Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will recall that earlier this year the Minister indicated, in his Railway Budget speech that legislation would be introduced to make (provision for the construction of a new harbour at Richard’s Bay.

The Railways and Harbours Board investigated the envisaged harbour scheme and recommended that it be constructed. The report of the Board has already been laid upon the table, and since it furnishes full details of the project, I shall be very concise in dealing with the matter. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of congratulating the Railways and Harbours Board on one of the most comprehensive reports I have ever seen. It was compiled in a very satisfactory way, and it will be of great value to this House.

The envisaged harbour at Richard’s Bay is the first new harbour construction scheme to be tackled by the South African Railways and Harbour Administration, which was established at Union.

Richard’s Bay was considered as a possible harbour as long ago as 1902. The then harbour engineer of Durban, or Port Natal as it was called at the time, submitted a favourable report on the construction of the harbour to the then Prime Minister of Natal, Sir Albert Hime, but for some reason the construction of the harbour was not proceeded with. In fact, the harbour engineer in question was of the opinion at the time that Richard’s Bay would be a better location for harbour works than Durban.

Although the harbours of the Republic are capable of handling the general traffic offered and general cargo ships this is sometimes coupled with problems owing to the lack of space for handling facilities and storage for the tonnage envisaged with mass traffic, and because ships of the size envisaged for the conveyance of such tonnages to overseas countries cannot be handled in any of the existing South African harbours. At present therefore the existing harbour facilities are being strained to the utmost and since it is expected that South Africa’s foreign trade will increase at a fairly steady rate, steps will have to be taken to alleviate the position; the expected increase in bulk exports of basic raw materials and agricultural products in the near future will tax the harbours still further.

The use of bigger ships induces cheaper shipping tariffs and consequently it is a world-wide tendency to employ bigger ships, particularly for the conveyance of bulk traffic such as ores, crude oil, etc. As mentioned before, this type of vessel is too big for the existing harbours and since our harbours cannot be deepened economically in order to handle giant vessels, it is the intention to build a new harbour which will, inter alia, cater for the big ships of the future.

When the construction of a new harbour is considered, the choice of a location must inevitably be approached from two angles, viz., the economical and the technical, in order to determine where the harbour complex ought to be situated.

As far as economic considerations are concerned, it must be borne in mind that the extent to which a harbour is able to contribute to the general prosperity of the country will to a large extent be determined by its location. For this reason it is consequently of national importance that a harbour complex should be situated where it will have the greatest possible impact on the economy. Due consideration should be given to the location of industries, the present and possible future pattern of foreign trade, the decentralization of industries which goes hand in hand with the creation of new growth points and the establishment of new industries, transport costs and other factors which may be relevant.

Durban is at present the busiest South African harbour, and since, according to indications, the areas served for the most part by this harbour, i.e. the Transvaal, Natal and the Northern Free State, all have considerable growth potential, it may be accepted that the traffic caused by the future growth in the imports and exports of the country will for the most part flow to and from these areas. Since it is no longer possible to expand the facilities in Durban harbour to any great extent, it is clear that the pressure on this harbour will have to be alleviated. Bearing in mind the possibility of exporting coal in bulk quantities from the Eastern Transvaal, a harbour at Richard’s Bay would be of great advantage to the national economy.

Geographically the lagoon at Richard’s Bay is well protected and ideally shaped for the construction of a harbour, and providing adequate water-depth for big vessels should not present any insurmountable problems. In addition to that large areas of land are available around the bay for the establishment and development of export-orientated and other industries and the area is, in addition, ideal for the creation of a new industrial growth point and the establishment of border industries. Unskilled labour is available in the Bantu homelands in the vicinity of the bay.

A harbour at Richard’s Bay could serve to alleviate the pressure on facilities in Durban harbour because it would be possible to divert traffic to and from the industrial complexes of the Witwatersrand and Natal ta that harbour. It will also give rise to the generation of new traffic.

No harbour can be effectively utilized unless it is adequately served with rail-links. However, the Richard’s Bay area can be linked up with the railway network easily and relatively cheaply. Hon. members will recall that during 1968 already a railway line between Empangeni and Richard’s Bay was approved by Parliament. This line has already been completed as far as the Alusaf aluminium smelting works and the construction of the remainder of the line will depend on the construction programme of Richard’s Bay harbour. The direct railway connection between Vryheid and a place along the line to Richard’s Bay which is under construction will, it is hoped, have been completed by 1975. Along this route Richard’s Bay will be a little closer to Witwatersrand than Durban.

The Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association has obtained Government approval to export some 109 million tons of bituminous coal from the Transvaal coalfields at an annual rate of not more than 9 million tons. In order to make possible the large scale export of coal from the above-mentioned area through Richard’s Bay a railway line will be constructed from Broodsnyersplaas to Ermelo. Approval for the construction of this line was obtained last year. At the same time the existing line between Ermelo and Vryheid will be improved to allow for the conveyance of heavy coal loads. The Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association has been given the assurance that everything possible will be done to ensure that berthing facilities in the proposed harbour at Richard’s Bay for the shipment of coal in bulk quantities will be available by April, 1976.

On the basis of available information and indications of future traffic trends it has been concluded that approximately 15 million tons of traffic can be available for handling in Richard’s Bay harbour by April 1976. Although only four berths will initially be provided—two for coal traffic and two for “clean” bulk traffic—the indications are that only three wharfs will be ready for use, viz the two for coal and one for “clean” traffic, when the harbour is made operational in 1976. Bearing this in mind, it is expected that only slightly more than 12 million tons, of which approximately 11,6 million tons will comprise coal and anthracite exports, will be handled in Richard’s Bay in die first year of operation.

It was not possible to make a precise estimate of the cost of the envisaged complex, and as will consequently be noted from the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works for the present financial year, the estimated total cost of the envisaged harbour was put at slightly more than R121 million; this figure was, as indicated, only a provisional estimate, and the cost of harbour craft was not included either. On the basis of the latest available information and in order to make provision for increased expenditure as a result of the realignment of monetary units and interest on capital during construction work, the estimated cost is now put at R131 161 500; consequently the total estimated cost, inclusive of the cost of harbour craft, now amounts to R142 million. It is calculated that if 12 million tons of traffic are handled in the first year of operation, the working loss at the end of the first financial year will show a deficit of approximately R12,5 million. The operating results of the harbour will inevitably improve as the amount of traffic increases.

Initially it is envisaged to make an adequate water-depth available for vessels with a loading weight of approximately 150 000 tons, but to design and to construct certain harbour works in such a way that only further dredging will be required to eventually be able to handle ships of approximately 250 000 tons dead weight when this becomes necessary.

Initially only the entrance works, entrance channel, turning basin and four berths will be constructed. However, it is important to point out that the planning of the entire harbour complex is aimed not at restricting the planners of the future, but at making the entire layout adaptable in future to changing requirements. It will therefore be possible to develop the envisaged harbour complex gradually as circumstances may require. Apart from the facilities for general cargo, provision is being made in future planning for the discharging of crude oil, and for grain elevator facilities. Provision can also be made for containerized traffic and the handling of bulk quantities of liquids.

The hon. the Deputy Minister, in the course of his speech, has given us an accurate summary of the report of the Railways and Harbours Board. We on this side of the House will, of course, support the Second Reading of this Bill. It would be a strange thing if the House were to turn down the Bill, seeing that the hon. the Minister of Transport and his department have already built about a third of the Vryheid-Empangeni railway line. Since the factory is already operating and the link rail line from Empangeni to Richard’s Bay has also already been built, it would be strange if Parliament were now to say: “After you have done all this, we are not going to give you the harbour in connection with which you have spent these tens of millions.” It does seem a bit strange that Parliament’s approval for the construction of this harbour should be thus taken for granted. Obviously Parliament could not turn down this Bill, having regard to the cost of the Vryheid-Empangeni line, the establishment of Alusaf and all the other costs which have already been incurred. What I would like to say is that the Department of Railways is very lucky indeed. They submitted the principle of this matter to the CSIR in 1967 for investigation. In 1968 they started to go ahead with this scheme. I put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that when that decision was taken they had not received the green light from the CSIR. I put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the initial reaction from the CSIR, before the plans were drawn up, was an unfavourable one, and that is probably where many of the rumours have come from which have floated around about this harbour, rumours of rock outcrops, and so on and so forth. There is a rock outcrop, of course, but it does not block the planned entrance to the harbour; it blocks the existing channel which goes out to sea and which was wrongly assumed to be the entrance to the harbour. But luckily in September of last year, only a matter of six or seven months ago, the CSIR submitted their report and put the scientific seal on to a decision which had already been taken and gave their technical blessing to a commitment of money, which could not by then be withdrawn. The passing of this measure is therefore really a formality.

The justification for the building of this harbour, as given in the report of the Railway Board and repeated here by the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon, is the strain on Durban Harbour and the handling of bulk export traffic. I do not think it would be right to let this occasion go by without pointing out that some of that strain on Durban Harbour was foreseen many years ago. The necessary money has now been spent on Durban Harbour, but there was a delay in the improvement of Durban Harbour, a delay in the essential expenditure, which has contributed to some extent to the present strain and the bottleneck which has occurred there. But be that as it may, that is past history. The fact is that Durban Harbour is strained, and therefore this harbour at Richard’s Bay will help to relieve the strain. If one studies the report of the Railway Board, it seems that there could be a danger—and I put this point to the hon. the Deputy Minister— that the relief of the present pressure on Durban could go past the balance line and have a detrimental effect. I know that the department is satisfied that this will not happen. I know that the Durban Chamber of Commerce—because I have checked with them—are satisfied that Richard’s Bay will be supplementary to Durban Harbour, and that they regard it as a harbour for bulk imports and exports. In point of fact, however, this report says (and I quote from page 4)—

It may be more economic. The question is how far does it go. The official estimate is 3 million tons out of 15 million tons, which is 20 per cent when the harbour first comes into operation, but if we read the report further we find that crude oil is to go through Richard’s Bay. The initial period of ten years agreed upon for the single mooring buoy will expire in 1980 and thereafter it can be expected that crude oil will then go through Richard’s Bay. We find in the next paragraph that the S.A. Sugar Association envisages the diversion of sugar traffic from Durban to the new harbour and in the next paragraph we find that the grain elevator in Durban harbour will probably find itself replaced; that it is due to be demolished and will be replaced by Richard’s Bay. In passing, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether they are satisfied that the humidity situation at Richard’s Bay will not have an adverse effect on stored maize.

Steps can be taken.

I am asking the Minister whether he is satisfied that sufficient tests have been done to ensure that the greater humidity and the higher temperatures at Richard’s Bay will not adversely affect maize storage. So we find that not only bulk traffic but also ordinary general cargo, imports and exports, for the Witwatersrand are likely to go through Richard’s Bay, as well as sugar, oil and maize. As I say, the department is satisfied and the chambers of commerce are satisfied. All I feel it is our duty to do is to point to the danger of overstepping the point of relief and reaching a, point of damaging Durban.

Both those harbours are in Natal.

Yes, they are both in Natal and we all want it, but I want to know to what extent the hon. the Minister of Transport and his deputy have considered this aspect, because in creating a new asset we should be careful not to endanger an existing asset.

It will be a second Durban in years to come.

Yes, I agree, and I hope it will be—since Natal is going to lead South Africa. Durban and Richard’s Bay together will be the entrance and the exit linking South Africa with the outside world. But I want to make sure that in this creation of a second Durban, there is a balanced progress and that this has been taken into consideration. I know the problem of railways. You have limited rail facilities either way. As long as we are satisfied that this has been considered and taken into account, we will be happy.

But there is another point about which we would like assurances and that is the report that a harbour is to be built in Mozambique only a few miles north of the border with Zululand, a harbour which is to be linked with the Swazi rail system, and that an application has been made to link the Swazi rail system with the South African system at Lothair. That is the report that is going around.

We are not going to build that link.

The Minister says we are not going to build it.

Not the link with Swaziland.

But the harbour is going to be built. Now, the position is that if Swaziland is linked with Lothair, the Swaziland rail system is linked to a new harbour. It would of course produce a much more direct and shorter route from the coalfields of the Transvaal to the sea and we may face a position where South Africa is faced with an international decision. We have two friendly neighbours, Swaziland and Mozambique, with one of whom we are seriously engaged in the security field, whose defence is important to South Africa and whose economy is therefore important to South Africa, two friends putting pressure on us for a short link of rail, a very short link, which can have serious adverse effects on Richard’s Bay and Durban. The question is whether we can be assured that the present decision not to build that link line, as the hon. the Minister has announced, will be maintained against pressure which may be linked with security. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give South Africa that assurance in his reply.

I now turn to the question of cost. I want to suggest that the cost of R142 million is not an estimate, but a “guesstimate” and that this figure is simply a starting figure which before 1976 will be found to be far from the final cost, just as we found that the cost of the Vryheid-Empangeni line was totally and hopelessly underestimated. This line, incidentally, was electrified for many, many miles, but the electrification is now being pulled down. However, I submit that the cost given in this case will not be the final cost which we shall have to face.

I should like to say a word or two of congratulation on the planning. The idea of building it at this stage with wharfage to take 150 000 tons, but extendable to 250 000 tons, is a sound economic plan. In other words, we shall put the final structures down so that as ships get bigger, all we have to do is to dredge and then we shall be able to accommodate them. This proves that there was foresight on the part of whoever was responsible, to whom very sincere congratulations are due. I like also the idea of the division of the harbour into clean and dirty areas, for clean and dirty cargo respectively. This is a novel and a very sound approach to the planning of the harbour.

There are other aspects which will be dealt with by other speakers on this side particularly concerned with those aspects. I should like to conclude by saying that subject to the answers which the hon. the Deputy Minister gives to the queries I have raised, this Bill enjoys our support. Finally I should like to place on record a tribute which I am sorry the hon. the Deputy Minister did not pay himself in his opening speech. The harbour construction staff, the engineers and the staff involved in this had to do a tremendous job, because the Railways were obviously waiting—I did not know why until I read this report—for the C.S.I.R. to give them the green light. When they received the report, judging by the Government Gazette and the rush to get this Bill through, there was an all-stations panic to push through the plans and get the tenders out. This meant many, many hundreds of hours of dedicated work and overtime from the engineering staff right down to the lowest members of the staff of Harbour Construction. I think that the job which was done there, often against difficulties, often against sudden last-minute changes, was a job which deserves a special word of thanks from this House, because it enabled the Minister to have this Bill before us so that he can go ahead with this harbour with some hope, perhaps, of reaching the target date of 1976.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Durban Point had not stated at the beginning and at the end of his speech that they support his Bill, one would have found it difficult to conclude from its contents that this was actually so. It is always pathetic to see a drowning mam grabbing at a last straw, or at any straw. The hon. member’s opening argument, that Parliament is now being confronted with an accomplished fact, and has no other choice but to pass the Bill because railway lines have been constructed and factories built, is to my mind one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard from that hon. member.

Is it true or untrue?

Here we have, after all, the planning of an enormous project; here we have planning of great magnitude. But the hon. member states that Parliament is being confronted with an accomplished fact in respect of this Bill. That is a poor argument. The hon. member referred to various other matters to which I shall return in a moment. In the first place I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the introduction of the Bill, and for an historical reason. Since Jan van Riebeeck landed here in 1652 this is the first time a harbour is being constructed in South Africa, because all the other harbours in South Africa existed in any case, they were there in any case. This is the first time that a harbour is being constructed in South Africa. I think that the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. Deputy Minister deserve to be congratulated on this.

What are you trying to say? Was Cape Town built in 1652?

The hon. member for Durban Point is saying he does not know that. After listening to his speech it does not surprise me that he does not know about other things either.

Since this is a great historical occasion, we could glance briefly at some historical aspects of Richard’s Bay itself. Attention was focused on Richard’s Bay itself even earlier than mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Since as long ago as the first British occupation, and again after 1843, President Kruger and his Boers began to look for an alternative harbour for the Transvaal. Then they already had Richard’s Bay in mind, apart from other possible harbours along that coast. On various occasions, and particularly after the Zulu War of 1879, the British Government itself looked with great interest at the possibility of establishing a new harbour along the north coast of Natal. After the Anglo-Boer War in 1902, they did a great deal of research in this connection. For the sake of interest I can mention that they once calculated that it would cost R1 600 000 to construct a harbour there. This only goes to prove that either the value of money, or the cost of harbour construction has not kept pace with the passage of time. That, then, by way of introduction.

I want to refer to a few of the major economic advantages which are going to result from this harbour, and I do not share the concern of the hon. member for Durban Point that it could have a prejudicial effect on the Durban harbour. We find a very thorough survey of the volume which is being handled in Durban in this report. I must admit that I was astonished at the fact that this is greater than the volume handled in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London and Mossel Bay. I was very astonished at the fact that the volume which is being handled in Durban is so much greater than that of the other harbours together.

We are all witnesses to the congestion of shipping traffic not only in Table Bay harbour, but very frequently in Durban itself. We are aware of the new circumstances in regard to harbour facilities which have arisen on the South African coast since the closing of the Suez Canal. Very frequently we find ourselves in the position where shipping congestion in South African harbours occurs owing to reasons for which we need not really shoulder the blame. This process tends to result in a chain reaction. When congestion occurs in Lourenço Marques, shipping traffic is diverted from that port to Durban. So the process continues until eventually Cape Town also suffers as a result of something which could possibly have originated in Lourenço Marques in the first place. If we consider the total volume of shipping traffic along the South African coast—and I do not want to furnish any particulars—there is room, and adequate room, for the utilization of this harbour without this having any prejudicial influence whatsoever on any of the other harbours.

I am surprised that the hon. member for Durban Point did not ascertain the facts in that connection for himself. This new harbour is going to exercise a very great influence on the economy of South Africa, and I should like to refer to a few factors without in any way covering the same ground already covered by this very thorough report. We have already taken note of the coal and ore exports from that report. This coal and ore comes primarily from the Eastern Transvaal, from the region which I represent in this hon. House. It is interesting to note that in the case of some of the ores which are going to be exported we are standing on the threshold of colossal development. I am thinking only of the chrome ore from the Steelpoort area in the Eastern Transvaal, some of which is being processed. This commodity also comes from the Rustenburg area.

I mention this for the sake of fairness because I see the hon. member for Rustenburg is looking so angrily in my direction. I have been informed that these lowg-rade chrome deposits comprise approximately 96 per cent of the present known reserves of the entire world. Thus, approximately 96 per cent of the known reserves occur in that Transvaal complex. Chrome is one of the essential ingredients of stainless steel, the product of the future. Iron and steel, as we know it, are declining in popularity, and stainless steel is taking the place of these two commodities. The harbour which is now going to be constructed is going to play a tremendous role in this process. We are also grateful to hear that maize is going to be stored at and exported through that new harbour. I think the hon. the Minister of Transport and the Deputy Minister will agree with me that the export of maize, a process which is sporadic—in other words, a seasonable export process—places a very heavy burden on the Railways on the one hand and on harbour facilities on the other. There is much room for improvement in that connection. With a different railway route, another harbour, and so on, we shall be able to alleviate that position considerably. I do not want to say very much more about it.

There is another very important aspect in respect of the construction of this harbour which we must bear in mind. This is the handling of crude oil. Hon. members are probably aware of the fact that at the moment crude oil is being stored in South Africa and that it is pumped into the interior by means of the pipeline from Durban. When this harbour subsequently links up with this pipeline, large quantities of crude oil will be pumped to the Eastern Transvaal, where it will be stored in abandoned coal mines, and where it can serve as a storage process for crude oil in South Africa. This is a very important economic development which will be of inestimable value for our security and for our economy. It is a fact that problems arise from time to time in Durban with the pumping of oil. Only this afternoon we heard over the news broadcast that there was oil pollution on the Durban beaches. I do not know what the reason for this is, and I therefore do not want to discuss it further.

The mere fact that that risk is present, and continually present in Durban, ought to make us feel very happy about the fact that Richard’s Bay will be able to take over that role and that it will be equipped to handle crude oil on a large scale. An important factor which is going to influence the harbour will be the population distribution and the development of Zululand, which will be affected by it. In this connection I must unfortunately refer to certain reports which appeared recently in the Press, and we have to take a look at this. I want to quote from a report which appeared in the Natal Mercury of 25th April, 1972. The caption to the report reads “Port should be for kwaZulu, says Gatsha”. The report goes on to state—

I also want to refer now to comment on this which appeared in the Cape dailies. I am simply mentioning the facts here. On 25th April the Cape Times reported the particular incident as follows, while quoting Chief Buthelezi—

That same afternoon the Argus, in a leading article, commented on these reports. The following was stated—

He had supposedly exercised much self-restraint by simply saying that he was not surprised at this. This leading article concluded with the following—

I can draw only one conclusion from this comment on the construction of a new harbour at Richard’s Bay. Here is an attempt in the Press, this hostile and malicious English-language Press in South Africa, to suck a little venom from this matter of harbour construction, regardless of how difficult it is under the circumstances, in order to mar relations in South Africa. Here we have a tremendous development of which both sides of the House are proud, and for which both sides of the House are very grateful. This is a tremendous development which is taking place in South Africa, something which constitutes far-reaching economic advantages to both the Zulus and Natal. It is an economic development which is going to bring benefits to the tune of millions of rands to the population of kwaZulu.

Now these newspapers come along and suck venom from it, and try to place under a cloud of suspicion something which this country ought justifiably to be very proud of. What must one do to earn the goodwill of these people and to get them to give credit where credit is due? I am convinced that there is nothing which can be done. Here there is incitement, for here words are being put into the mouths of Chief Buthelezi in respect of Richard’s Bay. Not only is he virtually being quoted, but in this leading article conclusions such as the following are arrived at: “Look at what an injustice is being done to these poor people.” Even in terms of the Government’s internationally proclaimed concepts you are excluding these poor people from their economic benefits, is another idea which is being expressed by the Press, I find it shocking and tragic, and I am sorry that I will not be allowed to exhaust this subject. A development such as this, which has been praised by both sides of the House, and one which places South Africa on the world map with the handling of big ships of a quarter million tons and more, is being exploited by the Press for common and base political purposes. I find it shocking and very tragic.

I also want to refer to certain statements made by the hon. member for Durban Point. He said that the estimate of R142 million for this harbour was not an estimate, but a guess, actually a mere shot in the dark. He said that he was convinced that ultimately it ought to cost, and would cost, far more. I find it strange that the hon. member could make such a statement, for I remember that at some stage or another I read a report in the Sunday Times to the effect that it had supposedly been disclosed that the lowest tender which had been received for Richard’s Bay amount to R94 million. Now I find it strange that he expected the estimate of R142 million to be an under-estimate, and that it should therefore be considerably more. I really concede now that the tender of R94 million, to which reference was made in the newspaper report, obviously excluded certain harbour craft, and so on. I want to accept now that, when certain other facts in this regard are taken into account, one may perhaps have to add a further R20 or R25 million to the R94 million, which, according to the Press reports, would be the lowest tender. But then I cannot understand how one should under those circumstances find grounds for advancing an argument that it will be considerably more than the estimated amount, and secondly that the estimation is in fact a mere rough guess. I do not think that is fair criticism.

You know nothing about it.

Do you know that part of the world? Have you ever been there?

Yes, Sir, I know that part of the world. The hon. member for Durban Point has asked me whether I have been there, and whether I know that part of the world. I have been there personally. I know that part of the world. I drove through it, flew over it, and looked at it from all angles. I know precisely what I am talking about. There is an hon. member at the back there, who says that I know nothing about it. I am only grateful that I know so much about a few things, while he knows very little about many things.

You flew over it; you drove through it; and now you know all about everything.

That is not a very intelligent remark; but since I often hear the hon. member, I still regard it as one of the most intelligent of which he is capable. Once again, I am not concerned about his interjection.

Initially, provision is being made for ships of 150 000 tons. Hence the harbour will be constructed in such a way that it is eventually possible to deepen it to take ships of up to 250 000 tons. Of course, there are at present ships considerably bigger than this. Some of the containerized ships and oil tankers are considerably bigger; but I have been informed that the trend in the shipbuilding industry is already swinging away from the big ship. There was a trend, particularly among Japanese shipyards,— and reports to this effect were at one time published—to build ships of a half million tons. There was even talk of building ships of ¾ million tons. But it was found that in practice, and particularly around the South African coast, such ships were not capable of withstanding the rough seas, that a ship of this size was subject to too much strain. Because it is a tremendously long vessel, rough seas place too much strain on it, and it is inclined to break in half, to put it in over-simplified language. The shipbuilding tendency is therefore to confine itself to ships of plus-minus 250 000 tons. If that tendency is therefore going to continue in the shipbuilding industry, then I want to predict that Richard’s Bay will at all times and under all circumstances be able to handle ships, even the biggest which are being built in accordance with the world trend in that connection.

I want to conclude by expressing my astonishment at something else; this should really not have been surprising, for it remains consistent with the way die hon. member for Durban Point conducts himself. At the end of his speech the hon. member conveyed his gratitude to the engineers, the C.S.T.R. and others who worked on the report. I should like to share the hon. member’s admiration, inter alia, for the C.S.I.R. I think the C.S.I.R. has performed a great task in this connection. I also share the hon. member’s tribute to those concerned, the Railways Board, the engineers and others, but I find it strange that he then used words to this effect: “Those who made it possible for the hon. the Minister to say certain things.” Is it necessary, because he sits on the opposite side of the House, to try to go out of his way to pass the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister by when paying tribute?

Did Herman draw up this report?

Sir, I am not that naïve. I thought the hon. member would have had more sense than to put such a stupid question to me. I am not in any way trying to allege that. Is it necessary for us in this House, when tribute is due to some one, to take trouble to pass the person by to whom such tribute is due, and then with a spate of words to try to evade the fact that tribute should also be paid to those persons? If it had not been for the co-ordination, the work which they had to do, and the far-sightedness which they displayed, it would not have been possible for the other staff members, regardless of how praiseworthy their contributions were, to have submitted such an excellent report. I am not trying to detract in any way from their contribution, but if it had not been for what I have just mentioned, they would not have been able to submit this excellent report to us, this prospect of harbour development. For that reason it is a great pleasure for me to wish them everything of the best. This is a great step forward. I think that South Africa will benefit tremendously from it. We are sincerely grateful for it, and we look forward with interest to the further development of this project.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity today to be one of those who, on behalf of the official Opposition, is to welcome this Bill. I say that because the original announcement of the Richard’s Bay scheme was made by the hon. the Minister of Transport at, what some of us thought, was rather an injudicious time with, what some of us thought was an unhappy consequence, because the original announcement was made shortly before the 1966 election, and there are those who think that it had some influence on my departure from this place elsewhere! However, Sir, when it comes to the introduction of a Bill to bring the Richard’s Bay project into effect, fate has changed the situation and one is happy to be here and to be able to welcome it.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that I am one of the few in this House who, as a boy, travelled to Richard’s Bay in the days when one had a sandy track as the only route leading to this place and when one had to travel through most of the swamps, rather than over them, because there were no bridges and the two or three streams that one had to cross, one crossed on rickety wooden bridges made by the farmers. What a change, when one sees the report of the Railways and Harbours Board, which is the basis of the Bill before us, and when one sees the vast engineering enterprise which is to be put into effect to transform what was a rural retreat into one of the modern harbours of the world.

There are a number of points which emerge from the report of the engineers and from what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said. I do not think it is expected of those of us who are supporting this Bill merely to give praise for the concept, the planning and the work that has been done. It is because I hold that view that I do not go along with the hon. member for Middelburg in his criticism of the hon. member for Durban Point. After all, Sir, the heart and the life blood of Natal up to the present has been Durban harbour and the City of Durban; indeed, Sir, not only of Natal but of a great part of the country. My surprise can be imagined when I heard the hon. member for Middelburg say that he was surprised to read that Durban was in fact by far the busiest port in South Africa. The attitude of the hon. member for Durban Point was, I thought, a responsible one. In supporting this measure he looked firstly to Durban and to Durban harbour, and analyzed what effect a new enterprise such as Richard’s Bay would have on that harbour. He then ended up by saying how glad he was that it appeared that this would be a welcome adjunct to Durban, and not something which would derogate from the importance and vitality of that port.

Now, Sir, let us come to Richard’s Bay in particular. There are a number of factors which emerge when a scheme of this magnitude is put into effect. Firstly, let me say that, knowing this area reasonably well, I have some reservation on the angle at which the entrance to the harbour is placed in relation to the prevailing winds. I know that advantage was apparently to be taken of a natural gully in the rock, which exists at this place. This will make for easier dredging and will allow the largest ships eventually to get into this port. Whilst I am no engineer, I would say that events may prove that a second look should be taken at the positioning of the harbour entrance and the breakwaters in relation to the prevailing winds. The prevailing winds there are north-east and south-west, and it seems to me, whilst having no experience of engineering matters, but some slight experience of the sea, that this entrance will be very exposed indeed to the strong northeasterly winds which are frequently experienced there in the summer.

Another factor upon which I should like to comment is the proposed berm wall which is to be built across the Richard’s Bay lagoon in order to contain the flood waters, principally from the Umhlatuzi River. The idea is to have a series of flood control dams on the Umhlatuzi River, together with a flood control system, which will regulate the flow of water from the south-western side of the lagoon, through the berm wall, into the harbour area itself. Those who will follow me on this side of the House will, I am sure, have more to say on this aspect. I merely want to say two things on this score. The one is: I hope that the Railway authorities have had regard to the very low-lying nature of all the surrounding farm land on the northwestern side, because it would require only a very small rise in the water level of that portion of Richard’s Bay, above the highwater mark, in order to inundate a great deal of valuable farm land. Unless the flood control scheme works efficiently and unless the building of the flood control dams on the Umhlatuzi River, which is envisaged in the report, goes along at more or less the same pace as the building of the harbour, then I foresee trouble from that quarter. The Umhlatuzi, as I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, in times of wet weather is a very large river indeed; in times of dry weather it is a trickle; it has numerous tributaries and it has a large catchment area, at least half of which is Native Reserve and reasonably well denuded of veld. The consequence is that in wet weather there is a tremendous flow of water down this river, and I believe it will require a substantial number of flood control dams if there is to be adequate flood control, so that there will not be flooding of settled farmlands in the area which I have described. Of course, Sir, I like the idea of flood control dams. It will have the effect not only of controlling floods, but it will no doubt provide a source of water to the industrial area which will develop in the Richard’s Bay complex; and there are numerous farming areas below the points where dams are likely to be built, which could benefit from the point of view of irrigation, to feed the city which will eventually grow up in this area.

There is another aspect of this type of development which I should like to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention in order that he can consult with his colleagues and perhaps bring his influence to bear on them, because these problems grow out of the development of this scheme. The first is the question of accommodation for the people who are going to build this scheme. We are going to have hundreds of millions of rands spent here, a great deal of it in the next four years. At the present time accommodation for the working people— and I speak of the White community for the moment—in the Richard’s Bay complex is unobtainable; it does not exist, and I state that categorically. When the contractors move in very shortly to build this scheme we are going to have hundreds and hundreds of people working for the contractors and for whom accommodation has to be found, not to mention all the periphery that will cater for these working people. The Department of Community Development has recently refused, because of the present financial stringency, a supply of money for the building of flats in Empangeni for this very purpose. I say—and I hope this will be taken to heart—that there will be an acute position as far as accommodation is concerned unless that decision is reversed and unless assistance is given by the Department of Community Development to provide housing for the enormously abnormal influx of people that there will be into this area.

It is acute already.

It is acute already and it will become impossible.

Is the provision of accommodation for the personnel of the contractors not the duty of the contractors themselves?

The contractors, as in the case of the Alusaf scheme which has already been built, do provide bachelor accommodation for their workers, but not everybody can be accommodated in bachelor accommodation, in prefabricated huts, amidst the swamps of Richard’s Bay. You will get, as you have already had, a vast influx into the settled area, that is to say, into Empangeni. I know that, as sure as I stand here, you are going to have an acute situation of crisis arising unless something is done.

Is the housing of those people not the job of the local authority?

I must say, Sir, that the hon. the Minister was most helpful when I went to see him, and I do not want him to think that this is criticism of him.

I am just pointing out that it is the job of the local authority to provide the housing. We only supply the funds.

Sir, I do not want to elaborate on that any further.

The hon. member is drifting far away from the Bill now.

I merely want to say that this is a problem which must be met and I do not want the hon, the Minister of Community Development to feel that this is in any way a criticism of him. The other point that I wish to mention—and I am not going to embroider it to any extent —does flow directly out of the same situation. This again is a matter which has been raised with the hon. the Minister of Planning. A great deal of the labour which is coming in and which will come in to an ever-increasing extent—I am not going to emphasize it; I am merely making this point—is Coloured and Asiatic labour. It comes in under permit. Zululand is in a different position from the rest of the country in that regard and one has no fight with that, i.e. with the permit system, but that labour can come in only as single labour, that is to say, without families. Already we have two evils growing up. The one is the rate of illegitimacy.

Do you expect me to reply to that problem too?

No, but I ask the hon. gentleman to bring his influence to bear on his colleagues. Sir, this is a real problem. One is the question of illegitimacy and the other is the question of the relationship between the Zulu people and the Asiatics and the Coloureds when there is an admixture of the women of the one group and the men of the other. That is serious.

That is where apartheid is very useful.

Order! I hope the hon. member will come back to the Bill.

Sir, this is also a real question. It calls for family housing even on a temporary basis under permit, and I hope the Minister will bring that to the notice of his colleagues as well.

Now I come to another aspect of the matter, an aspect which was mentioned by the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg. Here again I merely want to reply to what he said. I do not believe that this is the time or the place, when we are dealing with a Bill of this kind, for a major debate to develop in regard to race policies in South Africa, or in Natal in particular. But the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg referred to a reported statement by the chairman of the Zululand Territorial Authority and he made some comments on it. I wish merely to reply briefly to that.

On a point of order, Sir, may I, through you, point out to the hon. member that there is no such constituency as Bethal-Middelburg and no such member either. I do not know whom he is referring to.

I am sorry, I refer to the hon. member for Middelbure. The hon. member for Middelburg referred to certain quoted reports in the English language Press of a statement by the chairman of the Zululand Territorial Authority and he did one of those things which I always find most regrettable, and that is that he directed his annoyance not at the person who made the utterance, but at the newspaper which reported the utterance.

No, it was a leader of the newspaper; not a report in it.

He criticized two English language papers that reported the statement of Chief Buthelezi, and he read from certain leading articles which he also criticized. I read that very same statement both in Die Burger and in Rapport, but it is interesting that there is no criticism by the hon. member of those newspapers, nor is there any criticism today by him of Chief Buthelezi, the man who started it all, who made the statement. Let me say that I am surprised at the hon. member’s reaction, because the statements which have recently been forthcoming, and which have caused such criticism to come from the hon. member for Middelburg, are statements which we have warned the National Party year after year, would be the result of the policy in question. Now I propose to look upon it on a factual basis. What have we at Richard’s Bay? We have at Richard’s Bay a situation which is not unique. Richard’s Bay is in fact the centre of four separate Native Reserves at the present time. There were five but one has been done away with.

Richard’s Bay itself is not a Native Reserve.

I say it is the centre of four separate Native Reserves. There are four separate Native Reserves which converge on that area which is in the jurisdiction of the Richard’s Bay Town Board. In that regard Richard’s Bay is very similar to Durban, because Durban likewise is virtually surrounded by Native Reserves. I think one should look at the position from this point of view, that just as Durban has been of benefit to all the races of Natal, just as Durban has grown to its present eminence because of the interdependence of the various races of Natal, it is to be hoped that Richard’s Bay will likewise, because of its geographical situation, benefit, not only the White people of Zululand, but all those who inhabit that area. Likewise, I have no doubt that whatever the future may hold in so far as the Government of this country is concerned—I refer to this Chamber—Richard’s Bay will develop because of the interdependence of the Zulus, the White people, the Asiatics and the Coloureds who inhabit that part of South Africa. As I have said, one could develop this at great length, but I think that is something for another occasion rather than the present.

Richard’s Bay is not only a place with great industrial potential. At the present time it is also one of the principal pleasure resorts of the area north of the Tugela River. It is a pleasure resort which benefits not only the local people, but which draws tens of thousands of people from the platteland, principally the Transvaal every year, particularly during Easter and the July holidays. I hope that the Railway authorities will bear this in mind during the phases of development when the nuisance from contractors will be at its height, because this is also, apart from its economic potential, a place where the people of Zululand, and indeed the whole of the northern part of South Africa, come for their pleasure. I hope that this will be preserved to the greatest extent.

Finally I want to point out that we are told that the first ship will sail into Richard’s Bay in four years’ time, in 1976. I hope very much that that will be the case, but knowing the area and seeing the magnitude of the development which is to take place there, I must say that I shall be very surprised indeed if an ocean-going ship will be able to sail into Richard’s Bay harbour, as opposed to Richard’s Bay itself, by as early as 1976.

There remains only one point which I should like to raise. I understand that the principal township for the housing of the Bantu people who will provide the ultimate labour force for Richard’s Bay, is to be in the Reserve immediately to the south of the harbour entrance.

Is that No. 10?

Yes, I believe it is. The question now arises of transport from that township to the industrial area and the harbour works in Richard’s Bay itself. The development, the planning so far does not seem to cater for transport from that region. As we know, transport for labour of this kind is one of the most important things, not only economically, but for the well-being of the people themselves. I hope that the hon. the Minister and his department will give adequate thought to that in their planning in Richard’s Bay.

Mr. Speaker, after I listened to the hon. members for Zululand and Durban Point I said to myself again that a Natal U.P. man is really a strange kind of person. Here we had the hon. member for Zululand occupying himself with mundane matters in regard to an imaginative project which is being carried out in his constituency, instead of bubbling over with gratitude in spite of the fact that it is the National Party Government which is making provision for that wonderful project there. On the other hand, the hon. member for Durban Point, with real Durban chauvinism, accepted the project with a curse in his heart. That is all I can say about his speech.

Why are you so bitter?

But that is precisely what the hon. member’s speech was. In contrast to this, I can tell them that if we in the Free State had received a growth point involving a sum of R142 million, U.P. as well as N.P. supporters would have celebrated for a week and have expressed their gratitude.

On my part I want to say that I am impressed with the advance planning of this project, on the part of the Minister, the Deputy Minister down to the most junior official. Not only was a thorough survey made of the traffic and the potential of the existing harbours, but a thorough study was also made of the ocean conditions and the coastal morphology at Richard’s Bay and studies were also carried out on a hydrological model. In regard to this hydrological model which was studied, I want to say that I as a South African am particularly proud because of the fact that this work was given to the C.S.I.R. after it had been established that no foreign organization could provide a more favourable time-table. Now the hon. members on the opposite side must pardon me if I want to make a little political gain out of this matter. I want to allege that this project is a monumental and imaginative project of the National Party Government. The estimated costs of R142 million, included in which are the costs of harbour craft, is an exceptionally large amount, but, I want to maintain that it is an amount which will be well-spent because it will produce rich dividends for us both economically and strategically. I say strategically as well, for if we study the engineer’s report, we shall see that the express assurance is given in that report that suitable areas will be available for the development of naval requirements as well as ship repair and dry-dock facilities.

In addition I just want to point out a few striking features of this project. This imaginative project will give us a harbour which will, with only a minimum of additional dredging, be able to handle ships of 250 000 tons. This has been mentioned before, but I just want to emphasize again that such an enormous harbour will not only give added lustre to our country as one of the major countries in the world as far as commerce and shipping is concerned, but will also yield rich dividends in the economic sphere.

Secondly—and here I want to raise an unashamedly political issue again—this project is a wonderful example of the Government’s positive implementation of its policy of creating new growth points through decentralization. In this regard Richard’s Bay has everything in its favour for promising growth. It will have the available labour; it will have large areas for import and export orientated industries, and border industries. Our tariff structure creates ideal opportunities for the establishment of export industries at Richard’s Bay in particular. It will also be the nearest harbour within the Republic to the Witwatersrand industrial complex. It is obvious therefore that its location will result in wonderful development for it.

The main reason why I as a Freestater am discussing this project today, is because I have a special reason to say thank you to the Government that this project is in fact going to be established. This is because it is being envisaged that this harbour will become a major export harbour for maize. The report in question tells us that the extending of maize export facilities at Durban is not being envisaged. The report also points out that Richard’s Bay is situated particularly strategically for maize exports. It is strategic because it is situated on the eastern side, and it is also strategic with a view to the locality of the maize producing areas in the northern Free State and the Transvaal. That is why it is being proposed in the report, and the Government is envisaging this as well, that major facilities will be created at Richard’s Bay for the export of maize. Therefore, it is also being envisaged that even by the l979-’80 season, two million tons of maize will be exported to Richard’s Bay.

As a person who has for many years discussed this matter in this House under the relevant Vote, I not only want to support wholeheartedly the planning in respect of maize exports through Richard’s Bay, but also applaud sincerely. Our method of maize cultivation, improved cultivation methods, better seed, is making such progress that the risk of drought is being progressively eliminated. Harvests are becoming progressively larger and more stable. Therefore these facilities at Richard’s Bay will greatly alleviate the position in the entire maize industry. That is why I want to advocate that the grain elevator complex there be planned on a large scale, that the planning of it should not be on a small or on a careful scale, but should be on an imaginative scale and that the facilities be established as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, my friend, the hon. member for Zululand, referred to the fact that as a boy he went up to Richard’s Bay and followed those old sand tracks. It is perhaps curious that we on this side of the House have three members who have known Richard’s Bay from the very early days, namely the hon. member for Zululand, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and myself. The hon. the Minister is not here himself, but I would like to say how much I appreciate the courtesy which he did me on the day that he announced to the world that his choice had fallen on Richard’s Bay to develop it as a harbour, when he invited me to go along with him in his aircraft. We went up to St. Lucia, to Richard’s Bay, Sordwana Bay and Kosi Bay. Subsequently those members of the Press who had managed to get through the sand dunes, met us at Kosi Bay under the fig trees at the ranger’s house and we were told by the Minister: “I will play no favourites with anybody; I want the world to know so that no speculator or anybody else can get prior knowledge of the decision that I myself have made today.” We had engineers and one or two other people with us in the aircraft. The hon. the Deputy Minister, will remember another occasion when this happened, and I will come to him in a moment. But the Minister said that he wanted the world to know of the decision he had made that day and that anyone who wanted to try to muscle in on that development could start fair with everybody else. It is now a few years ago that the hon. the Minister told us that Richard’s Bay was going to be the site for the new harbour. The decision was published throughout the world and the matter went forward. At that time the Deputy Minister was not the Deputy Minister of Transport. If I remember correctly, he was Deputy Minister of Lands. He also did me the courtesy of accompanying me on foot and by vehicle through the sand tracks and through the swamps. We had a great time; we explored what was a great deal of new ground to many members in the party. We had a look at this area and if I may say so, it was with considerable pleasure, with a little human joy, that I could say to the present Deputy Minister: “This is Lake Mzingazi that your Member of Parliament for Zululand does not know anything about. I know something about it. Just look at the size of this great fresh water lake.” I also remember the comments of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I am not going to embarrass him, because the member for Zululand at that time was a member of his party and did not know anything about Lake Mzingazi. However, those days have passed and we have moved on. I want to say to the hon. member for Kroonstad that he used a phrase, I hope it was just in passing, saying that he was now going to deal with some of the matters in a political way. I hope Parliament is not going to deal with this matter in a political way at all. I do not believe there is room in this matter for politics. There is room for a difference of opinion, and there will be very wide differences of opinion. One cannot have a project of this kind with all that is associated with it in the way of development, roads, railway lines, oil pipelines, and so on, and future political development, without differences of opinion. What is the big question mark today? That Zululand is not planned. That is the question mark. It is no good us talking about newspaper reports on what the leader of the Zulu Territorial Authorities has said or how an editor commented upon it. There is no plan yet; there is fragmentation and until there is certainty as to where the boundaries go in relation to all this development, let us hold our peace. I really suggest this now in all honesty and sincerity. Let us deal with the matter that is before us and leave all those questions. Let us hope that when the time comes we will be able to solve the honest differences of opinion. The differences of opinion will not be in respect of political matters. The engineers and all the people who are going to be involved in the development of this harbour and all the associated work, are going to have a very difficult time indeed. They will want a free hand in so far as it is possible for them to get on with the job without being hindered by political considerations or anything of that sort. I think the invitation of the hon. the Minister at that time to accompany him on that trip was, if I may boost my own ego, in appreciation of me as a man with a wonderful character; that that is why he invited me to go along with him. I say this to boost my own ego, of course! But I am afraid the truth will not have it that way. I think he invited me because I was Deputy Chairman of the Natal Parks Board.

No, it is for the reason you mentioned first.

Mr. Speaker, please do not check him, let it stand forever in Hansard.

Order! The hon.

member need not take any notice of it.

I cannot fail to take the greatest notice of a remark like that, coming from such a quarter, Sir. It is almost the crowning point in my political career! We at that time at the Natal Parks Board controlled the whole of the area the area of the lagoon at Richard’s Bay, plus a portion of the surrounding land, which included, amongst other areas, Lake Mzingazi, the township itself and various swamp lands. At that time, when once a decision was made, when we were up at Kosi Bay, the Minister and I forthwith discussed what was to happen about the proclaimed nature reserve, which was now to fall under the control of the Department of Railways and Harbours for the purpose of constructing the new harbour. I want to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister for the way in which he and his officials have carried out an arrangement which we arrived at at that time that we would release and deproclaim such areas as were wanted for harbour development and for the ancillary services, such as areas for occupation by buildings and industrial development, housing, recreational facilities and all those activities that are associated with the development. We would deproclaim that, but any area which was still left, would be left for the Parks Board to continue to administer as a nature reserve. This agreement, as I say, the Minister had religiously observed. The officials, the Railways and Harbours people, the engineers and others, could not have been more careful to consult with the Parks Board and its officials and work with us hand in hand at every stage so that we are able to protect the marine life and the organisms as far as possible in the area which is not required for development.

We will keep on doing that in the future too.

Yes, Sir, I believe that. I accept that from the Deputy Minister. I believe that will be the case. Reference is made in the report before us to the necessity of ensuring that the marine biology of the area should be preserved. I want to come to that in a moment. We know that development must take place. We know that in the fullness of time there may be very little area left, but so long as it is there, I make a plea for it to be maintained. It will be maintained on the verge of what is probably to become one of the great cities of South Africa, because that is what the future holds. I want to make this appeal also—that is one reason why I am sorry the Minister is not here himself—to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I know he will understand it. He has been there with me. Don’t let us look ahead for eight, ten or 20 years. What is 20 years in the life of a nation? What is 30, 40 or 50 years in the life of a nation? Let us look ahead. By “ahead” I do not mean in terms of time of, say, 50 years. Fifty years, what is it? It is a few minutes duration in the life of a nation. It is nothing. Don’t let us look ahead just for 40 or 50 years. Let us try and take the big view and look ahead to see what the future is going to be of that area when the harbour has developed, and the development that comes and flows from the harbour will have taken place in the whole of the surrounding area which is being planned and which amounts to, I think, over something like a radius of 15 miles from the centre point.

Now I come to a point I referred to earlier on. The berm will be a natural barrier, cutting the south-western area of the lagoon. It is designed—it is clearly set out—for the purpose of, for the moment, preventing the tide when the new channel is deep…

To protect the natural habitat.

To protect the natural habitat? Good word from him. It will not allow the sandbanks and the silt beds to run dry and destroy the marine organisms. I want to put to the Deputy Minister the possibility that in the southeast corner there should be another channel to the sea—not a deep channel like one going to the harbour; I do not suggest anything of the kind—instead of having the flood control gates in the berm, which in practice will allow floodwater to come into what I would call the “nature reserve”, the unused and undeveloped portion of the lagoon, and from there to return to the floodgates in the berm, then into the harbour proper, and then down and out to sea through the channel, which I think is something like km long. Bearing in mind that the survey shows that something like 60 000 cubic yards of silt per annum—I am turning tons into cubic yards —is brought down, a lot of it will be deposited in the delta portion of the Umhlatuzi River. Some of it, the finer silt, will be deposited in the nature reserve, but some of it, the colloidal sediments, in suspension in the water, will go over into the harbour proper. The Parks Board has in the past proved by repeated tests and experiments that when this flood water coming down our rivers, carrying these sediments in suspension, meets sea water, the action of the salt in the sea water acts as a precipitant. In other words, like precipitants that are used by municipalities and others for the purpose of clearing dirty water, it serves to deposit that silt immediately. Instead of the silting taking place in the harbour or in the channel, I suggest that if the other channel is cut through into the sea, that specially designed channel will allow the water to move to and fro at ordinary tides. This will allow the marine organisms such as pelagic fish, shrimps, prawns and so on, to go in and out of the nature reserve portion of the lagoon. Only at very low tides, neap tides, for instance, would that channel be dry, but if floods were to come down, the flood water would go straight out to sea. There would be no hindrance to it. It would take its debris with it. Here I want to point out that it is not only silt which the Umhlatuzi brings down. The hon. member for Zululand will bear me out as to the volume of vegetable matter such as tree trunks, cane trash, reeds, papyrus, etc. which comes down that river when it is in flood. The volume of this sort of vegetation that comes down the river is absolutely incredible. This floating vegetable matter will go to the flood gates in the berm, if that system is adopted. I suggest that it would be better from everybody’s point of view, if a straight-through channel were constructed into the sea at the southeast corner of the lagoon. This would allow all that vegetation to be carried straight out to sea with the silt, and it would not be carried into the harbour at all.

There is another point I should like to raise. Many years ago, when I was a much younger man, I was responsible for the reclamation works at Umfulozi. That is a long time back; it was after I was demobilized in 1918, after the big flood in 1917. We had to deal there with alluvial soils very much akin to what we have around Richard’s Bay. I am well aware that settlement has been taking place in the case of some of the structures which have already been erected at Richard’s Bay.

Railway lines.

Yes, the railway line itself. The report of the engineer shows clearly that they accept the position that, underlying the whole of that area, is a huge cretaceous bed. Where that cretaceous bed extends into the sea, you have the continental shelf. Rivers of the past, when the land level was much higher, cut through that cretaceous bed. The land has sunk or the water has risen, and the deep channel at the entrance to Richard’s Bay has filled up with silt, but it is a channel which today can be dredged. This will in fact comprise the deep-sea end of the channel, coming into the harbour. It is a channel cut into that cretaceous bed. But that bed goes back beyond Empageni and beyond the Ntambanana settlement. How far is Ntambanana from Richard’s Bay?

Thirty miles.

My hon. friend, Sir, was born in Ntambanana. Or, if he was not born in Ntambanana, he was brought up there, on one of the Ntambanana farms, which his father owned in those days. Boreholes put down for domestic water at Ntambanana, on some of the farms there, go down as far as the cretaceous bed, and they draw brack water, which is not potable. It is water which creeps on that cretaceous bed, which is quite impervious. Those silts, laid down over hundreds of years, over centuries, within the distance between the surface and the cretaceous bed, have peculiar properties and I do not doubt for one moment that the Railway people concerned will see to it that there are proper geological surveys made with regard to what they can expect when they start excavating the harbour at Richard’s Bay. But I do ask them to look at Lake Mzingazi. Lake Mzingazi is a fresh-water lake and it is quite deep. It was used as a flying-boat base for Sunderland flying-boats during the war years. It is a big area of water. I may say in passing that I see references made here to using it as a sort of supply of fresh water, at any rate in the initial development period, at Richard’s Bay, along with Lake Nsezi and Qubu. Sir, I ask them not to rely on that. Let them get the Department of Water Affairs to start building their dams as soon as they can on the Mhlatuze River. A very careful geological survey should be made of the position in regard to Lake Mzingazi when they start deepening that hole which will be the harbour of Richard’s Bay, because of the association between those soft silts in the bed of the Mzingazi Lake and the passage of the water from there down to the sea. At present there is a stream, the Mzingazi stream, that runs into the marshes, the papyrus and reeds, into the north-eastern side of the lagoon. But, Sir, this is dangerous land. The whole of that area is dangerous land. It does not always react under pressures in one part of that area in the same way as it does under others. May I say in passing also that I would like to suggest as a non-engineer, but as one who has done contracting, that their whole sweep around the harbour, plus the area of the nature reserve—in other words, right from where the boathouse is at the present time to the north, the whole way around the harbour, across the Mzingazi stream and the Nsezi and Mhlatuze, right away round to the sea on the southern side— provision should be made for a multilane highway. Provision should be made for it now. I do not say that it should be provided now. It may well be that sections of it will be built within the next two or three years because it will be found necessary, but provision should be made in the plan for a multi-lane highway, because that was lacking in the case of Durban, and we have learned to our cost since then that it was a mistake. When once it was finally decided in Durban that Durban would not be connected by a ship canal through to the Isipingo River Mouth, when once that was no longer a practical plan, then the road should immediately have been laid out, even if it was not then constructed. If that had been done, we would have obviated the huge cost of the acquisition and expropriation of land in the years to come, plus the upsetting of all sorts of people who had settled themselves there. All that is done away with if a plan is prepared in the initial stages, with such a multi-lane road to go right around. That would then take in the sweep of the nature reserve as well; it would be inside that road, and then we would have a natural barrier between those areas being settled by the Bantu, with their grass huts on the south and the south-eastern side of the lagoon, where they are going up in scores at the present time. And if we are not very careful, they will be coming right down to the water’s edge. Sir, my hon. friend referred to the flooding. How right he is when he talks about the position when the Mhlatuze really comes down in flood! You know, Sir, what happens when we get one of these big floods. The newspapers always say that this is the biggest flood in living memory; but I think sometimes that we are not supposed to live for more than about 15 years, if that is to be taken literally as a fact, because these floods tend to come along once in every 15 or 20 years. I think back to three of the big floods that I have known in Zululand since 1917. Sir, at that time the lands on those flats were under water, but that was because there was no run-off.

The berm will protect the lowlying lands.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that the berm will protect the harbour and there will be a run-off from the harbour. Let me point out, Sir, that there is a tendency, when we get these huge storms which accompany such heavy rainfall, to have a storm at sea which also whips up the waves and then we get a very high tide. A very high tide and a very high flood tend to coincide in terms of history; that is in fact what happens, and then all those low-lying lands to the south and the south-east tend to become flooded. These are all matters to which I have no doubt the engineers will be paying attention. I am an outsider merely looking in, but I raise these points because I believe they are important from the point of view of the planning of that harbour.

Sir, there is one other matter I would like to raise. The question of Durban was raised by my hon. friend, the member for Durban Point, and I am not clear from the report whether it is anticipated that normal economic conditions will tend to divert general traffic as well as coal and ultimately bulk traffic like crude oil and even maize to Richard’s Bay instead of to Durban. Is the traffic at Richard’s Bay going to be left to find its own volume, if I may put it that way, according to economic laws? Where it pays a consignor or an importer to send his goods through Richard’s Bay or to receive his goods through Richard’s Bay in preference to sending them or receiving them through Durban, will that natural economic law be allowed full play? Will he be completely free to make his choice? The hon. the Deputy Minister nods his head, so I assume that that is so.

That will be the natural development ultimately.

But in the early stages will there be no question of an artificial diversion of traffic to Richard’s Bay or through Richard’s Bay to the hinterland?

No, because Richard’s Bay cannot be developed fast enough to do that.

Sir, I am very pleased to hear that, because I believe that this may very greatly help to stem what could be a fear in the minds of the business community in Durban and its surrounds …

They should have no fear.

… because this is obviously a case of a gradual buildup both of imports and exports through Richard’s Bay without a sudden chop in the economy of the sea-borne traffic which comes and goes through Durban. Sir, the Deputy Minister has set my mind at rest in that regard.

I want to make one last point. The report, in dealing with the situation in the harbour, refers to the prevailing wind as being a south-east wind. The dirty berths, the coal berths, are on the south-western side. I am not so sure that there has been a long enough testing of the wind to say that the prevailing wind is south-east. As the hon. member for Zululand has said, you get terrific north-east winds, but the report says that the prevailing wind is south-east. Sir, you get tremendous winds from the northeast as well, and coal which is loaded into or unloaded from the trucks, on a dirty wharf on the south-east, can be picked up by that prevailing wind, if in fact that is the prevailing wind, and blown right back across the harbour to the wharves on the other side. I merely mention the point because when I was reading the report, it struck me that this coal is being unloaded virtually into the prevailing wind, if that is in fact the prevailing wind. As I say, I know that the wind from the north-east is also very prevalent and it is a very strong wind. However, this question is one which will, no doubt, also be looked at by the engineers.

I am very pleased indeed to be able to give my support to the Bill.

My participation in this debate is not influenced by political considerations. I want to assure the hon. member for South Coast of that. However, I want to point out that when I was listening to what the hon. members opposite had to say, it seemed to me as if they wanted to express a kind of covert criticism of the reports laid upon the Table here by the hon. the Minister on the construction of the harbour. I am referring now to the comment made by the hon. member for South Coast in regard to the geological and other investigations which he would then recommend. The report made it very clear that thorough investigations, geological and geophysical, have already been made there. Of course, when one is dealing with such a major project, involving such enormous amounts, the S.A. Railways can do nothing else, and any responsible Government would, before spending such enormous amounts, cause a thorough investigation to be made, and would use all the available scientific methods in this connection.

Then I want to come to what the hon. member for Zululand said in regard to accommodation. It is customary, when giving out such enormous contracts—this applies to the State as well as to private organizations—that the contractors in question are responsible for the accommodation of their staff, and with the allocation of the tenders it is one of the conditions of such tender that the staff of that contractor shall be accommodated by the contractor himself. This is after all his responsibility and he includes it in his tender price. So I cannot see why the hon. member wants to hold the Minister of Community Development responsible for the accommodation in this connection. It is true that when such an enormous project is carried out one usually finds a tremendous number of squatters in that vicinity, but that is not the responsibility of the State or of the Railways; it is the responsibility of the local authority, which of course will fall under the Provincial Administration of Natal.

The hon. member for Durban Point then made certain reflections. The implication of his speech was that this matter of the harbour was referred to the C.S.I.R. in 1967, and that we only received its report the other day, that the State had in the meantime made major investments in regard to the construction of the railway-line, and Alusaf was constructed there, and that we have now been confronted with a fait accompli and here the hon. House would simply have to accept it. It is a reflection and displays ignorance on the part of the hon. member, because the C.S.I.R., as a responsible organization, I should imagine, decided in 1967, when the matter was mentioned to it for the first time, to make a kind of reconnaisance survey in the vicinity so that they could give the S.A. Railways an idea more or less of whether it would be worthwhile to construct a harbour in that area. I take it that they did make such a survey of a few routes from north to south and from east to west, and that they availed themselves of geophysical apparatus and then established that the mouth of the river, presently at Richard’s Bay, is not where it previously used to be. In the limestone period it was somewhere else, and in a more recent period it shifted. It is a feature of our South African coast that the mouths of rivers change from time to time. In a previous lifetime, perhaps when the hon. member’s grandfather was still living, the mouth might have been somewhere else; today it is again where it may perhaps have been 100 or 200 years ago. It is a feature of our South African coast that one has these periodic changes. Now, the C.S.I.R. instituted a further detailed investigation and established the specific location of the previous outlet to the ocean where a deep groove had been cut into the hard limestone layer which was at present filled up with soft sediment. The plan provided to us by the Railways shows consequently that this is the right place for the outlets to the ocean; that is where the ships will now enter.

I want to suggest say that if the construction of Durban harbour, for example, were to have been left to a National Party Government, Durban harbour could probably have been a better one today, for then a proper scientific investigation would have been instituted by using the C.S.I.R. Quite probably the discovery of another prehistoric outlet to the ocean, much deeper than the present one, would have permitted the entry of larger ships, and ships with a greater draft to the harbour.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that the hon. member for South Coast has left the Chamber.

No, that is all right. He is only behind the Chair. He will come back.

First of all, I want to thank him personally for his personal interest, not only today, but also in the years gone by. I want to put it on record that whenever the hon. member for South Coast takes part in a debate which deals with the nature of South Africa, the conservation of our nature or our natural resources, he displays love for the country. I also want to thank him because he set an example to his colleague, the hon. member for Zululand. He acknowledged that the Minister requested him to accompany him when this harbour project was announced. The hon. member for Zululand tried to make of this a bit of a political issue. He said that the Minister announced this project just before the last election in the hope that he could catch a few votes. However, the hon. member for South Coast said that he wanted to thank the hon. the Minister because when the hon. the Minister announced the project, he said that there would be no political approach, that this would serve South Africa as a whole.

The hon. member mentioned quite a few interesting facts to which I want to reply. First of all, I want to refer to page 8 of the report (R.P. 30—‘72) which was tabled, and I quote as follows—

I mention this to point out that we already have a proper planning committee consisting of all the different departments under the chairmanship of the Ministry of Planning. That is correct, not so?

Yes.

I want to give all hon. members the assurance that this planning board which has been established, does not plan in advance for a period of only 10 or 20 years, but in fact for a period of hundreds of years in the future. For example, there is the ring road of which the hon. member spoke—I am pleased he mentioned it—which is one of the aspects which the planning board is investigating. I want to mention a second aspect. The hon. member for South Coast asked a question in regard to Bantu housing. In this regard I may say that Reserve No. 10, which is situated on the southern side, is envisaged as the place where a large Bantu township will be established. The planning board I have just mentioned, and on which not only the Railways and the Department of Transport serve, but also all other interested departments, is already investigating the future flow and supply of the labour from those Bantu townships which must still be established. Provisionally, it will be possible to construct decent roads. Later, when the passengers are there, rail services will be provided. In other words, in this regard we already have very thorough planning.

†I do not intend crossing swords with the hon. member for South Coast in this debate in connection with the fragmentation of Zululand. I think that we can do that in another debate. I see that the hon. member agrees with me.

Yes, because we have no plan. We cannot talk about a plan which is not there.

Yes, that is true.

*The hon. member for Zululand also referred to the possibility of our having to construct an additional canal on the southeastern side. I can give the hon. member the assurance that in collaboration with the CSIR, our department conducted full discussions on the ecology, the natural habitat as well as all flora and fauna of the area. We investigated in what way those things would be affected by the planning. This idea which the hon. member mentioned, will be re-examined and will be borne in mind in respect of future development.

Now I want to refer to the hon. member for Durban Point. I notice that the hon. member for Yeoville is no longer the main speaker of the Railways group, but in fact the hon. member for Durban Point.

He is away.

No, I see it is the case in the Select Committee as well. I am merely mentioning it. I am mentioning it because I am of the opinion that the hon. member for Durban Point was very unfair towards the Railways Board in something he mentioned here. I cannot leave it at that. The hon. member for Durban Point said we had tabled this report, we wanted to construct the harbour, and we confronted Parliament with an accomplished fact. He said if we did not do this, the expenditure on the Vryheid-Empanigeni rail-link would be fruitless expenditure. He said the fact that we were building a railway line between Vryheid and Empangeni, forced Parliament to approve this harbour. The hon. member did not do his homework. Surely he knows that when the report of the Railways Board in respect of the railway line between Vryheid and Empangeni, which links up with the other mainline, was tabled, it was accepted very explicitly by this Parliament. The report submitted to Parliament at the time, stipulated that this was to be an operating line with a view to trying to relieve the existing congestion on the Durban-Johannesburg line. It must be relieved, because that line is overloaded as it is. The traffic must be diverted in this way, and such a line must not only prevent congestion, but also serve as an operating line which fits into Railway operations as a whole. In other words, Parliament is not placed before a fait accompli, as the hon. member wanted to suggest. His whole approach in that regard was wrong.

And Alusaf?

The Railways did not build Alusaf. I want to state that very clearly here and associate it with the two ideas put forward here by the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Zululand. They said Durban was in fact the life-blood of Natal. It had been the life-blood of Natal all these years. The hon. member for Zululand put it as follows, “Up to the present, the life-blood of Natal was the Durban harbour”. In other words, they fear that traffic will be taken away from Durban and that that would affect the life-blood of Natal. This is the position as seen only from the point of view of the United Party, because surely it is this Government which is creating an infrastructure at various places in Natal. There is the major new development in Newcastle; there is the major development in Ladysmith; and there is the development in the border areas. Now another infrastructural point is being established, i.e. at Richard’s Bay, so that that area, in the light of the development of border industries and the division of labour in South Africa, may be developed fruitfully. Therefore Richard’s Bay will not be detrimental to Durban. On the contrary. I want to satisfy the hon. member for South Coast in this regard as well. If one looks at the normal growth, not only of the Transvaal and of Natal, but also of the Free State, one sees that at the moment Durban is handling more than Cape Town, Mossel Bay, East London and Port Elizabeth together. As the economy grows by 4 per cent or 5 per cent annually, Durban will continue to get the same amount of traffic for handling as it does at present. However, it is already overburdened at present. It is not possible to handle more. Therefore Durban’s growth will not be prejudiced.

Then the hon. member referred me to page 4 of the report and spoke of “all traffic to the Transvaal” and “the grain elevator”. He went on to ask whether the necessary tests had been conducted so as to determine whether the humidity of Richard’s Bay was not too high or whether maize and wheat could be handled there as at Durban. Those tests have been conducted and in the light of our scientific method of reclamation, etc., I want to give the assurance here that there need be no fear of any problem arising in this regard.

Then the hon. member came forward with the hypothesis—I want to call it a hypothesis—that the Portuguese were constructing a harbour on their coast in Portuguese East Africa, and that if that harbour were to be linked to the Swaziland line, we would lose traffic because that harbour was much closer to the Witwatersrand. The hon. the Minister told him by way of an interjection that we would not link up with the Swaziland line at Lothair.

Has there been a request?

No, we have received no such request. We shall not do so. The hon. member need not harbour that fear. But I want to go further and tell him that we have a saying that a frightened man cannot shoot a lion. If, because the Portuguese are planning development in that area, we were to sit back with folded arms and say that we could not proceed with Richard’s Bay because we might possibly lose traffic because of the Portuguese development, South Africa would get nowhere. If this were to be our approach to national development, South Africa would remain far behind.

The hon. member also said that the amount of R142 million being appropriated here, was merely guesswork.

Nothing is being appropriated here.

No, the amount mentioned here, is the approximate estimate. The hon. member said it was merely guesswork.

It is in the report.

Yes, it is in the report. But it is not guesswork. I want to tell him that the Railways Board instituted a thorough investigation on the basis of the reports of the engineers which were submitted to it by our general management. Those reports were closely scrutinized, because, after all, we must give this House at least an approximate amount. But this does not mean the amount will remain at R142 million. This hon. House is aware of the escalating development in South Africa. I think the hon. member for Middelburg pointed out that in 1902 it would have been possible to build this harbour for R1½ million. Just see how this amount has escalated in comparison with the amount mentioned by the hon. member for Middelburg, if these figures are correct. In other words, costs have increased. I am pleased the hon. member realized immediately that the planning was correct in that we were making provision for ships of 150000 tons at the present time, but that construction would be such that it would be possible to handle ships of 250000 tons later.

I do not want to play politics with this matter, but in the first place I must refer to, as the hon. member for Middelburg put it, the approach of the English-language Press towards the development of this harbour. To this I immediately want to link what was said by the hon. member for Zululand. The hon. member for Zululand said that up to now “the United Party have always warned the Nationalist Party that they can expect this type of claim made by Buthelezi”. Let us take a very clear look at this matter. The hon. member for South Coast knows, and he said this here, that Richard’s Bay is not in a Bantu area, nor has it ever been a Bantu reserve. If I am not mistaken, the position is that there is a Bantu homeland area immediately to the south of Richard’s Bay, i.e. Reserve 10. Another one is situated immediately to the north of Richard’s Bay. The area situated between Richard’s Bay and Empangeni has been cleared and no longer exists as a Black area. Now I first want to issue a warning. We shall simply have to expect that representations and claims will continue to come from the Zulus and from all the other Black nations in years to come. However. I think the hon. the Prime Minister stated very clearly here that South Africa and this Government were bound by the 1936 Native Trust and Land Act. That Act lays down exactly how much land will be given to the Bantu. It also gives the pro rata division there. I am not going to turn this into a debate on the Bantu, but I just want to say that I realize that the picture which Natal presents is that of a patchwork quilt and that a big task still awaits us in the field of consolidation. However, I blame the English-language Press as well, because not only did they publish the report of the resolution adopted by the Executive of the Zulu authority, but fanned it on by leading articles. They fan it on and make the Zulus understand that they are correct, and that they should proceed with this claim. I think they are doing a disservice, firstly, to South Africa, and secondly, to those people themselves. Hon. members will agree with me that if we are to develop this harbour as envisaged by the planning, a new growth point would be created. This growth point will fit into our pattern of parallel and separate development by creating a border industry area and by creating employment opportunities not only for the Zulus, but also for the Coloureds and the Asiatics. The hon. member for Zululand himself said that the four groups were interdependent. Because of this interdependence and by creating a growth point such as this, one is able to ensure that each gets his rightful share in the economy. This harbour is a White harbour and belongs to the Railways and to South Africa as a whole. This is how the harbour will be run. I want to state it very clearly that the hon. member for Middelburg was perfectly correct when he condemned the Cape Argus group and the English-language newspapers in strong language for what they had done in this regard, because it was malicious and merely intended to make things difficult and awkward not only for the Government, but also for South Africa as a whole.

The hon. member for Zululand also had misgivings, in the first instance, about the situation of the canal in relation to the harbour as such. He spoke of the wind streams, etc., in this regard. I myself am not an engineer of course, neither is the hon. member. However, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the C.S.I.R. not only conducted investigations, but also built a model plan of the harbour and carried out wind tests, etc. I saw it personally. The engineers conducted thorough investigations into this canal harbour and are satisfied that this is the very best way of setting about it. It is not merely by chance that one will have gully or a creek in the sea here. It fits in completely with the planning. The hon. member also referred to the wall intended to control the floodwaters and to the system of control. As I have said, its object is to protect the ecological life and the low-lying areas. Even the winds which may cause waves in the harbour are being borne in mind in this regard. I do not think the hon. member need be concerned about this any longer.

The next question he asked, was whether we had made provision for housing in connection with the construction of the harbour. The normal procedure is—and it will be followed in this case as well—that the contractors, the successful tenderers, are responsible for the housing of their working staff I am referring to the White staff and workers now.

There are other people as well.

Very well there are other people as well. But it is not the responsibility and the duty of the Railways and Harbours; as the hon. the Minister of Community Development said, it is in fact the responsibility of the local authorities to provide housing for the other people. They are the people who must render secondary services there. That is not our responsibility, and we trust that the local authority of Empangeni and the others will put the matter right with the necessary assistance which they will in fact obtain from the Department.

The hon. member then said he would be surprised if a ship of formidable size could enter this harbour as soon as 1976. He did not believe it. I want to say to him one should set oneself an ideal. You have to set yourself a target, work according to that and watch the target. After all, we are not all members of the United Party and therefore pessimistic. We are inspired by idealism; we do not share its pessimism. However, we also realize that there are a tremendous number of problems and that as the development progesses, more and more problems will probably arise. But we must strive after an ideal and we are going to try to reach our ideal with everything in our power.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Kroonstad and the other hon. members who participated in this debate. I want to repeat that I think the hon. member for South Coast approached the matter as he did because he and the Minister are kindred spirits in that regard. I can regard myself as fortunate that in addition to that he is very concerned about the conservation of the natural flora, the natural habitat and the natural beauty we have in this country, so that these things may be handed down to the next generation. I want to give him the assurance that the Railways and the engineers, too, will take this into consideration at all times and will co-operate sincerely so as to show the world, also as regards this large development, that in addition to our industrial development, we here in South Africa still have nature reserves and scenery which people may come to see. This will always be borne in mind and duly taken into account.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Time.

This Bill is intended primarily to amend the provisions of enactments applicable to the Railway Administration. The implications of the various clauses are explained in the explanatory memorandum which has already been tabled and my comments will therefore be brief.

Clause 1 concerns section 3bis of the Railways and Harbours Service Act, 1960, which provides for the recovery from a servant’s salary or wage of overpayments in respect of increments irregularly granted. No legal provision, however, exists for the recovery from a servant of money in cases where a commencing salary or wage in excess of that to which a servant is entitled, has been granted. The purpose of this clause is to empower the Administration to recover amounts overpaid in cases of this nature.

The object of clause 2 is to give flight engineer officers the option to retire from the service at any time between the ages of 50 and 55 years, as is the case with pilots and navigators. Their rate of contribution to the New Superannuation Fund will, of course, have to be adjusted, but they are prepared to accept the revised conditions.

In regard to clause 3 I should like to explain that when a servant sustains an injury or is fatally injured on duty through circumstances caused by a third party, it is the practice, where the Administration takes action in terms of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act for the recovery from a third party of the compensation paid to a workman or a deceased workman’s dependants, to invite the injured workman or the dependant to cede his or her claim for damages to the department; the Administration then pursues the servant’s or dependant’s claim together with its own. Whilst the Service Act empowers the Administration to accept such a cession, there is no specific provision allowing the servant or dependant concerned to cede his or her right of action. The purpose of this amendment is, therefore, to remove any misunderstanding that might arise in this connection.

At present servants convicted by a court of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty, and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine are automatically dismissed from the Service. The amendments proposed in clauses 4, 5 and 11 are intended primarily to allow for a certain degree of elasticity in the application of the departmental disciplinary code, as it has been found that automatic dismissal might not he justified in all cases. That has always been the plea of the hon. member for Durban Point, does he remember? Provision will, inter alia, be made for a difference in grade and gravity in cases of theft, fraud and dishonesty on the Railways so that dismissal from the Service need not be the only punishment for such offences.

The amendments proposed in clauses 6 and 7 which affect the Level Crossings Act, 1960, are of a consequential nature and have been necessitated by the promulgation last year of the National Roads Act, 1971, and the repeal of the former National Roads Act, 1935.

Section 4 (1) (e) of the Railway Board Act, 1962, stipulates that the Minister shall consult the Railway Board and it shall be the duty of the Board to deal with and advise the Minister in respect of any railway or harbour work or service, other than a work or service authorized by Parliament, costing more than R20000. This monetary limitation has from a practical point of view, especially on account of the increase in labour and material costs, become unrealistic. The purpose of clause 8 is, therefore, to enhance the amount stipulated to R50000.

Clauses 9, 10 and 14 provide for any member of the new Superannuation Fund to contribute to the Fund in respect of previous periods of non-contributory service.

The purpose of clause 12 is to bring the Afrikaans text of paragraph (b) of section 9 of the Railways and Harbours Pensions Act of 1971, in line with the wording of the English version.

In regard to clause 13 it must be pointed out that section 13 (3) of the Pensions Act provides for the pension contributions of persons transferred from other departments or Administrations to the Railway Administration. In terms thereof the amount payable to the new Fund from the pension fund to which the servant previously belonged, must be equal to twice the contributions which would have been payable to the new fund by the person transferred, had he been a member of the fund. As the Administration’s contribution was increased to a ratio of 1,6 to 1 of that of members as from 1st April, 1971, it is necessary to amend section 13 (3) accordingly in order to bring it into line with section 12 of the Act.

In clause 15 provision is made for validation of changes in conditions of service of Railway staff.

For the information of hon. members it may be mentioned that the operative date of any such change must be concurrent with, or subsequent to, that on which it is communicated to the staff, and Executive Council approval must be obtained within three months from the date of notification to the staff. For various administrative reasons it is not always possible to observe these conditions, and it has been necessary an occasions in the past to obtain validation of the action taken.

Mr. Speaker, we support this Bill, which introduces certain improvements. I just want to broach a few matters and give notice of what matters we shall raise in the Committee Stage. Possibly the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to reply to that now; if not it will give him an opportunity to consider these points.

I refer firstly to the overpayment of salaries or wages, and their repayment, as well as the provision, in respect of that which is now being amended. We agree with the amendment being introduced. The point I want to raise is in connection with the new section 3A (1) (b), which makes it compulsory to repay this money. In other words, the Administration is being given no right to refrain from recovering this money in exceptional cases. Previously an official, who authorized such an increment, had to be acting in good faith, and without being aware of the fact that he was exceeding his authority in that respect, but that provision now falls away. Now there is merely a compulsory provision; if there is an overpayment, it must be recovered, and the maximum period is one year. There can, in actual fact, be cases where a person is overpaid without any of the people involved being aware of it. All the circumstances may, for example, result in both the recipient and the payer being under the impression that the payment is correct, but a year or two afterwards the auditor may find that too much has been paid. Notwithstanding the fact that it is not the fault of the recipient, and notwithstanding the fact that the person who paid out the money, though he made a mistake, did not make an overpayment on purpose, there is now no flexibility. The Administration no longer has the power to amend the provision. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would not consider giving the Administration the right to refrain from recovering such overpayments at times, where this is justified.

You surely know that every member still always has a right of appeal.

But this legislation nevertheless provides that it must be recovered, and such a person cannot appeal against the Act. He can appeal against the charge, but the Act cannot be changed. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give his attention to that. Sir, in connection with the clause that deals with accidents, and under which a servant is entitled to cede his right of action where the Administration is acting on his behalf, I just want to make sure that where the Administration recovers more in claims than the servant would have obtained in compensation, that extra amount will then accrue to the servant and not to the Administration.

The Administration will not take it.

No, I know, but I am merely asking the question because the Act does not specifically provide this.

We agree with the provisions in connection with pensions. Then, penultimately, I want to refer to the disciplinary provisions in this Bill. The improvements, for which provision is being made here, are aspects I have frequently asked for, and of course I welcome these improvements. I think this is a step in the right direction. Now there will be a little more flexibility and a slightly more humane attitude. Under the old provision the Administration had no choice. But, Sir, here we are playing with only one small, single aspect of the whole disciplinary system. You will not allow me, Sir, to elaborate in detail on the system as such. But the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that notwithstanding what we might say in this House there is profound dissatisfaction about certain aspects of the disciplinary regulations. I want to suggest that the Deputy Minister and the department should consider having a judicial inquiry instituted by an ex-magistrate or an exjudge, possibly assisted by members of the staff, to examine the whole system and to see where other improvements and changes can be brought about. I would be out of order if I were to discuss the particulars here, but I want to suggest, for the hon. the Deputy Minister’s consideration, that the entire disciplinary system be investigated. Give the servants of the Railways the opportunity to state their case. Let them give evidence before such a commission of inquiry and put their standpoint to an independent commission so that we can then obtain an independent report. Sir, I shall not take this matter any further; that is my suggestion to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Lastly I notice that notwithstanding the attitude of the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Minister of Finance and the others, the Railways is of the opinion that the cost of living has increased from R20 000 to R50 000, in other words by 150 per cent in the last six years. I think this is in much closer agreement with the actual increase than the figures we obtain from the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Affairs. We agree that the cost of living has increased considerably, and that an increase from 20 to 50 is approximately the correct ratio. We support the Bill.

The hon. member for Durban Point always tries to do a bit of clowning in connection with legislation. How he can now link up an increase from R20 000 to R50 000, with respect to works that must be approved, with the cost of living, is completely beyond me. It has nothing to do with the cost of living.

What is it then?

It has to do with increased production costs, escalating costs, etc. It is a cheap bit of politics he wants to make out of that by saying it is 150 per cent, and I give it to him as a present.

The hon. member also put forward a second matter. I cannot discuss this in complete detail either, because it is not appropriate in the discussion of this Bill, and you, Sir, would rule me out of order! He asked us to institute a judicial inquiry with respect to our disciplinary code. But the hon. member surely knows very well that we have seven staff associations and the Federation of Staff Associations. Those staff associations hold an annual congress. At those congresses they deal with resolutions about any aspect involving the staff, their working conditions, discipline, salaries or whatever the case may be. When they have debated those resolutions there, and there are still points they want to refer to the Executive Committee, they eventually come to the Minister. Almost every year he meets these staff associations, but at all other times when a staff association has a matter to settle, and asks to meet him, he does so. I now want to ask who is in a better position to discuss the disciplinary measures, the disciplinary code, with the Minister and to come and hold negotiations than the staff themselves who are involved. And I want to say here, because I want to place it on record, that there is no employer in South Africa, and as far as I know outside South Africa either, which has a disciplinary code such as this, with this form of appeal board for its employees and staff to lodge objections with respect to punishment, even to lodge appeals with respect to promotion. The Railways has the best-tried system one which is also accepted by the Railways staff. They want no other system, and it will not help the hon. member in the least to come and ask for that.

Then there is the last thing the hon. member said, and that relates to repayment. I pointed out to him that we introduced this clause because we had a case of an appeal with respect to a commencing salary which was wrongly paid on promotion. The legal adviser then told us that if we now state it in these terms we would no longer have that problem. But I am prepared to analyse it further if he wants to speak about it again in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

The amendment the hon. the Minister is moving here deals partly with the word “deviate” which is now being substituted by the word “handicapped”. We support this. I also just want to mention that in the minutes of the discussions we held that day, the word “belemmerdes” was used and not “gestremdes”, and I hope the hon. the Minister will make sure it will be the word “gestremde” and not “belemmerde”, as indicated in the first translation which appeared in the minutes. As far as the amendment in line 1 on page 35 is concerned, where the following must be inserted “subject to the provisions of sections 9 and 13”, we welcome it.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Coloured Affairs, put and agreed to and amendment proposed by Mrs. C. D. Taylor put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When I introduced the Second Reading of the Coloured Persons in South-West African Education Bill, I dealt with the background against which education in the Territory should be regarded, and the envisaged principles according to which education would come more into its own. I do not now want to refer to that in full again. The House has also taken note of the fact that the same principles will be applied in respect of the Basters of Rehoboth, with the exception of a few aspects which aim at granting recognition to the exceptional position in which that population group finds itself.

In retrospect we find that the Baster national group derives its existence from a blending of certain White and non-White population groups which lived in the Northern Cape in the middle of the nineteenth century. During the last half of the nineteenth century that group moved to South-West Africa and in 1879 established themselves in the Rehoboth Gebiet. It is known to everyone that in the course of time they developed an individual national pride and traditions, with an extraordinary desire to preserve their unique characteristics. On the authority of the Government recognition is also being granted to the Chief (the magistrate of Rehoboth) who precedes the Baster Council and at the same time forms a link between the Government and the Council just mentioned.

This legislation now before the House, Mr. Speaker, makes provision for the delegation of powers by the Minister to the magistrate of Rehoboth (the Chief) as soon as he is invested with certain executive powers, as far as education is concerned, in terms of clause 35.

The language of the Basters is predominantly Afrikaans and their pattern of living has a Western orientation. This is consequently also the pattern which will be developed with the implementation of this Bill. Although they constitute the minority group amongst the three groups under the control of my department, they have progressed to such an extent at school level that it was in Rehoboth where the first high school for non-Whites in South-West Africa was established. There are 26 additional schools in the Gebiet, served by 174 teachers and with 5081 pupils. Over the years numerous Basters have attended higher education institutions (colleges and universities) in the Republic. By the granting of ample bursaries, including R375 per year for teacher training and merit bursaries of R500 per year for, inter alia, medical training, prospective students are granted the opportunity of obtaining higher academic recognition. The granting of bursaries will continue in terms of clause 30.

A copy of the Bill has been submitted to the magistrate of Rehoboth (the Chief) for his perusal. In addition a senior officer of my department supplied information to the Baster Council, under the chairmanship of the Chief, about the relevant principles of the Bill.

It is hoped that this Bill will contribute a great deal to the realization of the ideals this particular group of people set themselves and that the achievement of academic preparedness will enable them to serve their community with the necessary ability.

Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with the second Education Bill concerning the education of the Coloured races in South-West Africa. Last week we discussed in great detail the Education Bill for Coloured Persons and as we all know, the next Order of the Day concerns the Education Bill for the Nama People of South-West Africa. Obviously we are eventually going to have three Acts of Parliament concerning the education of the Coloured races in South-West Africa. These will all be related Acts. I think the term to use is that there will be a trilogy of Acts. I only sometimes wonder whether we are not busy with a trilogy of apartheid madness in this regard. These various education Bills are basically designed and intended to serve the purposes of independent states. However, we know that we are dealing with very small communities and I am quite sure that even members on the opposite side are convinced that these communities will never become fully-fledged independent states.

The arguments put forward by hon. members on this side of the House objecting in principle to centralized control from Pretoria for what is deemed to be an essentially local matter, apply as much to this particular Bill as was the case with the one dealing with the Coloureds. We are therefore opposing the Second Reading of this Bill as well.

I should like to refer to the Basters of Rehoboth and to point out that they bad a very turbulent history. It is quite correct, as the hon. the Minister mentioned, that they originated from the Northern Cape and that they are to a certain extent akin to the Griquas of the Republic. We find that although they initially gained occupation of the land, or their “Gebiet” as they call it, fairly easily, they had to fight for the right of continued occupation against the indigenous races of South-West Africa. It is very interesting to note on how many occasions it was necessary for them to switch their allegiance from the one indigenous race to the other in order to survive.

For instance, in 1880 we find that they joined forces with Ian Jonker against the Herero. Two years later, in 1882, they were attacked by their allies of two years before. In 1890 we find that they formed an alliance with Witbooi against the Germans and the Herero. Fourteen years later, in 1904, with the Herero Rebellion, they were in fact fighting on the side of the Germans against the Herero. They remained allies of the Germans until 1914, when the first South African troops arrived during the First World War. Then they turned against the Germans. I am mentioning these historical facts because I want to prove the point that the Basters of Rehoboth are part of the heart and soul of South-West Africa. The best known fact about them today is that they constitute a community in South-West Africa. What are we trying to achieve through this Bill? We are not giving them a Bill through which they themselves will control all facets of education.

What we are in fact doing is to take control away from the local Administration! in South-West Africa and to make of them a permanent appendix of the Department of Coloured Affairs. Bearing in mind their own history, and bearing in mind that these people have their roots in South-West Africa, I want to say that they have more in common with the indigenous races of South-West Africa and for that matter with the White people in South-West Africa, than they have with the Coloured people of Cape Town. They are now going to become a permanent appendix of a State department, a department which in fact is 1000 miles away.

I know that the hon. the Minister does not like us to say that they are being ruled from a 1000 miles away, but this in fact is and will be the position. When we look at the Order Paper we see that there is a large number of amendments.

*Firstly I am going to tell the hon. the Minister that I am very glad about the fact he has already transferred to this legislation certain amendments we moved with the previous legislation. I am referring in particular to those relating to clause 1, and specifically to those relating to clause 22. We have already stated very clearly that although we do not agree with the principle of this legislation, we on this side of the House are compelled to ensure that the people of South-West Africa, in this case the Basters of Rehoboth, obtain the best possible education legislation. However, I am disappointed that the hon. the Minister has neglected to move certain other amendments as well. I want to remind him about that, and I hope it is just a mistake he has made by accident. While we were dealing with the Committee Stage of the Bill on Coloured education, there were one or two cases of amendments bing moved from this side of the House. The hon. the Minister intimated that we should rather withdraw them and that he would correct the matter in the Other Place. I am now a little worried, because here was an opportunity, in respect of this specific legislation, for him to put these matters right. I am going to mention one specific instance to him. I am going to draw his attention to the one in respect of which we stated that it is essential that local committees be consulted before a school is closed down. We did not insist that they agree and give their permission, we only said they should first be consulted. The hon. the Minister intimated that he agreed with that and that it was an altogether deserving request. I cannot see how it belongs here at the moment. I hope the Minister will come along with that at a later stage.

Almost as good as in Natal.

I shall tell the hon. the Minister that this legislation is not yet as good as the education legislation and practice applied in Natal. One of the advantages in Natal is that a married woman can be appointed to a permanent post. This is a privilege the Basters of Rehoboth are unfortunately not going to have. I hope that when we again come to that specific aspect the hon. the Minister will follow Natal’s good example.

The underlying principles of this legislation are precisely the same as those of the previous one. We have very clearly stated our opposition. I therefore move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition objected to certain matters I just want to respond to. The first is that there are now three pieces of legislation before the House dealing with Coloured groups in South-West Africa. Those of us who have a closer knowledge of those language groups know that there are mutual differences and that one cannot lump them all together and make one group of them. We know that the Basters of Rehoboth form a group on their own, as the hon. member for Durban Central also stated, a language group which has lived on its own since as far back as the previous century. Likewise with the Nama and now the Coloureds as well. I think that with the legislation we are dealing with, these three groups will now be obtaining in education what they previously did not have, i.e. individual education legislation for each of them with which and on which they can build in the future. There were objections about the control of education being transferred to Pretoria. I cannot see a better place for it to be transferred to than specifically to the Central Government. There are objections to the fact that it is now being taken from the local administrations. But if these groups had control of their education, I would have been able to understand that point. But neither the Nama, the Basters, or the Coloureds have thus far had control of their own education. It has rested with the South-West Administration. It is a White Government. The matter is now merely being transferred from there to the Central Government. If the hon. member is objecting to it now coming under the jurisdiction of this House, this is surely a motion of no confidence in this House and in himself. That is how I see the matter, because this department, which is now taking it over can, as I see it, now give its full attention to the education and the development of the education of these three groups. Some of these groups have not had in the past what they are now going to obtain. I hold out the prospect that under this department much more can be done for these three groups specifically because this falls under the Central Government, and because greater financial support can perhaps be given to these groups. I therefore cannot in the least accept the objection that this hon. House is not good enough to control the education of these groups. I acknowledge, because I myself was connected with it, that the Administration of South-West Africa did in fact furnish extensive services. We surely know, too, that the other departments were transferred to Pretoria and that the system works well. Windhoek is no further from Pretoria than certain parts of the Cape, and if one therefore wants to use that argument, one must also use it, in many respects, for parts of the Cape. The other objection, i.e. that the local committee of such a school, which is possibly going to be closed down, must be consulted before such a closure, was also mentioned by an hon. member. I have previously expressed myself on this point saying that I have the utmost confidence in the officials and in the Minister of such a department and that schools will not be closed down unnecessarily. The aim of an education department is to bring about development and not deterioration. I believe the hon. the Minister will reply to this in detail. I therefore want to conclude by saying that I support this Bill because I see that for many of these language groups in the future there are much better education facilities in store than was the case in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I really think that with the conduct today and last week, the Opposition has actually been foolish. They are tackling matters they know nothing about. I very clearly want to tell the hon. the Minister that we, the legally elected representatives of South-West Africa, wholeheartedly support this legislation. With all their swaggering the United Party had the opportunity to fight an election in South-West Africa in 1970, but their representatives are not here. The Leader of their party there, who is now sitting in the Other Place, and who is a colleague of theirs, was my opponent. If the Whites had trusted them with the interests of the Whites and the non-Whites, their people would have been here. Since 1950, however, the electorate of South-West Africa has repeatedly rejected them, and up to the present day they have not yet had the privilege of having a responsible person in this House. According to our view this will continue to be the case for a long time yet.

The education of the Bantu in South-West Africa falls under the Department of Bantu Administration of South Africa. Do hon. members opposite now also want to take this away from the Department? The Department of Bantu Administration’s head office is also in Pretoria, and the system works perfectly. Do they also want to take Bantu Education in South-West Africa away from this department and place it under another department, or what is the reason for the distrust of the Minister and his department when it comes to the educational interests of the Coloured persons, the Basters and the Nama of South-West Africa? They have not given the reason. The Rehoboth Gebiet is in my constituency, and what this department has done for those people has never before been done. Now I am not even speaking about the United Party period, because then nothing was done for anyone in South-West Africa. Under the National Party Government this Department of Coloured Affairs is better able to do something for those people, because the Department is better equipped to do something. In addition, I want to reiterate that this House had to make the decision for these steps to be taken. As a result of the recommendations of the Odendaal report all the responsible legislative bodies made decisions in this connection. The Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa unanimously decided they would relinquish these powers which they had. This House decided that after a readjustment this Department would be invested with the responsibilities contained in the legislation before the House today. What is all this fuss about? If you will permit me, I shall say that hon. members opposite are again, like the other day, arousing peoples’ suspicions against the departments. I am now thinking of the bit of gossipmongering her by an hon. member, who knows nothing about South-West, in connection with the Hardap Dam. Thus the United Party is trying to chase up hares and sow suspicion and make people suspicious, as if to say this department will now not be good enough to look after the interests of those people. We, as responsible representatives, support the hon. the Minister and this legislation, and to date we have never been perturbed about the interests of those people. We believe that the department will look after the interests of the Rehoboth Basters as well as they have looked after the interests of all the other population groups in South Africa and in South-West Africa. Many steps have already been taken. A large farm has been purchased for them. This has nothing to do with education, but at a later stage these people will also obtain training in the sphere of agriculture. At the moment there is already a breeding station. To my knowledge there are many good prospects for them. We, as the representatives of South-West Africa, support this legislation wholeheartedly. I want to ask the Minister to go through with the legislation so that it can be placed on the Statute Book. We trust him and his department completely with the responsibility which has been placed on their shoulders.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members who have participated in this discussion for their contribution. I want to thank in particular the hon. members for Karas and Mariental for their support we have had.

†The hon. member for Durban Central talked about the Bills I am bringing before the House as …

He called it a trilogy.

Yes, he called it a trilogy of Bills. He objected to the fact that I was introducing three Bills instead of one. The hon. members speaking on behalf of the Opposition, objected to this procedure. But would the Opposition have been satisfied had I brought only one Bill before the House? If the Opposition would have been satisfied had I brought only one Bill before the House, what then is the objection to three separate Bills for the three different population groups in South-West Africa? Is it the few minutes that we spend here in passing those Bills, or is it their concern over the money being spent for the paper on which these Bills are being printed? I think that if I had brought only one Bill hon. members would have said “No, we want only one Bill for the whole of South-West Africa”. They would have said “We want only one Bill dealing with European education in South-West Africa, with Coloured education, and the education of the Namas, Basters and with all the other groups like the Damaras, the Hereros, the Ovambos, the Kavangos, and all the others.” That is the only thing that would have satisfied hon. members on the other side. That is the logical conclusion of their argument. That is the logical conclusion to which one can pursue the argument. If hon. members opposite concede this point to me, namely that South-West Africa as a territory does not require one education Act only, then I have the right to bring these Bills before the House for these three groups of people who differ very distinctly. I have already pointed out to the House that the Nama people are different from the other groups in South-West Africa. They have their own language; they have their own tribal system; they have their own territory; and they have their own way of running their affairs Surely, it is only right that they should also have their own education ordinance or whatever you may like to call it. The same applies to the Basters. There is in South Africa hardly a people more intent on being themselves than the Basters of South-West Africa. They are proud of being Basters. They do not want to be anything else but Basters, living in their own area, and with the ideal of governing themselves. So I think it is right to bring in an Education Act for the Basters. It is only right to do that for the Coloured people too.

Now I come to the amendment of the Opposition, wherein they express the opinion that the territory of South-West Africa is being deprived of something.

It is being done here.

They say that by these Acts the territory is being deprived of something.

Apart from the previous legislation.

Really, as far as I can see the Opposition is objecting not to this Bill before the House today, but to the 1969 Act, the South-West Africa Affairs Act. The South-West Africa Affairs Act entrusted the Minister of Coloured Affairs with the education of these three groups in South-West Africa. For more than two and a half years now my department has been administering the education of the Basters in South-West Africa, and we are now bringing in this Bill to give these people something for the future as well. When the time comes, when we say to them: ‘Look here, you can now administer something of your own”, we will also be able to say: “Here is your Act; you can administer this Act which deals with the education of the Baster people”.

The hon. member asked me about the amendments which I promised to look into.I will still do that. We are coming to the Committee Stage tomorrow, and we can look into the matter. By way of passing, may I say that, coming from the hon. member, it is a bit odd to me, seeing that in Natal they have no school committees.

I know they have parent teacher associations, wherever the Administrator gives permission for it, but that is only for the internal affairs of a school. But now the hon. member and the Opposition are very much concerned about this matter of school committees, while in their own province where they run matters as they wish, they do not have school committees. I made this promise and I will keep my word. I will look into the matter before tomorrow again. They want me to write it into the Bill that I will consult the parents and the local school committee. But in Natal. I can say, they have been closing schools over the years without consulting the parents and the local people. In one year alone. I am informed, in Natal they closed 21 schools, but the hon. member is very, very much concerned that I should not in South-West Africa do anything without consulting and obtaining the permission of the parents concerned. In any case, I am looking into the matter. I have said so, and I think I have committed myself. However, I am going to look at Hansard.I was informed today that the Hansard will be available tomorrow. I wanted to check up on it today, but the Hansard will be available tomorrow morning and I will look it up. I think I stand committed and I will bring the amendment if that is so. I will also bring other amendments where I am committed, but I have said that I want to think certain matters over, and I will act according to my undertaking. Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say. I can see no wrong being done here. We are not taking away from the Basters of South-West Africa any educational facilities which they have today. On the contrary, we are giving them a proper Act, a proper basis from which to operate—an operation which will not start when this measure has been promulgated, but an operation which started nearly three years ago already. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that this is in the best interests of the people concerned, namely the Basters of South-West Africa, and that we will be acting in their interests if we pass this legislation.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk, and W. L. D. Venter.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N.Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I trust that, as a result of the debates on the Bills dealing with the education of Coloured Persons and Basters, respectively, hon. members are already conversant with the objects of this Bill, seeing that, as has been indicated, the general principles for the control of education for the three groups are largely the same. I want to emphasize once again that these principles will be applied to each of these population groups, in accordance with their respective needs in the field of education, and that at the same time their national customs will be recognized within this dispensation.

Thus we find that in the establishment of committees and boards in terms of clause 34, it is envisaged to give representation to bodies such as the tribal councils. In the case of school committees the tribal councils will, for example, be afforded the opportunity to nominate representatives who, with the elected parents, will serve on such a committee. In this way all interested parties will be able to make a contribution to the development of education and take part in the decisions taken in that regard.

Furthermore, recognition is being given to the Nama language. Clause 36 provides that the medium of instruction and, as far as Nama is concerned, the extent to which it will apply as a medium of instruction, shall be determined by regulation. The objective is to offer Nama as a subject in the junior primary classes, while some subjects will also be taught through the medium of Nama. By means of representation for officials of my department on the Language bureau for Natives of the Territory, a body which has as its object the promotion of native languages, the development of Nama as an academic language is ministered to. By way of background I refer to the position in March, 1971, when the attendance figure for 48 Nama schools was 7 112 students, to whom instruction was given by 243 teachers at that stage. I have already pointed out the necessity of a sound education system for each population group, and in the case of the Nama too the proposed measures contained in this Bill will contribute to the development of an education system which will cater for the needs of this particular national group.

Now that we are coming to the end of three pieces of legislation which all have the same underlying principle, I want to make it very clear that this legislation is not being introduced because there is a deficiency in the field of education in South-West Africa. It is not that we are now all of a sudden going to give South-West Africa an Education Act for the first time. In South-West Africa there is the Ordinance of 1962, in which specific provision is made for an education system for Coloured people as well as for the different Native tribes; in other words, when we say that the legislation with which we are dealing here, the Nama Education Bill, is in actual fact unnecessary because it only gives expression to the Government’s policy of multi-nationalism, then it does not mean that we are adopting the attitude that legislation in regard to the education of those people is unnecessary; we are only saying this is unnecessary because there is already sufficient education legislation. I want to make it very clear that the United Party has always been consistent when it came to the protection of the rights of the provinces. In other words, basically we believe in the decentralization of powers, and for the same reason we are now acting here as the protector of South-West Africa. If it were possible for the Nama people to develop as a sovereign, independent state, I could still appreciate that they might be able to use this legislation as a training ground in the field of education. But this legislation does not even afford these people any real opportunity to train themselves. The control is being taken out of the hands of the Administration of South-West Africa, out of the hands of the people who are closest to them, who know them best, who know their joys and their sorrows and understand their way of life best, and who are, I believe, therefore far better able to respect it. In terms of this legislation they will become an appendage of another department. But this legislation does not make adequate provision for the training of the Nama people eventually to take over the task of education and to deal with the administration of education in their own territory. I want to repeat, as I put it to the Minister, that although there are going to be boards and committees and the regional or the tribal councils will have representation on those committees, they will hardly be consulted under this legislation. It is no use saying that in Natal there are no school committees, but only parent committees. The principle is that the persons controlling education in Natal are elected by the voters of Natal. They are not controlled by a state department from elsewhere. That is the big difference. Here we are dealing at the moment with legislation in terms of which the persons concerned are in actual fact not getting control over their own education. We say that, as far as the Nama people is concerned, adequate provision was already made for education in the Ordinance of 1962. That 1962 ordinance made provision, for example, for the establishment of an education advisory board for every coloured tribe, an advisory board which could have an over-all view of education in the entire territory. But what do we find in this legislation? Here we do not find an advisory board for the Nama. Here there is no such advisory council which can have an over-all view of education. We only find little boards, little committees. The Minister did say that there would be regional boards, but my point is that, owing to the lack of an advisory board, those people will in actual fact not receive the right training; for one is only trained to perform a task if one is able to have an over-all view of the task. Therefore I believe that, although there are certain improvements—and I believe that there are going to be more improvements, because the hon. the Minister has already accepted some amendments—this legislation, as education legislation, in actual fact does not fulfil the requirements that we on this side of the House expect an education act to fulfil. Our main objection in principle is that we do never want any part in any action gradually to strip South-West Africa of its powers. I know the hon. the Minister will tell us, “But what about the position in 1969 under the South-West Africa Act?” The fact remains that we are at this very moment breaking away from the practice that he has been applying for the past three years, and that we are now laying this down in an Act, in an education Act, and that this gives us the opportunity to argue this matter on its merits.

There will be no more speakers on this side of the House, because we have already debated the principle of this on various occasions, and accordingly I wish to move the following amendment—

The hon. member for Durban Central made the statement here that the United Party was consistent in the attitude it adopted in this regard, but I want to say that they are not only inconsistent, but, what is more, also dishonest.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “dishonest”.

I withdraw it, and I say that they are most certainly mistaken or unscientific as far as their policy of federal representation in this House is concerned. They recognize the identity of every nation. Is that correct? They recognize the identity of every race and they recognize the multi-national composition of South-West Africa. They recognize the separate identities of the nations in South-West Africa. Therefore they recognize the identity of the Nama. They recognize the identity of the Coloured population as well as the identity of the Rehoboth Basters. They recognize the identity of the Bushmen and they recognize the identity of the Himbas of the Kaokoveld who are still living in the palaeolithic age. And they recognize the identities of the Owahimbas and all those different nations of South-West Africa. Now, if they recognize those identities of those nations, then: they recognize the right of those nations to be represented in this Parliament or in another Parliament. If they recognize that right of the people, then they must recognize the right of the people to be treated in a separate manner, particularly as far as their education and cultural affairs are concerned. It was for this reason that I used the word “dishonest” in this House. The hon. member had a fair deal to say about the 1962 legislation. I was in the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa at that time. The United Party of South-West Africa had their representatives in the Legislative Assembly when the 1962 legislation was before the Legislative Assembly. The leader of the United Party in South-West Africa in the Legislative Assembly, who is a member of the Other Place now, raised no objection to the 1962 legislation. The 1962 legislation made this separate development its object. That was just the start of the processing of the education of the non-Whites in South-West Africa, but even at that time it was envisaged that other legislation would follow later on. That legislation would follow as the different tribes or ethnic groups progressed in the field of education. This Bill, which flows from the 1962 legislation, is a great improvement on it and it offers those people far more.

Such as?

If hon. members want to say that there is no improvement, then I say they have not made a proper study of this legislation and that they are biased. Now suspicion is being created which causes those groups to have certain misgivings concerning the Government’s conduct towards those different groups. I want to say that this is a sad state of affairs, because the United Party is making them certain promises it will not be able to keep.

Give one example.

There must be a certain degree of suitability do any legislation which is passed, and the suitability of the 1962 legislation is to be condemned because it simply could, not establish certain facilities, facilities which the present legislation does establish. There is another very important aspect which we must take into consideration in respect of S.W.A., and that is the diversity of cultures one finds in S.W.A. The cultural facets found amongst the Nama differ from those found amongst any other race, and for that reason one must handle the matter in a way which is different from that in which it is handled in the case of many other races.

Why cannot South-West Africa do that?

Those hon. members accept the principle of a homogeneous set-up in South-West Africa, just as opinion, abroad accepts South-West Africa as a homogeneous population. They forget that in actual fact South-West Africa has an entirely heterogeneous composition. Because of this heterogeneous composition one must handle the matter in a way Which is different from that in which it is handled elsewhere in the world where a homogeneous set-up exists. Take, for example, our own education legislation in the Republic of South Africa. It is different for the Whites, different for the Coloured people and different for the Bantu. This operates to the advantage of those specific groups. Even in the White set-up here in South Africa it is somewhat different because we have two different cultural groups in the White composition here. Just compare the curricula of the English-speaking pupils and the Afrikaans-speaking pupils. There is a difference. Now hon. members on the opposite side want to make everything the same. That is nonsense. If the United Party had made more sure of the composition in South-West Africa, its members would have been able to express more informed opinions on this matter. The legislation that was before the Legislative Assembly in 1962, and Which in actual fact contained the same concept as this legislation which is before this House now, which is in actual fact merely an extension of the previous legislation, was accepted by the United Party of S.W.A. at the time. At that time they appreciated what the problems in South-West Africa were. But now the United Party, as it is sitting on the opposite side of this House, does not appreciate what the problems are. I wonder whether the hon. member for Durban Central has ever seen a Nama and whether he knows what a Nama is. I believe that he knows nothing about these people. I cannot imagine any one of those hon. members ever having seen a Nama. Perhaps the hon. member for Green Point has at least seen one. But if that is the case, why does he not say something about this matter? This is the situation in which we find ourselves, and then that side of the House levels this kind of nonsensical criticism which is only to the detainment of the Nama community in South-West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat what I said in the debates on the previous Bills. The fact of the matter is that in 1969 we in this House passed the South-West Africa Affairs Act. Not only was education transferred to my department; but the entire development and welfare of the Coloured, people in South-West Africa was entrusted to me as well. The administration of all matters and all requirements in all spheres relating to the Coloured Persons Representative Council of South-West Africa, was entrusted to me. All matters relating to the Basters in South-West Africa, for example, agriculture, economic affairs, social matters and education, were entrusted to* me. The same goes for the Nama. All matters relating to them were entrusted to me. Now hon. members on the opposite side want me to continue with the instrument given to me at that time. What is involved here, is not the principle of depriving South-West Africa of any rights, or of transferring new rights to a central authority 1 000 miles from those people. Those matters were settled once and for all in this House in 1969. That is water under the bridge and for almost three years we have been working on this basis. Therefore the Whole basis of the argument of that side of the House is wrong. The only thing we have to decide now, is whether we want to cling desperately to that statutory instrument of 1969 which contains but one chapter, or, if Chapter IV is included, two chapters, dealing with the education of these three non-White population groups of South-West Africa. Is it not far better to give them a more complete and a more extensive basis on which their education may be regulated? The hon. member for Durban Central said they, too, had education ordinances in Natal, but that matters there were in the hands of the Natalians, in the hands of those people elected by the population of Natal. Does that hon. member want to raise an objection in this regard now and say that we should put the education of the Nama in the hands of the Nama immediately? That is what he said.

No.

We must give those education ordinances to the Nama and tell them: Here is Chapter IX; take it and that is that as regards your education in Nama-land. How can that hon. member, who is a responsible person after all, say such a thing? Surely he knows, or ought to know, that the Nama are not anywhere near the stage where this can be done. Some one still has to do it for them. This Bill in actual fact envisages training the Nama so that they may be told at a later stage, “Here is your Act; you yourselves take it from there.” I want to make it very dear here that I do not want us to say that they are becoming an appendix of another department now. This department is their department. My Departments of Rehoboth Affairs and of Coloured Relations are not the ones responsible for Coloured education in the Republic. There is another authority which is responsible for Coloured education in the Republic. I am, in fact, Minister of Coloured Education as well. But my department is responsible only for the education of the Coloured national groups in South-West Africa as well as for their social and economic advancement and progress. That is why I say once more that we are not depriving the province or South-West Africa of any rights. We are not depriving people of any rights. On the contrary, it is our sincere desire in terms of our obligation to seek and to promote the social and economic welfare of those people, and to pass and utilize this Bill towards that end.

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

Upon which the House divided:

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

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It has become necessary for the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 1942 (Act No. 29 of 1942), as amended, to be amended further so as to adapt to certain amendments in the Road Traffic Ordinances and also to effect other amendments which became necessary from time to time.

Furthermore, since this Act has up to now been amended on six previous occasions, it is considered that the time has now arrived for it to be reviewed in its entirety and for arranging the provisions of the present Act in a more logical sequence. For instance, it is now being provided in the Bill, in the first place that it is compulsory for all motor vehicles to be insured, and this is followed by measures for giving effect to this provision; next we find provisions in regard to the payment of compensation, followed by provisions for incidental matters. The present Act also contains pro visions which are no longer applicable, and others which are no longer deemed to be necessary. Such provisions have consequently been omitted from this Bill, for the reasons I shall furnish later on.

As hon. members will notice from the explanatory memorandum submitted to them along with this Bill, after the summary of the contents of every clause or subsection of the Bill, an indication is given of the section or subsection in the existing Act which is being substituted, and of whether the relevant section or subsection is being amended or left unchanged In other words, if they study the old Act in conjunction with the new Bill and the memorandum, they will be able to analyse the whole matter very profitably. Therefore it is not necessary for me to explain the contents of every clause, and I shall confine myself only to those clauses containing deviations from or additions to the existing provisions, as well as to new provisions.

In clause 1 new definitions are inserted.“Bantu authority” is added so as to define the authorities referred to in clause 2 (2) (a) in order that any amendment effected in such a connection to existing legislation or future legislation will not necessarily involve an amendment to this Act.

“Authorized insurer” is used in this Bill instead of the expression “registered company”, because as a result of the present provision in regard to the insurance of motor vehicles, it is no longer necessary for insurance companies to be registered, Which renders the expression “registered company” unsuitable.

“Motor transport licence” is being added for the purposes of clause 14, in terms of which provision is made for the insurance of new motor vehicles delivered by road; and the expression “MVA Fund” is added so as to serve as an abbreviation for “Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund,” to which reference is made in the Bill.

The “Secretary,” to whom reference is made in several clauses, means the Secretary for Transport. I want hon. members to note that it means the Secretary for Transport, and not the secretary of the Fund.

“Prescribed” is being added so as to indicate that matters that are to be prescribed, shall be prescribed by regulation.

Clause 1 also contains amendments to the existing definitions, such as: “Owner,” which is now being defined in detail in order to avoid the confusion which arose from the existing definition, and also to eliminate problems arising in connection with the transfer of ownership of insured motor vehicles; “motor dealer”, to be in conformity with the provisions of the present Road Traffic Ordinances, i.e. that motor vehicles on to which bodies are built or which are brought to a motor dealer for repairs, may also be operated under a motor dealer’s licence; “motor vehicle”, in order that “rollers” which, under the present definition, are not considered to be motor vehicles and are therefore not subject to any insurance in terms of the present Act, may now be subject to compulsory insurance as well, since such vehicles are as much of a risk on our roads as is any other heavy motor vehicle; “tariff” is being amended to “applicable tariff”, and in the Afrikaans text the term “uitdruklik verassureer” now becomes “spesifiek verseker”, which is more appropriate.

Clause 2 is a part of the present section 19, which has been left unchanged except that the Acts mentioned in subsection 19 (2) (a) in connection with Bantu authorities, have been omitted and that mention is only made of “Bantu authorities”. Bantu authorities are now being defined in clause 1.

In order that the continued existence of the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund, which was established as a body corporate under the present Act, may be validated for the purposes of the new Act, a provision to this effect has been incorporated in clause 5. This clause also provides, inter alia, that the Registrar of Companies shall record the names and abbreviations “Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund”, “MVA Fund”, “Motorvoertuigassuransiefonds” and “MVA-fonds” in the register of companies kept by him. This provision is being added so as to prevent these names from being used by any other organization.

Clause 6 (1) is the existing section 25D (1), which is being amended in order that provision may also be made for the appointment by the Minister of an assistant manager of the MVA Fund who may act in the place of the manager of the Fund during his absence. It is provided, furthermore, that when both the manager and the assistant manager are absent, the Secretary for Transport may designate a member of his staff to act in the place of the manager.

In the existing section 25D (3) the MVA Fund is empowered to acquire the services of any person. In clause 6 (2) the Secretary for Transport, instead of the MVA Fund, is now empowered to acquire the services of such a person. As the Secretary for Transport has to provide the other staff of the MVA Fund, the appointment of the person envisaged ought to be left in his hands as well.

Clause 7 (2) is an amendment to the existing section 25C (2), which provides that the terms and conditions for the payment of compensation in respect of loss or damage caused by an uninsured or an unidentified motor vehicle shall be prescribed in an agreement between the Minister and the MVA Fund. In clause 7 (2) it is now being provided that the terms and conditions concerned shall be prescribed by regulation. The reason for this is that as the MVA Fund is now completely under the control of the Minister, it is inappropriate for the Minister to enter into an agreement with such a body, and also to lend greater force of law to these terms and conditions. The existing agreement in this regard was concluded when the MVA Fund was still registered as a private company.

Clause 8, which makes provision for the appointment of a premiums committee, contains the provisions of the existing section 1ter which have been amended in order that the appointment of an official of the MVA Fund as a member of the committee may also be authorized. As the MVA Fund is closely connected with the collection of premiums and the trends in third-party claims, the Fund should also have representation on the premiums committee. The premiums committee will therefore consist of one official of the Department of Transport, one official of the Department of Finance, one official of the Department of Statistics, one official of the MVA Fund and three persons appointed to represent authorized insurers. The Minister shall appoint the members of this committee, of which the representative of the Department of Transport shall be the chairman.

The existing section 24 (3) (c) provides that the agreement into which the State President may enter with insurance companies for insuring motor vehicles, shall also contain a provision for the establishment of a fund for reinsuring the risks borne by such companies. Clause 10 (3) amends this provision so that, instead of a reference being made to the establishment of a fund, it is provided that the MVA Fund may undertake such reinsurance.

Clause 10 (6) provides that the existing agreement, i.e. the agreement entered into between the State President and the 16 members of the consortium referred to in section 25A (1), and a further agreement in connection with the terms and conditions for reinsurance by the MVA Fund which was in force prior to the commencement of the Act, shall be deemed to be the agreements for which provision is being made in clause 10 (3).

Clause 13 amends the provisions of the existing section 5, which deals with the insurance of motor vehicles in the possession of a motor dealer in connection with his business as a motor dealer, by also covering motor vehicles which are in his possession for repairs or for being fitted with bodies and which are not specifically insured. As has already been mentioned, this amendment is being proposed in order to bring the provisions of the Bill into line with those of the Road Traffic Ordinances.

Clause 14 is a new provision which provides for the insurance of motor vehicles operated by the holder of a motor transport licence in connection with his business of delivering new motor vehicles by road. The Road Traffic Ordinances make provision for a motor transport licence to be issued to a person whose business it is to deliver motor vehicles in such a manner. This licence authorizes the holder thereof to convey such vehicles under the cover of special number-plates (blue plates). The same terms and conditions of insurance set forth in clause 13 in respect of the vehicles of a motor dealer, apply in this case as well.

Clause 15 (2) provides that the Secretary for Transport shall cause forms for tokens of insurance to be printed and supplied to authorized insurers. In the existing section 4 (2) it is provided that the Minister shall cause such tokens of insurance to be printed and supplied to authorized insurers. However, the Secretary for Transport is the obvious official for undertaking this function.

Clause 16 contains the provisions of the existing section 20, which provides that the owner or a motor dealer shall attach a token of insurance to his motor vehicle in a prescribed manner. In terms of this clause motor vehicles operated by a holder of a motor transport licence, are included.

Clause 18 contains the provisions of the existing section 15, which is being amended by the omission of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), and also of subsection (4), which provides that if an insured motor vehicle has been so altered or the use thereof has been so changed that it falls into a different period of insurance, the owner thereof shall notify the authorized insurer of such a change and shall then insure the vehicle afresh. As we now have only one insurance period for all motor vehicles, i.e. 1st May to 30th April, these requirements fall away. Consequently the reference to subsection (4) in subsection (5), now subsection (3), has also been omitted. Furthermore, subsection (2) of section 15 provides that if a motor dealer increases the number of motor vehicles he has in his possession in connection with his business as a motor dealer, or increases the volume or alters the nature of his business in such a manner that it would result in the payment of a higher premium, he shall notify the insurer concerned of such an alteration and, in terms of subsection (4), pay the difference in premium for the remaining part of the insurance period. As third-party insurance is taken out by a motor dealer on the basis of the number of motor dealer number-plates he has at his disposal and not on the basis of the number of motor vehicles he has in his possession, which may from the nature of the case vary from day to day, and as nowhere in the present Act and the tariff of premiums one finds a premium for the insurance of a motor dealer’s motor vehicles being calculated on the basis of the number of vehicles or the volume and nature of his business, this provision and the reference to subsection (2) in subsections (3) and (5) (now subsections (2) and (3)) have also been omitted from clause 18.

Clause 19 (1) contains the provisions of the existing section 17 (1) in connection with the termination of the insurance of a motor vehicle, and these provisions have been amended by the omission of the reference to section 15 (4) as a result of the omission of this section from clause 18 in view of the fact that only one insurance period is being prescribed now.

Clause 19 (3) contains the provisions of the existing section 17 (3), which makes provision for a refund of a portion of a premium which was paid in respect of a motor vehicle of which the insurance has been terminated, and which is being amended in order to make it clear that a refund may only be made when the insured motor vehicle ceases permanently to be capable of being driven or when the owner transfers his ownership in the motor vehicle to another person or when an owner ceases to exist—for instance, a motor dealer or the holder of a motor transport licence. It is also being added that such a refund shall be subject to an agreement between the insurer and the owner. This proviso is being added in order that the insurer may, instead of making a refund, transfer the existing insurance to another motor vehicle which the owner may have acquired.

Clause 20 is a summary of the existing section 22, which provides that in a case where an insured motor vehicle is involved in an accident in which any person has been killed or injured, the owner and the driver (if he is not the owner) shall be obliged to notify the insurer within 14 days after the occurrence; the particulars he has to furnish, are also prescribed. Furthermore, it is being provided that the owner shall be obliged to furnish a claimant or his representative, at his request, with certain information in regard to the occurrence. In clause 20, as it is set out now, the information to which the claimant or his representative is entitled is indicated clearly. Experience has shown that as a result of the obscurity of the provisions of section 22, claimants or their representatives try to obtain from such an owner information to which they are not entitled.

Clauses 21, 22 and 23 contain the provisions of the existing section 11 (1), which makes provision for the payment of compensation by an authorized insurer. For the sake of clarity these provisions have now been divided up into three clauses. However, an amendment is now being effected to the limited amounts of compensation which insurers have to pay under certain circumstances. In clause 22 the existing amounts of R8 000 and R40 000 are being increased to R.12 000 and R60 000, respectively, because it is felt that owing to the depreciation of our money, the time has arrived for these amounts to be increased.

Clause 24 (1) contains the provisions of the existing section 11 (2) (a), which provides that a claim for compensation shall become prescribed upon the expiration of a period of two years, but that prescription shall be suspended for 60 days, for which provision exists in section 11 bis (2). The period of suspension is now being extended to 90 days for the reasons I shall furnish in connection with clause 25 (2).

Clause 24 (2) provides that the Minister may issue a certificate in which the provision of clause 24 (1) may be waived, i.e. that of the prescription of a claim. This concession has been made because cases occur where prescription takes place owing to unavoidable circumstances, and because it would be unfair for a claimant to be deprived of his legitimate compensation as a result. The right to condone prescription is being conferred on the Minister because it is expected that quite a number of representations in this regard will be received in future, and if it were provided that prescription might be condoned by a court, it would possible give rise to the MVA Fund having to incur fruitless legal expenses, which could have an adverse effect on the premiums. I want to emphasize this strongly.

Clause 24 (3) contains the provisions of the existing section 11 (2) (b), which provides that a claim for the recovery from an authorized insurer of an amount paid by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1941 (Act 30 of 1941), as a result of the death of or any bodily injury to any employee caused by an insured motor vehicle, shall become prescribed upon the expiration of a period of two years, and which has been amended to make it clear that the right of recovery of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner relates to cases other than those mentioned in subsection 22 (2), and that it is subject to prescription just as is the case with other claims in terms of clause 21.

Clause 25 (1) contains the provisions of the existing section 11 bis (1), which provides that a claim for compensation set out on a prescribed form and accompanied by a medical report, shall be sent to an authorized insurer, and which has been amended so as to make it clear that the medical report must be in regard to the cause of a person’s death or the nature and treatment of his injuries in respect of which the claim is made.

Clause 25 (2) contains the provisions of the existing section 11 bis (2), which prohibits the service of a summons on an authorized insurer before the expiration of the period of 60 days as from the date on which a claim was made, and which has been amended by extending the period from 60 to 90 days. The reason for this is that insurers find it difficult to dispose of a claim within 60 days, and in a case where the possibility arises that a claim may become prescribed, it is necessary for a summons to be served on the insurer in order to check prescription, with the result that the costs of a claim are increased unnecessarily.

In subsections (3) and (4) of section 21, which contain the conditions on which exemption from compulsory insurance is granted, it is provided that tokens of exemption to be affixed to motor vehicles that have been exempted, shall be issued by the Minister and returned to him when the motor vehicles in question cease to be operated. In practice these tokens are issued by the Secretary for Transport, and are also returned to him; consequently subsections (3) and (4) of clause 29, which contain the provisions of section 21, now provide that tokens of exemption shall be issued by the Secretary and shall also be returned to him.

Clause 32 contains the provisions of the existing section 32, and includes a provision to the effect that the Minister may make regulations regarding the conditions for payment of compensation in terms of clause 7 (2).

Clause 33 is a new provision, which empowers the Minister to delegate any power conferred on him by this legislation to the Secretary for Transport, to any deputy secretary in the Department of Transport or to the manager or the assistant manager of the MVA Fund. This provision is necessary since matters may arise which may just as well be disposed of by the said officials without there being any need for the Minister to deal with them.

Clause 35 contains the provisions of the existing section 34, which has been amended by omitting the reference to the port and settlement of Walvis Bay. As this area falls under the Republic, it is unnecessary for it to be mentioned.

The foregoing contains the amendments and additions to the existing Act, but I also want to draw the attention of hon. members to the provisions of those sections and subsections of that Act which have not been incorporated in this Bill. There is, for instance, section 1bis, which makes provision for the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Motor Vehicle Insurance. This committee was established before the conclusion of the agreement between the State President and the consortium of insurance companies, and was to serve as a link between the registered companies, the public and the Minister. The function of this committee was, chiefly, to advise the Minister in regard to statistics relating to Motor Vehicle Insurance, trends in motor accidents and Motor Vehicle Insurance claims. However, a similar function is also carried out by the premiums committee when the existing premiums are reviewed from time to time, and therefore it serves no purpose for the said matters to be considered by the Advisory Committee as well. Another function of this committee was to advise the Minister as to giving publicity to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act and the regulations made under it. Up to now this committee has not given any attention to this matter, and it also appears to be unnecessary for a committee to be established for that purpose. It has therefore been decided to abolish this committee, for the costs involved in its sessions are not justified. In truth, since its constitution, this committee has only met on three occasions.

Sections 2, 2bis and 2ter, which provide for the registration of insurance companies, the determination and publication of tariffs of premiums and the conditions for the registration of insurance companies, are also being omitted from this Bill, for as a result of the agreement between the State President and certain insurance companies in connection with the insurance of motor vehicles and the provision in clause 9 to the effect that the Minister may determine the premiums, the provisions of these sections are no longer applicable.

Section 2quat provides that the Minister may establish a contributions fund from which persons may be compensated for loss or damage caused by uninsured or unidentified motor vehicles, and that it shall be compulsory for registered companies to contribute to this fund. Such a fund was never established, because the Motor Insurers’ Association of Southern Africa took over this function in an agreement concluded with the Minister in terms of section 2 quin. The necessity for this section therefore falls away.

Section 2quin makes provision for compulsory membership of the Motor Insurers’ Association of Southern Africa by registered companies, and provides that the objects of a contributions fund in terms of section 2quat may be undertaken by way of an agreement between the Minister and this Association. Such an agreement was subsequently concluded and was terminated when a similar agreement was concluded between the Minister and the then MVA Fund during 1966. Therefore, the necessity for this section no longer exists either. In this regard the attention of hon. members is drawn to the provision which is now being made in the Bill and in terms of which the MVA Fund may compensate victims of hit-and-run accidents and of uninsured motor vehicles as prescribed by regulation. Clause 7 (2) refers.

Subsections (1) and (2) of section 6 provide that a registered company may refuse to insure a motor vehicle if the company has reasonable grounds to believe that the owner, while driving the vehicle, or any other person, while driving the vehicle belonging to the owner, has unduly endangered the safety of the public, or that the owner or any member of his household or any person in his employ is likely to endanger unduly the safety of the public if he drives a motor vehicle. However, insurance may be issued if the owner gives an undertaking in writing that he will not drive the motor vehicle or permit any other named person to drive that vehicle. A penalty is also prescribed for an offence in this regard, i.e. in the event of such an owner driving or permitting any person to drive the motor vehicle in question in breach of his undertaking. To our knowledge this measure has never been used, and it is doubtful whether any company will want to apply it, because in the light of the appeal against a company’s refusal, for which provision exists in section 7, proof acceptable to a court of law, and not presumptions, will have to be furnished. This would also entail tremendous expense to a company. Consequently the measure appears to be ineffective and is therefore omitted.

As has already been mentioned, section 7 makes provision for a right of appeal against a company’s refusal to effect insurance in the cases in question, and as a result of the omission of subsections (1) and (2) of section 6. section 7 is also being omitted from this Bill.

Sections 8, 9 and 10 provide that a registered company may apply to a court of law for the cancellation of the driver’s licence of a person who has driven or will drive an insured motor vehicle in such a manner that he has unduly endangered or is likely to endanger unduly the safety of the public, with the attendant procedure as well as a right of appeal against the decision of a court and the procedure that has to be followed by a person whose driver’s licence was cancelled in terms of these measures. To our knowledge these provisions have never been used, and it is unlikely that an insurer would go to this extreme. In any case, there are other laws which may be applied against a reckless driver. Consequently these three sections are also being omitted from the Bill in order to eliminate overlapping with other laws.

Paragraphs (a), (ii) and (b) (ii) of section 14 (2) make provision for a right of recourse against the owner of an insured motor vehicle if he, or any other person with his consent, drove the motor vehicle concerned in breach of an undertaking given by him in terms of section 6 (1) or was subject to an order referred to in section 8 and drove the vehicle in breach of such an order. As a result of the omission of sections 6 (1) and 8 from the Bill, these two provisions therefore fall away too.

Section 18 provides inter alia that an insurer and the insured may enter into negotiations on the provision of subsections (3) and (7) of section 15, namely that the insured shall pay the difference in premium in a case where a higher premium has become applicable as a result of a change to the insured vehicle or an alteration in the use thereof or that the insurer has to make a refund of the difference in a case where such an alteration or change will result in a lower premium. In the light of the present system of paying over a portion of all collected premiums to the MVA Fund, this state of affairs is being regarded as undesirable, and consequently the provisions of section 18, in so far as they refer to the provisions of section 15, are being omitted from this Bill. This has the effect that in terms of the provisions of clause 18 of the Bill, which contains the provisions of section 15, the payment or refund of the difference in premiums has now become compulsory. Section 18 also provides that an insurer and the insured may enter into negotiations on the refund of portion of the premium when the insurance of a motor vehicle under the circumstances mentioned in section 17 terminates prior to the expiration of the current insurance period, namely when the insured motor vehicle ceases permanently to be capable of being driven or when the ownership in the motor vehicle is transferred to another person or when the owner ceases to exist. This provision has been incorporated in clause 19 (3). The necessity for section 18 therefore falls away.

Paragraph (c) of section 24 (1) provides that the State President may by proclamation establish a corporation which shall insure motor vehicles under this Act. As the present measures for the compulsory insurance of motor vehicles are deemed to be effective, and as it is held that an amendment in that regard will not readily, be effected this provision may be omitted.

Section 24 (3) (a) suspends the provisions of sections 2, 2bis up to and including 2quin. As these sections have been omitted from the Bill, the provision of this subsection is no longer necessary.

Section 24 (5) (b), which refers to the provisions of section 2bis, also falls away as a result of the omission of section 2bis.

Sections 26 up to and including 31 deal with the establishment, powers and functions of the corporation which may be established by the State President in terms of paragraph (c) of section 24 (1). Since the provision for the establishment of a corporation has been omitted from the Bill, the necessity for these sections falls away.

Section 33 repeals certain provincial laws relating to the insurance of motor vehicles which were in force prior to the commencement of the present Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. There is no need for this section to be incorporated in the Bill again.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have now explained the Bill as fully as possible, but if hon. members should require further explanations, I shall gladly furnish them.

Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset say that we are indebted to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department for the preparation of the explanatory memorandum which was made available to us. That being so, we were able to come to the House today knowing what the provisions of the Bill are, and we are therefore in a position to debate the advisability and the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the provisions. The hon. the Deputy Minister, other than explaining the reasons for the fact that certain provisions of the existing Act were not included in this Bill, spent a considerable time merely in telling what the contents of the Bill were without motivating the provisions of the Bill or giving us some idea as to whether he feels the Bill improves the present circumstances appertaining to third-party insurance. We on this side of the House believe that the time has arrived when the whole question of the intent and effectiveness of third-party insurance should be thoroughly considered and that the provisions of the laws which we have should be analyzed with a view to amendment. We believe there is a need to review certain provisions which were included in the present Act in 1964, 1966 and 1969 and to decide whether in fact there has been an improvement in the achievement of the purposes of this insurance by the intervention of the State, or officials appointed by the State, more and more into the operation of the Act. We have to look at this to see whether the interests of the insured are fully covered and whether the system we adopt may or may not be more expensive than some other alternative system. At the present stage we also have to face up to the fact that the MVA Fund as such, which is a creature of statute, a corporation, which exists under the existing law and is now to be continued under this Bill, is not in the nature of a normal State corporation, or a corporation created by statute where the State is the shareholder. The shareholders in this corporation, the MVA Fund, are the individual motorists of South Africa, whose premiums are now lodged in that particular Fund. That being so, I believe it becomes necessary for us to look at the administration of that Fund in the interests of the general public, and not merely in the interests of the State undertaking. I believe also that we have to look at the reasonableness of the settlements for compensation which are being made under the present system. I believe we must look to see, in the light of recent occurrences, whether there are adequate statutory precautions to prevent the misuse of funds in this corporate body. These funds are in excess of some R50 million. I believe also that it is necessary for us to look at—and I will deal with it more fully a little later—the interests of the injured person, because basically this legislation is what one may term to be in the category of social welfare legislation. We must ensure that the person who is injured through the negligent driving of a motor vehicle by some other person is not left without means of obtaining compensation. I believe it is most important to see that the interests of those persons, the injured persons, are fully protected under the provisions of the Bill. As hon. members may be aware, the principle of compulsory third party insurance was introduced into South Africa by the United Party Government in 1942 during the war years. Basically it provided, firstly, for insurance by motorists to cover physical damage to innocent third parties to be compulsory. It provided that motorists should insure themselves so as to cover compensation for physical damage to innocent third parties.

Secondly, it was a principle in 1942 that this insurance should be undertaken by companies who chose to do so on the usual basis of competitive, free enterprise as far as insurance companies are concerned. That basis has continued fairly reasonably and satisfactory for a period of 22 years. It was in 1964 that it became necessary for this House to approve of legislation to create an advisory committee on motor vehicle insurance which was widely representative of Government departments, including the Treasury and of insurance companies in the private sector. This committee was required to advise the Minister and to furnish annual reports. An interesting provision was that the annual report of that committee would be laid upon the Table of this House, in other words Parliament would at all times be kept aware of what was being done and what advice was given to the Minister. The second committee was the Motor Vehicle Insurance Premium Committee, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister has referred, which again was fully representative and had duties to advise in regard to premiums. One is distressed to find that the first committee, if I understand correctly what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said this afternoon, i.e. the advisory committee, which has now been dropped from this Bill, only met on some three occasions. It would appear to me that administratively this provision of the law has not been enforced in that there should have been reports Tabled annually by that particular committee.

Why make provision if they have no work to do?

It is an extraordinary interjection by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The mere fact that this Act has had to be amended indicates that it was necessary for some people to apply their minds as to what should or should not be done about third party insurance. That is what we are doing here. But the committee which Parliament had agreed should be established apparently was never consulted.

The second committee, the Premiums Committee, is of course retained under clause 8 of this Bill. A great deal of the present legislation is attributed to the Parity Insurance Company incident in South Africa. It is true that that company was carrying extensive motor vehicle insurance; then it collapsed, and there were delays and losses both to insured and injured persons. Then, as we know, the idea was conceived that some consortium should be established to handle this particular type of insurance. This Government conceived that idea, and did so with the intent which one accepts, that it was firstly to protect the insured and also to ensure that adequate gross profit was available to the companies to cover the administration costs of this particular type of insurance.

Thereafter we had a Select Committee appointed.

Yes, I am glad the hon. the Deputy Minister reminded me of that. That Select Committee, I think, sat for about two years before legislation was brought before the House. That legislation was not accepted by both sides of the House. There was a divergence of opinion. But we can now accept that the principle had been in operation for a number of years. The insurers at that time then formed a company known as the M.V.A. Fund, to which they agreed that a percentage of premiums would be paid, the companies retaining merely an agreed percentage to cover their administration costs.

That brings me to the change in so far as the interests of both the insured and the injured are concerned, when once that power of settlement was removed from the insurance companies, as it was in 1969, and placed in the hands of a manager nominated by the State. The first point which arises as a result of that change can best be illustrated by the revealing figures by the hon. the Deputy Minister in Hansard, volume 35, col. 744 in answer to a question. Up until 1968-’69—the new provisions became effective on the 2nd of April, 1969 —we find that claims paid were of a considerable amount, particularly in relation to claims which had not been settled. In other words, there appeared to be a prompt settlement of claims lodged by injured persons. I would like to give you some figures, Sir. In the year 1966-’67 the claims paid totalled R16 million; claims outstanding totalled R2 million. In the first year that the manager took over the control of this Fund, in 1968-’69, the payments of claims had decreased by R10 million, from R16 million to R6 580 000, and the outstanding claims had increased from R2¼ million to R17 million. One can only imagine what those delays must have meant to persons who had lodged claims and were waiting for their compensation under this Act.

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