I move—

I move as an amendment—

1. (a) has unduly burdened railway users; and
2. (b) has set in train a trend which will have adverse effects on the cost of living and the tempo of our economic growth”.

Sir, I shall deal entirely with one especial section of our amendment and will leave it to others who follow me to make more orthodox but equally telling and important criticisms of the Budget itself and its financial and other shortcomings. I will deal with that section of the amendment which asserts that the Government has failed to plan adequately, if at all, for future events, and pursues policies which subject South Africa as a whole to the narrow, ideological, party-political apartheid interests of the Nationalist Party. In this connection I would first of all like to question the Minister to-day on his transport policy for the Transkei, if and when that territory changes its status and becomes independent. He must know that the present self-government plan for the Transkei within the Republic of South Africa is only a temporary transitional status as far as his Government is concerned. But even at this stage—even before the Transkei becomes a sovereign state, as the Prime Minister has promised it shall become in the not too far distant future—the Minister must have planned many short-ranee administrative changes for the running of the Railways and the road motor transport in the Transkei. And I would advise him, very soon, to make very careful long-range plans against the time when the Transkeian Africans will demand the ultimate fulfilment of his Government’s promises, namely complete sovereignty. If the Minister has not yet made plans he had better think quickly. A carefully considered provocative statement issued by Chief Kaiser Matanzima a week ago contains threatening promises which should alarm the Minister of Transport. The significance of what the Prime Minister designate of the first Bantustan said is enlarged by the fact that it was made before the Transkei Constitution Bill has been accepted in principle, by this Parliament. That makes his statement a confident challenge which cannot be ignored by this Minister or his Government. He should note, Sir, that Chief Matanzima’s first territorial claim on White South Africa, on behalf of the African, is the whole of the area between the Fish River and Zululand and this must include our transport system too. The Chief must be very sure of himself. He is not yet Prime Minisfer but his statement is calculated to ensure his acceptance, by his own voters anyway, in that position. Perhaps his truculent attitude may yet cause this Government to change its dangerous plans before it is too late. Let us examine the significance of the Chief’s statement for the Railways.

Order! Of what relevance is that to this Bill?

Every relevance, Sir, as I shall shortly prove. As I was saying: let us examine the significance of the Chief’s statement for the Railways. He has made it known that the protected position of “White” trade in the Transkei will not be tolerated much longer. What about the privileged position of the White railwaymen and the White R.M.T. workers in the Black Transkei? The Chief threatened that he would intervene to ensure, and I quote: “remunerative employment for the people who have no officially recognized trade unions”. Does he intend by these words to say that he will intervene on behalf of the 95,000 Bantu and casual workers on our Railways without whom the Railways could not run? When he gets his independence will he, for example, consider it his duty to protest that by only getting R2,500,000 of the wage raises out of the total increased pay-bill of R22,000,000 the Bantu are being unfairly treated? Who knows? Least of all the Minister. The Chief says that he will negotiate on a highly respectable level with the Republican Government to give employment to the people of the Transkei in White South Africa. This must include the railway service.

Yes, but that is really very far-fetched.

Mr. Speaker, I maintain that what I say is directly connected with the Railways. We run a line of Railways through the Transkei. This Budget deals with the running of that line.

Order! The hon. member must proceed with the Bill.

Sir, I maintain that I am dealing with the Bill. I maintain that anything we can prove to show, in this Budget debate (which takes precedence over any legislation), that the policy of this Government in running the Railways and the road transport system in the Transkei can and has been or will be in the future grievously harmful to South Africa: If I can show that if the intentions of the present Government come to fruition and if the threats issued by the Prime Minister designate of Transkei are carried out there will be serious consequences for our railway system in Transkei …

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling.

I certainly will, Sir. I should like to ask this Minister whether he will be able to resist such demands for autonomy if they are made by a fully independent Transkei, in the light of the promise by the Prime Minister? He said that Black “baasskap” powers will be given to Bantu rulers. If the Prime Minister designate negotiates on behalf of the Black man to run the Railways in an independent Transkei can he be refused? Would he not press, and perhaps in not such a “high and respectable” manner, for the Railways to accede to his demands for his own people to be employed in top positions on the Railways in the Transkei? How long will he allow White officials to hold privileged positions in charge of Railways and road transport services in what will then be Black South Africa? The Chief asks for even more. He says—

The Chief wants this efficient check. He wants a check and in the case of the Railways in the Transkei he is in the position to have an “on-the-spot” check. Does this check not apply to White South Africa, too, where the Railways are the largest employer, next to the mines, of Bantu labour? Do his words not imply a possible threat of interference from the Transkei in railway affairs in the Republic; much less in the Transkei, where the threat can become a pressing reality? Will this threat not become redoubled in intent and in power when complete sovereignty is given to the Transkei as it has been promised? In this statement by Chief Matanzima we see the first challenge to control from outside, from the Bantustans outside—the vast labour force of the Railways without which we would not be able to conduct our transport system or run them efficiently inside the Transkei or outside. It seems to me that this is the beginning of ominous happenings. Do these words amount to a refusal to consent to the repatriation of the Transkeian Bantu in the Western Province, for example …

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

But, Mr. Speaker, this Minister has said to us …

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, in my amendment I accuse the Government of having failed “to plan adequately for future events”. This Minister has said that for two years he has been carrying out a policy of repatriating the Bantu from railway services in the Western Cape to the Transkei. Is that not relevant, Sir? Is that not a part of Government railway policy? Am I not allowed to discuss in a Budget any aspect of railway policy? Am I not quite unlimited? Can I not discuss anything that has anything to do with the running of the Railways?

The hon. member is not discussing railway policy, he is discussing the Transkei policy.

But, Sir, the Railways are run in the Transkei. The Railways are run right into the Transkei to Umtata and when they come down from the north they impinge on the Transkei. I am discussing, as I am entitled to discuss, the Railways of the Transkei and the road motor transport system of the Transkei. I do not see how it can be ruled out of order if I discuss those things.

I hope the hon. member will not argue with the Chair and that he will obey my ruling.

I take it, Sir, that your ruling is that I can deal with the Railways of the Transkei and the transport system of the Transkei and the possible threats to that system which Government policy may cause.

As long as the hon. member does not go too far.

I have said that Chief Matanzima makes it quite clear that he does not wish to have any kind of co-operation with the Whites in the Transkei. I ask why should he make an exception in the case of the Railways? When complete sovereignty comes to the Transkei will this Minister not lose control of transport in the Transkei, perhaps altogether? Will his control of the Railways and the road transport system there not suffer? He must know that it is being said that the whole of the Transkei, including the Railways and the road motor transport, will some day come under the fully autonomous rule of the Transkei itself. He knows that as a temporary measure certain aspects of administration are being excluded, for example, foreign affairs, defence and certain aspects of justice. But, Sir, there is an inter alia there and that inter alia includes transport. It has been said by the Prime Minister that transport and other aspects of administration such as that will “presumably” (not definitely) and “for the time being” remain the responsibility of the Republican Government. And that inter alia, as I have said, includes the Railways and the roadways. And only “for the time being” will they remain under the control of the Republic.

Surely the Minister must be making plans for the day against which those promises will be fully implemented. Surely he should tell us now, before an irrevocable step is taken; he should tell us at this stage what plans he has, what agreements he will make to run our transport system in these areas, when the Transkei has passed out of our control. The Transkei Africans have been promised that they can work out their own destiny just like the people of any other state in Africa. That promise will be taken up by the people of the Transkei. That promise has been taken up by the Prime Minister designate who will some day choose a man to run his Railways for him. He has used exactly the same words, Sir; he has reminded the Prime Minister of his promise. Chief Matanzima’s statement to the Press says “this is an honest offer from the Government that the African will govern himself and decide his own destiny”. He will decide his destiny and control those aspects of administration which will eventually pass into his hands, amongst those will be the Railways. I am quite certain that the Minister must be thinking of what the immediate future, as well as the distant future, holds in store for the Railways, the railwaymen and the whole of the transport system in the Transkei.

The White traders have been told that they must go. Will the White railway staff be tolerated on the stations and on the trains? Will they be allowed to remain? I understand that many of them have already applied for transfer. I do not know what reasons they gave. The Minister says “for domestic reasons” but it seems to me that a process has already started which the Minister should be watching very carefully. Do the independent states of Africa have White railways running through their territories run on the basis of “baasskap apartheid”? I ask the Minister: Is that what he intends to do to the Black Bantustans of South Africa? To return to our Prime Minister’s statement, Sir. He said “we believe in the baasskap of the European (over the Black man I presume) in White South Africa and “baasskap of the Black man (over the White man presumably) in the Black areas”. This is promised for the Black man in Transkei. Does it mean that once the Transkei gets its full independence, gets complete sovereignty, it will want to man and run the Railways of the Transkei itself? Transkeians have been told that “when they feel themselves capable or desirous of doing so” they will be able to do it for themselves. Not when “we” think the Railways should be handed over but when “they” think they should be handed over …

Who said that?

The Prime Minister himself.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

It is absolutely true, Sir. I can quote the Prime Minister’s own statement issued to the News Press of the World in January 1962 which says just precisely that. It has been quoted by me before. Look at Hansard of March 7, column 2318. The Prime Minister said further that “industries must as soon as possible wholly pass into the hands of the Bantu” and “as the Bantu no longer needs the European the latter must wholly withdraw from Native territories …”

Order! Those are matters which should be discussed under the Transkei Bill. I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss them now.

I am asking if industries, why not Railways …

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed on those lines, and I cannot allow him to argue with me. If he does not follow my injunction he must sit down.

Does this apply to the Railways and road transport? Are the Railways and R.M.T. to be abandoned by the Europeans as soon as the Xhosas feel that it is necessary for us to withdraw? Is it in order to discuss the Railway portfolio in this way?

I have given the hon. member guidance, but he does not want to follow my guidance.

I am trying to follow your guidance. I am doing my best to confine my remarks to the Railways. But it is necessary for me to make a general statement in order to prove that if the principle is applied to the Railways as it must be, it would be dangerous to our transport system in future …

The hon. member must either obey my ruling or sit down.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Railways Estimates indicate that there are some 95,000 Bantu employed on the Railways. I ask whether we are not entitled to discuss the dangers which are represented in the policy of the Government in respect of those 95,000 Bantu who represent a considerable force in the Administration’s railway service.

All those 95,000 Bantu workers are not employed on the Railways in the Transkei.

With great respect, Sir, may I suggest that you give us some guidance.

Order! I have given my guidance to the House and to the hon. member.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what arrangements will be made regarding the take-over of road and rail transport and what agreements are envisaged as a basis on which the Government of the Republic might run the Railways for a completely autonomous Black Transkei? I have made no deductions, Sir, and I have expressed no opinion as to the wisdom or unwisdom of these things. But I want to ask the Minister to give us those particulars because they come within the orbit of his portfolio. I think it is up to him to give us this reply in. the second reading. It is of great importance that South Africa should know Government plans especially at this particular juncture. What arrangements will he make, what long-range plans has he prepared, for the future of the Railways and road transport in the Transkei? How long does he think he will be able to run the Railways there on an apartheid basis? How long will the Black Government tolerate apartheid, for example, on the Transkeian trains and buses? What will the Minister do if Chief Matanzima, in order to gain support from his voters inside and outside the Transkei, and having had himself elected as Prime Minister…

Order! I must ask the hon. member to discontinue his speech.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order the hon. member is dealing with the Railways.

Order! The hon. member is not dealing with the Railways.

I am dealing with nothing else …

I have given the hon. member all the scope that I can possibly give him. I cannot allow any further discussion.

Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of the House, do I understand that no reference may be made in this debate to the Transkei whatsoever? I am asking for your ruling, Mr. Speaker: Can no other speaker refer to the Transkei and the transport of the Transkei in the course of this debate?

I will decide when the hon. member broaches the point.

Mr. Speaker, the member is dealing with apartheid on the Railways and he was pointing out that it was going to be difficult to apply apartheid on the Railways when the new Government takes over …

Order! I have given my ruling.

I second, Sir. The question of what is to happen to the Railways in the Transkei is naturally a most important one to me and to my constituency. Like the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) I want to raise the question of apartheid in the service in the Transkei particularly with the Minister and how it is going to affect our services there.

I am not going to deal with the broad basis of the Transkei plan, I merely want to deal with it as it is going to affect particularly the road motor transport services in the Transkei, and as to how it is going to affect the railwaymen in the Transkei. Just recently, on Thursday in fact, a visit was paid to Umtata by important officials from Durban and from East London; they were commercial inspectors and senior engineers and the stationmaster of Kokstad was also present. The railwaymen were told by those senior officials that they had come to discuss the change in the Railway Administration once the Transkei Bill was passed and once the new Government had taken over. The information given to the railwaymen, not by way of rumour, but by senior officials was that certain depots were to be closed down and that certain men would have to be transferred. The position is that we have a road transport depot at Umtata. Various areas are served from Umtata up to Kokstad and into Pondoland. Two system managers control the area; one area is controlled by the system manager at Durban and the other portion by the system manager at East London. The information given to these drivers was that the depot at Umtata would be handed over in about six months’ time to Bantu employees, and that six of the European drivers would have to be transferred to Kokstad. They were told that they would operate from the depot at Kokstad. The point I want to raise with the Minister is this: I want the Minister to make a statement as to how these services in the Transkei are going to be operated. This is important because I had no idea before that the department envisaged closing down any depots and transferring any of the depots over to the Bantu. This is the first opportunity I have of raising the matter with the Minister because the meeting only took place at Umtata last Thursday. I want to ask the Minister to tell us, when he replies, how these services are to operate; who is going to operate them; will the drivers be Bantu drivers or will they be White drivers; will their assistants be Bantu assistants or White assistants? The service from Kokstad to Umtata can be operated from Kokstad but the service to the European areas, to Queenstown, East London, Port St. Johns have to be operated from Umtata and I want to know who will operate them. Will they be operated by White or Bantu officials? I should also like the Minister to tell us what is to happen to the minor services; whether the Bantu are to take them over or not? It appears to me that Bantu drivers are going to be appointed because of the statements made to the railwaymen that the depot at Umtata is to be handed over to Bantu employees.

On these bus routes, for instance from Umtata into the Bantu areas—the area of Coffee Bay, for instance; there are others as the Minister will know—are those buses to remain mixed buses or are they to become buses for Bantu only? If they are to be mixed buses will the driver and his assistant be Bantu or White officials? The position of the transport officials is another one which is causing trouble directly because of the Government’s policy. As I say, the drivers were informed that six would have to be transferred. These officials own properties in Umtata. They are worried about the position and they came to see me. I have a list here of the property owners and the value of that property. I am not dealing with all the officials, I am only dealing with those who are likely to be transferred or who may be transferred. They have asked me what is to happen to their properties. They did not come to Umtata and the Transkei voluntarily, they were transferred there by the Government to perform a service for the whole country. Some of these men saved their money and they purchased property. As the Minister knows it is not easy for an ordinary railwayman to save enough to be able to buy a property. I have the municipal valuations of these properties here. In some cases they paid more and in some cases less than the municipal valuation. The municipal valuation of these properties varies from R.4,850 down to R1,365. As you know, Sir, the municipal valuation is always lower than the market valuation of a property. The position is that some of these men have paid for their property. They have paid off their bonds but others are still paying off on their building society bonds. Some of them have been paying for over 15 years. Instead of squandering their money they have saved it and invested it. The Minister might say that that does not only happen in Umtata, that that happens throughout the Republic. He might say that if railwaymen are transferred they take a chance of being able to dispose of their property …

[Inaudible.]

Why do you not take part in the debate instead of making inane interjections? Because of Government policy the position in the Transkei is different from what it is anywhere else. The position which has now arisen in the Transkei is going to arise elsewhere; it is not going to be confined to the Transkei. It behoves the Minister, therefore, to tell us what he intends doing to help these railwaymen. It is all very well for the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) to sit and shout here. He does not own that property; he is not the person who is going to suffer any loss. The people who are going to suffer are the railwaymen; they are going to lose their hard-earned savings. For obvious reasons they cannot sell at the moment in Umtata; nobody wants to buy property there. At the moment some of them may be able to let their properties but if these six drivers are to be transferred within the next six months as well as other railwaymen, and if these services are to be handed over to the Bantu, and if the same process is to take place in other departments, for example in the Department of Bantu Education, there is going to be a smaller and smaller demand for property, even for hire. At the moment some may be able to let their properties but the demand for properties is going to lessen. The Minister of Railways not only has a duty towards the public to see that the Railways function as efficiently as possible, but he also has a duty towards the railwaymen. His duty is now to tell the railwaymen who are affected in the Transkei and who are going to be affected elsewhere what he is going to do to protect their interests. He is a senior member of the Cabinet and he is as much responsible for this policy as the hon. the Prime Minister or anybody else. We demand from the Minister that he tells us and the railwaymen in the Transkei and in other areas which are to be affected, how he intends to protect those people who have bought property, put their life-savings into it, and who might now find that they will lose everything. If a man owns property in Umtata he is liable for rates and if he has not paid off his building society bond he is liable for redemption payments, and if he cannot let or sell that property, it means that he must take money from his wages to pay either the rates or bond redemption payments. In addition he has to try to live in the new area to which he has been transferred. It will mean that, instead of living in his own home, he will have to reduce his standard of living in the area to which he has been transferred simply because of the Government’s change of policy in regard to the Transkei with which he had nothing to do. He was transferred to the Transkei by the Government to perform a service, a service which he has performed. He was transferred there, he bought his property before there was even a suggestion that the Transkei was to be handed over to the Bantu.

I am sorry that it has to be raised at this stage of the debate on the Railways, but it has only come to my knowledge now what is proposed for Umtata. If those railwaymen were given incorrect information, the Minister can tell us and tell them. That will give them peace of mind and satisfy them and railwaymen elsewhere as to what their fate will be under the new scheme.

I should like to ask the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) what is so strange about transferring a railwayman. It happens every day | throughout the Republic of South Africa, and not a single railway worker gets a guarantee from the Minister that he will receive a good price or a guaranteed price for his property. Why should this preference suddenly be given to railwaymen in the Transkei? I think we have listened here to-day to the cheapest propaganda that has ever been made in this House. Last year the hon. the Minister, in reply to questions put to him by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), amongst others, gave the assurance that the position in respect of the Railways in the Transkei would remain unchanged. But the most remarkable thing of all is that a few days ago during the Transkei debate the hon. member for Wynberg said here …

Order! I forbade the hon. member to refer here to the Transkei debate and now the hon. member is doing it.

Mr. Speaker, you saw the equivocal attitude …

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

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I say that it was nothing but cheap hawking. When one listens to this debate, there are two things which strike one as very strange; the one is that the Government has not yet fallen and the second is that the Railways are not yet bankrupt and have not come to a standstill. In the Appropriation debate the hon. member for Wynberg used the Transkei to make propaganda as he has again done in this debate, but in the first place he courted the businessmen. He talked about the seething dissatisfaction amongst the businessmen in South Africa about the increase in tariffs. Sir, I also represent businessmen and not a single trader has made representations to me about the increase in tariffs. It seems to me that the hon. member for Wynberg is acting here on behalf of a few hawkers and now he is directing his propaganda towards commerce, just as he assumed the role of political hawker while he was moving between the Progressive Party and the United Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two groups of people who can say whether the Railways are doing well or whether they are doing badly. The one is the railwayman himself and the other is the general public and the fact of the matter is that there has never been greater satisfaction in South Africa amongst the railwaymen than there is at the present time. They are grateful for the increase which they have been given and together with them the pensioners are also grateful. The general public is satisfied because all the goods which are being offered for transport to-day are being transported. Moreover, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves these goods are being transported at very reasonable charges in the opinion of the general public.

But there is one matter that I want to talk about and that is our labour pattern in South Africa. I think the proper person with whom to raise it is the hon. the Minister of Transport. Two years ago during the Railway debate in 1961, I put a question to the hon. the Minister in respect of the replacement of Bantu in the Western Cape by Coloureds. I have very great pleasure to-day in saying that the hon. the Minister has given effect to that request. In 1961 there were 7,594 Bantu and 6,626 Coloureds in the area of the Cape Western System Manager. In 1963, two years later (I have just made inquiries again)—I am only talking now about the area of the System Manager for the Western Cape and not the area which is really designated for the Coloureds—we find that there are only 5,882 Bantu. The number of Bantu in this area has decreased by almost 2,000. The number of Coloureds has increased to 6,766. Active steps have been taken in this connection and here we have proof that this can be done and that where there is a will there is a way. But I should like to exchange a few ideas with the hon. the Minister with regard to the labour pattern that we have followed and built up in South Africa over the years. That labour pattern was based on cheap, unskilled, non-White labour and under that pattern that we created in South Africa there was no longer room later on for the unskilled White. Over the years the standard of living of the Whites improved just as the standard of living of other groups did, but the standard of living of the Whites improved more rapidly. Even the standard of living of the unskilled Whites improved just as rapidly as that of the skilled and professional people in this country. Now, it is a recognized fact that the largest families in this country are to be found amongst the unskilled people. Without exception they are a great asset to a country such as South Africa, but in these circumstances under which the standard of living of the Whites has improved so enormously and these people with their meagre wages have to fit in with and adapt themselves to the way of life of their fellow-Whites, we have now reached the stage where these people have thrown in the towel. The fact of the matter is that in South Africa we have developed the mentality that we are really not prepared to give proper remuneration to a White man who performs manual labour, who works with pick and shovel. We have reached the stage—and we cannot get away from it; we are all guilty—where we really look down upon the man who earns an honest livelihood with his hands, with pick and shovel. Generally speaking that is the mentality that members of our community have developed. We no longer ask how a man does things; we ask what he does, and that is really our barometer.

I contend that there are still many Whites who are prepared to do hard work, to do an honest day’s hard work, but they cannot do so because we are not prepared to pay them an adequate wage. We say that these people are too lazy.

Who says so?

Order! How is that relevant to this Bill?

Mr. Speaker, I raise this in connection with the question of labour employed by the Railway Administration, which is the biggest employer in South Africa. That is why I am putting the labour pattern to the hon. the Minister. I should like to see a change brought about in that pattern. In the railway service there are large numbers of unskilled manual labourers, and it seems to me that the time has come for the Railways to make a start, as the hon. the Minister has done, by replacing Bantu workers with Coloureds.

And by Whites.

Yes, quite correct. I think the time has come when the Railways, as the biggest employer in South Africa, should engage more Whites, but in that case the wages of White manual labourers must be increased. I do not think it is possible for a man who does this sort of work and who has five or six or more children to exist on R120 per month. How can he exist on less than that amount? The fact of the matter is that R120 is about the maximum wage of these people and not the minimum. It should really be the minimum commencing wage and not the maximum. I raise this matter because I feel that the time has come when we should adapt ourselves to the changed pattern in South Africa. The labour pattern in Africa is changing to-day; it is happening before our very eyes, and it will serve no pupose to wait until that pattern overtakes South Africa. This is the appropriate time to make a start in that connection. I feel that we can even go so far—and I believe that we will be forced to do so in due course, although we have been afraid to do it in the past—as to import unskilled Whites to come and work for us. We shall be able to do so, but in that case we shall have to be prepared to increase the wages paid to manual labourers. I say that if we want to survive in this country as Whites, the time has come when we should change our labour pattern. Elsewhere in Africa the White man regards himself as an administrative official and he allows the manual work to be performed by the non-White. The time is past when we in South Africa should regard ourselves as administrative officials, and if we do not want to be merely administrative officials, then we should take over all levels of labour and do what is done in Western Europe where there is not this great difference between the wages of the white-collar worker and the manual labourer, because in Western Europe there are no non-White workers to do the manual work. That work has to be done by Whites and they are decently remunerated for their honourable work. I think that the time has come to do that in South Africa and that a start should be made with this by the Railways as our biggest employer. I think the climate is right to make a start with it. People in South Africa regard the Railways as a State undertaking that achieves things in South Africa, just as the Railways did in 1953 and prior to 1933 when we were saddled with a poor-White problem and, when the Railways entered the field as employers, attracted these people to the Railways and rehabilitated the vast majority of them, if not all of them. I feel therefore that the time has come in South Africa for the Railways as the biggest employer to make a start in bringing about this new labour pattern.

Mr. Speaker, I rather share your difficulty in knowing what the relevancy of the last speaker’s remarks were to the debate under discussion. In so far, however, as he was pleading for more employment on the Railways of White employees, not for economic reasons apparently, nor to attain greater efficiency, but for purely political consideration, I leave it to the hon. the Minister to reply to him and to indicate to him whether the Railways should be used for a purpose of that kind.

I intend to deal with some of the financial aspects affecting the Railway Administration, and whilst I will abide by your ruling in regard to the Transkei, I must point out that pertinent questions have been put to the hon. Minister to which I hope he will reply. Included in the questions is one which comes within the ambit of what I am going to deal with, the question how railway capital assets in the Transkei will be dealt with and what apportionment will be made in regard to capital charges.

The hon. Minister’s reply to the Budget debate was so unsatisfactory that one is obliged to come back to some of the points that were raised during that discussion. You see, Sir, any accountant or economist, whether he be glorified or not, can tell the hon. the Minister that a business undertaking which is not prepared to face up to its fixed charge commitments can do so only at its peril, and usually to the ultimate loss of those members of the community who least deserve to suffer. That, Sir, is the reason why no sound business undertaking, if it is to remain sound, will add to its fixed charge commitments, unless some planned improvement of output, or some precalculated increase in business is reasonably certain to result. Common sense itself dictates that in such cases, the sole purpose of putting more money into a business is to get better returns, or improved efficiency, or a bit of both, but never to get diminishing returns on new investment. But all this apparently is to have no part in the Railways. The hon. the Minister merely repeated again that he is content to give to Parliament a list of capital commitments and to show what they cost. But we know from experience that these figures are never really very reliable. That attitude by the hon. the Minister seems to me tantamount to saying to the public “Pay and be damned”. Indeed, Sir, anyone listening to last week’s debate might have been forced to think that no attempt is even made to improve performance in the running of trains unless the matter is first raised here in this House.

The fact that extravagant capital spending on Railway Account is running the country into getting not progressively bigger but progressively smaller returns on investment, is an argument that has been advanced over and over again from this side of the House. There is no need for me to repeat either the facts or the figures, but I would like to remind the hon. Minister that criticism and comment has not come only from inside the House, and not only from the Opposition benches. Three years back already, Sir, the Financial Mail expressed concern about the heavy capital structure of the Railways and it also commented on how little people could get to know about what was happening in this big public undertaking. The position in the meanwhile of course has become more serious, as I will show. But this is how the comment read—

The writer refers to this annual interest charge as—

Meanwhile, as I have said, the position has become actually more serious because the figures have changed since then. At the end of March 1963 the capital outlay will stand at about £840,000,000 (R1,680,000,000), a jump of about R440,000,00 in four years. This in perpetuity interest charge will have gone up to something like £35,000,000 per annum, or R70,000,000 and that is more than half as much again as it was in 1959.

Sir, it may interest the House to know that this single item of expenditure on the Railways to-day of some R70,000,000 per annum interest charge is greater than the whole of the Railway Budget was in 1936. One item now is greater than the whole of the expenditure on Railway Administration in 1936. And if the rate goes on expanding as I have indicated, we may soon come to a figure that will be higher than the whole of the expenditure for 1946.

I have said in this House on more than one occasion that the policies of this Government can be pursued only at increasing costs to the Exchequer, and that being so, the penalty to the country will be one of higher taxation and lower standards of living for everyone. Sir, extravagant spending is implicit in these policies, and that fact has been repeatedly criticized from this side of the House. Earlier in this Session there was a demonstration of opposition to extravagant spending from this side of the House, and I will show that over the past 15 years the Railways have been indulging in extravagant capital expenditure of no mean order. Let me explain: The capital outlay on Railways which stood at about R700,000,000 in March 1948 will have been increased to nearly R1,700,000,000 at the end of March 1963. (In both cases I give round figures.) That means an increase of nearly R1,000,000,000 in 15 years. Moreover, largely as a counter to the fact that the point has now been reached of getting diminishing returns on capital, railway tariffs have been increasing or have been adjusted upwards on a number of occasions during those 15 years. There were major increases or adjustments in 1949-50, in 1954-5, in 1958-9, and now again in September 1962. Now as I see it, Sir, the truly significant part in the comment which I quoted from the Financial Mail is contained in the last words that I mentioned: “Yet the people of South Africa know little about their biggest business.” Therefore when the Minister, after piling up railway indebtedness at the rate which I have mentioned, comes forward again with his excuse for continued inaction by saying—

I can only say that sooner or later the people of South Africa must know more about what this undertaking is doing and more about what the Government is storing up for them. And if the remedy is good for financial administration and the more efficient running of the Railways is a further increase in rates to rehabilitate railway finances and to get rid of unremunerative capital assets, then speaking for myself, I say that the sooner the public know what the fate is that lies ahead of us the better. Indeed the sooner they learn the truth of the situation the better. For whether they have to learn it as taxpayers, that is if some of the capital indebtedness is to be written off by the Treasury as the Minister suggests, or whether they have to learn it as railway users through a suitable process of debt redemption, the lesson in either event will be learned the harder and the more painful way the longer there is delay. I say therefore if that is the remedy for stemming this surging tide of repeated increases in tariffs to counter diminishing returns on capital investment, then the people at least will benefit in the long run and will escape having to meet interest charges in perpetuity on capital costs of redundant assets.

Lastly, the Minister now tries to shield behind the law when he says “The Constitution Act makes no provision for the Railways to redeem capital”. But surely, the hon. the Minister does not expect anyone to take it seriously when he says that, having regard to the many constitutional changes that have appeared in the Statute Book at the instance of the present Government for purely political considerations? The Constitution Act which was re-enacted only two years ago, has already been altered no less than five times, for purely political considerations. An amendment to the Act to make provision for capital redemption would be an administrative change, and it would be a change no different in principle from that change which was introduced by the Level-Crossings Act, 41 of 1960. That Act now permits regular contributions from earnings to a Level-Crossings Elimination Fund. Hence my suggestion that the matter warranted investigation by experts, but the Minister of course brushes that aside. I say therefore that if the Minister should think that he has already said the last word on the subject, I would like to remind him that it was the gentleman whom he recently appointed to the Railway Board who raised the need for debt redemption in this House two years ago. It was Mr. P. J. C. du Plessis, then Member of Parliament for Bloemfontein (District), who pleaded in March 1960 that steps should be taken to establish a debt redemption fund. I feel sure that the hon. gentleman has carried his conviction with him to his new post as Railway Commissioner. If that is the case, I can only say that he will serve both the Railways and the country well if he should pursue the subject in his new capacity, and I would like to assure him that he will find ample support for that cause if he studies the railway reports of Australia and Canada. The States of Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales all have established railway sinking funds in recent years. The report for New South Wales for 1961, the last one I was able to get hold of, gives a good account of the measure introduced in 1959 “for the rehabilitation of the Railway finances by means of a capital debt reduction”. That is precisely what is needed here. The rehabilitation of railway finance, otherwise we might reach the point where there can be no redemption.

The Canadian Railways are run on somewhat similar lines as Escom in South Africa. I would remind the House in the case of Escom, which is also prohibited by law from making a profit, that it gets its capital funds not by demand on the Treasury, as in the case of the Railways, but in the open money market. Consequently it provides in its Act for the proper redemption of debt as well as for betterment funds. It is quite obvious that neither the Canadian Railways nor Escom could operate in the open money market without making such accounting arrangements. Therefore I say that the plea has come not only from within this House and not only from the Opposition.

That brings me to the Betterment Fund. In trying to justify the recent increase in tariffs, the hon. the Minister chose to use the 1963-4 Appropriation of R9,000,000 for this Betterment Fund as a gimmick to play up the supposed deficit at the end of March 1964. The Minister says that without the rise in rates the deficit could have been of the order of R22,000,000. I accept that the R9,000,000 is necessary to keep the Betterment Fund solvent and I accept that the appropriation should be made, but I believe that by the time we reach March next the true significance of this R9,000,000 appropriation will be to play down yet another exceptionally large surplus. The Betterment Fund is happily in better shape now than at any time since the Minister took over the Railways, and I hope it will remain in better shape. But it is significant that over the three years from 1959-60 to 1961-2 the fund was strengthened by only R5,500,000 by normal appropriations, as against some R34,000,000 which found its way into the fund by chance and by expedience. I mention this because the Minister, in telling the House what the purpose of this fund was, that is what purpose it is intended to serve, omitted to mention two essential principles on which the proper running of the fund depends entirely. Those two principles were laid down by the Select Committee on Railways and were accepted as sound principles by the Administration. The first principle was laid down as far back as 1917, namely that contributions from revenue would be based “upon requirements and not upon expedience”. That means, of course, by normal appropriation according to need and not by the expediency of filching surplus cash. The second principle was laid down in 1920, namely that this regular annual contribution from revenue would become a fixed charge, just as interest is a fixed charge, which had to be provided for and met “irrespective of whether the Budget Estimates for the year reflect a surplus or a deficit”. It is because of the failure on the part of the Minister to stick to these principles that the Betterment Fund got into the parlous state in which it has been for some years. Only by sticking to these principles in future can the present solvency of the fund be maintained. Whether the Minister likes it or not, this is another instance which goes to prove that you cannot run Railways by chance and by expedience, by guess and by God as the saying goes. In any case it is better to stick to business principles and business precedents.

I come then to the Rates Equalization Fund, about which the Minister waxed quite eloquent in order to defend this last arbitrary increase in tariffs. The position there is equally clear. In simple terms, the fund is there to serve as a safeguarding buffer for the railway users against hasty tariff increases such as the country has recently witnessed. It is also there as a guarantee for the railway worker against arbitrary wage economies. What the Minister has overlooked is that, firstly, in April 1948 the fund stood at R15,700,000, which is higher than it has ever been in any subsequent year until last year, 1961-2. What the Minister also omitted to indicate was, secondly, that over those 14 years between March 1948 and March 1962 the fund was used by this Government to finance deficits on no less than seven occasions. That means on an average it was used every alternate year to balance accounts. It seems, therefore, that the Minister protests too much against using it this time as a buffer for railway users against this recent unnecessary and arbitrary increase in tariffs. I can assure the Minister that he will hear quite a lot still during this current year about this matter. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) shows that in doing so the Minister has, firstly, unduly burdened the railway users and, secondly, set in train a trend which will have adverse effects on the cost of living and the tempo of our economic growth.

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) very far in the representations made by him, but I do want to say something in connection with a remark that he repeated. He made some remark in connection with “extravagant capital spending”. Surely it is essential for the Railways to adapt themselves to the increasing demands which are being made upon the Department in respect of transport. If we fail to take that into account in our planning, we can expect a transport crisis in due course, and then I can imagine the fuss that will be made by the Opposition.

In these debates on the Railway Budget the Opposition have tried time and again to find a crack in the solid wall of this Budget. Initially they harped on the question of the increase in tariffs, and this afternoon they tried to drag in the Transkei, but there they had no success either. In the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) he makes reference, inter alia, to the arbitrary increase in railway tariffs. I hope to come back to this matter in the course of my speech.

It is well known—and various speakers have referred to it—that the Railways are the biggest single employer in the Republic. In March 1962—the latest statistics at my disposal—the strength of the White staff was 110,748 and that of the non-Whites 104,209, a total of 214,957. In addition to that we can accept that there are about 25,000 to 30,000 pensioners who are entirely dependent on the Railways. Taking into account all the dependants of the railway servants and the pensioners, one can say, at a conservative estimate, that there are from 360,000 to 380,000 Whites who are dependent for their livelihood on the Railways. This large number of people constitutes something like 10 per cent of the entire White population of the Republic. The enormous purchasing power of this vast number of railwaymen and their dependants is distributed fairly evenly over the whole country; it is not concentrated in just a few places. It is obvious that the national economy as such and commerce and industry reap great benefits from the enormous purchasing power of these people and that they will reap further benefits from the salary increases as well as the increased pensions which have been announced and that these increases will bring a very large amount into circulation.

In the debate on the Railway Budget the Opposition constantly came along with the story that commerce and industry were subsidizing the railwayman’s salary and were also called upon to contribute to the increased pensions. The Opposition and other authorities and bodies which so persistently repeat this allegation must realize that this large additional amount which is being put into circulation as the result of these increases in salaries and pensions will benefit commerce and industry; that as the result of this greater purchasing power the turnover of commerce is definitely going to be much greater and that a considerable portion of the increase in tariffs will again be recovered by way of increased prices of goods. But come what may, commerce is now demanding more than the proverbial pound of flesh that Shylock demanded in “The Merchant of Venice”.

The general increase in tariffs on commodities to which the increase applies, averages 10 per cent, but that is not the percentage by which the prices of commodities have increased in the retail trade. The increase in the price of certain commodities is simply fantastic. Although this matter has already been raised here I nevertheless want to mention a few examples again. The increase in the railway tariff on a 94½ lb. pocket of cement, from Lichtenburg to Durban, is 2.94c, but the retail trade has increased its price by 4c, or 35 per cent. From Lichtenburg to Pietermaritzburg this means an increase of 36 per cent. From Ulco to Kimberley there is a tariff increase of only 1.15c, but the retail trade has increased the price by 2c, which means an increase of 74 per cent. As far as coal is concerned, the tariff increase on a 200 lb. bag from Oogies to Johannesburg is 1.05c. but the retail trade has increased the price by 1.50c, an increase of 43 per cent. But that is still not the worst. Then we come to a few other commodities. In the case of floor polish in 1 lb. tins, the tariff increase from Cape Town to Johannesburg is .214c, but the retail trade has increased the price by 3c, an increase of 1.302 per cent. In the case of apricot jam in 2 lb. tins, the tariff increase from Ashton to Johannesburg is .22c, but the retail trade has increased the price by 3c, an increase of 1.264 per cent. These figures are sufficient to indicate that the increase in the retail price is out of all proportion to the increase in railway tariffs.

Sir, the economy of the Republic has never been stimulated so much by a single Railway Budget as it has been stimulated by the present Budget. The numerous projects that will be undertaken, amongst others the building of the oil pipeline, the electrification of various sections, the erection of a grain elevator at East London, the purchase of electric locomotives, etc., will provide employment to thousands of people; it will bring into circulation several millions of rand and consequently increase the purchasing power of the population. I contend that commerce and industry too will reap great benefits from these projects.

Then I should like to refer to the training of railway officials at Esselen Park Railway College. Reference has repeatedly been made by speakers on both sides to the excellent service which is rendered by the railwaymen, and I should like to associate myself with their remarks. A tribute has been paid to all the railway officials from the General Manager down to the youngest official. and we believe and hope that in paying that tribute the Opposition were not actuated by opportunistic ulterior motives. It is readily conceded by everyone that these wage increases were justified and well merited. The granting of Ascension Day as a paid holiday is also generally welcomed by the railway servants.

The impression which this Railway Budget makes on the objective observer is decidedly one of a continued improvement in the running of the Railways and of increasing efficiency in our railway service. That is something which does not simply come about automatically or come out of the blue; it is something which requires effort and loyalty and devotion and hard work by every individual. Every servant is called upon therefore to give his very best service and to prove in office, at the station, on the permanent way, in the aircraft and on the train that he is worth his salt. It also goes without saying that it is necessary for every official to see to it, through efficiency and suitability and competence, that the big railway machine functions as smoothly as possible, that it is made as streamlined as possible, and to prevent leakages from taking place. The highest degree of efficiency can only be reached and the best service can only be given by the servant when his training has been correct and purposeful. The Minister has told us in his Budget speech that there has been an increase in the efficiency of the railway staff as a whole; that fewer staff handle more traffic and that the percentage increase in revenue has exceeded the percentage increase in expenditure. One of the factors which in my opinion has contributed to that state of affairs is the training which railway servants receive at Esselen Park. To met this college symbolizes the aim of the Railways to improve the knowledge of the railway staff and to equip them better and faster for the tasks that they have to perform. This college came into existence to give effect to the aim of the Railways to increase the level of efficiency in the service and to ensure accident-free transport. Moreover, a team spirit is built up in this college: unity of purpose is developed and the realization is cultivated that the Railways will be satisfied with nothing less than the best. Regular courses are offered at the college in station accounts, timekeeping and paysheet duties; courses of training are offered to road transportation drivers, police, gangers, checkers, drivers (steam and electric), station foremen and conductors, as well as artisans and apprentices in the duties of electricians (communications) and electrical fitters. These courses last from 2½ to six months and during 1962, 2,620 servants were trained at the college.

Provision is made at the college for recreational facilities, but there is a great need for a community hall which is large enough to offer accommodation to all those who wish to attend gatherings at the college. We are pleased that provision is being made in this Budget for such a hall; a large amount will be spent in due course and a certain amount is being made available initially for this year.

In conclusion I should like to point out that great efforts are being made to recruit matriculants for the service, particularly as office workers, and we are pleased that the heads of secondary schools and technical high schools are co-operating, and that co-operation is also obtained from inspectors of education and vocational guidance officers in the various institutions, with the result that pupils studying at secondary schools are informed about the possibilities in the railway service. This will also mean that in due course it will be possible to select recruits on a more effective basis. It has already been reported that there has been a considerable improvement in recent times in the qualifications of railway workers. I should like to make use of this opportunity to congratulate the head and the staff of that college on the good work that is being done there. I want to express the hope that they will continue to build on that fine foundation and that men will be trained there who will know precisely what tasks await them in the railway service, and that as a result of the fact that the right man is put into the right place, the big railway machine will function better than ever before and will give the Republic even better service than is the case at the moment.

I think the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) has set an example to his side of the House in drawing attention to this question of the potential of the earnings of the railwaymen and their dependants. It is not often that we hear an hon. member opposite speaking and realizing the importance of staff matters. I think that the fact that he now realizes that some 360,000 Whites are dependent on the Railways and that this represents 10 per cent of the Whites in the Republic, and the fact that he has made this calculation, is something we should thank him for, and I hope he will take further part in Railway debates in future, because it is the realization of this fact which has been absent from so many Railway debates in the past. It is an important factor and one we should always bear in mind.

He has also spoken of the Esselen College. We of the Railway Select Committee have had an opportunity of going over that college to see what they were doing. It is true that they do a magnificent job of work in training railway personnel, but I think the hon. member should have said a word of thanks to the former United Party Government for establishing Esselen College. I think the work done there is done at a cost which is well worth what the Railway Administration is receiving from it.

I wonder whether the Minister will be prepared to give an indication in his reply to the debate as to whether he will take part in the debate on the Transkei Bill now before the House, so that he can answer questions we will raise in regard to the effect that Bill will have on the Railways.

I will give you a full report. It will only take me two minutes.

If the Minister is going to give a full reply in two minutes, it is only because Mr. Speaker will not allow him to say more. The full case has not been put yet, for reasons which I cannot go into, but what I feel is necessary is that this House should be able to ask the Minister of Transport for the relative information in connection with the new policy of the Government, because I am quite sure it will be unreasonable to expect the Minister of Bantu Affairs to have that intimate knowledge of what will happen in regard to railway transport in that area. I ask the Minister whether he will take part in that debate and answer questions. I think it is as well that we should know, so that we will not be wasting our time dealing with this matter if the Minister is not going to take part in the debate.

The question of the railway pensioners—I cannot help but come back to this question because since we had the debate last week there has been a certain amount of Press publicity and I have received a number of letters dealing with this question of the manner in which the Minister of Finance will possibly go about the matter of altering the means test to make it possible for railway pensioners in general to get the benefit of the improved special allowance announced by the Minister. One of the letters I received, dated 13 March, pin-points the anxiety which these old railway pensioners feel in respect of this concession announced by the Minister. He indicates that he is 80 years old and that he retired in May 1943, when there was no commutation, and he received a pension of R30.88 and that he is also in receipt of a war veteran’s pension of R32.50, and this is the point I wish to emphasize. He says, “My temporary allowance was withdrawn altogether, on the grounds that I draw a war veteran’s pension”. The Minister has indicated that the hon. the Minister of Finance will deal with this matter on Monday in his Budget speech.

But the limit of the means test is R1,800, and R60 per month is R720 a year.

I know, but the effect of the means test is that this man does not get a penny of the temporary allowance.

Well, I do not understand it. According to what the hon. member has read out the temporary allowance has been withheld. That is a railway allowance. How can that allowance be withheld when he is getting less than R1,800 a year?

Well, I am only dealing with this letter which I have received …

Will you let me have it?

Yes. I will read this portion in its entirety for the Minister’s information—

In the case of unmarried persons, the ceiling of the means test is R900. If he receives less than R900 from the two allowances, he should still get part of his temporary allowance. But if the hon. member will let me have the particulars of the case I shall have inquiries made.

Yes, I shall do so with pleasure. But this does pin-point the importance of what hinges on any announcement which the Minister of Finance may make in respect of the application of the means test in regard to railway pensioners and those who would normally benefit by the increase in the special allowance announced by the Minister. My main concern is that there are many of the old pensioners who on a bald reading of the Minister’s speech will feel that they are going to get at least R5.50 extra per month and may then discover that that is not so. They are my main concern. I think it would be rather cruel if they discover that through the application of the means test they are going to lose that small benefit.

I have no control over that.

No, I know. The Minister has said that there may be an announcement on Wednesday by the hon. the Minister of Finance in this regard; I hope there will be.

The Minister in replying to an earlier debate dealt with the approved pensions which are now payable to railwaymen as a result of consolidation and improvement in basic salaries generally and he gave a specific example to the House. I have had immediate repercussions from railway artisans and other pensioners drawing my attention to the unfortunate position of the earlier pensioners. I think I can best illustrate this point by dealing with the same case that the Minister dealt with and showing how the 1944 pensioners consider that they are in a very much worse position than pensioners retiring to-day, on the basis of their contributions. The example which the Minister gave to the House was of an artisan who retired in 1944 and 20 years later had drawn R9,000 for a total contribution of R941, as against an artisan with the same service who retired during the last 12 months who over 20 years will draw R23,000 for a total contribution of R2,252. A simple calculation will reveal that for every R1 contributed by the 1944 pensioner R9.5 was paid out, whereas under the present conditions of payment an artisan would receive R10.2 for every R1 contributed. This example, supplied by the Minister himself, shows that the 1944 pensioner is 70c per rand worse off as far as the Pension Fund is concerned and in respect of the contributions which he paid for the pension which he now receives. Added to this, of course, is the introduction of the Widows’ Pension Fund which now costs the Superannuation Fund—I must emphasize this— R1,809,367 per annum. It would appear therefore that from the fund itself those who retired prior to 1951 are not getting as much out of the Fund as the result of their contribution as present pensioners, and I think that the actuaries would confirm that fact. It would be as well for the Minister to recognize that and to do something about it. In other words, I am asking that the actuaries should go into the finances of the fund and ascertain whether, all other things being equal, the 1944 pensioner for what he paid in by way of contributions is getting as much out of the fund as present servants do when they retire on pension. I think the actuaries should report on that and let us know exactly what the position is. I know it is a very complicated issue but in view of the repeated requests which I receive from pensioners, I feel that even if it is only to satisfy them we must indicate quite clearly that they are not getting less for the contributions that they made in their time than the present servants are going to get as the result of their contributions. I think if we base it purely on their contributions as against pensions we will get somewhere in discovering what the real truth of the matter is.

Sir, one thing has surprised me as far as the debate is concerned, and that is the complete absence of any reference in the Budget speech as to the effect of the P.A.Y.E. system on the Administration. Those of us who have been following this scheme realize that an employer such as the Administration is going to find itself implicated in a tremendous amount of additional work, for which the employer will receive no payment whatsoever. From the letters which I have received it would seem that the employees in the Administration’s service are not quite clear what is going to happen to them at the end of this month. You will understand, Sir, that the first deductions from pay-sheets in respect of P.A.Y.E. will take place at the end of this month and for that reason I think it would be as well if the Minister would indicate in his reply what plans have been made to deal with this job of work which has now been thrust upon the Administration as the result of the introduction of P.A.Y.E. I assume that a circular has been sent out to the staff acquainting them with the position but if not, I think it would be as well if I put a few questions to the Minister, and then we would see exactly what has happened as a result of the introduction of P.A.Y.E. In the first place I am indebted to a publication which I received to-day which enables me to put my questions much more clearly. I refer to “The Pay As You Earn System” by W. J. C. Wessels, Assistant Commissioner of Inland Revenue. This booklet consists of a series of talks which he gave over the S.A.B.C. towards the end of 1962. The first point that arises is this: How does the Administration intend to distribute the tax certificates? I do not know. This is a very important issue as far as the employees are concerned. We know that over 100,000 employees are involved per month. I assume that some system has been evolved to make it possible for these tax certificates to be issued to them. On page 10 this booklet says—

In other words, the Administration will have to make available to the employees tax certificates which they in turn will submit with their income-tax return at the end of the P.A.Y.E. income-tax year. It is important that we should know just how the Minister intends to distribute the tax certificates. I can imagine what would happen if some of these went astray. The Minister would be involved in all sorts of difficulties and so would the employees. The second point he dealt with is on page 11 where it is stated—

This is a point to which I want to draw the attention of the Minister—

Has the Minister taken any decision in respect of those employees who desire to pay more than they should pay according to the tables because of the fact that the employee may have an income from other sources on which he desires to be taxed under the P.A.Y.E. system? I should like to know from the Minister what is being done to meet this point; whether he is going to permit it if the employee asks for it or whether he is going to reject such a request and leave it to the employee to make his own arrangements. Thirdly, this booklet says—

Has the Administration done anything to bring this directly to the attention of employees? Has there been a distribution of these application forms to the employees in the service so that provision can be made for a deduction in the case of children over the age of 18 years? I think we should have clarity on that point as well. Finally in regard to this question of P.A.Y.E. we have a definition here of the word “remuneration”. The booklet says—

What I want to put to the Minister here is this: In the railway service a considerable amount of weekday and Sunday time overtime is worked. There is also the system in vogue of incentive bonus schemes. From what I have just read out I assume that all this income will be taken into account in arriving at the amount to be deducted month by month, but this amount is variable; there is nothing constant about it. Some months there may be a lot of overtime work and a high bonus may be earned, and in other months there may be no bonus and not much overtime. The tax deductions will therefore vary from month to month and that in turn will necessitate a considerable amount of detailed office work as far as the Administration is concerned. I think at a very rough guess something in the region of R1,000,000 per month will have to be sent to the Receiver of Revenue on behalf of railway employees, so one can get a very good picture of the additional work that will have to be done by the servants of the Administration in applying the P.A.Y.E. system. I want to ask the Minister therefore whether he is going to rationalize the payments in the case of servants who do overtime whether it be weekday overtime or Sunday time and in the case of those who are employed on bonus work so that the work that will have to be done in the departmental offices will be reduced somewhat. Sir, I ask these questions because I think they are important. I have not seen a directive to the staff. I do not know whether one has been issued, but if it has not been done it seems to me that the Minister will have a lot of headaches at the end of this month when the returns have to be submitted by him as an employer. I would ask the Minister therefore to give some information about the system when he replies to this debate.

The next point that I wish to deal with is tied up with the Appeal Board regulations. The Minister will remember that I raised this matter on another occasion and then decided that it would be better to deal with it in a debate such as this, rather than on that particular occasion. The point is simply that in terms of the Act and the regulations which now apply it is not possible for a servant of the Administration to lodge an appeal to the General Manager or the Railway Board if at an earlier hearing by the Appeal Board itself, sitting either in a district or centrally, there has been a unanimous decision against the employee. I would suggest that where such a unanimous decision has been taken after there has been an inquiry and the findings have been of such a nature that the Administration has decided to proceed with the charge, in other words, where the charges have not been substantiated and the staff officer in charge in spite of that has imposed a fine or some other punishment which, when appealed against, has been upheld by the Appeal Board unanimously then there is no appeal against that decision to the Railway Board because of the unanimous finding of the lower board. The reason for that, as I understand it, is that on the Appeal Board the permanent staff representative of the particular servant has agreed with the majority decision of the board. The argument is that if the representative of the Staff Association agrees with the other representatives on the board, then surely there are no grounds for such a servant to go on appeal to the General Manager or to the Minister. I feel that that may be quite all right as a general rule but where the particular charge has been thrown out as the result of the first departmental inquiry, the person charged should be entitled to go on appeal right through to the Railway Board. That is the position I want to put to the Minister, because I do feel that if the first inquiry fails to establish the charge and a staff officer then reverses the decision of the board of inquiry and finds a servant guilty, he should in all fairness be allowed to appeal to the highest court available to him and that is the Railway Board. I do hope the Minister will consider this point, and if necessary amend the regulations. It may even require an amendment to the relevant Act, but it is a point which I think should be considered very carefully.

I think the Minister will agree that the points I dealt with are important to the staff. As far as the pension matter is concerned the suggestions which I have made to him would mean that the actuaries would deal with the position of those who retired before 1951 and particularly those who retired before 1944. In so far as the P.A.Y.E. system is concerned, I want to say that if an instruction has been issued by way of the Government Gazette, it will not have come to the notice of many of the servants of the Administration. If a particular instruction has been sent out to all the servants, well and good; then they should be in a position to deal with the matter, but if that has not been done then I think the Minister should take this opportunity of dealing with this matter now because if it has not been done we are going to have confusion. The last point which I raised deals with the Appeal Board and I hope the Minister will give that his attention as well.

I think prominent speakers on the Opposition side have today particularly congratulated the hon. the Minister on this Budget because of the fact that they have spoken about the Transkei and the pay as you earn system instead of confining themselves to a very good Railway Budget. With your permission, Sir, I should like to say something about railway tariffs and the planning policy of the Railways in that connection. I immediately wish to thank the hon. the Minister for the appointment of a Committee which has to investigate the whole question of tariffs and tariff policy. I want to thank the Minister particularly for paragraph 3 (a) of the terms of reference which reads as follows—

It is not generally well known that for many years, since Union in 1910, the Railways has been the only planning body in the country and which also had the power to implement its planning and its policy. Section 127 of the South Africa Act of 1909 lays down a definite planning policy for the Railways and provides, inter alia, as follows—

For many years this has been the only instruction to a Government body which also has the power to implement planning. The first body after that which was given identical powers in our country was the Natural Resources Development Council, which was established in 1947. It is my humble submission that where the Railways already received this definite instruction in 1909-10 when Union was established, namely to ensure that an industrial population came into existence in each province, the spirit of this instruction has not been carried out. It is true that there is a measure of industrial development in all four provinces, but the mere fact that 82 per cent of our industries are concentrated in four areas compels me to say that the spirit of the original instructions has not been carried out. The important factors for the establishment of industries are, inter alia, the following: Firstly, proximity to markets, that means a big city with its concentration of people as far as the interior is concerned, and your harbours as far as export goods are concerned; secondly; proximity to the sources of raw material and, thirdly, proximity to fuel sources. Where we have a vast country in which all these different areas are situated far from one another and where the Railways are mainly responsible for rail traffic it is obvious that railway tariffs to a large extent constitute a determining factor. They are a deciding factor when it comes to the geographical distribution of our industries and from the nature of things the distribution of industries in turn determines the distribution of the population and particularly the distribution of the White population. Where our factories, as far as turnover is concerned, are already equal to our mining and agricultural industries taken together, it is obvious that in future the distribution of factories throughout the Republic will become a matter of greater importance. Actual costs of transport are indeed taken into account when determining railway tariffs but it is also obvious that there is a great deal of discretion in this connection. We have the case, for instance, where tariffs in one direction are lower than the tariffs in the opposite direction. We had the case where coal was transported free of charge after a certain distance. In the case of distribution articles the position is that the same article is conveyed over the same distance at half the tariff; in other words, there is a great measure of discretion in determining tariffs and tariffs can be laid down to serve a specific purpose. My submission is that in the past the determination of tariffs has not been used as a definite weapon to encourage decentralization of industries in a definite sound direction. There has been, as in other facets of our domestic economy, a lack of planning; there has been a policy of laisser-faire which the entrepreneur has followed and which has not directed him. To-day, however, we have a strong Government in power, a Government with a positive policy and various planning bodies with a great measure of co-ordination between these bodies. I want to suggest that the time has arrived that something be done in connection with this very important matter. It is not my intention to give evidence here to-day and to suggest instant solutions. I am not sufficiently capable to do that. However, on the strength of certain figures compiled by the Provincial Administration of the Free State, I want to try to show what high walls certain platteland areas have to scale if they want to establish industries. In the first instance I want to refer to a case in the town of Virginia. It is common knowledge that a few months ago they considered processing manganese ore, which would have been transported from Lohathla, into ferro-manganese. I think it would have been of national interest had such an industry been established at Virginia because a great amount of capital has been invested there in mining development, and housing, etc., and because that mining development has unfortunately not come up to expectation. As a result of the present policy of low tariffs on raw material and high tariffs on manufactured goods it was quite impossible to establish such an industry there. Why that was not possible is clear from the following tariffs which apply to three places which I want to mention to the House. The revenue which the Railways derive from the transportation of the raw products manganese ore, coke and dolomite from the nearest source and the processed ferro-manganese to the nearest port is as follows: The railway revenue from the transportation of these goods to Cato Ridge amount to .65c per ton mile; to Virginia 1.45c per ton mile; to Barkly West 1.585c per ton mile. According to these figures, which are figures prior to the 10 per cent increase, it is clear that the establishment of that ferro-manganese industry at Virginia or at Barly West would have meant an increase of 7.5 per cent up to 8 per cent in the price of ferro-manganese. The following example I wish to give is that of the specially favourable tariffs which southern Transvaal enjoys in respect of the tariffs to Port Elizabeth for example. Let me say at once that I do not begrudge southern Transvaal this preferential treatment which they enjoy. What I am pleading for is that certain other areas should also enjoy similar privileges. According to this policy Springs, for example, is being placed 240 miles nearer to Port Elizabeth in terms of transportation costs and Springs is given a geographical situation which is more or less the same as the geographical situation of my own constituency, Kroonstad.

I can give another example in the agricultural field. Take the example of the groundnuts which are produced in and around Viljoenskroon. If tariffs on oil, oil cake and concentrates are taken into account the establishment of such a factory at Viljoenskroon will never be a paying proposition but it will indeed be a paying and profitable proposition to establish such a factory at Johannesburg for the internal market and at Durban for the overseas market. During this time when hundreds of White farmers will once again have to leave the platteland on account of unfavourable climatic conditions I think it will be in the national interest, that it is of the greatest importance, that those White people are absorbed in factories in their own platteland areas because they and their children are used to the platteland and are best suited to the platteland. It is also of the utmost importance that our tariff policy should be of such a nature that industries which process farmers’ products are retained on the platteland. This is a very important and difficult matter. I am not pleading for it that our large concentrated areas which are making a huge contribution to the country’s economy should be penalized but I am pleading for it that as least as far as our tariff policy is concerned, important focal points should be selected and that they should enjoy the same benefits as these concentrated areas. This may sound parochial and it may sound provincial, Sir, but it will be in the national interest to introduce a policy which will enable places like Bloemfontein, Kroonstad, Bethlehem and the Free State goldfields, for example, to embark upon schemes of sound industrial development.

Furthermore, as a maize farmer and in conclusion I want to thank the Minister and the Administration heartily for the very active steps which have been taken in connection with the exportation of maize. I want to appeal to them to exert all their energies to expedite the exportation of maize. Where the hon. the Minister pointed out in his Budget speech that there had been a decline in the income derived from grain elevators to an amount of R400,000 in spite of large exports and a record maize season, I want to ask the Minister whether the time has not arrived, if this tendency is becoming evident, to sell or let on a long-term basis, the grain elevators inland to sound and recognized agricultural co-operative societies.

I am sure the Minister and hon. members who are interested in railway matters will agree with me when I say that I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. L. Schlebusch) on his most constructive speech. I should like to congratulate him on the recent support that he has given this side of the House in the representations which we have made to the Minister across the floor of the House in regard to better planning when it comes to future development of road and rail transportation in our country. When you listen to a constructive speech such as the one which has emanated from the hon. member for Kroonstad, you cannot help comparing it with the type of contribution which we have had from other hon. members opposite, for example the contribution made by the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden). In the past the hon. member for Malmesbury has been guilty of the most profound statements on railway matters. We all remember the vicious attacks that he made upon Mr. Liebenberg, the President of the Artisans’ Staff Association. I want to say to the hon. member for Malmesbury that before he gets up and makes pleas across the floor of the House to the Minister in regard to the White railway workers, he should first of all acquaint himself with the policy of the hon. Minister, more particularly as he is regarded as a member of the railway group on that side, the policy which the hon. Minister has accepted after years of representations by this side of the House. The hon. the Minister has said in the past that it is his policy to try to raise the level of White workers on the Railways. But what does the hon. member for Malmesbury want to do? He wants to push the White railway worker back to pick and shovel work. That was the essence of his plea this afternoon. His object is not to raise the standard of living of the White worker, to give him a status, and to let those who are less mentally equipped do this type of work. The hon. member for Malmesbury wants those White workers who clean the coaches at Kimberley station to stay in the same situation in which they are at present whereas Coloured men do that work down in the Cape and Natives in Johannesburg. Does the hon. member for Malmesbury want to bring the level of the White worker down to that level or does he want to raise the level of the White railway worker at Kimberley, as the Minister has announced it to be his policy? Mr. Speaker. I find myself in this incredible position of defending the Minister against the statements made by the hon. member for Malmesbury. The Minister is obviously in a predicament because he cannot point out to the member for Malmesbury across the floor of the House what the correct position is. He cannot openly across the floor of the House disagree with his own members.

When you discuss railway matters and the policy of this Minister you have to do two things; not only have you to look at the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister for this year but you have to look at all his Budget speeches over the past five to six years. When you do that you have an even more difficult task when you discuss this matter. You have to try to get behind the poker face of the hon. the Minister to find out what he is really thinking when you put a case to him. That was the task which I had when the Minister replied to the debate. I put certain questions to the hon. the Minister but what did I get in reply? We were accused by the Minister of being nothing but political opportunists. He said that we on these benches have no scruples; that we attack his Budget and that we were making ourselves guilty of the greatest political opportunism by exploiting certain circumstances. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in this Budget speech, in relation to his Budget speeches over the last five to six years, the Minister has made himself guilty of the greatest political opportunism of all times. You see, Sir, the hon. Minister has changed his tune and his arguments year after year. I have to substantiate that and I shall try to do so. If I were to say that the hon. Minister twisted globular amounts of railway finances to suit his own arguments, you would rule me out of order but I have no doubt, and I do not think the House has, that the Minister is quite clever at manipulating percentages; he converts railway finances to globular amounts which he throws across the floor of the House to suit his own particular arguments. I can pay the hon. the Minister the compliment that I think he is a past master at that.

Having listened to the reply of the hon. Minister we are confronted with this difficulty that he has so convinced himself as to his own indispensability to the Railway Administration that he gives the impression that the entire railway system will collapse if he did not guide its destiny. [Interiections.] Do hon. members believe that? We have the other aspect of the matter that when you deal with issues affecting railwaymen not only are we accused of political opportunism but the Minister creates the impression that all these increases were given on account of his charitable heart. I give the Minister this credit that he does his best. In support of the contention of the hon. member for Kroonstad I would say that the best of the hon. the Minister is limited by the narrowness of his own outlook on the whole transportation needs of our country.

I wish to come back to certain questions which I raised with the Minister when I made my speech on the Budget. I wish to refer to the statement which the Minister made in his Budget speech. I put a series of question to the hon. the Minister; I made no allegations but I am going to do so to-day. I want to refer to the statement which the Minister made in his Budget speech in which he alleged that he gave certain undertakings to the railwaymen. I want to read what he said. I want to be quite fair to him—

That is the matter of their salary and wage increases—

The Minister will remember that I said in my speech that I could find no record in Hansard of that statement.

Of course not, I did not make it in Parliament. I said it to the secretary of the Artisans’ Staff Association.

I am coming to that in a second. I said in my speech that there was no record in Hansard, that I may have slipped it and I asked the Minister to tell me in his reply when and where he had said that. But the Minister did not reply to me. I asked him a specific question across the floor of the House but he did not reply to me. The inference of course is that unless the Minister tells us where he said that, he must have made an incorrect statement in his Budget speech. I want the hon. the Minister to tell me where he made that statement because the Minister is not on record anywhere. Where is the public record of this statement? Where is the public admission by the hon. the Minister that he met the Federal Consultative Staff Council and told them that if his financial position improved later in the year he would be prepared to grant them those concessions? Where is that on record? I asked the Minister where and when he met the Federal Consultative Staff Council; did he have any discussions in regard to wage increases? The Minister said no, he did not. Where is the public record of this statement? The reply I got was that he did not discuss pay increases with the Federal Consultative Council at all; that he discussed it individually in August of that year for the first time after the General Manager had had his preliminary discussions. I want to know from the Minister where he had given this undertaking because the impression created in his Budget speech was that he gave a public undertaking to all the railway workers of South Africa that if the financial position improved he would increase their pay. But what is the Minister on record as having said, Sir? He is on record as having said that an increase in their salaries and wages would be fatal to the economy of South Africa. He is on record as having said that it was against the interests of South Africa to give such increases; that it would drive the foreign investor away. In reply to the Budget debate the Minister said: “I said that in any case at that stage.” He did not mean it for later in the year, he meant it for March. The negotiations with the Staff Associations did not start until some three months after that statement was made by the Minister. In reply to the Budget speech the Minister now gives us lengthy extracts from statements made by the Federated Chamber of Industries, by private companies, by the Netherlands Bank to the effect that circumstances had so changed that he was now able to give those increases in salaries and wages. Did the Minister not have any assessment of the economic future of South Africa at the time that he introduced the Budget last year, when he made the statement that he was giving no increases? When he prepares his Budget does he not have discussions with his colleague, the Minister of Finance? What were the views of the Minister of Finance at the time the Minister of Transport made that statement? [Interjections.] Hon. members must take this. This was what the Minister of Finance had to say two weeks after the Minister of Transport had said that it would be ruinous to the economy of the country. The Minister of Finance said—

And what was one of those aims?—

He then went on and said—

He went on to say—

The Minister of Finance expressed full confidence in the forthcoming year but the Minister of Railways said he could not give the railwaymen anything because if he did it would disturb the whole economy of South Africa. What do these expressions of the hon. the Minister of Finance mean? They must mean that if this expansion were going to take place, and he was confident that it was going to take place, there would be an increase in railway revenue, that the Railways would be carrying extra revenue-earning traffic and that in due course, if the Minister of Railways considered the interest of the railwaymen, that would have been passed over to the railwaymen themselves.

The Minister of Railways by his own admission at that time implied that he could not trust the assessments of the Minister of Finance in regard to the future economic growth of our country. In his reply to the Budget debate the Minister admitted that he took from the railwaymen, to use his own words, R10,000,000 from the pockets of the railwaymen of South Africa. I quote: ‘‘Instead of increasing I have been economizing and reduced expenditure to such an extent that I took R10,000,000 out of the pockets of the railwaymen.” In other words, Sir, what the railwaymen are getting now is what they should have had a long time ago. In the same speech in which he admits that he took R10,000,000 out of the pockets of the railwaymen he says: “Look at the record. I have carted over the past five years an average of more than 12,500,000 tons of revenue-earning traffic.” That was his policy, Sir. His policy was to make promises year after year to the railwaymen of South Africa and while he was making those promises they had to sweat it out to haul the additional traffic at the sacrifice of their standard of living. If that is so then what the Minister has now given to the railwaymen of South Africa is what they should have had some two and a half years ago when he promised them that if they helped the Railways out of the financial mess they would share in the profits.

I have already given the record of the meetings which the Minister has had with the representatives of Railway Associations. The reason why those increases have been given is not because of the charity of the hon. the Minister but because the Minister sat between the devil and the deep blue sea; he either had to face a general transportation strike last year or he had to increase tariffs. The railwaymen made it clear that they were unwilling to continue to accept the sweated labour policy that the Minister had followed over the past few years.

Because we point these issues out across the floor of this House the Minister stands up in his most offensive manner and accuses this side of the House of being nothing more but political opportunists and of exploiting the railwaymen’s sentiments in regard to this issue. I think it was our duty to point out the rights of railwaymen across the floor of this House as we did last year and it is our duty this year to show the railwaymen the position of this hon. Minister and how he had exploited their sweated labour.

I want to turn to another matter, something which the hon. gentleman ran away from when he replied to the debate. I put the specific question to the hon. the Minister to which he did not reply: What was the position in regard to the development of the pipeline and our agreement with the Portuguese Government under the Moçambique Convention? I asked the hon. the Minister whether the construction of this pipeline could affect this agreement? As you know, Sir, in terms of the Moçambique Convention the Government undertook to secure to the port of Lourenço Marques not less than 47½ per cent of the total tonnage of commercial sea-borne traffic imported into the competitive area of Pretoria and the Rand; any competitive area, but roughly the area of Pretoria and the Rand. The agreement also provides for the fixing of tariff rates and other working arrangements. As the hon. the Minister knows we have in the past made supplementary payments to the Portuguese Government whenever the percentage of this tonnage had fallen below the agreed level of 47? per cent. For most years the percentage agreed upon with the Portuguese Government has been exceeded. In other words we have not been called upon to make any payments at all in terms of the agreement. What is now going to happen, Sir? Certain petroleum products used in the commercial area of the Rand and Pretoria have been imported through the port of Lourenço Marques and this agreement provides for a percentage of the imports through that particular port. If there is now going to be a diversion of these petroleum products through the pipeline, it is quite possible that the percentage of 47½ per cent is going to be less and we will be called upon to make contribution to the Portuguese Government out of railway finances for the port of Lourenço Marques. I ask the Minister the specific question: What is the position now? Because this is very relevant and it is a very important issue. There is no point in developing a pipeline construction when under the Moçambique Convention if the amount of payable tonnage drops below the agreed upon percentage, we have to make payments out of railway revenue to maintain that port’s revenue. I would ask the hon. the Minister to state what the position is.

I want to come to another matter. The hon. Minister talks about political opportunism. In the Budget debate I posed a direct question to the hon. Minister. I asked him to give a pro forma approach in regard to how he views railway revenue as being affected by high and low rated traffic. He has avoided answering that question. Of course I appreciate the hon. Minister’s difficulties. You see in the past the hon. Minister has used the argument that a small percentage drop in the level of high-rated traffic can very adversely affect railway revenue. Mr. Speaker, now the Minister admits in respect of the Budget we are dealing with that there has been a percentage drop over the year 1962-3 of something like 1.25 per cent in the ratio of high-rated traffic to low-rated traffic. But when you look at the Auditor-General’s Report for the year 1962, you find that this drop has been consistent, that there was a percentage drop in the year ending 1961, and that the percentage dropped again in the year 1962 and that the volume of low-rated traffic that is now passing over the railway lines of South Africa is in fact giving the additional revenue to the hon. Minister for which he is looking. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is still going to take the standpoint that he has been taking in the past? It is an important question because we will have to deal with future budgets of this hon. Minister. I want to read to him an extract from his Budget speech in 1957, when he said this, after dealing with the drop in high-rated traffic—

In this Budget speech, we are told that the Railways are carrying 3,600,000 of revenueearning tons of traffic more than during 1962, and the hon. Minister quotes on what he based his Estimate. He based it on a volume of revenue-earning traffic, both high- and lowrated, that the Railways will be carrying. It is clear from what the hon. Minister has indicated that if this rate of progress of increase of traffic continues, the Railways will be carrying some 7,000,000 tons more of revenueearning traffic in comparison with the year 1962 in the financial year 1963-4. What I would like to know from the hon. the Minister is this: Of this Estimate of additional revenue-earning traffic, what percentage of it is likely to form high-rated traffic as related to low-rated traffic? Because high-rated traffic gives approximately in round figures something like 50 per cent of the total revenue earned by the Administration, but if you take these figures quoted by the Auditor-General on the basis of the statements made by the hon. Minister in the past, then we should not have a surplus of R14,000,000, but we should be sitting in the red on the Railways by something like R30,000,000. That is why I asked the hon. the Minister to give us once and for all a pro forma statement so that we know precisely when we assess Railway earnings and we assess any Budget or Estimates that the hon. Minister may place before us in the future, what the basis is, and we will know precisely how important the percentage of high-rated traffic is in relation to low-rated traffic. But I also mention the matter for this reason that it is obvious that when the hon. Minister quotes these percentages, whether he has got a deficit or whether he has got a surplus, he does it purely as a means of political opportunism; he uses these percentages merely as a political opportunist to either justify his deficit or to give praise to himself for his excessive surplus, or to give reasons for such a surplus. I think it is necessary that we should get from the hon. the Minister once and for all a clear statement as to how he views future Railway revenue is being affected. Because, you see, Sir, we have argued year after year, that Railway revenue is not so greatly affected by the percentage of high-rated to low-rated traffic. We said that if the Minister carried a greater volume of low-rated traffic, and he changed his policy, he should be equipped with bogey-wagons to carry mealies and ores, and then if he worked the Railways to their fullest capacity with low-rated traffic, he would get revenue out of proportion. As he has indicated in his Budget speech this year. The Minister attributes the improvement in revenue to the fact that he has been working to capacity in the carriage of low-rated traffic. The figures in the General Manager’s Report also confirm this. I hope the hon. the Minister will not evade the issue again when he replies to the debate.

Then I want to come to another matter, which I raised in the Committee Stage. I dealt with the question of the increase in the interest burden the Railway Administration has to pay. And I asked the hon. gentleman “what will be the end?” I indicated that in this Budget we are being asked to vote no less a sum for the Railways alone of some R65,000,000 in interest. Mr. Speaker, if you look at what has happened in ten years, you find that in 1953 the amount of interest in relation to total expenditure which the Administration had to find was only 5.73 per cent, but in 1962, it has grown to 18.98 per cent. We are called upon to approve an amount of no less than R65,000,000, and I rightly asked the hon. the Minister what he saw as the end of the road. The Minister replied “Well, I do not see the end of the road”. As long as you go on spending money on capital works, the interest is going to increase”. He said that there was no choice. As long as you spent capital, the interest is going to increase. He went further and said what in my view was cold-blooded callousness, and I will explain why. He said:

“The Railways are not a private company; they do not have to pay out dividends on its share capital.” But who does get a dividend out of the Railways? Surely the Railway users. Whether they are consigners of goods or whether they are passengers, surely the public of South Africa can expect some dividend out of the Railways, and they expect a good dividend in the form of the cheapest and most efficient travel that is possible and the cheapest and most efficient transportation of goods as is possible. What is now happening? If anybody consigns any goods on the Railways to-day, or when any passenger buys a ticket, approximately 16 per cent of what he spends when he buys his ticket or consigns his goods, goes towards meeting the interest on the capital burden that the Railways have to-day. When I say to the Minister “What is the end of the road?”, and when I ask him “What is going to happen?”, he says “Well, as long as we spend money, the interest burden will grow Mr. Speaker, I would imagine that capital expenditure would at least be related in some degree or some measure to the overall transportation needs of South Africa, and that capital development would be related in so far as to how it fits in into the whole economic structure of South Africa. I want to deal with that, and I want to begin where the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. K. Schlebusch) left off. You see, Sir, the hon. Minister was challenged in the Budget debate in his reply to give South Africa and give this House a picture of how he saw the future transportation development of the Railways related to the whole of South Africa. There are vast developments taking place. The Railways do not just develop for the Railways’ sake. Surely any development in respect of the Railways must be related to other economic and industrial developments in our country as a whole. I am going to challenge the hon. Minister again to-day to rise and give us a picture as to how he sees the future. It is important because South Africa cannot go on finding millions of loan capital, having millions drawn out of the pockets of the railway users for capital development and then seeing no actual further expansion. Judging by the reports of the General Manager, no new lines or new areas have been developed by the Railway Administration since 1950 in any direction whatsoever. The only extension in the main to open up any new areas was in regard to supplying transportation for the requirements of the Minister of Bantu Administration and the development of these new urban areas. That is where the bulk of these new developments has taken place, and then there are two guaranteed lines and furthermore in only two other instances has there been any extension. But in the past when the Railways were the pioneers of development, the Railways opened up new areas, the Railways gave new visions. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: With the vast plan of spending millions of rands for the development of the Orange River scheme, which is going to mean population movements, industrial movements, new planning, new settlements, can the hon. Minister give us any picture of what is envisaged for the future? The hon. member for Wynberg has asked the hon. the Minister to-day in regard to the Transkei, but I take the point where the hon. member for Kroonstad left off, because he is obviously concerned. The committee which is now sitting on tariffs, the Schumann Committee, has as a specific point of reference the promotion of decentralization of industries and the development of border areas. What is the good of a committee sitting on rates and tariffs if there is no development within the area itself. Has the Minister or his Planning Council any idea as to where the new lines will have to be established and where the new areas will have to be opened up? What was the sum total of the Minister’s constructive thinking in the course of this debate? I will tell you. The hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) put up a plea here for the extension of the Driefontein-Bultfontein line.

Let me give the hon. Minister some facts. There is an area of the Free State—and I hope other hon. members of the Free State will support me-—where the production of agricultural products has probably developed more than in any other part of the country. Let me cite a few facts. The mealie production of that area since 1951-2, has increased from 3,000,000 bags to 6,000,000 bags in three years. In the area in the past year no less than 97,210 small stock and 30,340 cattle were loaded, and the transport of cattle in general required 270 trains and for the transportation of grain 1,311 trains were required and for the 195,000 tons of goods received, 305 trains were required. I have a whole list of further facts here in regard to the development of that line which should join up with the main line to give an easier outlet from the area. What was the hon. Minister’s reply? He said, “I am sympathetic, and if I have got some money next year, I may do something about it”. Sir, there are a host of other areas which require development. But what do we get? The endless pouring in of millions of rand, with no assessment whatsoever from the hon. Minister in regard to the future of transportation in South Africa. There is no criterion of relating transport needs to, and no overall policy picture of what is required for, the whole future economic, industrial and agricultural expansion of our country. Not one single word from the Minister. But what was his reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman): What are you crying about? You have got the Brown Book. Don’t I list all these hundreds of items in there?” Of course they are listed. They have been listed there for years. What does it represent. It does not represent any plan, any thinking, any forward approach. We are told about a Planning Council. What does any member of this House know in regard to what is going on in that Planning Council? We are expected to discuss objectively the transportation needs of South Africa, to take an objective approach to the Railways, to assess the figures that are placed in front of us in millions of rands. But what do we know of what is going on behind? Nobody knows. I ask the hon. Minister now, because it is important, that he should, if he is capable and able to do so, in reply to this debate to deal with these matters. We are not interested in the petty issues, we are interested in the big issues. We are interested in what is going to happen to the whole of the Transkeian area; we are interested to know what is going to happen in regard to transportation developments for the whole vast Orange River scheme; we are interested to know what is going to happen in respect of the whole border areas idea. These are the things we want to hear about and then we can adjudge and assess the capital expenditure of the Railway Administration and find out if this continually increasing interest burden is justified.

If this Railway debate has to last many days more and the hon. member has to participate in it again I am afraid he will die of a heart attack. In order to follow his arguments one needs superhuman powers and extraordinary patience. I must honestly admit that I do not understand it. A colleague of his on the opposite side who spoke earlier this afternoon, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) complained that too much was being spent on the Railways. The complaint of this hon. member, however, is that not enough provision is being made. This, coming from two members of the same party, really makes one feel that there is a screw loose in that party. I shall indicate later how they further contradicted one another in this debate. But now the hon. member says that the railwayman is only now receiving what he should have had years ago already. He does not tell us when that was and how much it was, and what is more, he is as silent as the grave in regard to what the railwaymen got when his party was in power. I want to ask him what the position was then. Furthermore, he blamed the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) for pleading that the non-White workers should be replaced by Whites. But surely that is not so. The hon. member for Malmesbury only pleaded for the increase of the salaries of the White workers, and whenever it is necessary that the Bantu should be removed from the Western Cape and there are no Coloureds to do the work, what is wrong with Whites doing it then? The hon. member was quite right.

At living wages.

Yes, of course. But does the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) want to tell us that we must forever be dependent on non-Whites, particularly in the Western Cape and in the North-West and in the Transvaal or the Free State? The contradictions amongst hon. members opposite are becoming worse every year, and one cannot really blame them for it because I believe that with this Budget the Minister has caught them on the wrong foot, and I think the Minister was quite correct when he said that they would have had nothing at all to say had it not been for the fact that he increased tariffs last year. Now it is significant that whether things go well or badly with the Railways, they always find fault, but the worst of it is that hon. members opposite practically never argue in the same way. If things go badly with the Railways they hold the Minister responsible; if things go well then the Minister has nothing at all to do with it and it is merely thanks to the staff.

Now what have they really had to say? The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) surprisingly agreed with the Minister in this debate in regard to the concessions to the pensioners and in regard to the pipeline from Durban to the Rand, and he also agreed with the Minister in his admiration for the work done by the General Manager and his staff. I want to warn the hon. the Minister to be on his guard when that hon. member starts agreeing with him. Last year still, in the Railway debate, the hon. member for Wynberg stigmatized the management, as well as the Minister, as being very weak. This year suddenly the General Manager and his staff are being praised. In regard to the oil pipeline, the hon. member for Wynberg was very eloquent. He would like to have that oil pipeline and he expects the Railways to build it, but then he does not want the Railways to benefit from it when one day that pipeline shows a profit. I ask myself whether this hon. member, who professes to be such an expert on railway affairs, really believes that the Railways are a charitable institution. When eventually this pipeline shows a profit, it will rightly be due to the Railways and to those who enabled the Railways to build that pipeline.

The hon. member says that the increased tariffs will lead to an increase in the cost of living. Those hon. members are now very concerned not only about the railway staff, but they are suddenly concerned about the people who have to pay these high rates. They say the cost of living has been increased by the increased tariffs, and also as the result of the pipeline if the Railways persist in taking the profits from it. The hon. member has not adduced a vestige of proof as to why this must lead to an increase in the cost of living.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) also thanked the management, but also he criticized the management severely last year too. Then he made the accusation against this side of the House that last year we attacked the Artisan Staff Association. What are the actual facts? The fact is that other members on this side and I deplored one particular trade union demanding increased wages for itself alone, and we further deplored those people threatening to go on strike. I still say so to-day, and I am grateful that an agreement has been arrived at to the effect that strikes on the Railways, which is an essential service, will not be allowed. I want to accuse hon. members opposite, every single speaker opposite, that not one of them displayed a sense of responsibility by opposing the threatened strikes at the time, which could have paralysed the whole economy of the country. Not one of them got up to chide those people.

Then we come to the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), who acted much more wisely. He did not really find fault with the tariff increases, because he says that the money has to be found somewhere. But then he says that as the result of the increased tariffs electricity in Cape Town has become so much more expensive. I do not know whether that is so. I accept that the price of electricity has increased. But then I want to ask the hon. member this: Has he ever ascertained why the providers of electricity have increased their price? I do not think it is as the result of the slight increase in the tariffs on coal, and apart from that I believe that those bodies usually make provision well ahead for stockpiling coal. I am afraid that the hon. member perhaps wanted to use this to make propaganda. The reasonable thing for him to do would be to investigate the matter, and then he will probably find that there are other reasons for the increased price of coal or of electricity.

I am sorry the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) is not here, because, unlike his colleagues, he criticizes the railway staff. He refers to their shortcomings, whereas his colleagues pleaded for the poor people and for the railway staff, this hon. member pleaded for the interests of the mine magnates. But he completely missed the ball, as the hon. member for Edenvale showed. But what did that hon. member do last year and the year before when the Minister of Finance made concessions in his Budget to the mines? Did he ever have the decency to thank the Minister for it? I do not think so, nor do I think that he will ever do so. Judging by the way in which he behaves towards the Minister, I can just tell the hon. member that I do not think it is a requirement of a United Party supporter to behave himself improperly. He should be guided by hon. members opposite like the hon. members for Albany (Mr. Bowker), King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) and Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood).

And Gorshel?

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) accused this side of the House of never having pleaded last year for the interests of the railwaymen, but I want to ask the hon. member to read last year’s railway debates before again making such a foolish and untrue statement. He should not talk such nonsense in this House. He says the United Party is responsible for the increased wages. That is curious. Just allow me to read something—

It was just before the National Party came into power that the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) used those words, and particularly at a time when the White worker on the Railways earned on an average R900 per annum. To-day that has been more than doubled. The hon. member for Orange Grove said last year that I had stated that he did not know the railwaymen, but now that he has spoken on the subject I am more than ever before convinced of it. If only half the accusations he made against the Minister and the management were correct, the Railways would have been in such a chaotic state that its existence could no longer be justified. But if he knew of all those irregularies—and I have my own doubts as to how well-founded it is—was it not his duty to bring it to the notice of the management and of the Minister as a responsible person? But he did nothing in this regard, and he ought to be ashamed of himself. The more the Opposition makes use of that hon. member in railway debates, the better it will suit us. I hope they will also send him to the rural areas to plead the case of the railwayman. If they were to do that, it would have more or less the same effect as the visit of the hon. members for Point and Yeoville had in Virginia.

But that has nothing to do with this matter.

It has, because the hon. member for Point is going to talk on this subject. But there is another point I wish to raise. I am particularly glad that the hon. the Minister has remembered the pensioners. I am even more pleased that he has held out even more in prospect for them when the Railways are able to do it. It is these people who in the years when things went badly with the Railways under the United Party regime did their best, and most of them retired with a very small pension and find things very difficult to-day, and therefore it is very encouraging to hear from the Minister that he will pay attention to these people.

There is another matter to which I wish to refer, and that is the increase in the wage scales of apprentices. It was high time that something was done particularly to increase the initial salary scales of apprentices. It is significant that in a railway area one finds that young lads who throughout the years thought that they would follow in their father’s footsteps in the Railway Service, are attracted outside. I think that these lower initial wages for apprentices was one of the causes for it. In fact, I believe it was the main reason why the Railways lost many of these efficient youths to outside industries. Whereas the initial salary in the past was R43, it is now R60 a month, and it is interesting to see how it compares with initial salaries outside. In the metal working industry, it is R6.83 a week, in the building industry it is R7.30, and for motor mechanics it is R5.82. I believe that this change which has been made in the wage scales will definitely help to attract these young men to the service of the Railways.

Every year we hear criticism expressed by the Opposition. Any Minister welcomes criticism, but then it should be constructive criticism. But they behaved as if the world was coming to an end every year when the Minister’s Budget was out by a few thousand or a few million rand. But let us see what the position was during their regime. In 1939-40 they estimated for a surplus of R724,000 and the actual surplus was R3,300,000. Take 1941-2. Then they estimated for a surplus of R44,000, but the actual surplus was R12,000,000. Take the year 1945-6. Then they estimated for a surplus of R38,000, but there was a deficit of R3,700,000. In 1946-7 they estimated for a deficit of R100,000, and there was a surplus of almost R300,000. These figures on their own are not so significant, but if one compares them with this year’s Budget they are depicted in a much worse light, and I think the time has arrived for hon. members opposite to show a little more objectivity and at least to give credit when things are done well, and for them to cease this light-hearted wooing of the vote of the railwayman, because it will avail them nothing. In spite of all the attempts they make to make the railwayman dissatisfied with his work, the railwayman will retain his confidence in this Minister and in this Government because he knows that he is safe as long as this Government is in power, and that his family will be looked after, and that a future awaits him in the S.A. Railways.

The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Badenhorst) has gone on a sort of Cook’s Tour. I will attempt to follow him in some of the points he made. I start with the first point he made, which was that there was nothing wrong with Whites taking over the work which had become vacant through the removal of the Bantu from the Western Province. But is he aware that despite the fact that certain locations for Bantu workers have been closed down in the Western Province, many of those workers are being re-absorbed into the service, the only difference being that they now live at Langa or Nyanga and come in to work every day. The Minister has created the impression that he is following Government policy and that he is making this great gesture to remove Bantu from the Western Province. But unbeknown to my hon. friend, many of those Bantu are coming back into the service of the Railways again, so I am afraid that he will not get much joy out of the jobs he is supposed to be creating for White men, which previously were done by Black men.

The hon. member then went on to deal with the pipeline and he said that we expected the Railways to build the pipeline but we did not expect them to make a profit on it.

I can assure the hon. member that if the Minister would give permission to the oil companies or to private enterprise to build that pipeline, he would not have to spend any capital whatever. The point is that the Minister has refused to allow private enterprise to do so and he has kept this as a railway preserve, and we believe that the cost of living and the cost of production could be reduced if that pipeline were not used as a taxing device but as a means of transporting products. Then the hon. member went on to say that there was no evidence that the tariff increases had raised the cost of living.

I did not say that. I said the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) had said so.

Where does he think that the extra millions came from, if not out of the pockets of the railway users? The Railways increased its revenue by millions of rand through raising tariffs, but the hon. member says that does not come from the country and it does not increase the cost of living. Does he think it has fallen off a tree? No, that money was taken out of the pockets of the railway users, and obviously it must affect the cost of living of every single person in South Africa.

Will the hon. member just show us in what respects the cost of living has increased?

I am not going to repeat the figures quoted by numerous hon. members and even by the Minister. Hon. members opposite called them small increases, but they all make a difference to the cost of living, such as the increased cost of electricity. I do not have the figures available now, but they are all on record in this debate. The cost of living of the people has been increased, not by fantastic amounts, not by hundreds of rand, but their overall effect is to take that extra amount of money out of the pockets of the railway users. The hon. member does not seem to have any concern for the effect it may have on the public, and yet he attacks us on this side because we did not support the Government in condemning the trade unions when they threatened to strike last year. Now he is happy enough, now that he sees that the United Party was correct in supporting the demands of the railwaymen, that their case was justified and that we were correct in supporting them and the Minister was forced to accede to their request. The Minister was forced to accept that the claims of the workers were justified and that the United Party was justified in supporting those claims. If there is no other way left to the workers of the country to get their just desserts, then they have to use the strike weapon, and if this Minister had forced it on South Africa, the blame would have rested on his shoulders and not on the trade unions and the railway associations, because they had right on their side. Therefore it was not we who supported the strike and the crippling of industry, but it was we who condemned the rejection of the demands of the workers, and now that we have been proved right the hon. member says he is pleased. But so are we. We are very pleased that their just desserts have been given to the workers and that they got increased salaries.

I notice that neither this hon. member, nor anyone else opposite, has replied in any way to the issues we raised here as to the future of the Railways in the Transkei. Not a single member has even attempted to deal with it except by way of evasion. We have raised here a matter of importance. The hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories raised a question affecting the future of a section of the Railway System, and not a single member has given a single answer to the questions we asked. In other words, hon. members opposite have not thought of this problem. If they had given it any consideration they would have raised it with the Minister in their caucus and they would have known what to reply, but they have had to sit dumb hoping that the Minister would give an answer. It was left to this side of the House to raise the problems which will arise there. Hon. members opposite can go back into history and quote all the figures they like, but they cannot escape the fact that this side of the House is doing its duty, and that is to continue to fight whenever there are things which we think are wrong—in the interests of the workers and the public—to get a better Railway service. I think that case has been argued from this side in this debate and the previous one, and there is no need for me to labour it to-day.

I would like to deal instead with one aspect of the services which I believe is of great importance to the future, and to the S.A. Airways. I want to start off by dealing with the question which the hon. member for Turffontein put to the hon. the Minister on 12 February this year when he asked the Minister of Transport whether he had received any representations in regard to the establishment of privately operated feeder air services, and if so, what was the nature of the representations, by whom were they made, and what was the reply of the Administration. The Minister in his typical fashion answered in one word, “No”. Now, I challenge that statement by the Minister because either that statement is not correct and it is a false statement, or the Associated Chambers of Commerce are misleading the public. I know that representations have been made by various bodies. I have here Commercial Opinion, the official journal of Assocom for January of this year, and on page 21 there is an article saying this—

That was in January this year. In February, a month later, the Minister tells this House that he has received no representations. What are we to believe from this Minister, when he tells the House that he has received no representations and a month before Assocom announces to the country that they have been advised by the Minister that he is not prepared to accede to their proposals? I give this as a further example of the way in which the Minister does not play fair with the House …

I will deal with that.

… when it comes to answering questions. Here is a simple question seeking information which we are entitled to have, and the Minister denies that he has received any representations. If his answer is correct, then Assocom is misleading the public. This question did not specify a time or a period. Those representations have been going on for quite a long time. But I want to deal with the merits of that request.

The Minister has said over and over that he is not prepared to subsidize feeder services on S.A. Airways routes. He has set his mind against that, and therefore he is prepared to go on running services with Dakotas at a bigger loss and a greater cost to South Africa than it would cost him were he to grant even part of the subsidy asked for. But it has been calculated that for half the loss, half the amount of the loss S.A. Airways is carrying, services could be initiated and run to the benefit of the people of South Africa by private enterprise, if only half that loss is granted as a subsidy. And I believe it would be in the interests of South Africa if the Minister were to work out a formula. If he is not prepared to give a subsidy he can work out a system whereby S.A. Airways can continue to take bookings and can pay these companies which run feeder services on the basis of a guaranteed revenue. It is quite simple. If the will is there the way can be found. I am not going to try to outline a detailed procedure which can be followed, other than to say that it would be quite simple, without making it a direct subsidy, to work out a quota of freight, mail and passengers which would justify private enterprise operating on these routes. They have said over and over that it would only have to be a short-term subsidy. They have offered to run it on a reducing basis, for a maximum of four years, reducing each year. But the Minister has completely set his mind against it, and in consequence he is firstly harming the Airways in that he is running uneconomic services, and secondly, he is harming the public because he is not able to expand those services as they should be expanded. But can you imagine the advantage to South Africa if the smaller rural towns could have regular services? Instead of having to spend hours getting to your destination, to the airport, and then to your final destination, you would be able to travel at the tempo which modern life demands. Business men throughout South Africa would find themselves able to utilize their time better, because time to-day is a valuable commodity. It cannot be replaced. The time taken in travelling the long distances in South Africa is one of our basic problems. I hope that despite the Minister’s previous decision he will agree to work out some formula whereby the smaller towns can through the aid of private initiative be linked with the main air routes. I think this is necessary, and it is indicative of the need for Airways to be administered separately from Railways. As long as Airways is part of the S.A. Railways and Harbours Administration, the Minister will continue to adopt the attitude that he cannot allow Airways to compete with Railways. He will have to hold the balance and he will hamper the free competition which Airways could offer. I do not believe that it would be fatal to the Railways, because Airways can never replace the major services which the Railways provide. The number of passengers and the amount of freight that the Airways can carry could not make a major dent in the income of the Railways, but it could make a tremendous difference to the economy of South Africa. I believe it is this close link and this centralized control which leads the Minister to adopt an attitude such as the one he is adopting towards feeder services, whereas if he could administer them as separate entities I believe the Airways could make a greater contribution to what is the mode of passenger travel for the future. To-day one does not have the time to spend two days travelling by train from Durban to Johannesburg. One has to fly. Once flying becomes even more popular, you will be able to introduce better services. I recognize the problem and realize that it cannot be avoided now. If you take the Durban-Cape Town flight, you have to spend a whole day getting to Cape Town even by S.A. Airways. You have to be at the Airport at 9.15 a.m., too early to have done any business, and by the time you get into Cape Town it is after 3 p.m. and almost too late to do any business here. So the business man, both coming and going on this route, has to spend a whole day, which is not necessary physically. It is only necessary in order to make the round trip from Johannesburg to Cape Town to East London and Durban by means of one aircraft. In order to get the round trip on one aircraft—Durban-Cape Town and Cape Town-Durban—one has to suffer disadvantages. But if Airways were run as separate entities, if Airways were allowed to compete and to become more and more competitive with other forms of traffic. I am quite satisfied that you will find that it would be possible economically to run services which would be more convenient to the travelling public, and particularly on this route which I mentioned. There are other aspects which could possibly be improved upon—the time wasted on the ground, for instance; the time spent at airports compared with the time spent in flying. If you go from Durban to Johannesburg you spend more time on the ground waiting for your plane and getting your luggage and then going into the terminal than you spend in the air. Surely there should be some method whereby these delays can be eliminated, delays which are not in keeping with the spiriti of air-travel which is designed to meet the requirements of the modern age. But these things are dealt with not in relation to air services; they are looked upon as part of an overall railway service. I read only last week of a new system which is now being used in Europe. There was some talk of perhaps introducing it later on in this country. Under this system you do not book seats anymore. You merely arrive and walk onto a plane and take your chance. Those systems are in vogue overseas where admittedly you have a bigger population. but I believe that South Africa is reaching the stage of development where innovations of that sort can and would be more satisfactory. There are many aspects which can be improved upon. The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) in his excellent speech on the motion to go into committee points out other ways in which the S.A. Airways services could be improved. But I believe that these improvements will never reach true fruition as long as the approach is, “it is good enough”. Take the reservation system. I do not believe that that is good enough by any manner of means. Time after time when one has tried to get onto a plane one has been told that the plane is full. Perhaps at the last minute you are told that there is a vacancy; you arrive and find that you are travelling on a plane with four or five or sometimes 10 seats empty. There must be something wrong with a system where people are turned away and yet the planes are not travelling full. Or is the position that reservations are not taken up? If that is so there must be a more severe penalty for the person who has booked a seat and failed to turn up and thus prevents somebody else from travelling. I have on numerous occasions at an air terminal found that people were being turned away because there was no seat for them. I have on numerous occasions tried to book seats for visiting businessmen and found that I have not been able to get them on planes to make their connections, or where I have managed to get them on a plane it has only been by waiting at the airport in the hope that someone would not turn up. I believe that there too there could be a streamlining; that something could be done to prevent inconvenience to passengers. Here let me say at once that I want to pay a tribute to the staff at the various termini. I have always found them to be most courteous and most helpful. They go to tremendous trouble to try to assist you, but their hands are tied by the system. They have to get onto the telex to Johannesburg and they have to wait on Johannesburg to advise them and no matter how helpful they may want to be, they cannot help you until they have had a reply from Johannesburg. I do not know how the Minister can streamline the system unless the modern additional communication systems and direct telexes are going to assist, but I repeat that there should be some way of eliminating empty seats at a time when passengers are being turned away.

I would like to take this opportunity too of asking the Minister to tell the House whether new navigational aids have been introduced …

I am afraid that comes under the Transport Vote.

I would also ask the Minister to be sympathetic in the negotiation which I believe he is undertaking at the moment with the Pilots’ Association in regard to scales of pay. I have said before and I repeat that I believe that our pilots on the S.A. Airways are certainly the finest in the world. They are certainly far above those of any other airline. Their record of accident-free service alone, their handling of aircraft, they way they land in difficult weather conditions, is an inspiration to any person who travels frequently by air as most of us do. I believe that the skill and the devotion of these pilots and the care which they take constitute the major factor in maintaining the safety record of S.A. Airways. I believe therefore that when they ask for consideration, as they are doing at the moment, we as a Parliament and the Minister as the person who makes the decision should consider their representations very sympathetically.

Sir, there are other minor matters such as the question of unnecessary delays, for instance, which I do not propose to raise at this stage. For instance, the ground staff were told last October that they could wear a summer uniform which includes short trousers. The summer is almost past and they have not yet had permission. Why should there be these annoying delays while this matter goes through masses of red tape in some Johannesburg office. [Interjection.] I understand that they were told last October that they could wear this summer uniform but that permission has not been forthcoming yet. If I am wrong I hope the Minister will correct me. Sir. this is not a major issue; it is not important to the nation but it is little things which help to build up the morale of people who have to work at airports such as Durban and other coastal resorts which have high temperatures.

Finally, I assume that the Minister will reply to the issues which I raised on the motion to go into committee. I am sorry that he did not do so earlier so that one could have an opportunity to check on his reply. But I shall leave that for him to deal with and I hope that having cleared the air now on these issues which I raised last year and this year, the Minister will, perhaps, on these more constructive issues see eye to eye with me and that he will meet some of the requests which I have put to him.

Having now nearly come to the end of a debate on a Railway Budget introduced by the Minister which has decidedly brought the Minister much honour, one cannot help seeing something in the replies of the Opposition that savours of the howling of dogs at the full moon. The only impression one can get is that they are howling because the moon may not be full some day again. That is the impression one has gained right throughout this debate. At one moment there were complaints because the Minister did not give the railwaymen increases before the money was available, and the next moment there were complaints because interest has to be paid on capital investment to have the Railways operate more effectively. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot waste the few minutes at my disposal in replying to a debate that reached those heights, or let me rather say sank to those depths. It surprises me that responsible people frequently come along with the statement that the Railways have become obsolete and should make way for other methods of transport. When I refer to responsible people making such statements, I am definitely not referring to the statements made by the Opposition here during the last few days. I am referring to responsible people who sometimes say so glibly that the Railways are obsolete and that other forms of transport should take the place of the Railways. I cannot help referring to a certain type of person who frequently professes to be a great authority on railway matters, and then compares private transport with railway transport, and then states how favourably certain specific forms of transport compare with railway transport. These people then draft tables and when you analyse them, you find that according to their tables, their tariffs usually are 8 per cent or 8.1 per cent higher than those of the Railways, but the wonderful tariffs they will then give, will more than compensate for that increase of 8 per cent. I challenge them to apply railway tariffs and then load their tariffs with 10 per cent. They will almost have convulsions. That merely shows us how extremely fatuous that statement is that the Railways have become obsolete. We are fully aware that the railway rates are still the one thing in the country that maintains the sound basis of our economy. However. I do not wish to discuss these things here to-day. In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to deal with a certain aspect of policy which I should like to commend to the sympathetic consideration of the hon. the Minister. Before coming to that, I should like to say that we are aware of the provision in the Constitution in relation to the Railways. That provision is as follows—

I certainly understand under “business principles,” that it means that the Railways should be run effectively, as is done at present. I believe that the Railways are definitely being run on sound business principles at the present time. But now it is argued frequently that when the Railways are administered on business principles, every specific division of the Railways should be economical. One cannot completely reconcile these two arguments with each other, if every sub-division of the Railways were to determine its own tariffs and eke out on its own. In my view the words “due regard being had to agricultural and industrial development within the republic and the promotion by means of cheap transport, of the settlement of an agricultural and industrial population in the inland portions of all provinces” also has a definite other meaning. I assume that what is meant is that the Railways as a whole should see to it that its Budget balances, as the hon. the Minister has been doing so competently from year to year. It certainly does not mean that every traject of the Railways should bear its own expense. I assume that that will really be an impossible task, and that we would then be expecting the impossible from the management of the Railways. The rule that tariffs are determined according to the principle of what the traffic is going to bear, is a very sound principle and in the past it has contributed considerably to the Railways having had such a salutary effect on the national economy. As we know that principle has in some cases, owing to the change of circumstances, perhaps become a little obsolete, and that is why we are grateful that the Minister has now appointed a committee to inquire into the question of rates. I think the terms of reference of that committee furnish a reply to a lot of the objections raised by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). I think paragraphs 2 and 3 (a) of those terms of reference solve a lot of his problems. The terms of reference read as follows—

1. (2) the effect of the existing railway tariffs and the total costs of transport on the general national economy, and in particular, on the geographic situation and/or development of industries; 3 (a) the readjustment where necessary, of the tariff policy and the method of determination of tariffs with a view to the promotion of the decentralization of industries and border area development.

Although I think that that policy should be subject to amendment, I should like to urge the Minister not to abolish it completely, because it will be a tremendous shock to some of the branches of our industry. However, that policy does entail that some articles are frequently transported at a loss. It entails that in certain areas where a certain article is produced or processed on a large scale, that section of the Railways is not as profitable as another section in another area where another commodity is produced or processed on which the tariffs are higher. Surely it is obvious that those two sections cannot produce equal profits. Some lines were constructed in our country because the traffic warranted it right at the commencement. Other lines were constructed because the Administration felt that by constructing a line, the development which would thus be stimulated would soon make the Railways profitable. There are other lines in the country too that were constructed with a view to absolutely different circumstances. We now have this position in this country and we are finding that on those railway lines no special tariffs are imposed because they are uneconomical. That is why I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to-day to consider very favourably the representations that have been made to the committee inquiring into tariffs by the S.A. Agricultural Union, where they submitted that as the Railways are the national carrier in South Africa, when you are dealing with railway points that have to cover many miles, first due north and then south again, to arrive at a certain point, and when you have a short road link between those railway stations, those routes should operate as an integral part of the Railways in this respect, that railway tariffs should apply to those road motor services. In referring here to road motor services over long distances between towns and centres to a railway station. I am not refering to those ordinary services making collections on farms in order to feed a station; that is quite another matter, and we think it may safely be left out of consideration for the moment. We know that road motor services at the present time are operating at much more expensive rates than railway services. We know that the average tariffs of road motor services are greater than those of the Railways, but now I should just like to point out one aspect to the hon. the Minister. Those areas where there are no Railways have been detached to a large extent from the general economy of the rest of the country. I of course have much experience of this, because virtually the entire north-west, not only the constituency I represent, but large areas of the north-west, have to contend with this problem. Those sparsely populated areas do not as yet have railway services. Services are now rendered to the public there by means of road motor services over long distances. Because those road motor service tariffs differ so considerably from the general railway tariffs, we find that those areas are finding it extremely difficult to adapt themselves to the economy of our country. I should like to mention a few instances that make things very difficult for the farmers for instance. I am now referring to farmers, although there are other activities I should also have liked to refer to, if time permitted me to do so, but I am afraid it will not. However, I should like to mention a few examples quickly. You have the position that for a distance of 110 miles cotton, lucerne and various other commodites are being transported by rail at 169c whereas road motor service charge for the conveyance of those commodities amounts to 373c. That definitely is still one of the very favourable comparisons. But now we come to fruit e.g. where the comparison may be still more favourable, where a ton of fruit is carried at 240c by rail as against 373c by road motor services. As regards fertilizer, the comparison is very unfavourable, and I am not referring now to the subsidy paid by the State at all. I am merely referring to the railway rates. Whereas a ton of fertilizer would be carried over that route at 113c by rail, it is carried by road motor service at 373c. The farmer in that area must first purchase his fertilizer; he has to fertilize his land and reap his crop, and when eventually he has to market his product, the same thing again applies in reverse, with the result that in the north-west and particularly along the Orange River, one finds that the farmers there cannot farm economiccaly with the products best suited to that area. I should like to mention only one instance. Take vegetables, e.g., for which that area is well suited. Take the distance of 110 miles from Springbok to Bitterfontein, where you will then have to have a road motor service. I am not referring to the existing service at all. It is very much more expensive than a road motor service would be. But if there were a road motor service, it would cost 373c per ton. For the remaining 440 miles, because that route is broken, the cost will be 413c. That gives a total of 786c per ton right to Cape Town. If there were a railway line, the railway rate for the full 550 miles would have been 477c. But that is not a very serious example yet. Perhaps the most serious case is that of livestock, in respect of which the tariff is almost 4½times more than by rail. It puts those unfortunate areas where there are no railways, in a very difficult position. I know the hon. the Minister is having this matter investigated, and that he will consider it very sympathetically, but I should nevertheless like to bring to his attention very pointedly that the cost of transport of seven sheep by rail over a distance of 110 miles amountts to 131 d.—unfortunately the railway tariff book still mentions only pennies— whereas it costs 581d. by road motor service. That comparison is very unfavourable, and it makes it almost impossible for farmers of the north-west to avail themselves of those road motor services on the return journey to send their livestock to the market. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to burden you with figures any longer, in view of the very limited time at my disposal. I should merely like to say that the road motor services on these specific routes represent such a very small proportion of South African transport that even if the tariffs on those routes were to be brought into line with railway rates, it would really make very little difference to the whole picture of our S.A. Railways. The S.A. Agricultural Union, 80 per cent of whose members use railway transport and only 20 per cent using road motor services, nevertheless holds the view that it is no more than fair that railway services and road motor services should be given equal treatment. I contend that the difference it will make, as regard the whole picture, will be very small.

In conclusion, as my time has expired I should like to put only this to the hon. the Minister: If the Minister does not see his way clear to level the tariffs completely, I should like to ask him, when he fixes the new tariffs, to apply the railway tariffs to road motor services, plus a certain additional percentage, so that the tariffs at least do not disrupt the economy so much. The fact that road motor service tariffs and rail tariffs are not the same, makes it extremently difficult for these areas where there are no railway services to adapt their economy under the present system. That is why I am urging the hon. the Minister to give very favourable consideration to the representations of the S.A. Agricultural Union.

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

It seems to me that hon. members of the Opposition have an obsession with the Transkei. They say when you play bridge and you are in doubt you should play no trumps. It seems to me that when the Opposition has nothing to talk about they call in the Transkei. I dealt fully with the policy in regard to the Transkei last year. I said by way of an interjection that I could reply within two minutes. I shall repeat what I said last year namely that whatever happened to the Transkei the Railways would remain the property of the Republic. There is nothing inconsistent with that. For decades Southern Rhodesian Railways were the owners of the railway line from Vryburg to Ramatlabana. It was only two or three years ago that the South African Government purchased that railway line from the Rhodesian Railways. There is nothing inconsistent in that. They remained the owners of that stretch of line between Vryburg and Ramatlabana for decades. There is nothing inconsistent in the fact that one country can own property in another country. We operate road motor services in Bechuanaland. in Basutoland and in Swaziland. Those road motor services, even if those territories were to become independent, would still remain the property of the Republic; they will not be handed over. Why should there be a difference in the case of the Transkei? If the Transkei does eventually reach full independence why should the railway system, the property of the Republic, be handed over to the Transkei? [Interjections.] Yes, I am repeating what I said last year. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) raised the identical matter last year. He made almost the same speech as the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell).

And I was ruled out of order.

And I replied then that the Railways would remain the property …

Order! Is that a reflection on the Chair? Will the hon. member withdraw that remark?

I withdraw any reflection that might have been presumed.

I repeat, Sir—the hon. member said it must be in Hansard; it must go on record—that the property of the Railways will remain the property of the Republic, whatever happens in the Transkei.

I was talking about the policy.

In regard to the policy in which my hon. friend is interested, all those services serving Whites while they are in the Transkei will remain manned by Whites; services serving exclusively non-Whites in those cases the Whites will eventually be replaced by non-Whites. That will be mainly in regard to the road motor services. The personnel of those road motor services which serve non-Whites exclusively will be replaced by Bantu when they are qualified to take over those services. There are only 209 European servants in the whole of the Transkei and if they are transferred they will be absorbed in the Railway Administration elsewhere in the Republic. I hope that is very clear. The personnel of those road motor services or services which serve non-Whites exclusively will be replaced by non-Whites when they become qualified. Those services which serve Europeans while the Europeans remain in the Transkei will be manned by White personnel.

And the mixed buses?

The position in regard to mixed buses will be the same as it is in Swaziland where if Natives exclusively use that bus it will be a Native bus and where Whites use that bus it will be a White bus …

And when it is mixed?

Where it is a mixed bus the separation will continue. Is that clear? I hope, Mr. Speaker, that there is no misunderstanding in regard to this matter. I said that I could reply in two minutes, and I think I have done so in less than two minutes.

You have not replied to the question in regard to the property of the railwaymen in the Transkei.

Whenever there is a transfer the Railways never pay them or allow them to recoup from the Administration for any loss suffered on their property.

But they are not in the same position in the Transkei. There is no market.

Of course they are in the same position.

You cannot sell property in the Transkei.

There will be a market all right; the hon. member need not worry about that.

You will not look after them?

It has been the general policy of the Minister of Transport ever since he became Minister of Transport to look after the interests of the railwaymen. That is the position; what more does the hon. member want to know?

I want to know what is going to happen to their property?

I am telling the hon. member that if any railwayman is transferred—and they are continually being transferred from place to place—those men are responsible for the disposal of their own properties.

Now I know.

Now you know; I hope there is no misunderstanding in that regard.

Kick the White man out.

That is nonsense; the hon. member knows that is nonsense. The hon. member will have a full opportunity of discussing the Transkeian question as soon as this debate is concluded.

What about those houses which they have purchased under the house-ownership scheme?

As far as I know there is no house-ownership scheme in the Transkei.

*The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) spoke about the railworkers. He thought that their wages were too low and should be increased. He mentioned a figure of about R120 a month. That sounds very nice, but we should be realistic. The maximum wage of the old railworker is R100 a month. The minimum wage of certain graded posts is R110 a month. The wage of a special grade driver is R175 a month. Surely it is quite unrealistic to say that an unskilled White worker should receive a wage of R120 a month. If one does that, it will still have to be the lowest wage paid and all the other wages will have to be increased proportionately. If that were done, the hon. member will appreciate that it will not cost an extra R20,000,000 per annum, but much more than that. It must also be borne in mind that there is such a thing as fixing a value for work. The value of the work done by an unskilled railworker is not even R100 a month to-day, but because the Railways also has a certain socio-economic function it is compelled to help these people and to pay them a reasonable wage. Then the hon. member should also remember that the railworkers as a group are always regarded as the reservoir for the filling of the graded posts. In order to do that, there must be a reasonable gap between the maximum wage earned by the railworker and the minimum wage earned by the man in a graded post, or else there will be no incentive. If there is no such gap, no railworker would be prepared to accept promotion to the graded posts. It is already unfortunately the position to-day that while there are still between 9,000 and 10,000 White railworkers, the greater majority of them are not prepared to accept graded posts. A few years ago I especially appointed a committee to contact people. They sent out questionnaires in order to try to ascertain how many of these railworkers would be prepared to accept graded posts. We even went so far as to encourage them by means of providing housing at Bloemfontein, for example, if they should be prepared to accept the post of machine-minders. With few exceptions they were not prepared to do so. They are satisfied with that wage and they are satisfied with their conditions. I am not suggesting that a man with a large family can make a decent living on the wages he receives as a railworker, but as I say, one must be realistic and unfortunately those are the facts of the matter.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) again referred to the question of diminishing returns. Unfortunately the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) equates the Railways with a private profit-making undertaking. But the Railways is in quite a different position from an ordinary private profit-making undertaking. The Railways is there to render a service to the country. The Railways is a non-profit making concern.

So is Escom.

No. Escom does not run services at a loss and the hon. member knows that. The Railway Administration has to run services at a loss in the interests of the country. The Railway Administration must provide services whether they are remunerative or not. The Railway Administration must provide road motor services at a considerable loss every year. The Railway Administration must transport certain commodities at a loss; they do not even cover overheads and ordinary cost of conveyance. The Railways must provide transport for low tariff commodities often at unremunerative rates because the Railways are in the peculiar position that they have to render a service in the interests of the country. Consequently you cannot equate the Railways with a private undertaking. If the Railways were in the same position as a private undertaking the hon. member would have been quite right in his arguments because in that case no service would have been rendered unless it was a profitable service. But the Railway Administration must run services at a loss because it is in the interests of the country. The South West African railway service is run at a continual loss since South West Africa was taken over after the First World War.

It should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

Whether it should be subsidized from the Consolidated Revenue Fund is a different matter; I am speaking on the hon. member’s argument in respect of diminishing returns. That is why the capital expenditure of the Railways cannot bear any relation to the revenue of the Railways. The capital has to be spent to provide those services, even if those services are operated at a loss. That is why the hon. member cannot equate the Railways with a private profit-making undertaking. That is why there are diminishing returns and that will continue. As long as the Railways are called upon to provide these services which are unremunerative, but in the interests of the country generally, capital expenditure must and will increase. That is my reply to the hon. member.

In regard to the redemption of capital the hon. member realizes as well as I do that the only way possible to prevent an undue increase in capital expenditure is by way of the Betterment Fund. The only alternative to it coming out of the Betterment Fund will be to take it out of loan capital, and then to place the amount allocated to the Betterment Fund into the Redemption Fund, but you cannot have both. It would mean an increase in tariffs to have a Redemption Fund to which special allocations must be made. I do not think that is justified under present circumstances.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) spoke about the pre-1944 pensioners. I have repeatedly dealt with that matter. What the hon. member should or does realize is that the Superannuation Fund to a very large extent is controlled by the Superannuation Committee on which the staff is represented. They base their recommendations on actuarial reports. If they feel that they cannot make a recommendation that the pre-1944 pensioners be assisted out of the Superannuation Fund, I cannot compel them to do so. That is the position at present.

In regard to P.A.Y.E. to which the hon. member also referred, the Administration does the same as all private undertakings which act upon instructions from the Receiver of Revenue. The Administration will be in precisely the same position as any private employer. In regard to the Appeal Board regulations I can only say that that is a matter for the staff and the Administration. Regulations and the disciplinary Code are discussed with the staff from time to time and when they make any recommendations or submit any amendments the matter is considered by the Administration and after discussion with them it is either rejected or accepted.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? As far as P.A.Y.E. is concerned, has the Minister sent out a circular to the staff associations?

Yes, a circular has been sent out. It is a very comprehensive circular.

*The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. L. Schlebusch) made a very interesting speech on tariffs. He asked for tariffs to be adapted so that industries could be attracted to the rural areas. As the hon. member correctly stated, this is a matter for the Tariffs Commission which has been appointed. It is part of their terms of reference, and I cannot say anything in this regard until such time as they have submitted their report. The hon. member also suggested that the inland grain elevators should be sold to recognized agricultural co-operatives. The matter of the purchase of the grain elevators by the Mealie Control Board has almost been finalized. The Mealie Control Board will again, in its turn, sell them to certain co-operatives. That is a matter which is being dealt with at present.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is inclined to judge others by his own standards and his standards are not very high. The hon. member said that there was no record in Parliament that I had said that if nothing unforeseen happened the wages of the staff would be increased towards the first half of the financial year. I have never given, and I do not intend, giving, details of my discussions with staff organizations, not for the edification of the hon. member.

You have just given them to me by way of answering my questions.

No, general matters were discussed. When the Artisan Staff Association met me during the session last year I gave them this undertaking. That was the only staff organization which had made wage claims at that time. In my discussions with the Artisan Staff Association I told them that if nothing unforeseen happened I would consider an increase in wages for all the staff towards the end of the first half of the financial year and that if I decided upon an increase it would come into operation on 1 September.

Was that when the House was sitting?

I met them when Parliament was in session.

May I ask a question? If the Minister gave that undertaking at the time we were discussing the matter in this House, why did the Minister not tell the House? Why did the Minister tell the House something opposite?

Because it was no business of the hon. member. The hon. member was trying to make political capital out of the whole matter. Hon. members opposite suddenly came forward as the champions of the workers and why should I satisfy their curiosity. The rest of the staff knew it.

The hon. member wanted to know how the pipeline would affect the Moçambique convention. All I am prepared to say in this regard is that I have had perfectly satisfactory discussions with the Portuguese Government in this connection and South Africa is quite safe.

The hon. member wanted to know about the railway plans for the Orange River scheme. The hon. member wants to cross his bridges before he comes to them. I can only give the hon. member this assurance that all necessary railway facilities that will be required will be provided.

I have decided that I am not going to allow the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) to provoke me. The hon. member stated that I said in reply to a question that I had not received any representations for the establishment of a privately operated feeder air service. He said that my reply was “no” and that that reply was quite incorrect. My reply was quite correct. I have received no representations for the introduction of feeder air services. What I did have was a general discussion with the Chambers of Commerce last year on the whole question of private air services in South Africa. The questions that were discussed were on the one hand taxation and on the other hand subsidization. In regard Vo taxation I told the Chambers of Commerce that that was a matter for my colleague, the Minister of Finance. In regard to subsidization I told them that that was also a matter for the Minister of Finance. The Railway Administration has never been called upon to subsidize private enterprise. That is a matter for the Minister of Finance. But I said that my own personal view was that I was not in favour of subsidization because if subsidization had to take place the S.A. Airways could just as well be subsidized on those services that they were operating at a loss. What I did tell them was that if there was anybody interested in introducing an air service on certain routes which the Airways were operating at a loss, I would be quite prepared to withdraw that service. But there were no representations for the specific introduction of any definite air feeder service. In any case, Mr. Speaker, if applications are made they must be made to the National Transport Commission and not to the Minister of Transport. We discussed the matter generally.

Then the Assocom statement is false; the one I quoted to the House.

I am not prepared to accept the hon. member’s quotations.

In regard to reservations the hon. member said that people were turned away while there were empty seats on the plane. I can only say that this matter is receiving continual attention. The whole booking system has been reorganized. Where there are any weaknesses the management is doing its best to eliminate them. When there are empty seats on a plane and people are turned away that is not necessarily an indication that there is something wrong with the booking services. If there is any specific instance where that has happened I can always give the hon. member the reasons. It often happens that the empty seats on the plane when it leaves Cape Town are filled at Port Elizabeth or East London or it may be that there is so much freight that certain seats have to remain vacant. There are many reasons for vacant seats. With the introduction of mechanization and the telex service the management is endeavouring to bring the booking organization up to as high a level of efficiency as possible.

*The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree) made an interesting speech about the tariffs applied to the road motor services. He asked that railway tariffs should be made applicable to certain road motor services. It is quite correct that the road motor service tariffs are much higher than the railway tariffs, but hon. members must remember that the road motor services are run at a tremendous loss. If all those road motor services which are not economic should be withdrawn, it would be a tremendous blow to the whole of the economy of the country, and particularly to the farming community. It is also much more expensive to maintain the road motor services than to maintain the Railways, to make an ordinary train run. It is therefore impossible to make railway tariffs applicable to the road motor services Wherever assistance can be rendered, that is done.

I now want to deal with the speech which the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) made at an earlier stage. The hon. member started off his speech by saying that I will remember that on 6 February I announced an agreement to purchase two Viscounts for R1,540,000 and that I had made no reference at any time of any trade-in or any other details. My reply is that I replied to the question as it was put. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), wanted to know what type of aircraft it was, from whom they were purchased and what the total purchase price was. In my reply I gave the series of the aircraft and the total price paid namely R1,540,000. No further information was called for. It has been the practice in this House to reply to the questions as they are put. If the hon. member wanted to know about a trade-in he should have put the question. There was nothing to hide because the matter was fully dealt with on 12 March. These matters cannot be hidden. The hon. member knows that nothing that happens on the Railways can be hidden. The Auditor-General reports on everything, so what earthly reason should there be to try to prevent the House from knowing that certain Constellations will be traded in? I replied to the question as it was put. I gave the total purchase price. If the hon. member buys a motor car for R2,000 and he trades in an old car worth R500 and somebody asks him what his new car costs he will not say “R1,500 plus an old motor car”. He will say the purchase price is R2,000. That was the question put and that was how I replied to it.

The hon. member challenged me to deny that it was not the identical plane. I want the House to listen to this. He said that the planes which South Africa used were Viscount series 813 and that the Viscount purchased from Cuba was series 818. The hon. member went on to say that on 15 February 1963 I said that modifications were necessary “to standardize the aircraft with the rest of South African Airways Viscount Fleet, alterations to the brake system, oxygen system, flight instrumentation, etc.” Then he went on to say: “This was the identical plane but the whole lot had to be modified at the cost of R68,750, but a year ago the Minister told this House that these were identical planes.” I repeat, Mr. Speaker: They are identical models; identical models to those that we have in service. Vickers produce three planes, three Viscount models namely the 700. That is the smaller aircraft with lower-powered engines. The series 800, that is the larger aircraft with the same engine as the 700 and the 810 which is the larger aircraft but with more powerful engines. In other words, the 800 series is the 800 aircraft and the 810 aircraft. Is that quite clear?

That is series.

The same series. The 800 series consists of the 800 aircraft and the 810 aircraft. Does the hon. member want me to repeat it or is it quite clear? The unit digit, that is the “3” and the “8”, in series numbers, that is the three in 813, denotes the customer’s number allocated by the manufacturer to the purchaser. While all Viscounts of series 810 are basically the same, buyers have the choice of optional equipment in certain respects, e.g. type of radio and radar, the make and layout of instrumentation, the make of the braking system, cabin furnishings, etc. Although Viscounts of the same series may, therefore, have different equipment in various respects, this does not detract from the fact that they are identical models. So that the South African Airways Viscount 813 and the Cubana Viscount 818 are both identical models. As I have said the “3” and the “8” denote the customer’s number allocated by the manufacturer. The modification effected to the Cubana Viscount in order to standardize it with South African Airways other Viscounts arose purely from the aforegoing, as I have explained. The need for this was known from the outset.

At a cost of R68,000.

Yes, I am coming to that. In regard to any aircraft that you buy you have your own stipulations in regard to these different matters. This aircraft, the identical model, was modified to the extent which I have just mentioned and it cost R68,000. That is right. The hon. member will now realize that when he spoke about two different models, 813 and 818, he was quite wrong. It is the identical model.

What is “identical”?

It is the same model; the 810 model. The hon. member must not try to split hairs. While the hon. member has made that interjection, I think I should just give him the financial position in regard to the aircraft that we bought. The financial implications of the original contract were as follows: The price of the aircraft, reduced by the estimated value of the Constellation, was R700,000. The second-hand Constellation we traded in for R90,000. The original estimated cost of repairs to one Constellation was R5,700. The original estimate of modifications to one Viscount was R23,000. That is a total of R818,700. That was the original agreement. The actual financial position at present is as follows: The amount paid to the seller is R700,000; repairs to one Constellation R28,000; modifications to the Viscount R51,096; amount owing to the Administration by the seller, that is for a check by Vickers and other work and insurance, R27,212; the seller’s share of cost of new radio and radar equipment R8,000. That gives a total of what the aircraft cost of R814,308. Originally it would have cost us R818,700. But against the amount of R814,308 we retained the Constellation aircraft which is now in a fly-away condition and we also retained the radio and the radar equipment removed from that Viscount. In other words, the Viscount cost the Administration less than the figure stipulated in the original agreement.

I still say that it was a very good transaction.

That is not what you told us last year.

These figures were not available last year. That is why.

Did you not know how much you were going to pay when you entered into the contract?

The hon. member has not been listening to what I have been saying.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) went on to say that he challenged me to deny “that on 10 March 1962, ten days before he made the speech he was aware of it that he had only received one of the aircraft”. That is quite right in terms of the contract. One aircraft had arrived at Nassau, delivery had not yet been taken but there was no call in this House for that information. There was no question asked in regard to whether the aircraft had been delivered or not.

Why did you say that they had both been inspected?

I am speaking about 12 March; I am coming to that. On 12 March one aircraft had arrived at Nassau. It had not yet been taken over by the Administration. In terms of the contract delivery was effected at Nassau, not in South Africa. On 12 March one aircraft had arrived there but I never said in my speech that that aircraft, or any aircraft, had been taken over; it was never dealt with. It was never dealt with on 12 March.

Then the hon. member said “because now, a year later, we find that one was taken over on 10 March and that the other was not delivered at all”. He said: “He comes to this House and tells the people of South Africa, through Parliament, that he has bought two planes, that he has protected them and the Government against any loss, that they were inspected and he implied that the planes had been taken over”. As I said, according to the agreement delivery of the planes would have been taken at Nassau. But on 20 March I was discussing the contract. Whether I used the past or present tense, makes no earthly difference. I was discussing the agreement that was entered into on 20 March. I was discussing the agreement and whether one or two planes had been delivered at that stage never arose. The actual delivery date was never raised. It frequently happens with purchases that the delivery date is extended. That has happened frequently in respect of rolling stock, and the fact that these planes should have been delivered on 15 January, makes no difference. That matter was never raised. As I say it happens very often that a delivery date is extended. The position is actually as follows. The first aircraft was delivered at the Bahamas on 10 March. This Viscount left Nassau for the United Kingdom, and on 21 March, the management advised me that the Viscount had landed at Getwick Airport, United Kingdom, on 17 March. As I say, on 10 March, I was only aware of the fact that the first aircraft had arrived at Nassau on that date. On 20 March I was completely unaware of the fact as to whether both aircraft had arrived or not. It was possible that both aircraft were there on 20 March when I spoke in the House. Now the hon. member also said that I knew Jerez was arriving in South Africa on 22 March, and that I knew at that date (when I spoke on 20 March) that the second plane had not been delivered. The facts of the matter are that on 29 March, the management advised me that Jerez had visited Johannesburg on 22 and 23 March, unannounced and uninvited, and that he had virtually no hope of delivery of the second aircraft. That was on 29 March. I want to put it very clearly that Jerez had arrived uninvited and unannounced in Johannesburg on 22 March, that he stated then that there was difficulty in regard to the delivery of the second plane as a result of the publicity given to the transaction by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), because the crux of his attack was that the aircraft were purchased from Cuba, and his whole accusation was that we would lose the friendship of Britain and the United States because we were buying from Communist Cuba. That was his case. As a result of that publicity, he experienced difficulties in delivering the second aircraft. I was advised on 29 March that Jerez had virtually no hope of delivering the second aircraft, and on 31 March, I instructed the management to cancel the purchase agreement for the second aircraft.

The hon. member also stated that the Viscount was not delivered to the S.A. Airways until 6 August, that is quite right. Delivery was accepted in Nassau. Thereafter the air-craft had to proceed to England. Vickers had to give it a check 4 test which would take some considerable time. After passing the test, it would be flown to South Africa. Obviously it was known on 16 and 20 March that the aircraft could not immediately arrive in South Africa, but that it would take some time before it came here. I have already dealt with the hon. member’s challenge that I know on 20 March that Mr. Perez de Jerez was on his way to South Africa. As I have said, the first time that I was advised of the arrival of Jerez was on 29 March. The management stated that he had arrived unannounced and uninvited.

It was in the Press.

After he had arrived, yes. But I was advised by the management on the 29th that he had arrived on the 22nd.

Then the hon. member dealt with the licences. He said that in reply to a question this year as to whether the licences of the pilots were valid for these aircraft I had said “Yes”. He asked: “Does the Minister really stand by that statement?” I do. I stand by that statement. “Is he unaware that pilots of the S.A. Airways are licensed to fly type 813?”

I have already explained to the House that there is no type 813. There is an 810 and the “3” is a digit number given to the customer by the manufacturers. The hon. member said that in terms of their licences, our pilots were not entitled to fly the 818. That of course is nonsense. The hon. member said that they had a short conversion course. He asked me “Does the hon. Minister deny that their licences were amended to include 818?” “I challenge the Minister to deny that amendments were made to the details of the planes which our pilots were entitled to fly”. The position is the following: I have already explained that the 813 is of the 810 series, and the pilot is therefore qualified to fly any Viscount of the 810 series, including 818. As Viscount pilot licences became due for renewal at the end of the normal six months period, the Division of Civil Aviation added an endorsement, without any other change, covering all Viscounts of the 810 series. According to the Chief Inspector of Flying of the Division of Civil Aviation no reference to type 818 has been made in any licence. The Director of Civil Aviation confirms that it was in fact unnecessary to have made the additional endorsement, and it is a further fact that several pilots whose licences were not yet due for renewal, are currently flying the Cuban aircraft without any addition to their licences. The reply to the hon. member’s question on 15 February 1963. specifically stated that no conversion course was necessary. That is the position. Pilots were given one take-off circuit and landing to familiarize them with slight differences in certain instruments which were not standardized at that stage. This would have taken approximately a quarter of an hour per pilot. A conversion course in respect of a different type of aircraft would normally take three weeks ground training and about six hours flying. That is that.

Then the hon. member said that this wonderful bargain of these two planes had produced for South Africa in a whole year 150 hours of flying. He said: “I asked the Minister a question as to whether the plane was in commercial service in South Africa. I know the day before I asked that question it was not in service. Whether it was pulled out onto the tarmac specially so that he could answer the question, I do not know, but the Minister’s answer was that that plane was in commercial service”. Again a complete misstatement of the true position. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that apparently that hon. member is getting some wrong and distorted information from a disloyal member of the staff who is giving that information for the sole purpose of getting the hon. member to make an effort to embarrass the Government. You do find in any organization this type of disloyal member of the staff. The position is that this particular aircraft went into commercial service on 16 December. On 14 February, 1963, the date before the question, the aircraft was undergoing repairs and maintenance consequent on being struck by lightning at Bloemfontein on 5 January.

Thank you.

What is the hon. member thankful for? The hon. member said that it went into service the day before he asked the question, and that was an untruth. It went into service on 16 December. The hon. member endeavoured to create the impression that the aircraft was suddenly pulled out and put into service the day before he asked his question.

No.

Of course he did, and the hon. member knows that that is an absolute untruth.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. Minister permitted to say that the hon. member knew that that was an untruth?

I said that it was an absolute untruth. [Interjections.] I do not want to argue with hon. members and if they think I said that he knew it was an untruth, I am prepared to withdraw. Why should we quarrel about that? But you see that this was the innuendo. Whether it was pulled out onto the tarmac especially so that the Minister could answer the question. In other words, the plane was pulled out specially the day before he put the question and was then put into service. The general impression was created that that plane had never been in service and that the day before he put the question it was pulled out. The position is that the plane was put into service on 16 December.

I want to deal with all the points that the hon. member made. Referring to the Minister he said—

As I have already explained to the House, the Constellation was not traded in. This Constellation is still in the possession of the S.A. Airways, but now it is in a fly-away condition. Consequently if we find a purchaser for it, the plane can be taken delivery of immediately, whereas formerly when we wanted to sell the Constellations—at one time we were prepared to sell them for R20,000—we would have had to put them into a fly-away condition. This is together with the spares. But now we are still in possession of the Constellation which would have taken R90,000 of the purchase price; we spent the money on the Constellation, and it is now in a fly-away condition. The cost of the two Constellations to put them into fly-away condition is R55,954, that is approximately R28,000 per aircraft. Against that the expenditure of R90,000 was saved in reduction on the negotiated price of the Viscount, for which one Constellation was to be delivered.

Then in regard to Trek Airways, in regard to the two reconditioned Constellations for Trek Airways, the hon. member said that only one was working. That is again completely wrong.

I asked a question.

No, the hon. member did not ask a question, he said so. He said that we had reconditioned the two Constellations for charter work and that only one of them was working. That is the statement the hon. member made. He said that an amount of over R60,000 was spent, wasted, so that one plane could do charter work. The facts are that the first Constellation went into service on charter to Trek on 1 December 1961 and the second one on 12 June 1962. The hon. member bases his statement on the penultimate paragraph on page 62 of the Controller and Auditor-General’s Report which states that only one of the two Aircraft concerned was used on these charter flights during 1961-2. The second one went into service after the close of the 1961-2 financial year, that is on 12 June. The hon. member based his statement on what he read in the Auditor-General’s Report, but what he forgot was that the Auditor-General’s Report was only up to the close of the 1961-2 financial year, whereas the statement he made in this House a few days ago, was that at present only one of these chartered planes was doing charter work. That is quite wrong.

I accept that.

The other point is that the hon. member stated that in regard to the cost of the repairs to the Constellation, I gave the figures on 12 March that it would cost R11,400 to recondition the Constellations.

That it had cost that amount.

Yes, I gave the figure of R11,400 for the reconditioning of the Constellations. The only figure in my possession at the time when I dealt with this matter in the House was the figure that I gave to the House, R11,400. That was the management’s estimate of what it would cost to bring those Constellations into flyaway condition. That was the only figure in my possession when I spoke in the House, namely R11,400. It was only in response to my query that the management advised me as follows—

Quite right. Most of the expenditure was incurred before I spoke—

That is the reply that I got to my query. But again there is nothing new or strange in that an estimate is exceeded. That happens continually. But the information that I gave on 12 March was the information in my possession.

You did not say that it was “an estimate”.

I said that that was what it would cost.

You said that it had cost that much.

Well whether the present or past tense was used, makes no difference. I said that that was what it would cost. I am not such an expert in English as the hon. member and I mix up my tenses sometimes.

Now the hon. member also referred to the charter agreement in respect of which I rightly refused to give particulars as it was a commercial transaction. But he said:

First of all, there are no second officers in the South African Airways.

I corrected myself when I was speaking.

Very well, I accept that. That is merely a debating point and is not serious. But the other is. Now what happens is that it is the usual practice for airlines to assist each other in regard to flying personnel. That happens occasionally with different airlines, but the airline that makes use of the personnel of course has to pay full costs and they have got to reimburse the Administration in respect of all the costs entailed. In regard to Trek Airways, as I explained, I gave the information in my reply to an hon. member that for the first three months after the agreement, a flight engineer was seconded to Trek Airways, to accompany these flights, and since then it has frequently happened that a flight engineer has accompanied one of those flights. But the Railway Administration has been reimbursed by Trek Airways. Of the matter that officers are permitted to accept flights when they are booked off, overseas, in chartered aircraft, the management knows nothing, and if the hon. member gives me evidence of that, I will have the matter investigated immediately.

That is the position and I want to say this in conclusion that if there is any doubt in regard to the facts that I have given, any suggestion that I deliberately endeavoured to mislead the House, or that I deliberately gave false information, I am quite prepared to move the appointment of a Select Committee and place all the documents in my possession at its disposal.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—74: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.

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

NOES—41: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. FL; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Schedules and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

When this debate was adjourned about a week ago I had said that the policy which was being followed at the moment by the Nationalist Party in regard to the Bantustans, was not in the least the policy which they followed in the past. I maintained that there was not a single member on that side of the House who had not made propaganda and who had not won many votes by telling the electorate of South Africa that the United Party Government had done too much for the Natives in the past. I contended that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was the person who spread most of these stories about the anti-Native policy of the United Party. He was one of the gentlemen who accused the late Mr. Hofmeyer of being the extremist of extreme liberals. Mr. Speaker, in his wildest dreams Mr. Hofmeyer was not such a liberal as the Minister is to-day.

You see, Sir, I have already known the hon. the Minister for many years. We were at college together. He was still a young man when he was already fervently championing the cause of Afrikaner Nationalism. His political philosophy in those days was this: The Kaffir in his place and the Coolie and the Englishman in the sea. Just see where that has brought him! To-day he tells us with tears in his eyes of everything that he wants to do for the Bantu. We can only conclude that at some time or other during his life he must have come under bad influence, bad from the National point of view. The trouble with the Minister is that it seems to me he really believes that those things never happened in the past, and if he believes that, what else will he not believe? The hon. the Prime Minister contended a short while ago that the United Party was allegedly making propaganda and saying that the Government was doing too much for the Bantu.

Yes.

I can assure the hon. the Prime Minister that it is not our intention to follow the example of the Nationalist Party. We are not even prepared to call them “Bantoe-boeties” (negrophilists). As long as this Government spends money to educate the Native and tries to make a better person out of the Bantu we shall not say that they are doing too much. But when this Government wants to cut up South Africa and hand portions over to the Bantu, then we say with all the power at our command that they are doing too much. You know, Mr. Speaker, too much of a good thing is not good, and this cutting up of South Africa is not good. I say again that it was never the intention of the Nationalist Party in the past to follow the policy which they are following to-day. It has always been just the opposite. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) said recently: Yes, but a policy should be adapted, there has to be adaptation. Perfectly correct, but we are not dealing with an adaptation here but with capitulation; it is a case of a complete somersault.

We on this side and the people outside will have far greater respect for the Nationalist Party if they said straight out: “Look here, we have made a mistake in the past; you were right and we shall immediately follow that policy.” We hope, therefore, that nobody will again get up and try to tell us that that has always been the policy of the Nationalist Party, because it was simply not.

It was.

I am very pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister is here this evening to listen to this debate. During the two days that this matter has been discussed we practically never saw him here and there is no doubt about it that this is the Prime Minister’s idea. We can give the assurance to the Prime Minister that there are many members in this House who are as anxious as he is to find a solution to this problem and although he may think that he is always right others can indeed help to solve the problem so far he has displayed little interest. That also applies to the rest of the Cabinet. During these two days of discussion it was practically only the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development who was present regularly to listen to the debate, although he himself said at the outset that this was an historical debate. It cannot be much of a historical debate judging by the lack of interest hon. members opposite have displayed. The next step in this development must be sovereign independence and then the dangers to which we have referred will become a reality. How are we going to ensure the safety of the rest of South Africa when we have these independent states within our borders? Surely we have seen what has happened in so many other states where the metropolitan powers have given those states their freedom. The entire Police Force and Defence Force have had to disappear and the same thing will happen here.

It is difficult enough as it is with the uncertainty which prevails to-day or which will prevail in future on our northern and our eastern borders but it is stupid to establish an independent state within our borders. The hon. member for Aliwal asked in the previous debate what the position was in regard to Basutoland? He is quite right. The three protectorates will be of great danger to us when they become independent one day and are no longer under the British Government. But in this regard we can only say what the Minister of Bantu Administration has said and hope that that evil day will never dawn.

Do we realize, Sir, that when the Transkei is free and independent the state of emergency which exists there at the moment and which keeps them in check will be lifted completely? Do we realize that the S.A. Police and the military forces will have to be withdrawn? Do we realize that our communications with Natal can be cut? We are faced with all the complications connected with an independent state within our borders and in addition we arc exposing a long and important section of our coast line. [Interjections.] No land or air force will be allowed to go into or over that area. It will become the hotbed of hostile organizations and what can we expect in times of trouble? Can we expect the Transkei to remain neutral in the event of South Africa becoming involved in a struggle after Kaizer Matanzima has said what he did say last week? He made it very clear that that would happen and every White man knows exactly where he stands after that statement. We cannot even hope that the Transkei will remain neutral.

I am sorry that the Minister of Defence is not here because I should have liked to ask him whether there was a reasonable appreciation of the position as far as the defence of South Africa was concerned in relation to the independent Bantustan. [Interjections.] That poor man does not even know what appreciation is. I do not believe there is such a document. The defence of South Africa is a great and difficult task at the moment and in the event of a clash or guerilla warfare our difficulties will be doubled.

Our defence calls for strong forces, large sums of money and manpower which we can hardly afford. A large section of our manpower will have to be used for internal security in time of war and we shall have hundreds of thousands of citizens of a foreign state within our borders. What are we going to do with them? Are we going to intern them? And if we intern them what will happen to our industries and our Railways? No, Mr. Speaker, this is not a practical policy. We must really evolve some plan to get out of our difficulties, but the plan which the Nationalist Government offers us is doomed before it is embarked upon. It is an impossible plan. What worries me is the fact that this Government will ruin South Africa in their attempt to carry this plan to fruition.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst), who was not even able to speak for the full period of time allotted to him, said so little during his short speech that it is difficult for me to reply to him. I just want to discuss one or two of the points that he raised. He says that the next step that will follow on this one is that independence will be given to the Transkei, with all the dangers that he mentioned. I should have liked the hon. member to have given us a little more information in this regard. He also said that he hoped that that evil day would not come. [Interjections.] He then said that when the Transkei received its independence, the police would disappear, the means of communication and the armed forces would disappear and the sun would disappear, and that we could then not expect the Transkei to remain a neutral state. He also asked what we were going to do with all the workers from that area who would be working here during war-time. But the hon. member should after all have fulfilled the primary function of reading the Bill. If he had done so he would have realized that no further steps can be taken in regard to the Transkei after this step has been taken, unless by resolution of this House. [Laughter and interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) must not keep on interjecting.

No further step will be taken unless an agreement has been concluded with the Government of this state. I do not know why hon. members on the other side try to frighten the people outside in this way by saying this type of thing. [Interjections.] The hon. member asks what Matanzima has to say. It will be a very good thing if instead of reading the Cape Times résumé of this matter, he reads the original statement. He will then see from that letter that revolution has been rejected as a further step in the pattern of constitutional development. [Interjections.] The hon. member for North-East Rand is supposed to be a military expert, but I fear that he has said so little of importance regarding military matters that one would be wasting one’s time by giving more attention to him.

This debate has again been resumed after quite some time, but in the first phase of this debate we received a very clear picture of the fundamental differences between the Opposition and ourselves on this side of the House in regard to this matter. Hon. members on the other side must realize one thing and that is that further constitutional development for the Bantu in the Bantu areas in South Africa is unavoidable. The question which hon. members on the other side must answer is this: How should this development be canalized? I know that they say that it should be according to their federation plan—we heard enough about this during the Joint Sitting—but hon. members, with the exposure of their federation plan, are making it even more apparent to the people the great difference between their views and our views on the matter. I want to sum up the position in a few words and say that we do not see the Bantu units in South Africa in the same light as they do. We see the Bantu in South Africa as one community whose individual members will be linked up more and more loosely with the Whites of South Africa, while thé ties between Bantu groups will be on a new footing in the future. The policy of the United Party is just the opposite. The United Party believes in steadily weakening the ties between the Bantu as a group and the Whites as a group, and in steadily strengthening the ties between the Bantu as individuals and the Whites as individuals. They believe in welding the Bantu and the Whites together into one nation in one area With the disastrous results which must follow upon this step, while we see two entities here. To my mind there was nothing more revealing then the headlines of the Cape Argus just after the Joint Sitting when they said: “Way now open for separate nations in South Africa.” Of course we want a “separate Bantu nation” and a “separate White nation”. That is what we as a Government want and that is what the people also want, and that is what the large majority of the followers of the United Party also want. The United Party here in Parliament on the other hand do not want two separate nations but one integrated nation.

In dealing with this Bill, we are forcibly reminded of the foundations which have already been laid over many years between the Bantu community in South Africa and the White community—two communities in our view and one community in the view of the United Party. Those foundations which have been laid are the very best guarantee that we have for safety and good relationships in the future and for the sound development of both communities and that is what I want to discuss here, the constant interaction between the Bantu as a community and the Whites as a community. How is that interaction promoted and arranged in terms of this Bill?

In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister referred to the historic and moral basis for this Bill. I want to refer to realities based on experience, realities that we are translating in this measure into a proper basis and a proper way of life in South Africa. I would call the interaction between the two communities inter-dependence between two communities, and that basis of inter-dependence is the best reply to the scepticism of the hon. member for North-East Rand. It is our guarantee for a good understanding between the two communities for the future. I want to deal with this point and show that many of these things have already come into being over the years and that this Bill is simply designed to shape those things properly and to ensure that there is a proper constitutional basis for the coming into being of a collective Bantu personality in the building up of this Xhosa society.

We know. that in terms of our policy it is a basic principle that sole rights and preferential rights will be granted to people in their own homelands, but it is also a basic principle of our policy that in these areas openings will exist for other people but only as a matter of secondary importance to these other people. Provision is therefore made in this Bill that the Bantu will have to look to the Transkei for his civic rights, but that he will be able to work here in our area, in so far as we require his labour and he is prepared to offer his labour, and that the White man will have to look to White South Africa for the exercise of his constitutional rights, but that he too, in so far as his services are required in the Bantu area will be able to render them there. That is the principle which very clearly underlies this Bill and that is the moral basis of our whole policy. That political approach is a very strong bond linking the two communities because where one’s primary rights are vested in one’s own homeland and one has secondary rights in the homeland of another person, it cuts both ways for both communities. This is a very important political bond because it cuts both ways and is of equal value to both sides.

On the other hand, what do we find in the race federation plan of the United Party? Nothing but a political, social and, above all, economic exploitation of the colonialistic standpoint. I want to give examples of this interaction which has existed over the years and I want to remind the House again that some of these interactions are mentioned by the Bantu themselves. Hon. members should peruse all the documents emanating from the Bantu in the Transkei in connection with this legislation. They will then see how the very first document, the instruction given to the Recess Committee, states very emphatically that they must inquire into the financial implications and the taking over of the White interests there. In those documents we also find an acknowledgement of the Christianity which the White community has brought to the Transkei. Are these not bonds which join us together, common bonds, and should we not be pleased that without anyone having directed their attention to this fact, the Bantu appreciate those bonds? Look at the report of the Recess Committee. The same things are mentioned there. Read the statements of their leaders. Read what the two Matanzimas had to say during the latest session of the Territorial Authority. [Interjection.] It will also do the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) a lot of good to read these reports. He should also read the letter which Matanzima himself wrote. He will see many things in it which will irritate him because he does not like the Bantu to say things which indicate that there is goodwill on their part as well. But we know that the hon. member for Benoni will go out of his way to look for trouble. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) spoke about political fantasy. If the hon. member will only take the trouble to read the latest report of the Territorial Authority, he will see many things in that report. I think it will be a good thing if someone will show him what appears in that report. On page 10 of that report we find that Kaiser Matanzima’s brother had the following to say—

He said this in December. I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. D.E. Mitchell) once again to read the letter which appeared in the Evening Post and then he will see that Kaiser Matanzima also said this. But the hon. member does not want to know about this and he refuses to read it. I also want to read to him what Kaiser Matanzima said about this matter a short while ago—

But hon. members want to know nothing about it and when they hear something good about those Bantu, they become annoyed. There are Bantu leaders besides the two Matanzima’s who say the same thing. Paramount Chief Sabata also said the same thing. I say that here we are reminded by the Bantu themselves of this inter-dependence between White and non-White. Let me mention just one thing. I want to take a subject which hon. members opposite try to exploit so much and that is the question of labour. What is the position in connection with labour? We know that the Transkei Bantu work on our farms and in our industries in large numbers, and we know that that work is valuable to them and to us. I want to give you an insight into the scope of this work. The number of Bantu recruited annually in the Transkei for the mining industry is about 115,000. The number recruited for agriculture is between 28,000 and 30,000 and for the other industries slightly more than 1,000. These workers of the Transkei in the White areas earned more than R3,000,000 a year or two ago, of which more than two-thirds was sent back to their homeland, to their families. The figures which I have quoted deal with those Bantu who have been specifically recruited but then there are still others who have also worked here and they number about 200,000. Is all the money which they earn here completely worthless to them and will they give it up? No. To find out how much it is worth to them, hon. members should read the letter which appeared in the Evening Post in which it was stated that negotiations would be conducted with the Government at a “respectable” level regarding good wages for the Bantu working here. [Interjection.] This labour field is of great value to them, and these labourers are of great value to us. Is that labour bond between the Transkei and the Republic not a very valuable connecting link? Why do the Opposition think that this bond will be deliverately broken on both sides? [Interjections.] In the economic sphere, what are the trade relationships between the Transkei and the Republic? I want to tell hon. members opposite that the Republic and the Transkei are Very important markets for each other in respect of primary products and.manufactured articles. I want to remind hon. members of the fact that the wool production of the Transkei alone is worth more than R500,000. Is it not a matter of importance to the Transkei to know that its markets lie in South Africa and that with the assistance of South Africa it can find markets elsewhere? Over the past years a healthy fibre industry has been built up which already contributes R150,000 or more. Think of the important jute industry, a commodity that we need so badly in South Africa and of the fact that the Transkei can make a very impressive contribution in this connection. This is an important link both to them and to us. Why is this not appreciated? [Interjection.] Recently there was a shortage of maize in the Transkei. Where did they obtain their maize? From the Republic. These trade relations are of mutual importance. I say that these are bonds of interdependence. The two territories are dependent upon one another. Do hon. members want to tell me that the Bantu will not be realistic enough to appreciate these matters after having experienced them for so many years? Let us take transport. We heard something about this to-day during another debate. Think of the fact that the Railways in the Transkei are the responsibility of the Republic as also are the national roads—more than 220 miles of them—with an invested capital value of nearly R4,500,000 and which cost us more than R60,000 annually to maintain. Are these things in regard to which they will tell us: Go! We want to do these things ourselves. How will they do that? What about the Railways? There are about 200 miles of railway in the Transkei, belonging to the Republic, a capital investment of more than R4,000,000 [Interjection.] The hon. member for North-East Rand has had an opportunity to speak and he did not even use up his full period of time. Why did he not say the things which he is trying to say now? Will the Bantu tell us to dismantle all these things and take them away or will they try to take them away from us by force or try to purchase them from us? Why would they want to do that? Is it not desirable that the Opposition should join us in telling the Bantu: Keep those things to our mutual benefit in the Transkei. Should they not stimulate those ideas in a constructive manner rather than destroy them? I say that because the economic, social and constitutional development of the Transkei is in our mutual interests and it is also in the interests of our policy of separate development in White South Africa that is why we are coming forward with this Bill.

There are other forms of inter-dependence which I want to discuss. Just think of communications. There is an amount of almost R3,000,000 invested in technical equipment alone, excluding buildings. There is also a very valuable investment in the radio services in the Transkei. Can hon. members not see that all these things are concrete bonds joining the two areas together? Have these things no value to them? They do everything in their power, directly and indirectly, to break those bonds and nothing will give them greater pleasure than to see a break of that nature. What a desperate attitude the Opposition is adopting in connection with the progress of South Africa and of a neighbouring non-White territory which has progressed to where it is to-day under the guardianship of South Africa! We experienced the latest development in this connection during the Joint Sitting when the United Party did not even want to give the Bantu of the Transkei their own language rights and opposed our efforts to give the Bantu those rights. [Interjection.] I know that the Opposition have little feeling for language, but there are few things which join people together to the extent to which emotional bonds do. The language of the Bantu which is used in our areas and our language which is used in their areas are emotional bonds which join communities together, but the Opposition are busily engaged in trying to destroy those bonds. Foreign relationships form a further bond of this nature. In terms of this constitution the Transkei Bantu will also be able to have his contact with the outside world in accordance with his republican status. It will be possible for him to have an international status through the Republic by means of his passport and his citizenship. This is also a connecting link but the Opposition want to see that link destroyed. I can mention many other services of a technical nature such as hospitalization and health. The Republic will still have its duties to perform there and we foresee that this will continue to be the case for many years to come, and perhaps for always. But the Opposition do not want these common interests to exist between the Republic and the Transkei. Think of the other scientific fields, such as geological surveys, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the S.A. Bureau of Standards and Meteorology. All those technical services are rendered for the common good of the Republic and the Transkei. Do you think that they would be stupid or malicious enough to reject all these benefits which do not affect their constitutional position and to try and do without them? [Interjection.] The hon. member asks whether I have heard of Dr. Banda already. I am going to discuss him now because Dr. Banda dominates the whole mentality of that hon. member. Speaking about Dr. Banda, we see everywhere that further bonds are being created between the emancipated countries because of the economic values of those bonds. What is France doing with her emancipated territories? Economic bonds with France still remain. What is Dr. Banda himself doing? He wants nothing to do with the Federation but he is not opposed to economic co-operation. He appreciates that bond but the hon. member for Hospital cannot understand it. Take defence. The hon. member for North-East Rand is a former army man, even though, as he himself put it recently in a pamphlet, he has “retired out of it”. But he ought to know what the provisions of this Bill are in regard to military matters. The Transkei accepts our military protection and this is a very important point in regard to inter-dependence because it seals the lot of both the Transkei and the Republic. [Interjection.] The hon. member asks for how long? I predict that the hon. member will not live long enough to see how long this will last. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Green Point wants to ask an intelligent question I will give him the opportunity to do so, but not otherwise.

Did not the hon. the Minister of Defence promise them they could have their own army?

No, the Minister of Defence did not promise them their own army. We cannot resent the fact that the hon. member for Green Point did not understand the hon. the Minister of Defence. We know that. We have so often heard about the military protection which South Africa has supposed to have been enjoying. Now that military protection is being asked for—and not against the wishes of any of the parties but as a result of a mutual agreement—why are hon. members opposite not grateful for the opportunity of protecting the Transkei in the military sphere, particularly because they have been so grateful that another country has supposedly been protecting us in the past?

White troops to protect Matanzima!

Mr. Speaker, this link in the military sphere is a very important connecting factor. I want to tell hon. members opposite, and particularly the hon. member for South Coast, that one of the most reckless things that they can do and one of the most irresponsible actions on their part in regard to future generations in this country is to make the fuss about defence matters in the Republic of South Africa and the Transkei that they are making in this House and also outside of this House. That is a most reckless action in regard to our country and in regard to our future.

The geographical position is also a further link between us. Over the years we have found that the Bantu have travelled from their area to other areas across our territory, that we have travelled through their territory, that we have flown over that territory and that we have travelled through that territory by rail. Since the time of the Kaffir Wars, have we ever created hostility towards South Africa through the medium of these geographical links? No, Mr. Speaker, we have not. Hon. members opposite are extremely annoyed about it. Our Bantu areas are not linked up with one another everywhere. The Transkei itself is an example of that. That is why in the geographical siting of those Bantu areas we have a greater guarantee of safety both in regard to the Bantu and the White man than the hon. member for Benoni with his limited intelligence is able to understand. Why do the Opposition make these matters out to be extremely dangerous for us in South Africa? We have experienced them over all these years. Over the years we have had the case that the Bantu areas have not been linked together and we have experienced mutual convenience and safety as the result of this fact while on both sides have we realized that we have been dependent upon one another. But the Opposition wants to see nothing in this that can form a connecting link. This is a negative approach, the border stories which are conjured up for us and made to look ridiculous. Let us think of other small countries like Luxembourg. Think also of Germany, Belgium, Holland and so forth. They are contiguous but nevertheless they are completely different from one another and this has been the position over the centuries. Those countries have developed in this way historically. Over the years they have realized that they have had to find a way of life to enable them to survive next to one another as countries. Switzerland, for example, has never been involved in a war. But the Opposition do not want to co-operate creatively in order to build something similar here in South Africa. No, Mr. Speaker. They do their level best to say things which create ideas of foreign alliances, foreign affiliations and so forth, with foreign and hostile countries far across the seas. Why can they not co-operate with a view to cultivating a tradition of mutual dependence and co-operation and tolerance between countries such as that which has been developed between those countries in Europe to which I have referred? Mutual confidence is being sought throughout the world to-day, particularly at the present time. Nations are seeking to understand one another and are seeking an understanding between communities and even between individuals. I have already referred to the fact that the Recess Committee of the Transkeian Territorial Authority has already shown signs of this. In this Bill which they have accepted as the basis of their constitutional development they leave it to the Republic of South Africa to handle certain extremely important matters such as military matters, arms factories, foreign affairs, police, posts and telegraphs, railways, finance and so forth. Finance is a very important matter and I did not even mention this earlier when I spoke about economic bonds. There is also the question of immigration. They are leaving all these things to us so that we can take care of them. All these factors have an important connecting force. But the Opposition do not want those things which may possibly create confidence, and bring about an understanding of one another and establish better relationships. They do not want to try to build these things up. The Opposition hopes silently—no, not silently, Mr. Speaker, but in a vociferous manner—that these possibilities will be destroyed as soon as possible and that their development will be halted. They do not want any of these things to come about. On the one hand, this Bill recognizes all of these things and strives to attain them. On the other hand the Opposition are trying to create a lack of confidence, to create fear and to do nothing but bedevil relationships between the various communities. That is what the Opposition are doing by means of their campaign. They want to bedevil relationships between human societies. What a reprehensible lack of a sense of responsibility this is, coming from people who pretend to form the alternative Government of South Africa!

I have already said that the Bantu, and amongst others the Bantu of the Transkei, realize their mutual dependence. Let me say here that we have already experienced difficulties with them in the past and that we will probably experience difficulties with them in the future also. We, as they are, are fallible. Let none of us therefore think that we are going to create a paradise. We know that. But do not let us believe either that by means of its phantom of race federation the Opposition will create a paradise in South Africa. As I have already said, the Bantu have already shown that they have the sense of responsibility to make constructive use of and to develop those things which we had in common. In this way the Bantu of South Africa have proved that they have completely different possibilities from those of the other non-White groups in countries higher up on the continent. Why then should we not try to stimulate this sense of responsibility on the part of the Bantu? Why should we try to pollute it? The Bantu here believe in gradual development and that is why they do not ask for everything at once as the Bantu in the Congo have done. There they, asked for everything at once and they were given everything at once—but they also ruined everything at once! That is not being done here. They are only asking for a gradual development. They are leaving the other matters to the future. Why can the Opposition not assist in stimulating this gradual development of the Bantu which the Bantu themselves are tackling in all earnestness? This development must be stimulated. But the Opposition want nothing to do with it. All that they know is a suspicion, fear-mongering and bedevilling. We know that faith is the twin of trust. But there are no signs of faith on the part of the Opposition. They have faith in nothing. By their attitude towards this Bill they want to destroy and eradicate everything which has been set up constitutionally. Because of those tactics being followed by the Opposition, they stand naked before us, polluted by themselves. They seek to undermine and ban from society every form of confidence which still exists. That is why I say that at present they are digging their own grave and erecting their own tombstone in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has spent some two-thirds of his time to prove what? To prove exactly what this side of the House has always argued, namely that this whole policy of separate states is a phantasy and madness in the politics of this country. For two-thirds of his time, Mr. Speaker, he has painted to us the picture of the bonds which were going to ’bind the Transkei to the Republic of South Africa. He painted inter alia the economic bonds, the roads, the Railways, languages, defence, etcetera—in other words issue after issue which binds the Transkei to the rest of South Africa. And he has quoted this in defence of a policy which is to cut off the Transkei from the rest of South Africa. Why then quote these bonds which bind us together in support of a case which has the effect of breaking us apart? The hon. the Deputy Minister started off with the allegation that it was our idea that this was total independence. But that was not our idea, Mr. Speaker. Sitting next to him is the hon. the Minister of Information. I want to quote now from a pamphlet which was issued by him in 1962. In this he announced—

“The last stage before independence”! So it is not the United Party whose idea this was but that of the Minister of Information! Moreover, the Prime Minister has promised them that over and over again. I have here the March 1963 issue of the publication “The Bantu” in which it is said that the Whites of South Africa have thrown down a challenge to the Bantu. The article ends in this way—

How true that is, Mr. Speaker, that they have been given the tools! But the question we ask this Government is “the tools to do what? The tools to carve out their own independence or the tools with which to destroy South Africa?” Let us look at the arguments of the hon. the Deputy Minister. He quoted countries in Europe. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development as well as the Prime Minister have done so over and over again. They have quoted how people from Italy work in France, how people from Germany work in Switzerland, and vice versa. But let me ask the hon. the Prime Minister in which of these countries can the people who are working there from a foreign country repeal the laws? Are the workers from Italy working in France subject to the laws of France or to the laws of Italy? Is Italy for instance entitled to amend or repeal the laws of France because her citizens are working there? Can Switzerland repeal or amend the laws of Germany because some Swiss are working in Germany? This Bill, however, gives the Transkei the powers to retain control over people outside their territory and repeal within their territory the laws of the Parliament of South Africa. And then the hon. the Prime Minister and others are quoting the position of countries in Europe as a parallel! There is no more parallel, Mr. Speaker, than the man in the moon. The hon. the Deputy Minister quoted Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, etc. Why did he not mention the Sudetenland or the Polish Corridor! Why did he leave out these two areas! Has he forgotten major causes of world conflagrations, i.e. the fight over minorities in other areas?

Areas in which the people of one country were living in another country under the control of another Government? No. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister very carefully did not make any reference to these issues. He carefully avoided the crux of international friction, the greatest cause of international friction perhaps in the history of man, i.e. a situation where a people speaking one language and owing loyalty to one country live in another. But here this Government is deliberately and consciously creating such a situation in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister talked of defence and he talked of passports. What Transkei citizen is going to thank this Government for his attitude to passports? One of them applies for a passport and it is refused by the Minister of the Interior for South Africa. Are they going to sit back and say “it is all very well. Then I will not go to America or to France or to England or to Russia to study. I will not then go on my trip but I shall sit back and say ‘ thank you’ to the Government of South Africa for not having given my passport”. But this hon. Deputy Minister quoted passports, one of many causes of friction which we have heard about; one of the causes of dissatisfaction because people have left our country illegally because they have been unable to get passports. Yet the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted that as a bond which will link us together with the Transkei.

I do not think Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for me to analyse the arguments of the hon. the Deputy Minister any further. With the rest of his arguments I shall deal in the course of what I shall have to say. What I should like to say is that all nations have in their respective histories a chapter which they wish had never been written. I believe that this Bill which is before us to-night is such an episode. I believe it bears the brand of shame for the people of South Africa; it marks the road of cowardice because we are not prepared to face the problems which lie ahead of us. I say in all seriousness that this measure bears the brand of cowardice because it constitutues a surrender in the face of dangers which we are not prepared to face, dangers from which the White people of South Africa cannot, however, escape, but dangers which we must face and must overcome if we are to survive. This Bill marks the first step in the dismemberment of our country. It is forging a weapon for the ultimate distraction of civilized standards, not only in the Transkei but also in the rest of South Africa. More than ever before do I believe now that this Bill does violence to the honour of our nation because it signifies the acknowledgement by our people of our failure to rule here in Southern Africa. It accepts the Government’s abandonment of its responsibility and of the fact that it does not believe that we and this Parliament can any longer rule over South Africa. Are there no members on the other side, Mr. Speaker, who share with us in the shame of having to sit here and preside over the disintegration of our country? It is our country as well as it is theirs and yet they sit there presiding over the disintegration of their country and making inane interjections like the hon. member for Cradock. Have they no shame, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member for Cradock shouts “Boerehater”. But there is only one man in South Africa who is to-day following his example and that is the man who talks of the “racialistic Britishers”. This man is the ally of the hon. member for Cradock; a man whom this hon. member has trained. But I ask hon. members opposite whether they have no shame that they must participate in the shame of having so little faith in the future of the country and the future of our White people? Have they abandoned the duty and the destiny which I believe is ours as White men in this country, i.e. the duty and destiny of guiding and leading all the races of this country and especially the non-Whites of this country from a position of near barbarism in many cases to higher standards? Have those hon. members abandoned their responsibility, have they abandoned the duty which I believe is ours and which we cannot escape? But they sit there, Mr. Speaker, and they laugh and they joke at the disintegration of their country. The reason for that is that they never had any pride in their country like we have had. They have never served their country as we have done. Neither have they ever learnt to love it as we have done. They on the other hand have learnt to serve sections and groups. They have learnt to serve a language group or a political party, never to serve South Africa as a whole. It is therefore nothing strange to them now to sit down and cut up South Africa into compartments. There is nothing for them to be lost if a portion of the country is cut off because they have never had loyalty to South Africa as an entity. They have had loyalty to a political idea or to a section of a section of the people only.

What they will have to realize, however, is that this Bill, this weapon which we are forging here to-night, even before it has become law, is leading the hand which the hon. the Prime Minister has trained, to point already at the whole Eastern seaboard of our country, the weapon has not yet been forged and the Bill is not even law and yet the hand which is waiting to grasp the weapon is being led by the Prime Minister from step to step. The Opposition, Mr. Speaker, has warned the Government. But not all Government members are happy. Not all members of the Government are happy. I know that. Let me give you an example of this. On 16 March, i.e. last week, the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) said this in a statement—

This is not old history, Mr. Speaker, but was stated only last week! The hon. member for Karas has no faith in this plan and yet the hon. the Prime Minister has said that this plan is final and irrevocable. So did the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. But not all the members on the other side are so sure. And the hon. member for Karas is not the only one who has not yet been so bowed by the demands of Black Nationalism that he is prepared to cut up his country. There are some members on the Government side who have not yet lost faith in our ability to lead and to govern the whole of this country of ours. I do not know whether any of them have the courage to speak up on behalf of the people of South Africa. But if they are not prepared to speak up then it is for the people of South Africa to put on the brakes and to stop the tragedy which is occurring right in front of our eyes. However that may be, the effect of this Bill on members on the Government side can be judged from the nature of their reaction to it. In this connection I should like to point out that their attitude so far has been a clear indication of their concern and unhappiness and their own uncertainty about what they are doing here. Instead of being prepared to face it calmly and seriously they try to treat the whole matter as a joke. That, Mr. Speaker, is a measure of their own uncertainty and their own unhappiness about it. I remember similar laughter, the never-never laughter from the Government side, when we quoted to them and warned them what demands there would come from the Transkei once it was on the road of self-government. We quoted to them resolutions of the Territorial Authority and we warned them about the demands which would inevitably follow upon the road which they were taking. I should now like to quote two of these warnings which have been quoted in this House before. The first of these warnings are contained in the proceedings of the Transkeian Territorial Authority of its session of 1959. At that stage the demand was for the incorporation of one district only, namely the incorporation in the Transkei of the Glen Gray district. We warned them that that was only a foretaste of what could be expected later on. We saw only too clearly that the demand for one district was only the beginning of further demands. And what were these demands last year? During its session of 1962 the Transkeian Territorial Authority under Item 18 Resolution No. 7—

Then in Item No. 20, Resolution No. 9, the following request was made—

So, Mr. Speaker, long before the Transkeian Territorial Authority has achieved the status of self-government we see the tendency on their part to demand more land. We on this side of the House have warned the Government about that tendency, and have pointed out that that would be the road which the Transkei would follow. But it had no option in view of the attitude which it had displayed towards its own authority.

My accusation against this Government is that it has not taken any steps in repudiation of those demands for more and more land. Neither the Prime Minister, nor the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development nor the Deputy Minister has stood up in public and warned the Bantu of the Transkei that they must stop demands for areas outside their own territory. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker: They have gone to the other extreme. In this Bill, now before the House, they have specifically provided in Clause 3 for the addition or excise of additional land to the Transkei. By implication they are saying to the Transkei that their boundaries are not final and that we will negotiate with them. We will not take anything away from them but we can add to their boundaries. According to Clause 3 the area of the Transkei may not be reduced but may be increased. As against this no one has stood up and warned the Bantu of the Transkei not to cast their eyes beyond the boundaries into which the Transkei is fitted. Is it surprising therefore to find that the Prime Minister Elect egged on by the Prime Minister of South Africa now claims that the whole area from Port Elizabeth to Zululand should be a Bantu area? He states—

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the Prime Minister Elect has taken this line. On 4 February 1962 i.e. just over a year ago, a statement in the Sunday Tribune states—

Now, this statement, although made more than a year ago, has never since been repudiated. Did the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister repudiate this statement? Did they repudiate the statement and tell the Bantu of the Transkei that they should stop thinking along those lines? If not, can we then one year later blame them if this area to which Kaizer Matanzima referred in February 1962 as being the area taken by the British nearly a hundred years ago, and for the return of which he thanked the Nationalist Government, is claimed again with the allegation that—

For one full year Kaiser Matanzima was allowed by the Government to believe that the statement which he made to the effect that they were getting back land which was seized by the British, represented Government policy. Otherwise, why was this statement not repudiated? Can one then wonder why when one year later the Bill is before us, it has an open clause leaving the door open for further annexation of land and that as a result this claim is put into more specific terms as embracing the whole area between the Fish River and Zululand?

The hon. the Prime Minister replied to that statement on Friday. But what did he say? This, namely—

But this is not what he has always said, Mr. Speaker! Throughout the whole sorry history of this measure he has said that the Bantu would get what was theirs and that the Whites would get what was theirs. He said that where the Bantu had been established that would be their homeland and that where they had not been established, was the White man’s homeland. But now all of a sudden on Friday the Prime Minister has added a tail to his consistent attitude that the Blacks would get what was historically and traditionally theirs. Now he has added a tail to this by saying “and which they have now Let me go on to quote from the Prime Minister’s statement—

“Historic division” are the words quoted, Mr. Speaker. But when did history start? Did it start in 1936? Was there no history before 1936? What was the historic division of South Africa? Can hon. members opposite put a date on history and say that it started in 1936? On Friday the hon. the Prime Minister did not impose any limitations at all. He talked about “preserving this existing historic division”. But this “historic division” is a matter for varied interpretation. Yet the hon. the Deputy Minister talked here to-night about safeguards and security. What safeguards are there, Mr. Speaker, against the hunger for land, against the demands of a people for lebensraum? What safeguard is there other than the safeguard of force? There is only the safeguard of force and the hon. the Minister knows it.

But we cannot blame Kaiser Matanzima. We cannot blame him because it is this Government which has put him on this road and who has placed into his mouth the words which he is now uttering. Over the years we have heard bitter attacks on everything which was “Engels”. The “Engelse” were free game for everyone to attack. And there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that it is only natural for a person in close association with that, to accept that as an example and a lead. It is only natural for him to follow that line by saying that it is after all only the Britishers who live in Natal and in the Eastern Province and that it is they who have taken this from them. This is, in fact, what Kaiser Matanzima said because he said that this area was populated by the “racialistic Britishers”. Where did he learn this, Mr. Speaker? I charge the Government with having set him a pattern. I charge the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, amongst others, with having set the pattern which is being followed now. And if, Mr. Speaker, you should require me to give you final proof of this I should like to quote the hon. member for Aliwal. On 12 February, i.e. last month, he told the people of Mount Currie and Kokstad that they should not join Natal. He went on to say—

Mr. Botha said—

What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that Natal has no guarantee of remaining White. You only remain White if you remain in the Nationalist constituency of Aliwal otherwise why are Kokstad and Matatiele being warned not to join Natal? That is because if they do so there will be no guarantee that they will remain White. Does that not constitute a threat to Natal?