I started off yesterday evening by saying what a futile attempt hon. members opposite were making to discredit the Minister politically because he had called for the file of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. What strikes me in this regard is that the hon. member for South Coast and others kicked up such a fuss about it, while the hon. member for Umhlatuzana himself spoke twice without recording any objection to the hon. the Minister’s action. Do you know why not, Sir? Because he would readily admit that, when he first came to this House, he could not imagine that these hon. members who have embarrassed him so, would be his colleagues. Moreover, he would readily admit, after his 43½ years’ service in the Railways, that the present Minister is the best Minister of Transport ever. The hon. member would also admit that he knows the hon. the Minister as a person who does not act in an underhand and sly way, but who speaks to one in a forthright and sincere way. This is how he acted towards the hon. member yesterday when he said openly and in front of everybody that he had examined the hon. member’s file and that the hon. member had a proud record. Really, Mr. Chairman, I should think hon. members opposite should be very ashamed today of their actions yesterday.

I now come to the hon. member for Green Point. Yesterday he was over-hasty in describing an interjection I had made as a “stupid interjection”. But the hon. member did not have enough schooling, and he created a wrong impression by what he said in this House last night, i.e. that there are 62 884 White employees in the Railways who earn less than R2 400 per year.

Who earn R200 per month.

Yes, the hon. member spoke about housing and said that only 23 000 departmental housing units were available, which means that approximately 40 000 employees are waiting for housing accommodation. But the hon. member forgot to say that most of these 40 000 persons are unmarried, for instance, apprentices, shunters, junior clerks, etc. These people are not looking for departmental housing in the sense the hon. member meant. The hon. member should not be so quick to say that I made a “stupid interjection”. In this regard the hon. member referred to a question put by the hon. member for Durban Point in this House a few days ago, on 15th March, in which he asked how many White employees in the Railways earned less than R2 400 per year and how many less than R1 200 per year. In reply to that, the hon. the Minister said that 59 175 employees earned less than R2 400 per year and 3 709 less than R1 200 per year.

What is the total?

Just give me a chance, please. It was precisely in regard to the total that the hon. member slipped so badly on a banana peel. But the hon. the Minister added that the 59 175 included the 3 709. The hon. member was therefore too quick in accusing me of making a stupid interjection, because in reality he had used the wrong numbers and in so doing had created a wrong impression in regard to housing.

The hon. member for Yeoville, again said that the planning in the Railways might be good, but that he must criticize the Minister about its implementation, and now I want to test his criticism by referring to certain matters in my constituency. The hon. member for Yeoville must then satisfy himself whether the examples I am going to mention answer his allegation or not. This is the first time since I have been in this hon. House that I am speaking on Railway matters. I am doing so purposely, because a very large programme is nearing completion in my constituency and because I want to bring certain matters to the hon. the Minister’s attention. At the moment four or seven—I am not sure how many—houses are being built and when these have been completed, every railway official in my constituency will have been provided with a dwelling unit. In the past few years a completely new station, except for a passenger building, has been provided in Potchefstroom. The new station is almost five times bigger than the previous one.

And Durban has been waiting for years.

But I am living in the right place. In Potchefstroom there is an automatic electric signalling system which extends over a distance of almost 55 miles, from Crescent Station to Houtkop. It cost a few million rands and is one of the few systems of this type in South Africa at present. In addition, a completely new goods-shed complex has been built, and it is in this connection that I should like to bring something to the hon. the Minister’s attention. I want to ask him whether the Administration cannot take another look at this goods-shed, because it is open on three sides at the bottom. Especially on the south side, this results in the people working there working not in a refrigerator, but in a deep freeze. If the hon. the Minister could help us in this regard, we would appreciate it very much.

Furthermore, hon. members opposite complained about fly-over bridges and this committee. Here I just want to mention that my experience in this connection has been one of full and cordial co-operation. In the past few years four fly-over bridges have been built in our municipal area alone. Two more are due to be built this year; after that not a single main-line crossing in Potchefstroom will not have been provided with a fly-over bridge. One of the largest in the country is now being completed at a cost of considerably more than R600 000. I was also very grateful to see in this Budget on the pipeline from Johannesburg to Klerksdorp a take-out point is being installed at Potchefstroom as well. The hon. member for Durban Central is becoming quite despondent while listening to all these things. They show good planning and very good implementation of that planning. The hon. member for Yeoville should bear these matters in mind the next time he wants to criticize the hon. the Minister about these things.

Then I just want to say this: I can assure the hon. the Minister that as far as the railway staff in our vicinity are concerned, one certainly cannot agree with hon. members opposite who spoke about dissatisfaction and unhappiness existing among the railway staff. On the contrary, they are exceptionally grateful for what the hon. the Minister in doing for them.

Order! Before calling upon the next speaker, I want to say that the Committee will first dispose of Railways, after which I shall consider whether Harbours, Airways and Pipelines should be put simultaneously.

On behalf of many railway pensioners in my constituency I want to convey their gratitude and appreciation to the Minister and the Government for the increase in their pensions. Sir, I received a telegram last Thursday from a pensioner in my constituency, which consisted of five words, a telegram which reflects what the people feel and which also reflects the attitude of the railwaymen towards the hon. the Minister of Transport. The telegram read: “Say thank you to old Ben”. Sir, it is consequently my privilege to convey the gratitude of these people to the Minister of Transport.

If we look at the Estimates of Expenditure before us, it is interesting to see what the salaries of the various officials are. I think we can say in general today that the railwaymen are being paid well. It is interesting to see that there are no fewer than 75 officials in the employ of the S.A. Railways who are earning a higher salary than the Minister of Transport. I think this is an indication that the railway officials are in general being paid very well. Perhaps this is an indication that the Minister is not being paid so well.

I want to make a plea here today for the area in my constituency known as Salvokop. Salvokop is an area in which railway people live. It is railway land; it belongs to the Railways and the Railways is responsible for maintenance and the supply of all services with the exception of electricity, water and garbage removal, which is done by the municipality. The people who live here consist of clerical staff, but also for the most part train staff and footplate staff. The people living here are the people who work shifts and who work overtime. Sir, I wonder whether this Committee is aware of what inroads it makes on a man’s life if he has to work shifts; if he comes home at a different time every day of his life and goes to work at a different time; if there is no such thing as to sleep at night, but when night and day is virtually the same to him. It is a great sacrifice these railway people are making to keep the wheels of the economy of the country and of the Railways turning. I want, as well, to express my appreciation of the wives and children of these railway-men. In this connection I know in particular what great sacrifices wives and children also have to make since il myself came from such a railway house. I come from a railway house such as those in which the people in Salvokop are living. In all the years I was at home, I cannot remember that my father ever went to work at the same time or whether he ever came home at the same time for two days running. I cannot remember him ever working the same number of hours two days running. It is this irregular life which is essential to our economy; the economy cannot get along without it. We in this House must be grateful to these people, but they know that we, the National Party, have a soft spot for the railwaymen of South Africa and look after their interests. The plea I want to make today is this.

When those men arrive home in Salvokop, I feel that the environmental circumstances and the home circumstances are not as good as they should be for them. There is considerable room for improvement. Salvokop is an old area. Over the years the Railways has maintained it, but not all the houses have modern facilities, and some of the houses do not even have the most essential facilities. The houses are also very close together, and there is very little room for the children to play in. Very few playground facilities are provided. The plea I want to make to the hon. the Minister today is that he should appoint a committee with the object of replanning the Salvokop area. There is quite a good deal of unused land at the moment, and I feel that if that land can be used, more houses can be built and more parks can be provided, and there can be more tarred roads and greater provision can be made for community life with a better community hall. The people there form a community of their own. They are just across the way from the prison grounds and the prison grounds are at the moment an example of what the railway area ought to be. Today I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister and make a plea for the improvement, the beautification, the reconstruction and the renewal of the Salvokop area. I want to ask the Minister to consider turning the Salvokop area, a mile from the centre of Pretoria, into a showpiece, something of which not only the railway people, but the whole of Pretoria and the entire constituency, will be proud.

I wish to raise this afternoon certain matters which properly belong in Committee and which it has not been possible to raise up to now. But before doing so, I want to refer to one matter which I raised at the Second Reading, flowing from last year. The hon. the Minister said last year, and I quote from Col. 1090 of Hansard—

Then he went on to deal with other matters and said—

On Monday I quoted from an official letter from the Department showing that I was in fact absolutely correct and that my figures which I had quoted in regard to checkers’ wages were correct. I wrote to the Minister and received a reply acknowledging that what I had said in regard to long-service checkers was correct and that what the Minister had quoted were the new salaries applying only to people who had joined after the increase in Railway salaries, the R60 million Langlaagte increase. Now, I think the very least which the Minister could do would be to apologize for what he said last year. It is only a small courtesy, but I do feel that he owes me an apology. I do not want to labour the matter, but the hon. the Minister is a Minister, and if he accuses a person of being incorrect, then I think that when it is shown that in fact that member is correct in his allegations, the Minister should acknowledge it.

This brings me then to the situation which arises from this. You have a group of existing servants on a pay scale which is infinitely inferior to that of new people joining after them to do the same job which they are doing. These people, having worked for six or seven or eight years for the Administration and having given loyal service, find that a new man comes in and starts at only about R10 behind where they are after six and seven years. They find that within five years the new man has caught up to them in pay scale and by the time they qualify for promotion to the post of senior checker, these new men have gone ahead of them. I feel this is an injustice which one cannot accept with equanimity. The hon. the Minister said in reply to an interjection that he was satisfied. I want to nail this specifically and ask him whether he believes that it is correct that a person newly joining the service should be in a better position than a loyal servant of the Administration who has been in service for seven or eight years. I shall take the matter no further than that. I shall leave it to the sense of fairness of the Minister to reply.

I want to deal with three other matters. Firstly I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to investigate the costs of prescriptions, medicines and pills, supplied through the Railways and Harbours Sick Fund. I have had complaints that the cost of many of these items has increased by 300 or 400 per cent in recent times. This is a particular burden to those who have to pay the price. I do not pretend to be an expert on the details of how this works and what levies and fees have to be paid, but I have so often heard complaints made in this regard.

Members of the Sick Fund do not have to pay for those items.

I am talking about pensioners. I should like the hon. the Minister to look into this situation.

Even pensioners who are members of the Sick Fund do not have to pay these fees. Pensioners may remain members of the Sick Fund. If they are not members of the Sick Fund, they have to pay these fees.

Perhaps the Minister will explain the position in his reply. I hope he will briefly state the position, because this is the type of complaints I have received from a number of pensioners. Some pensioners, I am sure, have to pay for medicines.

If they are not members of the Sick Fund, yes.

I should like to relate this to the general position in the Health Department of the Railways. An O and M investigation was carried out from September to November, 1969. In March last year new gradings were announced. Almost immediately the Chief Health Inspector, seven assistant health inspectors and eight system health inspectors were appointed to the new graded posts without any tests or any further examinations. That was in the Head Office and at the system offices. After a further nine months the remainder of the appointments were made. My information is that seven senior health inspectors were reduced to the rank of health inspector. They lost no money as a result of the new gradings, because these preserved their pay, but they lost status and seniority, and in the long term they lost the advantages they had as senior health inspectors. I understand, however, that some of these people who were reduced from senior health inspectors to health inspectors, are now in fact acting in grade in the position from which they have been reduced. It seems ironic that a person should be reduced in grade and then appointed to act in that grade, although he is not appointed to it. In the meantime juniors have been appointed over the heads of many of these people with long service in the department. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will investigate their position and check on the morale amongst the general rank and file. There is no need to check on the morale at the top level because they have been appointed and there is no problem. But the hon. the Minister should check on the morale of the rank and file in this division of his department to establish whether in fact there is not a feeling of frustration and disappointment which is harming the general morale of the service.

Mr. Chairman, I want to turn to another matter. I do not know whether the attention of the hon. the Minister has been drawn to a report in the Daily News on Monday, the 15th, that is the Monday which has just passed, about the experience of a traveller who wanted to travel from Durban to the South Coast. I do not want to read the whole report. I do not have time to do so. But the story which is here reported, is of such a nature that it can do tremendous harm to the image of the Railways. It makes, in fact, a mockery of the service. I feel that if this sort of occurrence is true, steps should be taken to eliminate it. In a nutshell, what happened was that a lady, wishing to travel on a local trip from Durban to Scottburgh, a person with a fair background of travel and who has travelled internationally, tried to make a reservation. She could not and went and stood in the queue. She was then told “No, you have missed the train.” She asked what the fare was and was told: “No, we do not tell you the fare here. Next please!” She found out that the next train would depart three hours later. In the meantime she went to try and buy a imetable, could not get it, because they are not available, came back three hours later and found out that the train had in fact, in the meantime, departed. It is this sort of niggling thing which annoys the public. I quote this, because I have at times asked, for instance, for an air timetable. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Durban Point will forgive me, but if we get complaints of that kind on this side of the House, we take them to the right channels where they can be dealt with administratively. We also get satisfaction there. We do not keep it for debates such as this.

Actually I am rising to say thank you on behalf of my constituency and on behalf of Natal in general.

Do it administratively.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I also want to say thank you on behalf of Natal in general, for not all people are like hon. members on that side of the House. There are grateful people in Natal as well. When I look at the figures I find that at present there are railway works to the amount of R247 million in progress in Natal. Instead of saying thank you, they go snooping around now to see whether they cannot find any fleas on the Railways Administration. We know what the announcement the hon. the Minister made the other day in regard to the electrification of the railway line between Hlobane and Vryheid can and will mean for an area like northern Natal.

But we also want to say thank you for the fact that in Natal, in proportion to the number of Whites living there in comparison with any of the other Provinces, more is being spent on railway services than in any of these other Provinces.

Then there is another matter as well which I should like to raise here. This is in respect of a place there in northern Natal where railway workers are also living, namely Parkville. We have on many occasions discussed this matter administratively, but apparently a problem has cropped up in regard to tarring the roads. It would be an excellent thing if the hon. the Minister could go into these complaints. The streets have in fact been tarred, but the strip that has been tarred is too narrow and now the Municipality of Vryheid cannot, in terms of their regulations, take over the maintenance of those streets because they do not comply with their specifications. The request is now, and this is a reasonably general request, that where such planning is done as in the case of Parkville, it shall be done in close co-operation with the local authority in question or with local people who, even if they are not engineers or qualified people, do at least know something about these matters. Their opinions should be asked for, so that when that project has been completed, the people in the vicinity are satisfied and there is not such a stream of complaints.

The second matter I have already broached here before, and this is in connection with the transportation of timber As hon. members know my whole constituency from north to south excluding the non-White area in between is a timber, bark and pulp producing area. The tariffs on those articles are tremendously high, and not only are they high, but it seems to us that Railways does not want to keep pace with us so that we can obtain separate loading facilities which have been adapted to the circumstances. We feel that the Railways should issue instructions for an inquiry to be made into the possibility of transferring, with the least handling and the least effort possible, the timber from the producer’s vehicle to the railway trucks. Instructions can be issued for an investigation into this matter so that the least possible time and the least possible energy is wasted in transferring the timber. This will mean a faster turnover of trucks and faster conveyance along that railway line. According to a memorandum which I happened to see, one of the main reasons for the delay in regard to trucks on the Pietermaritzburg/Kranskop section was the inadequate loading facilities. Now I want to say that great improvements have in fact been effected there, specifically to an amount of R4 million. We are grateful for that, but there are still snags here and there, and it may perhaps be necessary to discuss these matters administratively, even though hon. members on the opposite side laugh about it. We nevertheless want to ask, on behalf of those farmers, that that railway line should as quickly as possible be brought into line with the Railways and the rest of the country by widening the gauge. We find that this results in problems when it comes to weighing off the timber. We must install special scales if we want to weigh the timber.

In addition mention has been made of ex gratia payments, or payments in good faith. Now I just want to express the greatest disappointment of the people in my constituency. This is in respect of a certain payment which was made out of the goodness of the Railways’ heart for a certain matter, without acknowledgment of debt. The amount of slightly more than R14 000 has been queried in this House by the United Party. That is what my people feel aggrieved about. My information is that an eminent member of the United Party, before that payment was made, made inquiries from the farmer who suffered the loss to see whether he could not obtain the information so that he could come along and query it in this House. I received instructions from my voters to express their strongest disapproval of this. The railway people in my constituency and many of the railway people in Natal feel satisfied, to a very large extent as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana does. These minor matters which go wrong can be solved according to a method in which time is much better utilized than it would be if the matter were discussed in this House. These are such matters as one man who was promoted over another, and a woman who was not accorded the correct treatment on the train. This kind of thing happens if one, through one’s attitude, elicite different treatment than a person who perhaps adopts a more acceptable attitude towards an official. An official also has a right to adopt an attitude.

I want to conclude by saying that the railwaymen of Natal are grateful to the Administration, the senior officials and everybody involved in this matter. The attempts made by the United Party during the past election to sow suspicion and spread gossip about the Railways will certainly not go down well, even if they inspect every sleeper and railway line in Natal. They will not be able to make any impression on the people as they have recently been trying to do.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising merely to do my duty to my constituency. I think I would be neglecting my duty if I did not, on behalf of my constituency, convey to the Railway Administration my greatest appreciation for the generous degree to which assistance was offered by them when that area, which is represented by me, was struck so unexpectedly by the problem of subsidences. The problem the Railways had to cope with was a very difficult one. The railway line between Oberholzer and Bank had of necessity to be closed to passenger traffic, and we then had the problem that the hundreds of people travelling to work each day on the West Rand or the Central Rand were without transport. I must in all honesty say that the Railways Administration has given us its co-operation. I think we owe it to the Railways Administration to convey to them our greatest appreciation for what they have done.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that hon. members would now like to discuss Harbours. They have therefore asked me to reply to the few matters which were broached in connection with the Railways.

Firstly, I want to deal with the matters touched upon by the hon. member for Von Brandis. The hon. member has again discussed the unfavourable trade balance. That is correct, it is unfavourable. He also pointed out that there were many tons of minerals and ore available for export, and that the Railways was simply not able to transport it to the harbours. That is also correct. He also said that I should decide in what direction I am going to move. I should just like to mention in respect of which ores the difficulty of transportation to the harbours arose. The one is chromium. All the chromium producers are in the vicinity of Steelpoort. This Steelpoort railway line is a very light one, with sleepers of only 60 pounds. This line is also overloaded, and can bear very little additional traffic. The chromium is exported through Lourenço Marques, which is the nearest harbour. As a result of these factors the Railways was unable to make more trucks available for the conveyance of greater quantities of chromium when the producers made application for them. This situation has only developed since the middle of 1969 and last year. However, improvements are being effected. The Administration plans, for example, to utilize diesel tractive power on those railway lines. This will of course increase the carrying capacity of that line considerably. In addition improvements to the railway line are also being effected between Witbank and Belfast and also between Belfast and Komatiepoort. When these improvements have been effected, the Railways will be able to transport that additional chromium.

The second mineral is coal. As hon. members know, the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association concluded a contract with Japan in regard to the delivery of a certain quantity of coal over a period of years. In addition they agreed to finance the railway line from Ermelo to Broodsnyersplaas. The contract in regard to the delivery of coal has already been concluded. The Railways undertook to convey a certain quantity to Lourenço Marques until such time as the railway line between Ermelo and Broodsnyersplaas has been constructed, and the harbour at Richards’ Bay has been completed. The necessary finance has also been obtained, and consortiums are now being formed in connection with the construction of the railway line. I understand that it will not be long now before the route is planned and the construction of the railway line commenced. Naturally this House will first have to approve the construction Bill and I hope that it will be possible to do this during the present Session.

The third mineral in regard to which difficulty is being experienced, is iron ore. In regard to the export of iron ore, the Government had to decide whether it would agree in principle to the construction of a railway line from Postmasburg/Sishen to Saldanha Bay, as requested by Iscor, or whether preference would be given to the St. Croix scheme. This is the island on the other side of Port Elizabeth, to which the ore will be conveyed on a long conveyor belt. The Government decided for very good reasons that Saldanha Bay was the obvious place for an ore export harbour. In the first instance it will be a growth point for the Western Cape. In the second instance the export of ore through Saldanha Bay will be unlimited. In the third instance the railway line between Sishen and Saldanha will be over a very easy gradient, i.e. one in two hundred. Consequently we will be able to pull 12 000 ton trains along that line, which is of course phenomenal for a 3 ft. 6 in. guage railway line. Fourthly, it was provided that Iscor should finance the railway line by way of loans which they must obtain elsewhere Fifthly, they had to find the market and conclude a contract to the effect that iron ore could be exported for at least a period of 10 years and at a rate of 10 million tons per year—otherwise it would be quite uneconomic.

Preference was then given to Saldanha Bay over the St. Croix scheme, specifically because the carrying capacity of the Port Elizabeth line would have had to be increased tremendously. Just to increase the carrying capacity so that 15 million tons of ore could be exported through St. Croix would have cost approximately R93 million. Apart from that, additional trucks, etc., were needed. It would have taken years to increase that carrying capacity. There are very difficult gradients and sharp bends on that line. The gradient for example is only one in 80. Much longer loop lines would have had to be built, and a great many improvements would have had to be made to have enabled us to export that quantity of iron ore through St. Croix. I told the Port Elizabeth people, and particularly the man who is in fact in charge of Consolidated Minerals, that if the Saldanha scheme fell through, I would re-consider the St. Croix scheme. But then they must understand that increasing the capacity of the line will be a rather long process. But even at this stage no contracts have as yet been negotiated. I understand that this is as a result of the fact that the Japanese importers have reduced their requirements because their steel production is going to be decreased. There is an overproduction of steel. Now it is still a question of whether those contracts are going to be concluded or not. I am expecting to hear finally from Iscor this month. They promised me that they would finalize the matter with the Japanese this month. If they conclude the contract, which is the first important priority, they will of course have to obtain the finance. They say they will find it. That line to Saldanha, the building of the harbour and the additional rolling stock and tractive power will in my opinion cost at least R400 million. This is a considerable amount, and the State cannot finance it. It will have to come from abroad, and Iscor is responsible for that.

The last type of ore I want to discuss, is manganese, which is already being exported through Port Elizabeth. We expect during the course of next year to increase the amount of manganese and other ore being exported to 5£ million tons. We have given South African Manganese additional trucks; but they want far more because they can find markets for their products. At the moment, however, it cannot be done owing to the limited carrying capacity of that line. I hope the hon. member is satisfied now. I have now explained in detail what the position is.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom discussed the goods shed which is open on three sides, and said that in winter, particularly on the southern side, it is extremely cold. I shall ask the Management to go into this and see whether any improvements cannot be effected.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central discussed the housing there. I can only tell him that we know that housing is necessary there, and that this matter will be looked into in due course when the necessary funds are available.

†The hon. member for Durban Point again raised the matter of the checkers. I am always prepared to apologize when I have been in the wrong. But I am afraid that I was not in the wrong this time—so I cannot apologize. I have looked at my Hansard and this is what I said last year (Col. 1124)—

I emphasized that and continued—

How is it then that there are people with seven years’ service who earn under R200 per month?

I told the hon. member that he should give me the particulars of the case and I would give him the information as to what notch those persons were placed on and why it is that they earn less than R200.

The hon. member did give me the particulars and I wrote to him in reply and explained the position to him fully. I have a copy here of the letter I wrote to him. As a matter of fact, I am surprised that he raised the matter here once again in view of the explanation I gave him in this letter. In this letter I told him—

That is my point.

This is what I told the hon. member in my letter. The letter continues—

So, this is no new thing. My letter continues—

Then follow particulars. In 1964 it was R120, in 1965 it was R135, in 1966 R140, in 1967 R145, in 1968 R165, in 1969 R170, in 1970 R180 and 1971 R190. This was the incremental progress of this particular servant.

That means that after seven years he was still R10 behind a man who joined …

That is right. But this is the reason the hon. member wants me to apologize because he said, I gave wrong information.

You called the hon. member’s truthfulness into question.

You quoted from a different column of Hansard altogether. You ought to have quoted from column 1090.

Well, I did not realize that. In any event, if I had said something which was completely unjustified then I apologize. I hope that satisfies the hon. member.

In regard to the cost of medicines and pills for pensioners, I told the hon. member by way of interjection that if the pensioners were members of the Sick Fund and resided within a Sick Fund district they would receive free medicine, paying only 50c for a prescription. This fee was instituted some years ago to prevent people getting medicines unnecessarily. Pensioners who are, on the other hand, not members of the Sick Fund, have to pay for their medicine. Some pensioners elected not to remain members of the Sick Fund when they retired.

And when pensioners are outside their medical district?

I made a concession to them in this case. If they are out of their district and are involved in an accident for instance and are compelled to use the services of a private practitioner, they can claim from the Sick Fund.

Then the hon. member said he thought there was a feeling of frustration amongst Railwaymen and asked that this be investigated. But I do not agree with him. That may be the case possibly amongst those members he came into contact with. However, he ought to remember that there are 112 000 White employees and 110 000 non-White employees on the Railways. The hon. member cannot for one moment substantiate any charge that there is general frustration amongst the 112 000 White railwaymen.

I mentioned a specific division, the Health Division.

In regard to that I cannot reply to the hon. member across the floor of the House. I did deal with this matter some time ago. There were very good reasons for the steps the Management took. However, I am quite prepared to write to the hon. member explaining fully what the position is in regard to the health inspectors.

Then there is the question of the report in the Natal Witness, or was it in the Daily News!

In the Daily News.

Well, I do not know anything about it. However, if the hon. member would let me have that report, I shall have it investigated. Only, the lady who made the complaint should indicate on what date and on what train—otherwise it cannot be investigated.

*The hon. member for Vryheid discussed Parkville and the separate loading facilities for timber. I shall ask the Management to investigate the former. As far as timber loaders are concerned, it is correct that they are not supplied with weighing bridges. This is in terms of a resolution recently adopted. They must therefore see to it that the correct weight of timber is loaded ino the trucks.

The hon. member for Carletonville … oh yes, he was simply saying thank you. I have no objection to that.

Heads put and agreed to.

Heads Nos. 18 to 25,—Harbours, R32 354 000 (Revenue Funds) and Head No. 5, R12 033 600 (Capital and Betterment Works), Heads Nos. 28 to 30,—Airways. R117 286 000 (Revenue Funds) and Head No. 6, R38 064 500 (Capital and Betterment Works), Heads Nos. 31 to 33,—Pipelines, R9 817 000 (Revenue Funds) and Head No. 7, R5 322 200 (Capital and Betterment Works) and Heads Nos. 34 to 37,—Net Revenue Appropriation Account, R28 343 000 (Revenue Funds) and Head No. 2 (b), R5 000 000 (Capital and Betterment Works):

Since we are now dealing with harbours, I want to discuss the harbour at East London in particular. Before doing so, however, I just want to sketch the position in regard to the under-utilization of some harbours and the over-utilization of others. As far as the Durban harbour is concerned, no fewer than 428 ships have during the past three months lain at anchor outside, that is for full days and more. Here in Cape Town 100 ships have lain at anchor outside. In fact, it is only necessary to drive along De Waal Drive to see what is going on here. Along the east coast we have two harbours: Durban which is already over-utilized, and East London, a few hundred miles from Durban, which is not nearly fully utilized. At East London R6¼ million has been spent during the past few years to convert it into a turn-round harbour, to construct a tanker berth, etc. Let us consider the tonnage handled over the past few years. During the year 1965 to 1966 9 400 000 tons of goods were off-loaded in Durban as compared with 13 200 000 tons in 1969-70an increase of more than 4 million. In East London the position is that in 1965-’66 1 128 000 tons were off-loaded as compared with 1 148 000 in 1969-70—an increase of 20 000 tons. The tonnage of freight shipped, indicates the same kind of ratio. In Durban in 1965-’66 7 400 000 tons were shipped from the harbour, and in 1969-70 10 500 000 tons. In East London 278 000 tons were shipped, and in the year 1969-70 519 000 tons were shipped. Sir, it is an anomalous situation that one of our harbours along the east coast is so over-utilized that ships have to lie waiting outside the harbour for long periods, while in the other harbour it is never necessary for ships to lie waiting outside. The only case I know of where ships had to lie waiting outside the East London harbour was when the Railways was unable to transport, mealies to East London and the ships had to lie at anchor waiting for the mealies to arrive. My contention is that it will never be possible to remedy this situation and that we will never be able to utilize the East London harbour fully until such time as the differentiation in railage is eliminated to such an extent that people can be persuaded to send their goods for shipping and clearance to East London. It is not only by virtue of the fact that it can handle the tonnage which Durban cannot handle that East London harbour is important. The East London harbour is capable of handling the surplus freight from Durban, but in addition to that this harbour is the one situated closest to the border area industries. Is the Government not in earnest about developing the East London harbour to such an extent that it will in future be able to serve as a harbour for the border area industries which ought to be developed there? We know that the industrialization of the areas is not proceeding as rapidly as we hoped. It is true that a great many industrial sites were sold and many options were taken up, but we find that building is making very slow progress. The fact that building operations are not proceeding as rapidly as was hoped, is due to a great many factors. We know that new industries obtain railway concessions. This is greatly welcomed because it encourages people to establish industries there. But the fact remains that there are other factors which militate against the use of that harbour.

This harbour will have to serve two of the largest Bantu states in South Africa; it will have to serve both the Ciskei and the Transkei. Normally, it ought to be one of the busiest harbours in the Republic of South Africa if it were not for the fact that the transport rates between East London and the Witwatersrand are still higher than the transport rates from Durban to the Witwatersrand. We know about the concessions which have already been granted. I think it is 3 cents per 100 lb more expensive for high-rated goods from East London to the Witwatersrand than from Durban to the Witwatersrand, and it is approximately 25 per cent higher on low-rated goods. The fact remains that as long as this differentiation exists, people will simply not use the East London harbour. Apart from the shorter time it takes to send goods from Durban to Johannesburg than from East London to Johannesburg, the shippers never know how long the freight is going to lie waiting outside the Durban harbour before it is off-loaded. The East London harbour can in many cases render this service much quicker than the Durban harbour.

I want today to make a particular plea to the Minister on behalf of the East London harbour, to ask him to go into this matter once again to see whether there is any possibility of eliminating these differences in the railage so that East London will have the same facilities for sending goods to the Witwatersrand as Durban and the other harbours have. I do not want to talk about the Port Elizabeth harbour here; there are enough representatives of Port Elizabeth here to put in a plea on its behalf. I am confining myself in particular to the East London harbour, which ought to be developed, so that it can be used as it should be used. If the Minister can suggest to me another method of attracting freight to the East London harbour, I will concede that there is another method, but I do not know any method other than the bait of saying that the railage between East London and the Witwatersrand will be the same as the railage between Durban and the Witwatersrand.

I now come to another aspect, which is that with this 10 per cent surcharge the difference is of course even greater. The moment the 10 per cent surcharge comes into operation, I can predict even at this early juncture that the East London harbour will be used even less than in the past. For that reason I think it would be a good thing if the Minister could go into this again. I know he has declared himself unprepared to use an equalizing rate for both. I also know that there will be a measure of loss on the freight which goes from East London to the Witwatersrand, but I have here the figures which the department of the hon. the Minister furnished me with and which indicate that the amount of goods going from the Witwatersrand to East London is only 140 000 tons per year, and from Durban to the Witwatersrand 1.3 million tons, or 9½ times as much. If one works this out at an average rate reduction to the same as what the rate between Durban and the Witwatersrand will be, it seems to me that less than R2 million is involved in the matter by using an equalizing rate to remedy the situation. I want to make this plea to the hon. the Minister, and I hope that he can this time give us the assurance that he will consider it and if in any way possible, accede to this request, because it is of the utmost importance to my constituency and to the harbour of East London and to the whole of South Africa that that harbour should be properly utilized.

I wish to refer to what I can say with all modesty must be considered the most important harbour in Southern Africa, namely Durban. The General Manager in his report says that Durban was by far the busiest harbour, but he also says that there was an acute shortage of staff in key grades. I raised this matter during the short session last year, I quoted figures to the Committee, and I highlighted certain staff shortages and asked the hon. the Minister what steps he felt could be taken to alleviate this very serious position. I received no reply, but surely the Minister is aware that the position has deteriorated in the 12 short months since the matter was first brought to his attention in his House. I am reliably informed that the overall figure of berths in Durban is 56. I wish to refer briefly to an article which appeared in Commercial Opinion in February of this year, where it says that at one stage there were 71 ships and another 20 expected at the outer anchorage to join 12 ships waiting for berths. The article went on to say that ships awaiting discharge had to wait anything up to 72 hours before they could be discharged. This is a costly procedure to the shipping companies and to the overseas principals. I know that sometimes bad weather, and wet weather particularly, hampers the unloading of ships, but I ask the Minister whether he can tell us what tangible and meaningful steps are being taken to deal with Durban’s growing needs. In May, 1969, the authorized establishment for the Port of Durban—and here I am referring only to White employees—was 3 586. By February, 1971, the authorized establishment had been increased to 4 337, but what is significant is that whereas in 1969 the total vacant posts numbered 334, by February, 1971, the total number of vacant posts had increased to 1 230, nearly four times as many as two years ago. But, Sir, these are the significant figures. 28 per cent of the posts were vacant last month. 21 per cent of these posts were filled by temporary staff. Only 42 per cent of the authorized establishment was filled by permanent staff. We had the usual shortages in the key positions, such as crane drivers. We find that in June, 1970, there were 21 short. Also in June, there were 172 shunters short out of a total establishment of 295. Now we come to the vexed question of the fork-lift truck drivers. This shortage appears to be endemic. To alleviate the situation the hon. the Minister advised me in February this year that there were three clerks and two constables working overtime, driving fork-lift trucks. Also, to alleviate the situation, 15 White university students were being casually employed as checkers and firemen.

I should like to compare the position of the White staff with that of the non-White staff. The total establishment of non-Whites is 5 800-odd. Here we have a significant change, because 90 per cent of the non-White staff are classified as regular employees. You will recollect, Sir, that in the case of White staff, only 42 per cent of the total establishment were permanent. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does intend to train Indians as fork-lift truck drivers. I asked this question during the Committee Stage yesterday but the Minister did not reply. I wonder whether he has had time to give consideration to this particular aspect. It is interesting to hear the comments of individuals in the private sector closely associated with the working in Durban harbour. Some of them are very frustrated and extremely concerned at the position. This is the comment of a person in the private sector who has an intimate and specialized knowledge of long standing of shipping and harbour matters: “It must be obvious to any thinking person that the position here at Durban is such that it requires immediate and effective attention from the highest levels …” In parenthesis, Sir, I suggest that the Minister is the highest possible level. He continues: “… which will involve radical changes in the Government’s labour policy.” He refers to the question of the drivers, shunters and checkers, who are in short supply. He refers to another bottleneck as well. He says: “Where a vessel requires nine gangs to deal with normal discharge, it may be allocated only three to five gangs, because of the scarcity of available labour.” This is the second time I have highlighted this shortage in Durban harbour. I believe it to be a very important matter. I believe that the people of Natal are deeply concerned about this and that they will welcome some explanation from the Minister.

The Minister, in his reply yesterday, admitted that there were certain difficulties. He said that the time might come when it would be necessary for the delivery of goods to various commercial and industrial firms to take place after hours. He even mentioned that deliveries could be effected as late as 8 o’clock at night. He indicated too that he felt that commerce particularly had been reluctant to co-operate in this respect. I can say, for the record, that organized commerce in the shape of the Durban Chamber of Commerce is, I believe, taking every possible step to guide its members and to appeal to them to assist wherever possible. But I believe that the members themselves are faced with one problem. That is that many of them fall within the ambit of the commercial distributive trade regulations in regard to time worked and overtime. As far as I am aware, no employee engaged in the acceptance or delivery of goods, can work more than three hours overtime at one stretch or six hours overtime in one week. I believe that this is something in which the hon. the Minister could play a tangible part in showing that he is prepared to assist the firms who are prepared to co-operate with him in this difficulty. I understand from inquiries that I have made, that under circumstances like that, the possibility of exemptions from the overtime requirements for certain types of employees would be considered by the Department of Labour. If these exemptions have to be applied for piecemeal by the various employers and commercial enterprises it could be a time-consuming operation. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he consults with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Labour, and if it is possible that these exemptions may be applied in this particular instance, he should make some statement to this effect to indicate to commercial enterprise in Durban that they would have no difficulty from the Department of Labour in this respect. I believe it could help as a temporary solution to many of the problems. But basically, if Durban has to operate on an establishment over 1 200 White employees short, I do not believe that these sort of expedients will ever find a satisfactory solution to this great problem.

Mr. Chairman, I doubt whether the matter raised by the hon. member for East London City, i.e. that the over-utilization at the Durban Harbour should be diverted to East London harbour, will work. It is simply the case that the greatest market in our country is Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand. Durban is the nearest harbour to that area. That is why Durban is a popular harbour and that is why so many ships touch on there. That is also why it is the biggest harbour in South Africa, and why it will quite probably remain the biggest harbour. It is unrealistic to expect that people in Johannesburg should import their goods through East London harbour.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member for Berea adopted a reasonably positive attitude in respect of the problems we are at present experiencing in our harbours. The fact of the matter is that we must realize that the normal accepted growth in our harbours is based on 4 per cent. During the period 1965 to 1970 there was an average growth of 62 per cent in our harbours, that is more than 12 per cent per year. But what is more there was a tremendous jump last year, i.e. an increase of 20 per cent. In the Durban harbour alone 28 per cent more goods were handled than in the previous year. That is why one must realize that the harbours are being tested to the utmost. They have had to do everything possible to make the grade. Now it is the case that there is a feeling in organized commerce that they must do something in regard to certain problems, so that bottlenecks at the harbours can be eliminated. So there is for example the congestion of goods which cannot be delivered after hours. In that same article which the hon. member quoted from the February edition of Commercial Opinion the following is also stated—

That is the point. I made a few inquiries in regard to the congestion caused by undelivered goods. Organized commerce is making appeals in this connection, but I can inform the hon. member for Berea that there has been very little reaction. It is a good thing that we have at least gained these people’s interest in assisting on an organized scale. But, as I have said, I made a few inquiries in this connection. I have been told that if only a quarter of the firms dealing with our larger cartage service depots can be persuaded to receive goods and to load trailers overnight, there can be a daily saving of 574 trucks. This would happen if only a quarter of the firms at four of our large cartage service depots, including the Durban and the Cape Town complex, could receive their goods overnight. This would mean that 1 652 additional tons of goods could be removed, and that 3 049 tons of additional goods daily could be delivered.

The fact that people do not want to receive goods after hours is not the greatest problem we have at the harbours. Another problem we have and which is in fact greater than this one, is the amount of uncleared goods in the harbours. Uncleared goods are the goods which have arrived at the harbour but in regard to which the shipping agents do not have the necessary papers, despite the modern communications means they have at their disposal. What must the Railways do then? They must off-load the goods and store them in their sheds where they cause impossible congestion at a time when we are in fact saddled with these problems. In this connection Durban is to my and to Cape Town’s disgrace an example to Cape Town. I established two days ago that at present there are 14 700 tons of uncleared goods out of a total of approximately 27 400 tons of landed freight lying in the Cape Town harbour. That means that 53.6 per cent of the goods documents are not available. The result is that the harbour authorities are saddled with it. This blocks the entire flow of harbour traffic. To cope with this situation the Department of Railways and Harbours increased the storage costs by 100 per cent in 1967, but even this does not help. This does not help because the shipping agents simply recover the costs from the consignees.

In all fairness to Durban I just want to mention here that the situation there is better. Durban is a harbour which handles a great deal more traffic than Cape Town and in Durban the shipping agents have so far succeeded in limiting the uncleared goods to 7 000 tons out of a total cargo of 30 000 tons. That is, only 22 per cent of the total. This congestion of goods is a disturbing factor, because it restricts the whole operation of harbour traffic.

Hon. members will understand that our harbours, with this tremendous increase in traffic, simply cannot expand rapidly enough. New tendencies are now developing. Recently we had the phenomenon that larger ships are being used to transport ordinary freight. Large ships are not only being used for oil and for bulk freight, but also for goods freight. So far the gross tonnage of ordinary freighters visiting our harbours has remained relatively constant at plus-minus 9 000 gross tons. These ships could berth easily at a 450 foot long quay. The present ships, however, are becoming larger and larger and they can no longer berth at these short quays. For them quays must be made available which are at least 600 feet long. More and more of these ships are touching on at our harbours and this simply means that fewer of these ships can berth at these quays at the same time. This causes a delay. Apart from that these larger ships each need two tugs and also two teams of mooring crews. After all, it is obvious that these ships have to remain in their berths for a longer period of time as a result of the tremendous amount of cargo which has to be discharged.

The result of this is that the other ships must wait for them. Today it is no longer abnormal that a ship discharges on one occasion between 4 000 and 6 000 tons at a time on the quay. Not only do the other ships have to wait for these ships, but this also causes tremendous congestion of goods in our harbour areas and in our sheds. If, in addition to this, goods are not cleared, it aggravates the problems of the Railways so much more. As a result of this trend of ever-larger freight carrying ships, the Administration has to spend a great deal more money in making provision for them as well. That is why the new works at No. I and 2 quays and the extension of the Table Bay harbour has been tackled. However, this costs a great deal of money. During the past two financial years R18.5 million has been spent. This year, however, the Administration is spending 182 per cent more than in the past two years combined, namely R52 million in expanding our harbour facilities. This must be done to keep pace with this new trend. New docks and quays have to be built to take these larger ships. It is for this reason that I say, when it comes to our harbours, that we should with great circumspection consider all the problems which have to be dealt with. According to the latest estimates, R26.5 million will be spent on Table Bay harbour alone. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in my maiden speech last year I made reference to the vital part which the Cape Town harbour would have to play in the success of the Cape to Rio race classic. This race has now passed into recorded history, but I would like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the Railways and Harbours Authorities and to the hon. the Minister himself for the fantastic co-operation which took place between the Railways and Harbours Administration, the S.A. Navy and yachting interests.

This race has put South Africa back on the world sporting map and without any controversy. It has captured world imagination and to that extent we are grateful that it could be staged starting from South Africa and leaving from the Port of Cape Town. The hon. the Prime Minister himself was present to see the start of the race. 100 000 people witnessed the start under perfect conditions which brought South Africa close to its seas and its ports again. The journey between the commencement port Cape Town and the port of finish, Rio de Janeiro, was bridged by some 30 days of excitement followed by most of us. I want to make reference to the arrival of the yachts at Rio de Janeiro in order to indicate the contra-distinction between the adequate facilities which our yachtsmen found on that occasion and the conditions which, unfortunately, despite the organization, the hospitality and the goodwill they met with here. Through no fault of the Railways and Harbours Authorities we were faced with strong winds and pollution of the harbour which did considerable damage to the yachts of the 57 entries which left here.

The history of the race is now known. A South African yacht built in a South African port was the overall winner. Stormkaap out of Cape Town and Jakaranda, representing Pretoria, were disabled. Sprinter with an all-woman crew finished the race. The South African yacht Albatros II finally won the race. These yachts were ably followed and assisted by the s.s. Tafelberg, the escort ship. On arrival in Rio the yachts entered one of the most beautiful, well-equipped and fantastic yacht basins in the world. This yacht basin identifies itself with the vibrant life of the city of Rio de Janeiro and it costs many hundreds of thousands of rand to maintain and equip. I do ask the hon. the Minister to realize that those who saw at the start of the race the collection of some 300 yachts in Granger Bay just outside Table Bay Harbour had an indication of what yachting can do for South Africa and particularly for Cape Town. If we can have proper facilities in Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town we will have something which will enrich the life of our country, the life or our sportsmen.

I would now like to pass on to a matter which is of more concern. Certain doubts are being expressed about the new Table Bay Harbour. The hon. the Minister will know that in about 1968 commercial and industrial interests in Cape Town indicated that they were not entirely happy with the surprise that was sprung on them by the Railways in introducing to them the plans for the new harbour. So much was this concern made public, that the Moffatt departmental commission was initiated by the Minister and sat to hear the views of commerce and industry. It is well known that it was the belief of commerce and industry that the harbour was planned in Johannesburg by railway experts there and that no full weight was given to the practical experience of the harbour staff in Cape Town and the experts who were working the harbour down here. It was even believed at that time that we could have had a better harbour at Rietvlei.

Be that as it may, it is now clear that although the present harbour plans were forced on us, there are certain doubts as to whether the plan in its original conception will be put through. One has only to read the headlines in the recent papers, for example “Doubts on the new Table Bay harbour”, “Final decision on a new harbour basin imminent”, “Discontent over the new harbour” and “Decision awaited on a bigger dock”. It would appear that the working staff in the Cape Town harbour have put forward representations to Johannesburg indicating that the present proposed basin should be widened by some 700 metres if the dock is to be capable of catering for the new needs of the major container ships, which we hope to receive in the foreseeable future. I believe that there has been a railway compromise and that a suggested turning base, involving some 300 additional metres width being added to the proposed basin, is under consideration. But what worries me. is the fact that there seems to be a shroud of secrecy over the matter. Whether the additional costs are such that they would embarrass the Administration at this stage, or whether there is unwillingness to back down and recognize that the position, as put by commercial and industrial interests in Cape Town before the Moffatt Commission, had more substance than was appreciated at the time, I am not certain. I do hope that, because this unrest is present, and it is felt that the harbour as planned in Johannesburg is not the harbour that was advocated by those experts, pilots and harbour officials, who have to work the harbour in Cane Town, the hon. the Minister may feel inclined to set the mind of the public at rest.

As we have heard so much about the planning aspect of the Department of Railways and Harbours, I would appeal to him, too, to give the fullest consideration to the eventual siting of the new proposed giant dry dock. This, we understand, has been mooted by the Industrial Development Corporation. I would have hoped that the hon. the Minister would have had enough confidence in the future of the country and in his own department to have initiated this action himself, to have kept the control of the docks under the harbour’s administration, and to have motivated the whole idea himself. It has been suggested that the first area will be in the locality of the present Royal Cape Yacht Club basin. Experts have indicated that with the high wind aspect of many of the modern tankers and the high wind conditions we have at the Cape, there will be problems in berthing and unberthing major tankers up to 400 000 tons. If the new docks could be situated in the position of the present layout basin, it would appear that with the increased size of the harbour, as we hope it will be extended, these modern container ships, and modern tankers, could berth head-on into a South-Easter without any turning and without any difficulty.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down on his reference to the great yachting event. I think it was a very fine effort on his part to make mention of that notable, achievement in this House.

I want to refer to some matters affecting the Port Elizabeth harbour. During his Second-Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that, although berthing accommodation for deep-sea container vessels will initially be provided at Durban and Cape Town, Port Elizabeth will eventually also be equipped with this facility.

Those of us who are connected with Port Elizabeth welcome this assurance, especially because an element of doubt was creeping in as to whether or not Port Elizabeth was going to be considered for container facilities. One accepts quite readily that the Administration is heavily committed in so far as Durban, Richard’s Bay and Cape Town harbours are concerned. Nevertheless there is a sense of urgency about the expansion of the Port Elizabeth harbour. In 1968 the berth occupation in the harbour at Port Elizabeth was in the region of 70 per cent. It is generally accepted that when a harbour reaches this point, a stage has been reached where it is necessary to plan for further expansion. In 1970-*71 the estimated berth occupation will be, at a conservative figure, 82 per cent. Apart from the Minister’s assurance, the fact that worries us is that there is no blue print, as far as I am aware, in respect of future expansion at this harbour. Already the berth occupation in the harbour there is 82 per cent, a percentage which is very conservative if viewed in the light of the fact that our harbour traffic has expanded by 20 per cent during the past year. There is no doubt that the harbour at Port Elizabeth is tremendously congested. This is due to a certain extent to the shortage of wharfage and also to a shortage of personnel. This shortage manifests itself most definitely in respect of crane drivers and fork-lift drivers. Like the hon. member for Berea, I too should like to appeal to the Minister to take whatever steps possible to rationalize the use of non-White personnel in these occupations. I think one must accept that no matter what happens there never will be sufficient White people to operate these occupations effectively. The result of not being rational in this regard is that traffic in the harbours is being held up.

Containerization in so far as the harbour at Port Elizabeth is concerned is very relevant. The motor-car industry is expanding apace in Port Elizabeth, an industry which lends itself very well to container traffic. We must also bear in mind that though the national production of wool is tending to fall off, there are very definite moves afoot to centralize the export of wool. In this connection I believe that Port Elizabeth will play a vital role, more so than in the past, in the handling of our wool clip.

It appears logical to me therefore that there is a very good prospect of using inward-bound car-part containers for wool on the return journeys. I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that in this respect in trading circles between the United Kingdom and Australia very far-reaching steps have been taken with regard to reciprocal trade—wool and car-parts—in so far as containerized traffic is concerned, and we must be careful that we are not caught flat-footed in this regard. Sir, in considering the future of the Port Elizabeth harbour we have to take into account that another remarkable development is nearing completion. I refer to the Orange River project. The years when the waters of the Orange River will be flowing down to the Fish River and the Sundays River Valley are not far off now, and this is going to stimulate production in the hinterland of Port Elizabeth to a very great extent. Much of this production will be offered for export and I believe that by that time the harbours should be placed in a position to deal with this extra trade.

We also note with gratification the expansion of the ore trade through Port Elizabeth. When one looks at the figures quoted by the hon. the Minister in his speech, one finds that in 1970 we exported 3.7 million tons of ore; in 1971 5.2 million, and we expect to export 5.7 million in 1972 and 6.9 million in 1973. I think it is fair to say that the Administration deserves to be congratulated on the introduction of centralized traffic control, on the fact that it is using a far greater number of specialized trucks, extra loop-lines and longer trains. In this way they have been able to build up this extra traffic in ore. I think the Administration is to be congratulated for this. I think it is reasonable to accept that by 1974 the Administration may well be delivering some 10 million tons of ore per annum to be exported through Port Elizabeth. What worries me is that at that stage the St. Croix project, which has been mooted so often, becomes a viable proposition.

The hon. the Minister gave a very clear and concise answer to the hon. member for Von Brandis in regard to this position. He stated, if I understood him correctly, that if by the 31st March of this year he had a clear undertaking from Iscor that they had sufficiently large contracts to justify the Saldanha project, and that finances would be made available to tackle the railway line and other installations connected with that vast project, the Saldanha project would be developed. My request to the hon. the Minister is that if Iscor is unable to give these guarantees the St. Croix project will once again figure very strongly in his thinking. You see, Sir, there is a very vital factor in this matter. At the present stage we are exporting ore to Japan through the present export berth at Algoa Bay. The biggest ships that we can handle there are in the region of 50 000 tons. I think it is true to say that the freightage in the case of vessels of that capacity is almost double the freightage in the case of vessels of 150 000 to 200 000 tons. I am just afraid that in due course we will be freighted completely out of business because what overseas buyers are interested in is the price that they pay for ore landed in their country. and if through a short-sighted policy and through dilly-dallying we are unable to provide ore berths for the bigger ships and gain the advantage of the cheaper freight rates, nobody is going to be interested at all in our ore.

I believe the time has come when the St. Croix project is an urgent necessity in the interest of the country’s economy. Then I think, too, we might well consider—and I would like to ask the Minister to do this that whatever ore port we use, we will have to accommodate bigger ships. Have we got the tugs which will be able to handle these bigger ships in our harbours? Has not the time come when we should invest in powerful tugs which could handle these big ships and also to deal with any trouble that may arise, as was the case with the Wafra? [Time expired.]

Hon. members on the opposite side of this House obviously think the S.A. Airways is not important enough to warrant discussion, or otherwise one must draw the conclusion that the affairs of the S.A. Airways are in such good order that they cannot find any grounds for criticism in that regard. But even then one may still expect positive critism, of which there is an obvious lack on that side.

During the past number of years the airlines of the world have come up against a very unpleasant phenomenon, which I want to discuss on this occasion. This phenomenon is piracy in the air which can be compared with piracy at sea in earlier years. I think the world should wake up and realize, after all the alarming stories we heard about piracy in the past, that history is repeating itself and that air piracy is taking place with the same degree of cruelty and unpleasantness. In the past year aircraft to the value of more than R100 million were destroyed in an absolutely horrible way. People were simply abducted into the desert, bombs were placed on aircraft, ignited and exploded and in recent times, inter alia, a Boeing 747 has fallen victim to this air piracy. So one of the modern wonders of our transport system has fallen victim to this air piracy. Now, various conferences have been held at various places, but there apparently is an inability on the part of Governments to combat this problem. Therefore my plea today is that our Government give the most serious attention possible to this problem. In saying this, I am not belittling what is already being done by our Government and by the S.A. Airways in the way of combating this problem. From the nature of the case one does not want to discuss in public what measures have been put into operation in order to combat the problem. My plea simply is that existing measures, which have been highly successful—a South African aircraft has not yet fallen victim to this—be extended so that, if need be, we may place the most severe and the most radical legislation on the Statute Book in order to tackle this matter. The airlines, and particularly I.A.T.A., are particularly concerned about this phenomenon of air piracy. I just want to quote from a publication of October last year, in which they expressed their opinion. They said there were a number of things which made them unhappy, and went on to say—

They went on to refer to the various conferences which had been held, and said—

This is followed by a discussion of the various methods. We need to create a psychological aversion to these air pirates, to this extreme form of crime and thuggery occurring in the air, and for that reason our public, too, need to understand, when they experience inconvenience at air terminals, at airports, that some of the inconvenience which they are caused is aimed at ensuring their safety and the safety of the airline and the safety of the aircraft. For that reason it may happen, particularly on international flights, that some inconvenience may arise from searching luggage, as well as searching passengers themselves, for dangerous weapons, explosives and so on, and that certain measures are taken which may promote delay. But all of this ought to contribute to our being more keenly intent on finding protective measures against this form of crime in the air. Hence my plea for the Government to employ every means, and, if need be, to pass the most drastic legislation so as to combat this ugly phenomenon of the sixties and seventies.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member dealt with the Airways. I want to return briefly to the question of harbours. There has been a good deal of discussion in this debate in regard to delays in our harbours. It has been mentioned that part of this delay is due to the public not moving their goods quickly enough from the harbour sheds. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how deeply this matter has been investigated by his Department. I am quite certain in my own mind from the inquiries that I have made, that he would have the full co-operation of the public. The public, however, are bedevilled by a great deal of paper work occasioned by Customs formalities. It takes days, or perhaps weeks, to clear these papers from the Customs. This is where a good deal of the delay occurs. I am quite convinced in my own mind that if this matter is fully investigated, from the ship’s side to the wharf, shed and Customs, much could be done in alleviating these delays. I am convinced that the public are only too anxious to co-operate in getting their goods out of the docks. If they do not get their goods out of the docks they pay storage on those goods in any event. I am quite certain that they are only too anxious to get those goods out of the harbour anyway, il should therefore like the hon. the Minister to assure this House that this matter has been investigated. And if so, has it been investigated in the proper spirit. I say this advisedly, because there is a good deal of jealousy between certain departments and certain authorities. They do not like other departments infringing on what they believe to be their rights. If the hon. the Minister could look at this particular aspect it may help to alleviate one of the problems. The hon. the Minister mentioned during his Second Reading speech that I had said that the delay in our harbours could have been foreseen some twenty years ago and that the Department was warned about it in 1951. The hon. the Minister reacted to that by asking the question: How could he have foreseen Suez in 1951? What I did in fact say to the hon. the Minister was that the Coal Board Commission in 1951 warned the Railways of the delays. That position has persisted since that date. I think it is wrong, and every person using our seaboard will agree, that to blame the congestion in our harbours on Suez only is completely incorrect. Suez has added to our problems but it is not the prime factor, or anywhere near it, for the delays and congestion in our harbours. But one of the most important points, and one to which I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and this House, is that the total loss to shipping in our South African ports through delays at our harbours at the moment, calculated at an average of 40 ships awaiting entry at an average wasted cost of R1 000 per ship, exceeds R1 million per month. That R1 million is going to be passed on to the consumers, because these costs will be added to the freight. The freight will have a snowballing effect on everything imported or exported by South Africa. So this matter is not one which we can just brush aside. We cannot just say that we have made plans which will materialize in five or six years’ time. The problem is with us now and we must solve it now and solve it speedily. When one realizes that R1 million per month is going to waste by ships standing outside our ports. I believe …

That is nonsense! Absolute nonsense!

If the hon. the Minister of Tourism knew as much about his portfolio as about shipping, we may get somewhere.

I know a little more about shipping than you do.

To make it quite clear that my estimate is in fact an under-estimate …

R1 million?

Will you keep quiet for just a moment and listen? Take your skullcap off and listen. Outside this port at this very moment is a ship which has been lying there since Sunday, costing R2 000 per day. It has been lying there since Sunday, but it only needs six hours of berth time in our harbour.

R1 million per month?

That is just one shin. When that is added to the 40 ships which are lying around our ports at this very moment, then, if your arithmetic is any good, it comes to more than R1 million per month.

That is absolute nonsense!

I do not have any time to waste with the hon. the Minister of Tourism.

I do not have any time to waste with you. I do not like a man to talk absolute nonsense here.

The hon. the Minister will have his turn when we deal with his portfolio. I think he will wish that he were sitting outside in the roadstead and not inside this House.

I am waiting for it.

I would like to deal with the hon. the Minister of Transport for whom I have a great deal more respect

The hon. the Minister would be doing the country a favour if he were to give us a report in regard to the position at Richard’s Bay. We have heard much about Richard’s Bay. From time to time questions have been asked in respect of Richard’s Bay. We have spent a great deal of money. We have built a railway line, a smelter plant is being built and large sections of the population have been moved. But doubt still exists with regard to the feasibility of Richard’s Bay. When I say that doubt exists, I know that scale models have been built, currents have been checked on these models, the movement of sand has been checked and all the necessary has probably been done. What concerns me mostly about Richard’s Bay is that we are still in the stage of investigating yet we are spending millions and millions of rands in formulating certain plans. I ask this question because, in the report of an official of the C.S.I.R., he had this to say recently:

That worries me considerably. He says that tests will prove whether we are right or not. Surely, before we spend this money and continue to spend these millions of rands, we should not be in a position where we say that tests will prove whether we are right or not. We should know at this stage whether these plans are feasible. I think the time has come for the hon. the Minister to take the House into his confidence and to let us know exactly what the position is at Richard’s Bay. It may be perfectly correct in every detail, but we do not know and the doubt exists. For instance, this particular official said that there should be no difficulty in building a port to take tankers of 150 000 tons. By the time this port will be finished, a tanker of 150 000 tons will in fact be a small tanker. Therefore of what value will Richard’s Bay be any way? I have always understood that the purpose of building Richard’s Bay, was to take the super tankers and the very large tankers of the future. A tanker of 150 000 tons cannot be considered an improvement in so far as Richard’s Bay is concerned by today’s standards. I ask the hon. the Minister in all sincerity with no sense of criticism, to take the House in his confidence and tell us exactly what the position is in regard to Richard’s Bay, leaving no stone unturned, so that all doubts are diminished once and for all and people can go forward with the development of Richard’s Bay in confidence. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to leave the question of harbours and follow the hon. member for Middelburg in discussing the Airways. We on this side of the House, like the hon. member for Middelburg, are very concerned about the tendency today to hijack aircraft and the necessity of some type of international control. However, the various countries have not been able to come together. But I think a solution will be found in the operational staff through their various associations. I am fairly certain that the South African Airways with their intelligent staff and international connections have worked out a scheme of safety as far as hijacking is concerned although it may not be a hundred per cent effective. One of the items that I think we have to face and will have to plan for, is the security of aircraft passengers. Today we live in a world of international hijacking and kidnapping. It is a serious state of affairs. It gives one an idea of the drift of the world. I am fairly certain that the Government has this problem under control. Naturally, they cannot disclose the measures they have taken in this regard, because this would advise a prospective hijacker of what he could expect. But, as I have said, I am fairly certain that the Government has this matter in hand.

Our Airways is a very healthy babe, but like any healthy babe growing up, it has growing pains. The hon. the Minister has told us about the increasing demand for air transport that is exceeding expectations. However, the hon. the Minister is expecting a slight drop in this demand as compared with last year. It would be interesting to hear from the hon. the Minister why he expects a drop in his surplus from R7-odd million to roundabout R5 million? What does the hon. the Minister, at this stage, think is the reason for that?

More expenditure.

Yes, but when one looks at the passenger intake, if the percentage rises as the hon. the Minister has told us, one cannot really see that happening. The hon. the Minister told us that by the end of this financial year, the South African Airways would have carried something like 1¼ million passengers and 8.8 million tons of freight internally. This is only on our domestic routes. On the Springbok route there is an increase of nearly 39 per cent. Freight ton mileage has increased by nearly 20 per cent. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister why the American and Wallaby routes have been falling off, because just recently it was announced that an additional flight would be put on this particular route. On page 154 of the Brown Book, one sees that the hon. the Minister has budgeted to spend R35 244 800 in regard to item 1373—Purchase of Aircraft. During the financial year 1971-’72 the hon. the Minister intends spending R8 283 200. Item 1374 sets out what type of aircraft will be purchased and the estimated cost of those aircraft. Three Boeing 747 aircraft will for example be purchased. It would be interesting to hear from the hon. the Minister how he intends spending this R35 244 800 in the coming years. It would be interesting to hear from him what type of aircraft he intends buying.

Another item one would like to hear about from the hon. the Minister and in regard to which we wonder whether we really get any true value, is the very large amount of money we are spending on advertising. Last year we spent an amount of nearly R10 million and this year it is going up to R11 million. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us in which manner the advertising is done. Is it done by contract? R11 million is a lot of money, especially when we take into consideration that we spend R18½ million for maintenance as a comparison. I wonder whether we really get value for the money spent as far as advertising is concerned.

When I started my speech I referred to this baby of ours, the Airways, and I said that it should right from its infancy be put on a proper basis. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Transport will do that. There were recommendations in the Marais Commission report that the Airways should be separated from the Railways, but thus far the recommendation has not been accepted. When the South African Airways were originally started from the old Union Airways, the Department of Transport built the aerodromes and they provided all the necessary facilities. That position still exists today. The effect is that today the passengers for whom the hon.—the Minister is catering and for whom he is advertising, have to put up with the facilities which are provided by the hon. the Minister of Transport not the Minister of Railways. In view of the risk of hijacking. I think our airports should be taken over completely and should be controlled completely by the South African Airways. I think the Department of Transport can do a useful job elsewhere, but our large international airports should be taken over by the Railways and should be run as a unit. The position as it exists today is a peculiar position. You find that this divided control exists. Air control is run by the Department of Transport while the machine is flown by South African Airways. But in addition when a building is built, it is not done by the South African Airways, or Dept, of Transport, but it is built by the Public Works Department.

Today we have the position at D. F. Malan Airport that buildings have been designed to take certain traffic, but soon afterwards it was found that the traffic had grown to such an extent that some of the buildings had become dated, had to be dismantled and new buildings have to be built. As hon. members know, D. F. Malan has now become an international airport and to provide for that, a temporary international building had to be built. This hon. Minister has told us over the years that the D. F. Malan Airport will not become an international airport. However, the experience has been that this one flight per week to London is so popular that the hon. the Minister will have to face up to the fact in the very near future that the number of flights per week to London will have to be increased. What is more, pressure is being exerted on the Airways to have flights from Cape Town to South America. We already know that this has become a very important airport for the changing of flight crew. Today very large aircraft are handled at D. F. Malan Airport. It is becoming a very busy airport. However, when one sees the facilities which exist at D. F. Malan Airport and one looks at the buildings and the rough plans which have been produced, I am afraid that I have to say that the planned buildings and the existing buildings are totally inadequate. This points out that it is high time that the whole control of airports should be taken over by the Airways, in other words the Railways, from the Department of Transport. On our Estimates you find that the Airways are actually building the hangers at Jan Smuts, whereas the Department of Transport is building the airport. There we get this divided control. If one goes on, one sees that there are South African Police members as well as members from the Railway Police. There again we find overlapping. This is absolutely unnecessary. I think, with this growing baby, the South African Airways, which is a very profitable baby, we can go very far if it is properly controlled. We hope that the hon. the Minister will give consideration to bringing them under one umbrella, and that is under the South African Airways. The divided control which exists at the moment is very unsatisfactory. The hon. the Minister has said that the Boeing-747s will not use D. F. Malan Airport. They will, however, be coming to the Cape on practice flights. I wonder whether the runways here will suit them. I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to the questions I have asked him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the past the hon. member for Salt River always used to advance a plea for the separation of the ways and the taking-over of the Airways by the Department of Transport. However, the hon. member came forward with a new plea this afternoon, a plea which I find quite interesting. He said that airports should be taken over by the Railways and that they should be taken away from the Department of Transport. To me this is a new and quite novel argument. I simply cannot see how one will be able to make that tale sound plausible; I simply cannot see how airports could be placed in the same category as the Railways in the sense that they be placed on an equal footing with railway stations and that the Department of Transport should then be left with the other functions. One of the important functions of the Department of Transport is the maintenance of and control over all our State airports in South Africa. If that function were to be taken away from the Department of Transport, it would mean that the Department would mainly be dealing with road transport. If this were done, I wonder who would be responsible for the control of air traffic. Who would then be responsible for air navigation equipment which is at present being installed, maintained and tested and calibrated by the Department of Transport? Very recently the Department of Transport acquired a very modern aircraft precisely for the purpose of carrying out such tasks and functions. This is highly complicated equipment and the hon. member now wants to take this away from the Department of Transport and hand over the airports to the Railways. This sounds like a very strange argument to me, in any case a brand new one from that hon. member. The hon. member also raised objections to the fact that the construction work is being undertaken by the Department of Public Works. However, when one looks at the annual Loan Estimates in respect of all the departments, one sees that it is an old practice for the Department of Public Works to be responsible for the construction work of other departments. It is not unusual for the Department of Public Works to undertake certain obligations and certain construction work on behalf of the Department of Transport as well. Therefore I fail to understand the objections raised by the hon. member in this regard.

During the course of the year we reached an interesting milestone which is of great importance to pilots in particular and I am convinced also for those who take an intensive interest in flying. This milestone was reached when the D.C.3 Dakotas were withdrawn from service in the South African Airways; they are now being replaced by other types of aircraft. The old D.C.3s have been flying since 1936. This is one of the most reliable aircraft ever flown, a fact which becomes quite clear when one considers the millions of miles and flying-hours clocked up by these aircraft all over the world. Extensive use was made of them during the Second World War. On one occasion one of them was flown with a wing borrowed from another aircraft which was a few feet longer than its own. The old D.C.3s were subjected to all kinds of peculiar practices, and the demands made on them were well-nigh impossible. It is with a touch of sadness that one sees them being withdrawn from service now and replaced with more modern types of aircraft. They served us loyally and will continue to do so in the future, because they are being transferred to other departments for use there. The D.C. is now being replaced by a new type of aircraft, the HS-748. As hon. members know, the hon. the Minister mentioned this fact in his Budget speech. After the hon. the Minister had made his speech, hon. members asked me what the HS-748 was. Various aircraft manufacturers throughout the world have been looking for an aircraft to take the place of the D.C.-3. Various prototypes were built in an attempt to replace the D.C.-3, but nobody was wholly successful. I do not suggest that this aircraft has succeeded in replacing the D.C.-3, but under modern circumstances this type of aircraft is the nearest we can get to a Dakota. This H.S.-748 is a British manufactured aircraft, a Hawker-Siddeley product, also with twin engines, but these are turbo-prop engines, similar to the Viscount. There is therefore uniformity as regards the engines, these items which have to be serviced regularly and which require most attention on this type of aircraft. The existing Viscount workshops and technical know-how and equipment can, therefore, be utilized to service and maintain the 748. As far as this aspect is concerned, we have standardization. This aircraft however has very interesting features. Time will not allow me to discuss them in detail. The aircraft is capable of carrying a maximum of 52 passengers, depending on the seating arrangements and the amount of space allocated to freight. The aircraft has more powerful turbo-prop engines enabling it to use very short runways and also to land on uneven ground. Since this type of aircraft is being put into operation in the South African Airways for the first time, we can only trust that our experience with them will be as favourable and our association with them as beneficial as our experience with the old Dakotas has been over the years.

Mr. Chairman, in the three or four minutes that are still available to me, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would not reconsider the 10 per cent surcharge which he announced in his Budget in respect of the ad valorem wharfage charges which are levied on goods which pass through our harbours.

I realize that he has already excluded goods which are moving out of our harbours from this surcharge.

I would suggest to him that it be reconsidered as far as the wharfage charges in respect of imports and inward goods also are concerned. The effect of this surcharge on wharfage charges is that the harbours are getting increased revenue in two ways now. They are getting it, because the ad valorem charge is based on values that are constantly increasing. Values since the last increase in tariffs in 1966 have gone up by an average of approximately 8 per cent, so that he already has had this 8 per cent increase in income from that source. But now, on top of that, he is getting it by way of the 10 per cent surcharge. I suggest that this is a directly inflationary charge, in that importers cost the charge of wharfage into their costs and add it on the prices which they charge to the consumer, so that the consumer is paying directly for this charge. I feel that the harbours are getting the increased revenue in any case. I therefore ask the Minister to reconsider the surcharge.

The hon. member for East London City and the hon. member for Walmer spoke about the East London harbour and the Port Elizabeth harbour respectively. I just want to say that I have, of course, very close ties with both Port Elizabeth and East London. I am the chancellor of the University of Port Elizabeth and the airport at East London is named after me. I am very sympathetic towards both these harbours. But the change in the tariffs is not going to make any difference to the utilization of East London harbour. The tariffs from Cape Town to the Witwatersrand are far higher than those from East London to the Witwatersrand. As a matter of fact, East London has the benefit of the special harbour tariffs. Despite this East London harbour is not being used to the same extent as the Cape Town harbour. I, personally, shall be very glad if importers will send their goods to East London harbour, thus reducing the congestion in the other harbours. As far as Durban is concerned. the distance between Durban and Johannesburg is 719 kilometres while the distance between East London to the Rand is 1 025 kilometres. High tariff traffic from Durban to the Witwatersrand carries a tariff of 240 cents and from East London, 247 cent·!, i.e. a difference of only 7 cents. The tariff in respect of low tariff goods is 49 cents from Durban as against 61 cents from East London. There is, therefore, only a slight difference in the tariffs—a difference of only 3 per cent. But in spite of that East London harbour is not being used to the extent it should be used, something I should like to see being done. I do not know what else can be done to persuade importers to consign their goods to East London. A manipulation of railway tariffs alone is not going to make any difference. East London harbour is, of course, being under-utilized. That means that a far greater number of ships can be handled there as is the case at present.

†The hon. member for Berea spoke about Durban harbour. He wanted to know what steps were being taken to meet Durban’s needs. Quite a number of steps have been taken over the years …

I mean in connection with the labour shortage.

I thought the hon. member was referring to the harbour capacity. In that connection I can point out that pier No. I and pier No. 2 have been built …

I am aware of that.

The staff shortage is acute—that I must admit; it is really acute. The hon. member has suggested that I train Indians as fork-lift drivers. I do not want to say anything at this stage about what is being done to relieve the staff shortage because discussions are going to take place between the Management and the trade unions to see what can be done to meet the position. He also suggested that exemptions be granted by the Department of Labour to traders to work more than 3 hours’ overtime But the Department of Labour cannot give a blanket exemption; it can only grant an exemption on application by a particular trader. The hon. member would know, furthermore, that there is an industrial agreement and in terms of that the concurrence of the trade unions is necessary for that. If we have that I am quite sure that we shall be able to obtain the necessary exemptions.

The hon. member for Gardens said that doubts were being expressed about the building of the new dock in Cape Town harbour. Well, the building of this dock has a long history. It is not a question that the plans therefor were drawn up in Johannesburg. On the contrary, everything was done in co-operation with the harbour engineers. They are on the spot and know what the position is. As a matter of fact, these plans were drawn many years ago and were supported by the City Council of Cape Town. Because there were many objections to the original plans I appointed a committee on which also Commerce and Industry were represented. That Committee decided in favour of a dock in Cape Town harbour. It preferred Cape Town harbour to Rietvlei, which was regarded to be quite unsuitable. I visited Rietvlei myself and I too considered it to be unsuitable. I do not have the time to enumerate the reasons for that now. The hon. member says there seems to be a lot of secrecy in so far as further extensions are concerned. But I can only refer him to the Harbour Advisory Board on which Commerce too is represented. There is no secrecy at all as far as this board is concerned. They know precisely what is being done and what will still be done. It is so that there is going to be an extension of the basin, a widening of the basin, to make provision for the turning of container ships. I have already stated in reply to a question in the House what the additional cost is going to be. But there is no secrecy. The Harbour Advisory Board will be able to give commerce and industry all the information that they require in regard to these matters.

I In regard to the proposed site for a new dry dock I can only say that the whole matter is in the air. I certainly have no intention of building any dry dock from State funds. All the dry docks are being operated at a considerable loss, even the Sturrock Dock in Cape Town. I suggested to the ship repairers that they should form a consortium and take over the running of the docks and pay the South African Railways a rental for the docks and run them themselves. The Industrial Development Corporation has stated that they are prepared to finance the building of a dock if we give them the necessary space in the harbours, but no investigation has taken place and nothing has been finally decided in regard to this matter. The whole thing is still in the air.

The hon. member for Walmer spoke about the expansion of Port Elizabeth harbour. I can only tell him that the blueprint has already been prepared; the eventual expansion of the harbour has already been planned but it is quite problematical when a start will be made with the actual work on the expansion because there are certain priorities; we have to complete Durban; we have to finish Cape Town docks and when we have sufficient funds and the need arises then the Port Elizabeth harbour will be expanded.

The hon. member also said that there was a shortage of staff. My information is that there is no serious shortage of staff in Port Elizabeth harbour. It is one of the few harbours where there is no acute shortage of staff.

With regard to St. Croix he said that we need bigger tugs. Well, we have, not bigger tugs but more powerful tugs, on order to deal with these bigger ships.

*The hon. member for Middelburg spoke about hijacking and said that serious attention should be given to this matter. I can assure the hon. member that serious attention is, in fact, being given to this matter and that all possible steps are being taken by the South African Airways to prevent this from happening. It will not be advisable to say in public here what those steps amount to, but all possible steps are being taken to avoid this. As I have said on a previous occasion, there is only one way of putting a stop to hijacking, i.e. that all the countries of the world should accept a convention which lays down that hijacking be regarded as an international offence, like piracy, and that the most severe penalties be prescribed for hijackers. When this happens, when all the countries agree on this, hijacking will be stopped immediately, but the unfortunate thing is that there are certain countries which do not want to co-operate. Cuba is one of them and certain countries in the Middle East do not want to co-operate either. Unless all these countries get together and subscribe to and sign a convention such as this, a convention in terms of which hijacking will be made an international offence which carries severe penalties, hijacking will in fact never be eliminated. In America they now have armed guards on each flight and in spite of this we had another case of hijacking only the other day.

†The hon. member for Port Natal wanted a report on Richard’s Bay. He said that we were spending millions and millions of rand on formulating plans. That is not correct. Even if Richard’s Bay is not built the line between Vryheid and Empangeni is absolutely necessary to relieve the main line to Durban. Even if Richard’s Bay had not been built, that line would still have been built, for the simple reason that the cost of increasing the number of lines from Johannesburg to Durban would be quite excessive. It is very difficult terrain. It will be much cheaper to build a line from Vryheid to Empangeni as the relieving line for the main line from Johannesburg to Durban. It is intended that Richard’s Bay harbour will come into operation to coincide with the completion of the line between Vryheid and Empangeni, and that will be in the neighbourhood of 1976. Richard’s Bay is being planned for ships of 150 000 tons.

Is that enough?

The reason for that is that the canal to the harbour is only deep enough for ships of a certain draught and ships of a tonnage of 150 000 tons. But, of course, there is an oil terminal in the sea near Durban and if 400 000-ton tankers wanted to discharge oil in South Africa, they can make use of that terminal.

With regard to the question of taking over the airports which the hon. member for Salt River raised, I think the hon. member for Middelburg has said everything that I can say.

You ought to take over the airports.

Yes, the hon. member suggested that the S.A. Railways must take over the airports from the Department of Transport. As I have said, the hon. member for Middelburg has adequately replied to that; I can add very little to what he said to the hon. member.

The hon. member wanted to know whether we are getting value for the large amounts spent on advertising the S.A. Airways. I can say that as far as we know, we are getting value for the money. We have very strong competition from other airlines and we must advertise. All the advertising is done by contractors and not by the department itself.

Then in regard to this amount on the Brown Book which the hon. member queried, namely R35 244 800, for the purchase of new aircraft, R8 283 000 will be spent this year out of Loan Funds and R3 744 800 out of the Renewals Fund. That is for the purpose of purchasing new aircraft for the internal services. We are still negotiating and we are still endeavouring to obtain an outside loan because the money I am spending this year will not be sufficient. Directly that is done we will be able to announce what type of aircraft we have purchased for internal services, not for external services.

The hon. member for Constantia pleaded that the wharfage charges must not be increased by 10 per cent. I am afraid I cannot accede to that request. This 10 per cent surcharge has been based on a certain amount of revenue that I must receive at the end of the year, and by making exceptions that total amount will be reduced. Once you make an exception in regard to one particular matter, you also have to do it in the case of many others, so I cannot accede to that request.

Heads put and agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, this clause contains the important provision whereby the percentage of pensionable emoluments a member contributes to the fund is fixed at 4 per cent. In the past this was a varying percentage. During the Second Reading of this Bill we asked the Deputy Minister certain questions concerning the effect of this amendment. Here we should like to draw attention to the fact that the figures we have before us indicate that this percentage of contribution will have a considerable effect on the fund, because in the past the contribution has been very much higher than the percentage proposed in this particular clause. When one looks at the latest figures given on page 107 of the Controller and Auditor-General’s Report, one finds that for the tax year 1969-’70 the members’ contributions amounted to R21.4 million. One sees too that the revenue received by the fund is made on a rand-for-rand basis by the Administration. The Administration’s contribution is therefore also R21.4 million. The Minister of Transport, during the course of the debate on the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill, indicated that the percentage of interest is to be increased from 4½ per cent to 6½ per cent We on this side welcome that increase. However, when one looks at the Estimates of Revenue of the Superannuation Fund, it becomes obvious that the income from members’ contributions will be seriously affected. We should like to know from the Deputy Minister whether he can give an indication to this Committee of what the financial effects of the reduction in the members’ contributions will be. Secondly, we should also like to know whether the rand-for-rand contribution by the Administration will be maintained. The new rate of contribution will bring about a considerable reduction in the revenue of this fund. I hope that the Deputy Minister can give the House these figures we require, so that we can see what effect the new rate of contribution of 4 per cent of the members’ pensionable emoluments will have on the fund, if in fact this clause is passed as it now stands.

Mr. Chairman, as we shall during the course of this session be introducing a Bill to amend the whole of the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund Act. I do not want to discuss the whole matter in detail now. I do, however, want to satisfy the hon member in regard to the points he raised. The contributions by the Railways Administration will be maintained on a rand-for-rand basis. The fund as such is solvent.

The hon. member for Umbilo, as well as the hon. member for Durban Point asked, during the Second Reading of the Bill, whether there was any possibility of railway workers obtaining a loan from the fund for housing. In the first place I should like to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that members who receive a 100 per cent loan will not be affected by this change. Those members who have paid a deposit of 10 per cent on their loans will however be affected. They will definitely be affected because their loans are related to their credit in the fund as such.

*However, I want to add that they will only be affected in part. The money which they are going to receive now, they will still be able to invest for the purpose of paying off a house in terms of the house-ownership scheme. They will then have the advantage of being able to receive up to 4 per cent interest on that money. It will be a varying interest rate of 4 per cent per year, or a higher or lower rate, as will from time to time be paid by officials for new housing loans in terms of the house-ownership scheme. Railway officials who are paying 1½ per cent interest per year on housing loans, will still be receiving the higher rate of interest of 4 per cent per year. In other words, this is also to their advantage. I promised to do this, and therefore I want to satisfy the hon. member by furnishing the figures in respect of the housing scheme as a whole. The number of departmental houses available up to 31st December, 1970, amounted to 23 034. As far as the house-ownership scheme is concerned, the figure for the 100 per cent scheme is 18 217, and the figure for the 10 per cent scheme is 15 256 In other words, it is 33 482.

I also take pleasure in furnishing the following particulars in regard to the funds. As regards the 100 per cent house-owner-ship scheme, up to 30th November, 1970, an amount of R122 720 508 had already been expended in respect of 18 217 houses. As regards the 10 per cent scheme up to 31st January, 1971, the investment made available had already reached the R17 007 874 mark in respect of these 15 256 houses. The amount in respect of the departmental houses purchased, comes to R7 547 640. That does not fall under this item; I am merely mentioning these figures here.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon. member for Umbilo that as we are going to introduce amending legislation, I do not want to discuss in detail the whole Superannuation Fund at this Committee Stage. That would serve no purpose. We shall be introducing comprehensive amending legislation soon.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker. I move—

Mr. Speaker, owing to a misunderstanding I failed to remind the Minister at the Committee Stage that he promised me certain information in regard to level crossings. I wonder whether it would be permissible for me to ask for that information now.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in furnishing the hon. member and the House with this information. In the first place, the hon member wished to know whether there would possibly be any delay in regard to the elimination of level crossings. For the very reason that we should not like there to be any delay, since we want the programme to be proceeded with in this manner, we are asking for the extra amount in order to obviate delays.

However, I have also told the hon. member that I should like to give him the progress report. I shall give this to him in respect of a few years only. I am taking it from 1965-’66. At that stage the listed ones that had been eliminated, amounted to 13 for a total expenditure of R1 843 613. In respect of the next few years I am only going to give the number of level crossings eliminated. I shall furnish the total amount later on. In 1966-’67 there were 20; in 1967-’68 there were 14; in 1968’69 there were 18, and in 1969-’70 18 of these listed crossings were eliminated. The total expenditure for the whole period comes to an amount of R16 934 853. I should like to give the assurance again that every attempt is being made to ensure that there are no delays in this matter as a whole.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, when the debate was interrupted on Tuesday I was furnishing a number of reasons why this Bill must be made applicable to South-West Africa. I do not want to repeat that. I think it was very clear. This is in implementation of an Act of this Parliament about which this House has already decided.

Hon. members of the Opposition repeatedly wanted to know how German culture would be protected and how the Act would be applied there.

And Afrikaans culture.

Yes, hon. members opposite also raised that aspect. But we already have examples of how Afrikaans culture has been protected in this country and also in South-West Africa over the past 10 years and more.

I can give hon. members the assurance that the Government will give proper consideration to the question of culture. It is perhaps not fitting to go into particulars about that now, but I could nevertheless just mention possible steps. We could, for example, think in terms of an extra board member for South-West Africa. I think that this follows as a matter of course. Extra panel members could also be appointed, etc.

About the question of a specific provision that must be taken into account in terms of the Bill as far as the Republic is concerned, but will not be applicable to South-West Africa, I cannot see very big problems. Neither could I in the past. Acts that were approved by this Parliament were passed in South-West. There were no problems. But neither can I actually see such a big problem in this legislation being approved for application in South-West Africa, if it specifically deals with that aspect. It is only one small aspect of numerous other aspects of the Bill that will be applied. I cannot see any particular problem in this connection.

But we have forgotten something. During the Second-Reading debate of this Bill the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had certain things to say which, as far as I am concerned, reveal the futility of further discussion, explanations and assurances about this matter. This is what the hon. member said during the Second-Reading debate—

This has nothing to do with the application of the Act to South-West—

In the meantime he has therefore not actually had any problems with the implementation, as long as he can only get this assurance now. He stated a condition which actually amounted to the fact that he was trying to get a wedge to drive in so that he could, by means of a condition, force the Government to accept his amendments, or to accept this state of affairs as he envisaged it. However, the Government can simply do whatever it likes now, but it is no use for us to give the hon. member assurances, and at a later stage in his speech he said, with reference to something else, that it would not help if the hon. the Minister gave the assurance that he would not abuse a certain clause. This is what he said—

The fact that he preceded this discussion with conditions of this nature, and then made absolute demands about what must be done, seems to mean that there is no longer any use in discussions of this kind. With respect to South-West Africa I explained why we are going to apply the Act there, and why we have to do so, and I gave indications that we would not disregard German culture.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister is being a little unreasonable in what he has just said. He knows that this is an amending legislation and that no one from our side of the House would have been ruled in order if, in the discussion of the amendment Bill, we were to have advocated the revision of the principle Act. Only because the principle Act is being made applicable to South-West, was there an opportunity for us in this connection, to indicate that we desire a revision of the principle Act. We make no secret of wanting the principle Act revised. However, we must deliver our plea within the framework of the amendment Bill as far as it is made applicable to South-West.

Even if we accept that the hon. the Minister will think up a plan to make special provision for the German cultural group in South-West, I nevertheless think that the Minister also owes us a few other explanations. The hon. the Deputy Minister repeated a few times, particularly yesterday, that the reason why the Act is being amended in respect of South-West, is that he does not want to create a position where our internal policy is made applicable to South-West. The question that we on this side have repeatedly asked him, and I should very much like to have a reply, is whether we are now going to have two criteria. The Minister’s statement relates to more than just cinematograph films. It also covers publications. The question that came to our minds is whether there are now going to be two criteria, i.e. one for South-West and one for the Republic.

There are no other criteria.

No, the one criterion is based on the internal policy of the Republic, and according to the hon. the Minister it may not be made applicable to South-West. In South-West there must consequently be a criterion that is not based on the internal policy of the Republic. That is very clear.

That has nothing to do with the clause.

This clause makes the principle Act already applicable to South-West Africa. Clause 11 is in a certain sense restrictive, but this clause covers the whole field. The hon. the Minister may answer my question himself and deny that this is so, but our view is that now something new has come to the fore with reference to the policy statement of the hon. the Deputy Minister, i.e. that now two criteria are being created, one for South-West and one for the Republic. Our question now is, and I think it is a reasonable question, how the double standards are going to be applied. How is this going to work in practice? The Territory has a handful of people, and we all know that the circumstances there are different. Since the hon. the Deputy Minister has announced that our internal policy may not possibly be applicable there, does he not thereby strengthen our argument not to have this measure applied to South-West at all? I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has now given us a very good reason why we cannot allow this Bill to be made applicable to South-West at all. We must now have one of two things. Either the Territory retains its own institutions, and I leave it to the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to us whether the control of publications and cinematograph films functions inadequately in South-West. Is that no longer applicable; is there something wrong somewhere? Our standpoint is that we should like to know if there is something wrong with the present application of control in South-West. We think that if there cannot be one criterion, for reasons the Government has alleged, it is very much better for the Territory to retain its own separate set-up. Either the hon. the Minister must give us a very good explanation of the present situation and of why the present set-up does not function adequately enough, or failing that we must accept that we now really do have a good reason why we must vote against this clause and against clause 11 at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, I made no policy statement. I just said that we are continuing as we started, i.e. by implementing the South-West Africa Affairs Act in respect of the Department of the Interior as well. Hon. members will find this provision in item 21 of the Schedule of that Act. I made no new policy statement. The standards that are going to be applied are not double standards. This is only taking place in respect of a few particular sections. As I explained yesterday, we are not making these sections applicable to the situation there. We have a specific precedent for that in Acts that have already been placed on the Statute Book. I do not know why the hon. member continually harps on this point. I believe that the hon. member understands me. These provisions are only in respect of cinematograph films and form an absolutely minimal part of the legislation. It has nothing to do with policy, it is only the application of provisions that are going to bring about very little change, if any. In the South-West Africa Affairs Act it is provided that we shall use the bigger and better administrative machinery of South Africa to help South-West in respect of the work of its various departments. And this is also one of the motives of this legislation. Small problems may crop up, but I cannot see why, since we are applying 99 per cent of the Act in the same way, we must be restrained, for the sake of one per cent, from doing what is entrusted to us according to an Act of this Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat the question that we put to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He must explain to us what shortcomings there are in the application of the present measures in South-West Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister speaks of the administrative necessity of making this measure applicable to South-West and he says that we must repeal the present measures that are applicable there and apply the provisions of the principal Act. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not reply to the question that was put to him. In what respect is the present legislation in South-West Africa, which they themselves instituted, not adequate for that territory? What shortcomings are there in the present South-West Africa legislation? I cannot see why the legislation in connection with the control of publications of the Republic must be forced onto South-West. The hon. the Minister did not answer that question. He says that the administrative machinery must be available for South-West Africa. Sir, this is not an administrative Bill. I can accept the fact that it is necessary to make certain of our Acts applicable to South-West. The Companies’ Registration Consolidation Act is an example of such an Act—but this is not an administrative Act. Here we want to make a basic principle applicable to South-West. There is a list of Acts in clause 12, for example the Ordinances of 1926, 1928, 1939 and 1968. There are the Ordinances of the South-West Africa Administration. I should please like him to indicate in what respect this legislation is not adequate for South-West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite keep on asking questions that have been asked and replied to over and over again. We on this side of the House have up to now, with a great sense of responsibility, kept ourselves out of this discussion and left it to the hon. the Deputy Minister, because it is a ticklish question as far as we are concerned. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout ought to know better than his colleagues that this is the case. But things are getting too bad, I think, and now we must say something to the Opposition.

I want to begin with the question the hon. member for Green Point has asked repeatedly: What is wrong with the present control measures in respect of this matter in South-West Africa? This was also a fitting question in respect of all the other legislation which was transferred from South-West Africa to the Administration of the Republic in terms of the South-West Africa Affairs Act. We could have asked the same question in respect of all the other scheduled matters that were transferred in terms of the South-West Africa Affairs Act. The fact is that we want greater uniformity. A regulation has been made for the control of cinematograph films in South-West Africa. Hon. members now act as if this matter of controlling cinematograph films is a basic ore that we want to transfer to South-West Africa. That is surely not the case. There is control in South-West Africa. Now the hon. member asks: “What is wrong with that control?” I do not know. There is probably not much wrong with the control. But the fact is that here a parliamentary Act has been passed, and that Act must be implemented by means of this legislation, i.e. these matters must also be handled by the Republic in the future.

Why not the whole Act then—why only parts of it?

As far as this matter is concerned the hon. member for Yeoville does not know what is going on. But let me just tell him, this is one small matter. If he looks at the Bill he will see that the amendment to the Act is specifically attempting to remove certain thorny matters that might give offence. I want to refer him to various sections, for example section 8 that deals with Whites and non-Whites, and another section that deals with races. These references are specifically taken from the original Act because we are now making the Act applicable to South-West Africa. It is therefore not only the one section. Other sections are being adapted so that the legislation can be acceptable for and can be applied to South-West. One single section in toto is not being transferred. Sir, this is no new principle; it applies in respect of so much legislation that the hon. member has seen passing through this House. It applies to legislation in connection with marriages, births and deaths that was accepted by Parliament last year; there the same exceptions were made.

But why?

This is a matter of principle, and I want to appeal to the sense of responsibility of the hon. members for Yeoville and Bezuidenhout. They must realize that we are dealing here with an extremely thorny matter in respect of this specific section of the Bill. I want to appeal to their sense of responsibility, and if they do not pay heed to this, then I cannot but say that hon. members of the Opposition are trying here, for political gain, to create the maximum embarrassment for the Government by acting in the way they are doing today, because they know what embarrasses us in this connection; they know that we are engaged in matters that can evoke a response from other parts of the world and that can damage South Africa. But notwithstanding this they act as they are doing. I accuse hon. members who act here in this way of having absolutely no love for their mother country. They do not care what happens to South Africa; that is their attitude. Sir, it is high time that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout realized what he is doing. We expect a greater sense of responsibility from him as an Afrikaner than what he is now displaying.

After the fierce speech of my good friend, the hon. member for Parow, I may not be silent. If an appeal is to be made to people’s sense of responsibility, the appeal must come from this side of the House, an appeal to the Deputy Minister and the Cabinet to give very serious consideration to what they are doing. If what the hon. member for Parow said is correct—and he confirms what the Deputy Minister told us—i.e. that international problems can be created if certain aspects of our South African policy are forced on South-West Africa or applied there, then I ask: Why focus the world’s attention on it by means of this legislation? Why make it clear by the exception he is making in this Bill, that the internal policy of the present Government of South Africa must not apply in South-West Africa because it embarrasses our people?

Sir, I now want to do what I have done before. I want to suggest that this Bill be withdrawn and that we stop telling the world that we cannot apply the internal policy of South Africa to South-West Africa whenever we want to apply South Africa’s laws to a territory in respect of which we are honour bound to carry out a mandate. This is surely an admission that one does not want to make. If one has a sense of responsibility and wants to display that responsibility, one must give some thought to it. The Government’s attitude amazes me; the basis of the Government’s apartheid policy is to differentiate one race from another, but when it comes to the application of censorship in South-West Africa, that basic principle of the Government’s policy cannot be applied. That is surely not right.

Sir. the hon. member for Parow is an intelligent person; he is a wide-awake member; he knows that I am speaking the truth. [Interjection.] Of course he does. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister knows it as well, and I want to suggest that this Bill be withdrawn and that the Department of the Interior give very serious thought to the matter before bringing further measures to Parliament to let the spotlight fall on the inability to apply South Africa’s internal policy under this Government to a territory like South-West Africa that is held in trust.

I just want to answer the hon. member for Green Point. He asked me to elaborate a little on this problem as far as South-West Africa is concerned and to explain why we want to apply this measure to South-West Africa if there are deficiencies. There are no deficiencies being experienced so far, but as I have said from the start, this is part of a law or principle already accepted by this Parliament. We want uniformity, as stated by the hon. member for Parow. There may be slight differences, but we want one administrative structure for the Republic and South-West Africa, in accordance with the spirit of the mandate, although we say that the mandate has lapsed. That is what we are doing here. As hon. members are aware race classification does not apply to South-West Africa. But for the maximum well-being of the people of the Republic and South-West Africa we want to have one single administrative structure, although there may be slight differences which in some way may hamper the application of this measure if it is applied to the Territory where different norms may be the order of the day. That is why we are applying this measure to South-West Africa. I have already explained why the Government decided to apply this measure there. I do not see that there is any necessity for me to enlarge upon this matter.

*Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville amazes me. He asks why we are focussing the attention of the world on a thorny matter.

But you are doing it through the legislation.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR: But we did so when we

passed the South-West Africa Affairs Act. We shall always have attention focussed on us from abroad. Why is the hon. member so extremely sensitive about that? Last year we passed the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Amendment Act, and that measure was also a contentious one. It also focussed attention on us from abroad. In that case as well certain sections of the Act were not made applicable to South-West Africa. This Parliament has already progressed a long way in that process. Must we now, when we are already involved in the struggle, create an impression of capitulating in respect of a measure for which we already have precedents?

It creates more trouble.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR: The hon. member wants us to create the impression of capitulating not only to the Opposition but also to the world at large, which the hon. member now wants to use as a norm for our actions locally. I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition to pay head to the appeal the hon. member for Parow made to them. Let there now be an end to such futile arguments.

I just want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. He could have replied to it while he was speaking. Sir many of us do our best to focus the light most favourably on conditions in South Africa when we are travelling in this country and outside it. But now I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to help me and members on this side. If we go abroad and we are asked the question: “If the Government’s policy is not a policy that clashes with the conscience of the civilized world, why can you not apply that policy to South-West Africa?” What must our answer be? The hon. the Deputy Minister must not think that the people who criticize us do not know the laws of South Africa. They have specialists who make a special study of the laws we pass through Parliament. They latch onto these things and we have to come up with a defence. I suggest with all seriousness—this is my last turn in the discussion—that it is better if we do not come along with such Acts because they are not necessary.

In South-West Africa there is peace and order, and the morals of the people there have been guarded from 1915 up to the present day, since South Africa arrived there. Why suddenly come along with this measure now, at this critical period to which the hon. the Deputy Minister himself referred, and focus attention on the impossibility of applying certain aspects of Government policy in South Africa to the Territory? This only exposes his own policy to criticism by the enemies of South Africa. He must not say it is us; we are not coming along with the Bill; we are not coming along with the exceptions in the Bill. We are not the ones who are not implementing our own policy in the application of an Act to South-West Africa. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister’s prestige and his ego are involved in the matter and he cannot withdraw the Bill; but we ask him to ensure that his Department does not come along again with measures of this sort while South Africa’s whole reputation is in the critical position it is in today.

I want to take the strongest exception to the kind of speech made here by the hon. member for Parow. We on this side do not need a man like him to give us a lecture on love for the fatherland. If he were anyone else I would perhaps have taken more notice of that, but knowing who he is I do not want to take lessons from him. We did not propose the Act here. It does not come from the Opposition’s stables. We only have the right and the duty to scrutinize it. The Government decides whether it wants to place a Bill before the House, and I therefore think that it is very unfair to adopt that attitude. The Government comes along with legislation and we make a reasonable request to the Government, stating that we have certain reasons—and we cannot deal with this under the amending legislation —why we have certain criticisms about the Publications Board and the way in which it does its work; and the only thing we have asked the Government in all decency is that before it makes it applicable to South-West Africa, Parliament should be given a chance to review the principle Act. That is all we asked. We did not go further than that, and it is only since the hon. the Minister refused this reasonable request that we are adopting our present attitude. And let me now give the hon. the Minister this friendly warning. The Publications Board is going to create more problems in South-West than it realizes at present. There is a different attitude there. People have a different outlook, and the way in which the Publications Board sets to work will not suit the situation in South-West Africa. And for that reason, specifically because we are responsible and do not want to create extra problems, we adopt the attitude that until such time as the Act is reviewed it must not be made applicable to South-West. And I also take exception to the fact that the hon. the Minister did not put the hon. member for Parow in his place. On the contrary, he asks whether we are capitulating. Good heavens, who has capitulated? Who announced it in this House? Was it an Opposition member, or was it he, as Deputy Minister, who first said that the internal policy of the Republic should not be applied in South-West? Who has therefore capitulated? Did we do so? No, I take the strongest exception to the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Parow, and we oppose the Bill as this clause now stands, because we think that it is in the best interests of South Africa that we do so.

I want to answer the question of the hon. member for Yeoville with a counter-question. Does he agree that there is no longer a mandate, or does he agree that we continue to administer South-West Africa in the spirit of the previous mandate?

We ought to do it.

And can the hon. member recall that in that mandate there is a clause to the effect that we must administer them, apply our acts there and administer the territory as an integral part of this country, with adaption locally where necessary?

You are wrong. It is a permissive provision, one may do it, not that one has to do it.

We are not forcing everything that is applicable to us onto them. If the hon. member would just read the relevant section of the earlier mandate again he would see this. I should like to finish with the matter. I do not know how long the Opposition still wants to continue with such arguments, but I should just like to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who knows South-West, because we have also been there already, that everywhere in the country there are colonies of people of other countries whose culture has never been such a tremendous stumbling block that they have not felt at home here and want to grill the Government because of that, but some of the people also support the Government because we take cultures into consideration and because our policy is based on different cultures. And as far as reproaching me about putting someone in his place is concerned, well, after all, we spend all day putting people in their places in this House, and how necessary is it not for the Opposition to be put in its place from time to time! Let us rather leave that sort of thing alone.

In connection with the words of reproof that came from the hon. member for Parow I want to point out to the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Yeoville that they are trying to force a discussion in this House about a matter affecting the nature and essence of the relationship between South Africa and South-West Africa, a matter which is actually sub judice, a matter that we actually ought not to be discussing in this House, a matter which is at present before the World Court, a ticklish matter that ought to be handled circumspectly by members on both sides of this House. It is in that light that the hon. member must see the words of the hon. member for Parow and take the reproof to heart.

Sir, I have never heard anything like this in my life. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat is a lawyer and he says that we should not talk about this matter in this manner because it is sub judice. I have never heard anything like that. If we must not talk about it because it is sub judice, I must ask him whether he will not address himself to the hon. the Deputy Minister and ask him to withdraw this particular subsection because it is sub judice. (Interjections.] What does he think? That we just must not talk about it? Does he think the world is not going to know about this? I want to tell him that those persons who are concerned about South-West Africa and all of our enemies are very much more informed about what is in our legislation than that hon. gentleman.

But I have difficulty in understanding the attitude of the Deputy Minister. He says it is a matter of applying generally the laws of South Africa to South-West Africa. Obviously we know that they may be applied, and we know that many of them have been applied; but we also know that it is undesirable to apply some of our laws to South-West, and that is why some of our laws are not applied in South-West Africa. He is the Deputy Minister of the Interior and in his own department there is one Act which is not applied in South-West Africa, specifically not applied, and wisely not applied, namely the Population Registration Act. Exactly the same argument applies here and we could not get from the Deputy Minister yet the reason why he cannot use the legislation which presently exists in South-West Africa. That was the first thing he was asked. The hon. member for Green Point pointed it out. The Deputy Minister says there is nothing basically wrong with it, that it is just a matter of administration. But it is more than just a matter of administration. You are now applying an Act which is quite different from the legislation that exists in South-West Africa. That is the object of this, and furthermore, when this Bill is passed it will be quite different from anything the people of South-West Africa would even have dreamt of. But there it is. What is it about the legislation that is now to be applied in South-West Africa that the Deputy Minister cannot administer? That is the point. The Minister has avoided that issue so far. Why is it that you cannot apply the machinery that you have in South-West Africa? Why do you have to have it all under the umbrella of this particular board? Would the Deputy Minister please answer that, because we have not had the answer yet. I think the people of South-West Africa are entitled to an answer. One wonders what sort of consultation has taken place in this regard and with whom and how representative they are; and what about the South-West African members here? Will they please tell us what they think about this? They are the ones who are responsible to the people of South-West Africa. Here this debate is taking place and here we have this specific clause. Can we hear from one of the hon. members from South-West Africa what the people of South-West Africa want; whether they want our Publications and Entertainments Act applied in South-West Africa? I do hope one of the hon. members will tell us.

Mr. Chairman, a moment ago the Deputy Minister told us very clearly that what he is looking for here is uniformity. That is also why this change must take place. In reality, this legislation is not going to bring about uniformity. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s view that this is something that has already, on previous occasions, been accepted by this House in principle, therefore does not tally with the realities of the situation. This is not a matter of uniformity because we are dealing with an Act that is being amended for South-West Africa.

The second point I should like to cite is the question of the censure of South Africa as such.

That argument has already been raised several times.

I am just pointing out that the carrying out of this legislation states that aspect clearly.

That argument has already been raised.

Question put: That paragraph (b) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—91: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

NOES—41: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment negatived.

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

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I just want to explain this briefly. As I explained in my Second Reading speech, the object of this new subsection is to prevent a person who has control over a cinematograph film intended to be exhibited in public, and who then has to submit the film to the board, from doing anything to influence the board in its assessment of the film.

I cannot hear. The hon. the Deputy Minister should speak a little louder.

Put on your hearing-aid.

In the second place the subsection is aimed at preventing public controversy while a film is under consideration. Here we have in mind unbridled public controversy. It is an altogether undesirable state of affairs for the board to be influenced deliberately and for everyone to join in merrily in public when a statutory body is forming a judgment objectively and according to certain statutory provisions and prescribed rules. Such a body, which is also a quasi-judicial body, is to a certain extent entitled to the protection of a rule which applies in the case of court actions. It entails protecting a statutorily established body against censure which is generally expressed without full knowledge of all the facts. Only after decisions have been made the public should be free to criticize, in order that we may be informed of public opinion. In the third place the object of the original subsection was to prevent particulars of a film or written article which may not comply with the requirements of the Act and may therefore be banned by the board, from being published through some other medium. Control over undesirable particulars in films would be defeated completely if such particulars, that is to say, both images and dialogue, were published through other media, for example newspapers, magazines and books. By way of explaining the original Bill, as submitted to this House, I also said that I had received representations from various quarters and that I had come to the conclusion that if reporting in newspapers which are members of the Press Union took place in accordance with the code of conduct of the Press Union, it was unlikely that particulars of banned films would be disclosed in such newspapers in such a way as to defeat the objects of the legislation relating to control over films. I also said that if other publications did this, action could be taken against them under the provisions of the existing Act. After the publication of the Bill this particular paragraph of the clause was criticized ad nauseum as allegedly prohibiting any comment on any film in future. It is a pity that the critics did not read this paragraph properly. It only applies to films intended to be shown in public in the Republic. Under section 11 of the Act the hon. Minister also has a function, and it is therefore also necessary to prevent him from being influenced in his decision. Consequently the provisions apply to the Minister as well. The Minister has to give decisions on films at present just as the court has to give decisions when there are appeals against the board’s decisions. Unbridled criticism of the court is something which is not allowed.

That is all I have to say for the present.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on a point of order?

I wish to submit that the amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister is not an acceptable amendment in the Committee Stage of this Bill. I say so because I believe that it offends against the rules of the House on three grounds. Firstly, I submit that it introduces a new and important principle which was not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time. Secondly, it extends the scope of the Bill as read a second time. Thirdly, it offends against the rule that alternative schemes to those envisaged in the Bill as read a second time, cannot be introduced in the Committee Stage, even if they are intended to achieve the same object.

On the first point I should like to say that the principle of subsection (4A) as read a second time is aptly described in the Long Title of the Bill as read a second time, namely “to prohibit the publication of particulars relating to certain cinematograph films or certain portions of certain cinematograph films”. That is the description that aptly describes the principle of subsection (4A) as read a second time. In other words, it has been accepted by this House, at the Second Reading, as a principle that (a) any particulars relating to uncensored films should not be published; (b) that particulars relating to rejected films should not be published; and (c) that particulars relating to excised portions of any film should not be published, except by the Minister or the board.

It is true that the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated during the second-Reading debate that he would move the substitution of subsection (4A) and the inclusion of the words which he has now submitted to this Committee. However, that does not affect the Bill as read. The principle approved of at the Second Reading, I submit, has reference solely to publications, in other words, what may be published in relation to certain aspects of films in the three categories to which I have referred. It has no reference whatsoever to deliberate action to be taken by the Minister or the board in applying the provisions of the Bill. The Minister has himself indicated the principle of his amendment by his own proposed amendment to the long title, which appears on the Order Paper. What the hon. the Minister’s amendment provides for, is the unfettered performance of their functions by the board and the Minister. This is a vastly different proposition and a vastly different principle to the prohibition of publication of certain cinematographic films or certain portions of films. The first point of my argument is that the amendment is out of order because it intends to prohibit any person from doing anything calculated to influence the Minister or the board and is not restricted to the mere publication of uncensored, partially censored or of prohibited films. The second reason why I believe this is out of order is that the scope of the Bill is enlarged by this amendment, as against the subsection (4A) which has been approved at the Second Reading and which has reference to publication only. That in itself, I submit, will indicate that it extends the scope of the Bill as read a second time. Thirdly, as regards the scheme to ensure secrecy, to avoid any expression or working up of public opinion—which is obviously what the first clause or the amendment which is before us is attempting to do—it is now not to be based on a veil of secrecy regarding uncensored films, but it is to be based on a blanket prohibition of doing anything to influence the board before it has come to its decision.

Mr. Chairman, you will be aware of the precedents and decisions on this matter and I want, if I may, to refer you to one which I think is most apposite and which appears in the Votes and Proceedings of this House. I want to refer you to the Votes and Proceedings of 1920, page 540. The ruling of the then Speaker was:

In other words, whether or not the clause is covered by the title, is a relevant and an important factor which can be taken into consideration to determine whether or not the amendment falls within the scope of the Bill as read a second time. The very fact that it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to link with this amendment an amendment of the title of the Bill as read a second time, puts this matter on all fours with the ruling to which I have referred and which was given in 1920. Sir, for those reasons I request you to rule the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address you briefly in support of what the hon. member for Green Point has said. So far as the title is concerned, the ruling which was given in 1920 in the Votes and Proceedings on page 540, by the Speaker, dealing with a new clause in a Rents Bill, was that the new clause “appears to me not only not covered by the title of the Bill, but it embodies a principle which was not contemplated at the Second Reading”. Then he went on to say:

He uses “therefore” because it is not contemplated and not covered by the title—

He went on to say:

My submission is that this amendment of the hon. the Deputy Minister could certainly be the subject of an amendment provided that leave was given by the House by way of a special instruction. In the 10th edition of Maxwell’s book The Interpretation of Statutes, on page 42, reference is made to the long title of a Bill. The following is stated:

I want to accentuate the words “throwing light” on its general scope. There have been many rulings which bear this out. As recently as 15th April, 1969, on page 386 of the Minutes of Proceedings, a ruling was given in this regard. It dealt with the conscience clause in one of the University Bills. The following is said:

This precedent indicates that it is as restricted as that. I believe that a clause of that nature was certainly much nearer to the principle contained in the Bill as read a second time than the amendment of the hon. the Deputy Minister here. My submission is that many other authorities, of which you, Sir, are no doubt aware, indicate a restrictive interpretation. The number of instructions which have been moved is also, in my submission, an indication. Let us apply these principles to the two clauses one finds here. In the title we find the words “to prohibit the publication of particulars relating to certain cinematograph films or certain portions of certain cinematograph films”. What the hon. the Deputy Minister proposes with this amendment is that no person shall do anything calculated to influence the board or the Minister in its or his decision. In the first place it is not a case of publishing only. He now says that no one may do anything. This provision covers much more than merely publishing. There is also a further restriction. This restriction is contained in the second-last line of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment, namely that one may not in terms of the proviso make representations to the board unless you are the person who in fact submitted the film. Only that person may make representations. This, in my submission, is nowhere contained in the title. It is not a part of the Bill as accepted at Second Reading. By no stretch of the imagination can one read into the long title, or in any of the other clauses, a general prohibition to the effect that people should not do certain things, that people cannot even make representations in respect of a film except those persons who have in fact submitted it. I do submit that the point of order raised by my hon. friend is a good one and I hope, Sir, you will uphold it.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to differ with my learned friends on the other side of the House, but the hon. member for Green Point furnished three reasons for taking a point of order— firstly, he said this introduced a new principle into the Act; secondly, it would extend the scope of this Bill; and thirdly, it would establish an alternative scheme— and I think the hon. member will concede to me that if his first two reasons are not valid, the third one in fact falls away. My humble submission is that the first two reasons are not valid.

Let us first consider the question whether this introduces a new principle into the Act. The long title of this Act is in fact a summary of precisely what is being done in the Bill. Let us take a look at clause 4 (c), which amends subsection (4A). Subsection (4A) (a) reads:

If one takes a look at (a), (b) and (c), one sees that the principle here is, in fact, that no particulars of a cinematograph film shall be published. If we take a look at the phrase “shall publish”, it is clear that the principle is exactly the same. It is not necessarily only the exhibition of a cinematograph film that is prohibited, but any publication thereof. This is the principle. I think this deals with the point made by the hon. member for Durban North that the word “do” is being introduced by the amendment, i.e. “nothing may be done”. However, the original principle also included more than just the exhibition of the cinematograph film. It was the publication. This was a deed. It was not merely the exhibition. As far as that specific point is concerned, there is therefore no difference in principle in any case. If we look at the three paragraphs of the original Bill, we shall see that the whole purpose of those specific provisions related to the publication of something before it had been approved by the board. If we look at the new amendment, we find that it embodies exactly the same principle. I shall read it—

This is exactly the same principle which is embodied in the original Bill. In terms of the new amendment which the hon. the Minister is requesting, the wording is only being adjusted in the long title. It is merely an adjustment; the principle has not changed at all. However, what has in fact happened here—of course, something must have happened if the principle has not been affected—is that the scope has in actual fact been reduced and not extended. It is not exactly the same as it was. This is in actual fact what will be brought about by this amendment. It entails a reduction of the scope of this specific clause, but it does not change the principle at all. Let me try to illustrate it again. If one looks at paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), one will see that this scope is, in actual fact, very wide and goes very far. I feel that there might have been some criticism that “public opinion” might be interfered with too much there. But if we look at the new amendment, it is clear that all that is being done here is that the scope is being reduced by saying that nothing shall be published in relation to any cinematograph film intended for public exhibition, until the board has given its decision or until the Minister has given his decision on appeal. The point is that this is in fact a reduction and not an extension of the scope of the original section. I think my learned friends opposite will concede to me that if these two points I have tried to outline are correct, the third leg falls away, and consequently this point of order is not well-founded.

Sir, the hon. member for Prinshof has made the matter very clear. I just want to come back to certain observations made by the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member said that the scope of the section was now being extended so that it could effect “any person”, but that is not the case; the very reverse is the case. If we take a look at the proposed new section we see that it reads as follows: “No person shall in relation to any cinematograph film intended by him …” do anything. That is to say, the words “no person” are limited by the words “intended by him”, and the person who can determine the intention is the owner. Sir, it must be very clear that the scope of this section has been limited a great deal. While the former section affected any person, this proposed new section affects only one person, and that is the owner and, of course, agents acting on his behalf. The old section imposed an absolute prohibition on any form of publication. I do not want to repeat the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Prinshof, but what was the purpose of the old subsection (4A) (a), which provided that no person shall publish any particulars relating to any cinematograph film before it has been approved. Surely it is very clear that the very purpose of that section was, to prevent the Minister and the board from being influenced. The very purpose of the old section was to introduce a sub judice rule for the board, and this is precisely what the new clause does. There is no difference. The old section and the new clause do exactly the same thing. The difference is that the new clause does it more elegantly than the old section did.

As far as the amendment to the long title is concerned, it is, of course, not uncommon for a long title to be amended in terms of Standing Order No. 59, which provides in section (2)—

not within the title of the bill, the committee shall amend the title accordingly.

Sir, I am not certain how the Standing Orders read in 1920. I think the hon. member would perhaps have rendered this Committee a service if he had told the Committee whether in 1920, when the other ruling was given, the Standing Orders had exactly the same wording in this connection as the present Standing Orders or whether any amendments had been effected since. But here in the Standing Orders it is in fact provided that we may adopt certain amendments which are not within the long title. If any amendment is adopted which is not within the title of the Bill, the Committee must amend the title accordingly. Mr. Chairman, I am arguing that there is no change of principle here at all, and that you are entitled to rule the amendment in order.

Order! I have listened to arguments on both sides and I am now going to give my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to refer briefly to the matters raised by the last two speakers? I shall endeavour to be brief.

I will allow the hon. member to reply to the arguments raised by the previous speakers.

Sir, both hon. members made the point that in fact the amendment which is to be introduced, is limiting the scope of the Bill and not extending its scope, which was the second point made by the hon. member for Green Point. My submission is that clearly this is not correct. The original subsection (4A) has three paragraphs, (a), (b) and (c), which, as the hon. member for Prinshof mentioned, are wide in themselves. But, Sir, all three relate to publication only. What is prohibited in relation to these three matters which are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) is the publication in each case. It is not prohibiting anything else but the publication.

Publication of what?

Publication of the matters set out in (a), (b) and (c). The proposed amendment clearly goes further than publication in relation to a cinematographic film and prohibits the doing of anything calculated to influence the board or the Minister in its or his decision in respect of such film.

What, for example?

Sir, I am surely not expected to give examples. I am dealing with the words used and I am pointing out that the words used prohibit the doing of anything at all calculated to influence the board. It is not, as in the case of the original subsection (4A), a prohibition merely of the publication. I do not think there can be any doubt whatsoever that the scope of this Bill is being extended by the proposed amendment.

I would like to deal with the other point raised by the hon. member for Prinshof, and that was in answer to the first point made by the hon. member for Green Point, who stated that the amendment introduces a new principle. The argument of the hon. member for Prinshof was related to the words “openbaar maak nie”; in other words, he stressed that in each of the paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) the words are “niemand mag … openbaar maak nie”, and his argument was that the words “openbaar maak nie” are very wide. That is correct. Those words in themselves are wide, but the argument which I presented to you, Mr. Chairman, a moment ago in relation to the previous matter applies equally in this case, namely that these words “openbaar maak nie” are all related to publication. If the hon. member for Prinshof suggests that the words in Afrikaans “openbaar maak nie” have a wider meaning than the English word “publish”, then that is an entirely different argument, but that was not the argument which the hon. member for Prinshof presented to you, Sir. He did not suggest that there was a conflict between the Afrikaans version and the English version. The point that I make therefore is that the words in Afrikaans “openbaar maak nie”, cannot be interpreted to mean anything more or less than “publish” and if they are given that meaning, then the argument of the hon. member for Prinshof carries no weight whatsoever. The original section which was accepted at Second Reading prohibits merely the publication, whereas the proposed amendment goes further to prohibit the doing of anything calculated to influence the Board. In this regard, Sir, would you permit me briefly to refer you to two further quotations which are relevant to these two matters? The first appears as a ruling of Mr. Speaker at page 742 of the Minutes of 2nd May, 1941, and the passage reads as follows—

Our point is that contrary to what has been suggested by the two hon. members who have just spoken, this amendment does in fact extend the scope. Then the other quotation is from Kilpin, Parliamentary Procedure, 1st edition, at page 11. He is now dealing with amendments which can be moved in the Committee Stage and says—

We submit to you, Sir, that the amendment which has been moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister falls within one or other and possibly both these categories and ought therefore to be ruled out of order by you.

I have allowed the hon. member to reply to the other two hon. members on my right. My attention was directed to the amendment now proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister to clause 4 on the day following its publication on the Order Paper, and I was asked whether it did not in fact introduce a new principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time. I carefully considered the matter and came to the conclusion that it did not introduce a new principle. In my opinion the proposed amendment by the hon. the Deputy Minister is more restrictive than the original clause. That being the case, it cannot be regarded as introducing a new principle into the Bill. After listening very carefully to the various arguments adduced by members in discussing the point of order, I am still of the same opinion. I shall now put the amendment proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Sir, may we have Mr. Speaker’s ruling on this matter?

Does the hon. member move that I report progress in order to do so?

Yes. I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—41: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

NOES—85: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetzee, B.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Motion accordingly negatived.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister, in moving his amendment, gave as his reason the fact that it is his intention to prohibit the person who controls the film, or owns it, or shows it, from doing anything to influence the board or the Minister. He went on to say that after the decision had been made by the board, or by himself in the event of an appeal, not only the maker, the owner or the exhibitor, but also the public generally would be free to discuss the whole film. Sir, I hope he means it when he says “the whole film”. I hope he is also referring to those sections of the film which may have been cut out. I see the hon. the Deputy Minister nodding his head. I thought I just had to clear that point up before going any further.

At this stage I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The intention of this amendment is merely to clarify further the situation which I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to attain. I believe that in this respect the amendment of the Deputy Minister has not gone far enough, in that it has not clarified the situation completely. The amendment suggested by the hon. the Deputy Minister is that no person shall exhibit to any person, except to a person concerned in the making thereof, any film. I think we should deal with that section first.

The first part of my amendment is to insert “or to the owner, distributor, exhibitor, or lessee thereof or to the legal adviser or authorized representative of such owner, distributor, exhibitor or lessee”. Sir, there was a slight noise going on at the time, and I did not hear very clearly, so I should like to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister, when he introduced his amendment to this clause, said that the whole of section 9 of the Act is aimed at films which are produced locally. Did I understand him to say that?

No.

It is aimed at all films?

Yes, all films.

I thought I had misheard, but there was a noise at the time. I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for clearing up that point. Section 9 of the Act is therefore aimed at all films which are to be screened in South Africa, including films which are imported. I feel that for the hon. the Deputy Minister to prohibit the showing of a film, including an imported film, to anybody “except to a person concerned with the making thereof”, is too narrow. The majority of films screened in this country today are those which are imported. They have been purchased outside by entrepreneurs or they have been obtained by a subsidiary company in this country which acts as an agent for the maker of the film or the person concerned in the making thereof. I submit that, if my amendment is not accepted, the position can arise where an importer will import a film and will have to submit it to the board without seeing the film himself, because he was not involved in the making thereof. He will get an answer from the board and he will have to decide, once again without seeing the film himself, whether or not to take it on appeal to the hon. the Minister. I think that this is wrong. I do not believe that this is the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I submit that the first part of my amendment is perfectly wise and that it is in fact advisable that the hon. the Deputy Minister should accept this.

The second portion of my amendment is to add “or to the legal adviser or authorized representative of such owner, distributor, exhibitor or lessee”. In the example which I have given, if the exhibitor or importer wishes to take it on appeal, he must be enabled to consult with his legal representative, who must advise him whether he feels that an appeal could perhaps succeed. Surely the only way in which the legal representative can do that is by viewing the film himself and ascertaining for himself which parts of the films are objectionable, for what reasons they are objectionable and why they are objectionable?

My amendment also seeks in line 7, after “intended” to insert certain words. We have the situation at the moment, as the clause stands, that “no person shall exhibit to any person, except to a person concerned in the making thereof, any cinematograph film intended to be exhibited in public”, that is, in effect, in any place of entertainment or to a club. The question is of the “intention”. Whose intention are we dealing with? Are we dealing with the intention of the person who is exhibiting? I can see many pitfalls for the hon. the Deputy Minister, for the board and for the powers-that-be in this country who have to implement this Act, if it is accepted as it reads today, because there will always be a question about the intention. If the intention applies to the owner of the film, the person who physically has the film in his possession, I can foresee the situation where a person will arrive at Jan Smuts Airport with a film in his bag. When he is asked if he intends submitting it for censorship, he will say: “No, it is my intention that this film will remain my personal property; it will be part of my private library for private showing to my friends.” I see that the hon. the Deputy Minister is nodding his head. I hope this is not his intention. It is for this reason that I now suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should tie this intention to the maker or producer of the film. If the film “Gone with the Wind” or the film “Oh, Calcutta!” was produced and the maker or producer of those films intended them for public showing, then every edition of the film which comes into the country must be submitted to the Publications Board before it is screened. This, I believe, is the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. Therefore I hope that he will accept the amendment which I have now moved.

Finally, the third leg of my amendment is in line 17, that is, in paragraph (b) to add at the end “except to any of the persons referred to in paragraph (a)”. There is doubt in the minds of many people including many learned gentlemen of the legal profession, as to exactly what “publish” might mean. It is further confused if one looks at the Afrikaans version, where the term used is “uitgee”. I submit that “uitgee” has a far wider connotation than the word “publish”. Because of this, there is this doubt. The doubt is whether subsection (1) (b) does in fact prohibit private showings of films, as subsection (1) (a) reads at the moment, i.e. “intended to be exhibited in public or at any place”, etc. If we add the words “except to any of the persons referred to in paragraph (a)”, the doubt will be removed. It is consequential on the first two legs of my amendment, but it will remove any doubt which might exist in anybody’s mind whether or not such a film can be shown to the local representative, to the owner of the film, to the exhibitor and to his legal representative.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has given a clear explanation of his case. I listened to him carefully. I think I must first explain what paragraph (a) envisages. In paragraph (a) an amendment to section 9 (1) is proposed. This will result in a prohibition being placed—and the hon. member understood this correctly—on all exhibitions of a film intended for public exhibition. In my second reading speech I explained very clearly what “intended” means in this case. It is in the context of the person in whose control the film is.

In whose control?

Yes. This is the position, except in the case of a person concerned in the making thereof, unless such a film has been approved by the board. This provision links up with those contained in subsection (1) (b), i.e. that any such cinematograph film which has not been so approved, shall not be published. I also want the hon. member to understand that “nie uitgegee mag word nie” means “not to be published”, that is to say, “make public”. “Nie uitgegee mag word nie” (“shall not be published”) in Afrikaans does not mean that it is sold to another person. Surely “published” means “to reveal to the public”, for example by means of the Press or some other medium. This is what the hon. member should understand by “published”. There is a difference in the meanings of the words.

In this regard I want to explain that a film intended for public exhibition, has already been exhibited privately before it is screened by the Publications Board, or without cuts ordered by the board having been made. We know what the usual object with this type of exhibition has been. It amounted to stirring up public opinion against the Publications Board while a film was being judged. The view of this side of the House is that this frustrates the purpose of the Act, because films intended for public exhibition can then still be exhibited without the board’s approval.

But now I want to explain to the hon. member that there is a difference between a private film and the private exhibition of a film. Once a film has been intended for public exhibition and has been submitted to the board, that film is intended for public exhibition. Then one cannot exhibit it privately in the country without cuts, while it is at the same time being exhibited with cuts at another place, for example. We want to try to catch certain pirates. These are people who are committing piracy upon the legitimate film industry. This is not fair. This is the idea behind this clause. The existing law does not prohibit the exhibition of a film, provided it is not exhibited in public or at any place to which admission is obtained by virtue of membership of any association of persons or for any consideration, direct or indirect—the aspect of consideration also comes in here—or by virtue of any contribution towards any fund. These are the existing provisions. They are already contained in the old Act.

Furthermore, I should like to emphasize and to make it very clear that subsection (4A) (c) does not apply to films not yet in the country. This was and is not the intention. A film which is in the process of being made—I want to repeat this—is in terms of the law not regarded as being a film. It still has to be submitted for screening. Parts of films not intended for public exhibition, are ordinary cuts—and we are not referring to trailers, which are also intended for public exhibition. Those cuts are not intended for public exhibition. They are not intended for such purposes, and therefore the proposed amendment amounts to this, that while a film is intended for public exhibition, it may not be exhibited privately at the same time. I am repeating this to hon. members. I do want to acknowledge that the hon. member is right to a certain extent. In the first place I want to say to him that it has remained the opinion of the law advisers —they have repeatedly assured me of this —that the maker, the distributor and the agent of a film may view it. There is a difference between “view” and “exhibit”. This is how they see the matter; this is what they assured me and this is the position. I think the hon. member doubts whether it will eventually be interpreted in this way in the courts. In this particular regard I have also received representations from makers of films. They asked me whether I could not state it more clearly. I therefore feel that I should like to meet the hon. member to a certain extent by moving an amendment, as follows—

I want to say to the hon. member that I cannot accept his amendment as he moved it. In the first place, his amendment reads that in line 7, the words “by the maker or producer thereof” be inserted after the word “intended”. The overseas manufacturer is referred to here. If I were to accept his amendment, the film would have been finally “intended” there. The idea is not that a film should have the same “intention” for ever. There may be a change of “intention”. For example, a man may have bought a film which he intended for public exhibition. Because it is banned, he then decides that he can no longer intend it for public exhibition here and that he will now sell it to a rich man for his private use. In other words, this would mean that the film’s “intention” would have changed. If the maker is included in this clause, as the hon. member wants to do, the “intention” can never change.

I think if the hon. member reads my proposed amendment carefully, he will see that I am meeting him on almost every point, except on the point where he wants to insert “lessee or owner”. This is totally unnecessary, because the lessee or owner is in possession of that film, and he is the person who determines the “intention”. He himself exhibits the film. In regard to his amendment, he asked that the various persons be inserted in the proposed subsection (1) (a) as inserted by clause 4 (a). In addition, he asked that we insert the words “except to any of the persons referred to in paragraph (a)” in the next paragraph, namely paragraph (b). This is the number of persons he mentioned, and I have already told him that I can leave out the lessee and the owner there without it prejudicing his amendment. Now he is apparently concerned about the word “publish” here. “Publish” means to issue to the public. Actually, the word “publish” means to reveal to the general public by means of the media. I am repeating this. It is therefore not necessary to include it there. If a film is disapproved, the board has already changed its “intention”, and the film may no longer be exhibited in this country. A person may then buy and use that film, but may not exhibit it in public. I think the hon. member will agree with me that by meeting him in this way and also meeting the persons who had doubts in this regard, I am in fact altering the clause in such a way that there need be no doubt in their minds.

Mr. Chairman, I am indebted to the hon. the Deputy Minister for his explanation and the amendment he has now moved. But I think that it is not clearing up the matter at all. I believe the more we debate this Bill, the more confusing the whole issue becomes for this House and for the country. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a simple question arising out of what he has said. If Ster Films or African Theatres import a film the copyright of which they buy in the United States, and they bring it to this country, the intention is obviously to exhibit it publicly on their circuit of theatres. Because the film will be exhibited to the public, it must be submitted for censorship. One is aware of what is happening in the film world. Whereas an established firm like one of these will buy such a film and pay a large amount for it, 16 mm. prints can be bought a little more south of the United States which, admittedly, infringe the copyright of the original film. These 16 mm. copies can then be brought into the country and the individual who is in possession of it can then say that he has no intention of showing it publicly, only privately. He will then be able to exhibit that film and will not be subjected to any of the restrictions of this measure. If this is what the hon. the Deputy Minister wants, he must say clearly that this is what his intention is. Let the film industry know that this is what is going to happen. Let these persons who are struggling in a film industry which is subsidized by the State to a considerable extent and let the taxpayers know that that subsidy is going down the drain, because the film industry has no protection against pirating and the showing of films through so-called private sources. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should make it clear that this is in fact what this Bill permits at the present moment. I think that his amendment does not go far enough. He has said that the intention envisaged in the Bill is in regard to the man who owns or possesses the film.

I would now like to say a few words about the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment of the new clause (4A). I want to suggest that one has not heard more utter nonsense than to suggest that the Publications Control Board is to be likened to a court of law where the sub judice rule applies. Because of the mere fact that a film has been made, the matter must be kept in an aura of complete secrecy until the board has had a look at it, unfettered and uninfluenced by any considerations other than their own restricted and narrow approach to the film when they first see it. They are further restricted by the identity of the individual members of that board who might be charged with viewing that particular film. One knows only too well the extent to which the opinions even within the board vary, and one might have three or four members of the board who have an adult and a reasonable approach and who might approve of a film, whereas another panel out of that same board might adopt an entirely different attitude. The Minister suggests that this board be treated as a court of law when it does not even apply the elementary practice of a court of law, of audi alteram partem. In fact one of the litigants—those who submit the film before this court of law—will only be allowed to make those representations which the regulations permit them to make. If the board in its wisdom should choose that the regulations shall be on a form, then they cannot be heard and they cannot argue their case. I believe that we must keep any such misconception entirely out of our minds.

Finally I would say that if there is any suggestion that the board should be treated as a court of law, that suggestion falls flat completely when one realizes that this board does not give reasons for its decisions, which is an elementary procedure of any court of law, of any judicial or quasi-judicial body. This board has flatly refused to give any reasons for its decisions. The only way in which reasons can be obtained is for some unfortunate person to go to the expense and the delay of taking the board to court, where they can be spoken to, as they have been by Judge after Judge, and told to be a little bit reasonable. If they do give decisions will they please motivate them with reasons, and not merely by quotations from the Act. That has been the answer that has been received. To suggest that this board, so cloaked and so constituted, should be given the powers of, and be treated as, a court of law, is, I believe, a most inappropriate suggestion to put it in the mildest way in which I can.

There is one aspect of the functions of the board which concerns the public. I believe it concerns and worries the board as well. Once the Board makes a decision, even if it might become convinced of the error of its ways, the board is hoist with its own petard forever and cannot reverse or review any of its decisions. I have asked the hon. the Minister whether restrictions on any films which had been banned had been lifted during the last year. The reply was “no”. But I want to mention the fact that there are two films that have been looked at by this board in recent times which had been previously banned and which the board has now passed, I believe mistakenly, because I do not think they have the legal power to do so. I refer to the pictures “Lolita” and “Lilies in the Field”, both of which were banned in 1963 and have recently been approved of as perfectly suitable. One had a “A” certificate —there were no restrictions at all—and the other one had an age-limit restriction. The information I have is that both those films were perhaps not on the long list or the list was too long to be studied before the board looked at them again. I have been informed that both those films were on the banned list from about 1963. It is for that reason, Sir, that I have an amendment on the Order Paper, on which I could perhaps address you when we again meet in committee.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.