Although I did mention it at the second reading, I would like to reiterate my praise for the way in which the explanatory memorandum on the Railways and Harbours Acts Amendment Bill has been drawn up. There was a time when some of the explanatory memoranda issued by the Department of Railways were not as good as this one is. I remember the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) calling attention to the fact that White Papers seemed like the attractive young lady who inadvertently concealed more than she revealed. I am sure it will help in this debate to make the discussion of all these clauses, including Clause 1 of the Bill, more instructive and easier to follow by other members of this House opposite who perhaps have not even read the Bill.

I made it quite clear, Sir, in the second reading that Clause 1 of this Bill receives the approval of this side of the House. We feel that it is a necessary delegation of financial authority. We believe that it will help the Administration and aid it in its work. We think that greater financial responsibility can be given to the General Manager, safely, without any real danger that the financial authority of Parliament will be breached. We have a post-mortem safeguard in the Railways and Harbours Select Committee. Another safeguard is that the Controller and Auditor-General will see that the money is properly accounted for at the proper time. So we approve of Clause 1. Nevertheless I wondered why the hon. the Minister, in this case, did not consult the Select Committee. If he had been thoughtful, I think he might have referred this matter to our committee for consideration. I am sure they would have agreed to the proposition contained in the clause. He must know that we like to feel that we are carrying out our proper function, not as the bloodhounds but as the watchdogs, the financial watchdogs of Railway expenditure. He knows that only recently we objected to the fact that we had not been consulted when the Higher Replacement cost section of the Renewals Fund was altered …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause. He is going beyond the scope of the clause.

Chairman, I think I have been momentarily guilty of going beyond the scope of the clause, but with your indulgence it seemed to be necessary to give the hon. Minister that reminder. In terms of this clause a change is being made in financial arrangements, and although we approve of the change, we still wish that it had come to our Select Committee, that we should have been consulted.

We hope the hon. the Minister will take to heart the suggestion I have made to him, that in all matters financial, the Select Committee should be consulted if possible.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us a little more information in regard to this particular clause. It is a very simple provision and we accept it, that is, that the amount can be increased without further approval. The regulations under which the application of that authority falls are fairly widespread and according to the explanatory memorandum the extension is confined to work which has not been approved by Parliament—it does not affect a railway line which has been approved by Parliament. But it does say that where the actual expenditure will exceed the authorized amount for any work—by more than 10 per cent—authority must be obtained first from the authority who originally authorized the carrying out of that work; in this case I assume it will be the Railway Board. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could explain at what stage that particular proviso will come into effect. Further down the explanatory memorandum says that in the case of excesses of more than 10 per cent on approved amounts, the Minister’s authority must be sought if the additional amount required for a particular work exceeds R20,000. What I want to know from the Minister is at what stage this provision will come into effect. Will it be in the planning stage when the final specifications are planned and when it becomes evident that the work will exceed the original estimates or will it come into effect when the work is already in progress and certain unforeseen difficulties arise? At what stage will this proviso come into effect? Because it does make a material difference as to the safeguards. It is obvious that once a job has been started and it becomes clear that the amount will be more than originally estimated, the job must be finished no matter what the cost. Or will it come into effect when it is discovered in time, in the planning stage, that the amount will be in excess of the estimated amount so that the position can be rectified prior to the work being put in hand. It is a fairly complicated proviso and I wonder if the hon. the Minister could clarify the position a little in that respect.

It can happen in both cases, in reply to the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). The work might have been authorized and not commenced. When it is then found that the cost will be more than originally estimated approval will of course be required for the additional amount. For instance, if a work is submitted to the Minister costing, say, £20,000 it is found, before the work is commenced, due to unforeseen circumstances that it may exceed that amount, then the Minister’s approval must be obtained. It can also happen in the case where the work has already been started. It may be found that due to the increase in labour costs the approved amount will be exceeded, then approval must also be obtained. It operates in both instances.

In reply to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) I want to say this. The hon. member knows, of course, that any matter which is discussed in a Select Committee, is confined to the members of that Select Committee alone. It is only when that report is before Parliament that Parliament has the opportunity of discussing that report and that seldom if ever happens. Parliament has the right, of course, to discuss any amendment to the Act prior to the Act being amended. The hon. member referred to the higher replacement cost. That is right, that should have been before the Committee, before the Act was amended, or at least before the new method was adopted, because that was in conflict with a resolution taken by the Select Committee some years ago. There is no parallel between the two cases. But in regard to any financial procedure which is of considerable importance, I have no objection if I find it advisable to submit it to the Select Committee before it is discussed in Parliament.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

One or two points arise in connection with this clause which I should like to discuss with the Minister. I refer to sub-section (3), paragraphs (a) and (b) on page 5. It would appear, Sir, that the hon. the Minister has made use of a formula to enable him to pay a gratuity to those who are going to retire in the very near future, in fact during the next five or six years. I want to put an example to the Minister to make quite sure that the interpretation which I put upon this clause is the correct one. I might tell the Minister that I have had some correspondence about this clause and it does seem that there is some doubt as to the actual interpretation.

I will put this example to assist in clarifying what the legal position may be. I want to give the Minister an example of the gratuity which will be paid in terms of sub-section (3) (a) and (b) and sub-section (4) (i) and (ii). An employee who is due to retire on 16 March 1963, i.e. 16 March next year, will receive one-third of his total emoluments for the eight-year period ending on 16 March 1961 plus three-quarters of total emoluments for the period 16 March 1961 to 16 March 1963, a two-year period making up the 10 years. Whatever these two amounts add up to is then divided by 10. That is how I see this clause. If we take an employee whose total emoluments amount to R900 per year he will then receive one and one-third of the R900 multiplied by eight, which amounts to R9,600 plus three-quarters of the R900 multiplied by two, which will be R1,300, making a total of R10,900. This divided by 10 will give him a gratuity of R1,090. If the same employee were to receive one-tenth of his total emoluments over his last 10 years of service, he will only receive R900 as a gratuity. In other words, R1,090 less than he will receive in terms of the formula as set out in sub-section (3) of Clause 2. From this example, Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the formula set out in sub-section (3) of Clause 2 has been designed to compensate the employee who will retire within five years of the fixed date. It would also appear that the definition of “total emoluments” lends itself to some misunderstanding or disagreement. It would appear that the definition of “total emoluments” does not include cost-of-living allowances paid. I think the Minister should clarify this point because reference is made in many sub-sections of this clause to “total emoluments”. And if “total emoluments” do not include cost-of-living allowances then this formula to which I have referred appears to make some sense, but if it does include cost-of-living allowances then it appears to be a very long way round to arrive at one-tenth of the total emoluments of an employee over a 10-year period. If the cost-of-living allowance is not included in “total emoluments”, I think it is necessary that the Minister should indicate quite clearly what “total emoluments” consist of. For instance does “total emoluments” include overtime payment, bonus work payments, holiday allowance, etc.? As I see the position “total emoluments” mean the total earnings which will include overtime payments, bonus work payments, etc. But because of the discrepancy in the example which I have quoted, the formula does exclude cost-of-living allowances as part of “total emoluments”. And I think it is well that we should query with the Minister exactly what “total emoluments” means in this particular clause. It is an important point because it can make a big difference to the person who is going to receive this gratuity if “total emoluments” includes overtime, bonus work payments and holiday allowances. The query I put to the Minister is tied up in the definition of what “total emoluments” really means

According to my information “total emoluments” mean basic wages only. It does not include overtime and Sunday times. But, of course, after consolidation “total emoluments” will mean basic wages into which cost-of-living allowances have been incorporated. I cannot at this stage go into the involved calculation which the hon. member has made as to what the amount auctally will be. But the fact remains that this is an improvement on the present position. This has been designed to bring it into line with the increased benefits that permanent and temporary servants will receive as a result of consolidation. That is the purpose of the introduction of this provision.

Mr. Chairman, surely the use of the words “total emoluments” is erroneous.

It is probably because it was used in the original Act.

Is it correct what the Minister has just told the Committee that it is the basic wage which is the factor which is taken into account and not the extraneous payments such as bonus work, etc.?

Those are never taken into account for the purposes of gratuities.

Those are never taken into account? Then I think, Sir, the Minister should examine the position before this Bill goes to the Other Place and ascertain whether the term “total emoluments” should be used rather than “basic wage”. That would clarify the position considerably.

I will go into that.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

Clause 3 amends Section 4 of the Railways and Harbours Pensions Act of 1941. The explanatory memorandum says this—

In order to maintain the status quo, therefore, it is necessary to provide for a corresponding increase in the amount of the gratuity or annuity payable to certain servants of the Administration in terms of the Railways and Harbours Pensions Amendment Act, 1941, and it is with this end in view that the amendments to Sections 3 and 4 of this Act are being made.

Clause 3 has this effect that it deletes the words “one-quarter” and substitutes “three-sixteenths”. I say to the Minister that if the Act had not been amended by the substitution of the words “three-sixteenths” for “one-quarter”, then it would be true to say that in order to maintain the status quo it is necessary to provide for a corresponding increase. The effect of this amendment in Clause 3 will be to reduce the amount by one-sixteenth—from one-quarter to three-sixteenths. Although the overall amount of three-sixteenths of the new total basic wage may be and will be more than one-quarter of the pre-consolidation figure, it does appear to me to be necessary to emphasize that the gratuity payable here is in fact correspondingly less that what it is to-day. In other words, one-quarter of the old wage prior to consolidation is more than three-sixteenths of that amount. We are now taking the consolidating figure and saying we are not going to pay one-quarter of that, but we are going to pay a lesser amount, namely three-sixteenths. I ask the Minister whether it is necessary, in view of the fact that all other factors have changed as well as the consolidation, to have this reduction of one-sixteenth in the gratuity payable, when we all know that consolidation has been brought about as a result of the ever-increasing cost of living. It will appear to me that it is reasonable to assume that the correct amount to be paid should be retained at one-quarter of the consolidated rate so that the gratuity will bear the same proportion to the basic wage as the old quarter did to the preconsolidated rate. I can see no reason why there should be a reduction from one-quarter to three-sixteenths just because of consolidation. Perhaps I can put this simple example to the Minister in this way that one-quarter of R800 would be R200. If the consolidated figure is increased, in respect of basic wage, from R800 to R1,000 then in terms of this amendment he will not receive R250 but he will receive R187.5. I cannot see why there has to be this change. I cannot see why there should be this drop of one-sixteenth. I think that the Minister has been generous in one respect and less than generous in the other when he changed it from one-quarter to three-sixteenths.

In the previous clause the hon. member saw fit to make a calculation and he came to the conclusion that there was an improvement, but he refrained from making a calculation in this case. Three-sixteenths of the consolidated wage is more than one-quarter of the old basic wage, before cost-of-living allowances were consolidated. This is an improvement.

One-quarter will be better.

One-quarter is not better. Three-sixteenths of the consolidated wage is more than one-quarter of the old basic wage. So this is an improvement on the original position.

I am not denying that. Three-sixteenths of the consolidated rate is more than one-quarter of the pre-consolidated rate, but I say that the fact that we have consolidation is due to all sorts of factors, mainly factors for which the Minister is not responsible. For that reason I cannot see why there should be a drop in the fraction from one-quarter to three-sixteenths. If I were to take the example the Minister has quoted, it is true that three-sixteenths of the consolidated rate is more than one-quarter of the pre-consolidated rate. But then one-quarter of the consolidated rate will be even more—it must be; it must be one-sixteenth more. I fail to see why that one-sixteenth should be removed. That is the only query which I am putting to the Minister. I am not saying that three-sixteenths of the consolidated rate is less than one-quarter of the pre-consolidated rate.

In other words, your argument is that you want more.

The fact that there is this reduction from four-sixteenths to three-sixteenths appears to me to be an unwarranted reduction. I cannot see why it should be there in view of the fact that the one-quarter was based on basic wages and three-sixteenths will now be based on basic wages. That is what it boils down to. I cannot see why this reduction should take place, seeing that they both deal with basic wages and not with cost-of-living allowances.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I wonder if the hon. the Minister could just clarify the position a little bit. This particular clause gives authority for a change in both the length and the description of two sections of railway lines which were approved under the Railway Construction Act of 1956. It appears from the clause before us, taken in conjunction with the explanatory memorandum, that a portion of that railway line, which itself forms part of the railway line serving the big Native locations at Nyanga and Langa, is also for the distance between Cape Town and Woltemade, a portion of the main railway line to the north. Because of that fact this line which was formerly purely a Native line, will now form portion of the main line to the north for that particular distance and, as a result of that, it appears from the Bill that we are now going to take that piece of the two approved lines of that approval out, as it is now a dual purpose railway line. The explanatory memorandum says this—

In other words, it will be correct to say that that particular piece of the line will now form a portion of the main line and can be used for other purposes than those it was originally intended for, namely a subsidized Native railway. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us whether that is in fact the position. If that is the case, then it seems that on that section of the line between Cape Town and Woltemade we will have two different types of traffic, namely the subsidized Native traffic to Nyanga and the other Native townships and the ordinary traffic, either goods or traffic. It will also have two types of fares, the one being the subsidized Native fare and the other being the normal railway fare. It does seem that there is room for a little complication there and I wonder if the hon. the Minister could clarify that position. Because if that interpretation is correct, is it correct to also say that the costs connected with that particular stretch of railway line will be taken away from the cost of the Native railways and charged to your normal railway administration. If that is so will the Native railways have to bear a reasonable proportion of costs of maintenance and upkeep in respect of that particular section of the line or will that be borne by the normal passenger and goods services which use that particular section? Difficulty can be foreseen in the fact that there will be these two types of railways running along the same track, one subsidized and running at a loss covered by a subsidy from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the other an economic one paid for by the persons using the track. If my interpretation is correct in regard to that I wonder if the hon. the Minister could clarify that position a little bit and tell us how that position is to be met.

I want to raise one point in connection with this clause. We have over the years seen the construction of the line from Cape Town to Nayanga but there is also the other line from Kuils River and Bellville Junction to the Nyanga line. That line must have cost quite a considerable amount of money. It is mainly deserted and over-grown with weeds; apparently it was going to be a two-track line but it has not been completed.

Order! That point does not fall within the scope of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister to give us some information in regard to Clause 4 (1) (2). That is the clause I am talking about: “From a point on the existing line between Bellville and Kuils River, 13 miles 65 chains”. Is that the section where it is proposed to increase the estimated cost of the construction? I should like to know what the position is.

What actually happened in the case of the avoiding line from Woltemade was this: The building of that line was originally included in the Construction Act of 1956. But it was found that improvements would have to be effected to the existing line, the whole section would have had to be improved. Consequently that piece of line could not be regarded as a separate line and must be integrated with all improvements to be brought about to increase the efficiency of the Railways. That can be done without the necessity of having a Construction Act passed by Parliament. That is why that piece of line is now being taken out of the Construction Act because it is integrated with all the other improvements from the avoiding line up to Woltemade. It is part and parcel of increasing efficiency, improving lines and the building of a multiple number of lines and the doubling of lines. Because that can be done departmentally under a different head in the Brown Book, it was necessary to take that piece of a line out of the Construction Act of 1956.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

This clause deals with the amendment to the definition of Bantu beer. During the second reading of that Bill I asked the Minister whether the profits to be made on the sale of Bantu beer to non-Europeans as well as to Bantu … I am sorry, Sir, I think I had better discuss this under Clause 8 because this relates only to the definition.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I wish to raise a matter which is not dealt with in the admirable White Paper to this Bill.

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

Is it in the Bill but not in the White Paper?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member may proceed.

I merely raised the White Paper to pin-point what it was that I wished to raise, Sir. The point I wish to raise here is the question of criminal liability. The White paper deals with civil liability, the penalties attaching to wrong statements as to quality, quantity, purpose and so on. The criminal liability which is provided for is not dealt with in the White Paper and I therefore wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has considered the enormity of the penalty which is visited upon people who make false statements. It might seem to be a fairly normal criminal offence to make a false statement wilfully. But on analysis it means just this that if you wilfully make a statement—people who make a statement make it wilfully unless they are dreaming—and that statement happens to be untrue, although you did not intend to mislead anybody, you are guilty of an offence for which you can be fined £50 or six months’ imprisonment or both. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consider, before introducing this Bill in the Other Place, inserting the words “knowing it to be false” in Clause 8, so that it will then read “wilfully makes a false statement knowing it to be false as to the nature, quality, weight, etc.” I suggest this because there is some suggestion in the White Paper that this might amount to fraud. Of course, it can never amount to fraud because fraud is a wilful perversion of the truth made with the intent to deceive, resulting in prejudice. But here a perfectly innocent person who said that what he was consigning was screws, when in fact they turned out to be hooks with screws attached to them, wilfully makes that statement, and it so happens that the statement is false, which only means that it is not accurate, and that person then commits an offence for which he can be fined £50 or undergo six months’ imprisonment. I ask the Minister to consider this matter.

This is no new provision. It is identical with the provision in the main Act, except that a few words are added, and it is entirely within the discretion of the court what penalty to impose. If the court finds that it was not done deliberately, the accused will not be found guilty. But this worked quite satisfactorily in the past and we do not think there is any need to qualify it or to add any additional provision. The original Act reads that any person who wilfully makes a false statement is liable to a fine of £50 or, in default of payment, imprisonment not exceeding six months. The wording has been slightly changed, I agree, but the intent and the purpose is the same. It refers to a wilful false statement as to the nature, quantity, weight, measurements, etc., or the purpose for which the goods will be used. In other words, it is identical with the original provision, except that some words were added to it in the beginning.

Is it not the identical penalty for a new offence?

Not necessarily. It might be a new offence, too, but it must still have been done wilfully and it is entirely within the discretion of the court whether to apply the full penalty or not. This is merely the maximum penalty; no minimum penalty is provided.

The words that are added in the penalty clause are “or as to the purpose for which the goods are intended to be used”. In other words, there is now imported into the clause a new offence, and my point is not what the Minister appeared to think it was, namely that the court has the discretion as to what sentence to impose. The point is that the man commits an offence. Even if he is cautioned and discharged, if he ever comes before the court again that is treated as a previous conviction.

This particular provision which has now been added, in regard to the purpose for which the goods are intended, applies to the case where someone deliberately misleads the Administration as to the purpose for which the goods are intended, because there may be a differential rate applicable to the same commodity if used for a certain purpose or for another purpose. In other words, it covers the case where the Administration is defrauded. A certain commodity might be transported at a lower rate if used for a certain purpose, but if used for another purpose it might be a higher rate, and the person makes a false statement saying that this commodity is going to be used for a particular purpose and then it is found after wards that it is used for a different purpose, and that would be deliberately defrauding the Administration, and that is why this provision is made.

I take it that previously you could not get a conviction because the consignor of motor parts just said that these were “spare parts”. Now “spare parts” used for motor-car assembly, would be charged a different and lower rate than if they were spare parts sent to a garage to be used in repairing a car. If a wrong description is made in such a circumstance the person wilfully making it cannot be accused of a “misdescription of the nature of the goods”. Is that not the idea behind this amendment?

Yes, that illustrates the point.

At first you could not get a conviction, but now you can because the goods have to be described more accurately, according to the purpose for which they are to be used after arrival at their destination.

Yes.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

In the second reading I asked the Minister why it was that in sub-section (5) the profits from the sale of Bantu beer to Bantu would be applied to the Railway Institute funds in such manner as the Administration considers fit in the interests of its non-White servants, and why it was not restricted to Bantu persons. I understood the Minister to say that that was because the Bantu beer could be sold to Bantu and also to Coloureds and other non-Whites. But I pointed out that these profits which are dealt with in sub-section (5) are the profits made from the sale of liquor in terms of sub-section (1), and sub-section (1) only allows the Administration to supply and sell intoxicating liquor to Bantu servants in any building or room forming part of the compound or hostel maintained by the Administration for the accommodation of its Bantu servants. So you can only sell to Bantu and not to other non-White groups, and sub-section (b) deals with the brewing of Bantu beer required for sale to Bantu servants, and not to any other servants. All these sub-sections in the clause deal with the sale to Bantu and I therefore think it is wrong for the profits on the sale of liquor in terms of this clause to be applied for the benefit of the other non-White groups. I ask the Minister to go into that question again, and if he agrees with my interpretation to amend this clause before it goes to the Other Place so as to ensure that only the Bantu will get the benefit of the profits of the sale of liquor, because in terms of this clause it can only be sold to Bantu.

I have gone into that matter. It is unnecessary to amend the Act, because the Benevolent Fund deals with all non-White servants, but a directive from the Minister can be given that those profits must only be applied for the benefit of the Bantu, and that is what I intend doing. In other words, the profit made from the sale of intoxicating liquor to the Bantu servants will only be used for the benefit of the Bantu, and that directive will be given.

Then why are the words “non-Europeans” used?

The law advisers wanted it that way.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

This is the clause which provides for the limitation of actions against the Railways and the period of four months is laid down. If you do not bring your action four months after the cause of action arose, then you are debarred from doing so. But two exceptions were provided in the Act as it is now. If you can show that the Administration is in no way prejudiced by reason of the failure to lodge a claim within that time, or if you can show that having regard to special circumstances the claimant could not reasonably be expected to lodge such claim within that period, the court could grant an indulgence and allow the claim to be prosecuted. Now it is proposed to substitute the word “or” for “and”, so that before a person can get around this period of four months he now has to prove both these things. Now, the intention of the original Act was that it was considered to be reasonable that a man would be able to determine his claim within four months after the cause of action arose, but having regard to the fact that you cannot make a rule about causes of action, and when one would reasonably be in a position to prosecute such a claim, this let-out is provided in the Act. If this amendment is in fact passed it means that the dominating factor will now be the convenience of the Railway Administration. It then comes down to this, that if the court finds that in fact a person could not reasonably have brought his claim within four months, it indicates that that is precisely the sort of claim which the Legislature did not intend to fall within the limitation contained in the main provision. What it comes down to then is that you have the right of the individual on the one hand, which you could not have been expected to prosecute within four months, and you have the machinery of the Administration on the other hand. There are a number of cases which could arise. Take the case of a subsidence near a railway property, where railway property abuts on private property, and you have a subsidence on the railway property which causes damage to a building on the private property next door. That is the sort of thing that happens in our courts every day. Almost invariably it is impossible to determine whether a subsidence has occurred, or having discovered that it has occurred, it is almost impossible to discover for many months, usually more than four months, exactly what the extent of the damage is that has been caused. In those cases it means that if the Administration might be embarrassed or finds it a little more difficult to defend the claim made against it, the individual loses his rights. I want to ask the Minister to give very careful consideration to this clause, and I hope that when he introduces it in the Other Place, before doing so he will ask his legal advisers to look into this matter and perhaps to drop this clause, because it means in effect that the individual is now to be prejudiced because of the mere convenience of the Administration, and in cases where the individual could not reasonably be expected to know whether he has a cause of action to prosecute within the prescribed period.

The cases quoted by the hon. member can happen, but in practice it seldom happens that such a matter is taken to court. The Administration usually endeavours to satisfy its customers, and it pays out claims, and it very often gives the claimant the benefit of the doubt. But it does happen, of course, that a claim might be lodged in regard to something which was lost on the railways, after a period of a year or two, when the consignment notes had been destroyed and the servant responsible might have left the service, and then the Administration is in no position at all to defend that claim, although it might have a perfectly good defence. This is merely a safeguard for the Administration, but in practice claims are usually settled out of court. I don’t think the hon. member can quote any case which was taken to court, because the Administration tries to satisfy its customers and we usually give the customer the benefit of the doubt, so in practice this will not be any hardship to any claimant at all, but it only covers the Administration in the isolated case where it might be prejudiced.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

This clause deals with the employment of foreigners by the Railways. This clause terminates the preference formerly enjoyed by citizens of Commonwealth countries over other foreigners in regard to employment by the Railway Administration. We are told that this is a reciprocal arrangement introduced by virtue of the fact that similar legislation has been passed in other countries in regard to citizenship. I know that in Britain the Act passed a few days ago has fixed exactly the same terminal date as is fixed in this clause, namely the end of 1965. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us whether such corresponding or complementary legislation has actually been passed in all the other countries to which this clause refers.

Not asfar as I am aware.

This clause deals also with citizens of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the Republic of Ireland, and safeguards the employment conditions of servants of the Administration who come from those countries, and who prefer to go on working until January 1966. Presumably this is done because in Britain anyone who had dual citizenship, South African and British, is protected until the end of 1965 by which time they must make their choice. I wonder why the Minister finds it necessary to include all these countries under one umbrella just because the United Kingdom has passed legislation. Why, for instance, should the Republic of Ireland be included? Why should citizens of the Republic of Ireland not enjoy the same rights they have enjoyed hitherto? There has been no change, through our becoming a Republic, in the relationship between our country and Ireland, and I think that generosity should be shown by us in this regard. We do not know yet what countries like Australia and Canada will do in regard to our citizenship. They may well leave the situation as it stands. I hope the Minister will, if necessary, bring in another amendment to this Bill to put it on all fours with what other countries do. The terms of this clause also include a reference to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Surely we stand in a very special relationship to the citizens of Rhodesia. Is it necessary, if Rhodesians are in our Railway employ, to fix the same terminal date as was fixed by Britain in relation to South Africans in State employ in the United Kingdom? Surely there is an historical connection between Rhodesia and ourselves. The Rhodesian citizens might well be excluded. We need not consider them to be foreigners. After all, we may in future have very intimate connections with Rhodesia and with the Rhodesian Railways. Perhaps we will combine to build the Beit Bridge connection to the North. I think this clause was hastily thought out, perhaps through no fault of the Minister. Piecemeal legislation relating to mutual citizenship laws should not be passed. The Minister has probably just followed the advice of his law advisers, without considering whether Rhodesian citizens should not be treated differently. I wonder whether the Minister will consider these facts before the terminal date comes along. I do not want to cause inconvenience to people who are of value to the Railways and who in some cases, like the Rhodesians, have had lengthy connections with this country.

I wonder whether the Minister will also explain one other point. The clause deals with the various categories of Railway servants and the qualifying date is 1 January 1966. How will this legislation affect the officer or employee in the Railways who has had 20 years’ service and in the normal way of advancement would be due for promotion some time subsequent to 1966? He falls within the category of people mentioned here as being citizens of other states. But he is a permanent official of the Railways who is in every other way qualified for promotion. Will he now suffer a bar in his promotion when he arrives at that date, and have to mark time there, or will he be allowed to continue in the normal manner and to get promotion as he would have done if this situation had not arisen, as the result of the change in the Constitution?

It would of course be a barrier to promotion after 1966, but any servant in the employ of the Administration who is not a South African citizen will have ample opportunity between now and 1966 to become a South African citizen, and if he fails to become a South African citizen he must suffer the consequence. That happens in any country.

What about Rhodesia?

It includes Rhodesia, too. All these countries are treated on the same basis. The hon. member should really direct his arguments to the Government when the Citizenship Act is under discussion. I am merely bringing this Bill into line with the Citizenship Act which will be introduced. The Minister of External Affairs said only two days ago that it will be introduced, and this is merely to bring it into line with that, and the operative date is 1966. But any citizen of any of the Commonwealth countries, which includes the Republic of Ireland and the Federation of Rhodesia, has the opportunity before 1.966 of becoming a South African citizen. What I am doing now is to protect them for the next five or six years, or at least three and a half years. In other words, I am giving them the opportunity of continuing in the service of the Administration, and of becoming South African citizens. Of course, after that date we will still be in the position to employ people from other countries, even from the Commonwealth, on contract, as we have done in the past, without appointing them to temporary or permanent posts. We can employ them on contract, as we have frequently done with engineers, but if they want temporary or permanent employment they will have to become South African citizens before that date.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

When the debate was adjourned, the hon. the Minister gave us a very broad outline of the economic position of the country as he saw it. One would like to feel that his prophecies are likely to come true, but one could not help feeling that whilst the hon. the Minister took the credit for his Government for the satisfactory state of affairs that existed, one’s mind dwelt on the fortuitous events that have taken place since the Nationalist Party has been in power, and which have helped to bring the country to this satisfactory situation. It has been said that whenever South Africa is in trouble, some miracle seems to crop up to save us. If we think back to 1949 when, in contrast to the prosperous state the previous Government of that time had left the country in, it was the fortuitous circumstance of devaluation which saved this country from bankruptcy. After the devaluation of our currency had taken place, and the inflationary effects were being felt, we then had the fortuitous discovery of the Orange Free State goldfields and the development of the West Witwatersrand area, which trebled our gold production … [Interjections.] After this event had taken place and the beneficial effects of that discovery were beginning to wear off, we had the discovery of uranium, and that all helped considerably. We then had the state of prosperity that was brought on by the closing of the Suez Canal and the Korean War, and that was followed by the discovery of gold in the Eastern Transvaal. I say that it is in spite of the Government—and not because of the Government—that we find ourselves in the situation that the Minister has described as far as the economic development of this country is concerned. But, Sir, if the Minister’s summary is correct, why is it that he is unable at this stage to lift currency control; why is it that he is not able to alleviate the position as far as import control is concerned and thus bring about a more healthy state as far as the economy of this country is concerned? When the Minister refers to the globular sums which are tied up in capital savings in this country and also foreign reserves, I want to cross swords with him and say that the fact that there is so much capital tied up in private savings is not a healthy situation as far as the economy of the country is concerned. That money should not be tied up in savings, but should be distributed in the private sector in industry and in commerce and be used for further development and progress. That state of affairs, where all this huge capital is tied up in savings, is in my submission an unhealthy state of affairs. If the hon. the Minister felt so sure about the economic possibilities of this country, why did he not enlarge and expound still further on the “five-year plan” to which he made reference last year? Since he enunciated that policy of a five-year plan, we have heard nothing more about it at all. One had hoped that in his statement last week the Minister would have gone into great detail setting out this five-year plan, so that the public of this country could prepare themselves for further development and fit in their business plans and industrial development accordingly. I would like to ask the Minister if he has abandoned that five-year plan, or whether it is his intention to take it still further.

Just quote to me where I ever talked about a five-year plan.

I believe the Minister did so in his statement to the Federated Chamber of Industries last year. As far as the economy of this country is concerned, the Minister also finds himself on very unsafe ground because of the uncertainty that exists in the minds of industrialists in view of the Government’s policy with regard to the development of industries on the borders of the Native areas. I say that one of the reasons why there is this static condition in industry to-day, is this very uncertainty in the minds of industrialists. When the Minister referred to industrial development the other day. hon. members opposite made reference all along mainly to our public utility industrial undertakings, and the development and expansion that lie ahead as far as those industries are concerned; but there was very little reference to, and very little proof given to this House of industrial development by the private sector as such. I submit that there is great uncertainty in the minds of industrialists to-day in connection with the policy of the development of industries on the borders of the Native reserves. Let me say that this phantom scheme that has been envisaged, and into which industry is apparently expected to fit, in some sort of jigsaw scheme, is nothing but a pipe-dream that will never be realized. But in fostering and forcing this scheme at the expense of existing developed areas on the Witwatersrand and elsewhere, we are doing our economy considerable harm. I wish I was able to do what the hon. the Prime Minister seems to be able to do so easily, as far as the economy of this country is concerned, and that is to fragment it in whichever way he thinks it should be fragmented in order to fit into this policy of shifting the Bantu population to the Native reserves. This canker which he is now introducing into the South African economy is going to spread, and as it spreads it is likely to bring about the consumption of its host, that is to say, the South African economy as such. Just to take these industries to the borders of the reserves simply because the reserves are there, is a totally wrong conception as to how a country’s economy should be developed: it just will not work, and in the end that project will have to be abandoned. But in the meantime the areas which should be industrially developed, namely the Witwatersrand and other areas, will find themselves in a most unhappy situation. Sir, one of the basic tenets on which this development of industries on the borders of the Native reserves is based, is to maintain a low wage structure in order to encourage industrialists to go along to those areas. When we realize that the Government is giving the assurance to industrialists who are prepared for go to those areas that there will be a maintenance of this wage differentiation—possibly for all time—otherwise why should industrialists take the risk of going to the borders of the reserves—then we can rightly say that this is a criminal act on the part of the Government as far as the economy of this country is concerned. I think it would be just as well that the public should be made aware of the attractive incentives which are being offered to industrialists to go out to these areas, in competition with well-established areas. The following are the incentives which are being offered: the granting of assistance in providing basic services such as power, water and transport; providing houses for White workers; granting higher depreciation allowances for factory buildings and plant; adding to the capital depreciation costs, the expense of transferring the factory to a border area; compensating the entrepreneurs up to a maximum of 75 per cent of the difference between the cost of establishing his factory in a border area and its sale value in the open market; constructing and leasing factory buildings; the Government is prepared to construct and lease factory buildings in order to induce people to go out to these areas; making concessions to industrialists in railway tariffs—and here we recently had the appointment of a railway commission with the specific instruction to see how it can reduce railway rates to fit in with industrial development on the borders of the Native reserves—next, maintaining the principle of wage differentiation in border areas in so far as this is justified by factors such as the lower productivity of labour and the lower cost of living in these areas. Sir, if all these incentives are being offered simply for the purpose of giving effect to an ideological policy, we feel that similar facilities should be made available to those other areas where you have all the potentialities available, such as water, light, power, roads, housing and everything else. Sir, in the Digest of South African Affairs of April 1962 the Government issued a statement to the effect that there are applications for industries on the borders still under consideration involving a total investment of approximately R12,000,000 for the employment of not more than 900 Bantu. If you have to invest R12,000,000 to employ 900 Bantu—and in terms of the report of the Tomlinson Commission it was stated that it would be necessary to employ 30,000 Bantu a year for 10 years, in order to make up for the natural growth of the Bantu population in the reserves—then you will have to have a capital investment of approximately R400,000,000 a year in order to maintain this particular rate of advance. My question is whether the people of South Africa are prepared to invest approximately R400,000,000 a year in order to speculate on a scheme which, in my opinion, will not prove a success. If I am right in that connection, I would like to ask the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Cruywagen) whether he can stand up in this House … [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down incidentally raised the same subject which I wanted to raise, but I am afraid his speech has landed me into difficulties, because the way he has tackled it has done more harm than good to the matter which I wanted to plead. I also want to plead for the Witwatersrand in the new set-up, but I just want to ask the hon. member please not to raise this matter again, because in the way he is carrying on he is doing the matter more harm than good. Mr. Chairman, you would say that if the United Party had been in power gold would not have been discovered in the Free State; uranium would not have been mined; there would not have been a war in Korea and the Suez Canal would not have been closed. All those things are simply due to the fact that the National Party Government is in power, and we have been saved by “miracles”, the one after the other. What a stupid argument!

I think the development of the border areas as a separate industrial area was certainly not welcomed originally by organized industry, but to-day there are statements and proof to the effect that organized industry accept that development.

Quote.

I will quote it; I have not got it with me, because I entered the debate too soon after that hon. member, but I will show it to him. The hon. member should accept it, therefore, that organized industry is prepared to cooperate. We have the new position, therefore, that organized industry is prepared, as is the case in all modern industrial countries in the world, to cooperate in order to bring decentralization of industries about, as is also being done in America and Britain and in various other countries, for other reasons, but it is exactly the same thing.

I definitely wish to plead for the Rand, but I want to approach it from another angle. For many years the gold-mining industry and the agricultural industry have been the two corner stones of our economy. Last year those two jointly still contributed 27.6 per cent of the national income, but the contributions by the manufacturing industry have gradually increased more and more, and only last year this new branch of our economy already contributed 23.4 per cent of our total national income. As regards being a source of employment, the mines originally also played a very important role, and they were the biggest single employers in the Republic, but the situation has changed in such a way, according to the figures which are available to me, that last year, as compared with more or less the 411,000 employees in all the mines (all races included), there were almost 782,000 in the manufacturing industry. In that field as well, therefore, the mining industry has been ousted by the manufacturing industry. There has been tremendous development in the manufacturing industry. According to the latest industrial census, there are 13,532 industries at the moment with an annual wage bill of R571,720,000,000. We are aware of the tremendous development which is taking place to-day in the industrial field; we are aware of the fact that specific attempts are made, and that large sums of capital are invested in various directions in the industrial field; that the capital of State undertakings is getting stronger and that those undertakings are developing in new directions, and that existing institutions, existing utility companies, due to the investment of large amounts of fresh capital, are giving fresh stimulation to our industries as such. We are, moreover, aware of the fact that the textile industry, the iron and steel industry, the chemical industry, the motor and tractor industries, etc., will probably in future be the biggest contributors, and will continue to grow tremendously. We are also in favour of decentralization, because we know that there will otherwise be too great a concentration of Bantu in the urban areas and, secondly, that a shortage of electricity and water will probably develop in those areas. We also accept the policy of border area development and agree that that development is necessary if we want to solve our country’s problems. We agree with all these things, but we realize at the same time that this development as such favours certain areas. The border area industrial development shows clearly that there will be great development in the vicinity of Pinetown, Hammersdale, New Germany, Mooi River, Estcourt, Ladysmith, Colenso, East London, Palaborwa and north of Pretoria. We are also aware of it that certain growing points in the White area will be stimulated by an injection of new capital, and that again will benefit places such as Pretoria, Vanderbijlpark and the third Iscor, wherever that may be sited. Sasol will be given a new injection in the way of increased capital from the State; Newcastle will grow as a result of the development of Amcor and the production of cast iron. But nowhere in this whole picture which we accept 100 per cent, where the State takes the initiative and acts as the stimulating force, does the Rand appear at all. I am not asking that the one area should be considered at the expense of the other, but we should observe the old saying that we should do the one thing, but not omit to do the other. Let there be industrial development on the borders of the Bantu areas, but do not let us neglect the Rand. Let me put it this way: I think it will reassure many people if the hon. the Minister were to make a statement to the effect that the State is desirous that certain industries, particularly those who employ a high percentage of non-Whites, should move to the border areas, not all industries as is sometimes incorrectly alleged; that industries employing a high percentage of White labour should continue to remain in the White areas and develop there. I want to plead for the Rand for this specific reason: For many years the Rand has been one of the main sources of income to the State in the shape of its gold mines, in the days of the Transvaal Republic the Rand with its gold mines had already solved the financial problems of the Republic. The goldmining industry remains one of the biggest taxpayers. I have certain figures here which I want to give to the House. During the past four years the normal gold-mining industry taxation, the licences and mynpachtis going to happen to industry in this area?

But there is another matter that I want to talk about this afternoon. I would like to make a plea for a section of our industry which is going through a very bad time. I refer to some 3,500 retail petrol re-sellers. These retail petrol re-sellers have noted with alarm the imposition of 1 cent per gallon customs and excise duty on petrol. The feature which causes the motor trade or the petrol re-seller concern is the fact that with each increase in the basic price, his so-called mark-up or margin of profit decreases. This is due to the fact that the petrol re-sellers’ margin of profit is pegged by the Price Controller at 3 cents per gallon. While I am prepared to accept that most hon. members in this House are fully aware of the contribution which the motor industry makes to the economy of the country, I believe that the following data bear repetition. In reply to a question which I put on the Order Paper on 4 May, I was informed that the customs duty on petrol for the year 1961-2 was R39,136,360, on diesel fuel R4,205,068, on all motor vehicles R3,328,949, on unassembled motorcars R1,906,485. Excise duty on motor-cars R15,079,613, on petrol R16,211,408, on diesel fuel R1,751,826, and on tyres and tubes R1,654,628. It will be seen therefore that the motor industry itself makes a very substantial contribution to the revenue of this country. In addition to that it is also a substantial employer of labour. At the moment it employs about 100,000 workers, and if the hon. the Minister’s policy of stimulating the local manufacture of automotive parts succeeds—and I have no hesitation in saying that we all hope that it will succeed—the motor industry will in the future play an even more important part in the economy of this country. But we find that a large proportion of the employers in the motor industry are fighting a losing battle against over-trading, which has been so evident in the industry since 1951 when the system of marketing fuels was changed. They are also faced with rising overhead costs in the shape of labour costs, rents and power, and decreased earnings as the result of over-trading. The statistics released by the Director of Census and Statistics on 18 February 1960, reveal that during the year 1958-9 2,120 incorporated service stations, that is to say, stations operated by owner-employer, showed a loss of £366 per annum after an allowance of £1,000 per proprietor had been made for his services. We know that these small one-man service stations work something like 16 hours a day, and some of them operate for 24 hours a day, for a mere £634 per annum. I doubt whether there is any other sector of the economy in which private entrepreneurs have to operate under such conditions. There is a mistaken belief that these magnificant service stations that you see built all over the country constitute evidence of a flourishing trade. The vast majority of these stations are not owned by the trader but by the oil companies who erect them. I think this Committee is entitled to know that whereas other sectors of the economy have been permitted to adjust their prices in accordance with the rising cost structure so as to ensure for them a reasonable return on labour and capital, this facility has never been extended to the motor trade. I have some figures here which I would like to quote to the Committee. In 1938 bacon was sold at 10.1 cents per lb. and in May 1961 at 28.6 cents per lb.; butter was sold in 1938 at 13.9 cents per lb. and to-day it is sold at 31.6 cents per lb. One could go on quoting examples of essential commodities the prices of which the dealers have been allowed to increase, to meet the rising costs of labour and other charges. You will notice that most of these prices have risen by 100 per cent and in some cases by 300 per cent to 400 per cent. But during this same period the price of petrol at the principal coastal centres has gone up from 13.3 cents to 30 cents per gallon. The significant factor, however, is that customs and excise duties have been increased from 5 cents to 13.083 cents per gallon, and railage from the coastal centres to the Reef, for example, from 3.3 cents to 7.5 cents per gallon, whereas the mark-up of the petrol re-seller has only been increased from 2.5 cents to 3 cents, which has actually resulted in a percentage decrease of practically 100 per cent due to the increased basic price. In 1939 the retailer’s mark-up was 17.6 per cent and to-day it is 8.8 per cent. I feel sure that members who have had experience of conducting businesses would not like to operate on such a precarious gross profit margin of 8.8 per cent. Sir, what is the cure? I say there is no immediate cure. I understand that the Government is going to Table some form of a rationalization scheme that has been brought about between the Government and the oil companies, but it will take about 10 years for the industry really to feel the effects of this scheme. In addition to that, the industry, in the platteland in particular, has the competition of the cooperative societies and of the general dealer “points” which we know as“C.O.C. points”. I would like to suggest that the Minister should give very serious consideration, if he is not prepared to allow an increase at this stage in the mark up, to releasing the retail price of petrol from control. Accept the fact that there is over-trading in this industry; let the industry by competition find its own level. We have had experience in the past when oil, tyres, etc., were released from price control, the trade did not go mad. The Minister has the power to reimpose control overnight. [Time limit.]

I think we all accept the fact that the motor industry is an important industry, but the plea which the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) has just delivered amounts to this that in principle he is asking for an increase in the price of petrol or that the control of petrol should be abolished. I think as far as the abolition of the control of petrol is concerned, we cannot at this stage agree with the hon. member, because petrol is supplied by only a few companies; there are, therefore, strong monopolistic conditions which operate against the possibility of cooperation and I do not think it will be in the interests of the country as a whole to abolish the price control of petrol at this stage. I wish to point out, however, that during recent years the margin of profit in the case of petrol has been increased; that was done at the time of the conversion to decimalization and also before then. I think the profit of the retailer is 3c at the moment, and the big companies which supply the petrol also grant the retailer a certain amount per gallon. The margin of profit is, therefore, big enough. The loss which dealers suffer is apparently in connection with the other services which the garages give and I cannot see why the price of petrol should be increased to off-set the narrow margin of profit which is made in other directions. It is indeed true that there is overtrading and over-trading in the motor trade is one of the main factors which makes the general profits so low. That is precisely why there have been discussions between the motor traders’ associations and the petrol companies to ensure that the number of garages is limited and a certain amount of agreement has been arrived at with the big companies. The number of filling stations has decreased to some extent over the last year and we hope that tendency will grow. One of the accepted principles is that where a garage goes insolvent the petrol companies should not assist such a garage. You also have the position that when the motor trade complains they insist upon it that those garages which have gone insolvent should not be assisted, but when there are such insolvencies they use the same argument and say: “Look at the number of insolvencies; look how we are struggling, you must increase the price of petrol.” They want it both ways. I can assure the hon. member, however, that the whole question of the margin of profit on petrol is investigated by the Department from time to time, but so far not a strong enough case has been made out for an increase in the margin of profit on petrol.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) made a plea in connection with crayfish quotas. He pointed out that during recent years the global crayfish quotas have not been increased and that no new quotas have been granted over a number of years. That is quite correct. One of the important factors in this regard is that our crayfish beds have become depleted. There is irrefutable proof of that and that is why it is very difficult to grant new crayfish quotas. As a result of the decline in the supply of crayfish and because we have to protect this valuable source, further steps have even been taken to do so. To dive for crayfish has been prohibited as from April this year; for the first time August and September have been declared a closed season; that is the breeding period. We have also come to an agreement with the various companies that have their big crayfish quotas reduced. The basic amount of crayfish that could be exported per annum was 365,000 boxes of 10 lbs. each; that was reduced by 7½ per cent in 1961 and by 10 per cent this year, and it would have continued like that until it reached 15 per cent in 1964. That was done for the very reason that our supply of crayfish had decreased, and viewed against this background, therefore, it has been extremely difficult to grant new crayfish quotas. On the other hand it was found over the years that tremendous pressure was exerted to have crayfish quotas granted to new applicants. There are approximately 50 different applicants. Viewed against this background and in view of those difficulties we have tried to see our way clear to grant a small quota to certain people who have been in the industry for years. With the view to the necessity to protect the industry and to reduce the over-all amount which is exported annually, that has been extremely difficult. The claims of those people who had a right to claim a quota were thoroughly investigated; we negotiated with SAFROC, or those who already had quotas, because it is extremely difficult, of course, to interfere with existing concerns, because they belong to the shareholders and you have to take the boats into account, and the fishermen who are concerned with the various existing quotas. However. I am pleased to be able to announce that we have found a preliminary basis after consultation with the interested bodies and we will now allocate a number of quotas. This has been referred for investigation to Viskor and after consultation with the Department of Sea Fisheries they will submit recommendations to the Department. They have already started those investigations and I trust that this extremely difficult matter will shortly be settled satisfactorily. You will indeed appreciate, Sir, that where the quotas have to be limited and where we have to protect the industry, it will not be possible to satisfy all applicants. I envisage that many will be disappointed, but we will do what we can within all possible limits to grant quotas to and to make certain provision for certain applicants who do not have a quota at the moment but who have already been in the crayfish industry for a long time.

The hon. member also referred to the mouth of the Berg River. As a matter of fact we are investigating that; in other words, the clearing of the mouth of that river. That is being done by the University of Stellenbosch. Unfortunately the report is not yet available but as soon as it is we will be able to judge whether further steps should be taken. If it appears that the report is unfavourable it will certainly be necessary to investigate the vicinity with a view to alternative harbour facilities, which was indeed what the hon. member pleaded for.

The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché) spoke about generating electricity at the Orange River scheme. The entire Orange River scheme is only in its initial stages but Escom is already discussing the whole matter and is trying to determine the force of the water at various specific points in an attempt to ascertain how much electricity can be generated. As far as the southern Free State is concerned, the Electricity Control Board agreed in December 1961 that the Electricity Supply Company in the southern Free State which gets its power from the Bloemfontein Municipality, should continue to supply electricity to the towns of Reddersburg, Edenburg, Tromps-burg, Springfontein, Bethulie and Philippolis and hydro-electric power can very easily be incorporated into this system. We also have the areas from Aliwal as far as Hopetown and Port Elizabeth and East London, areas which are served separately by Escom, but it is even possible that electricity may be supplied to those areas from the Orange scheme. The hon. member for Smithfield may rest assured that as far as provision of electricity to that whole area is concerned, it will in due course be properly planned; we will try to make the supply from this hydro-electric scheme as widespread as possible.

When the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) was speaking, the hon. the Minister looked up with great surprise and said: “Where did I ever speak of a five-year plan for industries?” Mr. Chair-main, last year the hon. the Minister spoke at a very good dinner of the Federated Chambers of Industries in Johannesburg, where I was present also, and here are the words he used—

He then added—

Then he added this—

He also asked that steps should be suggested in order to achieve those objectives. If that is not a five-year plan then I do not know what is. I have already heard of an economic czar in China or an economic czar in Moscow whose five-year plan failed, but this is the first time I have ever heard of an economic czar who had forgotten about his five-year plan. I admit it was a very fine dinner, but if I can remember the hon. the Minister’s words, he should do so too. Perhaps we should come to the conclusion that the hon. the Minister suffered from a loss of ghostwriter’s memory.

I should like to come to another matter. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in all earnestness what he contemplates doing in connection with the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Fertilizer Industry that was tabled this year, a committee he appointed last year. I wish to know what he is going to do about the disturbing state of affairs in the fertilizer industry, as well as in connection with the equally ominous recommendations made in this report. This is another Viljoen Commission Report, but it does not compare favourably with the previous one. This Committee found that there is a monopolistic or an oligopolistic state of affairs in the fertilizer industry in South Africa. Instead of making recommendations to combat and to change that monopolistic cartel state of affairs, this report now actually makes recommendations to strengthen that monopoly still further, which can only result in higher prices for the farmers as regards fertilizer, and that in comparison with modern developments overseas, a fertilizer of poorer quality shall be made available to the farmers of South Africa.

This Committee found that there is such a monopoly in fact. Let me read what paragraph 273 says. This is what this Committee found—is not a recommendation, but a finding—in connection with this monopolistic state of affairs—

In other words, this cartel may contribute to keeping new methods and new mixtures out of South Africa. That is a monopoly. There are, for instance, only two large companies in South Africa to-day who manufacture superphosphate, and only one large one that manufactures urea. There are only three altogether that handle 87 per cent of the mixtures. And that is not all. On this Committee there were representatives of the great monopolies, and they even came along with further demands. According to paragraph 270, they suggested that there should be a quota system among those few companies. In paragraph 270 this is said:

That was a recommendation of organized industry. It is a clear indication of a monopolistic situation they desire where competition would be deliberately stifled, simply in order to keep prices high for the farmer and so as to get a stifling hold on production in South Africa.

Are you speaking as a farmer?

No, I am not speaking as a farmer myself, but I can give the hon. member the assurance that on Saturday I was at two meetings in Western Transvaal, and I wish the hon. member could have heard what the farmers there said about the maize price. The position actually is much worse than that when I look at the recommendations of this Committee. Why did the Committee suppress certain things? Why did the Committee not mention the deliberate attempts that are being made to keep a newer and better and cheaper process, and a more effective process, for the manufacture of fertilizer out of the country, a process that has captured 50 to 60 per cent of some of the countries of Western Europe, and is being applied successfully there? Why are the farmers not told what the true position is in the industry? Here is a paragraph in the Report in which the true state of affairs comes to light, at page 6, where the Committee says:

What is the reason? R56,000,000 of big capital is invested in the production of certain of these fertilizers that are of an inferior quality at the present time. Sasol also produces a great quantity of ammonium sulphate, which to-day is the great source of nitrogen, and Sasol has to be protected under this. Many of those big companies have also asked that there should be a quota control of the product of Phalaborwa so that they can get some of it, and all the new processes can be eliminated. Mr. Chairman, the recommendations of that Committee are shocking indeed. Not only do they refuse, to say that that monopoly should be opposed, but they even come along and say that further restrictions on imports should be imposed, in paragraphs 310 and 311. In paragraph 311 they say for instance—

What are you advocating? Additional companies?

I shall tell you. The disadvantages of this system are these. The Committee now also demands further control over distribution. They even claim a sales syndicate in paragraph 306 of this report. The disadvantages of this oligopoly, as they call it, is that we are lagging behind the rest of the world and that we are thwarting good food production in our country. Under the existing system we are still importing 770,000 tons of basic materials. You would not have to import many of those basic materials if some of the new processes were allowed in South Africa. That simply means farmers have to pay a higher price for fertilizer. However, if a stop is put to this monopoly, there is a possibility of our saving large amounts of currency at present being used for the importation of those basic products. It is possible also that a better product may be produced, in other words, that cheaper and better fertilizer will be made available, more concentrated fertilizer on which less freight will have to be paid. These are all matters to which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs should devote his attention. For the new products export markets could also be found in the rest of the world, whereas with the present product that cannot be done on that scale.

Let me suggest to the hon. the Minister what he could and should do. Firstly, he should reject the recommendations that would strengthen the oligopoly. Secondly, I wish to suggest to him to have an inquiry made under the Act on monopolies as soon as possible in regard to these allegations concerning a monopoly in the manufacture of fertilizer at the present time. And let him, moreover, give effect to what is asked in paragraph 168—

[Time limit.]

I had the opportunity of studying the report of the C.S.I.R. and I think all praise is due to the Department and that it deserves the gratitude of this House for the good work it is doing. I, however, want to plead this afternoon for further investigation into the use of agricultural implements, for an investigation from which we will be able to learn more about agricultural implements and so make that knowledge available to the farmer in South Africa, in co-operation with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

When you travel through the Republic of South Africa and you go to the farms, Sir, you see millions of rands’ worth of agricultural implements lying about in a rusted condition, agricultural implements which have not become worn out in the service of agriculture, but implements which were injudiciously acquired by the farmers. They were acquired injudiciously as a result of the lack of guidance as far as the acquisition of agricultural implements is concerned. We are grateful for the services which are being rendered and for the work which the South African Bureau of Standards is doing to test the quality. But what we really require in South Africa is proper research into the effectiveness of implements, agricultural implements which are adaptable to the agricultural conditions prevailing in South Africa. When you study the report of the S.C.I.R., Sir, you will notice with gratitude that guidance is given to various provincial administrations and even to private organizations in respect of the granting of tenders for certain implements required for road construction or other purposes. I think that is very necessary because that has a direct bearing on production costs in South Africa. The guidance in respect of the acquisition of agricultural implements should not only be aimed at the effectiveness of those implements themselves, but should also be aimed at retaining the fertility of the soil. The implements which are acquired should be such that they do not destroy the fertility of the soil. I want to make a strong plea this afternoon that that should be done on the one hand and one the other hand that the Minister’s Department should conduct further research in the interests of the agricultural industry and provide us with further guidance so that there will be less injudicious buying. Secondly, I wish to plead and say that if necessary we should, as far as our international trade agreements allow us, take drastic steps in this country in order to protect the farmers against the variety of tractors and agricultural implements which enter South Africa or which are manufactured locally; there are far too many makes. I want to plead for the standardization of agricultural implements and tractors. I think the time has arrived that we do not accede to the whims of every person who wants to buy a different make of tractor. Just think of the agencies in South Africa who have to stock spare parts for the great variety of tractors which are used in South Africa. Millions and millions of rands’ worth of spares are lying on the shelves, interest-free, useless. They have to be there just in case somebody who uses a certain make of tractor may require a spare part. But it may lie there for years and years. I want to plead for an investigation into the desirability and the possibility of making a national tractor in South Africa, a tractor which is adapted to the requirements of the South African farmer, a standardized tractor—three types, a heavy, medium and light type. I plead for that because I believe it will be in the interests of the country and in the interests of the agricultural industry to standardize the tractive power which we use, the mechanical tractive power.

I do not intend to follow the hon. member who has just spoken, but I want to come back to the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder). One can’t blame him for living in the Utopia of good things that the hon. the Minister has described to this Committee. The hon. member managed to find a figure of wages paid out by secondary industry about ten times bigger than the gross national income of South Africa. I don’t know whether that is merely a reflection of the Minister’s wonderful Utopia, or whether it is an indication of what happens when you get people interfering in fields which perhaps are not quite as close to them as they might be. Of course the hon. member did not only make a mistake there. He went on to talk of decentralization and border industries as though they were one and the same thing. Mr. Chairman, they are not at all one and the same thing, and the hon. member would know it if he were interested in economy instead of politics. The hon. member comes here and talks of industries, organized industry, supporting the idea of border industries, and I challenge him to produce to this House one single occasion on which organized industry has supported border industries. I am not talking about decentralization, which both sides of the House support, but I am speaking of border industries in terms of this Government’s policy where it is not the economics which matter but where it is the political advantage or the political plan which is going to determine where those industries are to be sited.

However, I want to come back to two matters, and the first is in connection with the hotel industry in South Africa. I don’t intend to repeat the plea which I made last year to the hon. the Minister; that stands on record and the position this year, a year later, is if anything even worse than it was a year ago. Many hotels are being forced to close or are struggling against increasing odds and finding it more and more difficult to survive. The hon. the Minister last year made a tentative offer of a full investigation into the industry. This year he said that he would not have time for that commission of investigation to be appointed. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot reconsider that, to work in with the steps which the industry itself is taking to try to put its own house in order. He will be aware that there was a conference only last week at which decisions were taken by the Federated Hotel Association, far-reaching decisions in regard to their own future. I would ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to reconsider his decision that he will not appoint a commission this year, or in the near future.

The other point to which I wish to refer is that of import control. The hon. the Minister said that it was not possible to relax import control, yet there have been various statements, one on 14 March, two months ago, which gave the impression that it was to-day a comparatively easy matter to get permits and to get import quotas. Now I would like to say that there are many people who are not finding it such an easy matter. I will admit that the long-established businesses, the bigger businesses, are able to meet their requirements fairly fully. But a tremendous hardship is being created, not necessarily in the end-result, but in the difficulty in obtaining finalization of applications. I want to pay a tribute to an overworked staff who are not able to handle the volume of work which passes through their hands. I think the Minister must agree with me that the staff which has had to handle the problems of import control over the last year or more have not been sufficient for the volume of work. It has created a tremendous physical strain and has led to delays in the handling of the work which they should have handled. Another matter is the position of the acting director. The acting director has been acting in that capacity now, under very, very difficult conditions, at a time when that department has been loaded as it has not been loaded for many years, and yet he remains in an acting position and is not appointed to the full post which he is holding down, and I believe holding down, successfully. A job which I believe he is holding down with success. I think not only does the staff deserve recognition for what they have done but the acting head of that Department deserves recognition for the task which he has performed. That recognition should be in the form of confirmation in the position which he holds. But those steps alone are not going to eliminate all the hardships, Sir, because there are delays of anything up to two or three months before finalization can be reached in regard to applications. During that period smaller and particularly growing businesses are suffering. It does not happen in the case of every application but many applications take longer than that period. The Minister says he wsants to help those businesses which are growing. In March he allowed a special additional permit for businesses which could show that they had increased their turnover. But it is the practical application of these policies to the persons who are going to be affected by them with which I am concerned. I have had people coming to me over and over again—and I am sure the Minister is aware of those cases which I have brought to his attention myself—cases where people have been in difficulty. For every one case which comes to the attention of the Minister there are dozens of other cases which do not reach the stage where they are brought to his personal attention or the personal attention of the director. In those cases, during the period of indecision, harm is done to the business. For instance at the Annual General Meeting of the Textile Wholesale Association last month here in Cape Town a very strong plea was made by the Chairman of that association for special consideration. He made very clear the tremendous hardship which was being suffered by specialist textile wholesalers. I have raised the matter with the Minister and with the Director and they have said it was not possible to make special arrangements for these people. The practical result is that profits are dropping and people are put out of work because there is a decline in business. For all the general, over-all, global figures, the fact that matters to the man who is out of work is the fact that he cannot get a job. It does not help to say how wonderful everything is in the garden if you are trying to persuade the man who is standing in an unemployment queue or to the man who is battling to keep his business alive, how rich the country is. More and more of the small businessmen are struggling to-day. We find more and more that the small businessman is struggling to make ends meet. The small shopkeeper is unable to meet his bills; as a result the wholesaler is in difficulty in relation to the manufacturer and so the vicious circle goes on. But the starting point is with the small businessman in South Africa. It is the small businessman and the man who is unemployed who is not going to be satisfied with global figures. The Minister must realize that that is the position. He must realize that whatever he may say in regard to the beautiful picture as a whole, there are these difficulties and these difficulties are not being met. So I hope, Mr. Chairman, that particularly in regard to this one point which I have raised that of import control vis-à-vis the specialist and the smaller man, the Minister will be able to say that he is now in a position perhaps to take a different attitude towards this problem and so alleviate to some extent the hardship which the small businessmen are suffering.

I do not propose to follow the non-political economist or the new fertilizer expert of the United Party in their arguments.

I should like to bring another matter to the hon. the Minister’s attention, and that is the supply of electricity to the Sundays River Valley. It has now been many years that this densely populated and highly developed valley has tried to obtain electricity from Escom, and when, about ten years ago, Escom completed its power station at Swartkops, the Sundays River Valley thought that they would be able to obtain power from Escom from its power station there. But, before an agreement could be concluded, this power station was sold to the Municipality of Port Elizabeth. All the negotiations came to naught, and they could not persuade the Municipality of Port Elizabeth to provide electricity economically for them in the Sundays River Valley.

Now the Department of Water Affairs has built a dam at Kouga. in the Gamtoos Valley, and it has been decided to build a hydroelectric power station there. Now I can tell you that the Gamtoos Valley is so close to the Sundays River Valley that at one stage there was a scheme to bring water from the one valley to the other. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that it apparently is possible economically to bring electricity to the Sundays River Valley from the hydroelectric power station at Kouga.

Reference has already been made here to the power station to be erected when the Orange River scheme is constructed, and we are assuming that a power station will also be built in the vicinity of Port Elizabeth, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has stated here. But we should like to point out that such a power station surely cannot be built within the next seven, eight or even ten years, whereas electricity will be available from the Kouga power station within a year or two. Surely I need not draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the necessity of electricity for that particular valley. As I have said already, it is a highly developed valley; much power is consumed there, e.g. for pumping water and other purposes. Electrification for those parts will help them to develop still faster than the development during recent times, especially now in view of the adequate water supply for that area. I hope and trust the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to give us a favourable reply in connection with this matter, and that he will investigate the possibility of supplying power in the near future from the Kouga hydroelectric power station to the Sundays River Valley.

Then I should also like to support the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) in his plea made here for further investigation in regard to the standardization of implements. I think it is the experience of all of us that not only do the spare parts of implements cost large sums of money, but even the spare parts of vehicles as well. We have already had the experience that certain implements or vehicles are purchased and used for a short while, and when later or even very soon we require spare parts for them, and we go to the agents, a search throughout the country is set afoot to obtain the necessary spares. After waiting a long time, you are then told that spares will have to be imported from America or Britain or some other country. I should like to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister very strongly. When a person is granted an import permit for vehicles or implements, he should not be permitted to import such implements or vehicles unless he has sufficient spares for those vehicles and implements available at suitable points in the country. As regards the standardization of implements and vehicles—well, if it can be done, I shall be one of the greatest protagonists for it.

During the course of his reply to the criticism from all sides of the House, the hon. the Minister gave us the impression that as far as the European Common Market was concerned, he was very uncertain. The Minister gave us a very sketchy outline of what he anticipated the future would be. Reading his comments it is quite clear to us that the Minister is as uncertain as to the future as all the rest of us are. We know that the Minister is going overseas and no doubt after his negotiations overseas he will be in a better position to give us some more information next year. We hope that his visit overseas will be successful. It is very difficult for us, Sir, to follow the line of the Minister’s argument. When we suggested the development of the markets to the north the hon. the Minister suggested that it was foolish to look to those markets because they in turn were industrializing. He suggested that Rhodesia and those countries who had recently obtained self-government would start their own industries. Surely, Mr. Chairman, if these countries to our north are starting their own industrial schemes to the extent that they will not require the products of our industries, how much less can we expect the products of our industries to be required by the countries of Europe? Surely the very argument which the Minister used with regard to the markets to our north, destroys his whole argument when he suggested that we might find markets in Europe. We may get a certain market in Europe for our primary products, but we are not concerned with our primary markets in this debate, Sir. We are concerned with secondary industry. Secondary industry is very concerned indeed. It does not see any immediate market in the countries of Europe in the Common Market. If on the other hand I am wrong. I hope the Minister will correct me during the course of his reply and tell us what markets he expects to get for our secondary industry in Europe. What I suggest to the Minister when he goes overseas is to give consideration to the advice given by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) when he suggested standardization for agricultural implements. The Minister should try to persuade overseas concerns to come to this country and bring their knowledge and experience here. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad suggested that there should be some research here. We can capitalize on the research which has been undertaken in Europe over many years. Instead of sending our pig-iron to Japan we can fabricate our pig-iron here and make the products which Japan is now making. One of the things which the Minister ought to do overseas will be to encourage people to bring their technical knowledge here. Instead of exporting our rayon pulp overseas we should manufacture it here and produce rayon. Some of the by-products of Sasol are being sent overseas for the development of nylon products. Instead of doing that we should be able to process those products locally. What we want here in this country is to manufacture our raw material and semi-processed raw materials. It is sad that our semi-processed materials are being sent out of this country overseas to be processed further. The Minister may have some success in the European Common Market as far as primary products are concerned but I do hope he will give us some further information in regard to secondary industries. I think he will have to give more attention when he gets overseas to asking overseas to concentrate on coming out here. They have the technical know how and we should give them some inducement. The Minister should talk to his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance and see whether some inducement can be held out to these people to come out here. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) correctly asks “What about the Transkei?” I wish the hon. the Minister would tell us who is the influencing factor in the establishment of these border industries? We know nothing about that. Is it his colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development? Has he got the final say? Or is it the Minister of Economic Affairs? Are those industries established on the basis of economics or is the guiding factor the desire of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister to keep a certain number of Bantu in that area? Is economics a consideration? Because if economics is not a consideration then the Minister of Economic Affairs has no say in the matter at all. We would like to know, Mr. Chairman, because so far there is very little evidence that it is on economic considerations and on economic considerations alone that those border industries are being established. The Minister suggested in the course of his reply that part of the unemployment was due to mechanization. Is the intention to establish border industries with no mechanization? Is mechanization regarded as an evil? Because if mechanization is causing unemployment, to expect to get markets overseas without mechanizing is sheer foolishness. We can say goodbye to those markets, because people only introduce mechanization to reduce costs. We want more clarity on this matter, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister owes us an explanation in regard to quotas. The issuing of quotas for new makes of cars when the existing people are already on a quota basis cannot be justified. I do not want to mention names, Sir, but I know of certain types of motor-cars which were imported a few years ago which have no second-hand value to-day, although they are only two to three years old because the firms concerned cannot import the spares. The Minister owes the House an explanation in regard to the sugar industry. The other day the hon. the Minister was asked a question in the Other Place in regard to the issue of additional quotas and he indicated that new quotas had been given to new people in the sugar farming industry—quotas were given in the Hluhluwe River storage area in respect of sugar. And this was done at a time when the whole of the industry had been cut by 25 per cent. How can the Minister justify the issue of quotas to new farmers in a new area when existing farmers have had their quotas cut by 25 per cent when in some cases the sugar cane is standing on the lands? How can new quotas be justified in those circumstances? I think the whole of this quota should be free from Ministerial intervention whatsoever. The sugar quotas should be left entirely to the Sugar Industry Central Board. That board has worked satisfactorily for many years and I think it is unfortunate that there have been occasions when that Board has had to appeal to the Minister. I think the Minister should only interfere as a last resort. I think it is unfortunate that in this case when the industry itself is under a quota that the Minister should have intervened. We have come to the end of the discussion on the Vote Economic Affairs. We expected to get some indication as to what the Minister’s policy was going to be but instead of that we got a very sketchy report about his proposed trip to Europe. I accept that he can give us no more than that at this stage. Reference has been made to his five-year plan, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) has already referred to that. We would like to know what the plans are for the future. The farming community is anxious to know what the Minister’s plans are for the future development of the Electricity Supply Commission. We are very much behind with the development of rural electricity, very much behind indeed, Sir. We know nothing about the proposed future schemes for Sasol. As far as Sasol is concerned we raised the matter last year and suggested to the Minister that on the present basis Sasol was not a financial success and that we had to face the writing off of the capital. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the time has arrived for me to reply to most of the matters which have been raised here. Hon. members will realize that this is not the time to deal in detail with all the matters which have been raised. I will try to reply as briefly and as fully as possible to some of the questions. As far as those are concerned which stand over and which I cannot reply to to-day, I undertake to reply in writing to those hon. members who have put those questions to me, after the record has been checked.

In the first place, Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to ceratin questions in regard to the European Common Market. The problem of South Africa’s relation to the Common Market is perhaps the most important problem which has been raised during the discussions over the last few days. I want to refer in the first place to certain remarks which have been made by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) to the effect that it seems that we have no clear idea as to what has to be done to protect South Africa’s economic interests against the possible harmful effects of the E.E.C. or of Britain’s entry into the E.E.C. In this regard I want to state quite clearly that I must admit that we have no complete clarity on this point. We have no clearly defined idea as to what our policy should be. I do not think there is any country in the world which has a clearly defined idea as regards its policy towards the E.E.C. simply because of the fact that there are so many uncertainties, so many factors that we know nothing about, and so many intangibilities in the whole affair that it is impossible to come to any clear idea at this stage as regards future policy. The E.E.C. was established in Rome in 1958. The Treaty of Rome simply gives a broad outline of the policy and the details still have to be filled in. As far as the E.E.C. has progressed in filling in the details of its policy they have come under the close scrutiny of GATT. At all those conferences where the E.E.C. has been under discussion by GATT we have participated. South Africa has always sought to protect her own export interests against the possibility of the common export tariff of the E.E.C. developing in a direction which may be harmful to our export industry. There are intangibilities in regard to the whole common external tariff; there is uncertainty in regard to the agricultural policy; there is uncertainty in regard to Britain’s joining the Common Market and the terms and conditions under which she will join it. There have been so many uncertain aspects in the whole Common Market that it has been totally impossible for any country to have come to a final defined policy. It is only now that we have reached a stage where certain things are gradually emerging that we can start talks in regard to South Africa’s relation to the Common Market.

In regard to the matter of compensation which is also a matter raised by the hon. member for Constantia, I want to put it in a nutshell and say this: In regard to compensation for preference we might lose if Britain enters the Common Market such a loss of preferences will be to the benefit of other countries including Common Market countries. It is clear that if we lose our preferences on the British market other countries will gain by it. Similarly if Britain should lose her preferences in South Africa, which will automatically follow if we lose our preferences in Britain, other countries will benefit from it because there will be no discrimination between Britain and those countries; they will enter on the same terms and not on worse terms than Britain. Such a process of elimination of preferences will bring benefits to Common Market and other countries. This elimination of preferences is something for which we can demand compensation, inter alia, in the form of a lowering of tariffs in the E.E.C. We can also view this matter from another angle. There are all sorts of possible ways of obtaining compensation in the field of any future negotiations for amending or eliminating tariff concessions we have granted under GATT. At the moment we are bound under GATT to certain tariff structures, certain tariffs which we are not allowed to increase because they are bound. If we want to unbind these tariffs in order to protect or foster one industry or another, we have to go to GATT to try to unbind these tariffs and we have to give something in compensation for this unbinding. These sacrifices which we make now, if we have to make them, can also be used as compensation, as a payment, in order to obtain an unbinding of tariffs which are now bound under GATT. I think the hon. member for Constantia, as a former Minister of Economic Affairs, will no doubt understand that it is better that I do not disclose too much about these matters at this stage, because these are points which have to be negotiated when I go overseas. I think he will appreciate that.

In regard to the Commonwealth and the Ottawa Agreements I must say this that as we see the position Britain cannot negotiate tariff concessions for Commonwealth countries with the E.C.C. that would not also apply to South Africa. This would be a violation of the principle of non-discrimination of GATT. Any tariff concessions in favour of Commonwealth countries which flow from Britain negotiations with the Common Market must also benefit South Africa.

Why?

Because all these preferences are based on the Ottawa agreements. Britain has certain commercial agreements with those countries. Britain has an Ottawa agreement with us. We all form under the same banner, to put it that way; we all have the same type of agreement. If you were to read the rules of GATT, Mr. Chairman, you will see that there is no reference to the Commonwealth. Then do not look at this matter from a political point of view. They regard it as a group of countries which have certain forms of trade amongst themselves.

A question has been put in regard to statistics relating to our exports. I think the hon. member for Pinetown raised that question, also the hon. member for Constantia. A preliminary study of our exports to Britain and the Commonwealth has been made but a more detailed study is a very comprehensive task and we are busy with that. We have invited the co-operation of commerce and industry and agriculture and all the export organizations, a request to which they have kindly acceded. Members of my Department and representatives of the various export organizations are busy at the moment with a detailed study of all the exports in order to see how we shall be individually affected. I hope to be in possession of all the details which we will require in regard to our negotiations.

The hon. member for Constantia has also asked me what I regarded as a sufficient limit for our foreign reserves, what figure should be accepted as the figure which would enable us to be satisfied that we could start breaking down that figure in the way of easing export control, for instance. I must say, Sir, that it is impossible to commit oneself to a definite figure. That figure of what the level of our reserves should be depends on so many circumstances, it specially depends on the economic conditions prevailing at the time. What that figure has to be depends entirely on the inflationary or deflationary tendencies in the economy at the moment; it depends on the export or import relations, on the balance of payments position at the moment; it depends on the volume and the trend of industrial activity at the moment; it depends on the fact whether there is in existence any financial controls or not; it depends on the state of the share market prices, both here and abroad. There are so many factors that have to be taken into consideration when you consider whether the level of your reserves is high enough that it is impossible for me to make any statement on it now.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) also asked me about consular documentation and what we were going to do in future. I must say that we have no real problems in this regard. It is the importing country which determines what documentation is necessary. In South Africa we do not prescribe any particular documentation. It is only in the case of cotton and rayon piece goods that we require a certificate in regard to the price and the origin. Those certificates are usually obtained from commercial organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce. So in these cases we really do not need consuls. It is only in the case of Hong Kong where consular documentation is necessary, which the British Consulate is doing for us, and this arrangement suits both them and us.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) has commented on the post of Director of Import-Export Promotion and asked what would happen in regard to the filling of that post. In filling that post we had to take into account various other staff changes which were under consideration. A recommendation has now been made and the new Director will assume duty within a short time, when his transfer from abroad can be finalized.

The hon. member also asked me about our policy in regard to increasing the local content of motor vehicles. I can just briefly say that I enunciated the Government’s policy several times, including last March at the Rand Show. Briefly stated, the policy is that we know that we have to build up our own South African motor industry, but we cannot start at the top by building a complete motor-car. We can only start at the bottom by manufacturing as many component parts as possible and getting the assemblers to use as large a percentage as possible of locally manufactured components. We can do that in several ways, in the first place through tariff protection of those industries which manufacture motor-cars from local components. Some time ago we could not apply the tariff protection necessary because most of these tariffs were bound by GATT, but we have secured release on this binding in the case of most of these tariffs, and we can now foster these industries by means of protecting them by means of duties. The second means is by import control, by giving additional import quotas to assemblers to the extent that they increase the local content of their product.

*The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) is not here at the moment. He mentioned a number of figures in respect of trade with Britain. Unfortunately his figures were not correct and consequently his conclusions were not correct. I will not go into that. He raised the matter of the appointment of consular staff and trade representatives in various countries. We are in the process of expanding that personnel. He referred to South America and I wish to tell him that we are negotiating for the appointment of representatives to South America in Rio and Buenos Aires.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) asked about trade with Japan, the export of materials in bulk and payment for these materials, and whether the Government has taken steps to ensure that payment will be made in foreign currency and not in goods which might constitute a source of undesirable competition for our own industries. I must say in the first place that there is no trade agreement with Japan, and the contract the hon. member is referring to is a private contract between a firm like Hancock and Japanese industry. In this case, too, payment will be made in foreign currency in terms of the contract, against individual deliveries under the contract. We have no trade agreement with Japan and consequently there is no balancing of exports and imports. Each individual item in the trade exchange between South Africa and Japan stands on its own legs and is settled in its own way. So the situation the hon. member envisages does not arise at all, and it is an exporter from South Africa who has to satisfy the authorities that he will bring in foreign exchange in settlement of the deal. The hon. member asked about the agreements between the U.S.A. and the Common Market countries, and to what extent South Africa will benefit from them. I can briefly state that these negotiations have been carried on for the last two years and are very involved, and deal with countries coming to Geneva under GATT and negotiating for release from certain bindings and the withdrawal or modification of certain tariff concessions. There were negotiations as a result of the common external tariff of the E.E.C. and there were negotiations, like the Dillin negotiations, about tariff decreases. We took part in the first two agreements. I need not go into them, but the last one was conducted between America and the E.E.C. and a number of other countries, and the effect of these negotiations was that they agreed to a reduction in duties to the extent of about 20 per cent on a long list of items. In a case of America, 678 items were covered, which represented about 795,000,000 dollars. The effect of South Africa is briefly this, that we also benefit from this 20 per cent reduction in tariffs. They were granted between the E.E.C. and other countries on the one hand and America on the other hand, reducing certain tariffs by 20 per cent, and we also benefit, because the things which fall under these tariffs and which we also export to these countries are also treated in this more liberal way, and we give nothing in compensation. Some of our exports to America and to the E.E.C. countries will therefore have easier entry into those countries.

*The hon. member for Vereeniging and Sunnyside spoke about Sasol and asked when we were going to build a second Sasol. My reply to that is that one can naturally not refrain from thinking vaguely about a second Sasol, but it is not necessary for us to think along definite demarcated lines. I do not think the time is opportune for that. In the first place we must see to it that Sasol becomes more established in its present form and rounded off so that we will be in a position to reap the fullest benefit from the experience we have gained with Sasol. I also think it is necessary that we do not take an isolated view of Sasol but that we view the whole oil position in South Africa as one problem We are investigating the oil and fuel problem as a whole, because from a strategic point of view that is a problem which confronts South Africa, and in the light of those investigations we will decide about Sasol at a later stage.

I do not want to be too long. I just want to reply to the hon. member for Springs (Mr.Taurog), who spoke about all the fortuitous things that happened in South Africa. Sir, it is very strange that when anything favourable happens to South Africa, it is always fortuitous, but when anything unfavourable happens it is always the fault of the Government. It is true that we have had some strokes of luck in the past few years, but we have also had some strokes of very bad luck, and they are never taken into account. Talking economically, it was a stroke of very bad luck to South Africa that the price of gold has been fixed since 1934. Another piece of bad luck was that in respect of many of our major exports, the terms of trade are not in our favour. The hon. member seems to forget that. It is also an unfortunate fact that South Africa stands unique in regard to its political problems, and that most of our economic activities have been affected by this unique international political position, not of our own choice. The hon. member spoke about the private sector. I have no time to go into that. I can only talk about what the Government is doing in regard to industrial expansion. I told him what the Sunday Times said about it three weeks ago. I can quote to him dozens of new industries, comprising millions of rand for new expansion. The hon. member said this policy of border industries could not work and would not succeed. Well, he is a prophet. He might even be a good prophet. I do not know. Usually the United Party are not good prophets. They were not good prophets in regard to Iscor. They said Iscor would not succeed. Nor were they good prophets in regard to Foscor, or in regard to Sasol. Even last year they were not good prophets, when they said that South Africa was on the brink of ruin. In regard to the border industries, I think they will also be bad prophets.

I want to come back to the point raised by the hon. member, and also by the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder), and to say that we are giving due attention to the problem of the East Rand as well as the West Rand, where, on account of the closing of mines more industries should be attracted. We are giving due attention to this problem and we try to attract industries to those areas which are suitable for those areas, but the Government has no power to force any industry to go to any place. I take it that on the East Rand and on the West Rand where you have housing and power and water, they have enough attractions to draw industries to them, but we are doing our best as a Department to tell industries to go and see what those places are like and whether they will suit them.

Can the Minister indicate what his attitude would be if an industry were to ask for guidance from the Department and whether his Department, or he himself as the Minister, would influence that industry in any way to go to the borders of the reserves?

When an industry comes to us for advice, we honestly give it. Where it is an industry which is suited to the border areas, we shall advise them to go there, but we cannot force them to do so. Where it is an industry which is clearly suited to the East or West Rand, or other parts of the country, we advise them to go there and to look for themselves and decide for themselves. I myself have advised many industries already to go and look at the East Rand, because they were mostly mechanical, engineering or chemical industries. I advised many of them to go the East Rand and the West Rand.

What do you consider to be suitable industries?

I am sorry, I cannot carry on answering questions indefinitely.

*The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) has spoken about agricultural implements and their standardization. I quite agree with him that we should be more realistic and that there should be a greater measure of standardization. If our agricultural implements and motor-cars are not standardized to a great extent, we will never start manufacturing those items locally. Agricultural implements really fall under one of the Departments of Agriculture and I believe that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is already attending to and investigating the standardization of agricultural implements and I can assure the hon. member that the C.S.I.R. and the Bureau of Standards which come under my Department will give them every assistance possible.

What does the Minister think about the account which should be rendered to Parliament in respect of the I.D.C. Foskor, Sasol and all the other corporations in which State money has been invested?

The hon. member will forgive me if I do not reply to that because I am dealing with something else at the moment. As far as standardization is concerned, may I just say that the Board of Trade and Industry is at the moment investigating the possibility of manufacturing a tractor locally. I do not wish to anticipate their report. It may come out towards the end of the month and we will then study their recommendations and see whether it is possible to manufacture tractors in South Africa but we will never be able to manufacture them here if we do not standardize and concentrate on two or three tractors.

The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) spoke about research and scientists. We agree with him that the scientific manpower is to-day South Africa’s most valuable and smallest asset and that if a country does not make progress in the scientific field, it will never make big progress in the economic field and that we should give much more attention to the training and the retention of our scientists, and that we should make the best possible use of them. Many of our scientists are to-day in positions where they do work which can be done equally well if not better by others. We will have to do everything in our power to strengthen our scientific manpower and to retain them. A special Cabinet committee is attending to that at the moment, it has been doing so for some time. It is studying all the aspects and it was recently responsible for the increase in the salaries of the scientists of the C.S.I.R. so as to keep them satisfied.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) raised a few matters in regard to the hotel industry. I just want to tell him briefly that we have not appointed a commission to investigate the hotel industry because we are awaiting for the implementation of the Liquor Amendment Act, which will make a difference. As soon as that Act is implemented, we will have new knowledge about the hotel industry and then we will consider appointing a commission of investigation.

In regard to import control and the staffing of the import control divisions, I think the hon. member will understand that we are also under-staffed; it is under-staffed in the same way that most of the divisions of our Department are under-staffed. We find it very difficult to carry out all our obligations through lack of trained staff, which is very hard to get these days. We have applied for more posts and hope to get more personnel, if only we can obtain the right people. But it is very difficult to attract them, especially if we lose some of our best people to commerce and industry.

*In reply to the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) in respect of the electrification of the Sundays River, I can only say that it has already been decided in principle that the Sundays River will be regarded as a new electricity supply undertaking and we are evolving plans at the moment to give effect to the wishes of the hon. member.

I wish to reply to the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) very briefly. Unfortunately I cannot go into all the points he raised, but I fully agree with him in regard to the establishment of industries which should be based on the further processing of our raw materials. That is the whole basis of our industrial development. For that reason the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced a new tax redemption last year in the case of mines where the product is further processed before being exported. For that reason, also, I recently appointed a committee under the Natural Resources Development Board which is investigating the whole problem, especially our base metals and minerals, to see to what extent they can be processed before being exported. But I must tell the hon. member that the exportation of these processed metals is not an easy task. Most countries have strong barriers against the importation of these processed metals, because they have a huge capacity of their own which is usually highly protected. But we are going into these matters, particularly in regard to certain strategic metal and minerals, and I fully agree with the hon. member that this is what we should do.

*Finally there is the five-year plan which was announced on the occasion of that good meal. I think the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) paid more attention to the good meal than to the five-year plan. I can only say that the hon. member’s allegation that I addressed a meeting of the Federated Chambers of Industry is correct, but I at no time announced a five-year plan. By a five-year plan it is understood that a country works out a plan into its finest details, as they do in the communist countries, a plan which it wants to carry out within five years’ time, and it then forces that plan on to private industries. I have not done that. I told the industrialists that we should think of the three most important things to be developed, namely the textile industry, the metallurgical industry and the chemical industry as the three great pillars of the future, and I told them that I did not want them to sit and wait to see what the Government would do but that they as individuals and as organizations should find out where the defects were in our economy and that they should make preparations to remedy those defects, and that once they have made their preparations they could come to us and we would see to what extent we could co-operate.

But your own Department has prepared plans.

Yes, my Department has prepared plans, and some of those plans have been announced from time to time, plans for Sasol and Foskor, the I.D.C. and Iscor, plans for the next ten or 15 years. They know that. I then said to the industrialists: Plan your future and if we can help you come to us. We are still waiting for them to come. We are prepared to give them every possible assistance. That is all. I thank hon. members for the questions they have asked. It was a pleasure and interesting to reply to them.

On a point of personal explanation, the figure which I supplied to the House in connection with the wages paid was incorrect. I have checked with my source and I find that the figure is R571,720,000. I just want to apologize to the House and to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) and to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw).

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 33,—“Mines”, R7,835,000,

Mr. Chairman, I make no apology for raising with the hon. the Minister under this Vote certain aspects of this matter which have been discussed under other Votes but are of great importance. I do so because this is the Minister on whom the major responsibility rests, in respect of the East Rand, to ensure that adequate steps are taken and that Government policy will be directed towards ensuring the continued prosperity of that area. It is not generally realized what the enormous contribution of that area has been. Many of our biggest gold producers were there. The total gold production in that area compares well with that of any other area. It must not be overlooked that so far as the East Rand as a whole is concerned it is second only to Johannesburg as a European urban aggregation, and it approximately equal in population to the whole of Cape Town and the surrounding areas. Its continued prosperity, therefore, is of very great importance and in that regard a very great responsibility rests on this Minister. I want to put it to him that as Minister of Mines it is his duty, if he has not already done so, to investigate the facts. It is clear that in so far as the East Rand is concerned, with the gradual disappearance of the mines there will be an enormous surplus of electrical power.

Where do you draw the line?

The East Rand is the area which lies east of Johannesburg. I would say that the industrial development of the area closer to the Rand is much more advanced than on the Far East Rand, but it is quite clear that there will be immense surpluses of electric power in that area and a substantial surplus of housing, and a surplus of water which will be available for industrial development. I believe it is the duty particularly of the Minister of Mines to ensure that a realistic policy is adopted by the Government because for the future prosperity of the area—and I talk more particularly of the Far East Rand, but I include the whole, because obviously if there is a lack of prosperity in one section of the East Rand, it must inevitably spread to the adjoining areas. Therefore I take the East Rand as a whole. In my own constituency one of the great gold producers, the Simmer and Jack mine, is to close in the very near future. Of the 19 mines now operating, 13 will close by 1970, and it is clear that this will affect the remaining mineworkers in the area. It will affect 60,000 mineworkers. Prosperity could be maintained quite easily, and I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the responsibility rests on him because I believe that he, with the hon. the Deputy Minister, can persuade the Government to adopt the right and a realistic policy in respect of this matter. It is perfectly clear that in respect of industrial land, the activities of another Department, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, have undoubtedly caused a delay in creating additional industrial areas, and I believe that they have done so on a basis which cannot be justified. That is not a matter for which this hon. Minister can answer, but it is a part of his responsibility as a member of the Cabinet to see that his efforts—and I am sure that he will make the efforts to which he has referred—are not hampered by those of some of his colleagues. The position is, of course, that there has already been a substantial closing down; I think I am right in saying that something like 35 per cent of the mineworkers in that area have lost their employment as mineworkers in recent years and it is true that they have been accommodated in, and have been of the utmost value to the mines, in the new areas. That is tremendously important. But what is also important to remember is that the persons who have contributed to the development not only of that area but also to the development of this country have been uprooted, and it is a tremendous sacrifice for a mineworker, especially if he is advanced in years, to have to leave one area and go elsewhere. I know of more than one case where mineworkers have been unable to maintain their homes on the East Rand, for example, when they have been moved away. Sir, this matter can be dealt with quite effectively and without in any way affecting the rest of the country, because quite clearly if one area is not prosperous it affects other areas. I say therefore that the maintenance of prosperity is of the utmost importance. Although the hon. the Minister has told us that in no circumstances are industries asked to go elsewhere, I believe that a policy has been followed of drawing industries away. I believe that the right thing to do is to use the enormous resources which are there in the case of electric power and water, which will become more and more freely available as time goes on, to ensure continued prosperity in that areas. In the end it will speed up the decentralization of industry, a policy with which all of us are in agreement; we want to see advancement all over the country, but clearly we are not going to get it if through the wrong policies followed by the Government we find that there is a recession in this area. The hon. the Minister knows the position of the Far East Rand towns particularly. Nigel has been helped tremendously already. The mines there are, of course, also running towards their end. Springs has made very great advance but needs further advancement. Then there is the case of Brakpan which also needs further advancement. It is quite clear that as far as Benoni and Boksburg are concerned, additional industrialization is necessary. Sir, it is going to be a serious blow to even a big city like Germiston suddenly to find that overnight there are going to be 600 fewer workers. Sir, it is only by following a realistic policy and by recognizing that the responsibility lies on the Government to plan correctly that the prosperity of that area can be maintained and even advanced.

I do not want to reply to what the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has just said; I do not have the time, but I think that is a matter which the Minister will deal with because it entails important matters of policy. Nor do I want to reply to the allegation which he has made regarding the share of the Department of Bantu Administration in the development of industries because then the Chairman will stop me.

I want to plead for three things to-day. We cannot say too much about matters affecting the mineworkers because there is a Bill on the Order Paper which provides for certain benefits which will be given to mineworkers. But I should like to discuss three matters particularly. In the first place I want to plead for, and to submit supporting arguments, the establishments of a separate Ministry of Mines; in the second place I want to urge the paying of increased attention to our Geological Survey Division; and in the third place I want to urge increased attention for our metallurgical laboratories and the work being done there.

Our Department of Mines is one of the oldest Government Departments in the Republic. It dates from the days of the South African Republic. Act No. 1 of 1871 provided for the control and management of areas where precious stones and metals had been discovered; and then we had Acts in 1882 and 1885. The development of the Government Department of Mines resulted in the passing of Act No. 35 of 1908 which was called the Precious and Base Metals Act which is still in force to-day. In 1910, on the establishment of Union, these various separate mining administrations were amalgamated and since 1933 we have had our present Department of Mines in the form we know it to-day. For the Republic with its great and important mineral wealth a well-organized and administratively well-equipped Department of Mines is an absolute necessity. I therefore want to plead to-day, without casting any reflection on any Minister who has dealt with the matter in the past, for the establishment of a separate Ministry of Mines. I want to prove the need for such a step with certain figures and I want to show how important our mineral production is. This is one of the most important factors which has contributed to the economic stability of our country, and it is still doing so to-day. I just want to mention what a tremendous contribution our mining industry and the exploitation of minerals have made to our national income. In 1910 the total value of our mineral production was R87.2 million; by 1960 it was R1,700,000,000, an increase of one thousand per cent. In 1904 277,000 workers were employed on the exploitation of minerals and by 1960 over 700,000. The State’s income from mine leases and taxation as a result of our mineral development now totals approximately R80,000,000 annually. Our mineral resources are a disappearing asset. The prospecting for new mineral deposits is absolutely essential; the extraction and the utilization of our known resources and resources still to be discovered are absolutely essential. As far as is known we have mineral resources which can still produce R14,000,000,000 for us over the next 30 years; there are still many deposits waiting for exploitation. It is therefore of the utmost importance that as one of the most favoured countries in the world as far as mineral resources is concerned, we should discover, exploit and utilize these resources in the most comprehensive and productive way. It is essential that our mineral resources should be developed, exploited and utilized in accordance with the most modern geophysic, geochemical and metallurgical methods. The composition of the present Department of Mines and the tasks entrusted to the Department definitely justify a separate Ministry. As the Department is now constituted, it must deal with a vast variety of tasks, and it is a serious question whether our present Department is properly equipped to meet the problems entailed in future mining development, and in formulating from time to time a mining policy to ensure the optimum utilization of our mineral resources for the next 50 years at least. The world hunger for mineral metals is growing; their importance is increasing. I put this question pertinently and I repeat that I am not criticizing any Minister. Over the past seven years we have had about seven Ministers of Mines. How on earth can these people familiarize themselves with the position and how on earth can they deal with these matters while they are still charged with additional Departments which require their attention? I want to mention a few matters which fall under the present Department. There is the Geological Survey Division; there are the metallurgical laboratories; there is the Atomic Energy Board, the alluvial diggings, the Government Mining Engineer’s office, the mining commissioners, the Mining Leases Board, the Pneumoconiosis Division, the Government training schools for mineworkers and the Registrar of Mining Leases and Rand Townships. These in themselves justify a separate Minister who can give his full attention to one of the basic pillars on which our country’s economic rests. In saying this, I want to plead here for improved facilities for our Geological Survey Division. With a view to a long term mining policy, we must know what we have at our disposal; we must know what resources are available, and we simply do not have the people. Our Geological Survey Division does not have adequate facilities today, and I think that the officials are also paid somewhat too little. I therefore emphasize that we must give more attention to this matter. Other Departments who require geologists are also finding it difficult to obtain geologists from our Geological Survey Division because the necessary resources are simply not there. While I am pleading for improved facilities and for an expansion of our Geological Survey Division, I also want to plead for improved facilities and an extension of our Metallurgical Division. It is of the utmost importance that we should have greater knowledge and that we should use improved methods in respect of the exploitation and utilization of our minerals and methods because, in the light of what we know to-day, and what the experts tell us, we have available approximately R1,400,000,000 worth of minerals which we shall have to capitalize over the next 30 years. Seeing that we have so many boards, and every board we have fulfils an essential service—I am not one of those who are always disparaging the boards we have; every board we have in this country is fulfilling an essential function because we have entered the period of the expert and the Minister and the Department must rely on the advice of the experts—I say that seeing that our country already has so many boards, I want to urge to-day that our Department of Mines and our Minister of Mines should be assisted by a board of experts to advise them in respect of various problems. I want to mention a few of them, and then I want to conclude. I shall mention five. I am thinking of problems such as Government participation in and control over mining activities; I am thinking of problems relating to a policy of conservation and the encouragement of production; I am thinking of the problem of the local processing or purification of ores; I am thinking of the problem of the co-ordination of research which relates to mining and all its various branches and, finally, a policy which will have to be followed in respect of the mining development of our large Bantu and Coloured areas and our undeveloped areas such as Namaqualand.

It is not often that one can agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) but this evening I must agree wholeheartedly with the viewpoint expressed here by him. I want to go further and say to this Committee that it is high time we in this House spent a little more time on the Mines Vote generally instead of having it sandwiched in between other Votes and other proceedings in this House. The whole economy of this country depends on the mining industry, and when I see in this House how much time is given to other Votes and how little time is given to the Mines Vote, I am not surprised that we even have members on the Government benches putting forward the sort of pleas that we heard here from the hon. member for Ventersdorp.

I want to go further than the hon. member for Ventersdorp, and say a word or two about the welfare of the miner; I have done it in the past and I want to do it again. It is a pity, however, that year after year we have a different Minister occupying the Mines portfolio. In four years we have had three Ministers of Mines. I do not know if there is any continuity of policy between one Minister and another. If we are going to have a Minister of Mines I hope that it will not be a Minister who has to change his portfolio every time we have a new session of Parliament. I doubt very much whether the present Minister has had an opportunity of studying all the wants of the mineworkers. I understand that a Bill dealing with these things is going to be presented to this House shortly, but until that Bill is introduced I want to say to the Minis-for that the time has arrived when more attention should be paid to the wants of the mine-worker. When the mineworker becomes ill through second-stage pneumoconiosis I feel that that is the time for the mineworker to be taken out of the mine and given other work to do.

Order! The hon. member cannot continue along those lines.

Sir, it is a pity that I cannot talk about pneumoconiosis, but I feel that the mineworker who is receiving a pension in some stage or other of pneumoconiosis, must receive the attention of the hon. the Minister now. I want to refer to one exceptional point. In the fourth stage of pneumoconiosis, the widow at the moment gets approximately half the pension given to the miner. We would like to see that corrected. When the miner reaches the fourth stage of pneumoconiosis, he is virtually on his death-bed. He cannot live on the pension that he receives, and I ask that for the time being, until the Act is amended, that the widow should be given the pension which the mineworker is receiving at the moment. I had a case recently—I think it happened during this Session—where I got a miner who was in the third stage re-examined and he was put into the fourth stage. Before he received his second cheque that miner was dead. He only lived a couple of weeks from the time he was reclassified and put in the fourth stage. For a considerable period he has only been receiving the benefits applicable to the third stage.

Order! The hon. member cannot continue on those lines.

On a point of order, there is a Bill on the Order Paper, the Pneumoconiosis Bill, but the terms of that Bill are not known to the House. Is the hon. member not in order, in view of the title of that Bill, in discussing matters other than compensation.

The hon. member is dealing with the matter of compensation.

I will leave that point then. I want to say that just as it becomes important that the miner should be taken out of the dusty atmosphere after he reaches the first stage of phthisis, as applied to the non-White, so something should be done with the White worker who is allowed to proceed with his work after reaching a certain stage of illness. I do not want to try to avoid speaking about these matters here this evening because they are terribly important. I want this Committee to know that when a non-White worker reaches the first stage of pneumoconiosis, in other words, when he is shown to have pneumoconiosis, he is taken out of the dusty atmosphere and is no longer allowed to work there. The White worker, however, is allowed to continue to work during the first and second stages. He receives a warning but he is allowed to go on working in the third stage as well, and it is there that I ask the hon. the Minister to do something for these people, to teach them a second trade and while they are in the second stage of pneumoconiosis to make it obligatory for the mine industry to teach them a second trade, because when they leave the mines in the third stage there is nothing else to which they can put their hands. They are compelled to continue working on the mine because they have no other means of livelihood. It is in respect of those people who are suffering from this stage of phthisis that I say to the Minister that the time has come for us to introduce something new. This applies especially in all those areas also where the mines are going to close. The mineworker, who is going to be put out of employment, either because of illness or because of the closure of the mine, must have something else to do. What is there for him to-day? Nothing. He might get a job as a handyman at best. I know what is happening on the mines to-day. When the time comes for the miner to leave his work underground, the best that he can find is a job on the surface as the handyman. He is an unskilled worker; nobody wants him. Are we not going to do something for those people who, over the years, have done their very best for us? Our whole economy, as I have said, depends on these people and yet we are discarding them year after year. I hope, now that we have a new Minister, he will do something to see that these people are taught a trade of some sort while they are in the second stage of this illness so that they can leave the mine and make a living somewhere else.

Then I want to come to another most important point and that is the relationship between the services rendered by the Pneumoconiosis Board and the panel doctor. There is no link between the panel doctor and the Pneumoconiosis Board. The miner goes to the Pneumoconiosis Board where he is examined, but the panel doctor is not informed of the results of the examination. How then is the panel doctor to know what stage the miner is suffering from? The miner gets a note to tell him that he is in a certain stage but the actual trouble is not explained to the panel doctor. There is a difference between the degrees of information that is given by the Rand Mutual in accident cases to the doctor and the information given to the panel doctor by the Pneumoconiosis Board. If a man is involved in an accident while he is working he is taken to the Rand Mutual Hospital; the Rand Mutual Hospital give a detailed account of the accident to the panel doctor. [Time limit.]

There are a few important questions which I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. When we discuss important matters falling under other Departments, the House or this Committee always have the benefit of the presence of the departmental chiefs concerned. Hitherto we have also always had the assistance of the Secretary for Mines when we have discussed the Mines Vote but the matters which we discuss here year after year are matters which are of such importance and often of such a technical nature that the Secretary for Mines who is the chief administrative officer, cannot help us. I should like to say a few words on the item “Government Mining Engineer ’’ on page 190 of the Estimates. The Government Mining Engineer is certainly one of the most important officials in all departments in South Africa. Hon. members will see that he has a staff under him which also consists of very important officials. Year after year we raise matters in respect of which we cannot expect the Secretary for Mines to be of any assistance to the Committee or the Minister because they are mainly technical matters. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister very courteously, when we discuss this Vote, to give us the benefit of the presence of the Government Mining Engineer, just as we have had the benefit of the presence of the departmental chiefs when we discussed matters affecting the Police, Prisons, Defence, Water Affairs, Revenue, etc., so that when we discuss the implementation of health regulations as they affect underground work, and when we discuss safety measures, we shall at least have at our disposal the man who is the only person who can assist the Minister and this Committee. I want to ask very courteously and earnestly that in future, when the Mines Vote is discussed here, we shall have the benefit of the presence of the Government Mining Engineer. There are certain aspects of the mining industry which I have been emphasizing for years in respect of which I have not yet been able to get satisfaction.

This brings me to the question of dust readings which differ tremendously from mine to mine. The penalty, in other words the levy, which is placed on the various mines has a great deal to do with the question of dust readings. I have now been trying for many years to get a reply in respect of this matter which can satisfy me that there is a progressive improvement as regards the question of dust readings in underground conditions in our gold mines and other mines as well. Hitherto I have simply not been able to get the answer I want, the answer which I expect and which is the correct answer. Only an official such as the Government Mining Engineer can give us a satisfactory reply in respect of this matter. And when we have the Government Mining Engineer, we shall also be given replies to questions such as those raised here by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). There is no other person who can answer him and who can help us in that field. I want to emphasize that the health of the people who work in this most important industry can never be over-emphasized in this House. You must remember, Mr. Chairman, that of the men who go to the Bureau for examination before they can work underground, only a meagre 35 per cent are approved, in other words, 35 per cent of the already selected men, the pride of South Africa, work in the mining industry. You will therefore agree with me when I say that the question of the application of the health and safety measures underground can never be over-emphasized, and it is for that reason that I am speaking along these lines.

Then there is another matter which I want to raise and here I want to come a little closer to the hon. the Minister. There is a rumour that it will become essential, when mines are developed in the Bantu areas which will become independent in the future, to amend Act No. 25 of 1926 as regards the issuing of certificates of competency for underground workers which employment at the moment is reserved for Whites, Coloureds, Mauritius Creoles and a fourth group. There is one aspect which I want to emphasize and in respect of which I want to submit an earnest plea to the hon. the Minister. I do not think this can only be dealt with by means of regulations when the mining industry develops to that stage, in other words, when we reach the stage that we have mines in the Bantu areas. I am referring to the question of the issuing of blasting certificates. So that we shall not circumvent Act No. 25 of 1926 steps will have to be taken. Because otherwise we shall have the position that there may be mining industries in the Bantu areas and that employment will be given to Bantu which has always been performed underground by Whites, we can say since 1911. I want to warn very seriously that when the day comes that blasting certificates are issued, to which they will in fact be entitled, there must be a clear proviso which will prevent trained Bantu workers who obtain blasting certificates in those areas being allowed to compete with the White miners in the White areas as such. These are a few matters which are of vital importance because we must remember that the mining industry, as the Minister always emphasizes, is of the utmost importance to the economy of South Africa and we must consequently place the mining industry on such a level and the conditions of the mines on such a level that it remains an industry which is attractive to the White man from an employment point of view. We must not have the complaint to-morrow or the day after that the mining industry is not able to recruit enough mineworkers in our country and that we shall unfortunately have to resort to the use of the undesirable elements who came to South Africa a few years ago Only when we are very careful in respect of these matters and follow a policy of caution, can and will the mining industry remain at all times on such a footing that it will remain sufficiently attractive to at least a portion of our White workers in South Africa so that they will seek employment in it from time to time.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has quite correctly pointed out the need for stabilizing and improving the position of the White worker in the mines, and I think that that is one of the most important aspects that deserves the consideration of the Government and of the country. When you go into the statistical position and see the decline in the number of learner-miners in the Government mining training schools, one becomes very concerned indeed, and one seeks to ascertain the reasons for this decline. At the moment the position of White workers to Bantu workers in the mines is roughly 1:7, but the mining schools are not getting sufficient learners who can come forward to take their place in mining as a career. In 1960, we find there were only 267 foreign learners who came into the Government mining training schools whereas in 1959 there were 800. I am not saying that it is a good thing that we should have a large complement of foreign mine-worker learners in those schools, but it is also necessary to see why this decline has in fact taken place. When you realize that in 1960, there was an increase of roughly 40,000 Bantu workers in the mines as against 1,061 White workers, you realize the serious disproportion in numbers. Unless something is done, both by the mining industry and by the Government as such, to make it more attractive for Europeans to go into the mining industry, we will not be able to meet the needs of the industry in future. I think one of the factors where the Government can assist in this direction is to implement the undertaking which was given by the then Minister of Mines, Mr. de Klerk, in 1960. when he said (Hansard, Col 7022, 9 May)—

As far as we know nothing further has been done in regard to this undertaking that was given by the Minister that he would introduce a comprehensive pension scheme for miners which would make their security in the mines much more satisfactory as it is to-day. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he is going ahead with the undertaking that was given, because if he can do so I think it will cause a lot of satisfaction in the mining industry, and will be one of the means for attracting additional White miners to come to the mines. Sir, I want to say that the haphazard method that has been discussed here in the House of dealing with the affairs of the mining industry, is something that should be avoided in the future, and I would like to suggest—possibly associating myself with the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling)—that a joint advisory board for the mining industry should be established as soon as possible. Sir, when one realizes that over £7,000,000,000 worth of gold has already been extracted from our mines and it is estimated that over the next 30 years a further £7,000,000,000 of gold is likely to be extracted, I feel the quicker we get down to the establishment of a joint advisory board to relieve the Minister of the onerous task which is now placed on his shoulders in having to take on all the responsibility of the various mines in this country, is something that has to be considered immediately. We have to have better co-ordination and control in the mining industry than we have to-day.

Sir, we have had discussions here in regard to some of the problems that arise from declining mines and the effect it has on health, but the one thing that is absolutely necessary is for the Government to take immediate steps to see to it that the pollution of the air, which is taking place on the Witwatersrand as a result of the many slime dams in the area from which the dust is blown into the areas surrounding it, is counteracted. As a result of mines closing down, the dust is now blown off the mines in those areas. It is a serious question of health, and it is uncomfortable. It is something in respect of which the Government gave the assurance a couple of years ago that they would tackle, but up to now nothing tangible has been heard or done in that direction, and as further mines close down and no further water is pumped on to these slime dams, we can expect dust polluting the air to a great extent and causing a still greater danger to health.

I think the time has now arrived when one has to ask the hon. the Minister to make a definite and a clear statement as to his policy in regard to the marginal mines. Confusion has existed since 1957 as a result of statements by various Ministers, conflicting statements right throughout their approach to this matter. For instance in July 1958, the then Minister of Mines, Dr. van Rhijn said that a Round Table Conference had been appointed to investigate the matter, but (I now quote him) “It is clear that there is nothing much than can be done to prolong the lives of marginal mines materially”. Then again in July 1958, the Minister said—

Then there was a further assurance given by another Minister that he was considering recommending to the Governor-General that a commission should be appointed to investigate the whole matter. Then in 1960 again there was a statement by the then Minister of Mines, Mr. de Klerk—

With all this confusion and the feeling in the public’s mind that this is one of the matters where the Government should take a lead and should give some direction, I think the time has come this year—it is not too late, but certainly not too soon—that the Minister must make a clear statement as to the Government’s policy towards the marginal mines and what assistance they are going to give these mines in order to prolong their life and to give them some assistance in cutting down overhead expenses and reducing their costs. [Time limit.]

I understand that this Vote is to be disposed of before half-past six, and that is why I am rising to reply to a few questions that have been put. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) asked a question, which has now been emphasized by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog), namely, what the Government’s policy is in respect of the problem of marginal mines, also particularly in regard to the areas in which these marginal mines are situated. The second aspect of this question of course is something that falls under the Minister for Economic Affairs, namely the establishment of industries there, and I should like to suggest to the hon. member that when the hon. the Minister for Economic Affairs appears before him again, he should ask him that question. As regards the mining aspect of the question, hon. members are aware that mines sometimes have to close down, and that no government in the world, not even the best government, such as this one, can do anything about it. Once the gold of a mine has been exhausted, you can do nothing about it. And there are certain mines on the Witwatersrand where the gold is being exhausted whether we like it or not, and even with an increased gold price, with all the best techniques in the world, with all the assistance you can give them, you just cannot go and create gold where there is gold no longer. That fact we have to realize once and for all. There are mines that you just cannot save with anything in the world. There are other mines with gold of a very low grade ore, but mines that can still eke out an existence, and which can carry on with that low grade ore and still make a profit, and those mines of course can be saved if there is an increase in the price of gold, for which we are hoping, or when the costs of production are reduced in one way or another. Now I do not wish to go into the entire matter of the closing down of marginal mines and the powers the State possesses in that regard, and the inquiries the State always institutes before a mine is permitted to close down. We know what the consequences of the closing of a mine are, and that is why we are very strict about it. They can’t just go and close a mine. They have to give due notice, at least three months, and the Government has the right to institute an inquiry to see whether the closing down is justified. In some cases inquiries were instituted in the past, but on the whole it is not done because the Department already has at its disposal so much data through its study of the mines over the years that it knows exactly what the position of that mine is, and that it is not necessary to institute an inquiry. But in order to save the mines, a round table conference was held under one of my predecessors, to which the hon. member for Springs referred, to go into the factors that may be taken into consideration in order to give these mines some relief. It was found, as hon. members probably know, that savings could be effected on about six items, which together would amount to about 22.75c per ton. Those savings are railway freight charges, hospital charges, sewerage and sanitary fees, purchase charges, gold shipping costs, state training schools for mineworkers and pneumoconiosis levies. The maximum saving under those heads would amount to R22.7 and it would have to be as much to be of any significance to some mines, but not one of the authorities under whom these matters fall was willing to grant that exemption. The largest of these is pneumoconiosis levies which amount to 11.22c. That is the largest individual item of possible saving. Now I should like to say that I hope that with the legislation that will be submitted to you shortly, relief may be granted of considerable significance, particularly for the dying low grade marginal mines. It might be a factor of relief for them. We are also engaged on an investigation of the water problem. One of the great dangers is that when mines are closed down, they become filled with water, and the water is not a danger for those mines only, but it also seeps through into neighbouring mines and aggravates their water problem and increases cost of pumping out the water. That is also a matter we are already giving attention to, whether there is any method of giving assistance in this respect. I should like to give hon. members the assurance that we as a State regard these marginal mines as being very important. We perhaps consider them more important than the owners themselves regard them. The mine owners, particularly the shareholders, might be willing to close down a mine that has a fairly large demolition value so that they can get their money back, but to the State the existence of that mine is very important from the angle of that community that has been established round that mine and with a view to the employment of the people, and from the angle of the amount of currency the mines can earn for us. I assume that the Government will take every reasonable step it is capable of taking in order to prolong the life of the mines in the interests of the country. Reference has been made to subsidization. We are not prepared to resort to that, and I believe that the mining industry also is not prepared to consider any form of subsidization, for it will shed a bad light on our mines overseas as regards the acquisition of capital. We know that subsidization has never yet been seen in a favourable light by the world, and if the wealthier mines were to subsidize the poorer mines, it might also have the effect of making the richer mines less profitable, and that thereby you will be creating a larger quantity of unremunerative ore. I can assure you that we are giving the problem our constant attention, and will probably resort to the appointment of specific study groups to study the problem with all its ramifications.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) has raised three points. I certainly am glad that there is one person in the House to-day who sympathizes with me, or at least feels that I should be relieved of my Vote. He pleaded for a separate Minister of Mines. I do not wish to say anything about that. That is something he should discuss with the Prime Minister, and when he returns from the Prime Minister I should like to hear what he found out there. That is a matter in which I myself have no say. I can only say that mines is a Portfolio of tremendous importance. When we have regard to the tremendous significance of mining to South Africa, and to the fact that South Africa’s production of minerals amounts to approximately £600,000,000 per annum; if we consider that since 1946 our gold has increased by 87.5 per cent, our copper by 93.5 per cent, our coal by 63.5 per cent, our diamonds by 112.5 per cent, then we appreciate the value of the mining industry to South Africa. It might be interesting just to auote some figures here to illustrate South Africa’s relative share in the mining of the world. South Africa occupies .8 per cent of the world’s surface, and contains 15 per cent of the world population, but its annual production of gold is 55 per cent of the world production, of platinum 48 per cent, of antimony 22.5 per cent, of uranium 19 per cent, of diamonds 18 per cent, of chromium 15 per cent, of manganese 7 per cent. That makes South Africa one of the most important mining countries in the whole world, and I think it gives us a greater appreciation of the importance of mining and of the work of this Department, and of the great proportion of the national income that falls under the control and direction of this Department.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp further referred to the reinforcement of the division for geological surveys. The hon. member has raised a very good point there. Geological surveys play a very important role in our mining policy. This world is to an increasing extent dependent on minerals for its continued existence, by the developments in the technical sphere and the extent to which minerals are being used. South Africa will become more and more important to this world because of its wealth of minerals and our geological survey plays a very important part in the search for those minerals. We are faced with the fact that these minerals are wasting assets. The world consumes them at a tremendous rate. The world will still come to South Africa some day as one of the most important countries in the world as regards minerals, and it is necessary that we should conduct our searches and the subsequent utilization and extraction of our minerals in an absolutely planned economic manner. That is why our geological survey plays an extremely important role. We are having difficulty in getting the required number of geologists, the necessary practical men, and we do not have enough money for the extension either. Having asked the hon. member just now to go to the Prime Minister, I now also wish to ask him to go to the Minister of Finance.

The third point he raised is the State Metallurgical Laboratory and the extension of facilities there. We have had an increase in personnel there, and we are hoping to have a larger building soon. That laboratory also is of very great importance to our country. Its main concern is to institute inquiries in regard to the reclamation of our minerals. They have to investigate methods for the further refinement and processing of our minerals and how best to utilize our minerals. In this respect it plays a very important role. That is where mining and industry meet each other. We think of the role it played in respect of our uranium industry at the beginning. We think of the role it played in respect of copper and the fireproof ores we are getting in Eastern Transvaal, and the investigations it is making there, and the role it has played in connection with Foscor and the exploitation of our phosphates. It plays a tremendous role in the refinement of our minerals and the reclamation of our minerals, and in the utilization of our minerals.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) spoke about the safety of the mine-workers and he mentioned two very important points, but I am afraid I cannot discuss these points now. These matters can all be raised when we discuss the Pneumoconiosis Bill which I hope to introduce this week. So the hon. member will understand that I cannot discuss these points now.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) spoke about the Government mining schools and the decline in the number of trainees I don’t know where the hon. member got his figures from. The figures I have are rather different from his. According to the statistics that I have in regard to the average number of trainees in these mining schools show that in 1952, the number was 938, and last year there were 1,490, and for the last four or five years the numbers have remained more or less stable. There is not the decline that the hon. member indicates. The hon. member asked me about the insurance scheme. I just want to mention that we as a department were prepared to work out a civil insurance scheme for the mineworkers, but then the Mineworkers Union came along and they told us that they would negotiate with the Chamber of Mines and that we better leave well alone. So we passed the buck to them, and in the meantime they are negotiating and we are constantly watching the whole position.

As regards the pollution of air, the hon. member knows that my colleague, the Minister of Health, has appointed a committee to go into this whole question. The mines have submitted evidence to this committee, and the whole question is being studied now. The mines are doing a great deal to control air pollution

Vote put and agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the United Party and its Press has chosen to call this Bill which I now want to introduce the Sabotage Bill. I was not invited to the christening ceremony when the Bill was given this name, but it enjoys my wholehearted approval if hon. members opposite and their Press want to call the Bill by that name. With this name in mind, some people—to whom I will come later—thought fit to set afoot an agitation against this Bill outside. The emphasis having been laid on the sabotage aspect of this Bill, it is just as well that hon. members should bear in mind that the agitation being fomented in all kinds of ways is not against this or that particular provision of the Bill, but in fact against the sabotage aspect of it. One of the first telegrams I received in connection with this Bill read as follows—

What happens if he is a traveller?

In that case he should join the United Party; then he will be a traveller without any destination. [Laughter.] It will be possible for me, in terms of that clause, to prevent a person from leaving his home during certain hours and to prohibit him from receiving certain visitors or from paying visits. I want to say here unambiguously that in the case of certain communists whose activities do great harm to South Africa, I shall not hesitate for a single moment to apply this clause.

It is essential also, if we want to combat Commun’sm, that we should always know their whereabouts. We have a provision to the effect that foreigners have to notify changes of address to the authorities, and if it is right and proper to call upon foreigners to do so, then it is certainly a very good thing and absolutely imperative that we should be able to require communists to inform us at all times of their new addresses or places of employment so that we can always know where they are to be found. Hon. members will find that provision is made for that in Clause 10. Because some of these people have in the past fled the country after they have stirred up trouble, Clause 9 provides that they may be required to report to police offices periodically. Are we asking too much in expecting the communist to report to the police station from time to time if he is ordered to do so? I put that question to hon. members opposite, because these are the principles underlying this Bill which is designed to make communists harmless. Is there anything unreasonable in connection with any of these measures which I have just mentioned? Is there anything unreasonable in them having regard to the danger that these people may be to us and the dangers to which they have in fact exposed us? I say that the charge cannot be made against me that these provisions are too drastic in view of the things which these people have told us they are going to do and in view of what they have in fact done in the past. Why this accusation then that we are wiping out freedom in South Africa, when in fact that is all that we propose to do to the communist in South Africa? Surely then it is a hollow argument to say that we want to extinguish the flame of freedom. Surely then it amounts to nothing but protection of the communists and of what they stand for to attack this Bill and to rave against it.

But in the second place one wants to deprive them of their opportunities and means of making propaganda. That is why this Bill makes it possible for me—I refer to Clause 7 (b)—to declare certain places closed to these people, to declare certain meeting places closed to them—and I make no secret of it. As a matter of fact, I have already stated publicly that two of the places which I consider declaring closed places are the Parade in Cape Town and the steps outside the City Hall in Johannesburg. Why do these people hold meetings on the steps of the City Hall in Johannesburg? For no other reason than to cause a disturbance and to instigate fighting so that cameramen can photograph these little scenes and demonstrate to the world what a rotten place South Africa is. I want to make the accusation here that the only reason why meetings are held on the steps of the City Hall in Johannesburg, particularly during the lunch-hour and in the presence of the mob that is always there at that time of the day, is to blacken South Africa unnecessarily in the outside world and to bring about unnecessary friction here. No decent person or party or organization holds a meeting in that way. It only does so when it is actuated by other motives.

Then there are the Sunday gatherings on the Parade in Cape Town, where they use the strongest loudspeakers that one can get. People living in blocks of flats are continually complaining to me about the disturbances that take place on the Parade on Sundays. But that is not all; it has seldom if ever happened at these gatherings that people have not been incited in a reckless fashion. The Parade is a parking area where people leave their motor-cars; women and children move about on the Parade, and it has happened already that people have almost been killed as the result of the action of the speakers on those occasions. I think it is good and proper and fair that the communists should be deprived of that opportunity.

But if you want to deprive them of their propaganda opportunities, then it has also become necessary, as it has been found necessary in the past, to ban certain newspapers in South Africa. The old Act provides that the publication of newspapers may be forbidden, and hon. members will know that in terms of the provisions of that Act the publication of certain newspapers was in fact forbidden. They will recall that the Guardian was the mouthpiece and the propaganda organ of the communists, and they know that to this very day its editor is still an outspoken and active communist. Hon. members will remember that the Guardian was banned and that the moment it was banned it appeared under a different name. That name was abandoned and then it appeared under a different name again, and subsequently it appeared under the name Advance, and when the publishing of Advance was prohibited it appeared under the name New Age. Although the old Act laid down that we could prohibit the publication of a newspaper, we came up against the problem unfortunately—and it is that loophole that I want to close—that although all newspapers have to register under the 1934 Act and register their name, these newspapers registered under various names so that when their publication was forbidden under one name they simply appeared the following day under a different name. In the latest issue of New Age there is an article by Mr. Brian Bunting, who was expelled from this House because he was a communist. In that article he briefly sets out the history of the paper and says—

I make no secret of the fact that one of the newspapers which ought to be forbidden is this paper, New Age, which is the propagaganda organ of the communist party. Before hon. members come along with the accusation that that is not so, let me refer to page 8 of that newspaper, where greetings are extended to this newspaper on the occasion of its 25th anniversary. Those greetings include greetings from, amongst others, “Moses M. Kotane, former general secretary of the banned communist party of South Africa”—

That refers to the communist party—

That is how this paper writes to proclaim itself as the communist mouthpiece of South Africa. The front page carries the congratulations of the friend of certain hon. members opposite, Albert Luthuli, on the 25th anniversary of this paper and sets out what it has meant to the people of South Africa. The reproach has been levelled at me that Luthuli is not a communist, despite all he has said and done, and then I have been blamed for the fact that he has been banished, and it is said that I am not taking action against communists. Hon. members will remember that on the death of Stalin it was Luthuli who described him as “that great apostle of peace”. When we take action against him, we are told that we are taking action against people who are not in fact communists.

Apart from the fact that we are following the established legal principle that one can ban certain publications, we are also providing in Clause 5 that we shall in the first place clear the list of registered names, and in the second place that if the Minister and the Minister of the Interior have reason to believe that these newspapers will spread communistic propaganda, security to an amount not exceeding R20,000 can be required from the publishers of such a newspaper, which amount can be declared forfeited if that newspaper does in fact make itself guilty of communistic activities. Every person in South Africa is free to publish a newspaper, but he must know that in future this punishment will be the result if he makes himself guilty of spreading communistic propaganda.

But another principle which underlies this Bill, and in terms of which I shall be able to deprive communists of their means of propaganda, will be found in Clause 4 which empowers me to order that persons on whom restrictions have been placed must resign from certain organizations. I make no apology to anyone for not wishing to allow a communist to belong to any organization because if he belongs to that organization he is only doing so to misuse it for his own subversive objects, as they have in fact misused many organizations which they have joined in the past.

But it is also the position that when we have placed restriction on communists in the past under the existing legislation and we have rendered them harmless in this way, we nevertheless found that they still made statements to newspapers and that those statements were published or that their speeches were still made on their behalf at gatherings. That is why, in terms of Clause 4 (e), the future position will be that when a person is regarded as a communist and such restrictions are placed upon him, he will not have the right to make any statement of whatever nature, nor will anyone have the right to repeat or publish it in public. Here I do not make any apology either that communists will be limited in this way. To achieve this it is necessary, as Clause 6 also provides, that lists of communists can be published in the Government Gazette. Hitherto we have not published these names. It was perhaps a mistake that we did not do so because many of these people masquerade under this or that flag and no one knows that they are in fact communist agitators. But apart from this aspect of the matter, the reason why we shall now publish these names is that everyone will be considered to know who are listed communists and on whom restrictions have been placed, so that people can know not to publish, broadcast or print their speeches. But because we want to be reasonable, we realize that since the 1956 lists were drawn up, some people are no longer active and that some of them have come to different beliefs and are no longer active communists. However, the existing legislation does not provide for the removal of anyone’s name from these lists. I know of several people of whom this is in fact true, namely that they are no longer indulging in communistic activities and in that case I am quite prepared, and this clause will allow me to do so, to remove their names from the list of communists.

But I also refer hon. members to the other principle which underlies this Bill, namely that under the existing legislation the State President has the right to ban certain organizations and provision is made for machinery which must first be put into operation before this can be done. This takes a long time and much time elapses before such an organization can be banned. A new principle which I is being introduced by this Bill—and I ask I hon. members what is unfair about it—is that if the State President is convinced (I am referring to Clause 2 of the Bill) that an organization has been established for the purpose of, or that an existing organization is carrying on the objects of an unlawful organization, he can ban that organization immediately. Hon. members must not tell me that in making this provision we are going too far. They can just look over our borders to see how practical such a measure is. There we have the position that the Rhodesian Government saw fit to ban a certain political party—I think it was the Rhodesian People’s Party—and the very next day the same party, with the same leaders and the same offices, continued as the Zimbabwe People’s Party. Must one then put all this machinery in operation de novo while we know that this is exactly the same organization which is merely carrying on under a different name? I therefore, do not apologize either for the fact that we are going to deprive them of their propaganda instruments in this way. I refer only in passing to Clause 16 which has been introduced to facilitate matters. Hon. members will remember that when we had a state of emergency in 1960, the state of emergency was actually here in Cape Town, but to combat it effectively and to apply the regulations effectively, it was even necessary to declare Stellenbosch, Paarl, Wellington and Worcester to be emergency areas. I do not want to have a repetition of that and Clause 16 therefore provides that if there is a state of emergency in one area, one can make certain regulations applicable in other districts where a state of emergency does not exist without causing disruption by declaring a state of emergency in such area. Once again I submit that this is a reasonable provision taking into account the experience which we have had in the past.

Clause 17 extends for another 12 months the validity of the 12 days provision which has been used in the past and which lapses in June of this year. Hon. members have seen, with the sabotage which has taken place and the arrests which were made, how necessary it has been to have that provision on the Statute Book and I therefore propose that this provision should be extended for another year.

Clause 18—I only refer to it in passing—deals with the onus resting on certain persons who go abroad without authority. The clause is self-evident and I need not discuss it in any further detail.

Then in conclusion I come to Clause 21, the sabotage clause, which has given this Bill its name amongst hon. members opposite.

I want to concede at once, and hon. members need not criticize me in this regard, that the clause is worded widely. I want to admit and concede this at once, but I say at the same time that if we want to take any effective action at all against these people, this clause must of necessity be worded so widely. I therefore do not apologize for the fact that this is so. It is a fact that sabotage has never been a substantive offence in South Africa. When sabotage has been committed in the past, and we have charged the person concerned with the damageing of property or something else, the public have asked: Why do you charge him with the damaging of property and not with sabotage? I think it is high time that we call a spade a spade also in the Statute Book of South Africa. For that reason Clause 21 provides that sabotage will be a substantive offence. I have now received complaints and these complaints have also appeared in newspapers, that this provision is worded too widely, that it will affect innocent persons, that it places the onus on the accused, that it is introducing a procedure into the courts which is foreign to our legal system, that it vests great responsibilities in our Attorneys-General, and that I do not have confidence in the judiciary of South Africa. Before answering these questions, I ask myself what the object of a saboteur is and how he operates? He is a person who wants to make impossible or to destroy the established Government, law and order either through nationwide action or through isolated actions. In other words, he wants to enforce his will and wishes by criminal means. His object is to create chaos and to paralyse the country. We have already had various threats from the communists that they will create chaos in South Africa, that they will paralyse the country. We now examine the Bill, Mr. Speaker, and we ask how the saboteur achieves this aim and what the clause lays down sabotage will be. If we examine the sub-sections of this clause one by one, then I make bold to say that there is not one which is unreasonable, if we see it against the background of the danger which we must combat. Firstly there is reference to the endangering of the health or safety of the public. Is there one single member opposite who will say that we should not take action against people who endanger the health and safety of the public? Secondly this clause lays down that it will be an offence to put essential services out of action. This is what the saboteur would like to do in order to facilitate the take-over which he envisages. Thirdly, this clause refers to the putting out of action of transport services. These are the three principles which are basic to this Bill, together with the fourth which relates to the damaging or destruction of property. These are the only four principles which hon. members will fold in this clause and which we want to make liable to the penalty for “sabotage”, namely if they endanger the health and safety of the public, if they put essential services out of action, if they put transport services out of action and if they damage or destroy property. This the saboteur does either through nation-wide action or he does so by the use of arms or explosives. This is what hon. members will find in this clause about which such a tremendous fuss is being made, so much so that the heavens are almost falling down. I now put this question to hon. members, particularly to the lawyers opposite: What is unreasonable about making people who do this kind of thing liable to a penalty and a severe penalty? Now people, and even lawyers here in Cape Town, are saying that this Bill will harm innocent persons. Mr. Speaker, I ask: How can innocent persons be affected when the preamble to this clause makes it quite clear that any of these actions must be committed wrongfully and wilfully? After all an innocent person does not act wrongfully.

This brings me at once to the next point, namely that it is being said that by this Bill I have now transferred the onus onto the poor innocent communist or saboteur. If there is a court case in which a person is charged under this clause, it is obvious that the State must first prove that an act has been committed, falling in the class to which I have just referred and secondly the State must prove that the accused committed that act. Then that is not yet enough; then the State must further prove that this act which he has committed was wrongful; the State must further prove that he wilfully committed that act. How can the allegation now be levelled at me that I have transferred the onus to the accused and the poor communist is now being handed over to the mercy of this cruel Minister when he has not done anything wrong? That is a straw at which hon. members are grasping. What is true is that in sub-section (2) of this Bill I am, despite everything, giving the accused a chance—and hon. members must tell me frankly whether they want sub-section (2) in the Bill or whether they do not want it—to prove that despite the fact that the State has proved that he committed the act, that he committed it wilfully and that he committed it unlawfully—although he has in fact committed that act, although it has been proved that he committed it wilfully and unlawfully—the motive underlying his action was not to commit sabotage. Here it is laid down what he must do to convince the court that he did not in fact have such a motive. What is unreasonable about this? He and he alone knows what motive inspired him when he committed that act. Is it then unreasonable of me that I expect of him that when I have proved everything I must prove, that when I have proved that he has acted unlawfully and that he has acted wilfully, he must tell the court what was in his mind when he committed that act. I want to state with emphasis that despite the fact that we regard sabotage with the seriousness that we do, we still want to be fair towards an accused, even under those circumstances. Instead of hon. members accusing me of placing the onus on the accused which is not the position, of being harsh towards a poor accused who will appear in the witness box, an accused who may be quite innocent as they say, they should at least, as sympathizers with the communists, be grateful for the concession which we are making to them in Clause 21.

At the outset I conceded that this clause was worded widely. I want to make a second admission, namely that it is quite true that technically speaking certain minor acts can be technically regarded as sabotage. Precisely because that is the position and because I had to word this provision so widely to make it effective hon. members will understand that a safety valve had to be introduced into this measure. The safety valve which hon. members will find in this measure is that prosecution under this legislation can only take place in terms of a personal certificate by the Attorney-General; not his assistant, not an ordinary prosecutor, but the Attorney-General himself must order in writing that a prosecution should be instituted. Hon. members opposite have criticized me as though this is a terrible new principle which we are introducing into our legislation and a principle which is meaningless. The hon. member for Durban North says that is correct, but he was quite satisfied when that same principle was embodied for all those years in the British Official Secrets Act while it applied in South Africa. Because it was British—and it has been embodied for many years in the British legislation—it is good enough. And it appears in the Official Secrets Act which this Parliament passed in 1956. This principle is embodied in that legislation, namely the principle that the Attorney-General must decide whether a prosecution should be instituted. Because this legislation—not only the South African Act but also the British Act—is deliberately so widely worded that every official in effect make himself guilty of a contravention of that legislation, the safeguard has been incorporated whereby the Attorney-General alone must order a prosecution if there has been a deliberate contravention of this provision. Mr. Speaker, this is after all not a new principle which we are embodying in this Bill. Nor are we, as has been said, placing an unnecessary burden and an impossible burden on the shoulders of the Attorney-General. After all he has the whole file before him; he knows the background; he has the history of the whole matter before him. It is his duty and his responsibility to decide whether people should be prosecuted or not. It is his task and his responsibility to decide whether a man should be charged with murder or not. Why should we not trust him with the decision whether a man should be charged with sabotage or not?

Mr. Speaker, with reference to this clause I have been accused of not trusting the courts and it is said that this is why I have embodied a minimum sentence of five years in this clause. Allow me to say at once that unlike hon. members when they were in power, I trust all the judges on the bench in South Africa. When hon. members were faced with a similar situation, they did not trust all the judges. They did not even trust Judge Fagan at that time, because they laid down that there should be a special court and they allocated a special judge to hear these cases. They did not want those cases to be heard by any judge because they did not trust all of them. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I trust all the judges; I am not allocating one judge. Because we have an independent and free judiciary which has always come to its decisions without fear or favour and will continue to do so, I am quite prepared to have any sabotage case heard before them. But I believe that this House has the right—and if this House exercises that right, it is not because it does not trust the judiciary for this or that reason—also to tell the judiciary and the country that we regard sabotage in such a serious light that we are placing a minimum punishment on that offence. And if we did not regard it in such a light, then there is something wrong with us; then there is something wrong with our outlook and our philosophy of life. As far as I am concerned, Sir, I regard this as such a serious matter that I have had no qualms about embodying this provision in this Bill. Hon. members must not tell me that we are introducing a new principle into our law by imposing a minimum penalty. A little while ago, in 1961, the hon. the Minister of Lands introduced a Bill into this House dealing with our national parks and that Bill provided that if one shot a rhinoceros or a hippopotamus, just to mention two, wrongfully and wilfully, then a minimum penalty of 12 months could be imposed on such a person. And if a rhinoceros or a hippopotamus is worth this, then a communist is certainly worth far more than that. I say, Mr. Speaker, just to give one example, that this is not a new principle which we are introducing into our law.

Now, according to newspaper reports which I have seen, hon. members are accusing me and asking why I am now charging such a man directly in the Supreme Court. I ask: Why can I not charge him directly in the Supreme Court? What is wrong with that? Does not the seriousness of the offence justify my taking him directly to the Supreme Court? There are sound reasons why we are doing this. I am doing so in the first instance, Mr. Speaker, because as I have said, I trust all judges sufficiently to charge a man before them. And in the second place, because the seriousness of the offence is such that I can charge him in that court. In the third instance, we know from bitter experience why we must do so. We had this bitter experience in Port Elizabeth with the Strachan case. Strachan was charged with running a sabotage school and with training Bantus from the Transkei in sabotage. We held a preparatory examination. That preparatory examination took months and what did we find? One of the essential witnesses in that case was kidnapped immediately after the preparatory examination and to this day he has not been seen again. The suspicion is that he has been murdered. The other witness was so afraid that we had to lock him up in order to protect him from kidnapping and when he appeared in court he committed perjury as a result of the threats made against him. We are dealing with people who are dangerous and who will not hesitate for one moment to get a witness out of the way. That is why my attitude is that we have the right under those circumstances to charge such a person summarily in the Supreme Court. Another provision embodied in this Bill for which hon. members can criticize me is that this clause provides that if a person is found not guilty of sabotage he can again be charged with another offence, and therefore a lesser offence, which is in complete accord with the principles of our law. This is admittedly a new principle: it is a new way of putting it. But bearing in mind the circumstances, bearing in mind the fact that he is being summarily charged before the Supreme Court, my attitude is that he pleads at the commencement of the proceedings and if the Attorney-General should decide that it is in fact not a case of sabotage and that he does not want to take the matter any further, even though he has only pleaded he is technically entitled to a finding of not guilty. It is for this and other reasons which I do not want to discuss now but which I shall readily argue with hon. members at the Committee Stage, that it is necessary that this clause should be inserted.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the circumstances which I have outlined, the threats which have been expressed towards us, and the modus operandi of the communists in the past as we have experienced it in practice, I have regarded it as my duty to submit this matter to the House in the form in which I have in fact done. I am convinced that I have the support of the public outside for the provisions of this Bill. And I am even more convinced that this artificial protest which certain people are trying to arouse has already failed. I am convinced that the Afrikaans and English-speaking people believe that the time has come for us to deal with the communists in the way which this Bill does in fact do. Then I also want to express my conviction that no peace-loving person will even know that this Bill exists once it is passed; then no peace-loving or law-abiding person will ever come into conflict with this Bill. In addition I simply cannot understand that people can even bring in Christianity in order to oppose this Bill.

I do not know of one single Christian—I do not know whether these priests know of Christians who will make themselves guilty of an offence in terms of this law. I also know, Mr. Speaker, that there is an old well-known rule of law that the security of the State is the supreme law. We inherited it in this form from the Romans. It runs right through our legal system, namely that the security of the State is the supreme law. As far as I am concerned, bearing in mind the position in which the world finds itself, bearing in mind South Africa’s position, I make no apology when I come to this House and say that in the post I occupy, I regard the security of the State as priority No. 1. This Bill, contrary to what has been said outside, does not take away any freedom, except that it will take away the freedom of the saboteur to destroy, except that it will take away the communist’s right to sabotage. And that being so, Mr. Speaker, I therefore make bold to move the second reading.

Mr. Speaker, having listened with great interest to the very innocent exposition of this Bill which the hon. the Minister of Justice has just given, I am left with the impression that either he has not told us everything or he has achieved a larger number of objects which he did not set out to achieve. Because, Sir, my examination of this Bill reveals a number of facets to which he has either not referred or only just referred in passing and in respect of which he seems to have under-estimated the importance in so far as it affects the liberties of the individual in South Africa. May I say that having listened to him and having read the Bill very carefully, it seems to me to be a Bill in which there are six pre-eminent characteristics. The first of those characteristics is that vast new powers are now given to the Minister over the liberties of the people which cannot be controlled by the court and which can be visited upon individuals whom the Minister suspects of certain activities, only suspects, Mr. Speaker—no proof whatever, no decision in a court of law. Secondly—and the hon. gentleman did not mention it—one of the most important characteristics of this Bill is the new powers which the Minister has taken over the freedom of assembly in South Africa, powers so great that he is virtually in a position that he can dictate not only the political but also social contacts of the citizen. He made no mention of that aspect in setting out the clauses in this Bill. [Interjections.] It seems to come as a surprise to the hon. the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party judging by the noises which he is making. The third characteristic which I would say is evident in this Bill is the unusual powers given to the Minister, this time the Minister of the Interior, to put difficulties in the way of new publications and to intimidate them with a threat of confiscation of money which he will require them to deposit with him before registration.

Fourthly, Sir, we find a further extension of the 12-day detention clause with all the invasion of the right of habeas corpus which that involves. When we remember why that Bill was asked for last year and the case made by the hon. the Minister of Justice last year, you have difficulty in accepting from the hon. gentleman how peaceful and calm everything is in South Africa when you think back to the reasons which the Minister gave for introducing this Bill. I would say there is a fifth characteristic of this Bill and that is that it accords the Government the right to suspend the rule of law in areas unaffected by an emergency which exists in other parts of the country. Then, Sir, there is a sixth characteristic. And that is that this Bill prescribes a minimum penalty of five years and the possibility of a death sentence for the commission of acts which may be of minor importance in the absence of a specific motive and it embarrasses the accused by placing the onus upon him to prove the absence of that special motive. Serious as that characteristic may be, it is clear that in the light of the other attributes which I have mentioned, it is a misnomer to speak of this Bill as the Sabotage Bill.

You call it that.

The hon. the Minister has a short memory. He says it was named the Sabotage Bill by this side of the House and by the Press. I believe the first person to refer to it as the Sabotage Bill was the hon. the Leader of the House when he was promtly called to order by the Chief Whip of the United Party. [Interjections.] I do not know why the hon. the Minister of Lands is so ashamed of it. Oh, he is not ashamed, why is he denying it then?

I am not denying it.

What an admission from the Minister. He seems a little embarrassed; I don’t quite know why. It seems that it is a complete misnomer to speak of this Bill as the Sabotage Bill, as though that was the total import of this Bill. Because, Mr. Speaker, in fact there are provisions in this Bill providing for the civil death of persons who incur the displeasure and the suspicion of the hon. the Minister which to my mind is more serious than the provisions in Clause 21 dealing with the new offences vicious as they are. I think it is unfortunate that in circles outside this House this Bill has been dubbed the Sabotage Bill, because I think that clouds the thinking of many people and they are not worried to go into the further provisions of the Bill. [Interjections.] I believe, Sir, that it should be given another name. Perhaps it will be given another name in the course of this debate.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may an hon. member say “Shut up, you rat”?

I withdraw it, Sir.

Sir, those are the characteristics of this Bill. What is the justification for this Bill adduced by this hon. Minister? The justification seems to be that everything in South Africa is calm, quiet and peaceful. It being calm, quiet and peaceful the Minister now requires more power. He says we are not sitting on a powder barrel in South Africa. What he wants is power to ensure that no powder is put into the barrel upon which we are sitting. I cannot help thinking back to the Minister of Justice at the time who introduced the Suppression of Communist Act in 1950. He seemed to think of it quite differently then. He said—

That was why he wanted the Bill. This Minister wants his Bill because things are calm, quiet and peaceful. He has done his best to indicate that there are possible activities afoot which may render South Africa less clam, less quiet and less peaceful. We heard the usual sort of stories which we get in these debates. We had them when the Suppression of Communism Bill was discussed the first time; we had them when it was amended the first time and again the second time; we had them when the Public Safety Act was before this House; we had them when the Unlawful Organizations Bill was before this House; we have had them on other occasions. I do not think this Minister has made anything like as good a job of it as some of his predecessors. He was unable to produce any real evidence. He told us tories of circulars written by the underground A.N.C. One recalls a former Minister of Justice refusing to support the Bill put up by this side of the House because it would do far worse than anything he could imagine—it would drive Communism underground, whereas his Bill would destroy it absolutely! Then, Sir, the hon. the Minister says that he has no intention of curbing freedom of speech and he reads a letter justifying the invasions of the law which are perpetrated by this Bill. Sir, it is rather amusing that that should be the position. One of the things he is trying to justify is shifting the onus of proof. This is what a previous Minister of Justice, the gentleman who introduced the Suppression of Communism Bill, had to say about that—

The hon. Minister says he is doing a favour to the accused by giving him another chance. When one sees the powers the Minister is taking over the liberties of the individual in this Bill, many of which he has not specified to us, one is reminded of what the hon. the Minister of Finance said when another Bill was before this House—

That was what the present Minister of Finance said about a comparative mild Bill dealing with alien affairs in 1946.

We have had the main characteristics of the Bill. We have had some attempts by the hon. the Minister of Justice to justify it. What should be the attitude of the Opposition to a Bill of this kind? I would say, Sir, that the attitude may be simply stated in this way: We in the Opposition are as anxious to maintain peace and law and order in South Africa as anybody else. That means that we are against sabotage and against Communism. That means that we are prepared to take reasonable steps to deal with either. But we are not prepared to see unreasonable powers given to the Executive which cannot be controlled either by the court or by this House. I think that is the first point. I think, secondly, we must say that we are not prepared to see the Executive given the power to rule in certain areas virtually by decree. I think thirdly, we are not prepared to see the unnecessarily wide definition of new misdeeds which are so widely defined that innocent people can be caught within their net, people who are innocent of the crimes which the hon. the Minister is setting out to catch. I think, Sir, one goes further and one says that one is not prepared to see additions to the law which are unnecessary to deal with the situation as it exists at the present time. Lastly one should be very careful of seeing a government take such powers that it creates a false image of the position in South Africa, an image that can do us untold harm both overseas and in respect of the confidence of our own people in the future of South Africa. Therefore I move the following amendment—

1. it deprives citizens of the protection of the Courts and puts them at the mercy of arbitrary ministerial decisions in such a way as to threaten the freedom of law-abiding people;
2. it creates a new crime and defines it so widely that it can endanger the lives and liberties of people who are innocent of any intention to subvert the State;
3. it grants further extensive powers to the Government and ignores the fact that laws already exist which are adequate to deal with any crisis which may arise in the country; and
4. it will damage the Republic by creating the false impression that a permanent state of emergency exists in our country.”.

That being the position, may I say that in respect of the defence of law and order in South Africa, we of the United Party have always tried to be a responsible Opposition, and not only have we tried to be responsible but we have given evidence of our responsibility.

Never!

The hon. member says that we were never responsible. I take it that he thinks we were irresponsible then to support the Public Safety Act in 1953; I suppose he thinks that we were irresponsible to support the General Law Amendment Act; I suppose he thinks we were irresponsible to support the Unlawful Organizations Act. Sir, I think we have a sound record in that regard. We were prepared to make sacrifices of freedom and liberty where it was necessary in the interests of maintaining the safety of the State and maintaining law and order in South Africa. But despite all the powers this Government has taken, it is not satisfied yet. Its appetite is absolutely insatiable. We warned it in 1950 when it came with the first Bill to suppress Communism in South Africa. We warned it then that it was embarking on a line which was an incorrect one. Since then it has come to this House on two additional occasions to amend that Act, two occasions when we were once again unable to support them because of the vast new powers they were asking for, some of which were unfair and some of which could not be controlled either by the courts or by Parliament. Sir, the amendments today go even further and they don’t seem to provide an answer any more than the previous Bills or previous actions of this Government. Look at the position we are in, Sir! In 1948 this was the Government that came to power by telling the people that they were the only people in South Africa who knew how to deal with Communism. By 1952, their own Prime Minister was getting up in this House and telling the House that after four years of National rule, the position was worse than it had been in 1947 under the United Party. In 1950 they took the Suppression of Communism Act and they told us that they knew how to control Communism. Here we find that after 14 years they are asking for more powers, unprecedented in any country which is not engaged in a shooting war. And they take them because the hon. the Minister tells us that everything is peaceful and calm and quiet in South Africa.

What powers have the Government got already to deal with these problems? First of all under the Suppression of Communism Act, they have defined “Communism” so widely that it can include many people who had nothing to do whatever with Communism. Nobody knows it better than the Minister himself. Secondly, they have given the President power to deem a person a communist without his having the right of recourse to the courts to prove that he is not a communist. Thirdly, the President has the power to declare any organization an unlawful organization if he is satisfied that it is communistic. And once again there is no recourse to the courts, fourthly, the Minister has been given wide powers over persons who profess Communism, over persons deemed to be communists, over organizations which he suspects, over persons who at any time have been members or active supporters of organizations subsequently declared to be unlawful organizations, and over persons who contravene any section of the Act. We warned that those powers were so wide that it could well lead to the situation where the remedy in many respects was worse than the crime which they set out to control. What are these powers that the Minister has? He has the power already to compel those people to resign as office-bearers or members of any organization and cease to take part in its activities. He has the power to prevent them coming to this House. He may prohibit a person from attending any meeting for a named period, or even from being in a particular area, and the sole requirement was at that time that in the opinion of the Minister the presence of that person at the meeting in that area would further the interests of Communism. He could prohibit any particular gathering in any particular place if that gathering in his opinion would further the interests of Communism. He could organize an investigation on any premises whatsoever, and all these powers were given him in respect of people who had had no right to go to the courts on the merits to prove that they were not communists. All these powers were given him in respect of members of organizations which had never had the right to go to court to prove that they were not communistically inclined organizations. They went further in 1951, and they went further again in 1954, and there we stated very definitely that we could not support the Government in any measure which aimed at making the existing law still stricter and more evil as long as the Government persists in a standpoint that the Minister should exercise those tremendous powers over the freedom and civil rights of citizens in South Africa.

What is the Minister asking, Sir, under this Bill? First of all he has changed the definition of a “gathering”. A gathering in the past had to have a common purpose. Now it need not have a common purpose.

For certain purposes only.

“For certain purposes only Why did he not tell us about it when he introduced the Bill?

You can read it yourself.

The hon. the Minister is a little shy about that part. He has the power now to control the attendance of certain people at gatherings, whether they are social gatherings or not, gatherings of a particular kind or in a particular place. In other words, he would have the perfect right to prohibit any of those individuals under his powers in this Bill from attending a mixed gathering, from attending gatherings of a particular kind. The Minister knows that. He made no attempt to justify that power. Why has he taken it? I go further: He has that power over people who are merely deemed to be communists, and he has it over people whom he is satisfied are engaged in activities furthering, or which may further, the objects of Communism. Now there is no proof that they are furthering the objects of Communism, there is no decision of the courts; all that exists is the decision of the Minister and he has the right to lay down that those people shall not have a right to attend certain gatherings. But the Bill goes further. He has a further power and that is that if he is satisfied that any activities of any person or organization is furthering or may further the achievement of any of the objects of Communism in the Republic, then he may ban any gathering or any particular gathering anywhere. Now I know that that is a wide reading of the Bill, a wide reading of that clause, but if we look at the terms of the clause there is no indication that the furthering of the objects of Communism may be by means of that particular activity by that particular person. In other words, all he needs is somebody whom he suspects of Communism somewhere in South Africa and he can ban any gathering or any particular gathering or gathering of a particular kind anywhere in South Africa. Sir. I am not surprised that the hon. gentleman did not give us an explanation of that. That is one of the most important clauses in this Bill and it makes the Minister’s powers virtually absolute. He has other powers over gatherings which I will deal with later. But why does he want this power, how can he possibly justify it? Because there is one man or one organization which is furthering, or may further, the achievements of any of the objects of Communism in the Republic, he can ban a meeting, or any meeting anywhere in the Republic at all. I think that must be one of the most far-reaching powers ever taken by a Minister of Justice in any country in the world, and we have no justification by the hon. gentleman for it.

That is not all. The conditions under which an organization may be declared unlawful have been extended. The hon. gentleman has told us that. The President may now declare an organization unlawful which carries on or has been established for the purpose of carrying on, directly or indirectly, any of the activities of an unlawful organization. Now, Sir, some of those activities may have been perfectly innocent. The interesting thing is that the investigation which used to take place before no longer takes place in these circumstances. Before there was an investigation by a magistrate and two members of a committee. Now there is no investigation. The Minister wants the power at once. Why? He says he wants to act quickly. Organizations may change their names. But it would seem to me, Sir, that if he is to avoid the banning of innocent organizations and if he is to avoid giving himself powers which the Cabinet can abuse (these powers which are exercised by the President are exercised on the advice of the Cabinet), then there must be some safeguard, little as it is. What safeguard there was, is removed; and there is no recourse to the courts to prove that that banning was wrongful because the organization had not the object or was not engaged in these activities. But the hon. the Minister has gone further where he himself wishes to impose prohibitions upon individuals whom he is satisfied are engaged in activities which further or may further any of the objects of Communism, and there is also no investigation as there was in the past. That provision has now ceased to exist—there is no investigation of any kind and disabilities may be visited upon those people merely on the say-so of the Minister. Now what can the hon. gentleman do to them? Before he could confine them to an area. We have heard a long tale from him of how very much more humane he is than some people that he does not want to see them in gaol or in a concentration camp. He is prepared to put them under house arrest! He is prepared to prevent them from communicating with other people! He is prepared to restrict their activities. He is prepared to prevent anything they say being reproduced, mechanically or otherwise. In other words, he can sentence them to civil death. He can do it, not the courts; there is no right of appeal to the courts. This hon. the Minister alone decides that he is satisfied that their activities may further the objects of Communism or any of the objects of Communism, and then he takes those powers and there is no right of recourse to a court of law in South Africa, except to show that the hon. gentleman acted mala fides. Is it any wonder that people are worried about this Bill? Can you wonder that it is said that it is an invasion of the rights of individuals?

That is what the Progressives say.

That is what I say and what I said in 950; it is what the United Party said in 1950.

And you were proved wrong. You can quote no case of abuse.

The hon. Ministers knows as well as I do, that nobody knows who has been named or deemed. The hon. the Minister said so himself. He is now going to publish names in the Gazette. You see, Sir, here exactly is the attitude of the Government to this matter. Because the Minister has asked for excessive powers which depend on his good faith, his honesty and integrity and because they have not been abused so far, and because that hon. gentleman thinks the Minister is a man of great integrity, he thinks there never will be any abuse. But he cannot deny that those powers may be handled by an unscrupulous Minister.

Not under this Government.

Exactly! This Government is taking powers again which it does not require, which cannot be controlled, just because it believes that it will not abuse those powers. No democracy in the world can be run on that basis. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the more power people have, the more the temptations of corruptions. That is exactly the danger we are running with this Government, which is becoming insatiable in asking for more and more powers which are completely uncontrolled by the courts because the Government believes that it will never abuse those powers.

The hon. gentleman has told us that under Clause 4 he is going to publish the names of people in the Gazette, but he will admit also that the names of those affected, the classes of people affected are very much wider, and it would seem also that he is entitled to impose prohibitions on people by publication in the Gazette, under Clause 4. He did not tell us that. The clause says “the Minister may by notice in the Gazette prohibit all persons whose names appear on any list …” from undertaking certain activities. Is this to be the prohibition? Is this to mean that in the case of an individual he is prohibited from undertaking certain activities? There are later provisions in the Bill which provide that in certain circumstances publication in the Gazette is regarded as service on them and if they fail to observe the conditions laid down, they can be liable to very serious penalties. Sir, is that a provision which the hon. the Minister thinks can be tolerated in a democratic country? It seems this clause is so wide that the hon. the Minister may be able to impose prohibitions here not just on individuals but on a generic class of persons who have been members, supporters or office-bearers of a particular organization, without specifying the individuals concerned. You see, Sir, the opportunities for abuse! You see the dangers that can arise for the individual concerned.

And we come to this clause dealing with newspapers. The hon. the Minister seems very proud of this provision. But surely what is happening is that a newspaper is being invited to pay a fine in advance. Whether or not the people who are running that newspaper, who are responsible for its registration, are to pay that fine is to be decided solely by the Minister of the Interior. There is no recourse to any other tribunal. That gentleman will decide and he decides alone. Now, Sir, they are the proprietors of a newspaper and what the Minister happens to know about them, will determine what he does. Once again it is not a question of their having a conviction before the courts. Once again it is purely a question of the discretion of the Minister, the suspicion of the Minister in respect of the individuals concerned. Here you have this provision which we have no doubt whatever will limit the publication of a number of small journals in South Africa which may do a great deal to form opinion, not in the wrong way but in the right way.

There is another odd clause, and that is Clause 6, which the Minister seemed to deal with only in passing, and that was this power to publish a list in the Gazette. It seemed to us that it indicated that that was so that the public should know who those people were because they were prohibited from publishing their articles or any statements which they make. But, Sir, the list may contain names of people who were Communists many, many years ago. The Minister has a provision providing for their removal.

Quite!

Yes, but how does he know? Under what circumstances are they going to be removed?

The worst clause, is the power which the Minister takes under Clause 8, which inserts a new Section 10. He widens the class of people over whom he has powers, he takes new powers over them, he does away with the notice he had to give them, he can limit them no more just to an area but to their homes, he can limit their activities, he can order them to report to the police ever so often, he can prohibit them from communicating with other people, he can control their very activity, and they have no recourse to the courts at all.

What is wrong with that?

Do you realize that those are powers probably far wider than were taken by the Government during the war years? Do you realize that those are powers far wider than were taken in many countries in times of emergency? But everything depends on the suspicion the Minister may have. Then he introduced a number of new offences, and certain of those concern your changing your place of residence while prohibition is in force against you, without giving notice. The minimum penalty is three years. But it must be mentioned also that the onus of proof that you have given notice is placed upon the accused, and once again he is placed in an embarrassing position. It is also made an offence under this Act to “publish or disseminate any speech or statement, or any extract from or recording or a production of any speech or statement made or purporting to have been made anywhere at any time by any person prohibited under Section 5 or 9 from attending any gathering It should be noted here that if the particulars of the prohibition had been notified in the Gazette, then the defence by the accused that he had no knowledge of the prohibition concerned, is valueless. Now what is the position? The hon. Minister prohibits someone from attending a gathering. He publishes that in the Gazette. Somebody refers to a statement made by that person. He commits an offence, whether he knew it was in the Gazette or not. I go further: What is the position in respect of reproducing in this House or in a court of law statements made by an individual who is under a ban under those clauses? It seems to me that the provisions of this clause are so wide that it is doubtful even whether Parliamentary privilege applies.

One can always ask the Minister of course.

Don’t be childish!

It is doubtful what the position would be in a court of law in respect of legislation of this kind. The Minister says “Don’t be childish!”. There is the provision that a subsequent law amends an earlier law. Where is the provision in this Bill which excludes that? I go further and I say that all these invasions of the rights of individuals have been taken in a manner which denies entirely the rule of law in South Africa. They are all taken on the question of the suspicion of the Minister, and, Sir, they can be applied not only in respect of organizations declared unlawful under the Suppression of Communism Act, but also organizations declared unlawful under the Unlawful Organizations Act. They interfere with the freedom of the individual and with the freedom of assembly. Sir, it seems to us that the Minister should make out a very strong case for those indeed and he has made out no case whatever in placing this Bill before the House.

There is the second point and that deals with the 12 days’ detention section. That section was introduced for a specific purpose. The Minister of the day outlined to us the reasons at the time. Now without any additional reasons, this hon. Minister has come along and asked for the extension of that section for another year, the extension of that section in such a way that it will entitle the Attorney-General, if he considers it necessary in the interests of the public or in the interests of law and order, to direct that no person who has been arrested shall be granted bail for 12 days. Last year we were told that there were very good reasons for it being introduced. This year we have just had vague stories by the hon. the Minister, no further attempt to justify the situation whatever, and no indication of it being necessary because of a state of emergency. Last year we were warned of what was going to happen on 31 May when the Republic was celebrated. This year the Minister has given us no information, but having got used to the idea, having got used to invading the right of habeas corpus, having found it useful for his purposes, he goes straight ahead with it, without having any regard to the rights of the individual.

There are other invasions of the freedom of the individual. The first is the question of minimum sentences, which need not labour.

The “three years” is wrong there. It should be “one year”.

I am grateful to know that. It makes it less objectionable, but it remains nevertheless objectionable. In the past a magistrate had the right to prohibit meetings where he apprehended that the public peace would be seriously endangered by the assembly of a particular public gathering in any public place. The Minister is now taking the power, if he deems it necessary or expedient for the maintenance of public peace, to ban any public gathering in any public place, in any area during any period or on any day or during specified times or periods. Sir, the only sort of justification we have had is the Minister talking about meetings held on the steps of the City Hall in Johannesburg and held on the Grand Parade in Cape Town. The hon. the Minister has suggested that people hold only meeting there who are seeking trouble. I can give him the assurance, Sir, that this party once held a meeting there when close on 14,000 people were present …

During election time?

It had nothing to do with elections, but there was no question of seeking trouble. I can give the Minister the assurance that that situation and the Parade here in Cape Town had been amongst the few safety valves which have prevented the powder barrel blowing up in South Africa. I think the hon. Minister should remember that when rights are taken to ban meetings because the hon. the Minister deems it necessary or expedient and there is no recourse to a court of any kind, then you are busy sitting on the safety valve and causing trouble for the future of South Africa.

Those are invasions of the freedom of the individual, but I have the other objection against this Bill and that is that it defines crimes in such wide terms that it jeopardises the lives and liberty of individuals who are innocent of any intent to subvert the State. We know that the hon. gentleman has wide powers under the Public Safety Act and that he has wide powers under the Riotous Assemblies Act. He also has wide powers under the ordinary criminal law. I would say that we on this side of the House, because we stand for the maintenance of law and order, are as much against sabotage as anybody on the Government side of the House. But I want to say also that unlike many of those who opposed our war efforts in the years 1939 to 1945, we have no experience of committing sabotage, but we have quite a lot of experience of combating sabotage as we knew it in the war years. May I remind hon. members opposite that it was only at the height of the war years that the United Party Government found it necessary to introduce the death penalty, and then only in certain very serious cases. May I remind the House what the principles were underlying that legislation? At the time there was a slightly increased penalty in respect of serious crimes when they were committed either by means of an explosive or with certain intentions such as hampering the Government in its war efforts. There was a compulsory death sentence for certain serious and well-defined crimes, where those crimes were committed either by explosives or with the intention of hampering the Government in its war efforts. Then there was death or a minimum sentence of seven years in respect of certain serious and well-defined crimes where those were committed without an explosive but with the intention of hampering the Government in its war effort or other similar clearly defined intentions.

The definition was very wide “hampering the war effort”.

I will give the hon. the Minister the exact definition and he will find that it was not wide. He knows very well what that meant. Quite a lot of people on his side are experts on that particular matter. But, Sir, let us leave that alone. He knows very well what those things meant. But those steps were only taken after innocent people had lost their lives as a result of sabotage.

You could do anything under that.

The hon. the Minister knows very well that these were the provisions applied to saboteurs and he also knows that the death penalty was never exacted on a single occasion.

Internment without trial.

Is there any country in the world that in war time won’t intern a man without a trial?

Aren’t we involved in a cold war?

Here we are again, this hon. the Minister, supported by his back-benchers, trying to equate the position in South Africa to-day with a real war. You know, Sir, during the war years we had a very difficult organization to deal with. We had the Ossewa-Brandwag. They were extremely able people. They got up to all sorts of mischief in South Africa. We had all sorts of newspapers writing extraordinary things, and we had to try and win the war. The Minister tries to equate that position with the situation here to-day when the Minister tells us that everything is calm and quiet and peaceful!

The Minister is seeing spooks to-night. He is looking round desperately to find some reason to justify an action which he knows he cannot justify. But, Sir, it is such a contrast to the position in the war years. The United Party had its crimes clearly defined. The onus remained upon the Crown, the State, to establish the intent. Here you have a Government which has taken fright already, although the Minister is trying to tell us that he has not taken fright, that he is not being panicky. But he is taking wider powers than the old United Party Government took in the war years.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 22 May.