Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, the Appropriation Act is usually passed only towards the end of the session, and it is therefore customary to ask the House, by way of a Part Appropriation Bill, for an advance in order to cover essential public expenditure during the first few months of the new financial year. For safety’s sake this Bill makes provision for the period from 1st April to approximately mid-July.

The total amounts required come to R1290 million, namely R950 million on Revenue Account, R320 million on Loan Account, and R20 million on South-West Africa Account. As usual, these amounts may only be spent on services which have already been approved by Parliament under an Appropriation Act, or for which there is other statutory authorization.

The amount requested is considerably more than that of last year as a result of certain increased payments that have to be made during the first few months of the new financial year. However, it would be dangerous to try to draw from that any conclusions in regard to the scope of the Main Budget for 1973-’74—hon. members will have to wait a few weeks for that.

Mr. Speaker, as has already been announced, it is my intention to introduce the Main Budget on 28th March, 1973. On that occasion I shall give an exposition of the economic position of the Republic as well as the state of the public accounts. I shall therefore not anticipate my Budget Speech now. There are, nevertheless, several financial matters to which I want to refer briefly now.

During the past week international financial matters were once again very much in the limelight, and I should like to start with this aspect. Hon. members will recall that in December, 1971, the main industrial countries agreed in Washington to realign their exchange rates; the U.S.A. dollar was devalued by approximately 8%, whereas the German mark and the Japanese yen were revalued upwards and several other exchange rates were altered, too. The credibility of this so-called Smithsonian Agreement was violated as far back as June, 1972, when the British pound was forced to abandon its par value and to float. Today, not even 14 months after the Smithsonian Agreement, the U.S.A. dollar was devalued once again (this time by 10%), whereas the Japanese yen, the British pound, the Swiss franc and the Italian lira are all floating.

In all fairness it must be admitted that the Great Powers realized that the Smithsonian realignment of exchange rates had offered no permanent solution to the world’s financial problems and that a more sweeping reform was necessary. Consequently the Governors of the International Monetary Fund decided to appoint a committee from their own ranks—the so-called Committee of Twenty—to study the reform of the international monetary system. Australia, as the leader of our group in the Executive Council of the Fund, is a full member of that committee, whereas the Ministers of Finance of New Zealand and South Africa (the other two most important countries in the group) are associate members. Up to now the committee has only held one meeting. However, the deputies of the committee, who have to do the preparatory work, have already held three meetings, and South Africa was represented at all three of them.

The discussions in the committee and its deputies are confidential, and therefore I may not furnish the House with any particulars. I may say, however, that South Africa will always endeavour to make a constructive contribution.

In the light of the events of the past year it would to my mind be a useful contribution if we could bring about a more realistic approach to the reform of the monetary system, more realistic than the one that is revealed at times. After all, it is no use working out all sorts of clever schemes for a future monetary system which simply do not take into account the real facts of life. Any proposals which cannot gain credibility in the money-markets of the world must surely fail.

That is why we still believe that any new system must be built on the foundations of the past and especially on the proven foundation of gold. It is, after all, a well known and recognized monetary asset, and there is ample proof that all countries—including those countries which sometimes advocate the demonetization of gold—do believe in gold and are in fact clinging to their gold reserves in practice.

The international monetary system which would to my mind work best in the present circumstances, is a system in which the U.S.A. dollar as well as gold would play an important role. The world is used to the dollar as a means of payment as well as a reserve asset. But for those purposes the dollar has to be strong, and it can only be really strong if it is convertible into gold. However, convertibility into gold is not practicable unless the official gold price is raised considerably, so that the gold reserves of the U.S.A. are increased in dollar value, too. Other provisions would possibly be necessary too, such as effective control of the flow of speculative flight capital, bilateral arrangements for the redemption of the large dollar balances of the main surplus countries, especially Germany and Japan, and, perhaps, also a gold loan by these countries to the U.S.A. in order to strengthen confidence in the dollar. However, the foundation of the system must be gold, which not only commands general confidence but also has the real advantage of being a tangible reserve asset with an intrinsic value and not merely an acknowledgment of debt from another country or organization.

That does not mean that an international currency such as the Special Drawing Right or S.D.R. has no future; I think that the S.D.R. can at this very moment play a useful, supplementary role which can be extended gradually. Furthermore, there is no reason why a European monetary unit, for instance, cannot play an important role in the future as an international means of payment and a reserve asset. But it is nevertheless desirable, for the present at least, to build on the proven foundation of gold.

In the course of the international monetary disturbances of the past few weeks, the South African rand has emerged as a strong currency. It is almost incredible that the current deficit in our balance of payments dropped from almost R1 000 million in 1971 to considerably less than R100 million in 1972, and that the Reserve Bank’s gold and other foreign reserves rose from a low of R375 million in December, 1971, to almost R1 000 million on 9th February, 1973. Our position is such a strong one that, when the U.S.A. dollar devalued last week, we had no doubt that we could and had to maintain the par value of the rand—a decision which was apparently welcomed generally.

I should like to say something about our decision in June last year to float with sterling. Although the reasons for our decision were set out fully at the time, I should like to emphasize for the benefit of the House that the basic reason for this decision is to be sought in the fact that at that stage the authorities—and, even more important, the outside world—did not as yet have conclusive proof of the strength and extent of the improvement in our balance of payments. Consequently there was a real danger, if we did not float with sterling, that we would be exposed once again to speculative capital movements, leads and lags in payments for imports and exports, respectively, and so forth, which would not only have affected our balance of payments but also have put a damper on the general confidence in our economy.

By October, 1972, on the other hand, the strong improvement in our balance of payments had already become so clearly apparent that, when sterling started weakening further, we could confidently return to a fixed parity for the rand—a parity roughly 4% above the then floating level of the rand.

Therefore, when mention is made of our devaluation of October, 1972, it must be borne in mind that in actual fact it meant an appreciation of the rand above its floating level. Furthermore it must be remembered that the market value of the pound sterling, the currency of our main trading partner, dropped considerably between June and October, 1972. If a weighted mean of the value of the rand in terms of all other currencies is calculated it appears that the value of the rand, as against that of other currencies as a whole, dropped by roughly 12% as a result of the devaluation of December, 1971, and that the further devaluation of October, 1972, resulted in a further drop of approximately 1%. As a result of the devaluation of the dollar and the further weakening of the British pound, the relative value of the rand is at present at a higher level than it was at the beginning of 1972. What is meant by the “value of the rand” in this sense is, of course, its exchange rate value and not its purchasing power.

Now I want to refer briefly to our domestic position. Inflation has remained a thorny problem. However, at the moment we have to contend with a kind of inflation different from the one we had before, namely cost inflation instead of demand inflation. That was why we could relax our credit restrictions and take other measures to stimulate the economy, as I shall explain later on. The present price increases are mainly attributable to cost increases, which are inevitable in many cases. For instance, it has been calculated that food and “other goods” contributed most to the increase of approximately 7,4% in the consumer price index from December, 1971, to December, 1972. To be specific, food was responsible for 27 % of this increase, housing for 19%, services for 17% and “other goods” for 37 %. The increase in the prices of food, especially meat, was mainly attributable to unfavorable agricultural conditions and other special factors, whereas in the case of “other goods” the increase in the price of imported goods played a major role as a result of devaluation and price increases in countries abroad.

Unfortunately it must be expected that, as a result of the increase in railway tariffs and other inevitable price adjustments, consumer prices will go on rising during the first half of 1973. However, it is possible that the rate of increase will slacken later in the year as the effect of these factors is worked out and especially if production and productivity are increased.

I have already referred to the measures for stimulating the economy. The growth rate of the economy has not yet risen as desired, although the conditions for that are favorable at present. The Government has already taken several steps to encourage more rapid economic growth. For instance, apart from the measures announced in the 1972 Budget, the bank rate was lowered, the restrictions on bank credit were relaxed and a new, more flexible method of control was introduced, the sales duty on furniture, household wares and motor-cars was lowered, the conditions in respect of hire purchase and other consumer credit were relaxed, more generous decentralization benefits were granted and the 1966 loan levy was repaid earlier.

The increase in the wages and salaries of Railway officials as well as those of other employees, including non-White workers, ought to stimulate consumer spending further. Having regard to the other factors I have already mentioned, I have little doubt that a strong revival in the economy can be expected soon. We should also take care not to overstimulate to such an extent that we create a new spiral of inflation. I nevertheless feel that an additional moderate concession is justified.

I have consequently decided that the 1967 loan levy, which is only repayable during the 1973-’74 financial year, will now be paid back as early as 1st March, 1973. This means that an amount of R66 million will be paid out to taxpayers on that date; of this amount approximately R54 million will be paid to companies and the remainder to individuals. I trust that companies in particular will make use of this windfall to help to finance development.

There is one more important announcement I want to make. I have already referred to the recent increase in the salaries and wages of Railway officials. Public Service salaries have lagged behind, not only in respect of the Railways, but also in comparison with the private sector. The Government has consequently decided to grant all officials and employees in the Public Service (including the services) as well as the provincial staff a general salary increase by way of a 15% pensionable allowance as from 1st April, 1973. These improvements mean that the remuneration of persons on, for instance, the following notches will be adjusted as follows—

Over and above these improvements, the gap between the wages of White and non-White members of staff is being narrowed at the same time.

In respect of persons remunerated at a fixed salary of R10 200 per year and more, improvements have also been approved—for instance, a person on R10 800 per year will now receive R12 600.

The opportunity was taken to bring about, on the recommendation of a committee of inquiry, essential structural adjustments in respect of certain White and non-White nursing and para-medical members of staff, which were under consideration but could not be effected at an earlier stage. In certain cases this includes, over and above the 15% allowance, a considerable increase.

Salary increases in respect of the teaching staff have also been approved. Particulars of all salary adjustments will be announced by the bodies concerned at a later stage.

As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, these improvements are actually intended to make up a backlog so that the Public Service may at least retain its labour force in order to perform its essential task. Therefore, in themselves these improvements do not give other broad sectors of the community any cause for insisting on increased wages and salaries, and it would definitely be prejudicial to the whole economy and to the workers if this were to give rise to a new wage spiral and consequently to new price increases. Therefore I want to repeat the appeal I made to the workers of South Africa in my Budget Speech last year, namely to display, as they did in the past, moderation and responsibility in their wage negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened with interest to the hon. the Minister dealing with the financial aspects in his speech, e.g. the question of the devaluation of the rand and the devaluation of the dollar. We are always grateful to him for the factual information he gives on economic grounds. We are interested, of course, to hear from the hon. the Minister that he now intends repaying the sum of R66 million, I think that was the figure, of loan levy, due next year, in March of this year. Speaking on behalf of the public who have suffered quite considerably as the result of the inflation through which we are going, we are grateful to have this information from the hon. the Minister.

We are not surprised at the hon. the Minister’s announcement to increase salaries for public servants. We welcome this as well. We think it is necessary and it was natural, following the increases in the salaries of Railway personnel. We were also interested to hear the Minister’s information on the committee he is going to establish in regard to certain non-White members of the Public Service. There are other facets of the Minister’s remarks that we want to consider and therefore I move—

Mr. Speaker …

We demand a 15% wage increase also for the Post Office workers.

… by your leave, I should like to make the following statement in regard to the salary improvements in the Post Office.

Further to the announcement which my colleague the hon. the Minister of Finance has just made in his speech, I want to announce that it has been decided also to grant all officers and employees of the Post Office a general salary increase as from 1st April, 1973. This increase will consist of a 15% pensionable allowance, calculated on existing salaries, except in the case of officers in the top structure who are on fixed salaries and whose remuneration will be adjusted on a salary structure basis.

Advantage is also being taken of this opportunity to narrow the gap between the wages of White and non-White members of staff, i.e. in addition to effecting the above improvements.

Mr. Speaker I move—

From the documents already tabled, hon. members will have observed that in order to cover expenditure to be defrayed from revenue funds during the year ending 31st March, 1973, an additional amount of R42 122 000 requires to be voted.

As is customary, the earnings for the current financial year will be dealt with when the main estimates are presented to the House on 7th March and I shall, therefore, not deal with the revenue prospects at this stage.

Under the main head “Railways”, an additional appropriation of R22,2 million is required, mainly in respect of maintenance of Permanent Way and Works— Head No. 2; maintenance of Rolling Stock—Head No. 3; Running Expenses—Head No. 4; and Traffic Expenses—Head No. 5. The increases under all these heads are principally attributable to the salary and wage improvements granted to the staff, whilst increased consumption of fuel oil as a result of the new diesel locomotives which were placed in service and of electric current for traction purposes, as well as increased expenditure in respect of tarpaulins, also accounted for the rise in expenditure under Head No. 4. The total additional amount required under “Subsidiary Services” is R2,2 million, the major increases being under Head No. 9—Catering and Bedding Services—due mainly to the salary and wage improvements and higher prices of provisions; Head No. 12—Road Transport Service—due to the salary and wage improvements and increased cost of spares and more vehicles placed in service; Head No. 13—Tourist Service—due to more hotel reservations, sea and air bookings; and Head No. 13A—Pre-cooling Services—on account of the greater tonnage of fruit handled. An additional amount of Rl,l million has to be voted under Head No. 14—Interest on Capital, Net Revenue Account, Railways—on account of loan funds having been drawn earlier than anticipated in order to meet current expenditure, whilst the increase under Head No. 15—Interest on Superannuation and other Funds—is due to an increase in rates of interest. Of the additional R3,6 million required under Head No. 17—Miscellaneous Expenditure, Net Revenue Account, Railways—an amount of R2,l million has to be appropriated to cover the loss on the realization of investments, whilst interest on bank overdrafts, after allowing for savings under other items, entails additional expenditure of some R l,5 million.

Under Airways—Head No. 28—and additional amount of R8,7 million requires to be voted, mainly due to factors such as increased fuel prices, higher tariffs for landing charges and increased agency fees and commission payments.

The increased contribution of R10 million to Net Revenue Appropriation Account, Contribution to Betterment Fund—Head No. 36—is required to finance the programme of Betterment Works. The original estimates provide for an amount of R20 million, but it is expected that the appropriation in respect of Betterment Works will be substantially exceeded, due mainly to additional departmental housing, facilities for the staff, relaying and strengthening of railway track, as well as cartage vehicles and mobile equipment.

I shall now deal with the Brown Book items.

The additional expenditure to be incurred on Capital and Betterment Works amounts to R99 295 100 of which a substantial portion is attributable to increased costs as a result of devaluation. Of the total amount, loan funds amounting to R42 million will be required from Treasury, R25 million is to be obtained by means of a foreign loan, whilst R4,6 million is to be met from the Betterment Fund, R16 million in the form of supplier’s credit, R2,5 million from the reserve account of the Sinking Fund, and R300 000 from the Level Crossings Elimination Fund. The balance of approximately R8,9 million will be made available from savings on existing appropriations.

As regards the foreign loan of R25 million, hon. members will recall that the Railways and Harbours Loans Bill, in terms of which the Railway Administration will be able to raise money by way of loans to finance expected expenditure in respect of its capital and betterment works, was recently submitted to Parliament.

Under Head No. 1—Construction of Railways—an additional amount of R12 million is required, of which R4,5 million is necessary for the new railway line between Broodsnyersplaas and Ermelo to meet anticipated expenditure as a result of greater progress. At the time the estimates of expenditure were submitted to Parliament last year, finality had not yet been reached regarding the cost of the coal export project and a nominal cash provision of only R100 was, therefore, included in the estimates in respect of this new line.

The rapid progress made with the construction of the new line from Vryheid to a point on the line under construction between Empangeni and Richards Bay necessitates an additional cash provision of R7,5 million. Hon. members have probably observed that the total estimated cost for this project now comes to R132,5 million.

As indicated in the report of the Railways and Harbours Board of February, 1969, the estimate of R74,8 million would have had to be revised again as soon as the survey of the proposed lines was completed and full particulars of all requirements were known.

Detailed information on earthworks, bridges, tunnels, shunting yards, stations, housing, drainage and foundations is now available so that more reliable estimates can be prepared. Provision has also been made for cost increases since 1969.

The original planning provided for a railway line to carry train loads of 2 000 tons and general traffic of some eight million tons per annum. However, as a result of the decision to export coal from the Witbank area through Richards Bay, approximately nine million tons of coal per annum will also have to be conveyed over this line. The facilities must, therefore, be replanned to provide for train loads of 5 500 tons. A heavier track and bridges, with more effective communications and signalling and additional crossing places, doubling of certain sections and access to larger shunting yards must, therefore, be provided.

An amount of R37,6 million requires to be voted under Head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines. A portion of the amount is for works authorized initially under the Unforeseen Works Allotment as a matter of urgency and for which specific provision is now being made. An additional amount of R17,7 million is required for rebuilding almost 95% of the existing line between Ermelo and Sikame and the deviation of the line between Davel and Breyten, which schemes form part of the coal export project. Other works in progress and requiring additional appropriations are the partial doubling of the line and installation of centralized traffic control between Klerksdorp and Fourteen Streams (Rl,7 million), and relaying and strengthening in order to improve the standard of existing lines (R3,5 million), whilst an additional amount of R300 000 will be required to meet increased expenditure in respect of the elimination of level crossings. An additional cash provision of some R9 million is also required, mainly due to the devaluation of the rand, price escalations and the increased cost of contract work on signalling and interlocking, electrification of railways and communications.

As hon. members are no doubt aware, a teleprinter communication system is being implemented between the major centres to provide advice of the movement of rolling stock. It is the intention to process this information by means of a computer with a view to the better utilization of rolling stock. The cost of the computer amounts to R987 500. In addition, a data-processing system termed SARNET, which involves power and communication equipment having to be provided on the various systems for the transmission of information to a central recording centre, is being introduced. Cash provision in the amount of R981 100 is required for this purpose.

The additional appropriation under Head No. 3—Rolling Stock—amounts to R14,2 million. Of this amount R4,5 million is required for the provision of 20 additional diesel locomotives to replace steam locomotives, including those in service on the Nelspruit/Graskop and Nelspruit/Plaston branch lines where diesel traction will be introduced in the near future. The additional cash provision will be met from supplier’s credit. In view of the increased commitments against the rolling stock section of the General Renewals Fund, an amount of R9,6 million, which it was the intention to defray from the Renewals Fund, will now be met from capital funds.

An additional amount of R5,2 million is to be voted under Head No. 5—Harbours—mainly on account of rapid progress made with the work on the second stage of the Table Bay harbour scheme and with the construction of a new dredger to replace the Blesbok.

Work on the buildings for cabin services, the flight kitchen and the freight depot at Jan Smuts airport has progressed more rapidly than anticipated, and to meet expenditure in this connection and for other smaller items, the cash provision under Head No. 6—Airways—requires to be increased by some R3,1 million.

Owing to the dolomite formation in the Fountains area near Pretoria, the route of the oil pipeline in that area had to be altered at considerable cost. This, together with the increased cost of the replacement of the communication route by a cable serving the pipeline between Durban and the Witwatersrand, necessitates an additional cash provision in the amount of approximately R2 million to be voted under Head No. 7—Pipelines.

An amount of R25 million is provided for under Head No. 8—Working Capital—to cover expenditure incurred on the acquisition of spares for new diesel locomotives and aircraft as well as the increased cost of material arising from devaluation and price escalation. The necessary funds will be obtained by means of a foreign loan, to which I have already referred.

Summarized, the position is that appropriations from Revenue Funds require to be increased by R42,1 million and those on Capital and Betterment Works by R99,3 million.

Mr. Speaker, when one sits here listening to the hon. the Minister, it sounds as if one were dealing with a simple, concise account of a quite normal procedure, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are aspects of this procedure that are anything but normal. In the very first place I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to Schedule 3—Sources from which the Additional Funds for Capital and Betterment Services shall be provided. One of those sources is a foreign loan of R25 000.

The figure is R25 million.

Yes, R25 million—I find it difficult to be so greedy in my thoughts. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: How can he expect Parliament to vote on a matter that is not legal? I should like to inquire of the hon. the Minister in terms of what power or authority he is asking us to approve this foreign loan of R25 million, because the Railways and Harbours Act provides that the Railways must obtain its capital funds from the Treasury, from the Minister of Finance. It is true that a Bill has been piloted through this House to give the hon. the Minister of Transport the right to negotiate loans in future, but it is not yet law; it has not been discussed by the Senate. So we are expected today to vote on a matter that is illegal. I want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will hold Schedule 3 over until the Senate has approved the necessary legislation. Then we can perhaps deliberate on it again on a special occasion. We approve of the principle, but we really do not think that Parliament should be disregarded and held in contempt in this way. We do not expect this of the hon. the Minister.

A second matter which I should like to raise—I do not want to go into it in detail, because the main Budget will be submitted to us next month, and we can discuss it in detail then—is in connection with total additional expenditure. We should like to inquire what went wrong then with the budgeting ability of the South African Railways and Harbours, that we find this surprising state of affairs today that we are asked to vote almost R150 million by way of an additional appropriation. Last year we were asked to vote an amount of R257 500 000 on Capital Account. Now, before the end of the financial year, we are being asked to vote another R99 295 000. This is an increase of 33⅓ %. The hon. the Minister has now indicated that it is mainly due to inflation and the depreciation of the rand. In his subsequent elucidation it also appeared, however, that there are large amounts that are due to other causes, inter alia, that things were done and occurred in the last year of which we were not notified in the main Budget. I want to know this. Was it policy not to disclose everything in the main Budget because our financial position was very difficult at the time, or was it just a lack of insight and an ability to estimate? I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that Parliament is entitled to better and more accurate information concerning the largest business concern of the State, the South African Railways and Harbours. I just want to look at the amounts for a moment and to forget about the Minister’s excuses for a moment. For the construction of railways, for example, we were asked to vote R17 864 900 last year, and now another R12 million is required. It is not a question of 10% or 20%, but of a 66% increase which Parliament is being asked to vote. For new works on open Tines, inter alia, we were asked last year to vote R117 million. Now we are being asked for another R37 million, again an increase of more than one-third. Last year we were asked to vote R53 million for rolling stock and now we are being asked to vote another R14 million. We were asked to vote R13 million for harbours, and now we are being asked for another R5 million, an increase of approximately 40%. We were asked to vote just under R9 million for the airways, and now we are being asked to add more than R3 million, approximately 35% more. We were asked for R6½ million for pipelines, and now we must vote another R2 141 000, an increase of more than one-third. Under the head “Working Capital” we were asked to vote R63 000 for stores stock and recoverable advances. Now we are being asked to vote R25 million extra, 400 times as much. Something is wrong, or something was concealed from Parliament a year ago, or otherwise something went wrong with the budgeting ability of the South African Railways and one can attach no importance to and have no confidence in the figures brought to us by the hon. the Minister in his main Budget. Then there is one small matter in particular that I just want to mention. There are other members who are more interested in this than I am, and they will ask the Minister further pointed questions about it. The Minister’s excuses concerning the Vryheid-Sikami line, which is under construction to a point between Empangeni and Richards Bay, are not very convincing. The amount for this project has been increased time and time again. Last year we were asked to approve a final expenditure of approximately R75 million for this railway line for the years to come. Now we are being asked for almost R60 million more. Look, Mr. Speaker, anyone can make a mistake. Circumstances may change. Money may depreciate. But surely one does not make such a miscalculation that an amount of R75 million eventually has to be increased by R60 million. There is something wrong. I feel a little unhappy about the fact that Parliament is being asked to vote these tremendous amounts or otherwise to approve them in principle when in fact they have no bearing on the reality of the matter. I think we need a much more detailed explanation from the Minister than the one he has already given of this surprising situation, that the additional expenditure on capital account can rise from an original appropriation of R250 million with another R100 million, as it did this year.

Sir, it was a very striking thing that was said by the Minister, that the main causes for this increase, in the Revenue Account as well, were higher salaries and inflation. The higher salaries, too, are largely, if not exclusively, due to the fact that there is inflation. This makes one ask, Sir: What is going on with South Africa’s money? What assurance can we obtain from the Government that the Budget to be introduced this year will not be a misrepresentation again, just like the one we are dealing with now? I just want to draw the attention of the people to the fact that calculations that are made in terms of the value of South Africa’s money under this Government are meaningless after the expiry of one year.

Mr. Speaker, …

Vause, what about you?

He says he is going to speak in the Committee Stage. The hon. member need not be concerned.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville is so concerned about the powers of Parliament, since Parliament now has to vote another R25 million which the Railways has to obtain by means of a loan. But this is not at all exceptional.

The measure which provides for that is not yet an Act of Parliament.

That is correct. The purpose of this measure is only to give the Railways the right to negotiate a loan. Naturally the Railways cannot negotiate that loan before the legislation has been passed by both Houses of Parliament. That goes without saying.

How do you know it is going to be passed?

Well, Sir, let me put it this way: It is intelligent anticipation that the Bill will be passed by the Senate. So we may take it, especially as far as the Opposition is concerned, that they will cooperate just as well in the Other Place and that the legislation will be piloted through the Senate as well. I just want to point out that a considerable amount is voted by the House for capital expenditure with the Budget every year; but then I do not have that capital yet. It is only when the Budget of the Minister of Finance has been passed by Parliament that it becomes legal. In other words, what is being done now is done in this way by this House every year. Money that I do not have yet is voted for my Budget. However, it is only when the main Budget has been passed by Parliament that I can get that money.

But you can acquire it legally. This money you cannot acquire legally yet.

No, but I can. If I cannot get the loan, I can get the money from the Minister of Finance.

[Inaudible.]

I give the hon. member the assurance that there will not be a problem. If I cannot get the money from overseas my colleague will see to it that I get the money from him. So it is quite safe to assume that I am going to get it.

As regards the large amount that is now being asked for, that is nothing new either. It is practically impossible today to make any accurate estimate of any large project which will take a period of two or three years to complete. With this escalation of costs we have no control over that. [Interjections.] I said, with this escalation of costs I have no control over the expenditure of the Railways on capital works. This is so from the nature of the case. We make certain projections, as in the case of this Vryheid (Sikame) project. Here the original estimate was a very rough one. After the work has been commenced, after proper surveys have been made and after we have determined what really has to be done and what is required, only then can a fairly accurate estimate be made. I still cannot give the assurance today that this will be the final cost. Hon. members know that after the construction of that line had already been commenced, it was decided that 100 million tons of coal, had to be exported through Richards Bay. The result of that is that the railway line does not only have to be strengthened; longer loop lines have to be built and additional facilities have to be created. Instead of the railway line having to carry 2 000 ton trains, provision must be made for 5 500 ton trains. So the whole picture has been changed. The result is then that everything is so much more expensive. Many parts of the railway line had to be replanned, and I may say that it is an extremely difficult terrain across which this railway line runs. In every contract negotiated with private entrepreneurs there is an escalation clause. In other words, under certain circumstances they are entitled to ask for more than the amount for which they originally tendered. This is nothing exceptional either. The real point is that as a result of this escalation of costs, and also as a result of devaluation, it is practically impossible today to estimate any important project so accurately when it is going to take three or four years to complete the project. That is the reason why I am now asking for an additional amount.

I have now given the full reasons for all these increases, in respect of both capital and revenue appropriations. If there are any specific items that hon. members do not feel happy about, they are free to raise them in the Committee Stage and I shall reply to them in full.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Schedule 1: Revenue Services:

Head No. 1.—“General Charges”, R37 000:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to Item 201, which includes the increase in the emoluments of Railway commissioners with effect from 1st January. May I ask the hon. the Minister if he can justify this increase in any way, and whether this means that Railway commissioners in future will use their special trains to bring newly elected Nationalist members of Parliament to Cape Town, to be met by black motor-cars with White chauffeurs. Is that part of the emoluments of Railway commissioners?

It is only fair that the Railway commissioners should receive an increase in their emoluments when the rest of the staff receives an increase. I think they are worth every cent they get. The matter to which the hon. member has referred has nothing to do with the emoluments of the Railway commissioners. I think his information is completely wrong. This particular Railway commissioner’s son did not travel in his private coach as a non-paying passenger. He travelled with his wife and family as a paying passenger, like any other member of Parliament. The meals that he did enjoy together with his father were paid for. Every Railway commissioner is entitled in the same way as a Cabinet Minister to allow guests in his private coach, as long as they pay their fares and as long as they pay for their meals. [Interjection.] As the hon. the Prime Minister says, I am quite prepared even to invite the hon. member for Durban Point, when I travel in my private coach, to come and have a meal with me, and I can assure him that I would pay for the meal; I would not even ask him to pay for it.

Sir, the hon. the Minister says that he considers that the Railway commissioners more than justify this increase. Did he not tell us a little while ago that it was the Railway commissioners’ estimate of the cost of the Vryheid line, with which we will deal later, which was so far out that we are now being asked to vote over three times as much as they estimated? Is this a justification for increasing their salaries? When they are so far out in the estimate which they place before this House of the cost of construction, is it not a justification for reducing their salaries?

The Railway commissioners are not responsible for making any estimates in regard to any project. The estimates do appear in their report, but the estimates are made by the technical staff of the South African Railways.

Do they not accept responsibility for it?

No, I accept responsibility. I am responsible for everything that happens on the Railways. The Railway commissioners are not responsible for making any estimates in regard to any project whatsoever; they merely submit their report after having obtained an estimate from the technical staff of the South African Railways.

Head agreed to.

Head No. 2.—“Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works”, R6 360 000:

Sir, may I ask under Item 227 whether this was an under-estimate of the cost of the rails or of the quantity of the rails required?

According to my information, the sanctioned expenditure on these rails was higher than anticipated. Probably more rails were used than was originally anticipated. As the hon. member knows, you can never accurately estimate the number of rails which will have to be replaced over a period of 12 months. Many more rails than originally estimated may require to be replaced.

My question is whether it was the quantity or the cost that was wrongly estimated?

It was impossible to estimate the number of rails which would have to be replaced and relaid over a period of 12 months. This is an additional cost. Apart from that, of course, the cost of rails is also increasing continually.

Head agreed to.

Head No. 4.—“Running Expenses”, R4 310 000:

Before commenting on this, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why there is this increase of R857 000 on maintenance of tarpaulins.

Before the hon. the Minister replies, and to save time, may I ask why this huge increase in the cost of diesel fuel oil from R6 703 000 to R8 283 500 has taken place, and then electric power increased by almost R2 million. Is it because the trains have been travelling such greater distances, or is it because of increased costs? I can understand the increase in cost in the case of diesel oil but I cannot understand why electric power should have gone up to the same extent and I would be grateful if the Minister would give us an explanation.

In regard to diesel fuel oil, the increase is due to the expansion in diesel working. The more trains you run, the more diesel fuel you use for the diesel locomotives to draw them. And then, of course, in regard to electric power, there is increased consumption of electric power, and, in addition, tariffs have been increased. We get all our electric power from Escom and like any household, the more electric current you use, the higher your account is at the end of the month. The same happens to the Railways. The greater the consumption of electricity, the higher the account is.

So you must save a lot of money on steam and coal?

Yes, because steam-power locomotives are gradually being eliminated. Over 15 years all steam locomotives of the South African Railways will have been replaced by diesel and electric locomotives.

The Minister has not yet replied to my question on the tarpaulins.

The increased amount is due to increased requirements, as well as to the higher price of cotton duck, which is used for the manufacture of tarpaulins. If you require more tarpaulins, it is more expensive to manufacture them and therefore the amount increases.

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, he stated that part of this amount is due to the maintenance and replacement of tarpaulins. These tarpaulins, as far as I know, are also used for the canopies which cover passenger cars which are transported from one part of the country to the other. I would like to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister that, with these increased amounts, he will see to it that those tarpaulins are properly maintained and repaired and that passenger vehicles being transported on our trains will not arrive in the horrible filthy state which they so often do.

Order! The hon. member may deal with the increase in the amount only, and not with the original estimate.

The increase is R750 000. I would like to have the assurance that he will use that increase to ensure that the tarpaulins are in good order and that they protect our cars more effectively when they are being transported on the railways.

Sir, the Standing Orders lay down that only the reasons for the increase may be discussed. I have already given the reasons for the increase; the reasons are that more tarpaulins are being manufactured and that the cotton from which they are manufactured is so much more expensive. It has nothing to do with motor-cars. If the hon. member wishes to raise the matter, he must do so on my Vote.

Why is the word “maintenance” used?

They are no different from the hon. member’s clothes. If he has a hole in his clothes, his wife has to repair it for him. Similarly, if the tarpaulin is damaged, it must be repaired.

Sometimes the tarpaulins do look as though they have been repaired by a woman with a needle and thread.

I want to return to the question raised by the hon. member for Yeoville about the use of diesel fuel oil and electric power. The Minister simply shrugged his shoulders and said they used more diesel and more power and the power cost more. Surely when the original amount was voted, of R6,7 million, less than a year ago, that was the amount the Railways estimated would be required. They knew what traffic they were going to carry. In fact, they have carried less traffic than they had estimated they would carry. They knew what the consumption of diesel engines was. How is it then that we can be R1,5 million out on an estimate of R6,7 million, unless there was a large increase in the amount of goods carried. But that has not been the position. The Railways are losing more money than they estimated and there has been no vast increase in traffic. In other words, how does the hon. the Minister explain this original error? Surely the diesel engines suddenly do not use more diesel. If they are not carrying additional goods then they are not doing additional mileage. I should like to have a much more satisfactory answer from the hon. the Minister in regard to the R3,45 million miscalculation in the amount of diesel and electricity used for traction.

Mr. Chairman, more traffic has been carried, a greater tonnage of traffic has been carried during the past 12 months than during the previous year. There is no relation between the amount of tonnage of traffic carried and the amount of revenue. When there is a drop in high-rated traffic, which is a very small proportion of the traffic, the revenue is so much less. A greater tonnage of traffic has been conveyed during the past 12 months than during the previous year. Apart from that additional diesel locomotives have been placed in service. If the hon. member will only look at the estimates, he will see the number of diesel locomotives that were on order. A large number of them have been placed in service. Obviously they do not run on water; they run on fuel.

Didn’t you know that they were going to be placed in service?

Yes, of course. However, I should like to see any individual estimate precisely what mileage every diesel locomotive is going to run during the next 12 months. It is simply impossible to do that. We are dependent on the amount of traffic that is offered to the South African Railways for transport.

Why do you not sometimes over-estimate; why do you always underestimate?

For the sake of the hon. members; otherwise they are complaining. If I over-estimate, they say that I am misleading the House.

Mr. Chairman, coming back to the question of the diesel fuel oil, I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister’s reply means that all the currency fluctuations during the past year and so forth had no effect on the price of diesel oil?

Of course it did.

But surely it was more expensive for that reason as well.

Head agreed to.

Head No. 9.—“Catering and Bedding Services”, R274 000:

Mr. Chairman, we have an amount of R15 000 on these estimates for an increase in regard to “provisions, liquor and publications”. Can the hon. the Minister give us more information on the publications required for refreshment rooms in this item?

Usually there is one head to cover “Provisions, liquor and publications”. It does not necessarily refer to publications. The reason for the additional R15 000 required is that all the commodities have had to be purchased at higher prices. We require additional money for that.

What publications do you need for these refreshment rooms?

Good heavens! I can give the hon. member the names of dozens and dozens of publications which are sold by the South African Railways.

Head agreed to.

Head No. 13.—“Tourist Service”—R361 000:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to have some information on the increase of R200 000 in item 496—“Hotel accommodation”.

There has been a greater demand for hotel accommodation. The hon. member knows that this particular department merely acts as a tourist agency. They reserve accommodation for tourists and visitors to South Africa and consequently there is a bigger expenditure, but they get the revenue in again from the hotels and they get a commission on that. That is due to an additional demand for hotel accommodation.

Head agreed to.

Head No. 17.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure”, R3 590 500:

Mr. Chairman, when I spoke on the Second Reading I referred to increases running into 400% and some members felt quite surprised, even on the opposite side of the House. Here, under Item 534(i)(a), we have an increase on the original estimate of 2 074%. Originally the Minister budgeted for a loss of R100 on the realization of investments, but in fact he managed to lose R2 075 000. I do think that the hon. the Minister owes us an explanation. This period covers the period since the first devaluation in December of the year before last. Most private citizens have been making a small profit on realizing investments. However, the South African Railways loses 2 074% more than it expected to lose on the realization of investments. We shall be interested to hear the Minister give us an explanation for this remarkable feat.

Mr. Chairman, I refer to Item 534(i)(b). The amount voted on the original budget for interest on bank overdrafts was R100, and I see that the figure has now shifted up to R1 470 800. I cannot remember when last such a thing has appeared in the budget, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could perhaps elucidate the matter for us.

Mr. Chairman, we should like the hon. the Minister to give us more information about Item No. 534(ii)(a): Adjustment between Revenue and Miscellaneous Expenditure in respect of guaranteed lines to serve Non-White Townships, in connection with the withdrawal of State support for these particular railway lines. We are deeply aware of what has been going on the last few weeks in Durban and of the fact that it originally began with a threat about a strike against railway fare increases. I see here that in this item we are being asked to vote R31 500 more. Could the hon. the Minister give us the background to and the reason for the fact that this additional amount must be granted? We should also like to know how this affected the increase of third-class fares.

I can give the hon. member for Yeoville the following information with regard to the investments that we have realized. We had to realize many investments, because we were short of funds. As the hon. member knows there was a considerable deficit last year. I will give the precise figure of the loss on the total deficit for the year 1972-’73 by my Budget. When you run an organization such as the Railways, you require money to meet the expenditure. If you have to have insufficient funds to cover the expenditure, you have to realize investments. It is the only possible way you can get the additional funds. We are compelled to realize the following investments:

You do not encourage me to invest in Government stocks.

Well, if the hon. member invests, he will always make a profit when he sells.

You did not.

What I am saying is that, if the hon. member wants to invest, he will certainly make a profit out of it.

Why did you lose …

We were compelled to sell. I was forced to realize this stock. We had no option but to do it. The stocks sold in November, 1972: 4¾%, 1977; nominal value R4 800 000—a loss of R243 907. The total loss amounted to R2 074 072.

In regard to the interest on the bank overdraft which the hon. member for Maitland spoke about, I can give the following information: The actual overdraft interest from April, 1972 to October, 1972, was R9 479; the estimated interest in November, 1972, was R131 794; the estimated interest for December, 1972, was R220 600; the estimated interest from January, 1973 to March, 1973, is R687 510. The interest on the additional advance of R75 million was R880 617. This gives the total loss. A nominal provision of only R100 was made in the original estimates as the interest on bank overdrafts. The indications are that an additional amount of R1 929 900 will be required in respect of interest paid on temporary advances made to the Administration by the Public Debt Commissioners. Savings of R459 200 are anticipated; under other Column I items an amount of R1 470 700 will be required to be voted. Again, that is the difficulty; once you are in the red, when revenue has dropped, you must realize your investments and take bank overdrafts to cover your running expenses. In other words, your deficit always grows. It gets bigger and bigger as a result of these factors.

The hon. member for Durban Point wanted to know something about Item 534(ii)(a)—Adjustment between Revenue and Miscellaneous Expenditure. That has nothing to do with boycotts, or with any of the other stories he has talked about.

It is an increase in tariffs on those lines.

No, it has nothing to do with an increase in tariffs either. This is merely an adjustment in accordance with the agreement with the Treasury, between estimated an actual loss on the conveyance of passengers to and from resettlement areas. The hon. member knows that the total amount of losses comes under the Transport Vote, not Railways.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that we must then debate the subsidy on guaranteed lines under the Transport Vote, but I wish to return to the question of the “loss on realization of investments and interest on bank overdraft”. This indicates a very serious state of affairs. The hon. the Prime Minister recently took the greatest exception to a statement made by somebody that devaluation is an act of bankruptcy. What is it then when you start to sell your assets at a loss, when you can no longer hold on to assets to realize their full value in a year or two years’ time, when you have to sell 1975 stock in 1972? We are being asked here to vote R2 million for losses—plus R1 500 on bank overdrafts, which indicates that the Government was in such a critical financial state that it not only had to sell its assets before they matured …

Not the Government, but the Railways.

… that the Railways were in such a critical state that they had to sell their assets before they matured, and in addition had to pay R1 500 000 in bank overdraft interest. I did not get the total amount—I do not know if the hon. the Minister gave it—but what amount did the overdrafts actually amount to if they cost R1 500 000 in interest? Was that overdraft with the Reserve Bank or with commercial banks, and how much did the Railways owe?

He tells us he can get R25 million from the Minister of Finance.

Yes, we are told that, in terms of legislation passed here, there is no problem, should he not get permission from Parliament to borrow on the foreign market. He can get R25 million from the Minister of Finance. Yet here it is clear that the Government under which the hon. the Minister of Railways is running the railways, was in such a state of financial stress that it could not help the Railways and that the Railways were then forced (a) to sell their assets at a loss of R2 million and (b) to take overdrafts necessitating R1 500 000 in interest. This indicates that South Africa has been passing through a far more serious financial crisis than the country has ever been told. The country was not told that the Government was so bankrupt that it could not assist the Railways with money and that they forced the Railways to sell Government stock before it matured as well as other stock which was, in any case, invested at a pitiful rate of interest e.g. the Superannuation Fund at 4½%

These are pitiful interest rates when it comes to interest which is going to be used for the benefit of the railwaymen. Even the stock had to be sold in order to raise the money so that the railways could carry on. I do not think the Minister has been completely frank with us in telling the House what a crisis the Railways have been through and whether the Railways are in fact still in that state of crisis. Are the Railways still in that critical state? Are we still running overdrafts at a rate which necessitates this sort of interest? I hope the hon. the Minister will be more frank with the House than he has been up to now.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to hide. Everything is open to inspection. As a matter of fact, the revenue figures are published every month and the hon. member can look them up; there is nothing to hide. I will give an explanation in regard to this. These stocks were not purchased a year or two ago. At the time these stocks were purchased the reigning rate of interest was 4¾%, on some 4½%. It is a low rate of interest. These were the stocks that had to be sold because the Railways required the money. They were sold at a loss.

The Railways were broke.

The Railways were in an extremely difficult financial position and were running at a tremendous deficit. But there is nothing to hide. I will deal with the whole matter when my budget is debated.

It is not insolvency, but in liquidity.

Yes, it is not a question of insolvency. The hon. member’s definition of insolvency is quite different from ours. As I have said, the whole matter will be dealt with fully when the budget is debated. The fact remains that certain stocks had to be sold, because the Railways were short of revenue to cover ordinary running expenses. They sold the stocks for the highest amount they could possibly get at the Public Debt Commissioners. Selling that stock resulted in a loss I have already given to hon. members. That obviously increased the deficit as a whole. Hon. members must remember that the Railways is an organization that has to stand on its own feet. We cannot run to the Treasury for subsidies. We have to stand on our own feet and balance our own books.

Could you not have got a loan?

I would have had to pay interest on that surely. Does the hon. member really think that the Treasury would give the Railways an interest free loan? Of course they would not. Whether you sell your stocks or whether you obtain a loan anywhere else the interest has to be paid and the Railways are responsible for the payment of that interest.

But you do not lose capital that way.

But we do not lose capital. It was money which was invested by the Railways over a number of years. Does the hon. member not know the difference between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure?

You have lost R2 million in capital.

Whether we lose it in capital or not, it was actually revenue which was invested with the Public Debt Commissioners at a certain rate of interest. Those investments were realized. That is what happened. As regards the interest on the overdraft, I want to explain again to hon. members that a nominal provision of R100 was made in the original Estimates for interest on bank overdrafts. The indications are that an additional amount of R1 929 900 is required in respect of interest paid on temporary advances made to the Administration by the Public Debt Commissioners. As savings to the amount of R459 200 are anticipated under column 1 items, an amount of only R1 470 700 will be required to be voted.

Only the Public Debt Commissioners?

Yes. And that has to be repaid to the Public Debt Commissioners by way of interest.

Are advances by the Public Debt Commissioners called bank overdrafts?

Yes.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the Public Debt Commissioners are now a bank, and how they can give bank overdrafts, unless they are registered as a bank?

Head agreed to.

Head No. 18.—“Maintenance of Assets”, R527 000:

Could the hon. the Minister give us an indication of the reasons why an amount of R135 450 more is being requested for the maintenance of tugs and launches under account No. 609?

Mr. Chairman, the amount the hon. member for Orange Grove is referring to is for the maintenance of these tugs and launches, as well as for an additional wage improvement. That is why the costs are so much more.

Sir, the hon. the Minister is repeating himself here. He is not giving particulars of the reasons for this increase. If this increase, as he says, is for the improvement of the maintenance of tugs and barges, I say it is to a large extent wasted money.

†If we consider how some of these tugs are still poisoning and polluting the air over Cape Town, such as old Smoky Sue, then I want to know why we should vote this additional amount.

Order! The hon. member is now going too far. He may only inquire about the reason for the increase in these costs.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, and the reason … I agree with you fully, Sir.

The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

I agree with you fully, Sir. The reason was given as the increase in the cost of maintaining these tugs. Am I not entitled to ask whether these costs, as they have been incurred, have shown any beneficial results at all? Am I not entitled to ask that? If that is your ruling, Sir, I shall sit down.

No, the hon. member can only ask for the reason.

And has it had any results? May I ask that question? None? I thought so.

Concerning this same item, namely tugs and launches, could the hon. the Minister tell us whether this includes expenditure on the diesel-driven pilot boat he obtained for Durban harbour just over a year or so ago?

The increased expenditure is necessary for the overhaul of craft and salary and wage improvements. That is the information. In regard to particular craft, if the hon. member puts a question on the Order Paper, I could give him the information. There are dozens of craft, and I do not have the information for every particular craft with me.

May I ask the hon. the Minister then whether he is unaware of the fact that they have had so much trouble with this particular new pilot boat yet did not claim within the guarantee period?

Order! No, the hon. member is now going too far.

Mr. Chairman, I am seeking information. We are being asked to vote an amount allocated to the maintenance of tugs and launches.

Order!

My information is that, through failure to claim against the suppliers …

Order! I have nothing to do with the information of the hon. member. He must just inquire about the reasons for this amount.

Mr. Chairman, if that expenditure of which I have information is included in this R135 000 … Am I not entitled to ask whether it is included therein? My information is that the Railways failed to claim against the suppliers within the guarantee period, and therefore have suffered costs under “Maintenance of Assets”. Is this why we are being asked to vote additional money for maintenance of assets. My question is whether this money, spent as a result of failure to claim under guarantee, is included in this amount. Are we being asked to vote money here through a failure to claim for repairs under guarantee?

I want to read this ruling to the hon. member: The debate is confined to the reasons for the increase of the Votes contained in the Estimates and may not reopen the question of policy involved in the original grant.

Sir, I want to be helpful. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could give us some details regarding this particular increase so that, if this item to which the hon. member for Durban Point refers is not included, we will know that we are out of order. On the other hand, if it is included, I want to submit very respectfully that only the Minister can help you, Sir. If the Minister will give you the information, then only can you rule that this item is not included. I suspect that the Minister does not know, and so I am free to suspect that part of this amount is actually due to the item referred to by the hon. member for Durban Point. If the Minister will stand up and give us a definite assurance that that item is not included in this sum, I shall, of course, abandon the discussion immediately.

Mr. Chairman, I have introduced quite a number of these Additional Estimates in the House and it has never yet happened that in regard to an increase the details are given of every particular item that falls under a particular Head. It is never done. This increase is required in respect of overhauls of craft and salary and wage improvements; the hon. member probably wants to know what each individual received in salary improvements. That type of detail is simply not given in the House. The information I can give him, which I have at my disposal, is that this amount is required in respect of the overhaul of craft and salary and wage improvements. These resulted in an additional amount being required.

And you do not know what they are?

I do not want to know either.

But we want to know. [Interjections.]

Head agreed to.

Head No. 28.—“Working and Maintenance”, R8 746 000:

Sir, one more friendly question with regard to sub-head 3113—Fuel and Oil. The Estimates for the year was R14 750 000. We are now being asked to appropriate a further amount of approximately R3 million. I should like to know whether this increase is as a result of a greater mileage flown or whether it is as a result of aircraft using more fuel. Could the Minister give us the assurance that the revenue has also increased more or less proportionately and whether the number of passengers increased more or less proportionately?

Mr. Chairman, I refer to sub-heads 3130 and 3131. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what the reasons were for the increases in respect of sales and agency fees and commission, in view of the fact that passenger traffic has been falling off considerably on the Airways. This is a large increase and I should like to know the Minister’s reaction to the increase.

With regard to the query by the hon. member for Yeoville, this additional amount is required because the fuel price has been increased, the exchange difference is greater due to devaluation, and additional flights.

So it is due to the general mess?

I do not know what the hon. member is referring to, except perhaps the mess in the United Party … [Interjections.] I have never seen such chaos and as big a mess in any party as in that United Party. If he wants to discuss that, I am perfectly willing to do so.

We can only discuss the reasons for the increase …

Unfortunately it is not allowed under the rules of the House.

What about the Sunday Times?

Yes, just look at what the Sunday Times is saying about you. [Interjections.]

Order! We are discussing this Head now.

Even so, I still have the same opinion of the Sunday Times as I had in the past. As I was saying, this increase is due to the increased fuel price, exchange differences being greater due to devaluation and additional flights. With regard to 3130 and 3131, the increase is due mainly to salary and wage improvements given to over border staff as well as to the employment of additional staff. Expenditure also increased under the following office and miscellaneous items: Uniforms, telephone expenditure, national social insurance, rental of offices and residences and transport costs. With regard to 3131, the reason is that agency fees and commission payments were higher than anticipated due to the increased percentage payable on internal flights, as well as on increased traffic.

Head agreed to.

Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2: Capital and Betterment Services.

Head No. 1.—“Construction of Railways”, R12 000 000:

Sir, I refer to Item No. 2, for which the hon. the Minister gave an explanation in his Second Reading speech, in the course of which he said that the reason for this increase was that the line had now been fully surveyed and it was possible to get more accurate estimates. But, Sir, this line appeared on the Estimates for the first time in 1967, when the total estimated cost was R33 million plus R6 million, i.e. a total of R40 million. That was what this House was asked to vote for this line for exactly the same distance. That went up to R45 million, and eventually to R75 million. We are now being asked to increase it from R74,75 million to R132 million. The hon. the Minister said that this was due to having to strengthen the line; that it had now been properly surveyed and a proper estimate could be obtained of the cost of culverts and bridges. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he did not tell us the whole story; why he did not tell us the story of the electrification which had reached some 30-odd miles, with the pylons up, with the wires spanned, ready to run trains by electricity. When we asked him why these pylons had been pulled down, he said: “Oh no, that is not lost expenditure; we will simply use the pylons elsewhere and we are now going to run diesel.”

Order! The hon. member is going too far. He can only ask for the reasons for the increase.

Sir, the Minister has given the reason and, with respect, I am debating the reason, which was that the estimates had increased because of a survey. I am asking the hon. the Minister why he did not give the rest of the reason; why he did not tell us that those pylons were cut off and not carefully dismantled so that they could be used again? He has not told us that sleepers were laid, that track was laid on them and that that track has been taken up and a new track laid where the line was already complete. Sir, the Minister has not given us the full story of this fantastic increase from an original R40 million to R132 million. Is he aware of the fact that that track has been laid and then pulled up and a new track laid? Is he aware of the fact that it has been electrified and de-electrified to convert to diesel, and that there are now rumours that it is going back to electricity? Is he now going to re-erect all the pylons, all the overhead cables and the overhead structures so that the trains can run on electricity again? Sir, we want to know and we are entitled to know because we are being asked to approve of additional expenditure of R57 741 million of public money, money belonging to the people of South Africa. We want to know whether this line is going to be re-electrified? Why did the Railways not know that they were going to have to convert it and reconvert it? Why was track laid if that track was not able to carry the traffic which was to go over that line? This is what we as Parliament are entitled to know.

*I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would please furnish the Committee with the full story with regard to that line and to furnish us with the full reason why this additional money is being asked for.

I think this matter was fully debated last session, the question with regard to the electrification of the line.

Only the first part.

If the hon. member reads Hansard he will see that I gave a full explanation of why it was decided to dieselize that line instead of going on with electrification. He raised it; so why raise it again?

Because we did not get the full story.

Well, then I will repeat the full story and I hope it will not be raised next year again, otherwise I will merely refer the hon. member to Hansard. I am speaking about the additional costs. That is all we have to deal with here according to the rules of the House. The additional cost is due to the revised requirements in respect of earthworks, signalling, buildings, etc. There was also a substantial increase in construction costs since the original estimates were prepared in 1969. Owing to greater progress being made with construction, it was necessary to increase the cash provision for the current year. Apart from that I also gave an explanation in my Second Reading speech. I said that the rapid progress made with the construction of the new line from Vryheid to the point on the line under construction between Empangeni and Richards Bay, necessitated additional cash provision of R7,5 million. Why did the hon. member not listen to me when I spoke?

R7,5 million, not R57 million.

I was speaking about the additional cost required for this particular year. That is what we are dealing with at the moment. I am speaking about the additional cost of R7,5 million which the House is required to vote for this year. That is on the Additional Estimates and that is all that can be discussed in terms of the rules of this House.

The schedule gives the full amount.

It does not matter whether the schedule gives it or not; according to the rules only the reasons for the increase can be discussed. But I am giving all the information. There is nothing to run away from or to hide. I am merely repeating what I said in my Second Reading speech.

You should not repeat.

No, I should not, because repetition is tedious, but when you have to do with hon. members such as hon. members opposite I unfortunately have to do it. I said that as indicated in the report of the Railways and Harbours Board of February, 1969, the estimated cost of R74,8 million had to be revised again as soon as the survey of the proposed line had been completed and full particulars of all requirements were made. Detailed information on earthworks, bridges, tunnels, shunting yards, stations, housing, drains and foundations, is now available, so that more reliable estimates can be prepared; and provision has also been made for cost increases since 1969. The original planning provided for a railway line carrying train loads of 2 000 tons. Now, hon. members will remember that that was before the decision was taken to enter into a contract with Japan for the export of 100 million tons of coal to Richards Bay. That was after 1969 and after the contracts had been given out and after the line had been built for a considerable distance. Then only the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association entered into a contract with the Japanese to export 100 million tons of coal, and 100 million tons of coal can only be exported through Richards Bay because that is the only available harbour. Consequently all the plans had to be revised. Heavier and stronger rails had to be laid down because 5 000 ton trains had to be run instead of 2 000 ton trains. If the hon. member has any elementary knowledge of rail operations, he will know that heavier rails are required when you run heavier trains.

I know that.

Then I need not have repeated it. Secondly, we originally decided to electrify the line, but when you run trains under electrification you cannot couple six electric units together unless you have a double electric line on top, otherwise there is such a concentration of power that the whole thing blows out. That is what it really amounts to. With diesel locomotives you can couple up to six and even more to run one train without any danger to overhead equipment. Apart from that, electrification is a considerable capital cost for overhead equipment. Dieselization is very much cheaper. So even after planning electrification and cutting off the pylons, as the hon. member suggested, it was still cheaper to dieselize it than it would be to electrify it. And it is very much more efficient to dieselize than to electrify. Does that satisfy the hon. member? Those things all happened after the contract was entered into by the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association to export 100 million tons of coal. It required a stronger line, additional crossing places and it required additional facilities and stronger bridges and stronger culverts to accommodate the 5 500 ton trains. That is why the cost has gone up considerably. That is the only explanation I can give. If there is anything else that I have not explained, I will be only too willing to explain it further to the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation. He says that by switching from electricity to diesel, it was going to make the line cheaper and that is why we are being asked to vote R57 million additional to provide for the costs.

If we had gone ahead with the electrification of the line, even more would have been required.

By switching to diesel, it made it cheaper, and so we are spending more money on it?

We do not require as much as we would have required had the line been electrified.

Mr. Chairman, what I want to take up is the fact that when the Construction Bill for this line was before this House, one of the main motivating factors was that this line was to carry coal exports …

No, it was not.

… from the Eastern Transvaal. It has always been accepted that the purpose of this line was to connect the Eastern Transvaal through to the nearest harbour.

No; it had nothing to do with coal at that stage. You are entirely wrong.

Well, all that we can then assume from the hon. the Minister’s explanation is that the Railways had no foresight whatsoever in 1969 in regard to the coal exports to Japan from South Africa, that all the talk then of future contracts which were envisaged, of future contracts which were expected, was not known to the Railways.

Order! That is not under discussion now.

Well, then I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation that when they originally planned this line, they did not know what it was going to carry or how it would be carried.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow that to pass. The hon. member is making an allegation which he cannot substantiate at all. He does not even remember what happened in the House during that time; he does not even remember what was contained in the Railways and Harbours Board’s report when the Bill was submitted to the House originally. I shall read it to him. I want to quote from a Railways and Harbours Board’s report that was presented to both Houses of Parliament in 1969. It says:

It was never suggested that it had to be a line from the Transvaal coal fields. There is no line from the Transvaal coal fields to Empangeni. We are building a line now. We are building a line from Broodsnyersplaas to Ermelo to connect up.

Yes.

Then why does the hon. member talk such nonsense?

Head agreed to.

Head No. 2.—“New Works on Open Lines: (a) Loan Funds, Betterment Fund, Capital Credits and Recoveries”, R37 307 800; and (b) “Level Crossings Elimination Fund”, R300 000:

Mr. Chairman, the item which I mentioned before we came to the detailed estimates, was Item 2(b) of Schedule No. 2 reflecting extra amount of R300 000 to be provided in connection with the elimination of level crossings. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this represents increased costs in respect of the programme already under construction or, whether this will be fruitful to the extent of introducing further level crossings into the programme for elimination during the forthcoming year? Does it merely represent added costs to pay for what we are doing, or will we be able to eliminate further level crossings?

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer the hon. the Minister to Item 12 on page 5. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would give us an explanation of the fact that whereas last year we only voted R100 for the Ermelo/Sikame line, the revised estimate amounts to R17 200 100. Is it the intention to spend that money, or has some of that money already been spent? An amount of R17 200 000 is quite a lot to spend in a very short time. I was wondering what progress has been made, how he proposes to spend that money and whether some of the money has already been spent.

My reply to the hon. member for South Coast is the following: It says “to provide for the withdrawal of money from the Level-Crossing Elimination Fund to meet the cost of projects approved by the committee”. Various contracts are now expected to be completed at an earlier date and an additional cash provision is required during 1972-’73. The Standing Committee compiled a list of crossings which must be eliminated. As the hon. member for Salt River knows, they submit their reports to Parliament every year …

That is right.

And apart from the elimination of crossings, it also provides certain safety devices at the railway crossings. Those crossings that are placed on the list for elimination are of course in the order of priority in which they will be eliminated. This, as I say, is expected because there are various contracts—it is all done on contract—which will be completed at an earlier date. Those are contracts which have already been entered into and where they are already building the structures for the elimination of the crossings. That is why the additional cash provision is required for 1972-’73.

I do not know whether the hon. member for Salt River knows where the line he referred to is actually situated.

Yes, I know.

Does the hon. member know where Sikame is?

Yes.

The hon. member will know that we are building a railway line from Broodsnyersplaas to Ermelo, and the existing line from Ermelo to Sikame must also be strengthened in order to enable that particular line to carry the heavy coal traffic that will be exported to Richards Bay. It is all part of the Richards Bay scheme. The line from Ermelo to Sikame has to be strengthened. That will cost about R17 200 000 and will be spent in the coming financial year. They are already working there and we only required to vote the money.

Mr. Chairman, there are three quite interesting items in these Estimates and all of them deal with the controlling of trucks. I am referring to Items 57, 58 and 94. Any item which will improve the controlling of trucks on the South African Railways no doubt has the support of this side of the House. So, when I saw that a computer was to be bought for a truck control scheme, Item No. 57, costing R987 500, I thought first of all that it was an excellent idea. But when I looked at Item 58 I found that we are also going to get a SARNET data processing system for a truck control scheme, costing another R831 000, I thought: Good gracious, now, really the amounts are growing! Then I came across Item 94, where an additional R1 million is to be voted for power and communication equipment for the truck control scheme. We know that the control over the trucks of the South African Railways is not always what is needed. Sometimes they go off the rails. It has occurred—and the hon. the Minister will be able to confirm it—that trucks have actually been lost by the Railways. I may point out that all three of these items are entirely new items and so I trust that I have greater latitude in discussing them. I may refer the hon. the Minister again to the numbers, namely Items 57, 58 and 94. This has been a serious matter on occasion. Trucks of the South African Railways have been lost; they have disappeared into thin air according to the books of the Railways. Now they are asking us to vote R1 million plus another R1 100 000 plus another million—all in all R3 million—for this truck control scheme. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us more about this. Firstly, we are going to have a computer. That is fine. We have read of the experience of the Railways with some of its computer systems, in which, after trying them out, especially on the Airways, there was confusion for quite a considerable time before these things started working.

The hon. the Minister is adding to that a SARNET data-processing system. What does SARNET stand for? Does it stand for “South African Railways Network”? We should like to know more about that. The hon. the Minister did, in passing, give some reasons for acquiring it. Is this the computer which is needed to supply the data to the first computer and do we need on top of that, a third R1 million for the power and communication equipment for the truck control scheme? I am sure that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some interesting information on this. I know that truck control schemes working through computers are found in many other countries of he world, but we would like to have some assurance that this computer system will not go, as they say, haywire on occasions; that it will not cause psychological disturbances and that, at least, it will work so that the trucks do not get lost again as they did in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member knows what the truck control scheme really is, and whether he has ever seen one. I doubt it!

[Inaudible.]

Where did you see it? The hon. member must not talk nonsense. Last year I invited the hon. member for Yeoville to go and have a look at the system. Did he go?

I was unable to go.

I am very sorry to hear that, because it is worth seeing. I want to say to the hon. member that I shall ask the Management to give him special treatment when he goes to see for himself one day how this system works. Then he will also know something about this system so that he will know what he is talking about when he raises this matter in Parliament again and not merely grope about. This is a very special and important system. This system enables one to control every truck in the entire Railways system. The system is in operation, and this is merely a further expansion of the system. To give an indication: Does the hon. member know that every truck has a specific code number? Head Office not only has the code number of the truck, but even the contents of that truck, its destination and where it comes from is transmitted to Head Office, which controls everything. Wherever that truck goes on the railways, Head Office always knows where it is. When there is an inquiry as to where a truck with a certain number is which was dispatched from this or that place and which is carrying a certain load, the official need only press a button to obtain certain information. There is a screen, just as there is on a television set, of which the hon. member is so fond, on which the number and the present whereabouts of that truck appears.

“A little bioscope”, as Albert Hertzog used to say.

The British Railways already have it.

I saw it for the first time in 1965 at the New York Central in America. That is why we introduced this system. The best way I can explain this entire system, is to tell the hon. member to visit the Head Office in Johannesburg as soon as he has time because he will then learn something which is really worth knowing.

What is the “SARNET”?

That is the name of the entire system. I should again like to invite the hon. member for Yeoville as well to go and have a look at this system.

I should appreciate it very much.

It is really worth seeing—and I am not joking now. But do take the hon. member for Orange Grove along and please explain to him what the system means so that he will also know in future.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question for the sake of clarity. The two amounts under Items 57 and 58 …

What number?

The same two we have been discussing, i.e. the SARNET and the computer. Are these two amounts for the original equipment which we debated last year and which was dealt with in the General Manager’s last report, or is this additional equipment? In other words, last year we debated the installation of this system …

It was only in its initial stages then.

… and we praised the Railways for introducing it. This was obviously what was required rather than the old system of sticking pins on to a map with little flags attached bearing the truck numbers, which was the most antiquated thing I had ever seen. So this is obviously something we welcome. How is it that this was operating last year but is only on the Additional Estimates now? Could the hon. the Minister explain the position?

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member discussed it last year the system had not been completely installed yet and was still in its early stages. There is now, for example, a teleprinter communication system installed between the major centres connected with the central computer system in Johannesburg for advising the movements of rolling stock. This information is processed by means of a computer for the better utilization of rolling stock. This is an extensive system. It had not been completely installed last year when we discussed it here. This has now been installed and owing to the urgency of the work under Item 57 a State President’s Special Warrant was obtained for the expenditure. In other words, it has been expended, has been installed, and Parliament has to vote it now.

Head agreed to.

Head No. 5.—“Harbours”, R5 226 100:

Mr. Chairman, my inquiries are in regard to Items 108 and 111. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will give us an explanation why an additional amount of R3 500 000 has to be voted for work which has advanced to a greater extent than was expected. How were the original calculations done by the Railways that this possibility was not foreseen? Can the Minister also give us an explanation for the R22 100 which was paid as an ex gratia payment under Item 111?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is perfectly well aware of the fact that the harbour work is being done on private contract. I am always very pleased when a contractor speeds up his work. The sooner the work is completed the better. In this particular case the progress was much more rapid than we originally expected. When a contractor progresses much more rapidly than we originally expected of course he must be paid for that additional work in the current financial year. This amount of R3 500 000 is an additional amount required because the second stage comprising the construction of quay walls, rock-breaking, dredging, and new post office, progressed faster than we anticipated. In regard to Item 111, the improved facilities for light keeping staff and replacement of obsolete equipment resulted in an additional ex gratia payment of R22 100.

Why was this amount considered to be ex gratia?

As far as I can recollect the original contractor became insolvent. This amount has to do with the erection and completion of a radio beacon and power station and quarters at Pelican Point. The principal shareholder of the contracting Company realized at an early stage that he could not complete the contract within the tender amount and, under false pretences, made application for the Company to be placed under judicial management. Had the Department resorted to the usual remedies for breach of contract it would have been necessary to have engaged another contractor to complete the work. Experience has shown that in such cases the prices demanded are considerably in excess of whatever money is left to finance the work and are consequently much higher than the original contract price. That this would also have been the case in the instance under review is highly probable in view of the specialized nature of the work. The position from a legal point of view is that the judicial manager may be able, by the principle of estoppel—the legal people will probably know what that means—to force the Department to settle the claim for the reason that, by not advising him at the outset that he could expect no additional payment for completing the work, the impression was created that he would be reimbursed. The judicial manager should have been advised initially that if he elected to complete the contract he could look for no extra payment. Only at a very late stage was he so informed, however, because the Department could not afford to abandon the work and it was felt that if the judicial manager was advised immediately that he would not be reimbursed, he would cease work. In view of the site of the work and the prevailing conditions endeavours to secure a contractor willing to complete the work met with little success and construction would have been continued only at a greatly increased cost. The judicial manager acted in good faith in completing the work and while still under the impression that the loss would be made good has furthermore claimed no remuneration or expenses on his own behalf. That is the amount which is provided for now as an ex gratia payment.

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. the Minister please be kind enough to explain to me what the increase on Item 113, i.e. the pilot boat at the Durban harbour, involves?

Mr. Chairman these are belated debits. It was to augment the harbour craft that this pilot boat was purchased. I am informed now that belated debits have to be provided for in the Estimates.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister give us no further information than that?

No, that is all I have.

Can he tell us whether it works?

As far as I know, it is working.

Satisfactorily?

Well, I have not been there myself; I have not really made inquiries into the question of whether it works satisfactorily or not; but apparently the management will know; I will get them to inquire and advise the hon. member.

Head agreed to.

Head No. 6.—“Airways”, R3 149 500:

Item No. 117-Equipment for language laboratory—looks like a new item. I do not wish to criticize it. As far as I can remember, it has something to do with the training of air hostesses and personnel on aircraft which go overseas. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us what progress has been made, whether good progress is being made and why he has, as a result, requested this additional R16 500. Could he possibly tell us in his reply what languages are being learned there and whether the members of crews on overseas flights who have learned those new languages, receive anything additional in the form of a bonus, because I definitely think that they ought to receive one.

I do not see why they should receive it; it is part of their work. The information which I have here is in English. Presumably the hon. member can understand English. It reads—

In other words, it has only been operative for a short while. Portuguese, German and French are the languages they learn.

Head agreed to.

Head No. 8.—“Working Capital”, R25 000 000:

Could the hon. the Minister please give us an explanation of this new item, namely R25 million for additional requirements under Item 128—Stores Stock?

It is to provide for an increase in stores stock, mainly in respect of additional spare parts and components for the additional diesel locomotives and the new Boeing 747 aircraft.

May I ask the hon. the Minister if it is correct that when a Boeing 747 or any other aircraft is purchased, part of that purchase contract includes spare engines and foreseeable spares required for a number of years? In fact, when the ’planes fly out, they often do so with the spare parts in them. It has always been part of the contract arrangement in purchasing aircraft that that aircraft or group of aircraft purchased at any one time is purchased together with all the anticipated requirements to keep it flying for a reasonable time ahead. We have from time to time queried the amount of spares that has been provided in terms of an original contract. When we have queried the price of aircraft, we have been told that that price includes spare engines, consumable spares and all foreseeable requirements to keep it flying, in case we should be cut off from the source of supply. That is the standard procedure. That is the procedure we have followed all along. Now suddenly we are told we must vote R25 million for spares for additional diesels and 747s. Why then is this suddenly a new item and not part of the original contract? I remember the debate in this House—I do not have it here in front of me—when we discussed the question of the 747s and their cost. I remember engines being referred to at the time. From time to time, every year in fact, we write off Airways spares which have become redundant or which have become out of date. These form part of the original cost of the aircraft, and when we have inquired about the cost of those, we have been told that it is an estimate; they were part of the original purchase, with the ’plane. Now I should like clarity on this matter. This is a new item and I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us whether, both in respect of the diesel locomotives and the Boeing 747s, it is no longer policy to purchase spares when the order is placed for the unit or the aircraft itself.

Mr. Chairman, in support of my hon. friend. I should like to say that I have looked through these Additional Estimates and I can find no item referring to the purchase of a new Boeing 747 or a large number of diesel units, so I take it that this Boeing and these diesel engines were bought under the Main Budget. We should like to know why it was not known at the time that spares to the value of R25 million would be necessary. When we are asked to vote for the main item, one would expect that we would also be asked to vote for the spares that would be required to keep that item in proper order.

Sir, the hon. member is quite correct. When you purchase the aeroplane and the diesel locomotive, you purchase a certain amount of spares as well, but you can never predict how many spares you will require in the course of a year or two. Everything might go wrong. You might require additional spares. There might be an increase in the consumption of spares. You cannot keep so many spares in your stores that you have unproductive capital. You cannot keep spares on your shelves that you might not use for two or three years. That would be an unwise policy. When there has been increased consumption of spares, you have to buy additional spares. At the present time, of course, there is an escalation of costs. Import costs have escalated considerably. Consequently we require more money for the purchase of the same spares we could have replaced much more cheaply a year or two ago. This is the case both with diesel and 747 spares.

Can you give us the breakdown?

No. Good heavens, I cannot give it to you over the floor of the House.

I am referring to the breakdown between diesel and aircraft spares.

I do not have the particulars here, but I can let the hon. member have them.

You should save 11% on these items?

Yes, I hope so.

Mr. Chairman, the reason I ask for the breakdown is that I note that in the same Additional Estimates we have just passed Head No. 3, Rolling Stock, where 275 diesel locomotives came to a revised figure of R68 million. In the main Estimates for last year, three Boeing 747s cost R52 million, and two Boeing 747s, with all their extras, meant an additional amount of R5,3 million. The total cost was R87 million. So, for items costing R87 million and R68 million—a total of R150 million odd, we have to spend R25 million for spares. It seems a very high percentage in relation to the value of the items which are to be maintained by these spares. I would be interested to know whether we could be given an estimate of how long these spares will last the Administration. How long is it anticipated that these spares will last in the case of the diesel locomotives and the 747 aircraft?

I wish I could look into the future. If I could, I would give the hon. member that information. I do not know whether the diesel locomotives are going to break next week or not. I do not know whether the 747s will require additional spares within a month, two months or six months. These things are unpredictable. How can you give an estimate? How can you give an estimate of what spares your motor-car is going to require in the next 12 months? The hon. member does not know what is going to happen.

I could take a good guess.

No, the hon. member could not. He does not know when that car is going to break. It might be a rotten car and break down continually. Although the 747s are very good aircraft, this could happen. This is unpredictable; you cannot give an estimate. I can only give the hon. member this assurance: We will not purchase spares if we do not require them. Surely that should be obvious. It is only when they are required that they are purchased. There is a continual escalation in costs. As my friend over there said just now, with the devaluation of the dollar, we may get the spares more cheaply. That will assist us a great deal. It is, however, simply impossible to predict the amount of spares which may be required over a certain period.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a last question? In view of the hon. the Minister’s explanation, which we accept, that you cannot make such a prediction, may I ask him whether, with future Budgets, he will add the letters “E. & O.E.” at the end, as is done in the case of accounts—“Errors and Omissions Excepted?”

I shall consider it.

Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I know that it is not customary for a Prime Minister to take part in a Second Reading debate, but I think that hon. members will agree with me that the subject matter of this Bill warrants my intervention in this debate. Secondly, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has put certain questions, or rather, one important question, to me in this connection, which I feel I must reply to across the floor of the House in this debate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put this question to me (Hansard manuscript, 16/2, page p.1):

I then interjected, “I cannot see it at all.” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then went on to say—

Sir, I want to say that as far as our worst enemies are concerned, they will make political capital out of anything we do or say in this country. When it comes to making political capital out of things, all of us here—hon. members on that side as well as hon. members on this side of the House—are kids compared to these gentlemen at UNO and in other places. But, Sir, I want to say that as far as the subject matter of this Bill is concerned, it is not a new matter—I repeat that it is not a new matter—that is being raised by the hon. the Minister. The subject matter of this Bill, or rather the general principle of this matter, was in fact discussed between Dr. Escher and myself. Not only was it discussed between Dr. Escher and myself, but it was brought to the notice of the Security Council itself by no less a person than Dr. Escher himself in his report, as I will point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. For that purpose, Sir, it is necessary for me to refer to the Press conference that I had towards the end of last year. Hon. members will just have to bear with me, because I will have to quote certain extracts from the report of that conference. The following question was put to me in Afrikaans by one of the Pressmen present—

To that I replied as follows—

Hon. members will appreciate, Sir, that what the Minister in fact is asking the House to do now, as far as this Bill before the House is concerned, is to give certain peoples of South-West Africa the experience of self-government which, as we said at the time, was an essential element for eventual self-determination. I then went on to say—

*May I just pause here for a moment, Sir. Hon. members are aware that the United Nations sees the territory as a whole and that they see the population as a whole; that they do not want to know about the diversity of peoples living in South-West Africa. Our standpoint—and we have argued this several times already—is that there are various peoples in South-West Africa. We did not make them. It is not a question of our wanting this to be the case; it is a question of there being various peoples, and when one is dealing with South-West Africa one must take into consideration the reality that there are indeed various peoples living there. And I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, no person who has ever visited South-West Africa and has gone there with a somewhat unprejudiced mind could fail to gain an impression of the diversity of the communities, of the various peoples, whose abode is in South-West Africa. And I make so bold as to say—and this, too, is a matter which we have frequently argued—that when we discuss and when we argue about the various peoples, we are in fact using the terminology of the charter of the United Nations. When they refer to the Territory, now this is only in the case of South-West Africa, they depart from the United Nations’ Charter for this Charter refers consistently, as the hon. member for Middelland also pointed out, to “peoples”, to peoples who have to achieve self-determination and peoples who, if they are not independent, have to achieve independence. When we refer to peoples, therefore, we are making such references within the framework of the terminology of the United Nations itself. I quote again—

This appeared in the general report of Dr. Escher. In other words, he presented the standpoint we accept, the standpoint which also forms the basis of my colleague’s Bill, to the Security Council himself, in other words, the Security Council cannot turn around and say, in fact no one can say that we are now dealing with a new matter of which they have no knowledge.

I then went on to say in my Press interview (translation)—

I continue on page 12—

That is the important point, Sir—

In other words, my standpoint on this matter in regard to Dr. Escher was very clear, and our policy in South-West Africa is aimed, taking into consideration the various peoples who live there, taking into consideration the areas which they inhabit, at affording those peoples the necessary opportunity of acquiring experience of self-government, experience which is vital to them. No step—I want to emphasize this very strongly for the sake of the outside world—which my hon. friend takes with this legislation, is, however, a final step. All my hon. friend is asking this House to doit is no necessary for me to emphasize this to this House, but it is necessary to do so to the world outside—is to lead these people, with this legislation, to a certain level in order to give them experience of self-government. My friend is not going any further than that. If it is necessary to go further, it is not my friend’s decision, it is not my decision, it is not the decision of my hon. friend opposite and, I make so bold as to say, it is not the decision of the United Nations either, but the decision of the people concerned in regard to what they want to do further. Then my standpoint is—I made this very clear to Dr. Waldheim—that I am not prepared to force those people. For example, the example of the Ibos in Nigeria who seceded, was quoted here. They were then forced back at gunpoint into the Federation of Nigeria. I think it is fair to put it like that. I, on my part, am not prepared to keep people in by use of force, nor am I prepared to expel other people by use of force. The right of self-determination which those people have is to determine themselves whether they want to enter a certain constellation or whether they want to stay out of a certain constellation. It is their right and I am not prepared to force them in any way. But that point has not yet been reached, and my hon. friend’s Bill does not bring us to that point. We are only at the point now where we want to give these people the necessary experience in regard to government, so that they, after they have acquired that experience, will be better able to decide what is in their interest and in which direction they want to move. As far as I am concerned, I was being quite sincere when I said at the Press conference, and this is still my standpoint, that as far as I am concerned, all options are open to them to take their own decisions afterwards. Since this is what my friend is in fact asking this House to do, I think that we would do well to pass this Bill with as little discussion as possible and to afford these people the opportunity of acquiring the vital experience in self-government so that they can take their decision in due course, as and when it may one day be necessary. That is my reply to my hon. friend on the opposite side of the House.

I readily concede that there will be persons who will want to suck poison from this. There is no doubt about that at all, but the people who ought to know and the people who have an interest in this, the Security Council and the Secretariat of United Nations, have the knowledge and they know precisely what the object of this Bill is. They know precisely that this is not a final step, but that it is only being done to give those people the necessary experience in regard to self-government. That is the road along which we want to lead these peoples. What happens further is their decision, and I am not prepared to force it upon them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister has entered the debate because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised the question with him as to whether the legislation now before us was not contrary to the spirit of the discussions between him, Dr. Waldheim and Dr. Escher of the United Nations. The question arose because of the wording of one of the clauses in the explanatory memorandum which was issued with the Bill We have no cause of complaint against the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development who introduced this Bill, because he was at pains to explain that he was reaffirming, as he put it—

The motive for the measure before us as set out by the hon. the Minister, was acceptable to us because it fitted in as we understood it, with the final text of the discussions between the hon. the Prime Minister and Dr. Escher, to which the hon. the Prime Minister has referred again, and also with our policy to devolve powers on the different race groups in South Africa and South-West Africa through legislative assemblies. The question arises, however, whether this explanatory memorandum does not impinge on the spirit of the discussions between the Prime Minister and the officials of the United Nations. The hon. the Prime Minister has now told us that in his opinion there is no conflict, that he is satisfied on that point. The responsibility is his and if there is any breach which could jeopardize future discussions between the hon. the Prime Minister and the United Nations, of course it would be on his shoulders. That is why we asked him to give the assurance which he has given this afternoon.

To refer shortly to the proposed amendment, my Leader reminded the House that we opposed the principal Act, because, inter alia, the preamble provided that it was desirable to develop the separate Native nations to independence. However, once having opposed the principle of separate independent states, we have not stubbornly refused to allow their political development. It would be churlish of us to deny other race groups a say in the administration of their own affairs, when the proposed advances fit in with our federal plan. It is quite logical therefore, for us—it is in fact our moral obligation—to support measures which promote the control of their own affairs by people who are denied representation in this governing body. We are satisfied with the assurances given us by the hon. the Prime Minister. It fits in with the text of his discussions and also with the report of Dr. Escher to the United Nations. Therefore we shall support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that, unlike the hon. member who has just sat down, I am not quite as easily reassured by what the hon. the Prime Minister has said this afternoon. I will say at once that, although I was not here initially during the Second Reading debate, I have taken the trouble of getting copies of the speeches made by both the hon. the Minister who introduced the Bill and by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I read with interest the little exchange which took place across the floor of this House on Friday. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked for an assurance and there was, to my mind anyway, a rather fatuous exchange about flowers and poison and horses that one could lead to the water but that one could not force to drink. This afternoon …

I can give you an explanation, but I cannot make you think.

No doubt you are also going to say that I am sucking the poison that you were referring to. Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister immediately that, certainly, he attempted to give some explanation this afternoon as to why this Bill is being introduced in this House at all at this juncture. The hon. the Prime Minister told us, as I understood it, that the Secretary-General, Dr. Escher and the Security Council are all aware of the contents of this Bill. That is what I understood him to say this afternoon.

They are aware of the principles embodied in this Bill. I said that distinctly.

Right, of the principles embodied in this Bill. Will he tell us whether they approved of them, because this is really a very important issue at this stage. I know that the Government tends to ignore decisions, resolutions and opinions of the United Nations or the World Court. But the hon. the Prime Minister is trying to tell us this afternoon, or to convey the impression anyway, that not only do the Security Council, the Secretary-General and Dr. Escher know of the principles embodied in this Bill, but apparently they have no objections to them.

That is absolute nonsense!

Well, this is the impression I got, but, very well, I am glad to have that on record. This in fact fortifies my point, because we are in the middle of negotiations. Nobody can deny that. On the 6th December, I think it was, last year, the Security Council, somewhat reluctantly it appeared, extended the period of negotiations between the Secretary-General and South Africa. They extended it until the 30th April—that is two and a half months from now. Will somebody please explain to me in words of one syllable so that I can understand, what the urgency is to bring this Bill before the House now, while nobody knows what the further negotiations are going to bring forth? It seems to me to be the height of undiplomatic behaviour. I am sure that this is not meant as any sort of act of provocation, but what I do believe it to be, is an act of departmental bungling. I believe that the lines of communication between the Departments of Bantu Administration and of Foreign Affairs have somehow or other been short-circuited, for they are not operating. I do not believe that the Department of Foreign Affairs would willingly have seen this Bill introduced at this juncture. I cannot understand why it should, and why it should not say: “Let us wait another two and a half months.” What is the hurry? After all, if the hon. the Prime Minister tells me that the principles were understood, he knows—and I think I am absolutely right in saying this—that equally the principles of the principal Act, the 1968 Act, were understood by the Security Council. Am I not right in saying that that Act was rejected by the Security Council? Am I not right in saying that either in 1968 or 1969—I am not sure of the exact date—the Security Council rejected the principal Act which this Bill seeks to amend? I cannot understand why at this juncture it is necessary to introduce this Bill. In 1968 when the principal Act was introduced, I said: “Why at all do we need this?” Surely the priorities in South-West Africa should not be so much the setting up of the machinery for self-government for non-viable, hopelessly uneconomic states, many of whose populations are so small as never to be viable and many whose de facto populations, anyway, are away trying to earn a living in the sector south of the Red Line, the area in fact where most of the wealth of the country has accumulated. Everybody knows that that Red Line is in fact the dividing line between stagnation and progress, that the Blacks who live within the Police Zone come into the White areas to work on the White farms, the industries, fisheries and on the mines, whereas those who live beyond the Police Zone have to migrate in as contract workers in order to earn a living. And indeed this was the whole cause of the dispute last year culminating with the strikes. I cannot understand why at this juncture the hon. the Minister is going ahead with a Bill of this nature. There is, after all, still Proclamation 17 in operation in Owanbo. Can the hon. the Minister tell us if there is peace and quiet in Owambo at the present stage?

Order! What has that to do with the Bill?

It has this to do with the Bill, Sir, and I think it is important enough to mention, that it is a strange time to introduce self-governing machinery in an area, for example, where there is an emergency proclamation in operation. You have it in the Transkei and I have objected to that on many occasions. I want to know what is the raison d’être for the introduction of this Bill at this particular juncture. I cannot see the urgency and I think it is a foolish thing for us to do. I think it shows a lot of departmental bungling and for the same reasons that I voted against the 1968 Act, I can see no reason to have changed my mind in the five years that have ensued. I do not believe that the situation has changed so radically in South-West Africa that I should vote for this amending Bill. It is not only the timing, but I also object to the provisions of the Bill. I do not believe we are setting up any form of federation at all under this Bill. I believe in a proper geographic federation, not in the nonsense of race federation that the official Opposition believes in and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the federation which the United Nations appear to view favorably. I believe in the Administration of the South-West African territory in the spirit of the mandate, as one area to be administered for the benefit of all the inhabitants, and not as small, non-viable independent, semi-independent or eventually-to-be-independent states. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister should re-offer a plebiscite. He offered a plebiscite in 1971. It was rejected by the World Court, which was then considering the Security Council’s revocation of the mandate. The hon. the Prime Minister then withdrew his offer. I think before going ahead with anything like this, it would be advisable to obtain the views of all the inhabitants of the Territory and offer a plebiscite again under the joint United Nations-South African Government auspices. Then I think we will know whether or not it is advisable to go ahead with this plan. The only explanation we received in the White Paper and in the Minister’s speech why he is proceeding now, is that apparently some of the tribal chiefs have asked for it. The White Paper reads.

Well, let us have a plebiscite. Let us not just rely on the governments of the ethnic areas because as I understand it, there is in any case considerable tension between the government, for instance of the Owambo, and the people themselves. There is discontent there. The Grootfontein Agreement, just to give an example, although it started off very well, has in fact over the last year or so, declined to such an extent that the difference in the situation last year and now is no longer so apparent. So, before going ahead with this, I think a plebiscite is necessary. As I say, in any case, I strongly condemn the idea of presenting a Bill like this at this particular juncture when we have two and a half months to go to conclude the negotiations with the United Nations Secretary-General. I shall vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall take up very little of valuable time of this House this afternoon. I merely want to react to a few points which the hon. member for Houghton raised.

In the first place I must say that I find it greatly to be deplored—I think everyone in this House is going to agree with me—that the hon. member implied that the hon. the Prime Minister, in what he said here this afternoon, insinuated or by implication suggested that the United Nations and United Nations’ bodies approve of the Bill as such, and are in agreement with it. The Prime Minister discussed the principle of the Bill. He made it very clear.

Of which they are aware.

They are fully aware of it, as the Prime Minister has quite rightly said. But, Sir. I also want to say, once and for all, that I find it deplorable and that I deny what the hon. member said, namely that this Bill is a unilateral departmental action. I could take up a great deal of your time recounting in detail what interdepartmental consultations there were on the preparation of a Bill such as this, it was interdepartmental to such an extent that the Department of the Prime Minister and he in person were also involved. If the hon. member wishes to imply that I am simply adopting a wild course now, then I say that she is making a highly irresponsible statement here this afternoon.

The hon. member asked: Why at this stage? I furnished the reply to that question in the very first sentence of my Second Reading speech. These people in South-West Africa, whom we have of course consulted extensively on this matter, requested that these matters be proceeded with. When did they make that request, Sir? They did so at that same time, during the second half of the year, when all the negotiations were in progress. Sir, I do not want to say anything further about the hon. member for Houghton. I think the hon. member did more harm than good with the way in which she acted this afternoon.

I want to conclude by expressing to the Opposition on the opposite side my appreciation for the responsible way in which they approached this legislation. I think that we get somewhere and we make more progress in our deliberations in this House if we, as two responsible sides, in regard to one another and particularly in regard to our country, can understand one another in matters which are extremely important, as this legislation undoubtedly is, while knowing that we may perhaps still differ on fundamental matters. I want to express my personal thanks to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. member for Transkei for the responsible way in which they approached this matter, and the hope that we will be able to continue the discussion of this Bill on this same level.

Motion agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is unwilling to be explicit regarding the powers that he will acquire under this particular clause. In an interview with the Press, he stated certain restricted fields in which this power which is given to him in this Bill will be utilized. In the debate here he has gone a little further than he did in his Press statement and he has referred to other cases in which these powers are necessary and will be exercised by him in deciding what in his opinion is not in the interests of South Africa. Sir, he says that he has no intention of using these powers against political activists. I understand also that he has said that he has no intention of using these powers against student activists, but he says that there are other persons against whom these powers may be used. He has not told us who those persons are. He has presented this Bill to the House but he is unable to inform us what categories of persons enjoying dual nationality or citizenship in South Africa can still retain the citizenship or nationality of their own countries, having decided to adopt South African citizenship. Surely, Sir, he should be able to tell us. As far as we can understand, he has dealt with one country only. According to the advice that he received, a British subject can renounce his British citizenship in terms of recent laws passed in the United Kingdom. In the case of what other countries can a person who wishes to renounce his original nationality or citizenship still be saddled with the original nationality or citizenship irrespective of his own desire? Sir, this clause places the status of certain classes of South African citizens in jeopardy. The clause places the continued enjoyment of South African citizenship by persons who hold dual nationality or citizenship in jeopardy at all times. The Minister will say to me, “Only, if they commit something of which I do not approve.” But then, Sir, they are holding South African citizenship as an act of grace and favour on the part of the Minister. That is what we are now being asked to enact in this clause, that their citizenship will at all times be a matter of grace and favour of the hon. the Minister of the Interior. If he thinks that it is not in the interest of South Africa that they should continue to hold South African citizenship, he can deprive them of that citizenship.

Sir, I want to go further. This clause does not restrict the Minister’s actions to persons who are majors. In other words, this clause is applicable to minors. Sir, it can have far-reacing effects if a Minister can deal with the minor child of a South African family because the family happens to have dual citizenship, or because by pure accident that child was born in the United Kingdom of South African citizens, the father having been born himself in the United Kingdom; the child is born while the parents are on vacation or on a visit to the United Kingdom, that child then has this dual nationality, and the Minister can say to him, “Leave South Africa; your South African citizenship is terminated; I do not like what you have done.” Sir, I would like to quote what the hon. the Minister said in his speech, and ask him to elaborate what he meant; he said—

Now, Sir, what activities is he talking about? The Bill does not restrict it to any activity such as he mentioned in his Press interview. He now suggests that he can act against minors because of their activities. I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to us what he has in mind; what type of activity has he in mind, other than drug peddling which has been mentioned, which could be conducted by a minor and as a result of which the Minister could be entitled to deprive that minor of his South African citizenship? Sir, I am not given to exaggeration but I feel that we on this side of the House have not exaggerated one iota when we have said to the Minister, and have appealed to him, that these powers are unlimited. If this clause is passed, the Minister’s powers are unlimited and depend solely on his opinion of what is in the interest of South Africa. It is bad legislation, Sir, it is legislation containing powers of a type which no Minister should ask for himself. It is for this and for the other reasons we have indicated to the Minister before that we oppose this clause.

Before we come to all the other aspects of the hon. members’ objection and problems, I would like to refer immediately, in respect of his statements regarding minors, to why it is essential that minors be included in this Bill, and in which possible instances minors could overstep the mark in this matter and act in a way that is not in the public interest. Sir, regarding minors, one thinks in particular of the use and the sale of drugs. As far as minors are concerned, it is very necessary to make use of minors in the sale of drugs. It is done in the various clubs where the young people come together. I am not saying that these are necessarily the places where drugs are sold, but one can imagine that when drugs are sold to young people, when young people become involved in the use of drugs, use is made of young people as “pushers”, to sell the stuff. In those instances, if a young person acts contrary to the public interest in such a way, it must be possible to deport him from South Africa. So when it comes to young people, the drug traffic is really a classic example. But this Bill provides that any act which is not in the public interest, can cause him to be liable to deportation; it can cause him to lose his South African citizenship, with the result that he will then fall under section 45 of the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act. In terms of that article he can then be deported from South Africa. As I see this Bill, it provides pre-eminently for those instances where we do not only wish to throw people into prison. It is of no avail if you prosecute a person, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment and subsequently discharged, and you are then still saddled with that person. If he has other citizenship and you deprive him of his South African citizenship, you are in a position to deport that person from South Africa immediately. You deport the harm from your country and there is no need to be saddled with that person in South Africa, with his South African citizenship, after he has been sentenced and has served his term. Therefore it is essential, in certain instances where people do not act in the public interest, that they should rather be deported for good and should forfeit their citizenship.

Much has been said here about the discretion which the Minister has, but if the hon. member would refer to the old section in the Act, he will see that the minister already has a discretion there. Let us look at the old subsection (c), which now becomes (iii)—it is just above (b)—and which reads as follows—

What kind of voluntary act?

There the Act already gives the Minister a discretion. It is however not the only discretion which he has. In the Citizenship Act itself he has another wide discretion. If you were to look at section 19 of the Citizenship Act which deals with deprivation of citizenship, you will find there—

Then follows a number of actions which could cause such a person to lose his citizenship. In subsection (4) the following words are used—

There again there is a full discretion in the hands of the Minister. I have already referred to section 19bis in which the words “in the opinion of the Minister” appear. Similarly section 20 of the South African Citizenship Act may be referred to, which reads—

I shall read the section—

This is already stated in the existing section of the principal Act. One could then of course refer to the example in the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, 1972, section 45, where the exact words of this Bill may be found, namely that of it is in the public interest that such a person be deported, he may be deported.

The point I am making is that we are already, in the various existing Acts, giving this full discretion to the Minister. Consequently there is no lawful reason why we should not give the Minister that discretion in this Bill as well. All that this Bill is in fact doing now, is the following; The minister has certain powers in respect of foreign citizens. He has those powers in terms of section 45. He has certain powers and he may deprive people who have been naturalized and have registered as South African citizens of their citizenship. He may already take away that citizenship; again with a degree of discretion. Now he is acquiring additional powers to enable him to deprive both minors who have dual citizenship in certain cases concerning which he has to exercise his discretion, as well as born South African citizens who have dual citizenship, of their citizenship. This is not unfair; it is completely fair for the simple reason that if you wish to escape the provisions of this clause, you must simply give up your other citizenship so that you have only one citizenship. There are many people in South Africa who live here subject to the calculated risk that they will do nothing contrary to the public interest. All those people who have come here from other countries, live subject to that risk. All people who go to a foreign country are always subject to the risk that they will act contrary to the public interest of that country. It is of discretionary importance because it is a real concept that it must be contrary to the public interest. For that reason I think that hon. members are not justified in suggesting that a person could lose his citizenship because the Minister does not like the colour of his eyes. It is ridiculous to mention that kind of example. As the hon. member for South Coast said, one goes according to the written word. I agree with him entirely, but the written word says that it must be contrary to the public interest. This is a concept which is very clear, and it is also anticipated that the names of those people who have been deprived of their citizenship will always be laid upon the Table so that this Parliament will always have a measure of control over the number of people who are deprived of their citizenship. One could conduct a debate on the matter by means of a question.

Ex post facto.

What does it matter if it is ex post facto? What else can one do? [Interjections] After all, they are all the same. All the other sections which I have quoted, are the same. Why have hon. members objected specifically to this Bill if all the other sections also give the Minister a discretion? They would also have to be debated here ex post facto. It is, after all, the same thing.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just sat down has been guilty of bringing a good whiff of political scent to try to cover the obnoxious odour of this Bill before us. As it comes to the nostrils of any decent man in South Africa the smell will be almost overbearing. It is a most repellent smell that attaches to this Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister has done nothing but try to bring a whiff of scent in an attempt to cover up that obnoxious smell. What is the position? He quoted me just now as saying that it was the written word that was going to prevail, but why did he not stick to that? That came at the end of his speech where he was dealing with a hundred and one other matters that had nothing to do with this Bill as far as the written word is concerned. He referred to numerous cases where the Minister or some Minister had the power to exercise his discretion. Then he argued from that and said that therefore there was nothing wrong with the Minister having this discretion. Without being a legal man myself I think that if the hon. the Deputy Minister would look at the references he gave us, he would find that those discretions permitted there were not discretions which were rooted in the law as this is in this Bill and therefore they could be tested in a court of law. An aggrieved person can go to court in those cases he quoted and if that person can show that there was mala fides or that the hon. the Minister did not have proper reasons for the decision he came to, the court will upset that decision although the law may say that the Minister has the discretion. I think he should look into that and then he will find that this is a lot of balderdash he has been telling us here because he thinks that we are a bunch of poor farmers from the back veld.

I do not intend being long in dealing with this matter before us, but I am not prepared to just give a silent vote in regard to my opposition to this Bill. I believe it is something which we will all live to regret and I believe that Parliament will live to regret it. I think that Parliament is now being used as an instrument for whatever the advantage is that the Minister sees therein. The hon. the Deputy Minister was not frank with this House. He again raised the question of those persons under the age of 16 or 18 …

Just minors.

… minors who can be caught up in the drug traffic and that kind of thing, particularly drugs. He talked about drugs, drugs and drugs. How many more times do we have to say that there is no reference whatsoever to drugs in this Bill! The hon. the Minister himself admitted the other day that his ideas, already, went far beyond drugs. I know of no civilized, Western country—and I have taken the pains to do a little research myself over the weekend—in which a Minister has taken the power that this Minister has. The Minister himself has tried to present a differentiation between a South African citizen who has another citizenship and a South Africa citizen who does not have another citizenship. There is apparently a kind of second class citizenship in the mind of the hon. the Minister. He has no right to draw that inference. Is not a man, who is a South African citizen, who has been through whatever the procedure may be to become a South African citizen, but who has another citizenship, entitled to the full privileges of citizenship? Is he not called upon to do military training and to make all the sacrifices that every other South African citizen must make? Is he not guilty of high treason if, in fact, he is guilty of high treason and is found to be so by the courts? There is no such thing as a sort of second class citizenship which the hon. the Minister is now trying to define. He indicated that, if he deprived a South African citizen of his citizenship when that person had another citizenship, it would not be so bad because he would be left with that other citizenship. The point is not whether he is left something; the action the hon. the Minister takes may wreck that person’s whole life. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that it is done in the interests of South Africa, in the public interest; what check do we have on that? What right does the Deputy Minister have to say that the Minister is going to be infallible, that he is going to exercise the powers of a deity in seeing what is in a man’s heart and mind when the Minister feels that he is guilty of this or that against the best interests of South Africa? The Minister has no right to assume those powers. As I say, I will not give a silent vote against this Bill. I think it is obnoxious. I think that the concept violates every idea of fairness, decency and fair play. I believe that the hon. the Minister and his party will live to rue the day the Minister came to take these powers, which are unconscionable powers which have never yet been handed to any Minister in South Africa since the time of Union.

I regret to say that the hon. member for South Coast wants to ascribe something of an odour to the Bill while there is none. The principal point in regard to which hon. members on the opposite side of the House differ with those on this side of the House is the words “public interest”. Hon. members on that side of the House wish to have specifically written into the Bill what the “public interest” is and what it is not. I want to inform hon. members that it is impossible to define “public interest” specifically. It is impossible to describe in the Act all the possible situations which may arise, and say: This is what is not in the public interest. In this regard I want to mention a few examples. A person with dual citizenship is found guilty of peddling dagga and drugs. I am not referring to a person in South Africa now, but to the situation overseas, in America, England, Germany or another country. How can hon. members want

Give an example which is not related to drugs.

There is for example theft and rape where a person is found guilty in a country outside South Africa. What about those cases? Hon. members became very upset because the Minister has to decide what is in the public interest. I note however that the great leader of the United Party, General J. C. Smuts, had the following to say on a certain occasion in 1914, and I want to say at once that I do not want to imply here that I agree with his action in that particular case. What is very interesting, however, is what he said, and one will probably not be able to disagree with this principle:

That is what General Smuts once said. I now want to argue that the only person who can decide what is in the public interest is the Government of the day. The Government of the day has the privilege of taking that decision because the people trust the Government of the day and have placed it in that position.

I want to return to an accusation made by the hon. member for Port Natal. According to his Hansard of 15th February, he said the following—

In this connection I just want to read an extract from Staatsreg by Prof. Verloren van Themaat, the second edition by Dr. Wiechers, where reference is made on page 374 to various English Acts, namely the South Africa Act of 1962 and the British Nationality Act of 1948 and of 1958. Then the following is said (translation):

Now I want to ask the hon. member across the floor of the House: Did the hon. member notify the Government of the United Kingdom prior to 1965 that he wanted to adopt his British citizenship?

Whose Act is that?

This is the British Act. On page 375 the learned writer goes further—

I want to ask the hon. member across the floor of the House: Did the hon. member notify the Government of the United Kingdom that he wanted to adopt his rights of citizenship? The hon. member does not want to reply to me. It seems to me the hon. member did in fact give the English Government such notice to the effect that he wanted to adopt his rights of citizenship. If he did not give notice, he is no longer entitled to English citizenship, and then the points he mentioned no longer apply. Under the circumstances it is very clear that this legislation imposes on the Minister the burden of deciding what is in the public interest, because the Minister and the Government of the day are trusted by the country to exercise their rights in a proper manner. In this regard I want to point out to the hon. member for South Coast that I have gone into this, and since 1949 have found no reported decision where the discretion of the Minister was attacked in the courts. Up to the present I have not been able to find any decision where the discretion of the Minister was attacked in the courts. There was in fact a decision in this regard, but it concerned the interpretation of legislation, and not the exercising of the discretion of the Minister. This means that the Minister appears to have exercised his discretion properly from 1949 to the present. If in addition we also take into consideration the limited number of cases in which this legislation is in fact applied, viz. eight cases only, as the hon. the Minister told us in his reply to the Second Reading debate, it is very clear that this legislation will only be applied in certain cases, and that these cases are very limited and small in number. The history of this matter up to now shows very clearly that the Minister can without any doubt whatsoever be trusted to be just and fair, that he can be trusted to act in the public interest, the interest of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer, but I am going to presume to tell the hon. member for Pretoria Central, who is a lawyer, that he is talking through his hat. He is talking through his parliamentary hat, because when he says that the hon. member for Port Natal could only have dual citizenship if he had complied with the conditions he mentioned by 1965, that is nonsense. The hon. member for Port Natal was born in Britain and he has an inalienable right to dual citizenship, to retain his British citizenship whether he makes any announcement in terms of the 1965 limit or not. That applied to South Africans who were British subjects and were given a certain time within which to take up their rights to remain as British subjects when we left the Commonwealth. I think the hon. Minister of Justice will agree with me. But I might say that the hon. member for Port Natal did not even have to be born in Britain for that particular inalienable right: only his father need have been born in Britain. Therefore, everybody who was born in Britain, came to this country and took up South African citizenship, retains the right of British citizenship, and anybody whose father, in fact, was born in Britain, in other words the descendants of those people who are in South Africa now, also retain that right. As the hon. the Minister said quite correctly the other day, it is only if an actual act of revocation is made by the hon. member that he loses that inalienable right.

Helen, you are talking through your Voortrekker bonnet!

No, I can tell the hon. member that I have checked on this and I honestly do know what I am talking about. The hon. member for Port Natal retains that British citizenship. He was born in Britain and he would have retained it had his father been born in Britain. But if he himself makes an act of revocation, if he attests such an act, then he loses that right; and I believe he loses it irrevocably except for certain circumstances. So the hon. member is quite wrong about that. It is quite likely, therefore, that he is wrong about a good many other things that he told us today.

My son has that right too.

Yes, the hon. member’s son would have the same right, because the hon. member was born in Britain, absolutely correct. So this Bill will affect thousands of people. It will affect all those people who are first descendants of persons born in Britain and who have immigrated to this country. It affects all present British immigrants who have come to this country and taken up South African citizenship. It would affect all persons of other countries where they are allowed to retain the citizenship of the country where they were born after having taken up South African citizenship. So it affects thousands of people and the hon. member is quite wrong.

The hon. the Deputy Minister interested me very much indeed, because did I detect a note of regret in his voice, and maybe even in the voice of the hon. member for Pretoria Central, when they said that you cannot deport South African citizens? Well, you cannot deport South African citizens, but you can deport South African citizens who have dual nationality if they do something not in the public interest. His attitude is that it is too bad that South African citizens who do not have dual nationality are safe from deportation. [Interjection.] That is exactly what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. He said that we can only deport those South Africans who have dual nationality and who have acted against the public interest; we cannot—and this is where I detected this note of regret—deport South African citizens who have acted against the public interest.

You were not listening; you missed the point.

No, I did not miss the point at all. The area of the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister is limited; in other words, it excludes South African citizens who do not have dual citizenship. That is a fact, but I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is rather sad about that. He would like South African citizens also to run the risk of deportation if they commit acts which in his opinion or in the opinion of the hon. the Minister of the Interior are against the public interest. As I pointed out the other day, Sir, what he thinks is in the public interest and what I, for instance, think is in the public interest may be two entirely different things. He stated that where young people were concerned, the classic example where a person could be deported was in the case of drug smuggling. This is the classic example where young people are concerned, but there are other cases where the hon. the Minister can act. In fact, he can act against anybody whom he thinks has acted against the public interest, and that is a very wide term indeed. We have to rely on the hon. the Minister’s assurances that he will use his powers very circumspectly; that he will use his powers, one imagines, only as a last resort.

But, Sir, we have had similar assurances from Ministers in this House before. We were, for example, assured that the Terrorism Act would only be used against terrorists in the bush. [Interjection.] It was not the hon. the Minister of Justice who has been accused of giving these assurances; he did not give them, but the hon. the Minister of Police gave those assurances, and, Sir, who in the last resort in fact implements the Terrorism Act but the Minister of Police? He gave us those assurances and some people were naïve enough to believe them. The whole of the official Opposition was naïve enough to accept those assurances. Well, I did not, and I am certainly not accepting any assurances from any Minister. I examine what is in the Bill; I examine the law, and if a Bill contains what I consider to be omissions that are repugnant, or in fact includes powers which I think are repugnant, then I am certainly going to vote against it. The hon. the Deputy Minister has told us, almost as if this was a fair explanation of what was happening in the House today, that there are lots of examples in our law where these wide powers are given to the hon. the Minister. Of course there are, but one voted against the extension of those powers. Sir, why on earth should one be prepared to vote for a further extension of those powers? Obviously not. I should have been much happier if those powers had not been granted, but this House saw fit to do it and therefore one has to accept that that is the law, but I am certainly not going to raise one finger to extend those powers any further at all, and I am certainly going to vote against this Bill. This is a two-clause Bill, or rather, there is one clause that is divided into two parts. The second part is just as bad to me as the first I presume, Sir, that you are going to put the two parts together since there is only one clause. Even if the two parts were put separately, I would naturally vote against both.

You would vote twice against the same clause.

Yes, given the opportunity, I would vote twice against the same clause; the hon. the Minister is dead right, I would vote twice against it because the second part is just as repugnant to me as the first. The first extends the wide powers of the Minister; it does not define “in the public interest” at all, and the second part of the clause lays no obligation on him whatsoever to give us any reasons for his action and gives the unfortunate victim of the hon. the Minister’s opinion that he has acted against the public interest no recourse to the courts of law. He has no right of appeal whatever. I shall therefore vote against this clause.

Sir, according to a Press report the hon. member for Houghton is going to receive, or has already received, an honorary doctorate.

No, not yet, You need not call me “Doctor” yet.

I have been trying to follow her political career as well as I could, but one cannot always keep pace with what she is going to receive. Sir, I am not mentioning this because I begrudge her the title, but because she would like to have about her the aura of a very great scientist. But if one listens very carefully to the hon. member when she is speaking, or if one reads what she has said, only then do you realize how unscientific the lady can in fact be.

She is not a “lady”; she is a member.

Very well, “the hon. member” then. I think we have another case this afternoon where the general public and we, too, should once again discipline ourselves and ask ourselves whether there is really anything in what the hon. member says. She carried on again this afternoon, as did the hon. members of the Opposition, about the powers which the hon. member now wants to take upon himself; she once again, with the same anxiety neurosis and psychosis, tried to involve the people outside and make them believe that this Government is an extremely cruel Government which wants to deprive people of their rights and privileges left, right and centre. And the hon. member, like the hon. member for South Coast and the other hon. members who spoke, was unable to give us a single example of where Ministers on this side of the House did in fact abuse their powers.

If I did that, I would be ruled out of order.

The hon. member is simply making generalized statements without substantiating them. I also want to say that if the hon. member for South Coast had made that speech which he made this afternoon 25 years ago, there would perhaps have been people outside who would have listened to him. But I want to tell him that that type of speech and argument is simply not valid any more. I want to point out that the hon. member for Green Point did present some kind of argument in 1969 when he said, inter alia, the following in col. 2031—

In these debates we have had up to now the hon. member did not even return to that, but what is more interesting is that the hon. member for Wynberg at the time defined the same principle in the following terms; she said—

She then proceeded to mention all kinds of sinister things from the community, and said the following—

She went on to say—

I should now like to ask hon. members of the Opposition, who are still going to debate this matter, to quote to us examples of cases where the hon. the Minister expelled people from the country or took action where he did not have the correct information, and where he prejudiced innocent people. The hon. member for Green Point is going to rise and speak again after I have finished. I am asking him in all friendliness to mention those things to us today, for I think it has become necessary in the world in which we are living that the hon. members of the Opposition should cease to create unnecessary tensions in a country and a world where tension is not needed, and that they give us conclusive proof of cases where the National Party and its Ministers supposedly acted in error. The hon. the Minister stated clearly in his reply to the Second Reading debate that there would still be an opportunity to ascertain every quarter precisely which people were being expelled from the country. My request to the hon. members is therefore that they should at this stage of the debate bring us concrete examples and proof of cases where the National Party has during the past 25 years abused its rights and its privileges.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik raises the point as to whether or not there have already been deportations which were unjustified. He also raises the point as to why we have not referred to a tribunal or to some form of appeal tribunal to deal with deportations. I think this is a matter which I have raised in this House every year that I have been here. Every year that I have been in this House I have raised the question of the necessity for tribunals where matters are dealt with administratively by Ministers, matters affecting the liberty of persons, e.g. the withdrawal of passports. I can ask the same question to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. One hundred and seventy-one passports were withdrawn from South African citizens last year. Have the reasons been given to the public for any one of them? The hon. the Minister said that we must be satisfied; after all, he would lay on the Table of the House the names of the persons from whom he withdrew citizenship under this clause if it was passed. What does that inform us? How does that enlighten the House or the public—merely a list of names; nothing more than a list of names

If there is any justification for our objection to this clause, it has fallen from the mouth of the hon. member for Pretoria Central. The hon. member quoted from a speech which General Smuts made in 1914 in this House. General Smuts was then speaking on a certain Bill. He was speaking on the Indemnity and Undesirables Special Deportation Bill which later became Act No. 1 of 1914. What does that Act say, the clause on which he was speaking? I want to quote section 3 of Act 1 of 1914. It says—

In other words, these people have been tried by a tribunal under martial law or by a magistrate. But there is a saving provision to that section in which those people are protected against any deprivation of their rights of citizenship despite their being convicted by courts. Subsection (1) of section 3 ends as follows—

Their very citizenship was saved for them although they had been convicted of participating in the strike of 1913. That is what the hon. member for Pretoria Central quoted to us as justification for giving this power to the Minister under this clause! It was exactly the opposite.

Nonsense.

The hon. member says I am talking nonsense. Will he read the whole of General Smuts’s speech? In fact, it took 5½ hours to deliver that speech in the House in 1913. I think it was while a ship was passing Cape Point and getting out of territorial waters. There were certain deportations which were affected and the deportees were not South African citizens; their names are listed in Act 1 of 1914. The hon. member for Pretoria Central has therefore strengthened what our view of and our objection to this clause is. It does not say under what circumstances the Minister may exercise this power. It leaves it wide open and only stipulates “in the public interest”. We all have different and differing views as to what is in the public interest. There are avenues of great disparity in how we approach what is in the public interest, quite genuinely and quite honestly. It is one’s background, one’s whole approach, one’s way of life and where one has been, one’s education etc., that influence one’s decision of what is in the public interest. It depends on whether one has—I was almost going to say—a liberal mind or a conservative mind. Those are perhaps the wrong words to use, but one does have an approach to matters which differs, when you are determining what is in the public interest. It is for this reason that there should be this safeguard in the clause and that is our objection to this clause.

Let me go further. The hon. the Deputy Minister has raised a very interesting point after the debate in which the hon. the Minister was involved in connection with the drugs legislation. The whole purpose of the drugs legislation is not only to put down drug peddling, but also to provide for rehabilitation. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister says that it does not help prosecuting these people and sending them to goal. We shall be saddled with them again when they come out of goal. Is the whole scheme for their rehabilitation not working in the country?

He never referred to it in that way.

I am quoting what the hon. the Deputy Minister has just said, namely that we will be saddled with these people; saddled with our own citizens whom we have either accepted as naturalized South Africans, after they had been screened or persons who were born in this country but who for some reason or other—some law or another in another country—has another citizenship.

There is another point which I do not think I can leave unchallenged. It deals with the discretions which are already contained in our law. We on this side of the House have opposed strenuously previous enactments, namely in 1949 and in 1961, amongst others because of the very reasons why we are now opposing this amendment, i.e. that the discretion is too wide; the discretion is too wide in the particular sections of the principal Act which it is now sought to amend by this Bill. In 1962 the Government took a step in the right direction; there were signs of an improvement of thinking along the right lines when they introduced section 19bis. Even when one comes to section 19bis of the principal Act, where the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to suggest that there was a discretion—under the old subsection (3) which the Deputy Minister quoted—one finds that the Minister only exercises his discretion after a determination of whether the particular individual has performed some voluntary act which indicates that such citizen has made use of his citizenship or nationality of the other country. In other words, it is within defined conditions and confined circumstances that he uses his discretion. That is what we feel should be embodied in this particular clause. The arguments which have been advanced do not convince us—and they do not convince me certainly—that this is a clause which can be supported.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members who have spoken on the other side seem to have concentrated in their argument on the one particular aspect, namely dual citizenship. They wish to suggest that the mere fact of dual citizenship is going to motivate the hon. the Minister to withdraw South African citizenship from a particular person. I do not think they are quite right in their approach here. They are concentrating on this one aspect only. The hon. member for Houghton took some time to explain to us why the hon. member for Port Natal had dual citizenship; she was quite sympathetic towards his particular position in this House. She suggested that the hon. the Minister just wanted these powers in order to get at the throat of some people who were in a similar position. That was the suggestion that the hon. member for Port Natal made in the previous debate as well. She even went so far as to say that we would like to deport people from South Africa who had only South African citizenship. Of course, we are deporting them; we are sending them to Robben Island, but that is not the position in this case. The hon. member for Green Point went on to say in his first address to this House this afternoon, that this legislation, this Bill, placed the citizenship of persons with dual citizenship in jeopardy at all times. It is not so; it is not true. The hon. the Minister cannot withdraw citizenship from a person simply because he has dual citizenship. The Bill states openly that it must be in the public interest for him to do so. It is my submission that such a citizen must have committed some overt act in terms of which he is guilty of infringing a law and thus of acting against the public good in South Africa. There must have been some sort of overt act, some deed done by this citizen, which causes the Minister to feel that it is in the public interest of South Africa to take such a step. It is not the mere fact of dual citizenship which is the criterion here. The criterion is that this act, this commission or this omission, if you wish, by this citizen who holds dual citizenship, is not in the interest of South Africa.

May I ask the hon. member a question? What happens if the hon. Minister acts in good faith on information which he has been given which is incorrect?

That, I suggest is a supposition which cannot be true because the hon. the Minister will have all the information at his disposal and will weigh it up very carefully. The hon. the Minister will be supplied with information not only by his department, but also, I suggest, by the Department of Police and by other sources. He will not take any decision until he is fully informed of all the circumstances of the case. I am satisfied that the discretion exercised in the past by hon. Ministers of whichever Government, have been exercised in a fair manner.

*I wish to continue. The hon. members mentioned the fact here that the Minister had an exceptionally wide discretion in this case. Some members suggested that the Minister’s discretion was virtually unlimited. Surely this is not so! Indeed, the discretion is limited by the fact that the Minister may act only if a particular person acts against the public interest and good order. Then the hon. members went on to say that there should be some tribunal or body which should actually judge whether the Minister had acted rightly or wrongly in a particular case. I maintain that there are more than enough safeguards in the system as we have it at the present time. What would happen if the Minister issued an order in terms of this legislation? It would immediately be taken up by our Press, which is universally recognized as a free Press. They would pry as they are supposed to pry and they would uncover the facts as only they can, and blaze them abroad. I am convinced that no Minister, under the present system, would be prepared to run the risk of a wrong decision which would expose him to the criticism of public opinion. More than that, it could expose him to the criticism of hon. members in this House, because it is here that the hon. the Minister will eventually have to account for his actions. This is where he must get up and defend his action in particular cases.

The hon. member for Green Point said the withdrawal of citizenship would come before this House simply in the form of a list of names. That is not quite so. It does not come here just in the form of a list of names. The facts of such a withdrawal are generally known; it is discussed and debated in the Press long before it comes before this House. By the time the matter gets here, the relevant facts would have been ferreted out by public opinion quite effectively. It is my submission that the restrictions which do exist in terms of our system at this stage, are more than adequate for ensuring that a responsible Minister and a responsible Government would take responsible decisions in terms of the discretion they are being given to exercise in terms of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville ended on the note that the hon. the Minister’s decision can be questioned in this House and that the hon. the Minister will be forced to defend his action. Here is where I disagree with that hon. member altogether, because we have had instances of this before. What is the answer we get from hon. Ministers on that side? “It is not in the interest of the country”. I cannot go along with the argument of the hon. member for Bellville at all. The hon. member for Bellville also mentioned that the person must have committed some overt act, that some deed must have been done by the citizen concerned, some un-South African act. I think I am quoting him correctly [Interjection] He indicates that I am quoting him correctly Sir, the whole crux of the argument of this side of the House ever since this debate began, has been that if some such overt act has been committed, surely in all the volumes of laws which we have passed in this House there is some way in which the Government can bring the miscreant before the courts and have him convicted. We had the hon. the Deputy Minister himself when he took part a little earlier saying that in terms of existing legislation we can deal with a person until he comes out of goal, but that once he comes out of goal we can do nothing at all with him and that what the Government now wishes is to take the power to deal with that person after he has come out of goal and has been punished. It is a second punishment. The Opposition’s official attitude is that we are against imposing a second punishment on a person, especially when this is a second punishment imposed arbitrarily by a Minister after the first punishment was imposed by a court of law. But this is to our mind a far lesser evil, for that person to suffer a second penalty having been found guilty in a court of law, than to have his citizenship arbitrarily removed by the Minister, and arbitrarily removed in terms of evidence to which the Minister alone has access, evidence which the Minister at no time whatsoever has to test. He never has to test that evidence because he is never brought to account for it.

The Minister says that it takes too long to get a court decision.

Surely even if it takes a year, in the interest of justice, justice must take its course. Surely that is no answer whatsoever to this question.

There is another aspect to this question of convicted people and convicted criminals, and that is the reply of the hon. the Minister to the Second Reading debate. I want to quote from his Hansard where the hon. the Minister said the following:

I think the hon. member for Pretoria Central also referred to this. The Minister is talking about the powers he has in terms of section 19bis. Is that correct?

Yes.

I read further:

The hon. member for Houghton interjected “All criminals?” to which the Minister replied: “Ja, misdadigers.” I then asked the hon. the Minister, “All convicted criminals?” and the reply of the hon. the Minister was, “Nee, nie ‘convicted’ nie. Die agb. lid moet nie nou woorde draai nie.” Now what is a criminal if he is not a convicted person? This is the whole question and the whole point of our suspicion. He says I am suspicious. I am suspicious. If the hon. the Minister’s attitude is that people who have not been convicted are still criminals, this is why we do not want to give him these powers. We do not want to give him these powers because he believes that people who have not been convicted are criminals. I do not know if this was a slip of the tongue in the heat of the debate. I sincerely hope, for the sake of the hon. the Minister, that it was a slip of the tongue and that he did not mean it. But, Sir, if he means it, that justifies entirely the attitude of this side of the House.

There is another section to this amendment which has been moved, and that is the new clause 1A, which denies any person virtually any right of appeal whatever; he does not even have any right of review. Sir, the object of a review—I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me—is generally to test the existence of a fact. The object of a review is not always to review the decision which was made or the sentence which was passed, but basically to review the existence of a fact, to establish whether the facts on which a decision was made do exist.

In a criminal case, yes.

Any sort of review is to test the existence of a fact. Here we have a situation where the hon. the Minister can be fed certain information, on that information he can take a decision, and nobody at any stage has any right to review that decision. It cannot be reviewed by a court of law, by this House or by anybody. He solely has that power. Surely, Sir, we cannot, in this year of 1973, in this civilized country of ours, be prepared to pass this sort of provision in our legislation.

He is the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner.

And the executioner! He is the whole lot. My hon. colleague is perfectly right. The hon. the Minister has not justified the demand for these powers at all.

When we come back to this question of a person being a “criminal”, the hon. member for Wonderboom in his Second Reading speech said that we must not expect thousands of British immigrants to commit crimes. Sir, that is the whole point. There is no reference in this legislation before us today to any crime. If there was reference to a crime, then the Government would have the wholehearted support of this side of the House. This is the point that we have made over and over again.

I wonder, Sir, if the hon. the Minister is now going to reply to the debate so far. There is one further question that is outstanding, which can have a bearing on our attitude towards this clause, and that is the information for which we asked him in the Second Reading debate and which he did not have. Perhaps he has got it now. Has he any idea how many people can or may be affected by this legislation, and also from which countries they would emanate, or of which countries they would also hold citizenship, together with their South African citizenship?

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to reply to what was said by the hon. member for Green Point with regard to subsection (3), with which he apparently was satisfied. As I understood him, his objection was that the Minister’s discretion would be exercised on the basis of a voluntary, specific action. I think the point which was made by the hon. member for Bellville, when he said that when one judged whether something was in the public interest, that could not be done in vacuo, was a valid one. Surely that judgment must be made in pursuance of certain occurrences. In that case the Minister must direct his thoughts at certain occurrences which had come to his knowledge and he would have to judge from that whether something was in the public interest or not. Therefore the clause which is under discussion, is in essence exactly the same as subsection (3). It deals with certain occurrences, certain facts, which one has to test to see whether something is in the public interest or not.

You have a list of crimes which justify deportation.

That list of crimes is the very thing which will determine whether something is in the public interest or not. Sir, I concede that these are wide powers which are being given to the hon. the Minister, but he has these powers in respect of the citizens of other countries who act against the public interest here in South Africa. When a person who has German citizenship, for instance, acts against the public interest here, the Minister may exercise his discretion and send that person out of the country without there being an appeal to the courts and without there being any right of review by a court. Now we come to the case in question, i.e. when a person has dual citizenship. What is the difference in principle? One is not being unfair to the person; one does not withdraw his citizenship completely, because he has another citizenship to fall back on. He has violated his South African citizenship. [Interjection.] The hon. member must give me a chance; I gave him a chance. This person has violated his South African citizenship, which he has in addition to his other citizenship, by having acted in a way which is against the public interest. On which grounds must such a person still be allowed to live in South Africa? Let us take the hypothetical case of a person who is the citizen of another country and who has, over a rather long period of time, also acquired South African citizenship. Let us suppose that it has been proved that this person has acted completely against the public interest. What would the standpoint of the hon. member for Green Point be? Should this man not be sent out of South Africa? What does it matter whether one sends him away after he has been tried and convicted or whether one sends him away before the trial? In the one instance one may try a person and land in prison; but when he comes out of prison, he still has his South African citizenship; one wants to send him away, but one cannot do so because he is a South African citizen. Is it not better to say to people who act in this manner, “Leave South Africa and go and do your devilish work overseas”? What does the hon. member for Green Point want? I should like to hear him on that point and I ask him to suppose that the man has indeed acted against the public interest. Since we do have the wide powers with regard to a person who has another citizenship, why can we not use those same powers in the case of a person who has dual citizenship? We are not wronging him by withdrawing his citizenship altogether; he loses his South African citizenship only.

Before calling on the hon. member for Green Point to speak, I just want to mention that we are not dealing here with the principle of the Bill. The principle has already been accepted at the Second Reading. We are dealing here only with the details of this particular clause. I have been very generous in that I have allowed hon. members on both sides of the House to cover a wide field. I have also allowed hon. members to repeat themselves to a certain extent. I just want to point out that I will allow no further repetitions and that hon. members must now confine themselves to the details of the clause.

Sir, I rise merely to answer the pointed question put to me by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in asking me whether or not I would agree to citizenship being withdrawn from a person holding both South African citizenship and some other citizenship, used the same general phraseology to which we object in this clause. He asked me what I would do “as hulle teen die openbate belang optree”. Sir, our complaint about this clause is that it does not define what is against the public interest. The clause merely says that the Minister may act if in his opinion the man acted against the public interest. Sir, let me briefly put this point to the hon. the Minister: Before an alien can be deported, he must come under one of the provisions of the Act dealing with aliens, and there is a long list of crimes which warrant deportation.

Not under clause 45.

No, I am talking about the list of crimes which are stipulated. That right of having it in the Bill is being denied to a man who, in addition to his foreign nationality or citizenship, also has South African citizenship. Why is it not being put into this clause?

I rise to answer a few things that have been said here today. First of all, I want to deal with what the hon. member for Bellville said, although he is not here at the moment. He said that the whole thing was about dual citizenship. Of course this is so, but then he also said something which is very interesting. He said that the Minister gets his information about un-South African activities—for want of a better word—and that this information is always very reliable. Now, if this is so, it surprises me, because the courts have often found that evidence brought before them does not warrant a conviction, and people are let free. That is why I say that in the case of people bringing evidence to the Minister or information to the Minister about the activities of certain people that information need be no more reliable than that which is often presented in our courts. At least in our courts we have the opportunity of airing what the crime is, if any.

But I see another aspect of this matter. As the hon. member for Houghton has said, there are many people in this country who have dual citizenship, or have the right to dual citizenship, through no act of their own. In my own case this is the position. I hold dual citizenship through no act of my own. I happened to come to this country on the passport of my parents. Incidentally, I served in the South African Forces. I do not have the passport of any other country, and I am a South African 100%, but I have the right to citizenship of the United Kingdom, merely by an accident of birth, as the hon. member for Zululand explained the other day. The position is that in South Africa, as the hon. member for Houghton pointed out, and as I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, there must be literally hundreds of thousands of people in exactly the same position. I can find no other parallel in regard to the powers the Minister seeks in this clause than what the President of Uganda has just done with the Asians there. I am not saying that the Minister is going to act in that way, but I say he was able to act in that way because he claimed that these people had dual citizenship including that of the United Kingdom, and although most of them had of course never been there and knew nothing about it, the United Kingdom had to accept them. This is the same position.

As I see it, the crux of the matter is what the Minister considers as actions not in the interests of South Africa, and what somebody else might consider them to be. And I have had personal experience in recent months of the present Minister of the Interior taking a different point of view from what the previous Minister of the Interior took over certain matters. This is understandable, because they are two different personalities doing the same job. I do not say there is anything wrong with that. But this Minister of the Interior may take one particular attitude on matters of this sort, and a new Minister might take a different line, a softer or a harder line; and there is nothing in this clause which will limit a Minister in the type of action he takes. As somebody said here, he is judge, prosecutor, jury, the whole lot, in matters of this nature. We have claimed from the word “Go” that all this Minister has to do is to put these people on trial. If they are found guilty he can take whatever action he likes against them. As I see it, there are hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa in a similar position to mine. I want to say to the hon. the Minister in this regard that if I were Minister of the Interior I might completely ill-judge his actions as un-South African when he claimed in an earlier debate some years ago that as a schoolteacher he had ensured that none of his pupils would be anything but good Nationalists. If I were Minister of the Interior I might say that that was not in the interests of South Africa, although he would not fall under this clause. This is the extreme to which it can be taken. Now the hon. the Minister may not take this to any extreme, but every person who happens to be in the same position in which I am in South Africa—and I say there must be hundreds of thousands of people like that —now has a threat hanging over his head. As I see it, this is rank intimidation. They have this threat over their heads. If they speak up on any matter which the Minister of the day does not like, he may act against them and there is no power on earth to stop him. Although the Minister will Table the names in this House, as hon. members have pointed out time and again, that is far too late; their lives will have been disrupted and they will have gone back to wherever they came from. I cannot see how the hon. the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, can ask this House to pass legislation of this type which surely must be the most undemocratic legislation that we have passed in this House for many, many years. When I stand up here, I do not speak on behalf of myself or members on this side who have spoken as well, but I speak on behalf of all the hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa who are in the same position as I am and who do not, quite frankly, trust the Government in being given these powers, powers which, as the hon. member for South Coast said, have not been given to any other democratic government anywhere in the Western world.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the question put by the hon. member for Green Point. He told us just now that the question which I put to him with regard to the public interest, had caused him problems. He said that the expression “public interest” has too wide a meaning. I would like to inform the hon. member for Green Point that I think—and I would like to hear his opinion—that when it comes to the public interest, the Minister and in fact almost any experienced hon. member of this House, are in as good a position to determine what the public interest is as anyone in this country, as any court or whatever. We here who are experienced and who deal with these matters every day, are in a better position, or in as good a position—I will not set it any higher than that—as anyone to determine what is in the public interest. Does the hon. member agree with me?

I have already spoken three times; I cannot answer.

The hon. member has only to nod or shake his head.

I am not a yes-man, nor the opposite.

I should like to furnish a brief reply to one of the questions put by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. He said that he had already, during the Second Reading debate, asked the hon. the Minister how many people would be affected by this in regard to how many countries it was possible to have dual citizenship. Concerning the question about the number of countries in regard to which it is possible to have dual citizenship, that is a totally irrelevant question. For the purposes of this debate it is not necessary to specify the different countries which allow dual citizenship with our country. It is not at all relevant to this debate, for this measure is not aimed at certain countries; it is aimed at the people with dual citizenship who do wrong here. I am prepared to admit that there are probably many thousands of people in South Africa for whom the possibility of dual citizenship exists. It is possible for them to have South African citizenship as well as the citizenship of another country. However, when it comes to an offence against the public interest in our country, very, very few people will be affected by this measure. Therefore it is not proper that the allegation should be made that thousands of people will be affected by this. Only those few people who act against the public interest in South Africa, are affected and the other people do not have anything to fear. A person expressing his usual political opinions—we must not become childish—has absolutely nothing to fear. It is only people who really act against the interests of South Africa who will be affected by this measure. I made the point that the hon. the Minister is in a better position, or in as good a position as anyone else to determine what that public interest is.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister really is like this; he is just being obtuse. For him now to get up, after we have patiently, courteously requested this information, to say that it is absolutely irrelevant which countries are affected, I believe brings this whole debate into contumely. It brings his conduct into contumely.

Why is it relevant? You tell us why it is relevant.

This is not the sort of conduct which we expect from a Minister or a Deputy Minister. They are the only ones who are in a position to know the details. Why have they introduced this legislation? Have they introduced this legislation in order to act against one person only? Have they introduced this legislation in order to act against a hundred thousand people? Surely this is an admission on their part that they have not investigated this matter thoroughly, if they do not know how many people are involved in this matter; or else they are deliberately withholding from this Committee the information which we have requested. The hon. the Minister tells us that the countries are irrelevant. I am going to ask him directly and, since he also has had three turns to speak and cannot get up to speak again, he can move his head up and down or sideways to give me the answer. The question is: Does this apply to citizens of Israel?

All citizens who have double citizenship.

It is no good for the hon. the Minister to say that it applies to all citizens with duel nationality. It is no answer to the question. Does it apply to citizens of India?

It is irrelevant.

Out of common courtesy I believe that if the hon. the Minister knows the answer he should reply to my question because while he might consider it irrelevant, does he know whether I consider it irrelevant and does he know what argument I am going to advance when I get the answer? If the hon. the Minister does not know, how does he intend to apply this legislation when he gets it? If he does not know the answer to this, how can he apply the legislation? How can he apply his mind, and this is the very point I have made earlier. He is going to make his decision in the light of certain evidence which he is going to get and in the light of certain information which will be presented to him. How does he know that that information is correct? How does he know that that person has in fact duel citizenship? How does he know it? [Interjections.] If a person has come here and has Israeli citizenship …

You are wasting time.

Let me put the question the other way round. Can a South African citizen also hold Israeli citizenship?

Yes.

Can an Israeli citizen also hold South African citizenship?

Yes.

Why could the hon. the Minister not have answered me in that way the first time I put the question? I would then have known that this Bill would affect people who hold Israeli citizenship or people who have been to Israel or who are Israeli citizens who have come here. I want to ask him about India. Is this going to affect India?

You are wasting my time.

He does not know the answer again.

I know all the answers.

The second question I want to ask him is, how many people may be affected or could be affected or are liable to be affected by this legislation?

That is a stupid question.

Only those who act against the interest of the country … full stop.

The hon. the Minister says that it will affect only those who act against the interest of South Africa. How are these people going to know whether they are affected by this legislation? How is the hon. the Minister to know? When he finds somebody who has in his opinion acted in an un-South African manner, how is he going to know that he can act against that person in terms of this legislation? He does not know. He is asking us for a blank cheque for him to use his and only his discretion. He will take the full responsibility for it knowing that there is this cloak of secrecy which is embodied in this legislation. At no time can he be compelled by anybody to divulge any of the information on which he based his decision. I am not saying that his decision is necessarily going to be the wrong one, but what I am worried about is that the information on which he bases that decision could be wrong. This is the whole thing and this is why we believe that this should be tested in a court of law. How can a Deputy Minister say: “What do we do with the man when he comes out of goal?” As far as the Opposition is concerned the answer is: Deal with him, take his citizenship away and get rid of him because we do not want him, but only after he has come out of goal and after he had been convicted. I want to finish on this note. I once again want to reiterate the attitude of the United Party, the official Opposition. We are not opposed to the removal of people who act against the interests of our country. We will support the Government in that regard, but let us see that safeguard written into this legislation, that it is aimed at people who are acting against the interest of the country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, wants the hon. Minister to say which countries may be affected by this measure. Why would the hon. member want the hon. the Minister to mention the names of countries, unless perhaps he wants to mar international relations with those countries? The hon. member cannot explain the relevance of his remarks to this House. When the hon. member has finished fighting, he can consider this: Not one single hon. member on that side has said why it is relevant to know which countries might allow dual citizenship. None of those members can explain why they have to know how many citizens in South Africa have dual citizenship. Of what relevance is it?

It gives us the meaning of the Bill.

The Bill is only applicable to certain persons who, in the first place, have dual citizenship and who, in the second place, act against the public interest. Suppose there are 10 000 people who have dual citizenship—this Bill is not applicable to 10 000 people; it is only applicable to the few people who act against the public interest. That is point No. 1.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District remarked: How does the Minister know whether a person has dual citizenship? If a person does not have dual citizenship, he can go to court and dispute the Minister’s decision. The appeal to the court is only excluded with regard to that which is in the public interest. If the hon. the Minister were to make a mistake—I do not believe that he will—with regard to the fact whether or not a person does in fact have dual citizenship, the matter could be tested in the courts. What is wrong with that? What is the hon. member’s problem in that regard? No, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is simply being silly.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—86: Badenhorst, P. J.; Boden stein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

NOES—44: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and W. M. Sutton.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Title agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—