Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on page 34 of the Order Paper, as follows—

As I said yesterday the change, I feel, is not as necessary in the Afrikaans version of the Bill as it is in the English. In the Afrikaans version the word “voorgee” gives clear notice of the intention of the Bill, whereas in the English version of the Bill the word “purport” I believe is not strong enough to convey the intention which the Bill professes to convey, namely to curb the activities of people who falsely purport to represent the State. I believe that the amendment I have put strengthens the clause, that it creates greater clarity and if I might say so, if the hon. the Minister is unhappy with the word “falsely”, I would be quite happy if he incorporated the word “unauthorized” after the word “any” in clause 2. It would then read “any unauthorized person, or any person acting without authority”, so as to give greater clarity to the intention of the clause. At present, as the clause is worded in the English language it could in fact even affect people who are legitimately pursuing the objects of obtaining armaments for South Africa. I, therefore, move this amendment and ask that it be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, if I may comment on the previous speaker’s amendment, I must say that his proposal, especially in the Afrikaans version of the Bill, would water this clause down completely. This is an extremely difficult Bill to apply and if he adds the concept “falsely” to the concept “in any manner whatsoever purports”, it makes the matter exceedingly difficult. In this case it must not only be “purported”, but it must also be proved that it was “falsely” purported. For this reason I think it is impossible to add “falsely” to this. The idea behind this clause is that one should not purport, under any circumstances whether falsely or not. One may not purport. I think that this is the whole issue.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on page 34 of the Order Paper, as follows—

I think this is very clear. This merely extends the clause by also including someone who solicits an agency abroad, not only to buy armaments or information relating to armaments, but also if he solicits agencies for the delivery of armaments. This should also be punishable. I should like to suggest that the last portion of the amendment, after the word “armaments”—in other words, the words “or information obtained in respect of armaments”—be deleted in this connection.

After this change my amendment will therefore read as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Sandton that I have given very thorough consideration to his proposed amendment but I think that the entire context in which this clause must be read, is that the Act envisages preventing unauthorized persons from doing certain things. Furthermore it is stated in clause 2 that someone should purport to be a certain person. Now, if one purports to be someone which you are not, it is false. Consequently it is unnecessary to use a lot of adjectives to describe the word “purport”. According to my information this is completely sufficient.

He was still purporting to be a U.P. supporter when he was already a Prog.

The hon. the Prime Minister says the hon. member purported to be a U.P. supporter but is now a Prog. However, we are concerned with armaments now, but the hon. member can take it from me that if a man purports to be something, it is not genuine. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept his amendment. The hon. member for Wonderboom himself suggested the deletion of the last seven words of his amendment, viz. from “or information” to “armaments”. Therefore I am prepared to accept his, amendment, as moved.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to create a major argument over this one word, but the hon. the Minister is absolutely correct in his interpretation given to the word “voorgee”. “Voorgee” means to pretend, to feign, to simulate, to pretend that something is what, in fact, it is not. In the Afrikaans text the wording is entirely correct as printed, but in the English text the word “purport” does not necessarily mean to pretend. Someone who purports to do something may in fact be doing something. Someone who purports that a situation is a particular situation may find that that is in fact correct. It is for that reason that I feel that a word such as “unauthorized”, “falsely”, or “without authority” would give greater clarity to it.

However, it is not the job of the Opposition to persuade the Government, when it feels particularly strongly about a matter, that its legislation is incorrectly worded. It may be that if litigation arises out of this in years to come, one might find that it will be amended.

Amendment moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived.

Amendment moved by Mr. D. W. Steyn agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on page 34 of the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, to omit all the words after “any” in line 33 up to and including “Republic” in line 35 and to substitute:
   witness is required and the court is satisfied that the attendance of such witness in the Republic cannot be procured
2. (2) on page 5, in line 1, to omit “person” and to substitute “witness”;
3. (3) on page 5, to add the following proviso at the end of subsection (1):
   Provided that the person charged shall have been permitted to question the witness, and that any such questions and the answers thereto shall have been recorded by such officer.
4. (4) on page 5, in line 8 after “statement” to insert:
   and any such questions and answers

I do not propose to deal with this amendment at any length. I merely wish to indicate to the hon. the Minister something I mentioned yesterday, and that is that where a statement is taken in the presence of a charged person, or a person who can be charged, outside this country, that person should have the opportunity of putting questions to the deponent, and having those questions as well as the answers recorded. I suggested that yesterday and I do not want to repeat it at length. By doing that one strengthens the value of such a statement as evidence in a court of law in the Republic of South Africa. That is what is intended by this amendment, namely to give some more value to a statement deposed in a foreign country.

The point has been made that the court in any case has authority under the Criminal Code, and there is no need now to legislate specially to set up commissions or interrogatories, but in those cases the accused person does not necessarily have to be present when the evidence is taken in a foreign country. This Bill provides for a third type of evidence, i.e. a statement merely recorded in a foreign country. I believe that if in those circumstances the right to put a question and have an answer recorded is included, it will strengthen the value of the statement. I suggest that the position is simply that if a statement is recorded in the presence of the man charged and the man wants to give an alibi when he comes to trial, saying that he was not even in the town or city when he was supposed to have been involved in a certain transaction, the denial by him in the South African courts could be examined and tested as to whether or not he asked the deponent at the time he made the statement or whether he challenged that fact with the deponent at the time the statement was being recorded. It is for that reason that I have moved this amendment. No doubt the hon. the Minister will be guided by his legal advisers in this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on page 34 of the Order Paper, as follows—

In reacting to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Green Point I would like to say that they do assist the situation and should be accepted in the event of my amendment not being accepted. It is quite clear that any court constituted in terms of the legislation before us could invoke the Criminal Code; in other words, it could invoke the procedure relating to the taking of evidence on commissions or interrogatories. On the other hand, if this amendment is accepted, it would make such procedure mandatory, which I think is far stronger than simply allowing a situation to arise where it might be invoked. Secondly, if this procedure is adopted—i.e. allowing the Criminal Code to take effect—it would give a far greater value to the evidence which is placed before the court, as has already been said. I think that there are two advantages in the second amendment as against the amendments which were proposed by the hon. member for Green Point. These are marginal advantages but I would nevertheless like to put them to you. In terms of section 236 of the Criminal Code there is a right by the presiding officer to examine the person who is making the statement as he would be examined in a preparatory examination. This would allow a greater scope of examination and of evidence to be put in a statement to a court in this fashion. The second point is, that if one utilizes the Criminal Code in this fashion, it would allow of a full right of cross-examination and not only the odd questions that are being put through advocates, counsel or even through the party himself. Therefore I think that the two amendments as proposed do assist and add strength to the Bill. I do not think that they in any way vitiate the contents of the Bill at all.

Mr. Chairman, regarding the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Green Point, I just want to make a few remarks. We are all agreed that the implementation of this legislation, especially in regard to evidence in our courts, will be extremely difficult. We all agree on that. Therefore it is right that those provisions which seek to facilitate the process of testifying, have been framed as widely as possible. It is essential that as few limitations as possible be placed on the scope of, for instance, the availability of useful evidence. For that reason the provisions of the legislation have been framed as widely as possible and, as the provision reads at present, the evidence in the form of a statement of any person who is not available in the Republic may be admitted in court under certain circumstances. To my mind, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Green Point limits the scope of this provision solely to a person who will be used as a witness, whereas our specific aim is to bring before the court in the easiest way the evidence of a person who knows something about the case. We are here dealing with people who act unscrupulously, and for that reason we should make the task as easy as possible for the State by leaving the legislation as wide as possible. The accused cannot be prejudiced by this, and I believe that there is undoubtedly a possibility that the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point could impede the task of the State and for that reason I am unfortunately unable to support it.

Regarding the third amendment proposed by the hon. member for Green Point, the proviso which he wants included, namely that the accused should have the right to cross-examine the witness, I should like the hon. member to tell me why he is so concerned about the rights of the accused. After all the statement involved here is, in the normal course, subject to thorough study by the accused and his counsel. He may contradict any untruths in that statement by means of other evidence, be it by means of a statement or oral evidence. Above all, it is still for the court to decide whether it will admit that statement and also to decide on the weight or the value of the evidence in that statement. The accused is not prejudiced by this, and why would we now want to place these people in an advantageous position, such an advantageous position that they should have the right to cross-question the witness, say, for instance, abroad before a consular officer? This is unheard of and I do not think it will work. It places this type of person in a better position than, for example, our ordinary everyday criminals here in South Africa, concerning whom statements are made daily before the Police and who do not even know what is written in those statements before they get the opportunity to be informed about them in court. The normal procedure is that the authenticity of such a statement can be disputed in court and we should not make it quite so easy for the accused. For that reason I am unfortunately unable to support this amendment by the hon. member for Green Point either.

Regarding the hon. member for Sandton, just these few remarks. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the admissibility of evidence, the recording of evidence, etc., are in any case applicable in regard to any Act unless it is specifically prescribed or excluded, and this applies in this case as well. When the State testifies, the normal procedures and requirements have to be complied with. To my mind, clause 5(1) creates a further possibility, in addition to that normal procedure, of getting a statement before the court, which has been obtained in a specific prescribed manner. This is what the legislator has in mind. For that reason we too should let these provisions go through just as they are and we should not seek to introduce these provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is unnecessary and we should not make it even easier for these people who give us trouble. For that reason, too, we can unfortunately not support it.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Verwoerdburg has missed entirely the point which I tried to make. I was not in this first amendment trying to assist the accused person. The clause provides that the statement or the evidence of any person recorded in a certain way will be admissible in that recorded manner if the court is satisfied that the witness cannot be found and he is not available and his presence cannot be procured. In every case which comes before the court, before a judge or magistrate, the credibility of a witness is tested by his demeanour and his reaction under cross-examination and by matters of that nature. There is not a bald statement which is merely written down in a declaration or sworn statement of the facts that he wishes the court to accept. What I intended to do in my amendment was to say that if the accused person now chooses to contradict that statement, or the facts in that statement, at the trial, the judge has to say: “Do I now believe the accused, or do I believe the man I have not seen and whose statement I have in writing before me?” But if the accused makes a denial and did not avail himself of the opportunity of making that denial or of questioning the witness at the time the statement was recorded, the judge will ask why he did not question him at that stage. The judge will ask: “Why did you not ask this witness, because you were present at the time the statement was recorded?” To my way of thinking, it would give more credibility and more weight to the written statement if the accused has had the opportunity of denying it and confronting the witness and questioning him on that statement. It is for that reason that I move these amendments, and certainly not to help the accused. I was trying to give some weight to the written evidence in the circumstances when it might be required in a case of this sort. It might be the very basis of the prosecution. The judge may say that he cannot accept this written statement against the denial of the accused of facts which have not been substantiated by oral evidence before the court. It is for that reason that I have moved the amendment. I leave it in the hands of the hon. the Minister and his advisers, but I repeat that if this amendment is accepted, it will facilitate getting the acceptance of the evidence, rather than negativing its value.

Mr. Chairman, I think the key provision is contained in clause 5(4), which provides that “nothing in this section contained shall prejudice the admission as evidence of any statement which is admissible in evidence apart from this section”. This clearly refers to the alternative way of obtaining evidence in a trial of this nature. Hence it is also clear that there should be a particular way in which such evidence can be obtained. Now, the only way in which I know that such evidence can be brought before a court of law would be according to the provisions of sections 235 to 238 of the Criminal Procedure Act, read with the rules of the Supreme Court. Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act clearly provides that in the event of evidence obtained outside the Republic, the rules of the Supreme Court are applicable. Now, let us look at the rules of the Supreme Court. Rule 38(5) provides that unless the court ordering the commission directs such examination to be by interrogatories and cross-interrogatories, the evidence of any witness to be examined before the commission in terms of an order granted under … shall be adduced upon oral examination in the presence of the parties, their advocates and attorneys and the witness concerned, subject to cross-examination and examination. In other words, what clause 5(4) clearly says is that there is an alternative model. If we examine this alternative model, it is clear that what the hon. member for Green Point now wants us to do and to embody in this clause is already contained in the rules of court. In other words, it will be a duplication. It is therefore clear to us that a court of law will have two possible ways of obtaining evidence. Either evidence can be adduced according to the rules of court as already laid down in Rule 38, or it can follow the model laid down in this clause before the Committee. Then I also want to submit that a court of law may very well consider whether an accused has availed himself of the audi alteram partem rule or not, and I think that a court of law will be inclined to attach less weight to evidence obtained without cross-examination. Therefore I do not think the hon. member for Green Point should be unduly worried. The court of law will sort it out itself. It is a question of providing for another model, and I suggest that we leave it as it is in the clause, since the accused will be properly protected in terms of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Chairman, in the short time I have had at my disposal I have tried to obtain the necessary legal advice. I do not intend arguing with the legal men about how many angels are going to dance on the point of this needle, but my information is that this provision in clause 5 does not change the Criminal Procedure Act.

I accept that.

This merely creates a new instrument, an additional instrument.

That is of no value.

Now the hon. member says that that is of no value. It may be so, but if it is of no value, it is still not necessary for us to repeat what is laid down in the Criminal Procedure Act and cannot be destroyed in any event. Therefore, it seems to me that what the hon. member is proposing here now, is exactly the same as what is contained in the section. The second proposal is of a consequential nature. The third proposal of his does not fit in with the special provision of this extra measure. Consequently I regret that I am unable, with the advice at my disposal, to accept it. This also applies to the proposal of the hon. member for Sandton; provision already exists in the Criminal Procedure Act for this case.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. L. G. Murray negatived and amendments (2), (3) and (4) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this clause increases the number of chiefs from 69 to 70. The operative part seems to lie in the proposed paragraphs 1(b)(vii) and (viii). In respect of the Nyanda region, there was originally one chief in the district of Libode and two chiefs in the district of Ngqeleni. There is, in terms of this amendment, to be added one chief in the district of Port St. Johns. In addition, there were formerly six chiefs in the district of Bizana, three chiefs in the district of Flagstaff and one chief in the district of Lusikisiki. That has been altered to three chiefs in the district of Bizana and four chiefs in the district of Lusikisiki. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would tell us, in greater detail, what this entails as far as the administration of that area is concerned, and the extent of the consultation that has taken place to bring this about.

Mr. Chairman, this alteration is the result of a request from the Transkei Government and from the regional and tribal authorities in the areas concerned. The hon. member will see that in the Ngqeleni area—I am now referring to clause 1(b)(vii)—the total number is not being increased. It is merely a regrouping, as the hon. member himself termed it yesterday. This will comply better with the wishes of the local tribal and regional authorities, and for that reason it has been specified how the number of chiefs for that area will be allocated.

An increase has also been requested in respect of Port St. Johns, and I think this has to do with the addition of land from the Port St. Johns area to the Transkei. They would like to have one more chief there in order to give the chiefs in that particular area better representation.

Mr. Chairman, I am not rising to object to the clause, although I would probably have preferred the hon. the Minister to have gone much further, in amending the constitution of the Transkeian Assembly, than he has done in this particular clause. However, parity is certainly better than the situation which existed prior to the introduction of this clause. We personally would prefer to have an entirely elected Legislative Assembly for the Transkei, because in that way only it could be said to be truly democratic. Anyway, this is a step in the right direction …

Order!

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned last night, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had already made certain remarks concerning the legislation at present under discussion. The hon. member said that this Bill contained a number of clauses affecting various Acts and envisaging various amendments to Acts. Certain aspects of this legislation are very interesting and important. For the purposes of our discussion this afternoon during the Second Reading I think it would be as well for us to take a brief look at some of these aspects. My colleagues will also deal with certain aspects. I should like to dwell on a specific aspect of this legislation, viz. the provisions in the envisaged legislation concerning corporations. In the first place I think it is essential for us to distinguish at this stage between the various corporations. Use is made of the terms “investment corporation”, “development corporation” and also simply “a corporation”. Hon. members will know that certain guidelines were laid down in the past with regard to the development of industries and other smaller business organizations within the homelands. In the past such business organizations were for the most part handled by the Bantu Investment Corporation. We now have before us legislation providing that these corporations, too, may be financed in a certain manner. It is true that we must hold out the prospect of the Bantu Investment Corporation being for the most part a financing organization—with other activities, too, which I shall detail later—and that we shall then also have development corporations which we might just as well, for the sake of argument, call “national corporations”. These corporations will be concerned with the development of a homeland within a specific national context. In addition we have ordinary corporations as laid down in the legislation. These corporations exist as a result of the fact that the Bantu Investment Corporation or the development corporations may establish corporations to deal with a specific project. The work to be done by such a corporation does not fall entirely within the sphere of either the Bantu Investment Corporation or the development corporations. The ordinary corporations will be established with the principal aim of dealing with certain projects.

It is true that we can compare the activities of the three types of corporation with the Industrial Development Corporation in South Africa. The aim of the Industrial Development Corporation is to manage certain projects and one of the outstanding characteristics of its activities is to operate in areas which we may call “decentralized areas’’ with the aim of stimulating development there. Recently we have found that various national groups have established their own development corporations. I am referring now to the corporations which, for the sake of argument, I want to call “national corporations”. Thus we have found that the Government of Bophuthatswana has established the National Development Corporation of Bophuthatswana, the real aim of which concerns the development, at a wider level, of industries and other activities within the homeland concerned. The board of directors of the National Development Corporation of Bophuthatswana is also comprised of members of the Tswana national group and Whites, in fact on a 50-50 basis, because there are five White and five Black members. The Minister has the power to designate a chairman for the corporation. The five Black members are recommended by the legislative assembly of the homeland concerned, in this case Bophuthatswana. In fact, more than five people are recommended and of those recommended the Minister appoints five. A number of development corporations of this kind have already been established in the various homelands. Thus we have the Shangaan-Tsonga Development Corporations, the Venda Development Corporation and the Qua-Qua Development Corporation. In homelands such as Lebowa, KwaZulu, the Ciskei, the Transkei, Kavango and Owambo, national corporations are at the moment being formed. These national corporations will be concerned with development within the homelands, where the local inhabitants and the legislative assemblies have the say.

When one considers the situation, one sees that in the process the Bantu Investment Corporation reserves certain activities for itself. Thus the Bantu Investment Corporation reserves for itself activities such as transport and communication, agency agreements, specialized training, Bantu mining, financial projects and major agricultural projects, for example, the administration of the Zebedela Estates. However, it is important to note that the activities which the Bantu Investment Corporation reserves for itself will not necessarily continue to be retained when the Transkeian Development Corporation comes into being. We can take it that where a homeland Government such as that of the Transkei obtains its independence and a development corporation for the Transkei exists as proposed, all the activities of the Bantu Investment Corporation will be transferred to the Transkeian Development Corporation, with the exception of the administration of agency agreements. This approach is in full accord with the National Party’s policy as regards the establishment of independent homelands. And this, then, brings us to the situation in which we will see the Bantu Investment Corporation as a financing corporation, as a corporation which, owing to its technical and other knowledge, will act in an advisory capacity towards the national corporations. The national corporations, in their turn, will then be able to maintain a similar relationship with the ordinary corporations.

Another result of this legislation is that the corporations may be empowered to negotiate loans to enable them to obtain money to finance the development. The acquisition of money is something which will be dealt with for the most part by the Bantu Investment Corporation. From the Bantu Investment Corporation the money will be channelled to the national corporations and the ordinary corporations. In the process of the acquisition of money the Government of the Republic of South Africa will then be in a position to establish guarantees for the incurring of loans, etc., in regard to the corporations. Basically, therefore, all applications for funds will be dealt with by the Bantu Investment Corporation and from there the funds will be channelled to the national and ordinary corporations.

When we look at the process of development of corporate establishments within the Bantu homelands, it is clear that in the process we are undoubtedly opening up a new field for development within the Bantu homelands. This is a process which, on the one hand, represents a challenge to the inhabitants of a homeland since, through the corporations, they are going to acquire a joint say in the development of the homeland and while, on the other hand, the South African Government does not lose its say in the orderly utilization of capital for development within the homelands.

An outstanding picture is now unfolding before us in South Africa, because we have the bodies which concentrate on stimulating and financing development in the White area, there are also the bodies which finance and stimulate development in the border or decentralized areas and there are also those organizations which finance and stimulate development within the homelands. In the long term, as far as planning of the development situation as a whole in South Africa is concerned, this dispensation will create for us a fine system of interaction in our economic interdependency of states within the geographic unit of this African sub-continent. Considering it in this light, the legislation poses a challenge to us as Whites, too, a sweet aftertaste of what we in South Africa have tried to bring about over the years and it can only be the laying of a sound foundation for our future economic development. Consequently I want to express the confidence that the legislation and the arrangements which are now being effected will not only be beneficial, to White South Africa, but will be just as beneficial to the non-White states which are developing towards autonomy. Furthermore, I want to express the hope that this will eventually bear fruit in the field of economic co-operation in the interests of all of us living in the African sub-continent.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to follow the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke in his paean of praise for the magnificent work done by the investment corporations for the development of the homelands. I will not deny that they have certainly provided jobs—but far too few and far below the minimum number estimated by the Tomlinson Commission as required for the development of those homelands if the blueprint for separate development was to be a success. I leave him at that. Posterity will work out the economic cost to South Africa of developing jobs in the homelands of the African population as against the economic possibilities existing in the present industrial metropolitan areas. I think that all of us on this side are in favour of developing and encouraging the expansion of underdeveloped areas. However, there is also an economic cost which has to be reckoned with. I shall say nothing on that score.

Before I come to the Bill, I want to tell the new hon. Deputy Minister that I wish him well in his job. I hope very much that he is going to infuse a new spirit into the policy and implementation of policy of the National Party Government. Certainly he will get the full co-operation from us on these benches if he can bring a little imagination and perhaps a little flexibility into his method of implementing existing policy. He would receive even fuller encouragement from us if he would make some fundamental changes in policy as well. Yesterday the hon. the Minister stated that he was pleased at the unexpected brevity and tone of my speech. Maybe the hon. the Deputy Minister will also experience a feeling of unexpected pleasure this afternoon at the tone and brevity of the speech I am going to make on this Bill. However, I want to tell him and his colleague, the hon. the Minister, that the tone and the brevity of the speeches from these benches depend entirely on the content of the Bills the Government presents us with. If the Bills are acceptable, the tone of our speeches will duly reflect that, but if they are not, I am afraid we shall have to oppose them with all the vehemence at our command.

We are not going to oppose the Bill before us at Second Reading. We believe there are aspects of it which can be discussed at the Committee Stage, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana also indicated yesterday. We do not think there is any new principle in this Bill that requires our opposition. The Bill is in fact no worse, or no better, than the existing Bantu laws. It does not introduce any very fundamental changes. I was hoping for at least one fundamental change. I must say that I was falsely optimistic when, on taking a first glance at clauses 1 and 2, I saw that the Natal Code of Bantu Law was being repealed. I thought that the Government was at last taking cognizance of the very real difficulties African women experience as the result of the Natal Code of 1891. The hon. the Deputy Minister may remember that I raised this matter last year in a private member’s motion and asked whether the Government would give consideration to introducing changes to the Natal Code which would materially affect the status of African women. At present they are perpetual minorities in law, being permanently under the guardianship of a male, be it the father, the husband, a son or the head of the kraal. At the time the hon. the Minister stated, somewhat pompously, I thought, that it was of course, not for the Government to interfere with the traditions of the Bantu people, as he put it. That is really a joke, if one considers that the Government does nothing but interfere with the manner in which the Africans have to conduct their lives from the cradle to the grave. The hon. the Minister went on to say—I have his quote here—that he would be willing to pilot legislation through for Bantu people if they showed him—

I am referring to the hon. the Minister of Justice now—

I should like to inform the hon. the Deputy Minister that the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly appointed a Select Committee to go into the whole question of the Natal Code of Bantu Law. The Select Committee produced a fat report which made something like 13 recommendations which would mean very fundamental alterations to the Code if the Government were to implement those recommendations. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has seen that report. If he has not, I would be glad to lend him a copy so that he can examine it. He will see that the recommendations are very firm in so far as they want the repeal of those sections that keep the African women in Natal …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Why was a copy of the report to which the hon. member is referring sent to her?

I asked for it.

You knew about it?

Of course I knew about it. The information was published in every newspaper in the country. I read The World—that is news to the hon. the Minister—and I read other newspapers as well. Every newspaper stated that file Select Committee’s report was being published. I wonder whether the hon. member sees something sinister in this. Perhaps it was a communist who sent it to me. It is just possible, seeing as there are communists everywhere. Naturally, they would send it to me. I am glad the hon. member is laughing, anyway. As I was saying, this report has been made public and, indeed, it is in fact summarized in a journal I have here. Oh dear, I should not tell them this: It is a “journal of liberal and radical opinion”.

Oh?

My word, yes! The journal is called Reality. Anyway, it analyses the contents of the Select Committee report and it makes it very clear that the Select Committee recommended, as I say, fundamental changes. Just to quote one paragraph: “We feel that vast changes in the law are necessary to take cognizance of urbanization and the socio-economic inroads it has made in the social structure and the acceptance of Christianity by a large section of Zulus”. The article goes on to say—

This is not an actual quote, it is an analysis—

May I say to the new hon. Deputy Minister that he would go down in history with a star against his name if he would be the Minister who introduced in this Parliament changes to the Natal Code and specifically the repeal of the objectionable sections of that law so as to alter entirely the status of the Zulu women and all women who fall under the Natal Code. I must remind the House that, for reasons known best to itself and certainly to no one else, that code was extended to cover the women in the Transvaal as far as permission to remarry is concerned. The result is that an adult female, who has probably been the head of a household in Soweto for many years and has lost all contact with her homeland, has to seek out some male guardian she has never seen in her life before and obtain his permission if she wishes to remarry. It is palpably absurd.

How many women served on that Committee?

I do not know, but I shall find out and let the hon. member know. Certainly, I should think, it was more than the number of women the Government put on the commission of inquiry into abortion, or if not more, at least the same number; not less, I should say! Unfortunately, when one examines clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill more closely, one finds that no changes are being brought about at all. Obviously there has been some legal mix-up over the years with the schedule to the original Act and some repealing Act, and now this provision is simply setting the position right. The Natal Code is being maintained in its entirety. I do hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give this House the assurance that he will look at the Natal Code and examine the recommendations of the Select Committee of the KwaZulu Assembly. I do not know if those recommendations have yet been accepted by the Assembly itself, but that, too, is easily ascertained. If that proves to be the case, I hope he will come to this House with the necessary amending legislation which, I can assure him, we will support most enthusiastically. That is all I want to say about clauses 1 and 2.

I now want to say a bit about clauses 4 and 6. This is not proving to be such a brief speech after all; I am sorry about that. Clauses 4 and 6 are really the two most important clauses in this Bill; anyway, that is how we see it. They are the clauses that make it possible for land that has not yet been acquired by the Trust to meet the quota, to be acquired and handed over to the homelands after independence. That, according to the explanatory memorandum, is the gist of it. We are wholly in favour of this, because as far as we are concerned, all the land which had been promised to the African people under the 1936 Act, should have been acquired by the Africans years ago. To think that 40 years have elapsed since the Act was passed which laid down the acquisition of that additional land to be added to the 1913 allocation, yet there are still areas which have not been acquired by the African people. There can be no excuse for this dilatoriness. As far as we are concerned, we have absolutely no objection against the handing over of this land after the homelands have acquired independence, at least to those who do become independent. We a have always taken up that attitude and, of course, we take it up now.

I was very interested to hear the hon. member for Umhlatuzana yesterday. I have his speech here, because I could not believe my ears. I thought that may be I had misunderstood what he said. But not at all. This is what the hon. member said about those two clauses. He said (unrevised Hansard, p. Y4)—

Whereupon I said: “That is a very new line.” He proceeded by saying—

Well, I can only say that it is because I have been in this House for so long that I do know what the policy of the U.P. was, and it is because that hon. member was not in the House in 1958 and 1959 that he evidently does not know what the policy of his party was. I would like to remind him. I would like to remind him of the words of his own leader, because he obviously will not take my word for it. I cannot see how he could very well disagree with the words of his own leader. These are the words that were uttered by his leader shortly after the break took place at that infamous Bloemfontein convention of 1959, where the Douglas Mitchell resolution was moved, with which we disagreed profoundly—those who are now on these benches and those who eventually left to form the Progressive Party. It was all about that; it was all about the acquisition of land for the Bantustans when they became independent.

I am going to read the explanation given by his hon. leader, a direct quotation—

Which, I may point out, it is not today. [Interjections.] It is better to miaow than to pretend to be a watch-dog and have no bite. I continue with this quotation—

What are we doing today? We are voting for land which is going to be purchased to become part of independent Native States, to be handed over to those States when they become independent. I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had some traumatic experiences over the last year or so, and he must be more careful when he pulls me up on the policy of his party, to which I belonged long before he went into politics.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether she favours the policy of separate development?

This is not what is in question.

I asked you the question.

No, of course I don’t. I thought I had made that clear to the hon. member. Good Lord, he has been listening to me for how many years. Either I am a very bad explainer of the policy that we have, or he never listens to what I have to say, or, if he does, he does not understand it. I am against the policy of separate development, and my party has been and always was. But even when we were inside the United Party we were in favour of the fulfilment of the promises made in 1936, whether or not the Government turned those Bantustans or Native reserves, or whatever you wish to call them, into independent States. That is a promise which cannot be violated. It will have to be carried out.

What then is the difference between your point of view and mine?

The difference between my point of view and your point of view is nil today, but it was very different in 1959, and that is what I am trying to point out to the hon. member. It may even have been different two years ago; I am not too sure what the policy of the United Party was then, because it changes with such amazing rapidity that it is not easy to keep up with. [Interjections.] I can tell the hon. member one thing, however. For him to say to me yesterday, as he did, that when I was in the thick of the struggle with his former leader in Natal, Mr. Douglas Mitchell, his party was and has always been in favour of handing over more land, even if the homelands became independent, is nonsense—“twak” since he has become so bilingual. That is all I want to say about that subject. I want to put the record straight on the question of those two clauses.

The rest of the Bill can largely be discussed during the Committee Stage. I want finally to say to the hon. member that I am glad that the United Party is coming along so nicely in this direction, and I believe that today not even that great Natal patriot, the hon. member for Durban Point, will call out the commandos to invade the independent homelands in order to take back the land which as was given to them under the 1936 legislation. The rest of the Bill we can discuss in the Committee Stage. At this stage I merely want to repeat what I had said in the the commandos to invade the independent homelands in order to take back the land which as was given to them under the 1936 legislation. The rest of the Bill we can discuss in the Committee Stage. At this stage I merely want to repeat what I had said in the beginning, i.e. that we on these benches will not be opposing the Bill.

The hon. member for Houghton has produced some limited proof to show that she too can sometimes act sensibly, and in so far as she has shown this, we wish to thank her. However, she has spoilt this by her sharp attack concerning the rights of the women, of the Black women in Zululand. She quoted from the report of the commission in this respect. She knows that, according to an answer which she received during the sitting of this House, the Government of KwaZulu has not yet thought fit to bring the report of that commission to the attention of this Government. The hon. member is inclined to presume that she has the right to speak on behalf of certain people for whom she does not have a mandate. We have once again had proof, in this section of her speech, of the fact that she assumes the right of presenting an ardent plea here on behalf of the Black women, of Zululand in particular, and of South Africa in general. This Bill which is before us, the policy of the Government and the legislation of the particular department which is piloted through this Parliament from time to time, are always creating new channels and enlarging existing ones in order to make it more effective for the Black man to speak for himself. I feel that it is time that the hon. member, as well as other members of her party, took note of the fact that the Black man is equipped to negotiate with the Government himself. They should rather confine themselves to the particular mandate which they have received from their voters, namely the representation of the interests of their voters. No matter how often she speaks on behalf of the Black man of South Africa, giving herself the right to do so, this does not alter the fact that the power structures which have been created for the Black man are evolving, developing, becoming meaningful and offering effective platforms for the Black leaders who are chosen by their own people. She should note that this is a matter which is pre-eminently suited for discussion on an election platform in KwaZulu. This is a matter for a party which asks the voters of KwaZulu to express themselves, which says that it wants to alter the rights of the women. When the Transkei receives its independence, it will also have the right to bring about alterations in its traditional law, which we have allowed it to maintain up to now. A further aspect which emerges from this part of the hon. member’s speech is her lack of sensitivity—which she shares with the other members of her party—for the traditions of the Bantu and for that which the Bantu hold dear. Just as she has spoken disparagingly about a deep, strong foundation of Bantu law, so they disparage the love which the Bantu person has for his traditions, his language and for everything which belongs to him and is unique to him. This is the basic mistake which that party makes in its approach to the Black man and that is why it and its policy will never govern South Africa.

†The clauses contained in this Bill can be divided into three distinct categories. Firstly, there is a number of clauses which are directed at eliminating certain anomalies in existing legislation or at the ordination of the law in a clearer and more workmanlike manner. The second category is aimed at simplifying existing procedures and thus ensuring effective and speedy administration of the law to the benefit of all people involved. The third category some way or the other extends the power of homeland Governments, or the powers of the South African Government, to ensure that the homelands will benefit by consolidation or homeland development. Against this background it is clear that this is a positive Bill in all senses of the word, a Bill which can be regarded as yet another step in the unfolding of the pattern in South Africa, a pattern in which the different Black nations are moving towards independence and self-determination in the fullest sense. It is a Bill which eliminates unnecessary red tape, thereby ensuring more effective administration. It is a Bill which clarifies the law on certain points, thereby eliminating misunderstanding.

The sum total of this Bill is that it improves the practical and successful implementation of the policy of separate development, and it is the conviction of this Government that we will move ahead with the implementation of this policy at full speed and to the best of our ability.

*I want to say a few words about one of these categories. One of the categories of clauses in this Bill ensures certainty in law, either by simplifying existing legislation or by promoting simplification of legal procedures. We can consider clause after clause. In clauses 1 and 2 we find that matters are being simplified in the sense that the reference list of South African law is being reduced. This will make it easier for the student, the academic and the politician to find references and to refer to provisions in Bantu law as applicable to Natal.

In clauses 23 to 28 the principle is embodied that all proclamations should rather be tabled in Parliament in terms of one legal provision and that unnecessary administration should be eliminated by removing the need for the duplication concerning proclamations which has occurred up to the present.

In clauses 7, 8 and 11 provision is made for the delegation of the powers of the Minister to officials, for the powers of the Cabinet to be replaced and for the Minister to obtain special powers. This delegation or transfer of power from the State President to the Minister eliminates loss of time and ensures greater effectivity. I want to emphasize that the hon. the Minister still remains responsible and that none of these amendments detract either from the right of the Opposition to call the hon. the Minister to account in the House of Assembly or from the duty of the hon. the Minister to account in the House for what he has done. Delegation is an art, and the good administrator knows how to delegate. This does not create any obligation to delegate, but only the right to do so. I expect that a fuss will be made about this, and that members will say: “How can we trust the Minister? We have greater confidence in the Cabinet, and if powers are delegated to officials, it should be done by the Minister rather than by the officials.” I can understand that there will be concern about this on the part of the Opposition, because year after year what little delegation they have here as far as debates are concerned, leads to ruptures and splits in their party. If one does not have the confidence to delegate in the political sphere, then surely one will have no confidence in delegation in the administrative sphere. Delegation is essential for efficiency, and from time to time we must try to increase efficiency in our administration. Throughout this whole Bill one finds improvements in procedure in order to bring about better administration. Clauses 16 and 25 are examples of this. In this way the anomaly is eliminated in terms of which the legislative assembly of a homeland would ask if this or that could be amended, and the Minister would then be forced to return to them and say: Well, you have asked us to amend this; what do you yourselves think of the amendment you have asked for? Here was an anomaly which is now being put right and where unnecessary red tape is being eliminated. Clauses 17 and 21(a) eliminate confusion in terminology and bring about certainty in law because here it is being established beyond all doubt who is responsible for which roads in a specific area. In conclusion: Clauses 18, 19, 26 and 27 bring about a rectification of the uncertainty in law which existed as a result of the simultaneous legislative authority which a legislative assembly possesses and the necessary executive authority which stems from this.

The overall effect of this measure, therefore, is that we have here a Bill which, besides the aspect which has already been dealt with by my hon. colleague and besides aspects which will be dealt with by a colleague who will speak after me, has as its outstanding characteristic the fact that it is aimed at ensuring certainty in law, at improving administrative procedures and at ensuring the successful and speedy application of the policy of the government of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Vereeniging with great respect and in the course of my speech will refer to some of his remarks, as well as remarks made by the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Schweizer-Reineke. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana announced that we on this side supported the principle of the Bill, that we were not going to oppose it at the Second Reading. The PRP, through the hon. member for Houghton, did the same. And now it seems to me that we are carrying on and on talking about matters on which we all agree. In all honesty, to me it seems a waste of the time of this House.

Actually, I want to concentrate on a few points on which there could possibly be a difference in emphasis, but actually with a view to requests I want to put to the Deputy Minister with a view to the consideration of certain aspects at the Committee Stage. Here I want to associate myself with the good wishes expressed yesterday by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana towards the hon. the Deputy Prime Minister in his new capacity and I should like to wish him everything of the best. [Interjections.] I mean the hon. the Deputy Minister. Mr. Speaker, we support the Bill in principle.

Now I want to deal with clauses 1 and 2 and in this connection I want to say that, in spite of what the hon. member for Vereeniging has said, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Houghton in connection with the necessity of taking another look at the Natal Code of Bantu Law. Sir, I want to remind you that when a private motion was introduced in this House last year, moved by the hon. member for Houghton, I associated myself with her plea that the position in law of Bantu women, and particularly that in terms of the Natal Code, be taken into reconsideration.

May I ask the hon. member if he would be so kind as to tell us whether he has had any consultations with Zulu women, so that he can make statements here on their behalf?

If the hon. member for Vryheid will give me the chance to finish my story, he will see what the position is. I have not even begun my story yet.

†Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to say is that we have to bear in mind the whole history of the Natal code of Native law. I am not interested in attacking the Government. I am not attacking the Government when I say these things. I say this for the information and edification of the honorary member for Vryheid … Sony, the hon. member. Sir, you will recall that the Natal code of Native law resulted from the episode of Langalibalele. Langalibalele was summoned by Theophilus Shepstone to appear before him because he disobeyed certain instructions given by Shepstone in his capacity as supreme chief of the Bantu in Natal. Langalibalele was fined and this caused a tremendous furore in the whole of Natal, actually also in the United Kingdom. The case of Langalibalele was taken up by Bishop Colenso. The basic objection of Bishop Colenso was that Shepstone in his capacity as supreme chief, combined the powers of the judiciary, the executive and the legislature, and he said that that kind of symbiosis was not tolerable in our situation. Now, as you know, Sir, in primitive societies right throughout the world there is no division between the executive and the legislative and the judiciary, as we have it. The same people are responsible for performing the various functions. I must say that I sometimes gain the impression that we are reverting to the primitive concept when we see what judicial and other functions Houses of Parliament sometimes want to take upon themselves. However, that is neither here nor there. The result of this was that there was such an uproar, created by Bishop Colenso, that the decision was taken to separate the judicial from the legislative and executive functions. The result of that was that it was decided to place the application of Bantu Law in the hands of either judges or magistrates of the Department of Justice and no longer in the hands of the Department of Native Affairs, as it was called in Natal. This necessitated the drawing up of a code, which was quite unnecessary in the time of Shepstone because Shepstone knew the Bantu and he knew their legal system. But the moment it was decided to transfer the judicial administration to magistrates of the Department of Justice, it became necessary to draw up a code in order to enable those magistrates to apply that Bantu law. The decision to separate the functions and to draw up this code led directly to the resignation of Shepstone as Secretary for Native Affairs, as he was then called, in Natal. The result, I can only say, and I think there is a causal connection, was that Shepstone, a man of tremendous ability, had his hands free. He had nothing to do, with the result that in 1876 he invaded and annexed the Transvaal, upon which followed the first war of independence in 1880 to 1881. In any event, a code was then drawn up. Originally the intention was that this code should simply be used as a manual, as a handbook, and not as a code, not as a binding legal instrument. Naturally, when it was first used in Natal in 1879 it was used simply as a manual, as a handbook, and not as a code. It only became a binding code—in other words, obligatory—in 1891. What I want to say is that that code has remained practically unchanged since it was drawn up in 1875. It is essentially old, and with all the changes that have come about in our society and in Black society, it stands to reason that the code as it was drawn up can no longer in all its details be applied to the people in the circumstances of today. I think the hon. member for Vereeniging will agree with me that it is extremely dangerous to have a situation where people in actual practice, in the realities of life, follow certain precepts and concepts which they regard as binding whereas the official legal system says something totally different. From that point of view alone I think it is essential that we should try to determine to what extent the code today reflects what is actually happening in Bantu society in Natal. [Interjections.] I say that because I know that in the dealings between Africans in urban areas they apply, very often, concepts that do not fit into the pattern of traditional Bantu law. I further want to say that the whole concept of a binding code is a difficult matter. May I remind the House that in South Africa we only have two codes. The one is the civil code of Bantu law which is only applicable to Natal, and the other is the Transkei penal code. In our White legal system we have not even gone so far as codification, because we know what the disadvantages of codification are. I believe it was basically an error of judgement, a grave mistake, which was made in the last century, to try to codify Bantu law. The situation obtaining in the rest of the Republic, in the other three provinces outside Natal, is simply that the Bantu Affairs Commissioner has the discretion, in terms of section 11 of the Bantu Administration Act, to apply Bantu law. When you have a binding code there is no discretion. The magistrate must apply what is indicated in that code. I want to reiterate that I do not believe that it is in the interests of the Bantu of South Africa to have a binding code at all. That also goes for Natal, because a binding code can never reflect what happens in actual society itself. From that point of view alone I would respectfully submit that I think it is the duty of the department at least to investigate the advisability of keeping the code as such, as against the discretionary powers contained in section 11 of Act 38 of 1937. I want to add that when of course the code was drawn up in 1875, it did not even reflect pure Bantu law. There are countless provisions in that code which have nothing to do with Bantu law at all. They are innovations based on our White concepts, of what ought to be and what ought not to be. Furthermore, that code does not even reflect the law of all the Bantu peoples in Natal. Hon. members will recall that at that stage Zululand had not even been annexed to Natal yet. That only occurred later. In other words, it cannot even be said that the code as such, binding as it is on the whole of Natal, reflects the total Bantu law of Natal itself. In these circumstances, I do hope—and that is why I am raising the matter—that the hon. the Deputy Minister will at least consider investigating this situation in this context and also the report to which the hon. member for Houghton has referred. I know of the investigations of the commission but I have not seen the report myself. I am therefore not in a position to comment on the actual contents of the commission’s report. However, the need for a review of the situation is, to my mind, quite self-evident. I really think that the practical situation amongst Black people demands today an investigation into the applicability of the Natal Code.

I now want to pass on to some of the other clauses. I wish to touch upon clauses 4 and 6. I deprecate the fact that the hon. member for Houghton found it necessary to introduce what I regard as a party political debate in respect of an issue where such debate was, in my view, completely uncalled for. I therefore have no intention of reacting to her comments in that respect.

I do, however, want to raise a question with the hon. the Deputy Minister in connection with clause 6. I wish to do so for the sake of clarification and I hope he will be able to give us such clarification in the Committee Stage. My question relates to clause 6(1)(b). In an area like the Transkei, for example, there are properties belonging to Whites. For example, I have in mind places in Umtata and other villages. If my interpretation of “properties belonging in ownership to Whites” is correct, will this mean that those properties, which may remain in the hands of Whites, will in terms of clause 6(1)(b) be regarded as quota land? If this is so, while they still remain the property of Whites, it will mean, in actual fact, a diminution of the quota provisions of the Act of 1936.

I think my colleague, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, has indicated that in respect of clause 10 he would like to ask a few questions, particularly about why particular hours have been laid down for the eating houses.

The next clause I want to deal with is clause 11. My colleague has indicated that we are not happy at having the powers—particularly those contained in section 20 of the Bantu Labour Act—exercised by an official of the department. We shall come back to that later.

I sincerely welcome clauses 12 and 13.

*I want to follow up on the remarks made by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. I am grateful to him for having sketched for us what the Government is planning to do in respect of the national corporations. In its report, the Tomlinson Commission recommended the establishment of a development corporation, not an investment corporation, as long ago as 1955. Unfortunately this recommendation in the Tomlinson Report was rejected at the time. I am convinced that if that recommendation had been accepted and if we had established a development corporation, and not an investment corporation, in terms of that recommendation of the Tomlinson Commission, we would have been at a much more advanced stage of the economic development of the Bantu homelands today. I therefore welcome these changes which are taking place, i.e., the establishment of their own national development corporations as well as the establishment of corporations. We are grateful, since we have been pleading for many years that the Blacks from the homelands themselves be represented on the boards of these corporations. Yet it is still not clear to me at all why we cannot have Blacks in the BIC itself. The fact that the BIC is not attached to any particular homeland, simply does not constitute an argument for the exclusion of Blacks from the board. However, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether we can continue indefinitely with the provision that only the BIC or the development corporation can be shareholders in any of these bodies. In my opinion there is merit in the consideration of possibly involving other shareholders in these corporations.

I now want to refer to clause 29. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that we were aware of the problem of the size of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. However, I want to remind the House that when the Bantu Affairs Administration Bill was introduced in this House, it was very clearly stated that although urban Bantu administration would be taken away from the urban local authorities, and that new bodies would be established, the bond with the urban local authorities would be maintained. As the hon. member for Umhlatuzana pointed out, all the urban local authorities—as defined in the Act—would have had to be represented on each of those boards. It was apparently not clear at that stage that these Administration Boards would cover such large areas as is the case at the moment. At an early stage it became obvious that the undertaking given that all urban* local authorities would be represented on the boards, was, in fact, impractical because of the large area that had to be covered by these boards. This is quite understandable and logical. Therefore we changed over from urban local authorities to magisterial districts. It appears, however, that there are even too many magisterial districts, and that is the reason for the advisability of this amendment being moved. Apparently this does not, however, apply to all Administration Boards. I know that this provision is permissive and not restrictive. The Minister may stipulate how many there should be. What we are really seeking, however, is an assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister that where it is not necessary—for example on the East Rand and the West Rand—this section will not be applied. I only mention it because I think it is a valid point. All of us welcomed that Act in certain respects, even though we questioned it in other respects. The advantage of the old system, with all its weaknesses, was that a large number of local people were concerned with the administration of the Bantu in the cities. They were people who lived in the area, whether it was Paarl, Klerksdorp, Potchefstroom or wherever. The City council—and indirectly the public—had the greatest interest in what went on in that local urban Bantu area. The system had its disadvantages, but it also had its advantages because those people had a great interest in the welfare of the inhabitants. This interest was in regard to housing, social welfare services, supervision of officials, decent treatment of Blacks and so forth. That bond has now been broken and although this has obviously involved advantages, it has also involved major disadvantages because all the interest that there was on the part of the public via the local authorities, has been lost in the process. I think that this is a disadvantage for South Africa as we cannot afford to lose that interest. We should not, therefore, take the matter further unnecessarily and convert the whole system of Bantu Administration Boards into what is becoming, namely a completely bureaucratic institution which in practice—unfortunately I have to say this—often does not take human dignity into account, or so it seems to me—this is also the impression one gains from the reaction of employers and Black workers.

With the Committee Stage in mind, I shall be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister will give attention to the points I have mentioned. I want to confirm once again, as my hon. colleague has said, that we support the Bill in principle.

Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying to see that the United Party as well as the Progressive Party supports the Second Reading of the Bill.

Say thank you.

Yes, we are thankful for it. It is also gratifying because it constitutes a further improvement in our existing legislation for the implementation of our policy of separate development. These two parties are now contributing in a very positive way towards the improvement of our policy and the improvement of the legislation. We have even come so far that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked the hon. member for Houghton whether she believed in separate development. We have come a long way and we believe that a time will come when the opposing parties will accept that this aspect of Bantu policy, just as in the case of foreign affairs, must be taken out of the sphere of party politics and be treated on the basis of separate development on an all party basis.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat presented us with a history lesson and in the process demonstrated to us how close he still is to his kindred spirit, the hon. member for Houghton. He made further mention of the code and requested the hon. the Deputy Minister to look at the Code once again. However, one important point which the hon. member is forgetting is that if there is to be any amendment to this type of Bill it must, after all, come from the people themselves and must not be forced upon them from above. The hon. member also referred to the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards and I shall deal with this in the course of my argument.

I want to look at a few of the provisions of the Bill in the public interest because I think it is essential that we take note of these matters. I am referring to clauses 9 and 10. As hon. members know, section 5(1)(a) of the Bantu Beer Act stipulates that a general dealer outside an urban area as well as a general dealer within a prescribed area outside the area of jurisdiction of a municipal council, a borough council, a town council, a village council, a town board, a village management board, a local board, a health board or a health committee may sell Bantu beer with the written authorization of the Minister. The type of dealer who has this right is therefore limited in number and for this reason it is gratifying to see that it is now being provided that an employer of more than 25 Bantu over the age of 18 years may also acquire the right to sell beer. This means that in certain cases farmers will also be able to acquire this right.

As far as clause 10 is concerned, Bantu eating-houses also gain more or less the same privileges as those of a licensed restaurant in regard to the sale of intoxicating liquor. It is as well that this should be so, because the Bantu may now have the opportunity to consume this liquor under more sophisticated circumstances. Furthermore, we must bear in mind that to the Bantu, Bantu beer is actually a food. It is therefore right and good that only the beer of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards and Corporations will be made available in this way, because this guarantees consistently high quality. In addition this beer is popular and the hygienic conditions under which it is manufactured, are guaranteed. It will also increase the income of these bodies, and this will have the effect of limiting tax increases. In the end, this income is to the ultimate advantage of the Bantu.

†The hon. member for Umhlatuzana mentioned that the contents of clauses 29 and 30 will be further argued in the Committee Stage. He indicated that there were certain advantages attached to the clauses but that the machinery to be adopted will have the result that the municipalities will lose some of their representatives on the boards. He said that this will affect the municipalities adversely. I suggest that the advantages outweigh any possible disadvantages which may exist in the minds of hon. members on the opposite side. In the first place the hon. the Minister is not restricted to the appointment of only one member from the category contemplated in section 11(1)(e) of Act 45 of 1971. The hon. the Minister may appoint one or more members from these bodies. In the second instance the proposed measure further ensures that members appointed from the different sections are selected on an equal footing; in other words, one or more from the agricultural sector, one or more from commerce and industry, one or more from local authorities and one or more from the State. This restores the equilibrium. Furthermore, in the third place—I am referring particularly to the Cape—there are on an average approximately 20 local authorities and, what is more, several divisional councils within the administrative area of a board. The board for the Karoo area, for instance, stretches from Victoria West to Knysna and Plettenberg Bay and from Colesberg to Humansdorp. The meetings are held in Graaff Reinet. Similarly one has to deal with areas from Worcester to Upington and from Upington to the Transvaal border. It is self-evident that it will have an unwieldy and clumsy effect if all these local authorities have to be taken into consideration.

I now come to the fourth point. A member receives R25 plus travelling expenses per meeting and if he is absent from his home for more than 12 hours, he gets further allowance of 64c per hour. A board meeting could therefore cost the board in the vicinity of R900. It accordingly affects adversely precisely those people whom the legislation seeks to assist.

There is also a fifth point. Section 3(2)(c) of Act 45 of 1971 remains in force in that these members are still to be selected by the Minister from a list of names submitted to him by the local authorities and in that individual municipalities retain their right to make recommendations.

As far as the points raised by the hon. member for Edenvale are concerned, he said: “The bond which exists between these boards and also between the Bantu and the city councils is in the process of dissolving.”

*I wish to maintain precisely the opposite, namely that there is indeed a very close bond between the people attached to the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards and the Bantu served by them, but what is more, also between them and the municipalities who previously dealt with the affairs of the Bantu. Furthermore, there is a large number of people who were previously employed by the town council and who now work for the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. I wish to make the point that representatives of municipalities and also of Bantu Affairs Administration Boards tend to be prejudiced to a certain extent in favour of the particular municipality which represents them and as a result tend to lose sight of the interests of the whole community which that Bantu Affairs Administration Board serves. One notices from the minutes of these meetings that representatives of the municipalities often express their gratitude for certain privileges which are granted to that specific region by the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. The possibility therefore arises that the whole area will suffer while parts of it will benefit. Under the circumstances, as the speakers who have preceded me have done, I wish to welcome and support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to thank both parties on the other side of the House for their support for the Second Reading of this Bill. I also want to thank the hon. members for Umhlatuzana, Houghton and Edenvale for their congratulations on my appointment. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana and also the other hon. members did it in a very good spirit and I want to say that I appreciate it. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana expressed the hope that I would cooperate closely with the Black people of South Africa. I should like to give him the assurance that it is my intention to do so.

*The hon. member for Edenvale made a slip when he congratulated me on my appointment as “Deputy Prime Minister”. I hope that that slip which came from the hon.member’s heart was an indication of the respect he will show me in the future.

If you deserve it you will get it.

The hon. member for Houghton went a little further. She spoke very nicely to me and almost praised me. Eventually I wondered what was going on: I wondered whether she was not perhaps stalking me or setting a trap for me. That is in fact what occurred then. In the first instance she said that she hoped I would tackle the implementation of the National Party’s policy in a new spirit. I want to tell her that we on this side of the House steadfastly believe that the National Party’s policy is the policy which offers everyone in South Africa the best opportunities to maintain respect for one another now and in the distant future. That is why the spirit of the National Party is a sound spirit, also as regards the Black people of South Africa. The hon. member should not labour under the delusion that there is a bad spirit. She went even further and said that she hoped that I would even introduce fundamental changes. I appreciate the fact that she expects such great things of me. However, I want to tell the hon. member, who is experienced in politics that she really should not come to this House to recruit for her party. People could begin to think she had no-one else to recruit outside this House if she came and did it here.

I should like to convey my sincere thanks for the contributions made by hon. members on this side of the House who have supported this Bill. I refer to the hon. members for Schweizer Reneke, Brakpan and Vereeniging. They demonstrated that what is being done in South Africa and the policy that is being followed is yielding positive results and that spectacular progress is being made.

Not a great deal remains for me to reply to. The most important matter is the Natal Code of Bantu Law. In this regard the hon. member for Houghton herself mentioned that a Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly of KwaZulu investigated this matter. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether she thinks it would be fair if I were to say in reply to her request—she did in fact address such a request to me—that I would change the Natal Code without giving the Legislative Assembly of KwaZulu the opportunity to make a pronouncement in this regard or address a request to me, however it may want to do it. If we were to do this, then surely this would be a blatant form of imperialism. Surely we would not be respecting the highest authority of the people and taking its feelings into account if we were to do that. That is why I want to tell the hon. member that in spite of all the good things she has said to me, and, I am tempted to say, in spite of my admiration for her political skill, I cannot allow her to lead me astray and cause me to do anything of the kind. We shall wait until the supreme authority in KwaZulu, viz. the Legislative Assembly of KwaZulu, has made a request to that effect and then we shall take the wishes of those people into account because the only mouthpiece of that people is that body which has been established by themselves.

With regard to clause 6, the hon. member for Edenvale referred to the land in the Transkei which still belongs to Whites. As the hon. member knows, the land, which is situated in a scheduled area, will not be affected by this. However, according to the White Paper an offer to purchase will be made to all those owning land situated in the released area. If they accept the offer, then that is the end of the matter. The position is that that land will form part of that country and in terms of this legislation—this was the intention as far back as 1936—this will form part of the quota. They have the land, and it does not matter whether it is owned by Whites or not. In any event, an offer will be made to the White people concerned in terms of the White Paper.

As far as the issue of the shareholding in the BIC is concerned, the hon. member asked why only the BIC could hold shares in the national corporations. When these national corporations are transferred to the authorities concerned, as will occur in the case of the Transkei in the second half of this year, they themselves will of course decide on the shareholding in the national corporations. Then it is out of our hands. I want to tell the hon. member that the Act in terms of which these corporations are established provides specifically that no dividends may be paid. In other words, this is not an attractive field of investment for an investor. I also want to point out that the other corporations of this kind such as the IDC do not allow private ownership of shares. This applies to Iscor as well. Right at the start a few shares were issued but since then no more have been issued. The State owns all the shares. In that respect the position is on a par with that of other organizations of a similar nature in South Africa.

I want to proceed by referring to the issue of the representation in the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards in so far as this affects the municipalities. The hon. member asks for the assurance to be given that the city councils will not be penalized. That is not the idea. If you consider the composition of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards at this moment, you will see that the Minister may appoint one or more members for every magisterial district. In the case of the majority of Bantu Affairs Administration Boards there is one per magisterial district, but in the large areas, the large magisterial districts such as Johannesburg, there are two representatives. Cape Town and Port Elizabeth also have two each. In other words, the attitude of the Minister is such that he does take those matters into account when the appointments are made. However, it is unnecessary to have a representative for every magisterial district. Provision is not made for every magisterial district to have a representative for trade and industry, for agriculture, and so on. The functions which the municipalities have carried out in the past in regard to the administration of Bantu Affairs are now, of course, carried out by the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. That is why the municipalities are now placed in the same position as the other interested groups—industry, agriculture and so on. In the past account was taken of whether the municipalities involved were large or not, and provision was made accordingly.

To conclude, I want to tell hon. members that I agree with them that this is a Bill which may best be discussed in Committee. Consequently the aspects to which they have referred will be discussed further at the Committee Stage. I am very grateful to them for their contributions and will with the greatest pleasure furnish them with any possible information.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the commencement of the Merchant Shipping Act, Act 57 of 1951, on 1 January 1960, approval has been obtained for several amendments. It has now become necessary to propose further amendments in order to remedy deficiencies which have come to light in the course of implementing the measure and generally to improve control measures and to facilitate the administration. I must add that the State departments who are affected by this, as well as all shipping interests in the Republic, were consulted and that agreement was reached on the Bill.

By way of explanation I should like to deal with each clause separately.

Clause 1 deals with amendments to section 2(1) of the principal Act in order to provide for revised definitions as a result of amended legislation by other State departments and adjustments made to comply with the metric system. The S.A. Bureau of Standards was consulted about the latter question, and agreement was reached in this regard as well.

Clause 2 provides for the insertion of a new paragraph (cA) into section 4 of the principal Act, which will authorize the Minister of Transport to grant exemption from compliance with certain requirements of the regulations he may make in terms of section 356(1).

Clause 3 proposes amendments to section 6 of the principal Act. This section provides for the establishment, inter alia, of a National Marine Advisory Council. No need has been felt up to now for the establishment of such a council. However, more and more interest is being taken in merchant shipping in the Republic and the time has come for the establishment of such a council. The amendments are being made to ensure fair representation on the council and to lay down the functions of the council. Applications for representation will be considered from persons representing interests of:

1. (a) owners of South African ships other than fishing boats;
2. (b) owners of fishing boats;
3. (c) masters and deck officers of South African ships;
4. (d) engineering officers of South African ships;
5. (e) seamen serving on South African ships and skippers and crews of fishing boats;
6. (f) marine insurers;
7. (g) a maritime law society; and
8. (h) shipping agents and ship-brokers.

The following State departments may be represented:

1. (a) the Department of Transport, from which the chairman will be designated;
2. (b) the S.A. Railways Administration;
3. (c) the Department of National Education; and
4. (d) the Department of Customs and Excise.

Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 provide for amendments affecting respectively sections 73, 80, 157, 294 and 301 of the principal Act. As in the case of clause 1, the amendments are only intended to provide for revised definitions as a result of amendments made to legislation by other State departments or of adaptations to the metric system.

Clause 9 provides for the insertion of a new clause 304A into the principal Act. At present no provision is made in the principal Act for responsibility for the removal or disposal of wrecks. Nor does any obligation rest on the responsible master or owner for the removal or disposal of such a wreck. Steps aimed at removal or disposal are often essential in the interests of safe navigation and in order to combat the pollution of the territorial waters and beaches of the Republic. For this reason it is essential for the merchant shipping authorities in the Republic to be authorized to make the necessary arrangements for the removal and disposal of wrecks. This is precisely what the inclusion of this new section is aimed at.

Clause 10 proposes the replacement of section 313 of the principal Act. Here, too, metrication is involved, but the principal aim is to give effect to the proposal of the Society of Master Mariners that the maximum fines that are laid down be realistically adjusted in accordance with modern money values. The consent of the Treasury has been obtained for this.

Clause 11 deals with amendments to section 356 of the principal Act. The object of the amendment proposed in clause 11(a) is to remedy a deficiency in the principal Act in the interests of safety. It is now being provided that the Minister of Transport will be empowered to lay down, by way of regulation, standards of seaworthiness to be observed in respect of all vessels to which the International Convention of Safety of Life at Sea does not apply, for example, freighters of less than 500 register tons undertaking international cruises, coasters, etc. The Minister of Transport already possesses these powers in respect of convention ships and certain non-convention ships such as fishing boats and ships used for sealing and whaling. The intention of the amendment in clause 11(b) is to facilitate administration of the principal Act and the regulations by laying down that certain life-saving appliances used on board ship must comply with the relevant specifications of the S.A. Bureau of Standards. At the same time this will ensure that a high standard is maintained for this important equipment. Clause 11(c) contains only consequential amendments arising from the proposed amendment to clause 2.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to say that we have no objection to the Bill and secondly I should just like to refer briefly to a number of matters. We find in respect of clause 2 that the hon. the Minister will have the right to grant exemptions in respect of the regulations as proclaimed. One can understand that the hon. the Minister has to have such powers in respect of certain bodies or persons. However, I should like to know, firstly, whether the hon. the Minister could give us more information about what particular persons he has in mind. Secondly, we believe that it may be desirable, when the hon. the Minister does grant exemptions to particular persons, to make those exemptions public. I believe it would be better for the public also to be informed about these people who are exempted from the regulations, so that there can be no misunderstanding in that connection.

We have also noted the reconstitution of the National Marine Advisory Council. We have no objection to the constitution of this council. I should like to say that I am glad the hon. the Minister has included in the enlarged council those bodies that have previously served on the council.

As far as the other aspects are concerned, there is the question of wrecks. Since shipping around our coasts is constantly increasing, I think it is obvious that the hon. the Minister must have certain powers to remove such wrecks. The last matter is the question of seaworthiness and of life-saving appliances. As far as these matters and the question of wrecks are concerned, my friend, the hon. member for Simonstown, will say a few words.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the comments of the hon. the Minister in his introduction. Most of the clauses in this Bill are in no way contentious, such as alterations to the phraseology contained in the definitions of the original Act to allow for metrication, updating the names of other Acts, etc. Most are technical amendments which require no comment at all. When we come to clause 2—the hon. member for Maitland has already mentioned it—I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why it is necessary to insert this additional paragraph to allow the Minister to exempt individuals from any of the regulations framed under section 356. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister, who did not motivate the clause at all, whether there are any practical examples which could be brought to our attention in motivation of this seemingly far-reaching clause. Clause 3 has our complete approval. The Principal Act at present provides for the establishment of a national marine advisory council of seven members. This amendment simply increases the number of members of this body to 12. I welcome this sign of life on the part of the hon. the Minister because although we have had this statute, which provides that there shall be a Marine Advisory Council on the books, we have not yet got a Marine Advisory Council at present. I find it difficult to believe that there are no problems on the part of organizations which represent shipowners, fishing boat-owners, underwriters, ships’ officers, seamen and all the other persons the hon. the Minister mentioned. I feel that there are indeed, many problems confronting us and that representatives from these bodies will be able to make a positive contribution on a council of this nature. There are a tremendous number of fields within which such a council can operate, e.g. the field that deals with problems which confront navigation and people in the navigational field everyday. I am pleased to note that as the Act stands, the council can only deal with matters referred to it in connection with the administration of the Act. But now the suggested amendments mean that the council is given a much wider scope to act on its own initiative, in that it can deal with any matter arising out of the application of the Act or connected with merchant shipping. This I think is a great advantage and it has our support. I would suggest, Sir, in passing, that one of the first matters needing the attention of this council would be an investigation into navigation safety measures. The hon. Senator Bamford in a debate in 1974 in the Other Place, suggested the need for a navigation safety council. This suggestion was not acted upon at the time. Safety is a matter which could concern this Marine Advisory Council. I believe that all is not well with the safety of navigation along our coast and in our harbours. There are far too many wreckings and accidents along our coastlines to allow for any complacency. Perhaps this sign of life, if I may so call it, on the part of the hon. the Minister will mean that we are going to get a national marine advisory council at long last and that it can get down to work on the whole question of navigational practices and facilities along our coast and in our ports. I think I am right in saying that during the last 15 years we have had 60 major accidents along our coastline, accidents which warranted courts of marine enquiry. The wrecking which took place last week in Table Bay serves to emphasize that a very fertile field indeed exists for such a marine advisory council. I am sure that the hon. the Minister is also aware that many ships’ masters have problems in regard to pilotage, lights at harbour entrances and elsewhere in harbours and the council will be able to look into these matters. All I ask is that the hon. the Minister sees to it that we do not have to wait for years for the advent of such a council and that it be constituted as soon as possible. I hope that it is very high up on his list of priorities. He did indicate when introducing the measure that it will be forthcoming very soon.

Leaving clause 3 and proceeding to clauses 4, 5 and 6, I could, perhaps rather whimsically say that it is sad to see the term “horsepower” disappearing, as it is being deleted from the old Act. I know that times change but old habits die hard. I for one am more able to judge power when it is described as 1 000 horse-power than when I see it described as 750 kilowatt indicated power. We have no quarrel with these clauses, Mr. Speaker, nor with clauses 6, 7 and 8.

Clause 9 is a very important clause indeed, dealing as it does with the powers of the hon. the Minister in respect of wrecked or stranded ships or ships in our territorial waters in distress. I am sure that nobody in this House can argue about the direction of this clause as it is a very necessary clause. I have one aspect in mind, however, on which I would like the hon. the Minister to comment. I refer to subsection (7) of that clause which reads—

This of course totally indemnifies the Minister or his representative in regard to any action which they may take. Let us consider a hypothetical situation. A ship is wrecked. The wreck is possibly a danger to other shipping. The hon. the Minister is advised by an official on the spot that the ship cannot be saved and must be scuttled. The master of the ship, in this hypothetical instance, disagrees. He believes that the ship can be saved and that it is not a danger to shipping. It is subsequently proved that the master was correct and that the ship was not a danger to other shipping and that the scuttling was a serious error of judgment. The master, the man who should know the capabilities of the ship better than anyone else, manages to prove his case. I think the courts should be in a position to rule on this while, on the other hand, I agree entirely that the hon. the Minister should be protected when he has done something in good faith. As the clause stands at present, there is absolutely no chance at all of any civil recovery when the hon. the Minister may have erred, possibly as a result of bad advice or any other reason. I believe that this is not common justice. The loss of a ship can involve millions and millions of rand. Certainly the State is usually in a better position than a shipowner to sustain a claim. I can see the difficulties, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would accept an amendment in the Committee Stage which will add one word to the clause as it stands. Rather than saying, “The Minister shall not be liable for anything done in good faith”, it should read “The Minister shall not be liable for anything reasonably done in good faith”. The addition of the word “reasonably” would, I think, bring this matter within the jurisdiction of the courts, and I believe that the honour of any Government of the Republic could be at stake here. We must be prepared to abide by the consequences of our decisions and, if necessary, pay for our mistakes, if honour and justice are to be served. The South African Government’s standing in matters which may well be of international consequence is of importance, and I would like the hon. the Minister to consider this.

Apart from the points I have raised, the remaining clauses of the Bill have our total support, but I would like to ask the hon. the Minister for his comments on the matters I have raised and brought to his attention.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has given us an adequate introduction to the aims and objects of the Bill. I think it is reasonably clear to us what is involved. It also seems to me that the composition of the National Maritime Council meets with our approval. I was not aware of the composition of the council the hon. the Minister had in mind, but having listened carefully to what he said in regard to those bodies which are to be represented on the council, I cannot think offhand of any others that should be added at this stage. However, I am sure that in due course one will be able to make suggestions as to which other bodies could perhaps be represented on the council. There is one body that I notice is represented on the council and I am very pleased about that. It is a comparatively new body, viz. the Maritime Law Society. It is a body of lawyers in Cape Town with, I believe, connections in the other coastal ports, who are making a specialized study of the law of the sea, more particularly the commercial law of the sea.

Are they sea lawyers? [Interjections.]

I have said before that too many countries in the world are giving too much attention to what in international law is called the law of the air. I believe that in future the field for most fruitful research and attention will not be so much the law of the air, as the law of the sea, everything that goes on in connection with the sea, and, in other words, the whole sphere of maritime operations. The fact that we, through private initiative in Cape Town, have taken the advanced step of establishing such a society augurs well for the future of maritime law in South Africa. I am sure this society will be very useful to the hon. the Minister and his department, and I understand from those connected with the society that they are in fact enjoying a good personal relationship with the department.

The hon. member for Orange Grove seemed to imply that the reason for 60 major wrecks taking place around our coasts could be attributed to some fault of the department or of our maritime operations off our coasts.

I implied nothing of the sort.

If he did imply this, I would like to tell him that I disagree with him strongly. My experience of the department and our maritime operations is that they can certainly be compared favourably with those of any other maritime nation in the world. If any blame is to be found as to why there would have been 60 major wrecks in so many years, the answer is that, at almost any moment, for example this very moment, there are approximately 5 000 ships going around the coast of Africa. If one thinks that there have been only 60 major wrecks over some years around our portion of that African coast, then I do not think it is very substantial. If, however, any blame is to be apportioned, then I would say that if you look at the listings and the registrations of the ships that have in fact been involved in the wrecks, you will find that very few of them have South African registrations or registrations with countries which have traditional ties with the sea and are well known as maritime nations. It is nearly always a case of small groups, companies, individuals and small nations which have obtained registrations far too easily for safety in navigation, having been involved. I do not want to mention the names of those countries that seem to specialize in such practices, but it seems that time after time it is the ships of, or registered by, those small countries which allow easy registrations—what I call too easy registrations—which are wrecked off our coasts.

Like the Nat, senator who registered his ship in South America.

Yes, the one they kept in the docks for so long!

I would like to make one or two remarks about clauses 9 and 11. Clause 9 of the Bill introduces, as the hon. the Minister has said, a completely new section, section 304A, into the Act. This gives the hon. the Minister certain powers in respect of certain wrecks, ships that have stranded and ships that are in distress. I was very surprised that the hon. the Minister was able to say today that those powers were not already in the Act! It is incredible that such provisions should not already have been in the Act, because they seem so obvious and logical. Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) refer to ships wrecked, stranded or in distress within our territorial waters, and give the Minister the power to direct the master or owner of any ship to move such a ship or to perform any other act which he deems to be necessary for the removal of the ship. If the Minister directs a master or owner of a ship to perform any particular act, and such a person neglects or omits to do it, then the Minister naturally, in terms of the powers he now takes, steps in. The next subsection, subsection (2), enables the Minister to act where he has disregarded, as it were, the provisions of subsection (1), where he has not thought it necessary to direct the master or owner to move their ship or to perform any other act in respect of their ship which is in distress or has been stranded or wrecked and where he feels that the situation is so urgent that he must move it himself without directing the master or owner to do so, because the ship is constituting a danger to navigation. I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to what I think might be an improvement. In this particular subsection he refers to ships which are wrecked or stranded or abandoned and which constitute a danger or potential danger to navigation in territorial waters. In this connection he may raise, remove or destroy, or otherwise deal with the particular ship which causes the obstruction. In this particular subsection, however, the hon. the Minister omits to mention a “ship in distress”. I wonder whether he will not give consideration to moving some amendment to cater for that, in the Committee Stage. In this particular subsection he does however introduce the word “abandoned”. This is not referred to in the previous subsections and, again, I wonder if it is not necessary to introduce the word “abandoned” into the previous subsections by amendment. I suggest that the hon. the Minister introduce an amendment, including the words “ship in distress”. Such a ship should also be removed if it constitutes a danger, in the same way as an abandoned or wrecked ship.

Subsection (3) is consequential on the actions he has taken in terms of subsection (1)(b) and subsection (2) and in it, provision is made for the Minister to recover expenses. To recover expenses for the operation he has had to undertake, he is given the power to sell the cargo or the goods in the particular vessel. There are one or two general comments I should like to make on this. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the reference to territorial waters is sufficient. I wonder if it is not necessary for him also to include in the sphere of jurisdiction, the fisheries zone. I think I am right in saying that we have full jurisdiction over the fisheries zone. If so, I would suggest that in addition to the words “teritorial waters”, there should be added the words “and fisheries zone”. I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister what the extent of our territorial waters is at the moment. There has been talk for some years of extending our territorial waters. I know that a few years ago we did in fact add the fisheries zone to our territorial waters. As far as I know, it became six miles and six miles. Last year there was talk of this being extended, and I urged in this House that our territorial waters should be extended to what is generally accepted in international law, namely 12 miles, and that thereafter fisheries zones should be created. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us what the position is at present and whether it is still six miles and six miles. I wonder whether it would not be wise for the hon. the Minister to make provision in this clause for the extension of our territorial waters. In other words, I think the hon. the Minister should refer to the territorial waters, if possible also to the fisheries zone and to any extensions thereof. If extensions of territorial waters and fishing zones have not already taken place, then I make a confident forecast that the Government will be forced to do so in the very near future in the protection of our maritime rights.

Secondly, I want to refer the hon. the Minister to what I think are probably the reasons for the introduction of these provisions regarding wrecks in this Bill. I imagine that this situation has arisen and that he has had to introduce these amendments because of the stranding of the Oriental Pioneer off Agulhas. I wonder if he would give the House an explanation as to what has happened with the Oriental Pioneer. As far as I remember that ship, which had a Chinese registration and a Chinese crew, was stranded off Agulhas before the beginning of last New Year. I was there last New Year and I think it must have happened some months before that. I was at Agulhas again this New Year and the ship is still hard and fast on the rocks. The only thing to be said for the stranding of that ship and the only thing that benefits the local community, is the fact that local farmers have discovered that if they take small boats out to the Oriental Pioneer, they are able to “chum” with some of the red bait that is being scraped off the reefs by the plates of the Oriental Pioneer. There are thus galjoen in profusion and one of my farmer friends recently made a catch of something like 120 galjoen in one afternoon. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Swellendam on behalf of his constituents might well have objections if there is any suggestion that the Oriental Pioneer should be removed. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister what the reason is for its still being there, because it would appear to me to be a wreck that could have been removed shortly after it was stranded and it might even be possible to remove it at this stage. I do not know whether it constitutes any danger to navigation, although it seems to lie about two to three miles offshore and is abandoned. I would not have thought it was healthy to have the wreck there and I wonder if this is not a case where the hon. the Minister is taking these powers so that he can deal with the Oriental Pioneer and perhaps sell some of what may remain of the cargo, which I think was steel or iron ore, and recover his cost for any salvage or other operation.

A previous wreck that we had near Agulhas a few years ago was the Wafra. Again we had a difficulty, but in that instance I think we had the co-operation of an American company, who were the owners of the ship, and we managed eventually, as the result of a very successful salvage operation, to tow the Wafra out to sea where Air Force aid was enlisted and it was in fact sunk with a minimum of pollution of the coast. Under this particular heading, I would also like the hon. the Minister to be kind enough to tell us what the position is in East London about the Oranjeland which, as far as I know, is hard aground and which has been the subject of an unsuccessful salvage operation for some time. Could he please tell the House what the position is there?

I want to move on to clause 11 which deals with the seaworthiness of vessels. These are vessels which do not fall under the International Safety Convention, as the hon. the Minister said. As the hon. the Minister further said, those are vessels under 500 tons. I think that I am right in saying that the department at the moment deals with vessels that are operated for gain or reward and which require a safety certificate. They go so far as to include dinghies, “kreef” boats and small fishing trawlers as well as normal commercial craft. If that is so, the department indeed has a considerable job of work to do in checking the safety of this large category of commercial craft. All have to be surveyed in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act. Safety equipment has to be examined, first-aid equipment has to be examined and the vessel itself has to be examined. Then, in the case of the larger vessels, not only safety equipment, first-aid equipment and the vessel itself, but also the very extensive and necessary navigational aids that are required by any larger vessel should be examined. Each vessel has to have a safety certificate if it is plied for gain or reward, especially in the commercial fishing field, before it can obtain a Sea Fisheries licence to enable the master and crew of the vessel to sell their catch. This new clause, as I understand it, gives very much wider control to the hon. the Minister than he had before. He had control over all vessels described in the Act, as well as fishing, sealing and whaling vessels. Now the description of “vessels” in the definitions section of the Act would appear to me to include any ship, boat or any other description of vessel used or designed to be used in navigation. If I read that correctly, it means any sea-going craft. If that is so, then the department is going to have its hands very full indeed with the examination of all craft and there is going to be an enormous increase in the work of the department concerned with the issuing of the necessary safety certificates.

I have one or two suggestions to make. If I am correct that the department is understaffed, and if it is going to find that it will be burdened with an enormous amount of work, then I would make the suggestion to the hon. the Minister that it might be possible to inspan the assistance of some of the traffic officers, particularly of the rural authorities, or in the case of the Peninsula, of the Divisional Council. Some of these traffic officers I think one will find are already conservation officers duly appointed and in some cases fisheries officers with powers to inspect. If it is possible that some of these men could also be appointed as departmental officers with a view to seeing to the safety requirements of craft that they come across on isolated beaches, landing places and launching places, then I think it might lessen the burden of work of the department. I should also like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister the situation in America, which is one I think we should give consideration to here. As far as I know, in America every single vessel has to be registered through the extensive coast guard system which they have. They go further and place on manufacturers of all vessels an obligation to see that that vessel is fully equipped and is fully in accordance with the regulations as laid down by the local coast guard organization before it is able to be sold to the public. If that is so, then it obviously places a considerable onus upon the manufacturers of all craft and this is something I think we should give thought to. If it could perhaps be introduced here, then again it would save the department an enormous amount of responsibility and an enormous amount of work to do with the issuing of safety certificates.

In conclusion, I want to refer briefly to the rescue services. We as a country have an obligation under an international convention to provide adequate and reasonable rescue services for persons and ships in distress. I draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to chapter 5 of the International Convention of Safety of Life at Sea, in terms of which it is necessary for every maritime nation to provide an adequate sea-rescue service. In this connection, I want to pay tribute to the National Sea Rescue Institute here in South Africa and I want to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention the fact that this small institute has approximately 18 boats at the moment which operate in the field of sea rescue from Saldanha Bay as far as Richards Bay. In the very short period of time they have been in existence, they have performed no less than 1 800 sea rescues. The 24 ft. boats which they use at the moment cost about R30 000 new, while a 36 ft. boat now costs R100 000. They receive a grant from the Government to perform this very valuable sea rescue work which—Mr. Speaker I see you are looking at me and wondering if I am going too wide but what I am saying does fall within the ambit of one of the clauses of this Bill. They are in receipt of a grant of R24 000 and I do hope that the hon. the Minister can see his way clear to urging the Minister responsible to increase that grant. Their working expenses alone are something like R200 000 per annum. We have a long and very dangerous coastline and every year we have hundreds and hundreds of small craft that get into difficulties, quite apart from the wrecks to which the hon. member for Orange Grove referred. Not only are the lives of the people in these small craft endangered, but also the lives of many brave people who go out to try to effect rescue operations are constantly in danger. We have, as the hon. the Minister knows, a lack of harbours along our coasts and therefore a limited amount of inspection facilities. In June or July last year we had the tragic case of the going to sea of a well-known friend of mine and cricketer, Owen Wynne, with a crew of five. I want to suggest that if the Bonita had been examined, probably within a year of its going to sea, for the necessary equipment and apparatus of one kind or another, it is quite possible that that tragedy might have been averted.

It is also possible that a boat such as Bonita could, under a system evolved by the Minister’s department, have some restrictions placed upon how far it should go out from our coast. I think it is absolutely crazy, for example, that at the moment, in most of our harbours, adventurous people are going miles and miles out to sea along what is recognized to be a very dangerous coast indeed, subject as it is to enormous climatic and wind changes. So I would commend these thoughts to the Minister. We have hundreds and hundreds of people every weekend going down to the coast and putting out to sea in inadequately equipped craft, without any observance of any regulations. Now I am pleased that if this Bill, as I interpret it, is to bring about a new situation in which all vessels and craft come under the Minister’s department, and therefore under the inspectors of the Minister’s department, a very much higher standard will apply than is the case at the moment. In some cases at the moment there is no standard at all. So I wish the Minister and his department well with this amendment Bill. I do not think one can leave matters of elementary safety in the hands of an adventurous seafaring public. I think it is necessary for controls to be introduced, and I hope that the controls envisaged in this Bill will be a great success and will prevent the loss of many lives, not only of those who go to sea, but also of those who have to go to sea to rescue them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members raised a large variety of matters here—especially the hon. member for Simonstown—and they did so about an Act which is probably one of the most complicated Acts on our Statute Book. The hon. member for Simonstown asked several questions, which, by their nature I have some difficulty in furnishing impromptu replies to, because the replies are based on factual information. However, I would first like to deal with the comments made by the hon. member on clause 11, because it was brought to my attention that he was likely to comment on this particular clause. For that reason I went to the trouble of carefully going into and examining the legal position as it appears in the Act.

This particular clause 11 refers to certain regulations which the Minister is empowered to make. This is an amendment to section 356 of the Principal Act. The entire section 356 of the Principal Act provides for the Minister to have authority to issue a wide range of regulations. While dealing with this now, I should say in passing that I think the hon. member for Simonstown furnished the answer to the comment of the other hon. members on the question why the Minister should have the power to grant exemptions. The hon. member for Simonstown indicated that the clause as it is being amended here now, i.e. the deletion of the words “fishing boats and ships engaged in sealing or whaling’’ and the insertion of “vessels to which the Safety Convention does not apply”, empowers the Minister to issue the necessary regulations over a wide field. It is precisely because we are being granted, inter alia, those wider powers, that we feel it is perhaps necessary for the purposes of proper administration that certain exceptions should be made, and for that reason we are providing for these exceptions. But I also want to point out to hon. members that in the second part of this particular section in the Principal Act, i.e. section 356, subsection (2) already provides for the Minister to be able to make certain exceptions. In order to bring paragraph (i) of subsection (1) of section 356 into line with subsection (2) we also empower the Minister to make certain exceptions regarding the application of the wide field of regulations he may issue in terms of section 356(1). This disposes of that matter, a matter which was raised, among others, by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

What about seaworthiness?

I do not think the hon. member need to worry that the exceptions will go too far. I would like to come to the point which he raised, and then I want to ask myself this question: Where do we stop and what is the implementation of this Act regarding the provisions we have in this Bill, namely those regarding vessels to which the Safety Convention does not apply. On the surface it seems as if this may include any vessel under the sun, except those to which the convention does not apply. Since it was brought to my attention that the hon. member had raised the matter, I consulted the Act in an attempt to determine what it was the Minister had control over under this Act. It seems to me—I shall make quite sure of this before tomorrow when we shall continue with the Committee Stage—that this Act only applies to vessels registered under section 13 or licensed under section 68. The registration vessels mentioned in section 13, are the larger vessels. For those vessels which have to be licensed under section 68, the necessary provision is being made in section 68, as follows: The owner or master (a) of a vessel which—(i) is of less than 25 gross tons; in other words these are the smaller vessels, those of less than 25 gross tons; and (ii) is not registered as a ship in the Republic or elsewhere. The third subsection and the fourth were amended in 1965, and these read as follows—

1. (iii) is employed or owned for the purpose of fishing or carrying persons or goods of any kind for financial gain or reward; and
2. (iv) operates at or from a port in or from anywhere else on the coast of the Republic.

Such vessels, to which all four those provisions apply, have to be licensed. I then went further and tried to determine for myself what the scope of the implementation of the Principal Act as a whole is, and it seems to me, subject to conviction, that this Act applies as I said a short while ago, to registered vessels under section 13 or to licensed vessels under section 68. If this is the case—I would like to make quite certain of this before tomorrow—this means that a limit is placed on the vessels which fall under these regulations I am amending now, regulations for which I have authority to issue and which are now being amended in the proposed clause 11. At the same time I ask myself—I stick to this argument because I know that this is very complicated legislation and that the hon. member for Simonstown is intensely interested in it—whether we are in fact going far enough and, if so, whether this should be the case. I shall apply my mind to this aspect as far as this matter is concerned. I must agree with the hon. member that if these regulations apply to all vessels, it will, from the nature of the case, increase considerably the responsibilities and duties of this department than is the case at present, and it will also require many more officials to exercise proper supervision over the matters to which this Act applies.

The hon. member referred to the Oriental Pioneer and the Oranjeland. Safmarine, owner of the ship Oranjeland, is still dealing with the ship. I do not know what progress they have made, but as the hon. member indicated himself, before now we have not had the powers which, as he says, are so obviously needed to act in the case of wrecks of this kind. After this legislation has been approved, we shall however have the necessary powers to act in the case of both the Oriental Pioneer and the Oranjeland.

I think we have recently increased the grant to the Sea Rescue Institute. The hon. member asked that we should give them and an even bigger grant. We appreciate the valuable work they do—there no doubt about that—and I shall give the matter the necessary attention. I shall also give attention to the other aspects raised by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Maitland dealt with the exemptions. I have already dealt with that aspect as far as I was able to do so.

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. the Minister think there is any sense in making the exemptions known to the public by means of the Government Gazette?

This only applies in respect of the regulations. After all, the Minister has the power in terms of section 356 to issue or not to issue regulations. If the Minister has the power to issue or not to issue regulations, I think it makes sense to say that when he thinks it advisable to issue certain regulations and to make them applicable to certain vessels, and not to others, he is going to have such powers. Those vessels to which he is not going to make them applicable, are those for which we are making provision in this amending Bill, namely those which are excluded from such regulations.

Will you inform us further on this matter tomorrow?

Yes, I shall inform the hon. member for Simonstown in the course of tomorrow as to what the real state of affairs is.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to clause 9. I do not know whether there is any sense in the word he want to insert there. I think the jurists will agree with me that when the need arises to do so, the court will have to decide whether action is taken in good faith. When the court has to make such a decision, reasonableness is in any case going to be the decisive factor. Therefore I doubt whether it will bring us any further than we are at the moment. I think it is, after all, essential that the department should enjoy some measure of indemnity when such responsibilities and duties are placed on it to handle such expensive and valuable articles as ships.

I think this more or less deals with the different aspects raised here. I shall gladly discuss the matter further during the Committee Stage should any amendments be moved which are an improvement on the Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members probably realize that this measure is not contentious and that the proposed amendments are primarily aimed at affording certain important provincial roads a greater measure of protection. In addition, hon. members may also know that these protective measures are already applicable to national roads.

Prior to the commencement of the National Roads Act (Act 54 of 1971) on 1 October 1971, the National Transport Commission was not a road construction authority; it only controlled national and special roads, and financed this from the National Road Fund. The provincial administrations constructed and maintained national and special roads on behalf of the NTC in terms of the provisions of the former National Roads Act (Act 42 of 1935). The Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Act (Act 21 of 1940) was placed on the Statute Book in 1940 to protect national and provincial roads.

In the years prior to 1962 the NTC became aware of the increasing need for better and more effective protection of traffic interchange areas on national roads. Since Act 21 of 1940 did not at that stage make provision for this type of protection, section 9bis was inserted in 1962 to protect traffic interchange areas on national roads. However, the provisions of that section were limited exclusively to national roads, and prohibited the erection of any structures above or below the surface, within a radius of 1 500 feet from the intersection of a national road and any other road, except with the approval in writing of the NTC as the controlling authority. Since the provincial administrations did not at that stage build provincial throughways, they felt no need for protection under this provision.

In 1971 when the former National Roads Act (Act 42 of 1935) was substituted by Act 54, the protective measures in respect of national roads, which had previously been incorporated in Act 21 of 1940, were incorporated in the new National Roads Act (Act 54 of 1971), and consequently Act 21 of 1940 was suitably amended to delete all references therein to national roads. In other words, a new National Roads Act was introduced, and with the new National Roads Act the contents of section 9 of Act 21 of 1940 were inserted in the new National Roads Act. Act 21 of 1940 was then deleted. Therefore Act 21 of 1940 no longer applies in any way to national roads, but only to provincial roads, in respect of which the Administrator of a province is the controlling authority.

In the meantime provincial administrations had proceeded to construct provincial throughways, and these administrations became aware of an ever-increasing need for measures to protect the traffic interchange areas on these roads, just as had happened in the case of the NTC.

On the occasion of an Administrators’ Conference, which was held in 1974, the Administrators decided to request the Department of the Interior to re-include in Act 21 of 1940 the deleted section 9bis in an amended form, so that provincial roads may be protected by it.

In the definition in Act 21 of 1940, however, “Minister” is defined as the Minister of Transport and consequently my department still administers Act 21 of 1940, although only the provinces apply it to protect their roads. My department was then requested to effect these amendments on behalf of the provinces.

Experience locally and overseas has proved indisputably that there is a real danger that the effective functioning of the valuable and essential provincial throughways will be very detrimentally affected by ribbon development in the immediate vicinity of traffic interchange or access areas, unless it is strictly controlled. Particularly in the outlying districts of the urban areas, every traffic interchange on a throughway creates a miniature growth point.

As I have already indicated the four provincial administrations are now requesting that they—just as in the case of the NTC—should be vested with the necessary powers to control the vulnerable areas places on their throughways, thus enabling them to effect the proper protection of the roads concerned as permanent national assets for the future.

Clause 1 envisages only essential amendments to subsection (1) of section 9 of Act 21 of 1940, amendments which result from the insertion of the new section 9A. The distances referred to in that section are at the same time being metricated.

Clause 2 reintroduces section 9bis of Act 21 of 1940, with this difference that the prohibition contained therein now becomes applicable to building restriction roads—these are roads which are proclaimed to be such by the Administrator of the relevant province—and not to national roads, as was the case prior to 1971. It was originally the intention to reintroduce section 9bis of Act 21 of 1940 verbatim, except for metrication. However, it has come to my attention since the First Reading of the Bill that the words “measured at grade”—in Afrikaans “gemeet op vlak”—where they occur on page 5, line 13, may be confusing in so far as complete clarity does not exist as to what grade is meant. In view of this and taking into consideration the provisions of section 5 of the Interpretation Act, 1957, which contains directions in regard to the measuring of distances, I shall move in the Committee Stage that the said words be deleted.

Clauses 3 and 4 contain only essential amendments to sections 13 and 15 of Act 21 of 1940, amendments which also result from the new section 9A.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the extremely interesting historic, as I want to call it, survey of the Act which are applicable to roads. I enjoyed it very much, and found it very interesting. I am also aware of the fact that the hon. Minister said this legislation was not contentious, but I do want to say that when I see how valuable pieces of land are being swallowed up by the roads, I wonder whether it is really worth while sacrificing all this land to the motor vehicle. My arithmetic is not of the best, but there is something to which I nevertheless want to draw attention. We are not dealing here with national roads—in that case the situation is far worse—we are dealing with building restriction roads which intersect, or with a building restriction road and an ordinary road which intersect. Wherever such roads intersect, there is a circle with a radius of 500 metres, and consequently we have there a piece of land between 70 or 80 ha in extent. This is almost 100 morgen, and in the Boland such a piece of land could comprise a very nice farm. I could imagine someone being able to start a very lucrative wine farm on such a piece of land, and perhaps even obtaining a KWV quota. I ask myself whether one can agree with the hon. the Minister when he says that we should not argue about the clause in question. One feels very inclined to enter the lists, but unfortunately we have all become the slaves of the motor vehicle to such an extent that we will simply have to say to the hon. the Minister that we are satisfied, and that we shall support him on this point.

An aspect with which I have difficulty, is why the Railways are being excluded. I am aware that section 9 affords the Railways protection. This is an existing section and since it is not being amended, I cannot raise any arguments concerning it. However, the hon. the Minister is now inserting a new provision, and once again the Railways are being excluded. I am now thinking of the Railway Budget, and therefore I feel like asking: Why? I have strong feelings on this matter, but the feelings of my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Berea, are even stronger, and I am certain that he wishes to express a few ideas.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill requires very little comment from us as the hon. member for Maitland has already said most of what I was going to say. [Interjections.] We support the amendments which involve metrication, distances and other technical changes. Clause 2 seeks to introduce a new section 9A. Although we are in total agreement with the clause, I should like to join the hon. member for Maitland in asking the hon. the Minister: Why the exclusion of the Railways? Structures erected by the Railways can be as ugly and as horrible as structures erected by anybody else.

They are usually worse.

Yes, sometimes they are even worse, as the hon. member says. I hate to see the Railways Administration being given absolute carte blanche to put up what they like. Perhaps this is because the hon. the Minister is not only responsible for the Department of Transport but also for the Railways and he does not like to cause problems for his own departments. I realize that the provisions are already part of the principal Act, but I do not think that the hon. the Minister should get into these bad habits. I think he should cure himself of this malady that is afflicting him.

The hon. member for Maitland referred to the question of the size of the area which is set aside around an intersection and described the farming opportunities which could take place in such an area. As I read the Bill, he could go on farming as long as he does not erect a structure.

What about farming structures?

Farming structures too. It will be nice to see beautiful developed farmland around these intersections, although we certainly do not like to have advertisements there of the tastiness of wine.

Altogether we give the Bill our wholehearted support. Anybody who cares about the preservation of our countryside, must encourage any measure which helps in its preservation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland referred to the question of advertising and indicated that I felt more strongly even than he did. There are certain aspects which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. In doing so I want to draw attention to the fact that the original Act, No. 21 of 1940, in its long title contained the following amongst other things—

The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that the Act was promulgated in 1940. There have been four amendments since then, and as far as I am aware, the words I have quoted are still embodied in the Act as it reads today. I believe that it is reasonable to assume under those circumstances that the legislation at the time was motivated, firstly, by a desire to prohibit the erection of unsightly hoardings and advertisements on places outside urban areas and, secondly, in the interest of road safety to limit the introduction of advertisements likely to distract the attention of road users. Reference has been made by both the previous speakers to the fact that S.A. Railways and Harbours has always enjoyed a proviso which allowed them to erect hoardings and advertisements on Railway property. Reference has been made to the fact that in the Bill, too, the same proviso is contained. One can appreciate—reference has been made to it—that this is a source of income to the S.A. Railways and Harbours, and I believe that the intention originally was to direct the advertisements at passengers using the Railways. I think the Administration has possibly lost sight of that particular aspect: Directing the advertisements at passengers using the Railways. I think that a change has taken place and that today the advertisements are erected in such a way that they are also directed at road users. The hon. member for South Coast can quote a specific example where it would appear that a large and very attractive hoarding advertising the S.A. Airways has been erected near a bend in the road and it has been reported as constituting a distraction to motorists driving along that road. I have said that it is a source of concern to some of us on this side, but it is also a source of concern to people whom I regard as responsible people. I have a letter from the Automobile Association, signed by the area manager for the Cape. I should like to quote briefly what he says, because I believe the hon. the Minister should know that a responsible organization such as the AA has strong feelings on this matter. The letter says this, among other things—

I have also received a letter from the general manager of the Durban Chamber of Commerce in his personal capacity. He says—

I believe the hon. the Minister cannot disregard such important expressions of opinion, and I want to appeal to him to give consideration to this suggestion. I wish to point out that it is not the intention of this side of the House to suggest that the exemption granted to the S.A. Railways should be removed. If one studies the regulations clause, clause 14, one gets the impression that the Minister has certain powers under those regulations to lay down certain conditions and to effect certain restrictions. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to examine those powers in his capacity as Minister of Transport and, having done so, to consider the matter with himself, the Minister of the S.A. Railways, to see if he cannot instruct the Administration to see that steps are taken to avoid the likelihood of any advertisement on Railway property facing outwards, as was the original intention, and thus creating traffic hazards to road users. Finally, I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that, while considering that aspect, he should also give consideration to the placing of a prohibition on the advertising, on S.A. Railway property, of products that are known to be detrimental to the health of the population. I commend these aspects to the hon. the Minister and I look forward to hearing his favourable acceptance of my suggestions.

Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion that there is no real objection to this legislation and that the hon. members on the other side are simply a little envious because the Railways are being excluded from the regulations of this legislation. I have little fault to find with the thoughts expressed by the hon. member for Berea. To a great extent the object of this legislation is to prevent land, on which a traffic interchange may be built in the future, from being developed in the interim, so that we would subsequently expropriate the buildings at great expense to be able to build the interchange there. This is the most important object of this Bill, and not so much the question of advertising on roads. In view of the fact that it deals with an insertion in Act 21 of 1940, which not only contains provisions with regard to what distance structures should be from roads and interchanges, but also provisions with regard to advertisements, the hon. member is, of course, fully entitled to raise the question of advertisements here. I want to stress, however, that this particular provision, which deals with a circle with the intersection of two roads at its centre, relates mainly to the possibility that structures may be erected on the land concerned which would subsequently have to be expropriated at great expense when an interchange has to be laid out.

The hon. member mentioned advertisements which have been put up on Railway property and which can be seen from the roads. If there are such advertisements which cause a disturbance or which may create a danger—the restriction with regard to advertisements is not only due to the possible defacement of the environment, but also to the creation of a possible danger because the driver’s attention may be distracted by such an advertisement—this can be brought to our attention, and then I undertake to have such advertisements removed from Railway property. Therefore the hon. member need not be concerned about it. We, on the part of the Railways are just as alive to the need for the regulations with regard to advertisements on the roads to be complied with.

Do you mean pictures of curves or bends are dangerous?

The hon. members have asked why it was necessary to exclude the Railway Administration. I would like to mention for consideration that, when the Railways undertake anything, liaison is effected with all the various Government departments, including the provincial administrations. In other words, nothing will be constructed by the Railways within the radius indicated in the legislation, or within limited areas along the roads, without liaison with the Department of Transport or the provincial administrations. Consequently there is no danger that a contravention will easily be committed by the Railways with regard to matters which we prohibit others from doing in this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The aim of the Bill is to amend various statutory provisions applicable to the Railways. The amending clauses can be divided into three categories, namely those providing for matters which are consequential upon the granting of salaried status to Railway servants who were previously classified as employees, those which seek to amend the guarantee agreements concluded between the Railways and the guarantors of certain guaranteed lines of railway and, thirdly, those providing for amendments of a miscellaneous nature. As the clauses concerning the guarantee agreements are fully dealt with in the explanatory memorandum and the consequential amendments do not require elucidation, I shall confine my remarks to the remaining clauses, the first of which is clause 2.

Clause 2 provides for the appointment of alternate members on Harbour Advisory Boards. It is considered that such appointments will ensure continuity in the representation of the various bodies on the boards in cases when it is not possible for members to be present at regular meetings or in the event of vacancies.

In regard to clause 3 it is desired to explain that the department is at present actively engaged in preparing for the large-scale handling of containers at the harbours at Durban, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. Containerization in its widest concept embraces a complete transportation system, with the cargo moving, in the same container, in one continuous movement from its very origin right through to its ultimate destination. Speed of handling is of vital importance in this through-transport system and the transfer of containers to and from container stacking areas must continue round the clock at an even tempo. Delivery of containers from stacking areas to consignees, and vice versa, will be by means of road vehicles. It is essential that containers are cleared from stacking areas within a fixed period after stacking in order to avoid delays which could lead to uneconomic utilization of very expensive assets, rising costs and shipping congestion. It is, therefore, essential that the delivery of containers to and from the stacking areas be planned in detail and be undertaken in accordance with a fixed schedule.

In Durban harbour cartage work is undertaken by private enterprise and it is felt that it would be virtually impossible to ensure that the individual carriers strictly comply with the department’s wishes with regard to the handling of container traffic. In view of the foregoing, it is considered that the department should be solely responsible for the conveyance of containers to and from the stacking area in Durban harbour.

In terms of section 55 of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, the department shall, however, not undertake the business of cartage contractors or cartage agents to or from Durban harbour until after the expiration of two years from the date of a notice given by the department in the Government Gazette stating its intention to do so. As indicated in the explanatory memorandum, a notice of the department’s intention has, in fact, already been published in the Gazette. The purpose of the amendment is to put the department’s powers beyond doubt. If the conveyance of containers were undertaken departmentally, trips could be so arranged that a vehicle on an outward trip could be assigned to collect a container at another site in the vicinity of the terminal point of the trip, with a resultant saving in costs. This would, at the same time, limit vehicular traffic in the container terminal. As heavy handling equipment would be active in stacking areas, it would be unwise, on account of the accident risk, to permit private vehicles to operate in such areas.

It may interest hon. members to learn that it is anticipated that by the end of 1978, 70% of Durban’s local general traffic will be conveyed in containers. As 37% of such traffic will be conveyed in partly full containers, the harbour carriers will still retain their normal workload of 56% of all traffic, viz. 30% of the general cargo and 26% of containerized traffic requiring to be transported to or from other quays and/or to and from the container terminal. The cartage of the balance of the traffic, i.e. 44%, in full containers, will be undertaken departmentally between the stacking area and the city and environs.

*I now come to clause 4. The instructions with regard to transfer duties in respect of properties purchased in terms of the House Ownership Scheme on behalf of members of the staff, are contained in two separate Acts. Article 73 of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, provides for the payment of transfer duties, while section 13 of the Finance Act, 1946, permits exemption from the payment of such duties under particular circumstances. It is only logical that the relevant provisions belong together, and it is therefore the intention to incorporate the provisions of section 13 of the Finance Act, 1946, with section 73 of the Consolidation Act.

The expressions “the Fund”, “old superannuation fund” and “old fixed date” appear in the definitions of the Service Act as well as elsewhere in the Act. The term “the Fund” refers to the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund instituted under Act No. 28 of 1912, while the expression “old superannuation fund” relates to the superannuation funds instituted in terms of Acts of 1908, 1909 and 1910. The expression “old fixed date” relates to the dates 1 January 1909, 1 January 1910 and 1 March 1910. Since there are no servants in permanent employment who had continuous employment prior to any of the old fixed dates, or were members of one of the old funds or are still members of the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund, clauses 5(1)(c), 9, 10(a) and 12(2) seek to bring the Service Act up to date in an appropriate manner where necessary.

The amendments in clause 12(a) are consequential upon the amendment of the designation “chief fleet captain” in the Airways Department to that of director (flight operations), while that in clause 12(b) flows out of the raising of the maximum retiring age of flying personnel from 55 to 58 years, for which statutory provision has already been made in section 12 of the Railways and Harbours Acts Amendment Act, 1975.

Since the pay month of December 1974 the contributions of members of the Railway Sick Fund were based on the salary and the size of the family of the member. The present practice of publishing scales of contributions in the Sick Fund Regulations causes unnecessary administrative work and is not of much use. Clause 17 seeks to amend the instructions of section 32(1)(g) of the Service Act in this regard in an appropriate manner.

I shall now deal with clauses 33 to 36, which are aimed at the amendment of certain sections of the Railways and Harbours Pensions Act, 1971 (Act No. 35 of 1971). Before the improved pension benefits for Railway pensioners came into operation on 1 December 1973, the capital sum to which reference is made in section 8(2) of the Pensions Act, was a factor in the calculation of the annuity of a widow pensioner. The capital sum was calculated by reducing the basic sum referred to in regulation 42(4) of the Regulations of the New Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund by the cash amount to which the widow is entitled. Since 1 December 1973 the basic sum is no longer reduced to obtain the capital sum and the basic sum and the capital sum is one and the same thing. In clauses 33 and 35(1)(b) the words “basic sum” are substituted for the words “capital sum” where they appear in the Pensions Act.

Section 10(3) of the Pensions Act provides for interest on investments to be credited to the Pension Funds, but does not lay down which interest should be credited, and when it should be credited. Clause 34 seeks to eliminate this deficiency. Members who antedate their membership of the New Fund, will pay interest on arrear contributions, with effect from 1 April 1976, at the same rate as that earned on investments, and for this provision is being made in clause 35(1)(a).

There are no funds available in the 1912 Pension Fund and the Cape Widows’ Pension Fund (Railways). Therefore, the reference to these funds in section 19(1) of the Pensions Act serves no purpose and clause 36 seeks to delete such reference.

Clause 47 is the last clause of the Bill I want to elucidate. In terms of section 2 of the Railways and Harbours Loans Act, 1973, the Minister of Finance is empowered, inter alia, to guarantee the repayment of any loan negotiated by the Railways to finance anticipated expenditure on capital and betterment works. During recent negotiations about a loan the attorneys of the relevant bankers questioned the extensive powers of the Government to guarantee the repayment of the loan. The purpose of the amendment is to put the question beyond all doubt.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill contains 48 clauses which amend an entire series of Acts. However, it does not contain any one principle which one can describe as such and, therefore, we shall support the Second Reading. However, I should like to take this opportunity to refer to a few of the clauses in general terms.

†I want to refer particularly to clause 3 of the Bill, which the Minister dealt with at some length. I must say that he put it very smoothly, very smoothly indeed. According to him, this is an innocent little measure, simply to ensure efficiency, to prevent congestion and to promote road safety. After all there would still be 56% of the business left for the private hauliers! Let us now have a look at the position. Let us have a look at this “innocent little clause” which is being slipped through here. The private carriers in Durban harbour have operated there ever since the harbour started to function. Their rights were first entrenched by section 207(2) in the Railway Commission publication of 1913. Since 1913 they have had entrenched legal rights. In 1957 section 55 of the Act now being amended, restated that the Railways would not engage in any cartage business or as cartage agents in Durban harbour unless and until two years’ notice had been given of their intention to do so. That was in 1957, but it was an entrenched right which has been enjoyed ever since Union. Now this is what the Minister has not told the House, Mr. Speaker. He has not told the House that in 1970, five and a half years ago, the Railways Administration approached the Durban Harbour Carriers’ Association and warned them to prepare for containerization. Does the Minister deny it? He cannot deny it, because I will give him the reference. The letter was dated 1 May 1970 and the reference is H19/4/19. The Minister can look it up himself. They warned the Harbour Carriers’ Association that containerization was coming and that they should start getting ready to handle it. That was five years ago. Now, suddenly, the Railways intend to take over all container transport. They have already given notice, as the hon. the Minister has said. It was published in the Gazette of 1 January last year. Four years after telling the Harbour Carriers’ Association to prepare for containerization, they gave notice that the Railways in fact would be carrying it. Now that they find that it was probably illegal to have given this notice, they are doing what this Government does every time it is caught breaking the law. When it is caught breaking the law it simply changes the law to protect itself. In this instance legal notice had been given that action would be taken. The Government of course found that it was acting ultra vires and is now asking the House to amend the law to put right what they have done wrong. The private harbour carriers accept competition and are quite happy to compete with the Railways.

Let me say in passing that I do not regard the harbour carriers as an entirely lily-white organization. For many years they have been a closed shop, but they deny that they themselves have kept the door of that shop closed. I want to clear this up with the Minister, because the harbour carriers assert that it is the Administration which issues the permit to do cartage in Durban harbour and that it is therefore the Railway Administration which determines who may enter the harbour and therefore who may become a member of their association. The Administration on the other hand says that the agreement is that they will only give permits to members of the association. The association states that it cannot take in a member unless he has a permit. I believe it was the Government, the Administration, which was responsible for the monopoly and by refusing to give any new harbour carrier permits they escalated the value of existing harbour permits to an unbelieveable amount. This led to whole firms being taken over to obtain one of these valuable permits. I am not in favour of monopolies, whether it be by the harbour carriers or by the Railways. The Harbour Carriers’ Association are perfectly happy for that monopoly to be broken. They are in favour of free competition between private enterprise and the Railways for the traffic that is available. That, I believe, will eliminate a past evil, but instead of merely eliminating the “closed shop”, the hon. the Minister is now creating a State monopoly, a total State monopoly to convey all full containers out of Durban harbour. He says it will only be some of them, 37% I believe the figure was, will be LCLs, not FCLs and that there would therefore still be some business left. How does he estimate that figure? In this calculation he says nothing about the traffic that is going straight through to the hinterland—nothing about the traffic that goes straight on to rail and thereafter proceeds straight through. He forgets that portion of the traffic which the Railways will get anyway, because they have the monopoly there. He leaves to the carriers the remnants, the conventional traffic and the LCLs. But of course the cream is the FCLs. Once you have skimmed off the cream, it is then like high-rated and low-rated traffic. Twenty per cent of the volume of rail traffic brings in 50% of the income of the Railways. Eighty per cent of the low-rated traffic brings in the other 50%. Once the Railways have skimmed off the cream, the FCLs—even although it is only 44% as the Minister estimates and which I question—they leave only the skimmed milk, the conventional traffic, the broken packages, the single cartons, the things that create all the headaches in clearing a harbour. They will then get blamed because they are not clearing it fast enough. They are left with the bits and pieces, with the “holdup” traffic, while the easy traffic, the fully-addressed, full-container loads, get picked up by the Railways and taken through.

This is not all. The S.A. Railways, in order to handle the traffic, are going to have to purchase in 1977 624 trailers and 84 mechanical horses at a cost of R5,1 million and this at a time when the Government is talking of curbing Government expenditure and of fighting inflation. Yet the Railways, in order to take over this monopoly, are going to spend over R5 million on trailers and mechanical horses by 1977. By 1979 this will be doubled, and will amount to over R10 million, not taking in the escalation of prices between now and then. They now have to buy right from scratch to provide a complete cartage service. The existing private enterprise carriers have their mechanical horses, however. They estimate that their total capital expenditure in order to handle the traffic by 1977 will be approximately R250 000. Now if they have underestimated, as perhaps the Railways have underestimated—say they have been 100% out—and it is going to cost them R½ million, it is then a question of a capital expenditure of R½ million, in private enterprise hands, whereas the Railways are going to spend over R5 million so that they can take over that job.

It does not end there, however, because although this House does not know about it yet—no member of Parliament knows about it yet—I have received a copy of other legislation through other channels. A bill to create a shipping board has been circulated privately by another department, a bill which is, in effect, to create a total monopoly for the Conference Lines in shipping. Any person who ships goods to or from South Africa at a freight rate lower than that of the Conference Lines, will be fined the difference between the freight rate they have charged and the Conference rate. This is a most unbelievable thing, but I am not able to discuss it now. The Bill is not before us, but it will be coming before us. That Bill is going to be one of the most shocking pieces of legislation of which I have ever heard. [Interjections.] I am talking now about the cost of landing containers. This Bill I am talking about, which creates this virtual monopoly, is designed to compensate to a certain extent for the capital expenditure on container ships. So the result is that there will be a virtual monopoly—because there will be no possibility of competing economically on freight. Conveyance of goods to South Africa will be in the hands of the Conference Lines, about half of whose traffic is handled by Safmarine which is financed by the State. So the goods come in and a government financed, government supported company, has the cream, the bulk, of this protected traffic. When it is landed, as a result of the amalgamation of Aero Marine with other interests, there will be a vast combine handling the clearing, a subsidiary of Safmarine which in turn is financed by the State. This means that the goods will be coming in protected. There will be a built-in and almost automatic preference for the subsidiary of the main carrier, the Aero Marine shipping and clearing combine, and as a result they will be able to offer, through the South African Railways co-operation and the South African Government backing, door-to-door contracts. They can offer to pick up your goods at your factory in Hamburg, Hanover, London or Leeds and deliver it at the door of your customer in South Africa. So it will be picked up at the factory, it will be shipped on a Conference Lines ship, it will be handled by a clearing agent who is the subsidiary of the main partner in the Conference Lines and it will be taken by the South African Railways and delivered to the door of the customer. What chance has private enterprise got to compete, to function against that sort of socialism? What chance has private enterprise got? None, Mr. Speaker. The result is that you will destroy the whole basis of business of your shipping and clearing agents. This will affect the whole of their business through this new amalgamation, through this large monopoly with government backing. Through the door-to-door deliveries, together with the Railway monopoly, the government will take the bread and butter away from the private carrier, the private cartage business and create a new monopoly. Let me mention one small aspect, the personal furniture of a settler coming out in a F.C.L.—a full containe load. The Railways will pick that furniture up at the ship and take it to the settler’s house, wherever he may be living. The furniture remover is eliminated. Are the Railways going to do the rest of the job? Are they going to do the unpacking? Are they now going to recruit a new army of qualified people to handle china, crystal, glassware and furniture? Or are they simply going to dump the F.C.L. at the door and say “There is your container, and now private enterprise will have to unpack it”? This is just one minor aspect that has probably not even been thought of, but that is the effect; the principle is there. If the Railways are to have a monopoly, then your furniture remover is not going to be in the picture. The most that he will be allowed to do is to unpack the F.C.L. and wait for the Railways to come and pick up the empty container. What about the customs clearance procedures? This is another problem.

Add to this something else, because this is still not the whole picture. The container stacking area in Johannesburg is to be declared a harbour at which goods can be cleared. Goods will come in at Durban, they will be handled by the Railways, put onto the train—they will do all the handling there—then on arrival in Johannesburg they go back into harbour and they then have to be cleared again in Johannesburg. This means that the Government gets the transport in Durban, they put it on a train and they get the transport from the train into the stacking area in Johannesburg and then they have the monopoly from the stacking area to the final delivery in Johannesburg.

Can we buy shares in this business?

That is a very good idea, Mr. Speaker. Can we take out shares in this business? What about the hon. the Minister floating this company and letting us take out some shares in it?

Mr. Speaker, we shall oppose this measure, we shall oppose it in Committee and we shall vote against it. I have exposed this measure at this stage so that this House can see the real content of this innocent little clause 3 which is really just supposed to be going to put a legal quibble beyond doubt, and leave 56% of the income in the hands of the harbour carriers. Where, however, is the clause offering compensation? What about the equipment that the carriers, with the encouragement of the Railways four years ago, have invested in in order to handle containers? Will they get compensation for that?

Not a sixpence.

While the Railways are spending the taxpayers’ money, contrary to Government policy, this available equipment will become idle and there is no provision for compensation. There is something more to this. At the moment there is a commission dealing with the whole issue of road transportation, to create a new concept, to seek a new deal in transportation in South Africa. That committee is only half way through its work. It will probably come—and I hope it will come—with new ideas, with new concepts, with a modernization of our system. Yet we are going back to a total State monopoly before we have even heard the evidence of the Commission. And what is the motivation? Only one argument—we do not want a lot of people messing around in the harbour and we want to get the stuff out quickly. I accept that to handle containers you have to have speed. There will have to be computerization. It will have to be done as a slick movement. Nobody would suggest that private enterprise should offload the ship and put the container in the stacking area. But once it is in the stacking area, I can see no reason whatsoever why the private carrier should not be told that his container is in row so-and-so, in block so-and-so after which he could pull in, pick up his container and take it away. I can understand that the Railway staff have to put it in the stacking area, but I cannot see why they must then pick it up from the stacking area in direct competition with normal private enterprise and deliver it to the ultimate user. The owner himself cannot fetch his own goods and he is not allowed to deliver them to the harbour. If I were a manufacturer I would have to fill the container and then wait for the Railways to fetch it. I cannot deliver my own goods. And if I am an importer, the same happens. I had an example of this myself over Christmas. A ship came in on Christmas eve, with a package which I particularly wanted. Through private clearing agents I was able to get a special clearance and within two days after the harbour opened after Christmas I got the package. Could the hon. the Minister tell me how long I would have waited if the Railways had to clear and deliver it to Durban North which is, for some reason or other, outside the cartage area? It is across the Umgeni, so they will not deliver. The Railways have a regulation that they do not deliver to Durban North. I suppose they would take it to the middle of the Umgeni River and dump it in the mud where the private cartage contractor could try to pick it up and deliver it to Durban North.

We shall therefore oppose what we believe to be a monopolistic and inflationary example of State socialism, a meddling and interference with private enterprise, with the whole concept of private enterprise. We shall oppose this in the Committee Stage and shall vote for the deletion of this clause.

I would now like to deal with one other matter. I refer to clause 15 to which neither the White Paper nor the hon. the Minister in his introductory remarks even referred. This is a simple little definition, the changing of the word “artisan” to “technician”. And it looks so innocent. However, behind this there is a long story of dissatisfaction. What has happened is that the hon. the Minister and the Administration have slowly done away with the definition of an artisan—an “ambags man”. They have renamed these people technicians, while a technician has now become a senior technician. In the result—and this was necessary—they have raised the salary of the artisan. I would like to give an example. Before 1 March 1975 an artisan earned R4 560 and after this date his salary rose to R5 400. The artisan needed this increase and so they merely called him a technician—although he had exactly the same qualifications as before. They simply called him by another name and raised his salary to a more reasonable level. The trained technician was earning R5 400 and they raised his salary to R5 700. Thus where there had previously been a difference as the reward for special qualifications, of R840 per year, this was reduced to R300. If, however, an artisan did any job outside his trade, he got an extra allowance of R300 and this brought him right up to exactly the same scale as a senior technician. It was only in July 1975 that a special non-pensionable—he gains nothing on his pension—allowance of R480 was introduced for senior technicians. The gap then came back to R480. This is the situation.

What are you quarrelling about?

Here we have a situation where a person who has done the normal four year’s apprenticeship is placed on the same level as a person who has to do the full four years’ apprenticeship and then undergo special selection, usually only if they have matriculated. After having been selected he then has to do a minimum of two courses of nine weeks each and a minimum of one course of five weeks in a specialized subject. This requires an educational equivalent of NTC 3 for the theory tests. And we talk of efficiency! We want people to learn higher skills, but this is the way we reward people when they qualify themselves in these higher skills. What incentive on earth is there for an artisan now to qualify as a technician? Why should he bother? He is better off as an artisan. An artisan cannot handle the complicated equipment that technicians have to deal with. Let me give an example of some of the courses in one technical field alone, that of communications, which he has to go through: multichannel carrier equipment; automatic telephone exchange work; switch adjusting solid state electronics; solid state electronics (non-communications); computer logic; computer orientated tele-control equipment; teleprinters and associated network, an induction course, etc. These are the courses which a technician has to take. My argument, my criticism and my complaint is that we are killing initiative, the will of a person to improve his standard of qualification and ability.

We are not, they are.

Yes, not us, but the Government. By elevating an artisan, justifiably and correctly, by giving him a higher title and a bigger income, which was justified because he needed it, and by keeping the next qualification down at the same time, the incentive to qualify and to learn is being killed. And so a painter, a bricklayer or a fitter and turner is placed virtually on the same scale—a difference of R40 per month—with the man who has qualified in all these highly complicated electronic and other jobs to which I have referred. While this, again, is a simple little clause it has, I can tell the hon. the Minister, led to a great deal of dissatisfaction.

I would, finally, like to deal with clause 17, which refers to the Sick Fund, although I am not going to deal with it at length. There has been and still is tremendous dissatisfaction about many aspects of this fund. The Administration has engaged a full-scale enquiry of which we have not yet heard the result. In order that we may perhaps be able to refer to it during the Committee Stage, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will tell the House what came of the enquiry, what improvements are being made and what changes are being brought about in the administration of the Sick Fund.

Having said that, I would like to conclude by saying that we will oppose and vote against clause 3 in the Committee Stage. We look forward with interest to the hon. the Minister’s explanations.

Mr. Speaker, when that side has a poor case the hon. member for Durban Point has the reputation of being entrusted with the task of raising it. And the poorer the case, the stronger the language he uses. This the hon. member has again done this afternoon. Inter alia he said a great many things which were untrue. When the hon. member reads his Hansard tomorrow, he will wish to erase certain words.

Argue on the basis of my facts.

“The Railways are taking everything”. The hon. member knows that this is not true. I said in my introductory speech that 56% of the traffic is in the hands of private entrepreneurs. We are not taking everything. The hon. member said that what we are now doing is ultra vires, that it is “illegal”. Surely that is not true. How can the hon. member use such strong language, which is not true in any case? Do hon. members know on what he bases the statement that it is ultra vires and “illegal”? He bases it on the fact that a letter was written to these private hauliers in 1970 in which, inter alia a number of subjects was explained to them. They were told that they should take into consideration that containerization was on its way and that they should prepare for it. The hon. member now wants to argue that because those words we used in 1970, we are doing something which is illegal.

No, read my Hansard.

There is no other argument on the basis of which he can say that we are acting illegally.

Read the White Paper.

No, I know what is stated in the White Paper. The facts of the matter—and on this score I think the hon. member will concede that I am right—are that when that traffic was given to private entrepreneurs at the time, it was added that when it was to be taken away from them again, they would be given two years notice.

That was in 1957.

If the position changed, and that traffic was no longer to be their responsibility, they were to be given two years prior notice. This, in itself, is surely proof that it was foreseen at the time …

But it is not true.

It is true.

Read section 55(1) as it reads at present.

Why, then, was the two year period of notice laid down? In fact, we gave them notice last year already, on 17 January, and I spelt this out for the hon. member in my introductory speech. We gave them notice of what was going to happen. There is no need for us to come forward with this legislation, for that notice is sufficient. The only reason why we are coming forward with this legislation is, as I put it, to put the matter beyond all possible doubt.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question? In regard to putting it beyond all possible doubt, could the hon. the Minister say whether or not the 1913 legislation actually specified that this was not a question of exclusive operation by the Railways? Is it perhaps so that it means competition to the Railways?

That is indeed what it still is today, and what it is still going to be after this procedure has been disposed of. There will still be competition between the Railways and certain private undertakings in the handling of these containers. The hard facts of the matter is that it is essential for the efficient handling of these goods that there should be proper discipline in the stacking areas—the places where the full containers are placed. I visited a number of these stacking areas abroad with a view to determining what kind of containerization we should introduce here. In the stacking areas the containers must be handled only by the Railways, for reasons of efficiency. It is for this reason that we want it this way. However, it is not all the traffic; there is other traffic as well, and that is why we say that only 70% of the traffic will be handled by way of containerization. The other 30% will still be conveyed in the conventional manner. The 30% which will be conveyed in the conventional manner, will be retained by the private entrepreneurs; they will handle this themselves. Of the 70% of the traffic which is conveyed in containers, a certain portion will be in less than full containers. Those containers which are not full are conveyed from the ships to a depot, and from thence elsewhere. Containers which are not full and which comprises 26% of the total, will still be handled by the private entrepreneurs, together with the 30% which will still be handled in the conventional manner. The costs of containerization will amount to several million rands, not only in respect of the ships—hundreds of millions of rands are being invested in ships—but also in respect of the cost of the containers. These containers are expensive items, and it is imperative that the container should move as quickly as possible and return as quickly as possible. This is the reason why the flow of the containers should be as rapid as possible. As a result of this we feel that in the stacking areas containerization should only be handled by the Railways. The hon. member mentioned the 1970 letter, but it was only in 1974 that an agreement was reached between the Department of Economic Affairs and the shipping lines to convert to containerization. If any person, as the hon. member wanted to allege, had incurred capital costs with a view to containerization before a decision has been reached and an agreement entered into between the Department of Economic Affairs and the shipping lines, surely his actions would have been completely ridiculous. Such a person does not know what he is doing. Consequently there are no grounds for the hon. member’s argument concerning the provision of compensation—surely that is a hollow argument. There ought to be no unnecessary expenditure in regard to this matter. The hon. member mentioned that we are making provision for the expenditure of more than R5 million on vehicles with which to move the containers. Those vehicles have to be there in any case.

But they are there.

Yes, they are there, but those that are there can and will still be used by the private entrepreneurs to handle that portion of the traffic which they ought to handle for the sake of efficiency. Therefore it is essential that additional vehicles be purchased. Towards the end of his speech the hon. member advanced the ridiculous argument that the Railways, in his particular case, were conveying goods to a certain place and then dumping them in the river. First the hon. member exaggerated and subsequently, towards the end of his speech, he was bordering on the ridiculous.

But what were they doing at the Umgeni River?

I should like to give the hon. member the undertaking that we, on the part of the Railways, will provide him with a service which will be as rapid and even more rapid than that of any other body. There will be no doubt about that at all. These steps which we are taking are in fact aimed at bringing about greater efficiency and more rapid delivery, and helping to make this containerization available. It is of no avail the hon. member talking about a monopoly. If he wishes to call what we are doing a monopoly, I do not agree with him, because a monopoly is not a monopoly simply because a party acts on its own; there is only a monopoly when the solitary action is abused. If the hon. member still wishes to call it a monopoly, I want to tell him that we already have a monopoly; it is not necessary for us to acquire a monopoly now; surely the Railways is monopolistic in terms of the definition which the hon. member applies to a monopoly. The hon. member would do well to criticize us during the Budget Debate if we in the Railways are not performing our services properly.

In his speech the hon. member referred to an “artisan” and to a “technician”. I want to tell him that the change we are effecting is a measure which was agreed on with the staff. There was a work revaluation and the more responsible work was transferred from the artisan to the technician. Certain less important work was down-graded. This was done according to an agreement with the artisans. The hon. member has now used this opportunity to advance a plea for the so-called “senior technician”. He does not know anything about that kind of work. He should first work in the workshops before he can talk about this. The appeal of an occupation does not depend only on the salary. What also contributes to it are aspects such as working conditions and many other factors. The hon. member wishes to limit everything to a salary. It is not only the salary which is important. I do not want to argue that aspect now, because I do not think it is relevant now. The facts of the matter are that he used this opportunity to advance a plea for the senior technician. His allegation was that the senior technician has not been elevated far enough above the artisan.

I said they were not receiving sufficient remuneration for the work they were doing.

Yes, that is what the hon. member says. However, these are factors we can consider on another occasion. There is admittedly a difference in salaries, but the hon. member alleges that the difference is insufficient. This is not the occasion to discuss this matter now.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.