1948.

It was not agreed to before 1948. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I have not got the details which the Minister has, but to tell the House that a line which goes as far as Gollel and cannot be taken further is not a lost opportunity is, I think, being somewhat fatuous.

I want to say this: This debate has gone to show that as far as the country’s transport system is concerned what is needed most at present is what I suggested during the Budget debate, namely, a fresh approach to the problems of the Railway Administration. I stressed in particular the need for a full-scale inquiry into the financial set-up of the Administration. The hon. the Minister well knows that sweeping changes are currently being introduced into the British transport system, particularly in regard to the British State-owned railway system. Legislation to deal with that is either on the point of being considered or has just been considered in the House of Commons. What they are aiming at there, is the removal of anachronisms so as to ensure that the railways can be adapted to modern circumstances and that they can pay their way as a business concern. The practical steps which are being taken there are to separate what is called “live debt” from the accumulated unproductive debt of past years. Another positive endeavour is to get away from what is called there the “abhorrence of subsidizing the Railways”. May I suggest that this Government take a leaf out of the British Railway book. Because here, firstly, because of the present rating system and, secondly, by building “guaranteed” lines, the subsidizing of the Railways appears to be on the increase. The recently introduced system of passenger lines “guaranteed” by the Treasury seems to make this subsidizing a permanent feature in Railway financing. Although that arrangement might well conform to the wording it certainly does not conform to the spirit of Section 130 of the South Africa Act. The arrangement of subsidizing by that means from the Treasury complicates an otherwise straightforward fiscal arrangement and it certainly involves special accounting details which have to be kept in order to put the subsidy arrangements into force. The hon. the Minister knows how long it has already taken to try to get any sort of finality in regard to the first of these lines which was built some years ago.

When making these preliminary remarks, I do so because the burden of my comments to-day relates to the unrealistic way in which budgetary and financial data are being presented to the House and to the public, in particular to the business section of the public. Last week this House and the country listened to the hon. the Minister giving what was in effect the equivalent of a board of directors’ report to shareholders at the annual meeting of a big business undertaking. In this case, of course, it is a big State-owned business undertaking which is still being committed by the management to vast capital commitments, and which over the past 14 years has been spending from borrowed capital funds at the average rate of R80,000,000 per annum. Yet throughout the whole of that report not one word was said, nor was one figure given, to justify or to explain that high capital commitment or that high capital spending. It is quite unthinkable, Sir, that anything like that could happen in any other sort of business enterprise. A budget is not merely an annual speculation of what the bookkeeping results for the year are going to be on current account, whether the results will show a deficit or a surplus. A budget after all, whether it relates to a private business or whether it relates to a public business, is supposed to be a balanced statement of spending for the year both on capital account, i.e. from borrowed funds, and on current account, i.e. from current revenues. In respect of the latter, i.e. the spending on current account, the House admittedly did hear something but in respect of the former, i.e. the spending on capital account, the House has not been told anything. The House therefore has to come to its own conclusions from the printed Estimates which are not easy to unravel and very difficult to understand. Yet this hon. Minister complains and says that he seldom gets any constructive financial or economic criticism from this side of the House. All I can say, Sir, is that if that is so the reason is obvious. This House in turn gets the minimum of helpful information from the Minister’s budget analysis for the year. It gets the minimum of information in regard to capital spending. I realize the Minister may say that in former years little or no information in regard to that side of the business was given. That may be so, but that is quite beside the point because circumstances have certainly changed. Thirty-nine years after the establishment of Union the Administration’s capital outlay stood at £254,000,000. Over the past 13 years this figure of capital outlay has been more than trebled and it now stands at well over £800,000,000. In other words, commitments and spending on capital account have become much more important factors in Railway economics and in Railway finance than was the case before. That, Sir, is the reason why criticism was directed from this side of the House at the Minister’s bad budgeting on capital account for two years in succession. The hon. the Minister has admitted that the criticism directed from this side of the House about the inbalance between the amounts provided by appropriation and the amounts put to useful purpose was justified. He has given us an assurance that adjustments will be made and that better control will be exercised in future. I hope that undertaking carries much more with it than the statement which is contained in the Auditor-General’s report where he quotes a letter from the Administration which merely talks about—

I do not know what that means precisely but I do accept the assurance of the hon. the Minister that better control will be exercised in future. I for one hope that he will succeed in doing that.

The hon. the Minister, just as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) this afternoon, tries to play politics on occasions such as this. Whenever financial criticism is offered on his budget by members on this side of the House the Minister invariably poses the question: Do you want to see a rise in tariffs? I think, Sir, that the boot is on the other foot. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he proposes to avoid a rise in tariffs in the light of the current financial administration. Let me explain that. Last week I mentioned the serious problem which was confronting the Administration in this regard. I gave figures in respect of the five years 1957 to 1961 and I showed that the Administration was once again in the position of getting diminishing returns on capital invested. I showed that the ratio of gross earnings to capital invested had dropped from 32.5 per cent to 27.3 per cent over that period. I referred to the General Manager’s report where he pointed out that purely on railway account earnings per R100 capital investment had dropped from R9.49 in 1960 to R6.51 in 1961. Let me just take the matter one stage further. During the three years 1948-50 there was a similar trend of diminishing returns on capital investment. The drop on that occasion was from 32.6 per cent to 29.7 per cent and the return on new capital invested over those three years represented 18 per cent. Immediately after that position had been reached there followed a general increase in tariffs in 1949-50 with further adjustments to rates in 1953-4 and in 1957-8. That brings me back to the comparable period, the three years from 1958-60. During those three years the return on new capital investments was only 14 per cent as against 18 per cent in the earlier period. Hence my suggestion to the hon. the Minister that the boot is now on the other foot and hence my question to him as to how he proposes to avoid a raise in tariffs in the future. There is a final matter relating to this unrealistic way in which financial information is presented to the House. I think the hon. the Minister was rather super-sensitive about the criticism from this side of the House in regard to his budget forecast which was R4,000,000 out. He was very supersensitive when I suggested that being 17 per cent out in almost as many days seemed a serious matter. I naturally appreciate the difficulty under ordinary circumstances of being 100 per cent correct in annual results. But in this case, the year had virtually ended and the Administration had available to it weekly returns …

They are quite unreliable.

The hon. the Minister says they are unreliable. I am glad to have that admission from him, but I ask why then does he have unreliable figures? These figures, Sir, are published. They are not published regularly but they are published for general information and the Minister now tells the House that they are unreliable. I am interested to hear the hon. the Minister make that admission. I personally think it is a valid admission and I think it is one which should necessarily be made. But that takes me one stage further. I want to deal with the monthly statements published by the Administration. I have before me the published monthly statement for the two months July and August 1961. The July statement was published in the Gazette of 24 November 1961. The August statement was published in the Gazette of 29 December 1961. In both cases practically four months after the event. Against that the Treasury is able to publish a much more comprehensive summary of exchequer receipts and issues much more regularly and much earlier. The summary of exchequer receipts and issues for November 1961 appeared in the Gazette of 15 December 1961. The Treasury was also able to publish a much more detailed analysis for November 1961 covering all the departments of State in regard to revenue and loan recoveries. That was published on 29 December 1961. Treasury is able to put before the public comprehensive information practically within a fortnight after the end of the month.

The hon. member knows that there is no comparison.

But I do not know that there is no comparison, Sir. The Minister may know more about it than I do. But I do know that if the figures published are to be of value, they must, firstly, be published regularly and, secondly, they must be published more expeditiously. There is nothing in the compilation of the figures I have before me that will justify their being four months late. If they are to be four months late then surely they are serving no purpose. There is a feeling, rightly or wrongly, that these figures are only published when they are favourable to the Administration and that they are not published when they are not favourable. That is a bad impression to create. [Interjections.] I agree with the hon. the Minister that it should not be so. But I do say that if we are not to make a travesty of our financial system in the country the Minister must seriously endeavour to get the Administration to do better than it has done in the past. As far as I am aware no monthly statement has been published since the August figure. I have referred to the Treasury statements because they are also published for general information. They give members of this House and the business community an opportunity of seeing within possibly a fortnight after the end of the month, what the trend of public business has been. If the Minister finds it impossible to publish his detailed statements earlier then I suggest that the matter be reviewed and revised so that reliable figures can be made available in regard to Railway accounting more expeditiously than has happened. Therefore when I tell the Minister that I accept his assurance that better control will be exercised in future in regard to the matters which have been criticized, I would also ask him to make quite sure, firstly, that not only more information but better information be given in his budgetry analysis on Railway account and, secondly, that the figures which are published in the Gazette should be published earlier and more regularly and not as spasmodically as they have been published in the past.

Mr. Speaker, there has been so little criticism by the Opposition of the Budget of the hon. the Minister of Transport that it is not necessary to criticize their criticism. Nor do I want to criticize now, but I just want to put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to the orders for electric locomotives placed with a private firm in the Transvaal for an amount of R16,000,000. I just want to know from the Minister whether our Railway workshops have not yet developed to such an extent that they can perhaps undertake that work themselves.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Artisan Staff Association has now come forward with demands has evidently resulted in this debate being completely dominated by the demands of the Artisan Staff Association. I do not want to say that these members of the staff do not have a case. Nor do I want to go into the matter now. This is perhaps not the right time for it, because I understand that the members of the Artisan Staff Association are holding a congress in Cape Town this week. We can only hope that something good will be born there. I just want to remind the artisans that whilst they now make demands they should bear in mind that they number only 22,000 and there are still another 98,000 railwaymen. To me it is not clear that the artisans have up to now made out a case why they should be privileged above the others. If they have a case then the other members of the staff can also argue that they can make out a case for higher wages and better conditions of service. But then, with a little imagination, one can ask oneself. What will the eventual result be and where must the money come from? The hon. the Minister has already dealt with this aspect of the matter, but I just want to add something to it. If the White staff of the Railways can make demands and they are to be acceded to, what is then the position of the 103,000 non-Whites who are also Railway servants? If the Whites make demands, why can the non-Whites not argue that they can also make demands? Then I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they want the Whites only to receive increases, if increases have to be made, or must these increases also be given to the non-Whites? It is significant, Mr. Speaker, that we did not hear one of the hon. members opposite talk about the position of the non-Whites on the Railways. The non-White is also a Railway servant, and if the Railways can afford to give benefits to them I see no reason why they cannot also claim such benefits. And that is what we can expect them to do. Hon. members opposite must tell us whether they will be satisfied if the non-Whites also make demands. and whether they have considered, if those demands have to be acceded to, what will eventually become of the Railways?

But I want to come back to the Artisan Staff Association. I think one can appeal to the artisans and the machine operator, for the sake of harmony and sound co-operation in the service, not to forget about the other staff associations when they make demands. I want to take hon. members back to 1924 when the Artisan Staff Association was established, and I want to quote the following—

In 1941 further effect was again given to it when the Federal Consultative Council of Staff Associations was established. Perhaps I should just quote something from this constitution. In Section 1, Aims and Objects, they say—

It is quite correct that they should protect their interests, but then they continue to say—

And, further—

I wish all staff associations in the Railways would be faithful to this self-imposed code of theirs, because then I foresee that all difficulties which might arise between the staff and the management can be solved without any ill-feeling. I think every railwayman has the right, when he feels that justice is not being done to him, to ask that his position be reviewed. That has always been the position in the past, and even to-day, but now one can go to any railwayman, no matter who he is or where he is, and if one were to ask him whether he would like to go back to conditions as they were 10 or 15 years ago, he would unhesitatingly say no, the reason being that to-day the railwayman is much better off than he was 10 or 12 years ago, and infinitely better off than he was under the United Party Government. What our friends the artisans and the machine operatives should not lose sight of, whilst they are now making demands, is that they are employed by the best employer in the country. There is no other employer who does for his employees what the South African Railways does for them. It is not necessary for me to enumerate all the advantages and privileges enjoyed by these workers, but one thing is certain, namely that every hon. member here who has railway workers in his constituency will agree that a private business would long ago have dismissed a worker who is no longer fit to work when the Railways would still keep him on, and when the Railways is compelled eventually to dismiss such a worker for health reasons, he is still cared for. Therefore I feel one is justified in appealing to the artisans to be reasonable in the demands they make. I do not want to say that their demands are unreasonable; I have not gone into the matter, but I want to repeat that if one section of workers has the right to make demands then the others also have that right.

There has been reference to strikes. I may perhaps refer to an article which appeared in the Sunday Times the week before last and which says—

Then Mr. Liebenberg continues to say in this interview—

One cannot warn seriously enough against a possible strike in the Railway Service. The Railways render essential services to the State and the artisans and the machine operatives occupy a very essential position in that essential service, and what do they gain by striking? In 1951 we had a go-slow strike, and thereafter the railwayman obtained certain benefits, but if the losses suffered by the Railways as the result of that go-slow strike are taken into consideration, one can justifiably ask oneself: What on earth was the good of that strike? I want to allege that even without that strike, and as the result of decent negotiation, such as can still take place to-day, the railwayman at that time would have received what he in fact received, but with this difference, that the Railways could then have been in a better financial position and could possibly have done more in the way of complying with their needs. Now, supposing they strike, who really suffers? Apart from the fact that the whole economic structure of the country can be disrupted by such a strike, it is the railwayman himself who will suffer most because during the period of the strike he will not have enough money to supply his own needs and those of his family. But the railwayman in South Africa enjoys a great degree of sympathy and respect from the public, and if they strike with the result that the country suffers harm, they will immediately lose the sympathy and the goodwill of the public. We have the right to ask the artisans to think twice before striking. There were times in the history of trade unionism in South Africa when a strike bore fruit, when something could be achieved by threatening to strike, and therefore it was successful. In the case of private undertakings where there was only a profit motive and where the worker was neglected, he had to defend himself. But we can say with gratitude to-day that the days when trade union leaders in South Africa were condemned to death are past, and if these things are true in regard to undertakings where one often has to do with unscrupulous employers, I believe the workers must take the necessary steps, but when one has to do with the South African Railways the position is quite different. Even the lowest-paid worker on our Railways is a shareholder in that undertaking. I have enough confidence in the artisans and their association, and in the machine operatives, to know that they will handle this matter properly. I hope you will allow me to read something that happened in my own constituency. A meeting was held last Monday and the report reads as follows—

I ask hon. members to note that 120 out of the 700 members attended the meeting. Nobody can tell me that those 700 members did not all know about the meeting. Therefore I want to agree with the Minister when he said the other day that he enjoys the confidence of the overwhelming majority of railwaymen. I want to go further. Here we have the proof that the Minister enjoys the confidence of the overwhelming majority of members of the Artisan Staff Association. I spoke to an artisan this morning and asked him whether he was dissatisfied, and he then showed me his pay sheet for last month which was R223, and then he asked me how on earth he dared be dissatisfied? That was not the man’s salary; it included 45 per cent bonus work. I asked him whether he could do more bonus work and he said yes, there are men who do 60 per cent and 70 per cent bonus work and he could also do more, but he did not want to because he did not want to ruin his health. This artisan earns this amount without ruining his health. I say one can justifiably appeal to the artisans to act wisely, because if I think of the position of the salaried staff, where there is no such thing as overtime except in exceptional cases, one feels that one can appeal to this association in co-operation with the other staff associations to solve this dispute which may have arisen, to the satisfaction of all railwaymen.

What was the attitude and the actions of hon. members opposite in this debate? The hon. the Minister called it a farce and expressed the hope that the time set aside for this debate would be reduced, and I agree with him. This debate has become a platform which lends itself to agitation.

Order! The hon. member should not use the word “agitation”.

Then I say that this debate has become a platform which lends itself to incitement.

What is the difference between “agitation” and “incitement”?

Sir, I think the one is not as serious as the other. Supposing I were to incite the United Party members, surely you would not blame me.

The hon. member should not use the word.

I just want to ask for your ruling, Sir. Is it permissible to say that certain speeches are nothing else but incitement of certain people outside to follow a certain line of conduct? Because I intend saying the same thing in my reply. [Laughter.]

This debate has become a platform to sow suspicion. Hon. members opposite are busy besmirching the mind of the innocent railwayman outside by their behaviour here. They are only rendering South Africa a disservice by carrying on in that way. Take the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). During the week-end I took the trouble to read his speeches in recent years, and I may be too stupid—possibly I am—but it is very difficult to find any difference in his speeches over the past five years. The only difference this year is that the hon. member did not dare to prophesy as wildly as he did in the past, because he has bumped his head too much already by doing that. [Interjections.] If the hon. member does not behave himself I will tell him other things in a moment. What did the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) do? Last week he attacked the Minister, just as he did last year, but when the Minister asked him what their solution is he ran away. Then a few days first had to pass so that he could collect his thoughts outside in order to come back again with the same old arguments. Then we listened to the hon. members for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) and Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). It is difficult to imagine more irresponsible language and behaviour in any Parliament in the world. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that I had attacked the artisans last year, but the attack I made was against the United Party because in 1948 they made misuse of the monthly periodical of the artisan to publish a political advertisement in it. But now the hon. member, as usual, is not here.

May I put a question? Were the artisans who voted in favour of that resolution in your constituency U.P. supporters or Nationalists?

I do not know what they are, United Party or Nationalists. I suppose people of both political shades were present at that meeting, but the fact I am emphasizing now is that there were only 120 out of 700 members at that meeting, and all 700 knew about it. Listen to the hon. member for Wynberg. It is really very difficult for him to rise above the mediocre. The basic difficulty of hon. members opposite is that very few of them have any knowledge of the railwayman. Take the hon. member for Wynberg, or the hon. member for Orange Grove.

I know 60 per cent of them.

60 per cent? Sir, I do not want to say the hon. member is lying, but I do not believe him. Where are the 60 per cent of his voters in Wynberg who are railwaymen?

But I represented Woodstock for many years.

Take the hon. member for Turffontein. What does he know about the railwaymen? Take the hon. member for Orange Grove. I think the only railwaymen with whom he comes into contact is when he travels on a train. But those are the people who want to prescribe to us and to tell the Minister how to treat a railwayman.

I will come and address a meeting in your constituency.

Very well, I will invite the hon. member to do so, but then he must again tell the railwaymen what he said this afternoon, that there is a difference of R9,000,000 between the Minister’s figures and those of the General Manager. Sir, you know, the Minister ought to take that R9,000,000 and use it to pay larger salaries to the railwaymen. [Laughter.] Which of those hon. members opposite deprecated the idea of a strike? They know as well as you and I what the consequences to South Africa will be if the railwaymen strike, and now I ask them: Which of them expressed disapproval of a possible strike here?

No, they encourage it.

I have a suspicion that they will not mind if there is a strike and if South Africa is harmed. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member should not take so much notice of interjections.

I think you are correct, Sir. The railwayman in South Africa is sick and tired of these honeyed words of the hon. members opposite, in view of the black record the United Party has.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Badenhorst) represents an important Railway constituency, but it is puzzling to see the steps he took to evade responsibility for the steps we are discussing, i.e, the difficulties of the Artisan Staff Association. The hon. member carefully avoided committing himself. He put out a few theoretical suggestions, and then he took the safer line of introducing the topic of non-White employees in the Railway Service, and he quoted the constitution of the Federal Consultative Committee. Sir, we prefer to face the facts. When we feel that State employees have a reasonably just claim, the question as to whether they are political supporters of ours or not does not enter into the matter. Our object is merely to see that State employees get a fair deal. When he criticized the bargaining powers of the individual associations, surely the fact that they are members of a much broader federal association on matters of general interest does not debar them as an association from taking separate action on a matter which particularly affects the members of their own association.

But I did not say that.

But you implied it. The Sunday Times quoted, when the hon. member dealt with Mr. Liebenberg’s statement, a perfectly straightforward and responsible statement in which he clearly put it, as their chairman, that he was not prepared to try to jockey the men into any decision, but would wait for the legitimate decision of the Congress now being held at Muizenberg. It seems to me that is a perfectly justifiable position to adopt. The headlines in to-night’s paper say that they are taking special steps to see that strike action is put at the head of the agenda, which shows the importance the Congress is attaching to this matter. Then the hon. member made great play of the fact that there were only 120 members present at a meeting at Uitenhage, which adopted this strike resolution. Surely that is a queer line of argument. The hon. member himself said that every member had been circularized and that only 120 turned up. I think the average man’s experience of these meetings is that it is the men who are in opposition who take great care to turn up, and the fact that the balance of the men did not turn up at that meeting simply implies their tacit agreement with the decision that was taken. If we accept the principle that when there is only a small proportion of the persons interested at a meeting, they should take no decisive resolution, what an effect that might well have on our legislation in this country. The hon. member has opened up a very interesting line of thought. I can remember many instances of most important legislation being agreed to in this House by a minority of a people who represented a minority of voters, but their decision is perfectly legal and binding, and it is the first time that I have ever heard that principle challenged by hon. members on the other side.

I want to come back to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) and to say at the outset that I fully support the principle as set out in that amendment. No one would dispute the fact that the Minister’s appeal about two years ago, when he asked the railwaymen to tighten their belts because the Railways were experiencing financial difficulties at that time, carried with it, whether it was intended or not, an implication that when the Administration had surmounted their difficulties, the fair and reasonable demands of the railway people concerned would be considered and dealt with. I think the Minister’s Budget statement shows that the Railway Administration has now reached that position and that the railway artisans staff have the right to come forward and say, “We have met you and now we want you to meet us.” The hon. the Minister in dealing with this matter in an earlier part of the debate compared the number of railway artisans with the much larger numbers of people in the Railway Staff Association as a whole, but I want to say that the railway artisans staff, although they may be relatively small in numbers, is one of the most important cogs in the vast network of Railway staff organization. If it had not been for their most efficient and speedy handling of the actual work necessary to keep the railway wheels turning, the Railways would come to a stop. I think of all the industrial undertakings in the Republic, our Railways—all four forms of transport controlled by the Railways—are more closely interwoven into the daily life of this country and of every person in it than any other industrial organization in the land. I think it is imperative, as the amendment states, that there should be no dislocation of its services, but it is equally important that there should be no threat or suspicion that such a dislocation could take place—and according to Press reports we are getting plenty of those ideas by implication at the moment. I think I am right in saying that this is the first time in the past 12 to 14 years that there has been any significant threat of a strike in regard to the running of the railway services of this country. It may very well be as the Minister suggests that the threat is being used as a more than usually powerful argument to back up wage demands; that might be the case. But if that is so, then the very fact that the staff have found it necessary to use that weapon at all, shows how serious the feeling underlying their demand must be. I want to quote a railway example to the Minister. When an axle-bearing on a train starts to run hot, it is usually a clear indication that something is happening to cause friction and to generate heat in that particular piece of the train’s organization that is affected. We must regard the question of the artisans staff in a similar light. They have shown that there is a cause of friction which must be remedied, and if we want to avoid an emergency stoppage we have to attend to it. South Africa at the present moment dare not face the possibility of any disruption of our transport services. I want to put to the hon. the Minister again the example of the hot-box. The Minister referred to the disparity between the numbers of the Artisans Staff Association and the total numbers represented by the other associations. Sir, there are a large number of axle-boxes on a train but one hot-box could stop the train even though all the others are in a perfect condition to function. It is just the same with a particular cog in the administrative machine. One dissatisfied staff section could disrupt the whole of the Railway Service, and that is a risk that we dare not face. I want to put that point to the Minister as a practical man. Numerically the artisans may be only a small proportion of the total staff of the Railways but it is not their numbers that we have to take into consideration but the relative importance of the work they undertake and the part they play in the overall task of keeping the railways in working order. I would like the hon. the Minister at this stage to realize that there is still time to take action; the matter is still under discussion by the staff organizations at their highest level, at their congress. I would say that the signals as yet are not red; at the moment they are only amber, and it is competent for the Minister to do all he can to divert them back to green. But it cannot be done by using the big-stick method; it must be done by negotiation. I would like most strongly to support the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Wynberg that if the Minister finds that he is unable to get what he thinks is a fair and reasonable solution to resolve the demands now before him, he should consider the proposal of appointing a Judicial Committee, as proposed by the hon. member for Wynberg. It has been used before and not only has it been used but it has been used with success. At a time like this I believe it is necessary that it should be used again.

I want to turn to another aspect of the Railway Administration, and that is the question of certain information which the Minister placed before us in the earlier stages of this debate with regard to the development, particularly of Cape Town Harbour, so as to cope with the growth in the tanker development. The Minister, in reply to questions that I put to him at an earlier debate, gave us an outline of the development work which it is proposed to put in hand immediately to provide for accommodation in the Cape Town Docks for oil tankers, which are expected to use the port when the new refinery comes into operation in about three years’ time. No one can minimize the importance to the Port of Cape Town and indeed the whole of the Cape, of the plans revealed by the Minister. I think it would be unfair for anyone to minimize or underestimate the difficulties confronting the Minister in holding the balancee between the conflicting factors that he has to face—time and cost on the one hand—and the necessity to foresee future development in Cape Town Docks on the other, and to make provision, as far as one reasonably can at the present time, to meet those future developments. They are two completely opposite factors and it would be unfair not to take into account the difficulties that they impose on the Minister in dealing with this dock development. I want to examine the Minister’s statement against this background because the Minister has told us that this will mean an expenditure from State funds for the development of the harbours, of something in the region of R4,000,000.

R8,000,000.

Thank you. With the best will in the world we cannot escape the conclusion, the more we examine these proposals, that the tanker development in the harbour, in the plan announced by the Minister, is based on more the expediency of the moment than on the future development of the port, and that it does not envisage sufficiently the already clearly evident demands for this particular type of trade, demands which are already materializing and will increase in the very near future. When you carefully examine it, it also does not appear that there has been a full appreciation of the inherent dangers of any oil tanker harbour, particularly when it is associated as closely as this one is with the commercial docks of the port. The new tanker harbour is designed to cater for ships already afloat and in service to-day, the 65,000-ton ships, but it fails to sufficiently take into account the very clear trend towards bigger ships for the future. It is proposed to deepen the Sturrock Dock entrance and the approaches to this new annexe to the basin as well as the new basin itself. It is proposed to deepen those approaches and to build the new tanker harbour berths near to the entrance to the dry-dock, near to the repair berth now being built alongside which vessels will refit and repair, either before or after dry-docking or without dry-docking at all. This deepening process is to accommodate ships of plus-minus 65,000 tons deep-load draught. Whilst we are considering these proposals, we already have some of the world’s leading tanker companies cancelling contracts for ships of 50,000 or more tons, ships that they are already building, and replacing them by vessels of plus-minus 100,000 tons, and that will be trend of tanker development for the future. Whilst we are contemplating building a dock at a cost in the region of R8,000,000 to cater for the ship for to-day, we are losing sight of the fact that already they are being outdated by the ships now on the stocks and being built for the future. Cape Town itself already handles tankers of 85,000 tons for dry-docking, although due to draught difficulties they have to be docked in light condition, and we cannot always expect to get ships in light condition either in case of emergency or certainly not under the new regime when the refinery is working. The Minister’s new plan envisages a new depth of water in the area required by the tankers, i.e. the entrance, the approach and the harbour itself, of plus-minus 45 ft. I think I am right in quoting that figure as the approximate depth envisaged. Sir, that is at least 5 ft. less than is necessary to deal with the bigger tankers which are already in evidence and in existence and travelling round the sea-lanes of the world. The plan for Cape Town Docks when dealing with the depth of water must also take into account the heavy range experienced in the Sturrock Basin, and although one hopes that the widening of the entrance is going to dampen down that range considerably and reduce it, there develops at present a surge there that can lift or drop a ship anything from 3 ft. to 4 ft. 6 in. as the water banks up or recedes. It is a factor which is not present in many other big ports but we have to take it into consideration here and allow a factor of safety for it when dealing with our own port because despite all the very keen experiments which have been carried out in testing proposals to remedy the range we cannot be certain that we are going to get rid of it. It is a natural occurrence which starts many miles away from this port and we are at the receiving end. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether his deepened draught of plus-minus 45 ft. is at low-water, spring-tide or is it at high-water.

Low-water.

Thank you. There is. of course, a difference of 4 feet 6 inches to 5 feet between the high and low-water mark. We don’t want to find after the new harbour development is complete that we will have what is really a tidal dock to which deep-laden tankers will only be able to move in and out at high tide or an hour or so before and after high tide, as you do in some of the ports of the world where they are based in river-mouths. That is not the type of port we want to envisage here when we go to this big expense.

That will not be the case.

The hon. the Minister says that will not be the case, but we are still dealing with a depth of water of plus-minus 45 feet and we are going to deal with ships which draw anything up to 50 feet. I still have to be convinced that we will not come up against that position in the future. There I want to say that the siting of the new tanker harbour scheme which is estimated to cost R8,000,000. in this basin, must cause a certain amount of concern. It is an outstanding principle attached to all tanker harbours practically throughout the world that whenever it is possible to remove them from a commercial dock area, that precaution is taken. Tankers on their own have certain inherent dangers which you cannot dissociate from the tanker trade; it is the nature of the cargo they carry; it is highly inflammable, under certain conditions highly explosive, and even the ship itself after the cargo has been removed is perhaps still more explosive than when she has the cargo on board due to the gas that is generated. And the ship will be in the basin after she is unloaded because they are now going to come to unload and probably take on a cargo from the refinery as well. Our new oil tanker base is to be established in a key position of a commercial port; it is situated right adjacent to the Sturrock dry-dock. The Sturrock dry-dock is not only the biggest of the Republic’s docks but it is one of the key features of the Republic’s strategic coastal defence system. It is a dock that was built for war purposes, and the evidence in the Estimates before us of the losses incurred on that dock, makes it quite clear that it remains part of our primary defence organization. Actually the new big wharf which is being built as a ship-repair base adjacent to the dock and as a leading-in wharf to the dry dock itself …

As a landing wharf.

… or as a landing wharf and a leading-in wharf for lining up the tankers going into the dry-dock. For whatever purpose it is used and one portion of this wharf looks as though it is going to form a portion of the area containing the new tanker dock. The new tanker berths are bound to be, in the event of any hostilities, which heaven forbid should develop but we have to keep an eye on them, one of the primary targets for hostile action. The basin is situated at the south-eastern end of the Sturrock basin, the main dock for all the major vessels using the Cape Town port, and for six months of the year the prevailing winds are south-east winds which move everything from that end of the basin in amongst the shipping towards what used to be the old south-arm end. Reliance is being placed, as far as the oil berth is concerned, on a floating boom across the entrance to prevent any oil seepage creeping out from that particular dock and contaminating the rest of the area and causing a fire hazard, but it is not only a question of leaking oil. Cape Town has been very lucky to date in that we have never experienced not even what I would call a minor fire; we have certainly never experienced—and again I say heaven forbid that we should— a major tanker disaster. Let us hope that position will continue. But we must take that risk into consideration and guard against it in any new tanker harbour to be built. This new harbour will now be established right in a key spot in the most strategic part of our docks and in a most important section of our commercial docks—a fire and explosion hazard which calls for the most careful consideration before the plan is finally accepted, even in the name of expediency. You see, Sir, an immobilized ship is one of the most helpless things that one had to deal with, one of the most potentially dangerous things that one has to deal with, and in this particular respect a tanker discharging or filling up is an immobilized ship. A ship under repair in the dry-dock itself or tied up alongside the adjacent quay is an immobilized ship. Any of the ships tied up alongside the quays in the Sturrock basin which is working cargo and which is not prepared for her engines to immediately take her to sea is an immobilized ship, and anyone of those ships would have to be dealt with by tugs in case of a disaster. One has only to see, once, the magnitude of a disaster that can take place as the result of a fire or a major explosion in an oil tanker—even a relatively small tanker—to realize not only the nature of the disaster but the tremendous effects of that disaster. A big tanker disaster in the proposed new harbour, sited where it is now intended to site it, cannot only destroy the whole of that part of the dock area but may well devastate a very large portion of the development on the foreshore itself; and knowingly we are going to create that risk by establishing the oil harbour in that particular soot. Sir, I do not pretend to know better than the Minister with the information he has at his disposal in this respect. I accept his word when he said the other day that this matter had had long and careful consideration, but I want to ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that these very important factors have been carefully considered in relation to the proposal to add a tanker dock in that particular position of the Sturrock dock. I want to ask him whether any outside experts, men with specially expert knowledge of oil port construction and their attendant needs and hazards, have been brought into the discussions in regard to the establishment of this oil port. If they have, what is their recommendation? Are they satisfied with what we are doing today, not on the ground of expediency, not on the ground that we have to have this oil port ready within the next three years, but on the ground that as a long-term development of this port—because once it is there it is there for good—it is the best position that could be found. You see, Sir, world practice is that wherever it is humanly possible an oil port such as this is completely divorced from the commercial port altogether. Geographically, if we could do so in this case, the oil port would be established somewhere over on the other side of Table Bay. There may be and probably are sound reasons why that cannot be done in this case, but I would like the hon. the Minister to give the House the assurance that these factors have been considered and that the Government is satisfied that they are justified in taking the risk inherent in the proposal now before the House. I also want to ask whether full consideration has been given to the danger of silting up, which is always a most serious feature in marine harbour construction, particularly underwater construction, when your deepening action is carried out by something in the nature of a trench-like job. In this case I take it that although it will be a very wide trench, the lead down from the main entrance into the Sturrock Basin to the entrance leading into this tanker harbour will be deepend out for a certain width out from the mole but that in the rest of the basin outside that area the rock bottom will not be dealt with, so that in effect you will have a gigantic sized trench cut down through the dock, deeper than the normal floor of the dock. Harbour experience has shown there that where you have not got the action of a river keeping that type of bottom clear, you run up against major problems of silting, and it is astounding what you sometimes find can drift into a silted-up area like that and the damage that it can cause to a ship when it sits down on such an obstruction. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that his plans for an oil dock in the area proposed are in general opposed to the general principle applied to this type of harbour in any major port of the world. One cannot escape the conclusion that despite repeated warnings the Administration here has been caught somewhat on the wrong foot by the sudden imminence of the need for this particular addition to the port in order to meet the requirements of the refinery which will come into operation in 1965 and will need these additional facilities for 65,000 ton tankers by that time. It does seem that in the harbour that we are going to build here now, we are building for what in the tanker world is already yesterday. Instead we should be building the harbour for to-morrow, and the to-morrow in the case is so much in evidence already, both in the size of ships already being built and already carrying their cargoes of oil around our own coast. I believe that second thoughts should be given to its size, even if the site has to remain unaltered—and I assume that will be the case—but even if the site is to remain unaltered, then I believe that we should take time by the forelock and provide our new oil harbour with a sufficient depth of water and with sufficient necessary facilities to deal with tankers likely to be met with in, say, the next 20 years, and not only to deal with ships already in use and which are already being outmoded and out-built by the bigger ships that are taking their place. Although the refinery itself may be depending at the moment on ships of 65,000 tons, they will have to follow the trend of the oil tanker policy of the world, and if it is more economical to carry oil in bigger cargoes they will have to follow that trend. We do not want to find in five or six or even in ten years’ time that what we have spent the money on to-day is already outdated when by facing up the situation now, even if it costs a few million rand more. Heaven only knows that this House is expert at spending millions of rand on things that do not really matter, we could in this particular instance spend them on something that is of vital importance to the whole industry of our country so as to make this into a major oil port which will be good at least for the next 20 years.

Hon. members opposite as well as hon. members on this side of the House have convinced me to such an extent during the course of this debate of the tremendous progress which the South African Railways have made and of the big role they have played in placing the economy of the Republic on a sound basis, that it saddens me to some extent to think that our forefathers did not follow a more progressive policy and show greater confidence in days gone by when representations were made to them over 50 years ago for better transport facilities in the north-western districts because had they done so the north-western districts would perhaps have been different from what they are to-day; in that case that area would perhaps also have shared in all the benefits which I have heard about here and which I have long since been aware; benefits which have had an even-out effect over the whole country. That is why I want to make a request to the hon. the Minister of Transport in this connection. Because the lack of an economic transport system is a problem with which the area concerned, an area of approximately 250 × 200 miles in the northern-most corner of the Cape Province, has been struggling for centuries, a problem which is assuming ever-increasing proportions, a problem which has a retarding and hampering influence over the development of the area something which has given rise to unrest in that area, we are asking the hon. the Minister of Transport, as the link between the Cabinet and the producer, to consider the desirability of taking over the transport services along the main routes and introducing an economic transport system along the main routes throughout the whole area. The take-over can take place gradually and in various stages with due regard to the most urgent requirements. By an economic system I mean a transport system which will be economic as far as the producer is concerned, impliedly economic to the State as well, that is it should ensure permanency, stability and confidence; it should create confidence on the part of the financier and the industrialist. It should be adapted to the long distance and the type of traffic which offers in the area concerned. In the present set-up it would be a very superficial approach merely to regard monetary gain as the only basis on which such a system can economically function successfully.

In order to present my case in its true perspective to hon. members, it is necessary for me to go back a little in history. I want to take you, Sir, to a point approximately 363 miles north of Cape Town and 91 miles east of the Atlantic Ocean, on a certain day, 29 October in the year 1685—and the person is Simon van der Stel—

From the waters which spurted forth as a result of these two explosions a need was born and a promise. The promise has been fulfilled to some extent in that two and threequarter centuries subsequently a variety of approximately 80 base metals were discovered in the north-western Cape Province, as well as precious stones which we call the diamond coast of the Cape Province, and which stretches along the entire coast from the mouth of the Olifants River up to the Orange River. Mining activities were started on such a scale in this area that the State coffers benefited considerably from it. When I give you a figure, Mr. Speaker, I am not doing so to cause a sensation; it is simply to state the merits of the case and in order to remove with one sweep the impression which may still exist in the country that the north-western area lives like a parasite on the State. Since 1948 up to 1958 those mines have contributed an annual amount of R8,000,000 to the State coffers. These are official figures. Further mines were opened subsequently but I leave it at that. I have no reason to believe that the position has changed since 1958; I rather have reason to believe that the amount has increased. In this connection I may add that the Minister of Finance of the time (Mr. Naude) said the following on one occasion: “Mines are a disappearing asset which belong to the people and they should be utilized for the benefit of the country by way of capital works, such as railways, for example.” These figures constitute valuable evidence and in view of that, I cannot but say that we have a valuable asset in the north west. Just as this promise has been fulfilled, the need has also grown, but in a negative sense. It has grown to such proportions that it is sowing discord amongst the people who live in that area; sowing discord amongst groups of people and it has played no small part in the removal of the former Member of Parliament from this House—I do not want to go into the pros and cons of that. However, it has sown discord and confusion in the area. I mention these things and I shall mention others, not because I am insisting on a railway line. I want to confine myself to the merits of the case, because otherwise you make no progress, Sir, and I want to get away immediately from the things which appear in the Press to-day. I think the Minister knows me as far as this matter is concerned and he will not pay any attention to those things. The promise which was held out had to remain unfulfilled for 168 years as a result of ineffective transport facilities but in 1853 a start was made with the development of the mines. The ore was conveyed by heavily laden ox wagons for a distance of 80 miles in a south-western direction to Hondeklip Bay along the West Coast. As a result of the very heavy demands that made on people and the hardships which accompanied it, that service was discontinued ten years later. But in 1858 the old Cape Parliament granted a concession for the construction of a private railway line from O’okiep to Hondeklip Bay. The contractors, however, preferred the route from Port Nolloth over Anenous to O’okiep and Concordia. During the course of construction the mine ceased to operate once or twice, also because of the poor prices which the ore fetched and the high transport costs. We find that towards the end of World War I representatives of the copper mine sent a deputation to ex-Minister Burton who asked for that line to be lengthened. Since then there have been no less than seven deputations over a period of approximately 50 years, to the authorities to ask for better transport facilities. They all asked for a railway line. But we also found that when the war had come to an end the price of copper ore had dropped and the mines had to close.

The matter was therefore something of the past. In 1925, the then Member of Parliament, Mr. Mostert led the only successful deputation to the Government and the railway line was lengthened from Klawer as far as Bitterfontein, not because it would be a profitable line, but it had to serve as a relief measure. As a result of a resolution passed by the Congress of the Cape Agricultural Union there was a deputation, the last one, in 1959, which asked for the railway line concerned to be extended to the copper mines, or to a point somewhere in the north west. These representations were laid before the Minister in 1959 but again the reply was negative. And this is where the story ends. However, time did not stand still and the Railways introduced a bus service from Bitterfontein to Springbok which was discontinued in 1930 because it did not pay. A private contractor took over with a one and a half ton lorry. Over a period of 25 years he has extended this service so that it showed a profit in 1951 of £30,000 and a profit of £55,000 in 1955. At that time he had heavy-vehicle licences for 57 vehicles which consisted of 45 seven to 20 tonners and an additional 12 five to ten tonners. A wonderful achievement. Simultaneously another transport contractor operated from Bitterfontein northwards to Pofadder and Kakamas. Between these two private contractors the entire transport system has developed in this huge area, but as far as the South African Railways were concerned, they ceased to function in 1930. Since then only private contractors have operated. Between 1939 and 1947 the Department of Mines constructed a road at a cost of R356,000 from Bitterfontein to the mines. A good road. I do not want to go into the question why the Department of Mines constructed the road. I do not have the time to go into that. In the meantime a bridge was also constructed at Vioolsdrift, and one is in the course of construction at Onseepkans. In 1958 a national road was proclaimed for which provision was made in last year’s estimates, but only a short stretch north of Springbok has been tarred. I trust I have given you a clear picture of the whole area, Sir, an area which is served in the west by one private contractor and in the east by another private contractor. Another private contractor, a farmer, also obtained a licence after a court action which cost £4,000 and his licence covered the same route from Pofadder to Kakamas. He too is making a wonderful contribution to the state coffers to-day and provides employment for approximately 300 people in the lower income group. I want to leave it at that because my time is limited and I wish briefly to give the reasons why I maintain that a take-over is desirable. There have been complaints about proper transport facilities for centuries and the experience has been that not at any stage has a private contractor been able to satisfy those complaints. On the contrary over the past 50 years the problem has become more real. Although it was not the intention, a transportation policy was followed within the limits of the South Africa Act which in practice isolated that area, when tested by economic standards. Thirdly, unlike the other mines in the interior, those mines are not linked with the coast by an economic transport service and consequently the primary producer has to depend on the primary contractor. I should like to read to you Sir, what the General Manager said in connection with private undertakings in this country. The subject was “Private Undertakings v. National Transport Services (i.e. the South African Railways)”. This was said at a lecture to a group of American businessmen in 1956—

If that applies in the case of the rest of the country, it applies in particular to the north west which is a very big area.

Private contractors are allowed to operate along the main routes in this huge area without any competition. And I maintain that they are in a much more favourable position than the bus services of the South African Railways. The hon. the Minister will confirm it, Sir, that on the same routes along which the South African Railways operate, the Road Transport Commission grants licences to private contractors but nobody has as yet been able to obtain a licence to operate on these specific routes along which these two private contractors operate. They have divided the area between the two of them and they operate there alone. Mr. Verburgh expresses himself as follows on this position, namely on this “imperfect competition”—

Mr. Speaker, the existing road motor services have to be replaced. It is generally known as a costly service. It is generally accepted that a bus service can only be economic for a limited distance both to the manufacturer and the producer. After that it consumes the product it transports. A bus cannot be adapted at all to the long distance transport which the Railways do. Prof. Locklin, professor of Economics at the Illinois University, said the following on this subject in his book “Economics of Transportation”—

An economic transportation system must be introduced in this area on the basic principles of the national transportation system, namely, the South African Railways, so that the transport service may be co-ordinated with the existing transport system and so that the area, as a harmonizing unit, will develop with the rest of the country and can share in the even-out benefits. In this connection I refer to Section 103 of the Constitution, read together with 104 and 105.

Mr. Speaker, where I have made this request and where I have stated the facts as I see them, I hope you will forgive me if I sketch in brief the route which I think should be investigated prior to the introduction of a service. Such an economic transport service should join Kakamas, Pofadder, Springbok, Port Nolloth for the following reasons: At the present moment this route carries by far the highest tonnage of traffic; secondly, it touches all the mines which operate at the moment; thirdly, it passes through that area in which most minerals have been discovered during recent years; fourthly, it will immediately open up the area so that the stock farmers of the north-west will be able to get away from the droughts if necessary. For the first time in his life he will be able to obtain stock feed cheaply. Furthermore, it will carry the visitor, the tourist, through the most beautiful garden which we have in our country. It is unnecessary for me to emphasize the value of the tourist traffic, we all know the figures. Fifthly, the direction which that line follows, if there are no insurmountable practical problems, will mean that the route will form a co-ordinated whole with the prospective Orange River developmental scheme. In addition it will be very close to the future possible cheap source of hydro-electric power. It will provide the area with a harbour which will enhance its status very considerably, and it will bring the hinterland, such as Upington and the entire Orange River scheme 700 miles nearer to the overseas markets where our surpluses will compete on an equal footing which may lead to our economic advantage.

I wish to go briefly into that and say that we should not lose sight of the economic aspect for one moment, because if we do we are wandering away from the merits of the case. Recently to an increasing extent, Government department after Government department has placed greater emphasis on the economic aspect, and rightly so. If we do not wish to go under we cannot neglect it. If it is the function of the State not to thwart the economic efforts of the farmer, it will be a sad day when the State refuses to do its share. There is a clearly defined division between the task of the State and the task of the public in the process of regional or national development. The task of the State is to lay the foundation. The people must build the prosperity of the country on that foundation. To the extent to, which the one refuses to do its share to that extent are the attempts of the other one foiled. This is no political matter. Government after government, although very sympathetic in this, respect, has consistently refused to do its share as far as this basic principle is concerned. For the past 50 years it has consistently refused to do its share. I am not saying this in a spirit of trying to be clever, but I am saying it because reason leads me to that conclusion. Every government has consistently refused to face up squarely to this basic principle and that has been the reason why the farmer has, been subjected to all the crises to which he has been. It is not only the farmer who has suffered as a result of that. Nor has the State derived the full benefits which it should otherwise have derived, but as I have already said the State must provide the basic needs, such as telephone services, research, information, water. The stock feed was there but the farmers could not reach it. That is why I say that the State should provide the basic requirements, otherwise the State cannot receive the full amount of its dividends. Although very sympathetic in this respect, we cannot get away from the fact that government after government has failed. I cannot explain it. In spite of what the hon. the Prime Minister said when he opened the station at Heidelberg, in spite of Prof. Lochlin’s attitude, in spite of the General Manager’s attitude, in spite of all the economic concepts which exist in the world to-day, the State and government after government, have ignored this basic fact and I want to say this: Unfortunately we are short of capital to-day but the north-west is not small, the people there are not really a group of troublesome people; the struggle has tempered them, a struggle which—unfortunately I have to say this—has become a struggle for life in the north-west. They should be classed under the nobility of the population. That is why I regard it as a privilege to be able to state the case of those people and it is an honour to entrust it to the present Minister of Transport, knowing that he is a man who has tasted success in life, but who, at one time in his life, has also been through the mill.

On the conclusion of the period of four hours allotted for the second reading of the Bill the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 105.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the differences with a section of the staff, hon. members of the Opposition who have spoken have advanced no new arguments. It was merely a tedious repetition of all the arguments that they advanced in their speeches during the Budget debate and in the Committee Stage, and I am not prepared to follow their example. I am not prepared to repeat the arguments that I used, and I am not prepared to repeat the reply that I gave to hon. members at previous stages of the debate. The only new thing that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) advanced was the appointment of a judicial commission. That is nothing new. The hon. member only need read Section 28 of Act 22 of 1960 to see what provision has been made for the appointment of a commission. So that was no bright idea that the hon. member advanced. What I can say, however, is that it is deplorable of the Opposition to try and make political capital out of grievances of a section of the staff. These hon. gentlemen have done nothing else but to encourage a section of the staff to take matters into their own hands, and there is nothing that will please them so much as to see a section of the staff embark upon strike action.

That is not true.

They are supposed to be responsible members, but they have no sense of responsibility at all. They are not concerned about the welfare of the Railways or the welfare of the country. Not one condemnatory word of strike action came from those hon. members. They have done everything in their power during this debate to encourage the section of the staff to take matters into their own hands. They are supposed to be responsible members! And then they have the impudence to talk about constructive criticism. There was nothing of the kind. All that they are concerned about is destructive criticism, to do as much damage as they possibly can in the hope of gaining some petty political advantage. That has been their whole attitude.

It is not worthy of you!

Let me tell the hon. members this: They are not doing the railwaymen any service by their attitude, and the railwaymen will certainly not thank them for this exhibition they have given during this debate and during the past few days. If they expect to receive any gratitude from the artisans, they are making a very big mistake. They are actually rendering the railwayman a disservice by this type of agitation. What they are actually doing is: They are undermining the prestige and authority of the staff organizations. I have warned them about this before. Dragging staff matters like this, when they are in the hands of staff organizations, on to the floor of the House and making it a political football to be kicked about from one side of the House to the other, is rendering a disservice to the staff organizations. They are undermining their prestige and their authority, and not one staff organization will ever thank them for this kind of conduct in this House. I don’t think anyone of those honourable gentlemen can say without any fear of contradiction that they have ever received any gratitude from any staff organization for this type of agitation for better wages and better working conditions.

They know what you did to them.

They are afraid of political intimidation.

I can only say that I have had excellent relations with the staff for the last seven and a half years and those good relations will continue in future.

For the rest the hon. member for Wynberg said that everything that has been accomplished during the past years, has been entirely due to the Opposition. In reply to that I can only say that when an Opposition takes credit for the good deeds of the Government, it shows nothing else but political bankruptcy.

As far as the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is concerned, I want to deal with only two matters, to show what value can be attached to his speeches in this House. It will be an illustration of how much reliance can be placed on anything that hon. member says in this House. The hon. member stated that I said at one stage in one speech that it would cost R6,000,000 to R7,000,000 if I had to grant a 5 per cent increase to the whole of the staff.

I did not say 5 per cent.

I challenged the hon. member on that and he said he was prepared to read my Hansard report, but he never did so. The hon. member said that I said in one speech that if I gave 5 per cent increase to the whole of the staff, it would cost R6,000,000 to R7,000,000 and that in another speech it would cost R16,000,000 to R17,000,000.

I said “concessions”.

Very well, concessions. According to the hon. member I said in one speech that if I made these concessions, in other words if I acceded to the demands of the whole of the staff, it would cost R6,000,000 to R7,000,000 and in another speech I said it would cost R16,000,000 to R17,000,000. Now what are the facts? I said—

That is perfectly clear. I said that I had to consider whether I could give concessions to the amount of R2.7 million and consolidate, which would cost R6,000,000 or R7,000,000. That was my first speech. Now in regard to my speech in which I mentioned R16,000,000 and R17,000,000, I said—

In other words, it shows that hon. member told a deliberate untruth to this House.

On a point of order …

I withdraw the word “deliberate”, Mr. Speaker. He told an untruth in this House, and he was challenged time and time again to read my Hansard report, but he refused to do so, because he knew it was an untruth.

Order! The hon. Minister cannot say that he knew that it was an untruth.

Sir, I withdraw that he knew it. He probably told an untruth without knowing that it was an untruth. The second example I want to quote is the following. The hon. member referred to my Budget speech where I said that the carrying capacity of goods wagons had increased to 3.299 million tons in comparison with 2.869 million tons five years ago. He said “Look at the Minister’s figures; the General Manager in his report only spoke about an increase to 3,290,000 tons.” Now this is how the hon. member misled the House. The General Manager’s report said that on 31 March 1960, the average carrying capacity advanced by 66,000 tons (in round figures), that is from 3,220,000 tons to 3,290,000 tons. At the end of March 1960 (the General Managers’ figures). I said in my Budget speech—

I want to conclude by saying that there is an old saying that figures can’t lie, but liars can figure. I leave it at that.

*The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Niemand) spoke about the link between Beit Bridge and West Nicholson and he also referred to a link at another point with the line to Lourenco Marques. In reply I merely want to say that I personally am very anxious to have that link, but that is a matter which rests entirely in the hands of the Federation, and their reply is that it will be uneconomic for them. I have pressed the matter as far as possible over the years and I was even prepared to make many concessions, but up to the present in any case the Federation has not been prepared to do it and I cannot force them to do it, no matter how much I should like to do so.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) has told me that he could unfortunately not be here this evening but I wish to reply briefly to the points raised by him. He said that there should be a new approach to railway tariffs and he suggested that the entire financial structure should be investigated. He made out a good case.

Mr. Speaker, my attention has been drawn to the fact that the term I used before the adjournment, viz. that figures cannot lie but that liars can figure, is unparliamentary. That being so, I withdraw it.

At the time when the adjournment intervened, Sir, I was replying to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and I said that he had not made out a case for the appointment of a commission of inquiry to inquire into the financial set-up and financial control of the South African Railways. In this connection I want to say that three years ago I sent a mission overseas to inquire into the financial set-up and control of different railway undertakings. This mission submitted a comprehensive report and made a number of recommendations. These recommendations are now being implemented. Some of these required, for their implementation, the introduction of electronic computors. Of these computers some have already been introduced, while some are still on order and will be delivered in the course of this year.

The hon. member only mentioned one or two reasons in favour of the appointment of such a commission of inquiry. He stated that not one word was said to justify high capital expenditure and that the House got very little, if any, information in regard to capital expenditure. My reply to this is, Sir, that there are some 1,400 items in the Brown Book; and it will, of course be an impossible task to justify the expenditure on each of those items in my Budget speech in regard to the building of new lines, as hon. members know, Bills have to be introduced into this House and when this is done, a full explanation is given of the reason for each. As regards the other items in the Brown Book, I want to say that hon. members have any number of opportunities of asking the reasons for the expenditure involved in each of them when the House is in Committee of Supply. The House has, therefore, an opportunity of discussing all the items and I cannot, for the life of me, see why it will be necessary for me to give justification for each of the 1,400 items in my Budget speech. That is not a reason for setting up a commission of inquiry to inquire into the financial set-up of the Railways.

The hon. member also spoke of the diminishing returns on capital expenditure. One of the main reasons for that is that the Railway Administration is in this unfortunate position that it has to increase the carrying capacity of its lines mainly to carry low-rated traffic. The 17 per cent of the total tonnage accounted for by high-rated traffic, presents no difficulties at all. But the 83 per cent accounted for by low-rated traffic causes congestion on the lines. Consequently, capital has to be expended to improve the carrying capacity of the Railways mainly for the purpose of carrying low-rated traffic on which there is very little, if any, return. This is also the reason why there are diminishing returns on capital expenditure. The hon. member also wanted to know how I proposed avoiding an increase in tariffs. I cannot give any assurance to this House to-night that there will not be such an increase in tariffs in future. As a matter of fact, I do not think there is one transport undertaking in the country which over a period of four or five years of continual rising expenditure, has not increased its charges. I think the Railway Administration is an exception. It is quite possible—I do not say it is probable, but it is quite possible—that an increase in tariffs will have to take place in future. That will, of course, depend upon the economic development of the country and upon the volume of traffic offering. If this does not come up to expectations an increase in tariffs will be inevitable.

Does an increase in tariffs not depend upon your transport decentralizing industries?

No, not necessarily. It is also possible that the inquiry which is being instituted into the entire rating system of the Railways, might result in a different rating system altogether; it might result in uneconomic tariffs being abolished; and it might result in a closing of the gap between low- and high-rated traffic. I am, however, not in a position to anticipate the recommendations of that commission but that is a probability and if this probability eventuates, it might not be necesssary to have a general increase in rates and tariffs.

What about the principle of what the traffic can bear?

That is considered in conjunction with the actual cost of conveying that traffic. Rating is not, at the moment, based exclusively on what the traffic can bear, but upon what the traffic can bear combined with the actual cost of conveying that traffic. As substantiation for the appointment of a commission, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) raised the question of the late publication of monthly statements. My reply to that is that the delay in publishing the monthly results of working in the Government Gazette has already been taken up with the Government Printer, because it seems that he is holding this work over pending suitable space becoming available. The Chief Accountant has already made representations to him. Regarding the figures published by the Treasury and apart from the delay to which I have just referred, I want to point out that they are based on cash figures which are much quicker and easier to determine than is the case with those of the Administration which are based on the liability principle—in other words, the Administration’s accounts provide for the transactions being accounted for, as far as possible, in the month in which they take place and not when payment takes place. This is a proper commercial procedure and as far as possible relates revenue and expenditure. In order to achieve this, the finalizing of the accounts is left until the 25th of the following month so that all accounts can be brought into account.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) stated that the plans for the development of Cape Town harbour were based on expediency. He further stated that the siting entailed a danger to shipping and that we did not look far enough into the future because we were only making provision for oil tankers of a gross tonnage of up to 65,000. My reply to this is that it is the intention to dredge up to a depth of 46 feet and 49 feet at neap tide. A ship of a tonnage of 65,000 requires a loaded draught of 41 feet, 80,000 45 feet and 100,000 47 feet. The width of the entrance is 600 feet and when it does become necessary to make provision for tankers over 65,000 tons, all that will be required will be to dredge the harbour to at least 50 feet. That can be done. The width of the dock is sufficient to allow any tanker of over 65,000 tons to enter into the dock. It will, however, be quite uneconomic to dredge to that depth. I do not think that tankers of 65,000 tons and less will ever become redundant. They will still be used. The Administration has, however, to see that its outlay of capital is economical.

Will the draught of water in the new area also be to the same depth?

Yes. To make provision for tankers of 65,000 tons only for the foreseeable future will be quite sufficient. When it does become necessary to dredge to a deeper depth, that can be done in future. The Moffat Commission went into the question of any possible danger to other shipping and it was found that there would be very little, if any, danger to other shipping if a fire was to break out on a tanker in the new dock. The alternative will be to build an oil dock away from Cape Town harbour but that is not feasible apart from the expenditure that will involve. So after a full inquiry, and after considering a number of suggestions, it was decided to build the dock according to the plans which were recently published in the newspapers.

*The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. G. P. Kotze) spoke about the Railway Administration taking over the transport services from private contractors. The Administration has no say over that. If the Administration decided to take over these services it would first of all have to apply to the National Transport Commission for the necessary certificates and it is very doubtful whether the Transport Commission would grant such certificates, particularly in view of the fact that by doing so the Administration would be competing directly against those private transport services. Thus even if the Administration wished to take over such services, it would not be able to do so in view of the fact that private services enjoy the necessary protection. As far as the provision of other transport services is concerned, as for example the provision of a railway line, I have already told other hon. members that was a matter which will be considered in the future as soon as there has been such development that such a line will not be run at a considerable loss. If there is further development in the area to which the hon. member has referred the necessary railway line will be built. At the moment I may tell him that according to the information at our disposal it will be quite uneconomic to build such a railway line. I am afraid therefore that the farmers and the other people of that area will have to continue to use the road transport services for some time. If there are any routes along which road transport services have to be introduced and where no private transport services operate the Administration will favourably consider providing such a service. As I have already said it will be impossible at this stage to obtain a certificate from the National Transport Commission to take over the services which are to-day being provided by private contractors.

Was expert advice obtained in respect of the decision to construct the new harbour?

No. No outsider was consulted. The plans were drawn up by Railway engineers.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—75: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruy-wagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—35: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Russell, J. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Questions affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move that Clause 28 be deleted. This is an entirely new section which is being added to the principal Act and deals with regulations in respect of consultative and management committees.

The hon. member can vote against the clause, but cannot move its deletion. He can state his objections to the clause.

That is what I want to do, Mr. Chairman. This clause entitles the hon. Minister to establish or disestablish both consultative and management committees by way of regulation. In the proposed Section 43bis it is provided in paragraphs (a) and (j) that the Minister may make regulations as to the manner in which any consultative or management committee is to be constituted, and as to any matter relating to or arising from the disestablishment of any such committee. The hon. Minister can, therefore, under this clause either establish or disestablish management or consultative committees.

Order! The establishment of management or consultative committees was approved of in Clause 22. Clause 28 deals only with the constitution of these committees and not their establishment.

Sir, this clause empowers the hon. Minister to establish these committees which have been approved under Clause 22. I, therefore, should like to speak to this clause and on the principle of establishing or disestablishing management or consultative committees.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself strictly to the constitution of these committees.

That is my intention, Sir. In constituting these committees this clause and the one previously adopted, carefully avoid the necessity of having consultation with the local authority and although the hon. Minister has indicated that there will be some form of consultation, I put it to him that it is most important that he incorporates in this clause the rights of an existing local authority to be consulted before establishing these committees. You see, Sir, the Minister when he makes these regulations, will act without consulting Parliament. You will also see, if you look at paragraphs (e) and (g) that it will also not be necessary for him to consult the administrator of the province concerned. Although in paragraph (f) it is stated that administrators will do the work, there is no provision anywhere for them to be consulted. So the hon. Minister can act purely and simply by regulation. Coming to local authorities, I find that the hon. Minister need not consult them either. In this connection, I should like to point out to the hon. Minister that the conditions in those local authorities from whose areas he is going to excise areas for the establishment of management and consultative committees, vary from locality to locality. It is my contention that the only body which can properly advise the Minister in the setting up of these committees, is the particular local authority concerned. The hon. Minister cannot have full knowledge of the conditions which obtain locally.

Order! The hon. member is now departing from the constitution of consultative and management committees and is speaking on Clause 22 which has already been adopted by the Committee.

Yes, Sir. The hon. Minister. then can make regulations for the manner in which these committees are to be constituted. My submission, Sir, is that there is no one in a better position than the local authority concerned to advise the hon. Minister in that regard. The proposed section goes further and provides for the election of members to these committees. In this respect, too, it is my contention the hon. Minister does not know local conditions sufficiently well so as to be able to lay down the conditions under which members are to be elected. It has already been pointed out to him that there is a danger of these bodies turning into purely destructive bodies. These committees will not have the guidance of a local authority and each of these provisions, is therefore, a trap into which the hon. Minister might fall, and which can bring him lots of trouble in the process. Sir, is he aware of all the local conditions which obtain in the area of every local authority throughout the Republic? Of course he is not. So, if he is not going to get advice from anyone, how then is he going to carry out these provisions? How will he know whether a consultative committee or a management committee is the proper thing for him to constitute if he does not have the proper advice?

Order! The hon. member is again discussing Clause 22.

I am trying not to do so, Sir, but it is difficult because these two clauses are so closely related.

I assisted the hon. member by pointing out to him that Clause 22 dealt with the establishment of these committees, whereas Clause 28 dealt with their constitution, i.e. how many members they should have, how these are to be elected, etc.

But this clause also deals with the disestablishment of these committees. In this connection I should like to know by what circumstances the hon. Minister is going to be guided in disestablishing a local authority? In what way will he learn whether or not these committees are not functioning properly? They will function entirely within the orbit of those local authorities from whose areas the hon. Minister has excised these areas. What, therefore, is going to be the deciding factor for the hon. Minister to come along and exercise the powers which paragraph (j) of the proposed new Section 43bis confers upon him. How is he going to know that the local authority he has created in that way is not functioning properly? There is, to my mind, only one body that can inform him in that regard and that is the local authority under whose umbrella that particular committee is operating. That is commonsense. But if he is going to be advised as to when to disestablish such a consultative committee, obviously he needs the same advice as in establishing them, which is provided here, because it provides even the manner in which he must establish them. Who will guide him as to how many members he should appoint and how they should be elected? Surely that will vary from place to place. What power will he give to these people? In terms of Clause 28 (g), by regulation he will prescribe the powers, functions and duties contemplated by Section 25 (4). This emphasizes my point that this clause is inextricably tied up with Clause 25. It gives him by regulation the power of prescribing these powers, functions and duties contemplated in Section 25 (4), but if I cannot discuss what he can do in terms of Section 25 (4) it is most difficult to discuss Clause 28 (g). [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Lewis) is just prolonging the debate. That is why he is discussing Section 22, which has already been dealt with. The facts are very simple. In terms of Section 22 the Minister has the power, after consultation with the Administrator, to appoint a management committee or a consultative committee. [Interjection.] If the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) were with us in spirit, he would not have made that interjection.

Clause 28, which introduces the new Section 43, provides that regulations will be made in regard to the composition of these two committees. Hon. members opposite really object to the power being granted to the Minister to make regulations. The hon. member for Durban (North) clearly stated that they object to the Minister making regulations, because those regulations will not be debated and they will be made by his backroom boys. The hon. member for Umlazi has the same objection. He does not trust the Minister to make regulations. He asks whom the Minister will consult when he does so. My reply is this. The hon. member for Durban (North) says the Minister’s backroom boys will make the regulations. I leave these derogatory remarks in respect of the Minister and his law advisers there. If he thinks that the Public Service consists of a lot of backroom boys, he is doing a great injustice to his own belief and convictions, because the Public Service is one of the pillars of the democratic form of government, because there we have a large number of people who, for a small remuneration …

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

I say that the Opposition objects to the making of regulations in regard to the composition of the committees. I say they are prolonging the debate because they really object to the power being given to the Minister to make regulations. But there is no country in the world with the same system of government as ours which can be governed without regulations. One can turn up any statute, even those made during the United Party regime, and find numerous powers to make regulations. It is essential, for this reason, that no person is able immediately to foresee everything that will be required and, therefore, the Minister must have the power to frame regulations which he can easily and speedily amend if necessary.

Then I come to sub-section (d). You will have noted that hon. members opposite yesterday could not quite get going in their debate, particularly the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) had not the least idea what it was all about, until the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) spoke. She then stated the proposition that sub-section (d) gives the Minister the power to disfranchise certain people; that is quite true. When she stated that proposition, she immediately became the leader of the United Party members opposite, and I want to congratulate her on it. But I want to say that everything she said was out of order, because that section gives the Minister the power under certain circumstances to disfranchise certain persons. That has already been approved of in principle during the second reading; the regulations framed under (d) can contain one thing only, namely that certain persons are either disfranchised or not, and we have already passed that. It is no longer a matter to be debated. There is no point in it any longer. I want to submit in all humility that if anybody should get up here and again discuss the disfranchisement of voters, he should immediately be ruled out of order, because the principle has already been adopted. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Green Point is not mentally with us yet. I am not the Chairman. I say in all humility that this speech of the hon. member for Houghton, which suddenly gave direction to the speeches made by the United Party, which up to then they did not have, was out of order. I put it to you, Sir, that it was out of order when they spoke about this disfranchisement. All we are concerned with here is the power to make regulations in regard to the manner in which these committees are constituted, in regard to their election, their tenure of office, the filling of vacancies, the procedure at meetings and the powers of members of those committees. If hon. members object to that, they should say: We believe that the Minister has not the right to prescribe those powers; we want to do it ourselves. And then they should have made suggestions, that we accepted it in principle a long time ago and I do not know why we still discuss it. I say the whole debate is being stretched out just for the sake of talking. The English word “filibuster” describes it.

The hon. member must come back to the clause.

I want to discuss 43bis (f) and point out that it is absolutely essential that the Minister, next to the Administrator, should have the power to give certain instructions to those management committees, for one simple reason; It is quite possible that the Minister wants the committee to do certain things which are not entrusted to a local authority in terms of Section 84 of the Constitution. It is also possible that certain things have to be done which are in fact entrusted to the local authority by Section 84. The Minister is very correct and decent. He does not want to encroach on to the sphere of the Administrator and therefore he is providing in Section 43 (f) that the Administrator should be empowered also to do certain things within the limits of the local authority and that is no more than right on the part of the Minister. But now the Opposition says we are undermining the powers of the Administrator.

Read sub-section (j).

Sub-section (j) does not provide anything else. It says “as to any matter relating to or arising from the disestablishment of any consultative committee or management”. What is wrong with that? If the Minister is given the power and says beforehand that under certain circumstances he will disestablish the management committee, and in the regulations he says under what circumstances he will do so, there is nothing wrong with it.

May I put a question? The hon. member has now made it quite clear that he agrees that it is right that the Administrator should be consulted before such a committee is established. But does he not believe that it is right that the Administrator should also be consulted before it is disestablished?

It is already provided in Clause 2 that the Minister may, after consultation with the Administrator, establish such committee in terms of the regulations, and he can at any time disestablish such committee in the same way. There he has everything he wants. [Time limit.]

What can a poor “backroom boy” like me say? I am so confused now that I wish to ask the Minister a few questions which I wish to have cleared up. I am so confused that I cannot make head or tail out of it. I notice that regulations can be promulgated in respect of the composition of advisory and management committees. Which is which?

Order! The hon. member should have acquired that knowledge under Clause 22.

I agree, Sir, but the fact of the matter is that I have been sitting here listening to try to gain that knowledge but I did not acquire it and this is the first opportunity which we have had to discuss the composition of these bodies and I do not know what it means. Or is it one body only? Do I understand the position correctly when I compare the one with our present local authorities where all the members are nominated?

No, the other one is the local authority.

Order! That is not relevant.

I want to know how they are to be composed so that I will know what their functions will be. I have another objection. That is (d). The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) said that people were being disenfranchised. As I read it, I think so myself, but from what the Minister says it is not his intention to disenfranchise anybody; he wants to give more people the right to vote. If any body who understands ordinary Afrikaans as I do reads this clause … [Interjections.] Yes, I can read. I shall read it to you, Sir—

What does all that mean?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

That was why I read it, Sir. [Laughter.] Why can these things not be worded in more simple language? Let the Minister tell us what his intentions are. The hon. member for Standerton says it disenfranchises people, whereas the Minister says the opposite. How must I understand the position? My difficulty is that my constituents come to me and say: You voted in favour or against that; tell us what it is all about. Then I have to say to them: No, go to the Minister. But I know the Minister has not got the time and I cannot send them to the hon. member for Standerton. Sir, I say quite frankly that I cannot make head or tail out of this. I take it that the Minister intends doing what he has explained to us, but I really think the Minister should word these things differently so that ordinary people can understand them.

I really want to make an appeal to hon. members. This clause has been discussed over and over again and I have given assurances over and over again. I really think we should stop creating the impression outside that we are simply trying to play the fool in this House. When this clause was discussed last week I told hon. members that I had come to an agreement with the municipal associations and that I had accepted the principle which they had asked me to accept, that local authorities would be recognized. I told the hon. member for South Coast at that time that I could not make a change at this stage because I would have to start with Clause 22 in order to have the necessary principle entrenched. I said that if consequential amendments flowed from that I would effect them here. Secondly I told the hon. member that not only would I submit the regulations which will be made in terms of this clause to the provincial administrations, but to the managements of the municipal associations as well. In other words, I gave an assurance on two very definite points, but hon. members ignore that and I do not intend continuing to explain the position. That is all I have to say, Sir, namely that I accept the principle that as far as possible local authorities should be consulted. I added that it would not be possible to bring these things about without the co-operation of the local authorities. I gave an example to the hon. member, namely that if we wished to act at Bellville South in terms of this clause, we shall have to have the cooperation of the mother body, Bellville. I do know what else there is for me to say.

The hon. the Minister has repeated what he said the other day, that there would be consultation with the Administrator and with the local authority concerned, but we are past that point and I want to come back to a question I asked the Minister in regard to (h). May I say this to the Minister, that he must not get impatient with us. We are seeking information. This is a most intricate measure and the Minister has said that he would consult and that in Another Place he will arrange for an amendment so that there is provision in the Bill.

If necessary, after the amendment of Clause 22.

That is when the first provision for consultation is made. I accept that, but there is more to it than that. I want to come to (h) and the question I put to the Minister last time, because (h) says that the Minister may make regulations authorizing the Administrator to confer or impose on any management committee certain powers, etc. The point is, what regulations does the Minister make which authorizes the Administrator to confer or impose certain powers, functions and duties without the Administrator issuing a proclamation? The Minister said that he hoped the provinces would each pass their own ordinances. I asked the Minister: Do you intend that in that clause Administrators will be authorized to pass ordinances, and his reply was: No. But we still do not know how the machine is going to work. The Minister passes regulations authorizing the Administration to do certain things. But how does the Administrator do it? Does he do it by a note under his hand, in a letter to the local authority saying that these are the powers he is divesting them of, because they will go to a management committee? Are they advertised, or what is the precise procedure under which the Administrator acts in terms of the regulations passed by the Minister? In every province there is a local Government ordinance in terms of which regulations are made by the Administrator. Clearly this does not contemplate that the Administrator shall make regulations. Then how does he act in terms of the Minister’s regulations? There is a hiatus here and I hope the Minister will explain it to us. When he has issued his regulations authorizing the Administrator to do something, how does the Administrator then act? He does not do it personally. What is the machinery—the machinery, and not the authority, because the authority is the regulation passed by the Minister.

The second point is this. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) dealt with franchise rights and said it was out of order to discuss it in this clause, but I want to ask the Minister this. In terms of (d) the Minister may make regulations which will have the effect of disqualifying certain persons. While qualified in another manner, they are disqualified from being registered as voters for the election of members of a local authority. I cannot go back to Clause 22, but Clause 22 has made provision for the election of members of local authorities. Is the Minister satisfied that there is not a conflict between (d) and Clause 22? The point at issue here is the qualification of members of the local authority and regulations can be made by the Minister which prevent persons from being registered as voters for the election of members of a local authority, and in Clause 22 provision is made for the Governor-General by proclamation to deal with precisely that point in consultation with the Administrator. I think there is a clash and I would ask the Minister to apply his mind to those two opposing points.

I just want to come back to Section 43 bis (1) (d) and explain that when the Minister acts in terms of this section he already envisages the situation where the consultative committee is changed into a management committee in the expectation that at some time or other it will become a local authority. Now it is obvious that there will be a vacuum in the interim, and during that vacuum certain people who have the right to vote during an election of a local authority will lose that right, but they will still be able to vote for the composition of the local authority which exists. Therefore if I perhaps said too much when I used the word “disfranchise”, I should really have said that they get a vote other than the one they have but still in respect of the local authority they have.

Then in regard to the point raised by the hon. member for South Coast, alleging that there is a conflict between the provisions of Section 25 (1) and those of Section 43 (b), I want to assure him that there is no conflict for the simple reason that the powers to make regulations both vest in the Minister, and he will in any case know what he does under the one or the other. As a lawyer I can see no conflict there.

Then I want to come back to the hon. member for Germiston (District). [Interjections.] The hon. member for South Coast alleges that if the State President exercises this power, he may perhaps clash with the regulations the Minister made in terms of Section 28. Supposing that happened, what will the position be then? Then it means that the lesser legislation of the Minister is in conflict with the greater legislation of Parliament and then those regulations are ultra vires. That is as easy as telling lies or eating cake.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Germiston (District). He asks whether, if the Minister must consult the Administrator when establishing a committee or a local authority, he must also consult him if he disestablishes it? But that is contained in the section. It says he can do so in the same way. Have the words “in the same way” no meaning to the hon. member? All the words in the section must surely have a meaning in terms of the rules of legal interpretation.

Order! The hon. member should not discuss the clause so widely.

I am merely replying to the question of the hon. member. I am doing his thinking and his reading for him. I just want to draw attention to the fact that in all the sub-sections which follow, (f), (h) and (i), every time it is the Minister and the Administrator who exercise parallel powers, for this reason, that the Minister foresees the possibility that this local authority will have to handle matters not entrusted to it in terms of Section 84 of the South Africa Act. Then the Administrator has no power to make laws or regulations or to give instructions, and then the Minister does so. But the Minister is very correct; he does not encroach on the terrain of the Administrator and therefore he inspans the Administrator as the second cart-horse next to him. That may perhaps be strange to hon. members opposite, but we should not be so conventional that we cannot evolve something new, as the Minister has done in this case.

That was very badly evolved.

The hon. member reminds me of the tale about Goethe. He said that if a book knocks against a head and there is a hollow sound it is not the book’s fault. I want to appeal to the Opposition to go on to the next clause because all the questions they are asking have already been explained.

I would like to tell the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) …

To which sub-section is the hon. member referring now?

I have not started yet. I want to deal with 43bis (1) (a) and I would like to tell the hon. member for Standerton that there is a considerable number of points which we wish to raise with the Minister in order to obtain the proper working of this clause. We appreciate that the principle has been accepted and we are entitled as members to draw the Minister’s attention …

The hon. member must refer to his constitution of the consultative committees.

I now move an amendment to clause 43bis (1) (a)—

I want to tell the Minister that if he wants to make a success of these new local bodies and to obtain the confidence of the Coloured people, then he must not nominate any of the members of the consultative or management committees because immediately there will be suspicion that the Minister is going to say there will be 20 members of which he will nominate 12 and they can elect eight. In other words, there will again be Government nominees on these committees, which, I submit, is not in keeping with the spirit of the newly formed municipalities. The Minister has asked for our co-operation and you, Sir, have ruled that the principle has been accepted. It is because the principle has been accepted that we must try to place on the Statute Book legislation which will be in keeping with what the Coloured people will get, against their will, I want to stress that. We should try to place legislation on the Statute Book that will not offend any further. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he must tell this House and the Coloured people of the Cape that once he has established these management committees or consultative committees within these newly formed municipalities, he will leave it to them to elect the members of those committees.

What is your simple point?

My point will have to be very simple for the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) to understand it. The simple point is this that instead of the Minister himself nominating we want all the members elected by the people within that municipality who have the vote and I move accordingly.

I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). It will obviously make many of us who object to many of the provisions of this Bill feel much happier about it if the whole of these committees are to be elected. I hope the hon. the Minister will give careful consideration to the amendment proposed.

I wish to deal more particularly with certain other matters. The first I would like to deal with is sub-section (j). I would like the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) to follow my argument because I think he will support what I have to say. Sir, the hon. member has pointed out that under the provisions of an earlier clause, namely Clause 22 of this Bill, whenever any of these bodies are to be established and in regard to the terms of establishment, there must be full consultation with the Administrator concerned and in some cases with the local authority. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) raised certain objections to paragraph (j). The establishment of these authorities require a rather involved procedure, there has to be reference to the bodies concerned, the local authority has certain rights, the Administrator of the province is very properly consulted, but it is left in the hands of the Minister to disestablish any such body without any consultation whatsoever. Surely if it is necessary in respect of the establishment of such a body that there should be consultation, at least with the Administrator, surely it is right that should also apply to the disestablishment.

Order! The question of the disestablishment of these consultative committees is also covered by Clause 22, in consultation with the Administrator.

With respect, Sir (j) says “ … any matter relating to or arising from the disestablishment of any consultative committee or management committee” there is no need for consultation whatsoever. I am sure it is the Minister’s intention that there should be consultation because here I think the hon. the Minister has attempted to follow the sound practice that there must at least be consultation with the bodies concerned. But in this respect it is lacking and I hope he will reconsider the matter.

I wish to come back and raise other points in respect of paragraphs (h) and (i). Under the proposed new Section 43bis the Minister is empowered to make regulations and under (h) to

I would like to stress the fact, and I do not think the hon. the Minister will deny it, that this clause is making very substantial inroads into our system of local authorities which are administered under the provincial councils.

How can you say that?

The position is clear that at the present time it is an area which is a local authority …

Order! I am sorry that point has been made over and over again.

I am sorry I cannot deal with it, Sir. I would have liked to have had the opportunity of explaining it to the hon. member but I bow to your ruling.

Under (i) there is consultation with the Administrator concerned, as to the powers, functions and duties of any local authority in any portion of its area of jurisdiction in respect of which a management committee has in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 25 been established. My objection to this is that the local authority which is at the present time the governing body will have something thrust upon it with certain powers taken away, namely provision for consultation with the Administrator in respect of that matter. I hope the hon. the Minister will consider including a provision which will make it possible for the local authority itself. Surely it is the body mainly concerned. It is the body which is most intimately concerned with this matter and surely the important thing is that whatever these arrangements may be, they shall be such as will have the full support of the local authority because here we are creating a form of local authority within a local authority which clearly won’t have all the powers of the local authority. It will only enjoy some of those powers because it is clear from the provisions of the Bill that when the time comes that a local authority as such is to be established that local authority will obviously take over a portion of the local authority which already exists. I realize that we have passed the earlier clause which deals with a portion of this matter. But I wonder, Sir, if it is not possible for the hon. the Minister, before this clause is passed, to let the Opposition have the particulars—because it may alter our attitude—of amendments which it is proposed to insert. We obviously cannot include them in the earlier clause, except of course at the report stage. Will the hon. the Minister give us an assurance that he will put these amendments on the Order Paper for the report stage? It is obviously desirable that should be so, Sir, so that this House will have the opportunity of considering them before this Bill is passed through this House. I hope that the hon. the Minister will seriously consider doing that. I think it is most undesirable in a matter of this nature that vital amendments should be made after the Bill has passed its third reading.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment to Clause 28. I want to say first of all that I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). I agree that for the consultative and management committees to have some democratic flavour at least, they should all be elected bodies and not partly appointed bodies. Sir, I want to move a further amendment and that is to delete sub-section (d). I want that sub-section to come out altogether because I believe this is the most obnoxious part of this particular clause. It is under sub-section (d) that voters in the existting local authorities will retain their votes when management committees are appointed or when consultative committees are appointed, but all future voters will lose their franchise rights. Therefore I believe that if this is excised from the clause it still gives the hon. the Minister the right to carry on with the appointment of these management committees and with the appointment of the consultative committees which, as you have already pointed out to us, Mr. Chairman, has already been accepted in principle in the second reading. By deleting sub-section (d) of this particular clause, as far as I am concerned, the most obnoxious part of this clause will be removed. I therefore move—

I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he intended making certain amendments in the Other Place which will make it necessary for him to consult with the local authority before he goes ahead with the establishment of these management or consultative committees. The hon. the Minister has told us that. I say I am particularly pleased about that, Sir, because I am quite sure he is not going to find it so easy to go ahead with his plans in this regard. If the local authorities that were asked to give their opinions before the Rossouw Commission have not changed their minds in the short time since that Commission reported, then the hon. the Minister is going to find that out of eight municipalities which gave their opinions there, only two were in favour and the rest stated that they were either not in favour of it at all or they stated that although they liked the principle of the idea, the time was not yet ripe. Some of them stated that they wanted their group areas properly sorted out first; others stated that the whole idea was premature and one in particular, the largest one, the Cape Town Municipality, turned the idea down flat. The Minister has said that he agreed that unless he gets the co-operation of these local authorities it is not going to be possible for him to go ahead with his plans. So I certainly confess to a sense of relief that the hon. the Minister has told us that he will make some changes.

Sir, I wish to support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). I want to deal firstly with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Boland. It arises from several points which I made the other evening during the Committee-stage of the debate on this clause when I asked the hon. the Minister to tell us …

I hope the hon. member is not going to repeat those questions.

No, Sir. But I want to put this point to the hon. the Minister. It may help us to decide whether or not to divide on this amendment. The Minister was asked to explain why he was taking the power unto himself to differentiate in sub-section (a) between the election of all the members and some of the members. Up to now the Minister has not given any explanation to the Committee as to why he is taking this power to differentiate. In the absence of an explanation by the hon. the Minister we can only assume that the introduction by him of the words “or some of” in line 45 is purposely introduced so as to vest in the Minister the right of nominating some of the members. We should like to know from the Minister whether that is his intention because if that is his intention, it lends support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Boland. Up to now we do not know what his intention is and I do hope the Minister will avail himself of this opportunity of explaining to the Committee why he has introduced those words. I put it to the Minister very pertinently the other evening that he was taking unto himself the power to differentiate between the election of all the members and some of the members and we assumed that was introduced merely so as to empower the hon. the Minister to nominate certain members. If that is so, Sir, I think the Minister is ill-advised to take that power because it will lead to a great deal of dissatisfaction in the minds of the Coloured people if a certain number of these people do not go through the democratic procedure of being elected to these committees. It may have the effect of reducing these committees to an absolute farce.

I also support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton for the reasons which I suggested the other evening. I indicated that this was one of the most offensive provisions of the whole of this clause and I think that the principle of the Bill will in no way be affected if sub-section (d) is eliminated, and I support the amendment.

I want to ask the Minister in the course of his reply to give us some information in regard to sub-section (h). Sub-section (h) has been discussed in this Committee at some length and the Minister himself has indicated that the intention of this sub-section is to enable the Minister to make regulations—

What does the hon. the Minister mean? In whose discretion? By saying as “he may” does he mean in the discretion of the Administrator or does he mean the powers and functions and duties which “he” (the Minister) may in his discretion determine? I would like the hon. the Minister to make that clear. The hon. member for Standerton will appreciate the point I am making now. As it stands at the moment, Sir, I think this clause is very ambiguous and I should like to know from the Minister whether he means the discretionary powers to vest in him, the Minister, or in the Administrator who is going to authorize the conferment of these powers and functions. I think that the Minister should explain that to us. At the same time I want to draw attention again to sub-section (c) where the Minister takes power unto himself by regulation to prescribe the qualifications required for “voting for”, and then he does not say “and” becoming members, but he says “or” becoming members of any such committee. Is it the intention of the hon. the Minister to differentiate in respect of these qualifications? Because as the clause reads at the moment it will be quite permissible for the hon. the Minister in the course of these regulations to prescribe certain qualifications required for voting in respect of these committees and other qualifications in respect of becoming members of these committees. Surely the Minister does not intend to differentiate between the qualifications and it is very necessary that be cleared up because you will notice, Sir, that in sub-section (d) which we have now moved to be deleted, the moment the Minister determines that certain people have qualified as voters for any management committee, they in future lose the right to become registered voters in the local authority. So it becomes very necessary for this Committee to know what the hon. the Minister has in mind. Does he intend differentiating between the qualifications required for voting for these committees and the qualifications for becoming members of these committees? I think this a very important point that should be cleared up before we dispose of this particular clause.

Order! Before calling upon the hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank) I want to point out that there has been a great deal of repetition. I have allowed very wide discussion but I must now call upon hon. members to adduce new arguments.

With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Boland I wish to point out that we are dealing here not even with a local authority but merely with a village management board, not even a village management board but with an ordinary management board. The procedure which is followed here is similar to that followed in all instances; even in a European area you first form a village management board and the members of that board are all appointed by the Administrator. Not one is elected. And in this case there is a management committee only which eventually leads up to a local authority. It has not reached the state of a local authority yet and here the hon. the Minister is going to allow some to be elected. So the procedure is not foreign to our system at all. It is a well-known procedure.

As pointed out by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) in the peri urban areas we have the same thing. The Administrator makes regulations circumscribing the qualifications for membership and in this case we have a higher authority, the Minister, circumscribing the qualifications.

Order! That argument has been used.

I shall come to the next one, Sir. The following point raised was the deprivation of certain voting rights. We have been listening to that for hours. We know what the provisions in sub-section (d) are so I will not repeat them. We must look at the matter from a broader point of view. We are dealing here with the question of race relations in South Africa and it is our intention to create harmonious race relations. In our attempt to do so we are meeting with opposition in that the Opposition takes the point that some voters who do not even take the trouble to-day of registering as voters will be prevented from becoming registered in the future, because only those who do not consider it worth while having the vote will be prevented from being registered in future. The attitude of the Opposition in wishing to attack our policy, our attempt to create racial harmony, in this manner is deplorable.

With regard to the opposition by hon. members from the northern provinces, especially those from Natal …

Order! The hon. member must not discuss the principle of the Bill.

I am dealing with the opposition to the establishment of the management committees, Sir. The way the management committees will be constituted is being attacked.

That is a matter of principle.

The Opposition objects to the manner in which they will be constituted.

Yes, but the hon. member must not follow the example set by the Opposition.

Very well, Sir. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) raised another matter. He says that it should have been left to the Provincial Councils to make regulations. I think I am in order now, Mr. Chairman. May I point out that this is a most delicate matter affecting race relations in the Republic as a whole. It is a national matter and must therefore be dealt with as such.

The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) suggests that a lot of questions have been asked and the hon. the Minister has answered them all. But, Sir, a lot of questions have been asked the Minister as to what sort of powers he intends to bestow.

I do not want the hon. member to ask those questions again.

I think it is necessary to ask them in respect of the particular item with which I want to deal because the Minister has not told us at all. I appreciate the fact that the Minister wants to consult with the local authorities and I am very glad that the Minister is going to amend this clause to provide for such consultation. My point is that he must provide for that consultation because if he does not provide for that consultation he will never get this clause to work. He knows it.

Order! That point has been made already.

What I want to ask the hon. the Minister, and it is an important question because it relates to health, is this: Does the hon. the Minister intend to give to these bodies, even when they do become full-fledged local authorities in the middle of other local authorities, the power to make bylaws relating to health? If he does, Sir, does he propose to make different sorts of by-laws with different sorts of control for the Indian population in Durban for instance? Does he propose to make different regulations for those groups of Indian people who do not kill animals for instance? When it comes to the question of health, the situation becomes quite impossible. Who is to control the rats in a little urban local authority in the middle of another local authority? There are other aspects such as sewerage. I do not want to go into the details of these matters but it is going to become quite impossible if you are to have one small local authority, a small one-group authority which cannot expand with its sewerage problem becoming greater and greater, with its exit being one pipe perhaps through the local authority in whose centre it is situated. What does the Minister propose to do when that situation is reached? In that regard I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he has in mind when he uses the word “duties” in sub-clause (i). He talks about the “duties” of any local authority. It says—

Now. Sir, what does the Minister mean by “duties”? Clearly he does not mean powers because he uses the word “powers”. Clearly he does not mean functions because he uses the word “functions”. “Duties are something new I think in the field of powers for local authorities. One would have thought the way the hon. the Minister has spoken and the way the hon. members for Standerton and Omaruru (Mr. Frank) have spoken, that a favour was being bestowed on all and sundry here. The word “duty” there does not mean a power or a function. What does it mean, Sir? I hope the Minister will indicate to us what he means.

You are the most stupid bright boy I have ever come across.

Perhaps the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) would listen and he would then have a better appreciation of the subject. The hon. the Minister has in mind here that some duties are to be thrust upon a local authority. They are to be thrust upon a local authority in respect of an area in which he is divesting the local authority concerned of its powers. What does the hon. the Minister intend to do? Questions have been asked from this side of the House. We cannot be expected to support this measure if the hon. the Minister does not even know what sort of powers he is going to bestow. The situation, Sir, in a place like Durban could become absolutely chaotic. You may find three or four of these areas situated in the middle of Durban and there is no provision for control over those areas in the middle of the complex of the Durban local authority in respect of something like smallpox for instance. Who is going to have control over the confinement of smallpox cases? Whose hospital is going to have to take the cases from that area? What sort of regulations can the hon. the Minister make in giving powers to those areas within other areas? I hope the Minister will give us some idea of what he has in mind. Because I must say that certainly as far as Durban is concerned, it is an extremely important matter, not just for the areas where these powers are to be stowed, but also for all the inhabitants of Durban.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has opened up a question in my mind in relation to this division of power under sub-clause (i). If the hon. the Minister is going to decide in consultation with the Administrator as to the powers, functions and duties of a local authority which contains one of these consultative or management bodies within itself, I want to know whether the Minister intends to include in those functions and duties the question of financing the new local authority which he has established within that area. I did try in all sincerity to discuss this under another clause but the closure was moved and it was not possible to do so. But obviously one of the functions and duties of a local authority which can be laid down by the Minister in terms of sub-clause (i) is to arrange for the financing of these new advisory or management committees or even a new local authority which he sets up in its midst. I am particularly worried about this because I know that in Natal there is no local ordinance which provides for the financing of bodies such as those the Minister intends setting up under the provisions of this clause. It is a big question in my mind as to how he is going to finance them. In (i) he can, after consultation with the Administrator, come down to this vital question of finance, because it is a vital question. When you have huge communities, as for example the Indian community in Durban, it is going to cost a minimum of R100,000,000 to set those people up in their own local authority as envisaged here. In addition to that you have the Coloured community and those two communities especially are provided for in this Bill. The cost of that is going to be quite a fantastic sum of money. I want to know whether the duty of finding that money will fall under the functions and duties of the local authority from which these areas are being excised. I think this is a very important question. Because does it mean that the ratepayers of the area from which these new authorities are going to be excised will have to foot the whole bill of the cost of developing and maintaining these various areas until they reach the status of a separate local authority where they can raise their own taxes to pay for these services. I asked a question here two years ago and it was put to me that, why should a place like Paarl which has no Indian community pay for the setting aside of the Indian people in their own areas in a place like Durban? But we are treating this on a national level, we are dealing with local authorities at a national level in this Clause. That is what we are doing. This taking of a right to establish local authorities is jumping right over the usual provincial regulations. If it is going to do this under this Clause then this Government must assume the responsibility for meeting the bills. They must finance them; they must make provision. But that is not what the hon. the Minister intends to do here. He intends just to make the decisions to establish a local authority and then he is going to look to the people within that area to foot the bill to enforce his legislation. That makes this a very bad clause indeed and I am sure it is not going to meet the approval of the various local authorities who are going to be affected and who will have to pay the costs.

I hope the hon. the Minister will answer the point which has been raised. Questions have been put to the hon. the Minister and I do hope he will answer them. We are very concerned about the position which is arising here. This is a form of what I call municipal miscegenation. We have White municipalities and from them there are going to be born little Coloured communities and little Indian communities. The Minister must know perfectly well that he cannot clothe them by regulation and think that he will make them work. They are doomed to failure in advance before they were ever conceived, let alone born. Why doesn’t the Minister come clean and give us answers to these questions so that we may know at any rate what he has on his mind in regard to the powers with which he is going to clothe these new bodies?

In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) I think the hon. the Minister should tell us what the reasons are. He did not reply to the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) who asked him why he wants to have some elected and to nominate others.

Order! That question has repeatedly been put.

Yes, Sir, but I am trying to get an answer. There is nothing in the Rules to compel the Minister to answer, but I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us, because we may withdraw our amendment if the hon. the Minister gives us very good reasons.

They will have to be very good.

We hope that he will not be the strong silent Minister but that he will be strong in his answer. In any case, I do want to say that we appreciate what the hon. the Minister has said that certain conditions prevail in the other three provinces which do not prevail in the Cape, and that apparently he wants certain powers to deal with those three provinces. But I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that he is throwing a very heavy onus on the European section of the community in relation to this part of the Act where, as already has been mentioned, they may have to finance roads, power, sewerage, lighting and various other things, municipal services.

Order! That argument has also repeatedly been advanced.

Mr. Chairman, I want to obey the Chair, and I know that it has been raised before, but I cannot remember the hon. the Minister telling us anything about this. I think the ratepayers of the big municipalities will be amazed about their financial responsibilities in regard to the new areas which are going to be formed.

Order! The hon. member is now attacking the principle of the Bill.

Sir, I merely want to point out that in terms of the clause which we are discussing now, certain things will have to happen without any answer to the municipalities as to what their financial responsibilities will be. That is specifically set out in this Clause 8 to which reference has been made. I do not want to repeat the arguments used, but I am not prepared, I say that quite frankly, to vote for any legislation which is so vague, which is so secretive, and which gives no information as to the full implications, financial or otherwise, of the Bill, and if the hon. the Minister is so obstinate that he will not answer, we will have to vote against it.

Question put: That the words “or some of” in line 45, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—67: Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—38: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N. Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: C. Barnett and M. W. Holland.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Barnett negatived.

Question put: That paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of the proposed Section 43bis. proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—69: Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nieman, F. J.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—38: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hopewell, A.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: J. D. du P. Basson and H. Suzman.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—70: Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—38: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clause 1 standing over.

On Clause 1,

I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to us the reason why it is necessary to make the provision in paragraph (a) for the inclusion of the words “incorporated area” in sub-section (1) of the Group Areas Act of 1957. I am aware that paragraph (a) of Clause 1 of the White Paper that has been given to us says that this amendment is consequential on sub-section (b) of Section 17. In looking at that, Sir, you will see that there is now included in Section 20 of the principal Act a new sub-section (iii)bis “any incorporated area as defined in Section 1 of the Preservation of Coloured Areas Act, 1961”. I take it that means that no group area may be declared in respect of any area which is an incorporated area by virtue of the provisions of Section 1 of the Preservation of Coloured Areas Act.

Sir, there is another point in regard to which I should like to have an explanation. The original Act in Section 1 deals with the question of controlling interests. I don’t propose to read it, but it deals with controlling interests in relation to a company, and it says “a controlling interest in relation to any company means …” and then there is set out a series of different ways in which a controlling interest can be obtained, and the existing paragraph (f) reads—

It seems perfectly clear to me that if there is a loan granted to a company for more than half of the share capital, or debentures for that amount, then apart from the registered owner having a controlling interest by virtue of other provisions in the original Act, the person who grants that loan, whether it be by way of mortgage or just by an ordinary loan, or by way of debentures, also has a controlling interest. Now the amendment which is proposed in respect of this matter is to substitute for the present sub-section (f) which I have read a new sub-section (f)—

Now it may be arguable that under the Interpretation Act there is no difference between the two sections, but I take it that the hon. the Minister must have been advised that to comply with the provisions of (f) of the Act passed in 1957, it is necessary that the loan of one person or of one company shall exceed half of the share capital of the company which owns the property. Here the plural takes the place of the singular, and it is clear that loans by two persons which in the aggregate exceed half of the share capital of the company which is the registered owner, would give those persons a controlling interest. But as the property which in general is involved in these group areas, very often in the initial stages, applies largely to the non-White section of the community, such loans may be made by different sections of the population. That is quite possible. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has considered what would be the effect of this provision if you have a company which for example is rated as an Asiatic company. You may have a loan by a company or organization which is a White company for the purposes of the Group Areas Act, and you may have a further loan which together with the first-mentioned loan carries the total of loans beyond 50 per cent of the share capital, and the lender in that case for example could be a Coloured person. In those circumstances does it mean that the property for the purposes of the Act is a controlled property and that the ownership, or the controlling interest is deemed to be held by a White, and an Asiatic and a Coloured? I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us exactly what is the purpose of this provision and how the matter will be sorted out if persons belonging to different groups each have a controlling interest by virtue of different provisions of the Act.

I would like to take the matter a little further, this question of loans in the aggregate. Now the colour of a property, that is loans made by members of one race group, although it may be a number, possibly two or even three, depends on those members. They colour the property. Can the hon. the Minister explain to us the position that would arise where there is a repayment of loans and the borrowing of further moneys. It may happen in quick succession, because it may be money for development purposes, or whatever the case may be. I have known of such cases myself actually in practice. Are we to take it then that as each set of loans which exceeds in the aggregate half the share capital of that company or debentures, will again change the colour of the property concerned, the racial colour, and that as a loan is paid off and a loan is obtained from someone else who is colouring the loan because of his major interest in those loans, you change the racial colour of that property? These are not registered loans, not bonds, but ordinary loans which can be made on whatever basis it may be. I would like the hon. the Minister to explain to us whether in effect that would be the position.

As far as sub-section (a) is concerned, I must point out to the hon. member that legislation was passed last year, namely the Preservation of Coloured Areas Act, where reference is made to scheduled areas. The whole point here is only to take into account what was done last year and to adapt the Group Areas Act to that and to insert the term “scheduled area” after “Coloured settlements”. It will mean that for those purposes a scheduled area will be regarded as being the same as the existing Coloured settlements.

In terms of the provisions of the Act which we passed last year?

Yes. As far as the question raised in connection with (f) is concerned I may say that legal advice was obtained. There, was a difference of opinion as to whether or not we were complying fully with the Interpretation Act and the legal advisers inform me that as this sub-section reads at the moment it refers only to individuals and that in actual fact provision is only being made that individuals shall not obtain a controlling interest. All we are trying to do is that where a number of persons obtain loans to an amount in excess of half the share capital, the position will also be covered. The danger exists that they will obtain control in this way over property in a group area where they do not qualify and in order to prevent that there has to be a new definition.

The hon. the Minister has replied to a few points but he has not replied at all to the following one: I gave the example of a property where there are various loans and where those loans have been advanced by various people who belong to different racial groups. What is the position in that case? This is a serious matter and we must have clarity as to who will have the controlling interest in any specific case. The property may be registered in the name of a Coloured person or in the name of a Coloured company. The loans which together comprise more than half the capital of the company may have been advanced by various persons, for instance, by one White person, one Indian, while the owner is a Coloured man. In this case, in terms of the provision of the law, the controlling interest will be in the hands of a White person and of a Coloured person and of an Indian. What is the solution in that case? I think difficulties will arise in that case and I shall be very pleased if the hon. the Minister will explain the position to me.

With respect, Sir, I do not think the hon. the Minister replied fully. I think the answer lies in the first three words of the proposed paragraph (f). I think it is necessary that the existing definition of “controlling interest” be made wider.

At 10.25 p.m. the Deputy-Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.